A judge informing Michael Vick that slaughtering dogs is a reprehensible crime didn't cause tears of regret to flow down the quarterback's cheeks. For whatever reason, Mr. Vick considers murdering cuddly pooches completely harmless. Through our judicial system, we can hopefully convince him to stay all future canine executions, but we cannot force the football superstar, or anybody else, to feel bad about an act he deems innocent.
Of course sane people would inherently feel sad about harming innocent creatures. Deep down, however, nothing else causes true regret. In other words, religion is strictly used to reverse instincts.
Just like Mr. Vick can't be made to feel empathy for the dogs, few religious people feel a bit of regret over "sins" that harm no one.
I bet there are thousands of gay Christians who don't beat themselves up for sharing a bed with a member of the same sex. Afterward, Sasha and Samantha look up at the ceiling and say, "That was bad for nobody, and extremely good for two!"
If sprinkling pepper was considered a horrific sin, and you hate pepper, you'd have no trouble condemning those needing a little spice. If blandness is not your thing, you'd secretly top your mashed potatoes with black specs. Afterward, your hot mouth wouldn't be a constant source of guilt for the simple reason that only happiness resulted. Regret doesn't stem from someone repeating in your ear, "You did a bad thing."
Religion is about illusion and denial. "Despite the fact that our guts say otherwise, we'll pretend certain actions are sins. Then we'll go to church and act as if we don't regularly, and without regret, perform these deeds. There, the preacher will speak against these 'crimes' as we nod our heads in agreement." You half-heartedly ask for forgiveness, trying your mightiest to pretend it's genuinely needed.
The person that formed the first organized religion probably sounded a lot like Homer Simpson...
"Most people don't daily do things they afterward regret, so we'll claim acts that hurt no one really hurt everyone. Then they'll feel guilty and give us money because only through us can they make amends for doing something perfectly fine that we've convinced them is reprehensible. Now, we just need a large structure in which to gather them all together to repeatedly remind them exactly how many crimes they've committed... Oh, and a bunch of plates so deep they resemble bowls. Then we're set!"
Trouble is, unlike most of Mr. Simpson's harebrained schemes, the above plot worked extraordinary well.
A Travel Agency it Ain't
A popular website recently featured the most picturesque lakes from around the world. "That'd be a fun place to visit," I thought of a beautiful Canadian pond. Of others, I realized... "Wouldn't be safe there... That area is crawling with violent religious zealots... Because I'd probably forget that looking a man in the eye is an offense punishable by death, I wouldn't make it out of the airport closest to that lake..."
God formed our wonderful world and then added religion to prevent us from safely exploring every area?
"I will create a plethora of magnificent attractions, and then add people, who, based on their belief in me, will stop their counterparts from experiencing said magnificent attractions."
Pretend you have $10,000 to spend on a vacation. You must use the entire sum for travel related expenses. Not a dime can be saved, used to purchase Seventh Heaven: The Complete Tenth Season DVDs, or donated to the Boy Scouts.
Plan a vacation based on our current world.
Then plan a vacation as if religion never existed.
Look at your itineraries and marvel at the difference.
Religion even prevents people from experiencing other religions. I doubt a nice Baptist couple would feel comfortable visiting their local Mosque. Something tells me a Jewish couple would be equally as apprehensive.
How can you be for something that prevents you from experiencing a variation of itself!?
Why is something considered good, by so many people, when its simple existence hinders joy, experience, the acquisition of knowledge, etc.?
Only if everyone wakes up with religion amnesia can we all experience everything this brilliant world has to offer.
I can't think of a better way to assist the struggling airline industry...
"To what do you attribute your record profits," a financial reporter would ask the CEO of American Airlines. "Simple, religious zealots decided that, instead of trying to kill people who believe in a different book, enjoying life would be their top priority."
God formed our wonderful world and then added religion to prevent us from safely exploring every area?
"I will create a plethora of magnificent attractions, and then add people, who, based on their belief in me, will stop their counterparts from experiencing said magnificent attractions."
Pretend you have $10,000 to spend on a vacation. You must use the entire sum for travel related expenses. Not a dime can be saved, used to purchase Seventh Heaven: The Complete Tenth Season DVDs, or donated to the Boy Scouts.
Plan a vacation based on our current world.
Then plan a vacation as if religion never existed.
Look at your itineraries and marvel at the difference.
Religion even prevents people from experiencing other religions. I doubt a nice Baptist couple would feel comfortable visiting their local Mosque. Something tells me a Jewish couple would be equally as apprehensive.
How can you be for something that prevents you from experiencing a variation of itself!?
Why is something considered good, by so many people, when its simple existence hinders joy, experience, the acquisition of knowledge, etc.?
Only if everyone wakes up with religion amnesia can we all experience everything this brilliant world has to offer.
I can't think of a better way to assist the struggling airline industry...
"To what do you attribute your record profits," a financial reporter would ask the CEO of American Airlines. "Simple, religious zealots decided that, instead of trying to kill people who believe in a different book, enjoying life would be their top priority."
Collateral Damage
Children of the Westboro Baptist church will lead abnormal lives. Homosexuals are still beaten to death strictly for their choice of romantic partner.
To moderate religious folks, these victims are simply collateral damage.
To spread nonviolent discrimination, you've gotta break some eggs.
I understand you genuinely believe that the collection of stories you frequently read are largely factual, but because they can't be proven, why not play it safe and purge the portions that result in the destruction of actual lives?
We're not talking about praying at a high school football game or publicly displaying a sign that reads, "Thou Shall Not Steal." We're talking about genuine lives.
Christians often debate whether non-violent Muslims contribute to terrorism by remaining silent. These same Christians never examine the roll their behavior plays in the persecution of homosexuals.
They're horrified when they see footage of folks jumping for joy in the streets of Pakistan after a terrorist attack kills scores of civilians. Then they curse American Muslims for failing to condemn both the attack and the exuberant celebration. But do they speak up after a hate crime is committed against the homosexual on their block? Or do they stay silent, only approaching the topic around people with whom they're comfortable joking, "Even though the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, I still wouldn't welcome a butcher of gays into my home... Not 'till he wiped the diseased blood off his shoes!"
Violence against homosexuals happens in every corner of the world, yet we rarely hear American Christians speak out against this particular form of global terrorism. American Christians also said nothing when the Pope argued that homosexuals are as great a threat to the planet as global warming.
Many Christians believe Muslims in Michigan wouldn't themselves slaughter infidels, yet consider blown up hotels in other parts of the world necessary to spread their faith. However I don't recall these same Christians marching down Main Street protesting the treatment of gays in notoriously homophobic Jamaica.
Everywhere homosexuals travel, they must be on guard due to a global anti-gay culture your religion promotes, whether by literature or silence.
Bullied male children who "act feminine" sometimes do the unthinkable because they can't bear another day of the same.
The stories are endless...
A school bus driver was arrested for calling a 10-year-old boy "gay" and then encouraging older students to chase the boy down after he got off the bus. The older kids followed the advice of their elder. Not satisfied with tiny fists, the bus driver joined in.
Brothers strolling down the street were beaten, one later died, because overeager homophobic murderers mistook them for a gay couple.
What's the difference between you and the Muslim who unemotionally sets down the newspaper after reading horrific details of a terrorist attack and then asks, "What's for dinner?"
Absolutely nothing; you both view the recently deceased as collateral damage.
If a fellow follower asks you, "Wasn't the most recent terrorist attack tragic?" do you respond, "It depends, what was the sexual orientation of the victims?"
I'm not saying all Christians and Muslims are insensitive louts. I am claiming, however, that only people without religion are guaranteed to loudly condemn every brutal act against the innocent. You all should do the same, regardless of what's written on the thin-pages of the book you've spent years coloring yellow. Occasionally you may want to read the words that don't make your insides feel warm and cozy, because those un-highlighted sections will keep brutality a part of our world forever.
To moderate religious folks, these victims are simply collateral damage.
To spread nonviolent discrimination, you've gotta break some eggs.
I understand you genuinely believe that the collection of stories you frequently read are largely factual, but because they can't be proven, why not play it safe and purge the portions that result in the destruction of actual lives?
We're not talking about praying at a high school football game or publicly displaying a sign that reads, "Thou Shall Not Steal." We're talking about genuine lives.
Christians often debate whether non-violent Muslims contribute to terrorism by remaining silent. These same Christians never examine the roll their behavior plays in the persecution of homosexuals.
They're horrified when they see footage of folks jumping for joy in the streets of Pakistan after a terrorist attack kills scores of civilians. Then they curse American Muslims for failing to condemn both the attack and the exuberant celebration. But do they speak up after a hate crime is committed against the homosexual on their block? Or do they stay silent, only approaching the topic around people with whom they're comfortable joking, "Even though the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, I still wouldn't welcome a butcher of gays into my home... Not 'till he wiped the diseased blood off his shoes!"
Violence against homosexuals happens in every corner of the world, yet we rarely hear American Christians speak out against this particular form of global terrorism. American Christians also said nothing when the Pope argued that homosexuals are as great a threat to the planet as global warming.
Many Christians believe Muslims in Michigan wouldn't themselves slaughter infidels, yet consider blown up hotels in other parts of the world necessary to spread their faith. However I don't recall these same Christians marching down Main Street protesting the treatment of gays in notoriously homophobic Jamaica.
Everywhere homosexuals travel, they must be on guard due to a global anti-gay culture your religion promotes, whether by literature or silence.
Bullied male children who "act feminine" sometimes do the unthinkable because they can't bear another day of the same.
The stories are endless...
A school bus driver was arrested for calling a 10-year-old boy "gay" and then encouraging older students to chase the boy down after he got off the bus. The older kids followed the advice of their elder. Not satisfied with tiny fists, the bus driver joined in.
Brothers strolling down the street were beaten, one later died, because overeager homophobic murderers mistook them for a gay couple.
What's the difference between you and the Muslim who unemotionally sets down the newspaper after reading horrific details of a terrorist attack and then asks, "What's for dinner?"
Absolutely nothing; you both view the recently deceased as collateral damage.
If a fellow follower asks you, "Wasn't the most recent terrorist attack tragic?" do you respond, "It depends, what was the sexual orientation of the victims?"
I'm not saying all Christians and Muslims are insensitive louts. I am claiming, however, that only people without religion are guaranteed to loudly condemn every brutal act against the innocent. You all should do the same, regardless of what's written on the thin-pages of the book you've spent years coloring yellow. Occasionally you may want to read the words that don't make your insides feel warm and cozy, because those un-highlighted sections will keep brutality a part of our world forever.
A Blank Canvas
I was fascinated to read New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's daughter Georgina has shunned political life. It seems she prefers the company of horses to public policy pundits. Her sister works for their father in City Hall; Georgina is an equestrian who writes books.
Allegedly, Papa Bloomberg is not happy that his daughter Georgina isn't the typical offspring of a billionaire politician. But were Georgina's sister not produced by the current mayor of New York, would a single Junior Bloomberg work at City Hall?
So many lives would be more fulfilled were we not imprisoned by what's expected of us.
Look at the box in which religion puts millions of people... How many shun pleasurable behavior they would otherwise consider sinless?
Had they experienced no household bias, how many children would grow up to follow the same holy book as their parents? Few would believe a factual holy book even existed. Of those who did, an astronomically small number would eventually decide they accepted the same book in which members of their family have believed for generations. In hopes good earthly deeds lead to heavenly rewards, some would believe in a loving creator, but, if not steered down a direct path, it's safe to assume most children would shun all specific religions, thus opening them up to limitless opportunities.
And they would most likely be better people. Instead of recalling sermons about the evils of homosexuality and therefore adding to the torment, brave untainted high-schoolers would come to the defense of bully victims.
Faithful people claim religion injects its subjects with goodness, when it instead acts as a barricade to inherent feelings of goodness. No religion in a young person's life means, "The high-voiced boy in my school is a good person; I know this because I judge him by his actions, not his mannerisms," would replace, "Only a small percentage of boys in my school talk like girls, and church teaches me that boys should talk like boys."
I understand that children often ridicule unique members of their class, and completely eliminating bullying is nearly impossible, but weekly visits to grandiose dwellings supposedly inspired by perfection, which actively back the assertion that the picked-on are vile sinners, certainly increases the amount of cruelty perpetrated in schoolyards across America.
If no parent influenced their child to believe a certain way, the world would undoubtedly see vast improvement.
Laws are aimed at making sure parents feed and water their children. Why not control what parents feed their child's brain by forbidding the teaching of propaganda? Again, think about how much society would benefit from legislation that required adults to only teach what they can prove. You can't prove god hates fags, you can't prove god encourages moderate levels of child abuse, and you certainly can't prove god smiles after the killing of an infidel under the age of 18.
Like Mayor Bloomberg should not be disappointed with his equestrian/author daughter; don't treat your child poorly for making decisions that fill his or her life with happiness. In fact, you should be proud they bravely carved their own niche - particularly when said niche doesn't call for baseless discrimination.
Allegedly, Papa Bloomberg is not happy that his daughter Georgina isn't the typical offspring of a billionaire politician. But were Georgina's sister not produced by the current mayor of New York, would a single Junior Bloomberg work at City Hall?
So many lives would be more fulfilled were we not imprisoned by what's expected of us.
Look at the box in which religion puts millions of people... How many shun pleasurable behavior they would otherwise consider sinless?
Had they experienced no household bias, how many children would grow up to follow the same holy book as their parents? Few would believe a factual holy book even existed. Of those who did, an astronomically small number would eventually decide they accepted the same book in which members of their family have believed for generations. In hopes good earthly deeds lead to heavenly rewards, some would believe in a loving creator, but, if not steered down a direct path, it's safe to assume most children would shun all specific religions, thus opening them up to limitless opportunities.
And they would most likely be better people. Instead of recalling sermons about the evils of homosexuality and therefore adding to the torment, brave untainted high-schoolers would come to the defense of bully victims.
Faithful people claim religion injects its subjects with goodness, when it instead acts as a barricade to inherent feelings of goodness. No religion in a young person's life means, "The high-voiced boy in my school is a good person; I know this because I judge him by his actions, not his mannerisms," would replace, "Only a small percentage of boys in my school talk like girls, and church teaches me that boys should talk like boys."
I understand that children often ridicule unique members of their class, and completely eliminating bullying is nearly impossible, but weekly visits to grandiose dwellings supposedly inspired by perfection, which actively back the assertion that the picked-on are vile sinners, certainly increases the amount of cruelty perpetrated in schoolyards across America.
If no parent influenced their child to believe a certain way, the world would undoubtedly see vast improvement.
Laws are aimed at making sure parents feed and water their children. Why not control what parents feed their child's brain by forbidding the teaching of propaganda? Again, think about how much society would benefit from legislation that required adults to only teach what they can prove. You can't prove god hates fags, you can't prove god encourages moderate levels of child abuse, and you certainly can't prove god smiles after the killing of an infidel under the age of 18.
Like Mayor Bloomberg should not be disappointed with his equestrian/author daughter; don't treat your child poorly for making decisions that fill his or her life with happiness. In fact, you should be proud they bravely carved their own niche - particularly when said niche doesn't call for baseless discrimination.
The "Real" Cult of Personality
The now famous California preacher, who garnered massive amounts of publicity by predicting the end of the planet, got me thinking about just how easy it would be to start a cult of my own. Of course nothing worthwhile is ever accomplished these days unless it's eventually broadcast for the world to see!
Therefore I would like to pitch a reality show that chronicles the formation of The Laimbidians (pronounced "lame-bidians"). If the "end of the world is on May 21, 2011" preacher can get beaucoup people to sell their earthly possessions and drive across the fruited plains to spend the apocalypse with him, certainly I can get a few folks to join me at the Laimbidian compound. After all, I'm a lot younger and quite a bit curvier!
If a network executive reads this, please email me about turning my cult-starting-project into a reality show because I see dollar signs over the heads of the thousands of followers I'm sure to obtain.
The astronomical amount of religious folks around the globe makes it obvious that scores of sheep are ripe for the converting.
My hook will be: god approached me in a dream and said, enthusiastically, "In the major holy books, only the portions that portray me as good are accurate!" I didn't believe in him until he informed me that, not only does he exist, but he's a super-cool deity. He doesn't care if you’re straight or you're gay, he just wants you to spread peace throughout the land.
While I wouldn't be the only person to fabricate a story for the express purpose of spreading it throughout the land, I would be the first to bring a common sense approach to religion.
Since most religious people disregard passages in their holy books with which they vehemently disagree - instead choosing to believe their views are in lockstep with god's views - I'll ignore specific rules and regulations and handle promotion as if I were attempting to get people to visit my dance club. "There are three commandments all Laimbidians must follow..."
Commandment #1: Do the Right Thing
Commandment #2: Have a Blast!
Commandment #3: Follow Commandment #2 to the EXTREME!
Realistically, all I would need to start a successful cult is a dwelling in which to congregate with my followers, a professionally designed website, and perhaps a small budget for fliers and entertainment related expenses.
You can't tell me I'll fail to attract as many minions as the man who swore the apocalypse would begin on May 21, 2011!
My cult could even surpass Scientology, whose devotees believe Xenu, dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy", 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Official Scientology dogma holds that the essences of these many people remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm.
Laimbidian doctrine will simply state that god wants us all to do the right thing, and, when we slip, apologize to the person or persons we wronged. Much more believable than the Xenu story, no?
We won't have a holy book; we'll have a holy pamphlet. "Less words, more rock!"
At the first of what will hopefully be many Laimbidian schools, we'll focus semester number one on not discriminating. The second semester will be reserved for setting up a kick-ass graduation party.
The success of religion makes it obvious people are looking to believe in something, as well as be part of a group, so why not entertain America via the TV while giving folks an opportunity to join an organization that promotes guiltless pleasure, equality, tolerance and kindness.
It's sad that an atheist is needed to start the only religion that would actually make the world a better place.
Therefore I would like to pitch a reality show that chronicles the formation of The Laimbidians (pronounced "lame-bidians"). If the "end of the world is on May 21, 2011" preacher can get beaucoup people to sell their earthly possessions and drive across the fruited plains to spend the apocalypse with him, certainly I can get a few folks to join me at the Laimbidian compound. After all, I'm a lot younger and quite a bit curvier!
If a network executive reads this, please email me about turning my cult-starting-project into a reality show because I see dollar signs over the heads of the thousands of followers I'm sure to obtain.
The astronomical amount of religious folks around the globe makes it obvious that scores of sheep are ripe for the converting.
My hook will be: god approached me in a dream and said, enthusiastically, "In the major holy books, only the portions that portray me as good are accurate!" I didn't believe in him until he informed me that, not only does he exist, but he's a super-cool deity. He doesn't care if you’re straight or you're gay, he just wants you to spread peace throughout the land.
While I wouldn't be the only person to fabricate a story for the express purpose of spreading it throughout the land, I would be the first to bring a common sense approach to religion.
Since most religious people disregard passages in their holy books with which they vehemently disagree - instead choosing to believe their views are in lockstep with god's views - I'll ignore specific rules and regulations and handle promotion as if I were attempting to get people to visit my dance club. "There are three commandments all Laimbidians must follow..."
Commandment #1: Do the Right Thing
Commandment #2: Have a Blast!
Commandment #3: Follow Commandment #2 to the EXTREME!
Realistically, all I would need to start a successful cult is a dwelling in which to congregate with my followers, a professionally designed website, and perhaps a small budget for fliers and entertainment related expenses.
You can't tell me I'll fail to attract as many minions as the man who swore the apocalypse would begin on May 21, 2011!
My cult could even surpass Scientology, whose devotees believe Xenu, dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy", 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Official Scientology dogma holds that the essences of these many people remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm.
Laimbidian doctrine will simply state that god wants us all to do the right thing, and, when we slip, apologize to the person or persons we wronged. Much more believable than the Xenu story, no?
We won't have a holy book; we'll have a holy pamphlet. "Less words, more rock!"
At the first of what will hopefully be many Laimbidian schools, we'll focus semester number one on not discriminating. The second semester will be reserved for setting up a kick-ass graduation party.
The success of religion makes it obvious people are looking to believe in something, as well as be part of a group, so why not entertain America via the TV while giving folks an opportunity to join an organization that promotes guiltless pleasure, equality, tolerance and kindness.
It's sad that an atheist is needed to start the only religion that would actually make the world a better place.
We Got This
Religion was developed to control people and perhaps it's actually serving its purpose. Perhaps society needs religion to thrive. Perhaps some of you wouldn't be able to get a lick of work done were you not taught certain actions are taboo; certain actions that, when performed in moderation, are not harmful to anyone.
If I am addicted to shopping, perhaps a good strategy in attempting to stay out of the poorhouse is convincing myself purchasing multiple outfits is a horrific sin. "More than one dress is excessive. Clothes are only needed to retain modesty and warmth. Striving to look fashionable is only done to feed the selfish ego."
The problem is that everyone doesn't share every vice. While you may need to refrain completely from a certain activity in order to lead a productive life, I'm able to moderate.
Stick with whatever contributes to your personal success, but everyone believing harmless acts are sinful is not necessary for society to prosper.
Seeing as how we're confident no punishment awaits us, why don't atheists go through life committing horrific deed after horrific deed? The reason we refrain from harming others, or putting our fellow man in danger, is simply because we're strong enough to do the right thing, i.e., we don't need a support group telling us we should refrain from a single drink because it will lead to the consumption of twenty in twenty-minutes, followed by the shouting of, "road trip!"
Many religious persons are similar to members of the military who only thrive with extreme structure. I'm talking about individuals that wouldn't bother putting on pants were a superior not perennially in their grill. In the armed forces, failing to perform 1,000 jumping jacks before breakfast may be considered sinful, and therefore necessary for some persons, while a nice cup of coffee shortly after waking helps me produce for the remainder of the day.
If you're addicted to pornography, you need to equate the viewing of erotic images as sinful, and completely refrain, or else your life will consist of little else.
Because I lead a productive life without following instructions listed between the covers of the book in which you've chosen to believe, please don't attack me verbally or portray me as "evil" when I haven't an evil bone in my body.
If it keeps you from waking up drunk every morning, by all means study your holy book daily. When you're finished, however, please don't say, "You know who'd also benefit from the words I just read: everyone."
If the church helped you prosper after you'd given up hope, then, by all means, stick with it, but please remember that not all of us have hit rock bottom and therefore aren't interested in hearing about what motivates you to remain on the straight and narrow.
Dance with who brung ya. If anyone asks who brung ya, provide them a biography. If people don't ask, it means you don't need to replace who brung 'em with your partner.
If I am addicted to shopping, perhaps a good strategy in attempting to stay out of the poorhouse is convincing myself purchasing multiple outfits is a horrific sin. "More than one dress is excessive. Clothes are only needed to retain modesty and warmth. Striving to look fashionable is only done to feed the selfish ego."
The problem is that everyone doesn't share every vice. While you may need to refrain completely from a certain activity in order to lead a productive life, I'm able to moderate.
Stick with whatever contributes to your personal success, but everyone believing harmless acts are sinful is not necessary for society to prosper.
Seeing as how we're confident no punishment awaits us, why don't atheists go through life committing horrific deed after horrific deed? The reason we refrain from harming others, or putting our fellow man in danger, is simply because we're strong enough to do the right thing, i.e., we don't need a support group telling us we should refrain from a single drink because it will lead to the consumption of twenty in twenty-minutes, followed by the shouting of, "road trip!"
Many religious persons are similar to members of the military who only thrive with extreme structure. I'm talking about individuals that wouldn't bother putting on pants were a superior not perennially in their grill. In the armed forces, failing to perform 1,000 jumping jacks before breakfast may be considered sinful, and therefore necessary for some persons, while a nice cup of coffee shortly after waking helps me produce for the remainder of the day.
If you're addicted to pornography, you need to equate the viewing of erotic images as sinful, and completely refrain, or else your life will consist of little else.
Because I lead a productive life without following instructions listed between the covers of the book in which you've chosen to believe, please don't attack me verbally or portray me as "evil" when I haven't an evil bone in my body.
If it keeps you from waking up drunk every morning, by all means study your holy book daily. When you're finished, however, please don't say, "You know who'd also benefit from the words I just read: everyone."
If the church helped you prosper after you'd given up hope, then, by all means, stick with it, but please remember that not all of us have hit rock bottom and therefore aren't interested in hearing about what motivates you to remain on the straight and narrow.
Dance with who brung ya. If anyone asks who brung ya, provide them a biography. If people don't ask, it means you don't need to replace who brung 'em with your partner.
Organized Religion Profiled
The Christian answer to Wikipedia (a site on which they at least attempt to post facts) is a hilarious web-entity called Conservapedia.
Conservapedia quotes a Christian writer who contends atheists are "socially autistic." Can you feel the love!?
While I'm much too kind to personally attack average Christians individually, I have drafted a profile for organized religion that I hope Conservapedia will accept with an open mind...
Organized Religion is a gaggle of people who choose to believe in the same book yet all interpret the words in said book very differently. For example, members of the Westboro Baptist Church believe god calls for the execution of homosexuals, while less hardcore American Christians think god wants gay men and women to remain amongst the living so church members will forever have the ability to discriminate against the "sexual deviants" and/or attempt to convert them.
Organized Religion and Charity
Instead of feeding hungry children, religious people often donate to causes that support the banning of same-sex marriage, leading uber-popular atheist blogger Sarah Laimbeer to create the satirical slogan, "Starvin' Marvin can eat cake after we prevent John and Steve from getting their tax break." (See what I did there!?)
Organized religion does help the needy on occasion, on the condition the needy are in the mood for a long lecture. Religious charity is doled out the same way Sea World trainers feed whales. "Listen to one more verse from Ephesians and then open wide! Good bum!" Non-religious people provide food, water and shelter to those down on their luck without a side order of guilt, oppression or discrimination.
Organized Religion and Megachurch Scandals
Many megachurch pastors have been caught up in sexual related scandals. Some have engaged in erotic activities with members of the same sex, a few have had opposite-sex affairs, while others enjoyed the performance of Alan Cumming in Cabaret a little too much.
Organized Religion and Judgment
Only through whole-heartedly believing in far-fetched texts can one deem certain actions sinful, therefore religious people enjoy harshly judging the harmless behavior of others. Their desire to feel superior to "sinners" helps them fill an emotional void; the same void that sent them searching for a group to join in the first place.
Organized Religion and Debate Claims
Despite a lack of science behind their arguments, many religious people adamantly claim their fellow believers routinely defeat atheists in debates. Their behavior is similar to staunch Republicans who argue John McCain wiped the floor with Barack Obama and ardent Democrats who contend Water Mondale took Ronald Reagan to the woodshed during their verbal pre-presidential election tilts. While not provable and highly improbable, religious individuals write about alleged debate trounces as fact, likely hoping their brethren will continue the habit of believing everything they read regardless of evidence.
Organized Religion and Intolerance
Publishers of religious websites, such as Conservapedia, which is only unintentionally funny, make it evident their hatred of people with whom they disagree consumes their lives. They do this by displaying pictures of ordinary Americans and claiming the persons in the photographs have weight issues because they don't believe exactly as the Conservapedia publishers. Though said publishers are adamant their own overtly-religious viewpoints keep the pounds off, scientists still argue that diet and exercise are the key to weight loss. A thorough search of Amazon.com reveal no book entitled, "Believe Your Way to Skinny," is a best-seller.
Organized Religion and Corporal Punishment
In accordance with the teachings of the Bible, many followers of organized religion physically beat their children with either their bare hands or objects intended to inflict maximum pain. They do this because they lack the ability to reason with their offspring. In order to spread abuse of youngsters throughout the world, many Christians ridicule non-violent forms of punishment and characterize un-abusive parents as "weak".
Organized Religion and Denial
Christians claim atheism leads to mental instability while denying the reality that a belief in an everlasting utopia is the only reason they're able to get out of bed in the morning.
Organized Religion and Hypocrisy
Ask a non-Muslim religious person if Osama bin Laden is still busy fornicating with his 72 virgins and he or she will likely roll their eyes. Ask the same believer if they'll eventually find themselves in a perfect locale for all of eternity, as a reward for the thoughts in their head, and they'll reply, "Of course, and you're a big fat idiot if you disagree."
Conservapedia quotes a Christian writer who contends atheists are "socially autistic." Can you feel the love!?
While I'm much too kind to personally attack average Christians individually, I have drafted a profile for organized religion that I hope Conservapedia will accept with an open mind...
Organized Religion is a gaggle of people who choose to believe in the same book yet all interpret the words in said book very differently. For example, members of the Westboro Baptist Church believe god calls for the execution of homosexuals, while less hardcore American Christians think god wants gay men and women to remain amongst the living so church members will forever have the ability to discriminate against the "sexual deviants" and/or attempt to convert them.
Organized Religion and Charity
Instead of feeding hungry children, religious people often donate to causes that support the banning of same-sex marriage, leading uber-popular atheist blogger Sarah Laimbeer to create the satirical slogan, "Starvin' Marvin can eat cake after we prevent John and Steve from getting their tax break." (See what I did there!?)
Organized religion does help the needy on occasion, on the condition the needy are in the mood for a long lecture. Religious charity is doled out the same way Sea World trainers feed whales. "Listen to one more verse from Ephesians and then open wide! Good bum!" Non-religious people provide food, water and shelter to those down on their luck without a side order of guilt, oppression or discrimination.
Organized Religion and Megachurch Scandals
Many megachurch pastors have been caught up in sexual related scandals. Some have engaged in erotic activities with members of the same sex, a few have had opposite-sex affairs, while others enjoyed the performance of Alan Cumming in Cabaret a little too much.
Organized Religion and Judgment
Only through whole-heartedly believing in far-fetched texts can one deem certain actions sinful, therefore religious people enjoy harshly judging the harmless behavior of others. Their desire to feel superior to "sinners" helps them fill an emotional void; the same void that sent them searching for a group to join in the first place.
Organized Religion and Debate Claims
Despite a lack of science behind their arguments, many religious people adamantly claim their fellow believers routinely defeat atheists in debates. Their behavior is similar to staunch Republicans who argue John McCain wiped the floor with Barack Obama and ardent Democrats who contend Water Mondale took Ronald Reagan to the woodshed during their verbal pre-presidential election tilts. While not provable and highly improbable, religious individuals write about alleged debate trounces as fact, likely hoping their brethren will continue the habit of believing everything they read regardless of evidence.
Organized Religion and Intolerance
Publishers of religious websites, such as Conservapedia, which is only unintentionally funny, make it evident their hatred of people with whom they disagree consumes their lives. They do this by displaying pictures of ordinary Americans and claiming the persons in the photographs have weight issues because they don't believe exactly as the Conservapedia publishers. Though said publishers are adamant their own overtly-religious viewpoints keep the pounds off, scientists still argue that diet and exercise are the key to weight loss. A thorough search of Amazon.com reveal no book entitled, "Believe Your Way to Skinny," is a best-seller.
Organized Religion and Corporal Punishment
In accordance with the teachings of the Bible, many followers of organized religion physically beat their children with either their bare hands or objects intended to inflict maximum pain. They do this because they lack the ability to reason with their offspring. In order to spread abuse of youngsters throughout the world, many Christians ridicule non-violent forms of punishment and characterize un-abusive parents as "weak".
Organized Religion and Denial
Christians claim atheism leads to mental instability while denying the reality that a belief in an everlasting utopia is the only reason they're able to get out of bed in the morning.
Organized Religion and Hypocrisy
Ask a non-Muslim religious person if Osama bin Laden is still busy fornicating with his 72 virgins and he or she will likely roll their eyes. Ask the same believer if they'll eventually find themselves in a perfect locale for all of eternity, as a reward for the thoughts in their head, and they'll reply, "Of course, and you're a big fat idiot if you disagree."
These Are the Things We Tell Ourselves
"Tomorrow I'm going to clean the entire house from top to bottom."
"One more donut and the rest are going in the trash. To make certain I don't pull a 'George Costanza,' I'm going to remove the bag from the can, tie it up and shake it around."
"This hurts me more than it hurts you."
I find it impossible to believe people who physically abuse their children don't enjoy the hell out of it.
The preppy blonde girl from The Facts of Life, now the mother of devout Christians, penned a book that advocates placing a tiny drop of hot sauce on the tongue of a child caught fibbing.
Those who follow the above advice may not verbally express their satisfaction, but I have a strong feeling their brain is saying, "Eat it, bitch!"
Witnessing such cruelty perpetrated on a minor with a different surname would make me sick to my stomach, so I can't imagine the resulting anguish from seeing a child in my own family burned on any part of their body.
If parents that abuse their offspring genuinely feel emotional angst whist inflicting physical pain, they simply wouldn't be able to do it.
Religious people claim that only through god do they know right from wrong. A large number of these people deem it "right" to burn their child's tongue, or repeatedly beat him or her about the backside. Through words inspired by a loving god, you feel wonderful about harming a young person the exact way you harm a dog that has yet to master the art of differentiating linoleum from grass!? You feel that, upon your child, you are bestowing the beautiful gift of physical pain!?
Religion definitely doesn't teach anyone right from wrong, and often teaches wrong is right. It helps scores of people justify abuse and persecution of children.
When you're forced to remind yourself, "I must refrain from crossing the line or my child will be left with teacher-attention-getting bruises," it may be time to rethink your parenting strategy. Only being able to sleep soundly due to confidence your children's school is so overcrowded insignificant bruising typically goes undetected isn't a product of loving your child too much.
With throbbing fingers, have you spankers, beaters, and hot-sauce placers ever Googled specific laws in your state to make sure the violent act you just perpetrated doesn't officially constitute "abuse" in a legal sense? Do you disregard political party and vote strictly for candidates that vow to expand your right to spank, beat and place hot-sauce? Do you eat from the same bottle of hot sauce, or is it too traumatizing for Junior? If the site of the label makes your little-one shriek in fear, and a Mexican restaurant automatically places a bottle on each table, do you ask your waiter to remove it out of worry convulsions will cause unwanted attention? What precautions do you take to ensure your captive will adequately cover for you should unusually intense rage, or one too many pre-beating margaritas, cause you to leave a very noticeable love welt? Are you a big fan of the, "Even with the occasional flogging, we still provide a better home than a foster couple ever could?" strategy?
I doubt people like the aforementioned Facts of Life actress even admit to themselves that what they're experiencing with every swat, and drop of liquid heat, is enjoyment. While they probably feel as I do after a heated verbal confrontation with an adult (I, honestly admitting the barrage of vile adjectives I rained down upon the jackass in question felt great), they tell themselves such euphoria is actually pain that stems from causing the apple of their eye to shed massive amounts of tears.
We don't punish adults with pain. In fact, we go to great lengths to make certain prisoners are not harmed physically. Why do we take so many precautions to protect those who knew better, yet deem it okay to hurt those whose brains have yet to fully develop?
I'm certain some non-religious people spank; just as I'm certain some religious people find the practice abhorrent, but the reason child abuse is legal in America is because the Bible gives it glowing reviews.
"He who spareth his rod hateth his son" is the Bible's way of saying, "If you're going to employ only one method of punishment, you must make it pummeling with a stick."
Since your Bible, and the law, approves of the spanking you just gave, your conscience is likely clean. You know whose conscience is also clean; the Sharia law following man who just murdered his two daughters for the crime of becoming too "westernized."
Instead of telling yourself, "I am physically abusing my child, which makes me a great parent," why not focus on reality: you are physically abusing your child and you enjoy it.
I'm not saying lying to yourself is always bad. I sometimes tell myself Christians and atheists are both wrong; that there is a generic god who chooses which people go up and which people go down. In my little fantasy universe, regardless of whether or not they stop at bruising, guess which direction child abusers go?
"One more donut and the rest are going in the trash. To make certain I don't pull a 'George Costanza,' I'm going to remove the bag from the can, tie it up and shake it around."
"This hurts me more than it hurts you."
I find it impossible to believe people who physically abuse their children don't enjoy the hell out of it.
The preppy blonde girl from The Facts of Life, now the mother of devout Christians, penned a book that advocates placing a tiny drop of hot sauce on the tongue of a child caught fibbing.
Those who follow the above advice may not verbally express their satisfaction, but I have a strong feeling their brain is saying, "Eat it, bitch!"
Witnessing such cruelty perpetrated on a minor with a different surname would make me sick to my stomach, so I can't imagine the resulting anguish from seeing a child in my own family burned on any part of their body.
If parents that abuse their offspring genuinely feel emotional angst whist inflicting physical pain, they simply wouldn't be able to do it.
Religious people claim that only through god do they know right from wrong. A large number of these people deem it "right" to burn their child's tongue, or repeatedly beat him or her about the backside. Through words inspired by a loving god, you feel wonderful about harming a young person the exact way you harm a dog that has yet to master the art of differentiating linoleum from grass!? You feel that, upon your child, you are bestowing the beautiful gift of physical pain!?
Religion definitely doesn't teach anyone right from wrong, and often teaches wrong is right. It helps scores of people justify abuse and persecution of children.
When you're forced to remind yourself, "I must refrain from crossing the line or my child will be left with teacher-attention-getting bruises," it may be time to rethink your parenting strategy. Only being able to sleep soundly due to confidence your children's school is so overcrowded insignificant bruising typically goes undetected isn't a product of loving your child too much.
With throbbing fingers, have you spankers, beaters, and hot-sauce placers ever Googled specific laws in your state to make sure the violent act you just perpetrated doesn't officially constitute "abuse" in a legal sense? Do you disregard political party and vote strictly for candidates that vow to expand your right to spank, beat and place hot-sauce? Do you eat from the same bottle of hot sauce, or is it too traumatizing for Junior? If the site of the label makes your little-one shriek in fear, and a Mexican restaurant automatically places a bottle on each table, do you ask your waiter to remove it out of worry convulsions will cause unwanted attention? What precautions do you take to ensure your captive will adequately cover for you should unusually intense rage, or one too many pre-beating margaritas, cause you to leave a very noticeable love welt? Are you a big fan of the, "Even with the occasional flogging, we still provide a better home than a foster couple ever could?" strategy?
I doubt people like the aforementioned Facts of Life actress even admit to themselves that what they're experiencing with every swat, and drop of liquid heat, is enjoyment. While they probably feel as I do after a heated verbal confrontation with an adult (I, honestly admitting the barrage of vile adjectives I rained down upon the jackass in question felt great), they tell themselves such euphoria is actually pain that stems from causing the apple of their eye to shed massive amounts of tears.
We don't punish adults with pain. In fact, we go to great lengths to make certain prisoners are not harmed physically. Why do we take so many precautions to protect those who knew better, yet deem it okay to hurt those whose brains have yet to fully develop?
I'm certain some non-religious people spank; just as I'm certain some religious people find the practice abhorrent, but the reason child abuse is legal in America is because the Bible gives it glowing reviews.
"He who spareth his rod hateth his son" is the Bible's way of saying, "If you're going to employ only one method of punishment, you must make it pummeling with a stick."
Since your Bible, and the law, approves of the spanking you just gave, your conscience is likely clean. You know whose conscience is also clean; the Sharia law following man who just murdered his two daughters for the crime of becoming too "westernized."
Instead of telling yourself, "I am physically abusing my child, which makes me a great parent," why not focus on reality: you are physically abusing your child and you enjoy it.
I'm not saying lying to yourself is always bad. I sometimes tell myself Christians and atheists are both wrong; that there is a generic god who chooses which people go up and which people go down. In my little fantasy universe, regardless of whether or not they stop at bruising, guess which direction child abusers go?
Warning: Written Without Assistance from Published Author
I'm not sure how to write this piece and don't have time to run out and buy a book on how to draft a successful article.
Actually, none of my actions today have been based on advice from books, which probably means I've done everything wrong.
I don't care if you're a tiger mother, or allow your children to play fast and loose with the rules, my only request is that you not speak to any minor that emanated from your womb without assurance every word is recommended by an actual published author. Not a dinky blog-writer like me, rather a person that went to the immense trouble of sending out thousands of query letters to various literary agencies around the globe before eventually finding success.
I kid...
Does religion fill everyone with fear their own instincts should be dismissed? Do they say, "I don't get angry at the site of homosexuals, yet they're horrific sinners... If I'm wrong about that, what else must I be wrong about?"
If ancient scribes are trusted with what religious folks consider the most important aspect of their lives, I suppose it's not surprising they turn to modern authors to advise them on topics not covered in the Bible.
I constantly argue that a deity is not needed for us to know right from wrong; that hurting people is wrong and everything else is a personal choice. Sure there are some grey areas in life, such as, "If I walk past that beggar, will it motivate him to get a job? Or should I give him a quarter because I have one to spare?" But the fact that there are socialist Christians and staunch conservative Christians makes it clear that books don't clarify such dilemmas.
So we instinctively know what's right and what's wrong, and no book helps us definitively resolve the areas in-between...
When my stomach boisterously calls for sustenance, is it my inner-atheist that causes me to pick up the first fork around which I can wrap my hand and immediately dig into the meal that lies on my plate; as opposed to scanning the other eaters in an attempt to discern their choice of utensil? Is it my natural aversion to being scolded, for doing what I believe is correct, that prevents me from looking up to the heavens at social gatherings and desperately shouting, "Why did I fall asleep while reading Miss Manners!? Had I intellectually devoured two more chapters I would know for certain if the situation in which I currently find myself requires a curtsey or a kowtow!"
This is unlike most articles I've drafted and has little to do with religion, but I'm genuinely curious as to why reliance on written advice from strangers is so prevalent. When things go wrong, do we desire to throw our hands in the air and say, "Wasn't my idea - it's what I read I was supposed to do!" Is it our way of deflecting blame? Is it our way of never being labeled a failure?
I find our dependence on books sad for the simple reason I personally know decent people who, were it not for their religious backgrounds, would likely stand with me in opposing injustice.
Maybe I should start accepting advice from my published betters. Yes, that's just what I'll do. So won't you kindly pardon me so that I may discover if the current etiquette advisors deem it unmannerly of me to ask them to go screw themselves in the one place on their body the star at the center of the solar system rudely refuses to shine?
Best wishes,
Ms. Sarah Laimbeer
Actually, none of my actions today have been based on advice from books, which probably means I've done everything wrong.
I don't care if you're a tiger mother, or allow your children to play fast and loose with the rules, my only request is that you not speak to any minor that emanated from your womb without assurance every word is recommended by an actual published author. Not a dinky blog-writer like me, rather a person that went to the immense trouble of sending out thousands of query letters to various literary agencies around the globe before eventually finding success.
I kid...
Does religion fill everyone with fear their own instincts should be dismissed? Do they say, "I don't get angry at the site of homosexuals, yet they're horrific sinners... If I'm wrong about that, what else must I be wrong about?"
If ancient scribes are trusted with what religious folks consider the most important aspect of their lives, I suppose it's not surprising they turn to modern authors to advise them on topics not covered in the Bible.
I constantly argue that a deity is not needed for us to know right from wrong; that hurting people is wrong and everything else is a personal choice. Sure there are some grey areas in life, such as, "If I walk past that beggar, will it motivate him to get a job? Or should I give him a quarter because I have one to spare?" But the fact that there are socialist Christians and staunch conservative Christians makes it clear that books don't clarify such dilemmas.
So we instinctively know what's right and what's wrong, and no book helps us definitively resolve the areas in-between...
When my stomach boisterously calls for sustenance, is it my inner-atheist that causes me to pick up the first fork around which I can wrap my hand and immediately dig into the meal that lies on my plate; as opposed to scanning the other eaters in an attempt to discern their choice of utensil? Is it my natural aversion to being scolded, for doing what I believe is correct, that prevents me from looking up to the heavens at social gatherings and desperately shouting, "Why did I fall asleep while reading Miss Manners!? Had I intellectually devoured two more chapters I would know for certain if the situation in which I currently find myself requires a curtsey or a kowtow!"
This is unlike most articles I've drafted and has little to do with religion, but I'm genuinely curious as to why reliance on written advice from strangers is so prevalent. When things go wrong, do we desire to throw our hands in the air and say, "Wasn't my idea - it's what I read I was supposed to do!" Is it our way of deflecting blame? Is it our way of never being labeled a failure?
I find our dependence on books sad for the simple reason I personally know decent people who, were it not for their religious backgrounds, would likely stand with me in opposing injustice.
Maybe I should start accepting advice from my published betters. Yes, that's just what I'll do. So won't you kindly pardon me so that I may discover if the current etiquette advisors deem it unmannerly of me to ask them to go screw themselves in the one place on their body the star at the center of the solar system rudely refuses to shine?
Best wishes,
Ms. Sarah Laimbeer
You Still Can't Tie!
Against homosexuals, many Christians discriminate because a book tells them god smiles upon such bigotry. Ditto Muslims and Jewish people. I can connect the actions of religious people to their belief in specific books.
You cannot, however, connect the actions of atheists to anything. Regardless of interpretation, the Westboro Baptist Church founder and the preacher at the Presbyterian Church closest to my home follow the same guide.
While many religious people would love to compare me to Mao, I'm mature enough to admit there's a huge difference between the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church and the local Presbyterian preacher. The former protests at military funerals because America tolerates homosexuality while the latter only mutters things such as, "While perverse, at least Married with Children was a show about straight people," as he flips past reruns of Will & Grace, Queer as Folk, and The L Word, on his way the 700 Club.
While I will not connect average American Christians to mass killing, I cannot deny that organized religion has been responsible for much brutality over the centuries. Still is.
And again, we can tie religion directly to the brutality, while no religious person can tie atheism to the hurting of a fly! Despite this, religious folks point to bad deeds done by atheists and say, "see what atheism made them do!"
Wrong! Words often inspire the committing of atrocities. Atheists share no manuscript.
If the only thing you religious people had in common was a belief in god, no one could tie your actions together. When the faithful committed crimes, but could not point to a text that told them their vile actions were justified, it would mean they didn't thumb their nose at the law specifically because of their belief in god; rather they thumbed their nose at the law because it satisfied a personal desire.
No atheist handbook told Joseph Stalin, "You shall build four gulags in the summer and four more in the winter." Many religious military generals, on the other hand, opened their book of choice nightly to remind themselves that each drop of innocent blood they spilled was extremely pleasing to their deity.
It's safe to say that many "religion-made-me-do-it" criminals would have failed to act inappropriately had they not been repeatedly told their cruel actions were noble. There's nothing atheistic that caused unbelievers to commit horrific acts, which means nothing could have been removed from their lives that would have resulted in a clean rap sheet. And an infusion of religion into the life of the aforementioned Joseph Stalin, for example, would have made it easier for the man to spread evil because most religious works promote monetary equality regardless of toil.
I'd also like to point out that most atheists don't mention the fact that mass cruelty has been perpetrated in the name of religion because we're attempting to convert the masses; we're simply warning everyone about the danger religion poses when it spreads from the church.
In addition to a reduction in stoning deaths of alleged adulterers and sexual assault victims, we'd like to prevent religious folks from forcing us to live by the many nonsensical rules in their books - whether or not they claim it is their sincere belief that such statutes further public safety. If you promise to keep your religion out of the voting booth, i.e., out of my house, public schools, and the place I'm trying to buy a bottle of vodka at 3:00 in the morning, I'll even help you recruit!
Whether we're talking mass murder or discrimination, the bottom line is that we need to focus on the complete elimination of cruelty. The best method for achieving our goal is to promote freedom, base laws on common sense, and stop heaping scorn upon individuals who follow said common sense laws, regardless of the sexual practices they carry out with other consenting adults.
Since I'm after only freedom and safety for all, I would like to put an end to the one-upmanship. I'm speaking specifically of Christian apologists who boast that religion has grown over the years while atheists will soon suffer the fate of the dinosaur. The majority of Saudi Arabians believe the practice of stoning alleged adulterers is righteous because that's what they've been taught by their religious elders. In other words, I'm not quite ready to concede I'm wrong simply because I'm in the minority.
Okay, now let's end the one-upmanship.
You cannot, however, connect the actions of atheists to anything. Regardless of interpretation, the Westboro Baptist Church founder and the preacher at the Presbyterian Church closest to my home follow the same guide.
While many religious people would love to compare me to Mao, I'm mature enough to admit there's a huge difference between the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church and the local Presbyterian preacher. The former protests at military funerals because America tolerates homosexuality while the latter only mutters things such as, "While perverse, at least Married with Children was a show about straight people," as he flips past reruns of Will & Grace, Queer as Folk, and The L Word, on his way the 700 Club.
While I will not connect average American Christians to mass killing, I cannot deny that organized religion has been responsible for much brutality over the centuries. Still is.
And again, we can tie religion directly to the brutality, while no religious person can tie atheism to the hurting of a fly! Despite this, religious folks point to bad deeds done by atheists and say, "see what atheism made them do!"
Wrong! Words often inspire the committing of atrocities. Atheists share no manuscript.
If the only thing you religious people had in common was a belief in god, no one could tie your actions together. When the faithful committed crimes, but could not point to a text that told them their vile actions were justified, it would mean they didn't thumb their nose at the law specifically because of their belief in god; rather they thumbed their nose at the law because it satisfied a personal desire.
No atheist handbook told Joseph Stalin, "You shall build four gulags in the summer and four more in the winter." Many religious military generals, on the other hand, opened their book of choice nightly to remind themselves that each drop of innocent blood they spilled was extremely pleasing to their deity.
It's safe to say that many "religion-made-me-do-it" criminals would have failed to act inappropriately had they not been repeatedly told their cruel actions were noble. There's nothing atheistic that caused unbelievers to commit horrific acts, which means nothing could have been removed from their lives that would have resulted in a clean rap sheet. And an infusion of religion into the life of the aforementioned Joseph Stalin, for example, would have made it easier for the man to spread evil because most religious works promote monetary equality regardless of toil.
I'd also like to point out that most atheists don't mention the fact that mass cruelty has been perpetrated in the name of religion because we're attempting to convert the masses; we're simply warning everyone about the danger religion poses when it spreads from the church.
In addition to a reduction in stoning deaths of alleged adulterers and sexual assault victims, we'd like to prevent religious folks from forcing us to live by the many nonsensical rules in their books - whether or not they claim it is their sincere belief that such statutes further public safety. If you promise to keep your religion out of the voting booth, i.e., out of my house, public schools, and the place I'm trying to buy a bottle of vodka at 3:00 in the morning, I'll even help you recruit!
Whether we're talking mass murder or discrimination, the bottom line is that we need to focus on the complete elimination of cruelty. The best method for achieving our goal is to promote freedom, base laws on common sense, and stop heaping scorn upon individuals who follow said common sense laws, regardless of the sexual practices they carry out with other consenting adults.
Since I'm after only freedom and safety for all, I would like to put an end to the one-upmanship. I'm speaking specifically of Christian apologists who boast that religion has grown over the years while atheists will soon suffer the fate of the dinosaur. The majority of Saudi Arabians believe the practice of stoning alleged adulterers is righteous because that's what they've been taught by their religious elders. In other words, I'm not quite ready to concede I'm wrong simply because I'm in the minority.
Okay, now let's end the one-upmanship.
You Better Start Believing in God, Fatty
To my absolute delight, I recently discovered a website that argues atheism is evil. The site actually claims that failure to believe in a deity leads to obesity. Though I'm fairly certain this Christian-Conservative entity is not satirical, it's funnier than Charlie Sheen when he's not trying to be funny.
Most religious folks make the claim that atheists do bad things because we're atheists, while bad deeds done by religious folks are not related to their belief in a deity. Apparently we overeat, and sit down for long periods of time, simply because god is not inspiring us to put down our forks and stand up with the express purpose of eventually moving around rapidly.
"Very religious Americans make healthier choices than their moderately religious and nonreligious counterparts," the site contends.
Since they're speaking about "very" religious people, I actually agree with the above quote.
The "very" religious tend to get a lot of exercise swatting their children on the backside, which could be labeled a "healthy choice." As I mentioned in an early posting, an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church preacher challenged his adult congregation to start an exercise routine of their own. "If you're not bruising the child, you're not spanking the child enough," he said.
Since we atheists have no instruction manual encouraging us to leave marks upon our own flesh and blood, naturally we leave them physically unscathed. Instead of burning calories with each swat of our tot, we sit around getting fat watching them smile from ear-to-ear as they frolic and play.
Simply thinking about happy, un-bruised children makes me feel like I just ate a whole turkey. Who would have thunk humane punishments lead to portly parents?
On this same website, in a maneuver undoubtedly inspired by the Old Testament, a link is posted to a different site which contains photographs of several atheists. Please keep in mind that these non-religious men and women are not famous. Before clicking the link, everyone is instructed to pay close attention to the extra pounds the unbelievers carry.
Funny how a website arguing atheism is evil taunts everyday overweight people like schoolyard bullies taunt physically unimposing children the ruffians don't match up with intellectually. Even funnier, the site actually claims one thing has to do with the other.
In response to the horrific act of drawing attention to the excess girth on ordinary atheists, I will provide you with a link to the official site of a small Methodist Church in northwest Mississippi; specifically a page displaying a digital photograph of the fattest, most disgusting female treasurer you've ever laid eyes on. You may need to scamper to your local Best Buy to purchase a bigger monitor so every vile flap and fold will be visible. Seriously though, please keep a bucket near your desk to make sure there is a place to aim your lunch...
This lady so fat, when she goes to church she sits next to everybody.
This lady so fat, she was baptized at Sea World.
This lady so fat, when she sits around the church, she sits AROUND the church.
Wait a second, I actually won't provide such a link. I just remembered that I genuinely care about people with differing viewpoints and would feel rather bad about what I'd consider an immoral transgression, yet many Christians consider, "God's work."
Most religious folks make the claim that atheists do bad things because we're atheists, while bad deeds done by religious folks are not related to their belief in a deity. Apparently we overeat, and sit down for long periods of time, simply because god is not inspiring us to put down our forks and stand up with the express purpose of eventually moving around rapidly.
"Very religious Americans make healthier choices than their moderately religious and nonreligious counterparts," the site contends.
Since they're speaking about "very" religious people, I actually agree with the above quote.
The "very" religious tend to get a lot of exercise swatting their children on the backside, which could be labeled a "healthy choice." As I mentioned in an early posting, an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church preacher challenged his adult congregation to start an exercise routine of their own. "If you're not bruising the child, you're not spanking the child enough," he said.
Since we atheists have no instruction manual encouraging us to leave marks upon our own flesh and blood, naturally we leave them physically unscathed. Instead of burning calories with each swat of our tot, we sit around getting fat watching them smile from ear-to-ear as they frolic and play.
Simply thinking about happy, un-bruised children makes me feel like I just ate a whole turkey. Who would have thunk humane punishments lead to portly parents?
On this same website, in a maneuver undoubtedly inspired by the Old Testament, a link is posted to a different site which contains photographs of several atheists. Please keep in mind that these non-religious men and women are not famous. Before clicking the link, everyone is instructed to pay close attention to the extra pounds the unbelievers carry.
Funny how a website arguing atheism is evil taunts everyday overweight people like schoolyard bullies taunt physically unimposing children the ruffians don't match up with intellectually. Even funnier, the site actually claims one thing has to do with the other.
In response to the horrific act of drawing attention to the excess girth on ordinary atheists, I will provide you with a link to the official site of a small Methodist Church in northwest Mississippi; specifically a page displaying a digital photograph of the fattest, most disgusting female treasurer you've ever laid eyes on. You may need to scamper to your local Best Buy to purchase a bigger monitor so every vile flap and fold will be visible. Seriously though, please keep a bucket near your desk to make sure there is a place to aim your lunch...
This lady so fat, when she goes to church she sits next to everybody.
This lady so fat, she was baptized at Sea World.
This lady so fat, when she sits around the church, she sits AROUND the church.
Wait a second, I actually won't provide such a link. I just remembered that I genuinely care about people with differing viewpoints and would feel rather bad about what I'd consider an immoral transgression, yet many Christians consider, "God's work."
The Gay Marriage Consequences
How would your life change if gay marriage was legalized?
Of course the lives of committed homosexuals, i.e., your fellow man, would improve, but I'm talking about your life.
Are you anti-gay marriage advocates afraid there will be gloating on the part of the homosexual community? Are you viewing gay marriage as you do your upcoming slow-pitch softball game against the local (we're-the-only-ones-going-to-heaven) Church of Christ? Though losing a sports game has no lasting repercussions, you'd hang your head in shame simply because you failed; just like you'd do if gay marriage was legalized.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no way your life, nor society, would suffer one iota if a man and a man were allowed to wed.
Common sense tells you that gay marriage wouldn't pave the way for a man to legally obtain the right to marry one or more of the following: his beloved box turtle, his first cousin, eight women, or the entire cast of Glee. Common sense does this the same way it informs you the school administrator who expelled the first-grader for accidentally bringing a plastic knife to school, violating the zero tolerance policy, acted stupidly.
Funny how the only secular argument against gay marriage involves far-fetched scenarios to which the best retort is usually a simple, "Come on!"
You resemble children who've outgrown a stuffed toy that's collecting dust in the corner yet won't let your younger sibling snuggle up against for the simple reason the plush panda makes them happy.
"Satisfied gays make me sick! If they're gonna live in sin, I'm going to make them dedicate every waking hour to achieving the same benefits my opposite-sex spouse and I enjoy! For no 'offense' other than settling down with the person to whom they're most attracted, they will pay! Dearly, those scum suckers will pay!"
Really!?
It means that much to you!?
It means so much you're willing to waste your time, their time, your money and their money to fight a fight rooted in spite?
Think of all the progress and charity you're preventing. As usual, organized religion hinders goodness.
Seeing as how your life would not change, spite is the only explanation.
If an individual were completely ignorant of religion, you do realize it would be impossible to convince him or her that gay marriage would directly lead to the decline of society, right?
If you stated, "A man and a woman can create a child, while a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) lack that specific capability," a person unaware books have been written, allegedly inspired by a higher power, could easily retort, "Yeah, but since many heterosexual couples abuse their own children, doesn't the physical capability of persons to reproduce have little to do with the quality of parent they become? More individuals are heterosexual than not, so legalizing gay marriage will not lead to the extinction of mankind. And wouldn't an increase in gay married couples lead to an increase in loving households ready and willing to adopt unwanted children produced by heterosexual people?"
Please at least admit your opposition to gay marriage is solely based on a book on which American laws are not supposed to be rooted. Please don't try and make it seem as if you're concerned with the well being of society. Don't argue, "A child is better off with a man and woman at the helm," when you know full well that a child needs only loving and moral guardians to thrive.
Please admit your only desire is to see the country governed by rules your specific religious text promotes. Of course you'd like society to focus on statutes that don't hinder your ability to enjoy life. Because you need to inhale dozens of alcoholic drinks every day of the week ending in "Y', passages frowning upon excessive drunkenness should be ignored, i.e., interpreted differently. Because you enjoy intimate relations with members of the opposite sex, Biblical passages forbidding same-sex love are not open to debate.
Of course the lives of committed homosexuals, i.e., your fellow man, would improve, but I'm talking about your life.
Are you anti-gay marriage advocates afraid there will be gloating on the part of the homosexual community? Are you viewing gay marriage as you do your upcoming slow-pitch softball game against the local (we're-the-only-ones-going-to-heaven) Church of Christ? Though losing a sports game has no lasting repercussions, you'd hang your head in shame simply because you failed; just like you'd do if gay marriage was legalized.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no way your life, nor society, would suffer one iota if a man and a man were allowed to wed.
Common sense tells you that gay marriage wouldn't pave the way for a man to legally obtain the right to marry one or more of the following: his beloved box turtle, his first cousin, eight women, or the entire cast of Glee. Common sense does this the same way it informs you the school administrator who expelled the first-grader for accidentally bringing a plastic knife to school, violating the zero tolerance policy, acted stupidly.
Funny how the only secular argument against gay marriage involves far-fetched scenarios to which the best retort is usually a simple, "Come on!"
You resemble children who've outgrown a stuffed toy that's collecting dust in the corner yet won't let your younger sibling snuggle up against for the simple reason the plush panda makes them happy.
"Satisfied gays make me sick! If they're gonna live in sin, I'm going to make them dedicate every waking hour to achieving the same benefits my opposite-sex spouse and I enjoy! For no 'offense' other than settling down with the person to whom they're most attracted, they will pay! Dearly, those scum suckers will pay!"
Really!?
It means that much to you!?
It means so much you're willing to waste your time, their time, your money and their money to fight a fight rooted in spite?
Think of all the progress and charity you're preventing. As usual, organized religion hinders goodness.
Seeing as how your life would not change, spite is the only explanation.
If an individual were completely ignorant of religion, you do realize it would be impossible to convince him or her that gay marriage would directly lead to the decline of society, right?
If you stated, "A man and a woman can create a child, while a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) lack that specific capability," a person unaware books have been written, allegedly inspired by a higher power, could easily retort, "Yeah, but since many heterosexual couples abuse their own children, doesn't the physical capability of persons to reproduce have little to do with the quality of parent they become? More individuals are heterosexual than not, so legalizing gay marriage will not lead to the extinction of mankind. And wouldn't an increase in gay married couples lead to an increase in loving households ready and willing to adopt unwanted children produced by heterosexual people?"
Please at least admit your opposition to gay marriage is solely based on a book on which American laws are not supposed to be rooted. Please don't try and make it seem as if you're concerned with the well being of society. Don't argue, "A child is better off with a man and woman at the helm," when you know full well that a child needs only loving and moral guardians to thrive.
Please admit your only desire is to see the country governed by rules your specific religious text promotes. Of course you'd like society to focus on statutes that don't hinder your ability to enjoy life. Because you need to inhale dozens of alcoholic drinks every day of the week ending in "Y', passages frowning upon excessive drunkenness should be ignored, i.e., interpreted differently. Because you enjoy intimate relations with members of the opposite sex, Biblical passages forbidding same-sex love are not open to debate.
It's Not the Region, Stupid
Faithful Americans wish to believe organized religion is not responsible for horrific violence in the Middle East. Though they'd never dare admit it, they think a primitive culture is to blame, or that brains of certain foreigners resemble those contained in the skulls of cavemen.
But people born in Afghanistan are the same as those born in Ardmore, Oklahoma.
The truth is that religious folks in America commit many abhorrent acts because their church elders tell them it's okay, or worse, encourage them to, "Just Do It." We all know the Westboro Baptist Church has a bad habit of protesting military funerals because they're angry Nathan Lane isn't rotting in jail for a specific reason unrelated to his role in Joe Versus the Volcano.
As noted in a recent 20/20 episode, several Independent Fundamental Baptist churches have seen their members arrested then convicted of abusing children. Of course no organization can prevent every single member from committing crimes, but most don't go to great lengths covering up abuse and/or blaming the victim. IFB preachers often encourage the beating of children. The aforementioned 20/20 episode aired footage of a preacher angrily telling his flock, "If you're not bruising the child, you're not spanking the child enough."
It's not the region; it's religion.
We have our Founding Fathers to thank for making sure acts of abuse against children are indeed illegal and therefore require hiding, or else we'd witness young girls routinely standing in the public square apologizing for their sin of being abused by an adult. Since I don't know the location of any public squares, maybe they'd beg forgiveness while standing in line waiting to purchase their back-to-school Trapper Keepers, you know, a couple days before abuse at the hands of a family elder gives way to abuse at the hands of a school official.
America is great place in which to live because our Founding Fathers understood this country would remain in the stone ages were religion holding it back. These visionaries realized that, while people might continue clinging to their faith, they would reject past norms to achieve greatness, and shun cruelty, if overtly religious laws and peer pressure were non-factors.
Let's talk about slavery...
Slavery was prominent in the south, so an end to the practice wasn't brought about by multiple Bible readings; it was brought about by people who became inherently sick to their stomach at the site of abuse, not sick to their stomach after reading the Bible then witnessing unimaginable cruelty. "A black man beaten within an inch of his life used to not bother me, but after reading the Bible I have a burning desire to hurl my body in front of his master's whip!"
Christian abolitionists succeeded because they lived in a country where a supreme leader wasn't allowed to send out goons to exterminate them as the extreme Hutus slaughtered their moderate brethren.
It doesn't give modern religious people pause that the primary reason widespread cruelty no longer occurs in America is because joining a church is voluntary!?
Everything America has achieved was made possible because religion does not hold back progress as small puddles of mud held back the Yugo Cabrio.
I'm glad our Founding Fathers gave religious people a way to keep the faith yet not feel it's their duty to hurl rocks at my head when I promote atheism, but no one should forget that organized religion remains responsible for much cruelty around the globe.
I know the typical Christian will respond, "You can't compare us to psychopathic American churches that claim the Bible is their inspiration and you certainly can't compare us to radical Islam..."
Due to your penchant for baseless discrimination, I certainly can't equate you with people who do the right thing.
After all, the right thing is what atheists do.
But people born in Afghanistan are the same as those born in Ardmore, Oklahoma.
The truth is that religious folks in America commit many abhorrent acts because their church elders tell them it's okay, or worse, encourage them to, "Just Do It." We all know the Westboro Baptist Church has a bad habit of protesting military funerals because they're angry Nathan Lane isn't rotting in jail for a specific reason unrelated to his role in Joe Versus the Volcano.
As noted in a recent 20/20 episode, several Independent Fundamental Baptist churches have seen their members arrested then convicted of abusing children. Of course no organization can prevent every single member from committing crimes, but most don't go to great lengths covering up abuse and/or blaming the victim. IFB preachers often encourage the beating of children. The aforementioned 20/20 episode aired footage of a preacher angrily telling his flock, "If you're not bruising the child, you're not spanking the child enough."
It's not the region; it's religion.
We have our Founding Fathers to thank for making sure acts of abuse against children are indeed illegal and therefore require hiding, or else we'd witness young girls routinely standing in the public square apologizing for their sin of being abused by an adult. Since I don't know the location of any public squares, maybe they'd beg forgiveness while standing in line waiting to purchase their back-to-school Trapper Keepers, you know, a couple days before abuse at the hands of a family elder gives way to abuse at the hands of a school official.
America is great place in which to live because our Founding Fathers understood this country would remain in the stone ages were religion holding it back. These visionaries realized that, while people might continue clinging to their faith, they would reject past norms to achieve greatness, and shun cruelty, if overtly religious laws and peer pressure were non-factors.
Let's talk about slavery...
Slavery was prominent in the south, so an end to the practice wasn't brought about by multiple Bible readings; it was brought about by people who became inherently sick to their stomach at the site of abuse, not sick to their stomach after reading the Bible then witnessing unimaginable cruelty. "A black man beaten within an inch of his life used to not bother me, but after reading the Bible I have a burning desire to hurl my body in front of his master's whip!"
Christian abolitionists succeeded because they lived in a country where a supreme leader wasn't allowed to send out goons to exterminate them as the extreme Hutus slaughtered their moderate brethren.
It doesn't give modern religious people pause that the primary reason widespread cruelty no longer occurs in America is because joining a church is voluntary!?
Everything America has achieved was made possible because religion does not hold back progress as small puddles of mud held back the Yugo Cabrio.
I'm glad our Founding Fathers gave religious people a way to keep the faith yet not feel it's their duty to hurl rocks at my head when I promote atheism, but no one should forget that organized religion remains responsible for much cruelty around the globe.
I know the typical Christian will respond, "You can't compare us to psychopathic American churches that claim the Bible is their inspiration and you certainly can't compare us to radical Islam..."
Due to your penchant for baseless discrimination, I certainly can't equate you with people who do the right thing.
After all, the right thing is what atheists do.
What Was I Thinking!?
A favorite question asked to atheists by religious people is, "What will you say to god once the act of standing before him proves you're wrong?"
Well picture this...
As you pass through the pearly gates, you can't help but notice they're adorned with large swastikas.
"Strange," you think, and then surmise, "They must not be symbols of hate as they are in the place from which I came."
You sit down and wait for the entity that will judge your earthly actions. As you mentally list your good deeds with a confident smirk, he begins walking toward you from a great distance. "It can't be," you mumble. "Uh-oh; that mustache is unmistakable." You don't even have to wait for the thick German accent to know you're doomed. "Do I stand and salute? Oh no, if he's omniscient he's aware of the fact that my best friend throughout college was Seraphim Bernbaum!"
If the above scenario actually happens, will you express regret over your failure to champion Nazi programs? Will you say, "Why didn't I embrace the formation of a master race!? The Third Reich wasn't evil like my disgraceful pro-Semitic teachers portrayed it. After all, if you want to make a world of perfectly sculpted, blue-eyed beauties, you've got to break a few inferior races."?
No matter the consequences, you wouldn't wish to turn back the clock so you could disrupt history class by booing footage of Allied soldiers liberating Nazi Concentration Camps.
I'm not comparing anybody to Hitler; I'm simply saying that, by rejecting the deity whose actions you strongly admonish, you'd be standing up for your fellow human beings, which is exactly what I'm doing as an atheist.
If it is revealed that a creator, responsible for me and the planet on which I lived, considers homosexuality a sin most wretched, I'm not going to all of sudden hang my head in shame for failing to even attempt converting my gay friends. No matter how much heat I feel, I will never say, "Since you, my creator, favor the stoning of gays, then such brutality must be just. I only wish an earthly person would have convinced me of this and then placed in my hand a few rocks that were light enough to get some muscle behind yet heavy enough to do significant damage to the face of a sodomizer."
If you eventually discover Sharia law is god's real preference, will you kick yourself for allowing your earthly wife to remain scarless after that Super Bowl party during which she without a doubt proved who wears the pants in your relationship by intensely glaring you into dropping what would have been your twelfth beer into the cooler and slowly walking away?
When you base your decisions on right and wrong, and bestow admiration on individuals whose actions you consider noble, future judgment is of no concern.
If I am wrong and find myself awaiting a meeting with my maker, I would be concerned, however, had I spent a lifetime judging the sinless, an act I felt in my heart was wrong, yet performed simply because I was convinced great reward would follow.
In Christian circles, atheists are considered immoral despite the fact that one of our biggest desires is making sure not a single life is negatively impacted by religion. Without fear of consequence and without regret, I would pridefully tell anyone, or anything, my earthly goal was championing human dignity.
Well picture this...
As you pass through the pearly gates, you can't help but notice they're adorned with large swastikas.
"Strange," you think, and then surmise, "They must not be symbols of hate as they are in the place from which I came."
You sit down and wait for the entity that will judge your earthly actions. As you mentally list your good deeds with a confident smirk, he begins walking toward you from a great distance. "It can't be," you mumble. "Uh-oh; that mustache is unmistakable." You don't even have to wait for the thick German accent to know you're doomed. "Do I stand and salute? Oh no, if he's omniscient he's aware of the fact that my best friend throughout college was Seraphim Bernbaum!"
If the above scenario actually happens, will you express regret over your failure to champion Nazi programs? Will you say, "Why didn't I embrace the formation of a master race!? The Third Reich wasn't evil like my disgraceful pro-Semitic teachers portrayed it. After all, if you want to make a world of perfectly sculpted, blue-eyed beauties, you've got to break a few inferior races."?
No matter the consequences, you wouldn't wish to turn back the clock so you could disrupt history class by booing footage of Allied soldiers liberating Nazi Concentration Camps.
I'm not comparing anybody to Hitler; I'm simply saying that, by rejecting the deity whose actions you strongly admonish, you'd be standing up for your fellow human beings, which is exactly what I'm doing as an atheist.
If it is revealed that a creator, responsible for me and the planet on which I lived, considers homosexuality a sin most wretched, I'm not going to all of sudden hang my head in shame for failing to even attempt converting my gay friends. No matter how much heat I feel, I will never say, "Since you, my creator, favor the stoning of gays, then such brutality must be just. I only wish an earthly person would have convinced me of this and then placed in my hand a few rocks that were light enough to get some muscle behind yet heavy enough to do significant damage to the face of a sodomizer."
If you eventually discover Sharia law is god's real preference, will you kick yourself for allowing your earthly wife to remain scarless after that Super Bowl party during which she without a doubt proved who wears the pants in your relationship by intensely glaring you into dropping what would have been your twelfth beer into the cooler and slowly walking away?
When you base your decisions on right and wrong, and bestow admiration on individuals whose actions you consider noble, future judgment is of no concern.
If I am wrong and find myself awaiting a meeting with my maker, I would be concerned, however, had I spent a lifetime judging the sinless, an act I felt in my heart was wrong, yet performed simply because I was convinced great reward would follow.
In Christian circles, atheists are considered immoral despite the fact that one of our biggest desires is making sure not a single life is negatively impacted by religion. Without fear of consequence and without regret, I would pridefully tell anyone, or anything, my earthly goal was championing human dignity.
One Stop Justification
Despite there being no correlation, religious people enjoy arguing that atheism causes communism and is therefore responsible for many deaths.
Of course the above argument is bogus, as is the argument that a robber is driven to hold up a convenience store because he or she doesn't believe in a specific deity.
Sure atheists have committed atrocities, but these butchers didn't claim they murdered based on words from the manual in which all true atheists must believe because no such manual exists.
Some religious people point to their favorite book and say, "See, throwing stones at her face until she stopped moving is exactly what I'm required to do."
According to the faithful, religion is needed to differentiate good from bad just as a history book is required to teach us that George Washington was the first President of the United States.
But religion doesn't incentivize good behavior; it comforts people who enjoy performing abhorrent acts.
Look at the amount of evil that's been perpetrated because individuals, who wish to think of themselves as noble, accept a book that either excuses or encourages despicable behavior. These folks have the audacity to claim that thoughtfully concluding a deity is not responsible for the universe is a gateway crime.
I'm always trying to figure out if the majority of people on this earth are inherently good, or if most simply have a natural desire to believe their actions are just.
Was religion formulated to control the masses, or because people wanted to selfishly harm others and sleep soundly once their oil lamps were extinguished?
In other words, religion could have been an early answer to the, "For making goo-goo eyes at that strong-jawed goat-herder, I wanna bust my wench of a wife upside the head with a large stone, yet am aware such brutality is immoral and get far more shuteye with a guilt free brain," dilemma.
One thing is certain: there's no limit to evil if the evildoer truly believes he is acting in the best interest of humanity.
People strive to achieve great wealth so they can afford to compensate a staff hired for the express purpose of serving their every non-erotic need. Why would a man go to the trouble of building a fortune when all that's required is accepting a certain religious work that plainly states the woman he wed is nothing more than a glorified employee who must grant his every wish, regardless of where it measures on the perversion scale?
Instinct, not belief in words drafted by ancient men, lets us know what's good and what's bad. When guilt consumed monsters desire to perform an act they're cognizant is cruel, they pick up a book that tells them, "It's okay - have at her. Trust whoever wrote this when they stated, 'they're called wifely 'duties' for a reason.'"
When people find themselves saying, "I know you could interpret my holy book in a way that makes the work appear evil, but I inexplicably choose to believe it promotes peace," it's time they contemplate following writings that leave no room for interpretation, or better yet, apply common sense to every situation. Religious works have directly led to unimaginable cruelty, yet moral devotees actively tout such writings with hope their fellow followers interpret them, "the good way."
Why not just promote words that unequivocally instruct everyone to refrain from harming their fellow man!?
It's such a simple concept, yet only 20% of my fellow countrypersons are with me!
Of course the above argument is bogus, as is the argument that a robber is driven to hold up a convenience store because he or she doesn't believe in a specific deity.
Sure atheists have committed atrocities, but these butchers didn't claim they murdered based on words from the manual in which all true atheists must believe because no such manual exists.
Some religious people point to their favorite book and say, "See, throwing stones at her face until she stopped moving is exactly what I'm required to do."
According to the faithful, religion is needed to differentiate good from bad just as a history book is required to teach us that George Washington was the first President of the United States.
But religion doesn't incentivize good behavior; it comforts people who enjoy performing abhorrent acts.
Look at the amount of evil that's been perpetrated because individuals, who wish to think of themselves as noble, accept a book that either excuses or encourages despicable behavior. These folks have the audacity to claim that thoughtfully concluding a deity is not responsible for the universe is a gateway crime.
I'm always trying to figure out if the majority of people on this earth are inherently good, or if most simply have a natural desire to believe their actions are just.
Was religion formulated to control the masses, or because people wanted to selfishly harm others and sleep soundly once their oil lamps were extinguished?
In other words, religion could have been an early answer to the, "For making goo-goo eyes at that strong-jawed goat-herder, I wanna bust my wench of a wife upside the head with a large stone, yet am aware such brutality is immoral and get far more shuteye with a guilt free brain," dilemma.
One thing is certain: there's no limit to evil if the evildoer truly believes he is acting in the best interest of humanity.
People strive to achieve great wealth so they can afford to compensate a staff hired for the express purpose of serving their every non-erotic need. Why would a man go to the trouble of building a fortune when all that's required is accepting a certain religious work that plainly states the woman he wed is nothing more than a glorified employee who must grant his every wish, regardless of where it measures on the perversion scale?
Instinct, not belief in words drafted by ancient men, lets us know what's good and what's bad. When guilt consumed monsters desire to perform an act they're cognizant is cruel, they pick up a book that tells them, "It's okay - have at her. Trust whoever wrote this when they stated, 'they're called wifely 'duties' for a reason.'"
When people find themselves saying, "I know you could interpret my holy book in a way that makes the work appear evil, but I inexplicably choose to believe it promotes peace," it's time they contemplate following writings that leave no room for interpretation, or better yet, apply common sense to every situation. Religious works have directly led to unimaginable cruelty, yet moral devotees actively tout such writings with hope their fellow followers interpret them, "the good way."
Why not just promote words that unequivocally instruct everyone to refrain from harming their fellow man!?
It's such a simple concept, yet only 20% of my fellow countrypersons are with me!
Eugenics Atheist Style
Leaders on both sides of the political aisle have used the United States military to make foreign nations better places in which to live through regime change, yet no one discusses purging fanatical theists who routinely kill the innocent based on orders from their holy books.
No legitimate leader or authority figure has ever proposed making it a priority to preemptively exterminate fanatical religious herds on their way to decapitate innocent people in response to whatever has angered the zealots that particular day. Governments sit back while the overtly religious violently scare the masses into submitting. None even make the case that such abhorrent people deserve to die before they can raise a single knife.
Eugenics is making the world a better place by wiping out the undesirable. Should we be asking if those who say, "My religion demands I kill you in response to the actions of persons with whom you have no connection" are desirable?
When people, who claim their holy book instructs them it's time to kill, mobilize, should there be armed troops nearby ready to save innocent lives by taking lives? It's not like nobody knows where these people live and what sets them off.
I'm sorry if infants are fed religious propaganda from the day they can comprehend words until the time they are capable of killing innocent persons in the name of their god, but does an unfortunate childhood mean we must wait for them to draw first blood.
Is, "UN Workers Killed by Religious Fanatics during Protest," a headline we must just accept?
Why hasn't a candidate proposed making sure, if he or she is elected, the above headline will be replaced with, "Allied Troops Slaughter Knife Wielding Herd en Route to UN Headquarters."?
Would the world be a better place with rulers who mercilessly exterminate theists willing to kill in the name of their religion? Would a majority of the noble smile if there were a leader who bashed in the heads of those looking to murder the innocent as Aldo Raine laughingly killed Nazis?
This candidate wouldn't even be required to speak or act against a specific religion due to the fact that the specific religion changes. Come to me and say you belong to a mainstream religion that stands for peace and I can point to historical periods of darkness so extreme you will lower your head and exit in shame. In other words, don't think, "She's not talking about my religion; she's talking about the religion practiced by the shady family across the street," because I'm talking about your religion and the religion practiced by the shady family across the street.
If no one is currently killing in the name of your religion, then you and such a leader would have no quarrel. You leave the innocent alone and he or she will leave you alone.
Why has no leader advocated for the formation of a special unit of elite fighters to combat the problem of religious based killings? When a Koran is burned in the United States and a sword wielding gang therefore gathers in the streets of Afghanistan, the machine gun equipped soldiers could be to the zealots as Indiana Jones was to the expert swordsman. When an interracial couple moves into a house down the block, members of the same unit could be waiting outside the homes of Bible toting Klansmen who have violence on the brain. Of course they couldn't stop every killing, but they sure could have fun trying.
Because they're the least likely to realize true peace cannot be achieved until extreme versions of their kind are wiped off the map, is it a shame people of religion continue winning elections?
It seems to me that some sort of solution is required other than instructing everyone to forever walk on eggshells because religious fanatics may eventually learn of your actions and take it out on innocent bystanders. Now that America is in the habit of killing to prevent death, it stands to reason we'd at least discuss doing everything in our power to save human beings from brutal beheadings at the hands of angry mobsters who claim a book told them that shedding innocent blood is the best way to serve their god.
Is it a noble action to murder someone at 1500 Kandahar Lane to make sure the international aid worker at 1550 Kandahar Lane doesn't have to quickly draft an email to friends and family members in which he or she relays the following unfortunate information, "in response to a news story about a kooky American and his penchant for burning books with which he disagrees, an angry mob is outside my door brandishing weapons sharp enough to cut through the entirety of my neck. Hopefully they will kill me quickly, but precedent suggests otherwise. Goodbye."
Will there be a point when the world so tires of religious fanaticism that someone in a prominent position finally suggests we get medieval on their asses? Because, despite the fact that you've done nothing to offend them, that's exactly what they'd enjoy doing to yours.
No legitimate leader or authority figure has ever proposed making it a priority to preemptively exterminate fanatical religious herds on their way to decapitate innocent people in response to whatever has angered the zealots that particular day. Governments sit back while the overtly religious violently scare the masses into submitting. None even make the case that such abhorrent people deserve to die before they can raise a single knife.
Eugenics is making the world a better place by wiping out the undesirable. Should we be asking if those who say, "My religion demands I kill you in response to the actions of persons with whom you have no connection" are desirable?
When people, who claim their holy book instructs them it's time to kill, mobilize, should there be armed troops nearby ready to save innocent lives by taking lives? It's not like nobody knows where these people live and what sets them off.
I'm sorry if infants are fed religious propaganda from the day they can comprehend words until the time they are capable of killing innocent persons in the name of their god, but does an unfortunate childhood mean we must wait for them to draw first blood.
Is, "UN Workers Killed by Religious Fanatics during Protest," a headline we must just accept?
Why hasn't a candidate proposed making sure, if he or she is elected, the above headline will be replaced with, "Allied Troops Slaughter Knife Wielding Herd en Route to UN Headquarters."?
Would the world be a better place with rulers who mercilessly exterminate theists willing to kill in the name of their religion? Would a majority of the noble smile if there were a leader who bashed in the heads of those looking to murder the innocent as Aldo Raine laughingly killed Nazis?
This candidate wouldn't even be required to speak or act against a specific religion due to the fact that the specific religion changes. Come to me and say you belong to a mainstream religion that stands for peace and I can point to historical periods of darkness so extreme you will lower your head and exit in shame. In other words, don't think, "She's not talking about my religion; she's talking about the religion practiced by the shady family across the street," because I'm talking about your religion and the religion practiced by the shady family across the street.
If no one is currently killing in the name of your religion, then you and such a leader would have no quarrel. You leave the innocent alone and he or she will leave you alone.
Why has no leader advocated for the formation of a special unit of elite fighters to combat the problem of religious based killings? When a Koran is burned in the United States and a sword wielding gang therefore gathers in the streets of Afghanistan, the machine gun equipped soldiers could be to the zealots as Indiana Jones was to the expert swordsman. When an interracial couple moves into a house down the block, members of the same unit could be waiting outside the homes of Bible toting Klansmen who have violence on the brain. Of course they couldn't stop every killing, but they sure could have fun trying.
Because they're the least likely to realize true peace cannot be achieved until extreme versions of their kind are wiped off the map, is it a shame people of religion continue winning elections?
It seems to me that some sort of solution is required other than instructing everyone to forever walk on eggshells because religious fanatics may eventually learn of your actions and take it out on innocent bystanders. Now that America is in the habit of killing to prevent death, it stands to reason we'd at least discuss doing everything in our power to save human beings from brutal beheadings at the hands of angry mobsters who claim a book told them that shedding innocent blood is the best way to serve their god.
Is it a noble action to murder someone at 1500 Kandahar Lane to make sure the international aid worker at 1550 Kandahar Lane doesn't have to quickly draft an email to friends and family members in which he or she relays the following unfortunate information, "in response to a news story about a kooky American and his penchant for burning books with which he disagrees, an angry mob is outside my door brandishing weapons sharp enough to cut through the entirety of my neck. Hopefully they will kill me quickly, but precedent suggests otherwise. Goodbye."
Will there be a point when the world so tires of religious fanaticism that someone in a prominent position finally suggests we get medieval on their asses? Because, despite the fact that you've done nothing to offend them, that's exactly what they'd enjoy doing to yours.
Monopolizing Good
I find it fascinating that Christians in America have a monopoly on good. They hoard it. Because of at least one flaw, no other group can lay claim. With their silence, Muslim Americans praise terrorism. Atheists are rotten because without god in our life we have no way of knowing that it's wrong to murder and pillage. Jewish people are in second place, but that one flaw will always separate them.
America has come a long way in areas such as equal rights for women and minorities. While still not perfect, we're continually improving from eras during which unfathomable acts of cruelty were commonplace. Yet many in our country can't get over the antiquated notion that Christianity equals good and everything else equals bad.
Even if folks strictly learned goodness in Christian churches, they wouldn't have exclusive rights. Good is good. Good does not mean believing in certain words unrelated to moral action.
And a moral action isn't moral because a Methodist church is where a person was encouraged to take it.
In friendly debates, I have actually heard the faithful argue their god can't see acts of kindness committed by the non-faithful because a wall of disbelief blocks the deity's vision.
Not only does our good go unrecognized, the Pavlovian response to the "A-word" is one of fear.
Can you imagine the reaction to an event held specifically to raise funds that would later be used to spread atheism across the country? By most it would be compared to the Aryan Brotherhood renting out the local Holiday Inn, hiring a DJ and holding a dance contest to raise money that would later be used to tattoo toddlers so full of Nazi propaganda they could effectively be used as crawling billboards.
I know a lot of atheists and they're all great people. More atheists would mean more tolerance. An increase in atheists certainly wouldn't increase the rate of crime, yet many Americans would attempt to aggressively counter any planned expansion.
Though Christianity calls for discrimination of people who have done nothing wrong, I do not actively seek the tearing down of a single church and would not throw myself in front of a bulldozer clearing land on which the next mass center of worship is scheduled to be erected. Atheists call for the discrimination of no one, yet an attempt to grow the number of nonbelievers across America would undoubtedly be labeled "alarming to the fabric of our nation."
In a country with so many religious folks, I suppose it's only natural that nonjudgmental citizens are labeled ne'er-do-wells while those regularly instructed to look down upon the sinless have a monopoly on good.
America has come a long way in areas such as equal rights for women and minorities. While still not perfect, we're continually improving from eras during which unfathomable acts of cruelty were commonplace. Yet many in our country can't get over the antiquated notion that Christianity equals good and everything else equals bad.
Even if folks strictly learned goodness in Christian churches, they wouldn't have exclusive rights. Good is good. Good does not mean believing in certain words unrelated to moral action.
And a moral action isn't moral because a Methodist church is where a person was encouraged to take it.
In friendly debates, I have actually heard the faithful argue their god can't see acts of kindness committed by the non-faithful because a wall of disbelief blocks the deity's vision.
Not only does our good go unrecognized, the Pavlovian response to the "A-word" is one of fear.
Can you imagine the reaction to an event held specifically to raise funds that would later be used to spread atheism across the country? By most it would be compared to the Aryan Brotherhood renting out the local Holiday Inn, hiring a DJ and holding a dance contest to raise money that would later be used to tattoo toddlers so full of Nazi propaganda they could effectively be used as crawling billboards.
I know a lot of atheists and they're all great people. More atheists would mean more tolerance. An increase in atheists certainly wouldn't increase the rate of crime, yet many Americans would attempt to aggressively counter any planned expansion.
Though Christianity calls for discrimination of people who have done nothing wrong, I do not actively seek the tearing down of a single church and would not throw myself in front of a bulldozer clearing land on which the next mass center of worship is scheduled to be erected. Atheists call for the discrimination of no one, yet an attempt to grow the number of nonbelievers across America would undoubtedly be labeled "alarming to the fabric of our nation."
In a country with so many religious folks, I suppose it's only natural that nonjudgmental citizens are labeled ne'er-do-wells while those regularly instructed to look down upon the sinless have a monopoly on good.
Convert Yourself!
I recently began wondering if conservatives genuinely believe homosexuals can choose to whom they're attracted. I mean, there is no way even the staunchest Christian could think a fellow human being would declare, "I love women. I love their curves, their skin, the way their luscious booties wiggle and jiggle whilst they shake their 'groove thing' on the dance floor. At the beach, my skin has been burned many times while I gazed at perky women in skimpy bikinis. Despite this, I have intimate relations with men."
Exhaustive research, completed during American Idol commercials, reveals that most conservatives actually acknowledge the fact that homosexuals are attracted to their same-sex partners. However these Christians insist gay people should refrain from acting on their inherent desire because the act of love is a choice. In other words, while Rebecca may want to have sex with Gertrude, instead of committing the sinful act, Gert and Becky should spend a mellow evening repeatedly reading Bible verses which clearly inform them that, while the whipped cream currently atop the bare butt of Becky looks delicious, the protrusion of Gert's tongue would only be moral if Becky were a man and the two were joined in matrimony.
So basically, when conservatives speak about "converting homosexuals" they're talking about helping gays suppress their inherent attraction and perhaps assisting them in finding members of the opposite sex appealing.
But who's really in desperate need of conversion?
Homosexuals are naturally attracted to members of the same sex and therefore settle down with such a person, just as heterosexuals settle down with members of the opposite sex. Of course there are exceptions (the televangelist currently parading around your television) but most married Christian men didn't propose to the woman with whom they fell in love because the Bible contains zero verses telling them it's a sin. "I want to propose to my girlfriend and am reading the Bible to make sure it's okay. I just started on the Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy and so far my intentions are holy!"
In one way or another, most religious people persecute homosexuals based on words in a book science has largely disproved.
A frantic man runs into a heterosexual wedding ceremony carrying an ancient parable-filled book he claims to have been inspired by god. Words in said publication declare unequivocally that such a man/woman union is immoral. Inspired by the book, in which none of the attendees believe, the boisterous man attempts to convert the woman-in-white by screaming "You're a sinner!" while showing her pictures of Shakira sunbathing in her skivvies.
If we switch the frantic man with a Christian man, and the heterosexual couple with a homosexual couple, then people belonging to a certain religion all of a sudden go from saying, "That guy is totally nuts" to "That guy is doing the work of the Lord."
Christians hope the frantic man will eventually convert to their faith so he will stop irrationally speaking out against the wonderful institution of straight marriage because he read in an old book, Christians deem false, that such union is heresy and start rationally speaking out against the deplorable institution of gay marriage because he read in an old book, Christians deem true, that such union is heresy.
If we convert religious folks, however, then everyone who opposes loving couples from walking down the aisle will be considered kooky. And isn't the ideal conclusion one that leaves not a single person baselessly discriminating against his fellow man?
Exhaustive research, completed during American Idol commercials, reveals that most conservatives actually acknowledge the fact that homosexuals are attracted to their same-sex partners. However these Christians insist gay people should refrain from acting on their inherent desire because the act of love is a choice. In other words, while Rebecca may want to have sex with Gertrude, instead of committing the sinful act, Gert and Becky should spend a mellow evening repeatedly reading Bible verses which clearly inform them that, while the whipped cream currently atop the bare butt of Becky looks delicious, the protrusion of Gert's tongue would only be moral if Becky were a man and the two were joined in matrimony.
So basically, when conservatives speak about "converting homosexuals" they're talking about helping gays suppress their inherent attraction and perhaps assisting them in finding members of the opposite sex appealing.
But who's really in desperate need of conversion?
Homosexuals are naturally attracted to members of the same sex and therefore settle down with such a person, just as heterosexuals settle down with members of the opposite sex. Of course there are exceptions (the televangelist currently parading around your television) but most married Christian men didn't propose to the woman with whom they fell in love because the Bible contains zero verses telling them it's a sin. "I want to propose to my girlfriend and am reading the Bible to make sure it's okay. I just started on the Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy and so far my intentions are holy!"
In one way or another, most religious people persecute homosexuals based on words in a book science has largely disproved.
A frantic man runs into a heterosexual wedding ceremony carrying an ancient parable-filled book he claims to have been inspired by god. Words in said publication declare unequivocally that such a man/woman union is immoral. Inspired by the book, in which none of the attendees believe, the boisterous man attempts to convert the woman-in-white by screaming "You're a sinner!" while showing her pictures of Shakira sunbathing in her skivvies.
If we switch the frantic man with a Christian man, and the heterosexual couple with a homosexual couple, then people belonging to a certain religion all of a sudden go from saying, "That guy is totally nuts" to "That guy is doing the work of the Lord."
Christians hope the frantic man will eventually convert to their faith so he will stop irrationally speaking out against the wonderful institution of straight marriage because he read in an old book, Christians deem false, that such union is heresy and start rationally speaking out against the deplorable institution of gay marriage because he read in an old book, Christians deem true, that such union is heresy.
If we convert religious folks, however, then everyone who opposes loving couples from walking down the aisle will be considered kooky. And isn't the ideal conclusion one that leaves not a single person baselessly discriminating against his fellow man?
The Axis of Evil: Iran, North Korea and Sarah
America is currently waging four wars.
One in Iraq.
One in Afghanistan.
One in Libya.
One in America.
In Libya, America is fighting a brutal dictator. In Iraq, America is fighting religious zealots. In Afghanistan, America is fighting religious zealots. In America, America is fighting Americans the majority of other Americans consider anti-religious zealots.
I grant you, we atheists aren't gathered together in a bomb shelter awaiting the next wave of missiles; rather we're sitting in our homes awaiting the next Fox News story on how horrible we are for expressing frustration over the fact that our supposedly secular government bases laws on the Bible. Some Fox News personalities declare our refusal to sit idly by while the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is spat upon was the catalyst for war, i.e., America is acting in self defense.
Conservatives constantly lament that they're vilified by the left. "Well golly-gee-shucks, why do liberals call for our heads on a platter when all we want is limited government?"
I would ask them, "Why do you vilify atheists when all we want is to live in a land where laws are based on reason? Why do you accuse us of attempting to ruin the kid-centric holiday of Christmas - insinuating our motives are purely rotten - when all we want is nativity scenes moved from public courthouses to private front lawns."
Liberals vilify conservatives. Conservatives vilify liberals. Christian conservatives vilify atheists. Atheists vilify... Wait, who do we vilify? There must be at least one group of people we vilify. Think, Sarah, think. We often speak out against faithful folks who refuse to "live and let live." But asking that they take down overtly religious works on public land doesn't exactly constitute "vilifying." Come on Sarah, use your brain! After revealing their opinion, whose lips do I wish to see sewn shut in a ritualistic ceremony so horrific it would make producers of the Saw franchise say, "Damn!"? Wow, no one comes to mind. It appears as if I only desire to reside in a country whose leaders don't make asinine statements like, "The mass displaying of rules and regulations taught by the holy book I choose to follow in no way 'establishes a religion.'"
It appears I simply wish that people who belong to the religion practiced by the majority of my fellow countrypersons say, "We're going to honor the wishes of the great Thomas Jefferson by building a wall between church and state." After all, does abiding by the words of our third president hinder in any way your ability to practice whichever religion you deem true?
Instead you verbally attack us for undermining "American values" while simultaneously expressing outrage over the fact that your political adversaries accuse you of despising the poor, an argument you claim has no merit.
In other words, you can dish it out but you can't take it.
Now I must sign off; I need to start getting ready for the Axis of Evil Spring Formal. Let me tell you, it's very difficult finding an outfit that, A. won't give Kim Jong-Il the wrong idea, B. is super-sexy, and C. makes it impossible for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to see my face.
One in Iraq.
One in Afghanistan.
One in Libya.
One in America.
In Libya, America is fighting a brutal dictator. In Iraq, America is fighting religious zealots. In Afghanistan, America is fighting religious zealots. In America, America is fighting Americans the majority of other Americans consider anti-religious zealots.
I grant you, we atheists aren't gathered together in a bomb shelter awaiting the next wave of missiles; rather we're sitting in our homes awaiting the next Fox News story on how horrible we are for expressing frustration over the fact that our supposedly secular government bases laws on the Bible. Some Fox News personalities declare our refusal to sit idly by while the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is spat upon was the catalyst for war, i.e., America is acting in self defense.
Conservatives constantly lament that they're vilified by the left. "Well golly-gee-shucks, why do liberals call for our heads on a platter when all we want is limited government?"
I would ask them, "Why do you vilify atheists when all we want is to live in a land where laws are based on reason? Why do you accuse us of attempting to ruin the kid-centric holiday of Christmas - insinuating our motives are purely rotten - when all we want is nativity scenes moved from public courthouses to private front lawns."
Liberals vilify conservatives. Conservatives vilify liberals. Christian conservatives vilify atheists. Atheists vilify... Wait, who do we vilify? There must be at least one group of people we vilify. Think, Sarah, think. We often speak out against faithful folks who refuse to "live and let live." But asking that they take down overtly religious works on public land doesn't exactly constitute "vilifying." Come on Sarah, use your brain! After revealing their opinion, whose lips do I wish to see sewn shut in a ritualistic ceremony so horrific it would make producers of the Saw franchise say, "Damn!"? Wow, no one comes to mind. It appears as if I only desire to reside in a country whose leaders don't make asinine statements like, "The mass displaying of rules and regulations taught by the holy book I choose to follow in no way 'establishes a religion.'"
It appears I simply wish that people who belong to the religion practiced by the majority of my fellow countrypersons say, "We're going to honor the wishes of the great Thomas Jefferson by building a wall between church and state." After all, does abiding by the words of our third president hinder in any way your ability to practice whichever religion you deem true?
Instead you verbally attack us for undermining "American values" while simultaneously expressing outrage over the fact that your political adversaries accuse you of despising the poor, an argument you claim has no merit.
In other words, you can dish it out but you can't take it.
Now I must sign off; I need to start getting ready for the Axis of Evil Spring Formal. Let me tell you, it's very difficult finding an outfit that, A. won't give Kim Jong-Il the wrong idea, B. is super-sexy, and C. makes it impossible for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to see my face.
Should I Show You a Picture?
Our blood boils every time we see still or moving images of Middle Eastern stonings carried out by villagers claiming their religion makes it clear the deviant actions of the condemned left the townspeople no other choice.
Sadly we see gruesome still photographs, and sometimes video, far too often. It makes us think, "How could anyone believe such a deplorable act is the right thing to do?"
The sad fact, however, is that folks of many different religions have throughout history claimed their holy books instructed them to brutally murder those who performed harmless actions or committed petty transgressions.
If you all of a sudden believed in the teachings of Islam, yet continued to find violence abhorrent, would you join the Taliban five years from now with assurance from the supreme leader that they no longer interpreted the Koran to mean the stoning of homosexuals was righteous and instead simply chose to nonviolently discriminate against everyone who acts on their inherent attraction to members of the same sex? Would you join the "Nouveau Taliban" if their actions truly made it seem as if they belonged to the "religion of peace"?
I ask anyone belonging to a modern religion that adheres to a book which details past unimaginably cruelties; would it take regularly looking at pictures of such atrocities for them to hit home. If you constantly perused images of the resulting carnage, would it be more difficult for you to "get past all that."
Would it help to have a television network dramatizing deplorable acts depicted in your religious works as well as air actual video of modern day punishments carried out by monsters claiming their god makes it clear a brutal execution must be carried out against the young girl for the sin of being sexually abused by filthy men whose deed will go unpunished?
We often hear, "Holy books aren't factual and the atrocities documented didn't necessarily occur." I'm sure knowing his fellow villagers are hurling stones at his head because of a fictional story makes the very real man in the very real hole feel a lot better about his situation.
If visual reminders don't do the trick, the least people of every religion could do is strip their holy books of unspeakable cruelty. Just take out all stories and instructions that could be used to justify or encourage brutal punishments. Obviously we can't rely on hope that, "people will have enough sense to refrain from taking action based on these stories, which, while horrific, aren't meant to be interpreted literally."
Just think of how much senseless violence you could prevent. You have no proof your books are accurate and therefore isn't it better to play it safe over risking millions of human lives, especially considering the fact that, when recruiting, you only highlight the good parts.
If these updated holy books were passed down from generation to generation, eventually no one would recall passages that could be used to justify brutalizing the innocent.
No more, "If you read chapter five, verse seven of such-and-such book you'll find I'm required to hang these young homosexuals," if chapter five, verse seven of such-and-such book doesn't exist.
Actually, we could save the entire works in museums. When asked about, religious elders could tell up and coming followers, "In the dark ages people believed these writings instructed them to brutally punish those who had done nothing wrong, but thankfully we came to the realization that actual works of god would never promote such cruelty."
Arguing over nativity scenes and religious-based laws is one thing, seeing blood of the young and innocent shed based on fictional tales reminds me exactly how serious our differences are. It's especially frustrating knowing that no one who shares my beliefs could fathom justifying such brutality. It's very easy for me to understand slaughtering the innocent is wrong, as is promoting books that could be interpreted to encourage such behavior. Yet, because there are so many religious people across the globe, I'm in the minority. Accepting the fact that I posses the extremely rare ability of differentiating right from wrong is difficult when the consequences are so high.
Sadly we see gruesome still photographs, and sometimes video, far too often. It makes us think, "How could anyone believe such a deplorable act is the right thing to do?"
The sad fact, however, is that folks of many different religions have throughout history claimed their holy books instructed them to brutally murder those who performed harmless actions or committed petty transgressions.
If you all of a sudden believed in the teachings of Islam, yet continued to find violence abhorrent, would you join the Taliban five years from now with assurance from the supreme leader that they no longer interpreted the Koran to mean the stoning of homosexuals was righteous and instead simply chose to nonviolently discriminate against everyone who acts on their inherent attraction to members of the same sex? Would you join the "Nouveau Taliban" if their actions truly made it seem as if they belonged to the "religion of peace"?
I ask anyone belonging to a modern religion that adheres to a book which details past unimaginably cruelties; would it take regularly looking at pictures of such atrocities for them to hit home. If you constantly perused images of the resulting carnage, would it be more difficult for you to "get past all that."
Would it help to have a television network dramatizing deplorable acts depicted in your religious works as well as air actual video of modern day punishments carried out by monsters claiming their god makes it clear a brutal execution must be carried out against the young girl for the sin of being sexually abused by filthy men whose deed will go unpunished?
We often hear, "Holy books aren't factual and the atrocities documented didn't necessarily occur." I'm sure knowing his fellow villagers are hurling stones at his head because of a fictional story makes the very real man in the very real hole feel a lot better about his situation.
If visual reminders don't do the trick, the least people of every religion could do is strip their holy books of unspeakable cruelty. Just take out all stories and instructions that could be used to justify or encourage brutal punishments. Obviously we can't rely on hope that, "people will have enough sense to refrain from taking action based on these stories, which, while horrific, aren't meant to be interpreted literally."
Just think of how much senseless violence you could prevent. You have no proof your books are accurate and therefore isn't it better to play it safe over risking millions of human lives, especially considering the fact that, when recruiting, you only highlight the good parts.
If these updated holy books were passed down from generation to generation, eventually no one would recall passages that could be used to justify brutalizing the innocent.
No more, "If you read chapter five, verse seven of such-and-such book you'll find I'm required to hang these young homosexuals," if chapter five, verse seven of such-and-such book doesn't exist.
Actually, we could save the entire works in museums. When asked about, religious elders could tell up and coming followers, "In the dark ages people believed these writings instructed them to brutally punish those who had done nothing wrong, but thankfully we came to the realization that actual works of god would never promote such cruelty."
Arguing over nativity scenes and religious-based laws is one thing, seeing blood of the young and innocent shed based on fictional tales reminds me exactly how serious our differences are. It's especially frustrating knowing that no one who shares my beliefs could fathom justifying such brutality. It's very easy for me to understand slaughtering the innocent is wrong, as is promoting books that could be interpreted to encourage such behavior. Yet, because there are so many religious people across the globe, I'm in the minority. Accepting the fact that I posses the extremely rare ability of differentiating right from wrong is difficult when the consequences are so high.
Outlawing Same-Sex Marriage
When arguing with proponents of gay marriage, many Christians claim, "If we allow gays to marry, we must then permit all kinds of crazy weddings. A man can marry forty women, his pet goat, a doorknob, or a perky blonde blow up doll he's nicknamed 'Hootie' because Only Wanna Be With You was playing during their first intimate encounter. No more asking fellow wedding invitees 'Are you a friend of the bride or groom?' We must begin asking, 'Are you a friend of the groom or were you involved in the production of the rubber that now constitutes the bride's buttocks?'" Then the gay marriage antagonist smiles and nods as if he or she has just presented an argument so persuasive that gay marriage backers in every corner of the country somehow sense their cause is rapidly crumbling.
If they're going to argue that legalizing gay marriage would open the floodgates to all kinds of oddball weddings, I'll retort by suggesting we needn't cease progression, rather we should regress, i.e., the government should immediately stop recognizing opposite-sex marriages. Of course Uncle Sam couldn't prevent persons from carrying out private ceremonies of a religious nature, but having a preacher preside over your wedding wouldn't earn you a single tax break because the IRS will consider everyone single for, "as long as they alone shall live."
Why do conservatives, who say that marriage is not a right, have the right to marry someone with opposing genitalia? Before opposite-sex marriage became legal, a heterosexual marriage opponent could have easily said, "Once we allow men and women to marry, we'll have to let homosexuals marry, then we'll have to grant licenses to men who've fallen in love with their snow blower because they find a little danger keeps romance interesting."
I'm not a big marcher, but would proudly walk up and down many blocks in an attempt to make null and void heterosexual marriage. Boy would I love to tell gay-marriage-opposing-religious-heterosexual-newlyweds that they're now just shacking up.
"Sorry," I would say to what we formerly considered, "the wife," faking sincerity. "But since you reside in the same dwelling it's not like you'll be forced to recreate the 'walk of shame' you made famous during your college years under the guise you were trying to find yourself."
Two people have the desire to get married. It's okay if one is a man and the other is a woman. It's not okay if one is a man and the other is a man.
Why?
Religion.
If the Bible said, "A man is encouraged to lie with a man as he lies with a woman," gay marriage would be legal in the United States.
Because the Bible declares such action a sin, gay marriage is outlawed in our great but still flawed country.
That is not honoring the separation of church and state.
It's as black and white as the pages inside Bibles perused by most lawmakers before they draft legislation that impacts everyone.
If they're going to argue that legalizing gay marriage would open the floodgates to all kinds of oddball weddings, I'll retort by suggesting we needn't cease progression, rather we should regress, i.e., the government should immediately stop recognizing opposite-sex marriages. Of course Uncle Sam couldn't prevent persons from carrying out private ceremonies of a religious nature, but having a preacher preside over your wedding wouldn't earn you a single tax break because the IRS will consider everyone single for, "as long as they alone shall live."
Why do conservatives, who say that marriage is not a right, have the right to marry someone with opposing genitalia? Before opposite-sex marriage became legal, a heterosexual marriage opponent could have easily said, "Once we allow men and women to marry, we'll have to let homosexuals marry, then we'll have to grant licenses to men who've fallen in love with their snow blower because they find a little danger keeps romance interesting."
I'm not a big marcher, but would proudly walk up and down many blocks in an attempt to make null and void heterosexual marriage. Boy would I love to tell gay-marriage-opposing-religious-heterosexual-newlyweds that they're now just shacking up.
"Sorry," I would say to what we formerly considered, "the wife," faking sincerity. "But since you reside in the same dwelling it's not like you'll be forced to recreate the 'walk of shame' you made famous during your college years under the guise you were trying to find yourself."
Two people have the desire to get married. It's okay if one is a man and the other is a woman. It's not okay if one is a man and the other is a man.
Why?
Religion.
If the Bible said, "A man is encouraged to lie with a man as he lies with a woman," gay marriage would be legal in the United States.
Because the Bible declares such action a sin, gay marriage is outlawed in our great but still flawed country.
That is not honoring the separation of church and state.
It's as black and white as the pages inside Bibles perused by most lawmakers before they draft legislation that impacts everyone.
We Could Be Living in a Huckabee World and I Am Not a Huckabee Girl
Those on the right claim President Barack Obama is radically transforming the United States of America. If Preacher Huckabee ever becomes President Huckabee, look out for some radical transformation religious-style!
The former Arkansas Governor recently said Natalie Portman's pregnancy was "troubling" because she and the father have thus far failed to walk down the aisle. By accepting an Oscar expecting, she is glamorizing out-of-wedlock pregnancy, he claims.
So Mr. Huckabee, you're upset she put on a beautiful dress and a nice pair of earrings for the Oscars? Had she donned sweats and a torn t-shirt, would you be fine with her condition? Would you applaud her for making it seem as if out-of-wedlock pregnancy leads to inappropriate frumpiness?
The former Arkansas governor then recited stats he finds alarming regarding the number of babies born to unwed mothers and somehow tied his criticism to economics. He made the connection because he's too cowardly to say, "My religion teaches that sex without rings is a sin and everyone should follow my religion. If they don't they are immoral."
Either it's about economics or it's about sin. Ms. Portman after all, the target of his criticism, is completely capable of supporting a child as well as every orphan in California.
If it was about economics, Mr. Huckabee would say, "Those without the financial means to support a child should refrain from giving birth until they are able to adequately provide."
The bottom line is that Mr. Huckabee wants everyone to live by the teaching of his religion regardless of economics. If you're married and have no money, Mr. Huckabee doesn't have any problem with you birthing a child. If you elect not to marry, or even own a calendar that highlights your future wedding day, and have enough money to visit Starbucks thrice daily, Mr. Huckabee has big issues.
Is Mr. Huckabee really concerned about impressionable women with limited resources witnessing Ms. Portman glamorizing single-motherhood? As a result of her Oscar win, is he worried these downtrodden ladies will all of a sudden choose to have babies of their own? If that's the case, I suppose Mr. Huckabee would prefer Ms. Portman refrain from any costly action her less affluent fans might mimic. Would he tell her, "One of your most ardent supporters could possibly make a reservation at Nobu in Malibu. While you credit card has plenty of room to take care of the meal as well as a generous tip, the financially strapped fan may get the check, realize his or her wallet is too light to pay for every sushi roll they consumed and therefore run for the hills, so quickly instruct your limo driver to turn the car around and head straight for the Subway sandwich shop in El Segundo where it would be in the best interest of society if you ordered a six-inch foot-long on wheat bread alongside a bag of Baked Lays."?
By disgustedly informing the audience exactly how many children are born out-of-wedlock by ethnicity, Mr. Huckabee is attempting to convince the masses that all babies born to single parents will be raised by drug addicted welfare recipients who can't possibly provide homes suitable for children. In reality, many of these births are by women in committed relationships, or by single women who choose to have kids because they earn an ample salary and have oodles of both peer and family support. And you don't necessarily need millions to provide a loving home.
If you were to ask him, "Do Natalie Portman and her partner have the financial means with which to raise a child?" Mr. Huckabee would be forced to respond with a convincing, "yes."
So, other than the fact that Ms. Portman is not living in accordance with the teachings of your religion, what's this "trouble" about which you speak?
The former Arkansas Governor recently said Natalie Portman's pregnancy was "troubling" because she and the father have thus far failed to walk down the aisle. By accepting an Oscar expecting, she is glamorizing out-of-wedlock pregnancy, he claims.
So Mr. Huckabee, you're upset she put on a beautiful dress and a nice pair of earrings for the Oscars? Had she donned sweats and a torn t-shirt, would you be fine with her condition? Would you applaud her for making it seem as if out-of-wedlock pregnancy leads to inappropriate frumpiness?
The former Arkansas governor then recited stats he finds alarming regarding the number of babies born to unwed mothers and somehow tied his criticism to economics. He made the connection because he's too cowardly to say, "My religion teaches that sex without rings is a sin and everyone should follow my religion. If they don't they are immoral."
Either it's about economics or it's about sin. Ms. Portman after all, the target of his criticism, is completely capable of supporting a child as well as every orphan in California.
If it was about economics, Mr. Huckabee would say, "Those without the financial means to support a child should refrain from giving birth until they are able to adequately provide."
The bottom line is that Mr. Huckabee wants everyone to live by the teaching of his religion regardless of economics. If you're married and have no money, Mr. Huckabee doesn't have any problem with you birthing a child. If you elect not to marry, or even own a calendar that highlights your future wedding day, and have enough money to visit Starbucks thrice daily, Mr. Huckabee has big issues.
Is Mr. Huckabee really concerned about impressionable women with limited resources witnessing Ms. Portman glamorizing single-motherhood? As a result of her Oscar win, is he worried these downtrodden ladies will all of a sudden choose to have babies of their own? If that's the case, I suppose Mr. Huckabee would prefer Ms. Portman refrain from any costly action her less affluent fans might mimic. Would he tell her, "One of your most ardent supporters could possibly make a reservation at Nobu in Malibu. While you credit card has plenty of room to take care of the meal as well as a generous tip, the financially strapped fan may get the check, realize his or her wallet is too light to pay for every sushi roll they consumed and therefore run for the hills, so quickly instruct your limo driver to turn the car around and head straight for the Subway sandwich shop in El Segundo where it would be in the best interest of society if you ordered a six-inch foot-long on wheat bread alongside a bag of Baked Lays."?
By disgustedly informing the audience exactly how many children are born out-of-wedlock by ethnicity, Mr. Huckabee is attempting to convince the masses that all babies born to single parents will be raised by drug addicted welfare recipients who can't possibly provide homes suitable for children. In reality, many of these births are by women in committed relationships, or by single women who choose to have kids because they earn an ample salary and have oodles of both peer and family support. And you don't necessarily need millions to provide a loving home.
If you were to ask him, "Do Natalie Portman and her partner have the financial means with which to raise a child?" Mr. Huckabee would be forced to respond with a convincing, "yes."
So, other than the fact that Ms. Portman is not living in accordance with the teachings of your religion, what's this "trouble" about which you speak?
Admiring the Honor Code
I recently noticed a popular search engine was displaying, "BYU Honor Code" as a trending topic. Realizing millions of people likely didn't wake up and coincidentally ask themselves, "I wonder what rules students of BYU must follow in order to remain in good standing," I conducted a little investigation.
Turns out a rather adroit BYU basketball player was suspended from the team for breaking the code. An Honor Code board is to decide if the young man will be allowed to remain a student at the esteemed university.
The BYU Honor Code states that students must...
Be honest
Live a chaste and virtuous life
Obey the law and all campus policies
Use clean language
Respect others
Abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee and substance abuse
Participate regularly in church services
Observe the Dress and Grooming Standards
Encourage others in their commitment to comply with the Honor Code
First of all, I have no problem with the honor code or the students who agree to live their life in accordance. People should be free to start or join any group they want with whatever rules they want as long as they don't hurt anybody. In America, both group-starting and group-joining are thankfully voluntary.
However, in researching the story, I discovered that a great many sports journalists claimed to respect BYU administrators for strictly enforcing the code. "They sacrificed basketball wins for morality. For braving certain backlash from our sports obsessed society, I say kudos," the sports writers pompously said.
Really?
A few of the Honor Code demands I can understand, but why would any rational person have respect for individuals who punish college students for the crime of breaking random rules? And how can abiding by these random rules be admired by anyone except people involved in the group?
If a club declared petting puppies was grounds for immediate expulsion, would sports writers applaud every member who managed to keep their petting-hand away from all collies, spaniels, pinschers and pointers?
Would they say, "I can't understand why anyone would join a club in which puppy-petting is forbidden, but I can and do admire members for walking by every 'Fido' they encounter and suppressing their inherent desire to extend a friendly hand and say, 'Come here, boy! Who's a good boy!? Are you a good boy!?' That takes real courage."?
Why exactly is it noble to refrain from non-sinful actions?
I suppose religiously inspired rules that don't serve practical purposes are considered noble because that's what the majority of our elders have always taught us. After all, not until 1973 did the American Psychiatric Association stop listing homosexuality as a mental disorder. That means, in 1972, instead of just being ashamed, parents could justifiably respond to the revelation that their child was gay by pinning him or her down and then forcibly dressing them in a straight jacket. While the BYU Honor Code doesn't specifically reference homosexual behavior, I have a strong feeling school administrators would strenuously frown upon a pair of basketball players whose pre-game ritual included twenty-minutes of sucking each others face. In fact, BYU administrators would likely kick the student-athletes off the team for not acting in a virtuous manner.
And if a desperately thirsty BYU player gets kicked off the basketball team for consuming a Diet Snapple Peach Green Tea, which are fabulous by the way, because his faucet was producing a sludgy brown substance, would these same sports writers rise and applaud. "Way to stand up for your anti-tea beliefs! I don't understand them, but I admire you for making sure, if another player finds himself in a similar situation, he'll either drink the sludge or become dangerously dehydrated, because that's what god would want."
Turns out a rather adroit BYU basketball player was suspended from the team for breaking the code. An Honor Code board is to decide if the young man will be allowed to remain a student at the esteemed university.
The BYU Honor Code states that students must...
Be honest
Live a chaste and virtuous life
Obey the law and all campus policies
Use clean language
Respect others
Abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee and substance abuse
Participate regularly in church services
Observe the Dress and Grooming Standards
Encourage others in their commitment to comply with the Honor Code
First of all, I have no problem with the honor code or the students who agree to live their life in accordance. People should be free to start or join any group they want with whatever rules they want as long as they don't hurt anybody. In America, both group-starting and group-joining are thankfully voluntary.
However, in researching the story, I discovered that a great many sports journalists claimed to respect BYU administrators for strictly enforcing the code. "They sacrificed basketball wins for morality. For braving certain backlash from our sports obsessed society, I say kudos," the sports writers pompously said.
Really?
A few of the Honor Code demands I can understand, but why would any rational person have respect for individuals who punish college students for the crime of breaking random rules? And how can abiding by these random rules be admired by anyone except people involved in the group?
If a club declared petting puppies was grounds for immediate expulsion, would sports writers applaud every member who managed to keep their petting-hand away from all collies, spaniels, pinschers and pointers?
Would they say, "I can't understand why anyone would join a club in which puppy-petting is forbidden, but I can and do admire members for walking by every 'Fido' they encounter and suppressing their inherent desire to extend a friendly hand and say, 'Come here, boy! Who's a good boy!? Are you a good boy!?' That takes real courage."?
Why exactly is it noble to refrain from non-sinful actions?
I suppose religiously inspired rules that don't serve practical purposes are considered noble because that's what the majority of our elders have always taught us. After all, not until 1973 did the American Psychiatric Association stop listing homosexuality as a mental disorder. That means, in 1972, instead of just being ashamed, parents could justifiably respond to the revelation that their child was gay by pinning him or her down and then forcibly dressing them in a straight jacket. While the BYU Honor Code doesn't specifically reference homosexual behavior, I have a strong feeling school administrators would strenuously frown upon a pair of basketball players whose pre-game ritual included twenty-minutes of sucking each others face. In fact, BYU administrators would likely kick the student-athletes off the team for not acting in a virtuous manner.
And if a desperately thirsty BYU player gets kicked off the basketball team for consuming a Diet Snapple Peach Green Tea, which are fabulous by the way, because his faucet was producing a sludgy brown substance, would these same sports writers rise and applaud. "Way to stand up for your anti-tea beliefs! I don't understand them, but I admire you for making sure, if another player finds himself in a similar situation, he'll either drink the sludge or become dangerously dehydrated, because that's what god would want."
An Insane Argument
Picture the kindest, most generous woman in your church. I'm talking about the lady who constantly puts the needs of others above her own. The woman who cooks for hurting families, volunteers her time to assist those suffering from addiction, and can always be counted on to simply lend an ear when a fellow parishioner is suffering from a seemingly trivial dilemma. Let's call this woman, Mrs. Lovelady.
Now picture the heavily made-up woman who sits in the exact same pew each week. She tries to treat you with respect, but is unable to hide her contempt while chatting with you and your ordinary family during the post-church meet and greet. Typically people like you silently paint her kitchen while she converses with her Prada clad peers, thus making it difficult for her to speak to you as an equal, even at church, where overt discrimination based on social status is outwardly frowned upon. We'll call her, Mrs. Snoot.
Now pretend Mrs. Lovelady stops believing.
Since many religions insist good deeds are meaningless unless performed with the express purpose of pleasing their specific deity, Mrs. Lovelady immediately goes from a "good Christian woman" to a "heathen woman." This radical transformation occurs simply because of the thoughts pulsating through her brain.
"I tell my daughter Suzy that you're the person I most want her to emulate as she progresses into womanhood," a parishioner informs Mrs. Lovelady.
"While I will always lend a hand to assist persons of all religions in times of tumult, I am no longer certain I believe in the teachings of the church," Mrs. Lovelady meekly replies, worried she will be shunned by her dearest friends.
"Suzy, avert your eyes before you both float to hell in a sea of wickedness!"
How does one argue against such nonsense!?
They're saying Mrs. Snoot, a lady best described by a word that rhymes with "witch", is looked upon more favorably by their deity than the kindest woman they know.
In one second, she loses it all.
And Mrs. Lovelady doesn't even have to stop completely believing to be considered yet another individual who has succumbed to evil. It's not sufficient for her to be certain there is a god and that he or she is just, rather the kind woman must believe in very specific details that have absolutely nothing to do with good and evil.
If you hadn't been taught your specific religion was the one true belief system since the day you were born, can you honestly say any of the above makes rational sense!?
On the other hand, if the scenario does come true and your beliefs happen to be 100% accurate, the good thing for me is that I'll be lucky enough to spend eternity cheerfully chatting with Mrs. Lovelady while for eons you'll receive the cold shoulder from Mrs. Snoot.
If she hires you to fix her personal pearly gates, inside the main pearly gates, please tell her "hi" from below. It will be the location from where the loud music and boisterous laughter emanates.
Now picture the heavily made-up woman who sits in the exact same pew each week. She tries to treat you with respect, but is unable to hide her contempt while chatting with you and your ordinary family during the post-church meet and greet. Typically people like you silently paint her kitchen while she converses with her Prada clad peers, thus making it difficult for her to speak to you as an equal, even at church, where overt discrimination based on social status is outwardly frowned upon. We'll call her, Mrs. Snoot.
Now pretend Mrs. Lovelady stops believing.
Since many religions insist good deeds are meaningless unless performed with the express purpose of pleasing their specific deity, Mrs. Lovelady immediately goes from a "good Christian woman" to a "heathen woman." This radical transformation occurs simply because of the thoughts pulsating through her brain.
"I tell my daughter Suzy that you're the person I most want her to emulate as she progresses into womanhood," a parishioner informs Mrs. Lovelady.
"While I will always lend a hand to assist persons of all religions in times of tumult, I am no longer certain I believe in the teachings of the church," Mrs. Lovelady meekly replies, worried she will be shunned by her dearest friends.
"Suzy, avert your eyes before you both float to hell in a sea of wickedness!"
How does one argue against such nonsense!?
They're saying Mrs. Snoot, a lady best described by a word that rhymes with "witch", is looked upon more favorably by their deity than the kindest woman they know.
In one second, she loses it all.
And Mrs. Lovelady doesn't even have to stop completely believing to be considered yet another individual who has succumbed to evil. It's not sufficient for her to be certain there is a god and that he or she is just, rather the kind woman must believe in very specific details that have absolutely nothing to do with good and evil.
If you hadn't been taught your specific religion was the one true belief system since the day you were born, can you honestly say any of the above makes rational sense!?
On the other hand, if the scenario does come true and your beliefs happen to be 100% accurate, the good thing for me is that I'll be lucky enough to spend eternity cheerfully chatting with Mrs. Lovelady while for eons you'll receive the cold shoulder from Mrs. Snoot.
If she hires you to fix her personal pearly gates, inside the main pearly gates, please tell her "hi" from below. It will be the location from where the loud music and boisterous laughter emanates.
Doing More Harm than Good
Throughout history, after weighing the good against the bad, can anyone claim organized religion has had a positive impact on our world? To this day, the murders of individuals by brutal theocracies still occur. These killings are labeled punishment for acts a person completely ignorant of religion wouldn't possibly consider a crime.
Of course churches around the free world perform deeds of a charitable nature, but the overhead involved with running a religious institution has actually reduced the number of dollars and goods going to folks who desperately need them. I'm not diminishing the charitable acts; I would simply rather see additional full-bellied children in impoverished areas than finely detailed craftsmanship in the doorknob of the Baptist church I just drove past.
They say religion is about faith. It pleases god that you have enough faith in him to assume he'd want you to be involved in an organization that has historically harmed humanity and currently puts the superficial wants of its well-to-do parishioners over the needs of the downtrodden? "Did you get a whiff of our new leather bound hymnals? We were only able to feed half the children at the shelter because of their exorbitant cost, but I'm sure knowledge a pleasurable aroma wafts through our church as we sing 'Go Tell It on the Mountain' will fulfill those hungry tykes much more than a hot meal ever could. Give a starving child food and he will feel full for mere hours, tell him how elegant our Sunday service is and his spiritual gullet will never remain empty."
After a disaster, who would you rather have helping: a charitable group whose leader instructs, "Make sure a kid is safe, feed him or her, and then quickly move on," or a religious leader who instructs, "Make sure a kid is safe and then feed him or her. While they chow down for the first time in days, talk up the Old Testament. Answer any questions they may have about Deuteronomy. In their current state, they'll be even more confused by the concept of a Triune God so don't harp on the topic. Before you move on, give them a flyer promoting our Wednesday night youth service. Really emphasize the fact that our band mixes traditional hymns with pop-rock and our drummer used to have long hair."
The harm done by organized religion isn't restricted to brutality. Even when presented with the possibility of freedom, those who've lived under strict religious rule are unable to hop out of their cages. "Come on out. You can do it! Away from these walls you can abide by your holy book with equal vigor. Freedom just means changing your mind won't result in the death penalty and you'll be spared harsh punishment should you commit acts which were considered crimes under your former leader. There is literally no downside! Though law no longer forces them to abide by your every demented demand, you can even converse with uncovered women who aren't your relatives. You may even find a few attractive, both in appearance and in spirit, wouldn't that be nice... Wait, where are you going!? You don't have to talk to women!"
What causes a government to execute teenagers accused of experimenting with homosexuality?
Organized religion.
What causes a man to turn his back on a facially uncovered woman?
Organized religion.
What causes a father to murder his daughters for the crime of becoming too westernized?
Organized religion.
If you're right in your basic belief that a god exists and will judge all, once you reach those pearly gates and he asks, "You lived your life in strict accordance with rules drafted by an..." will you feel comfortable answering...
"Organized religion."
Of course churches around the free world perform deeds of a charitable nature, but the overhead involved with running a religious institution has actually reduced the number of dollars and goods going to folks who desperately need them. I'm not diminishing the charitable acts; I would simply rather see additional full-bellied children in impoverished areas than finely detailed craftsmanship in the doorknob of the Baptist church I just drove past.
They say religion is about faith. It pleases god that you have enough faith in him to assume he'd want you to be involved in an organization that has historically harmed humanity and currently puts the superficial wants of its well-to-do parishioners over the needs of the downtrodden? "Did you get a whiff of our new leather bound hymnals? We were only able to feed half the children at the shelter because of their exorbitant cost, but I'm sure knowledge a pleasurable aroma wafts through our church as we sing 'Go Tell It on the Mountain' will fulfill those hungry tykes much more than a hot meal ever could. Give a starving child food and he will feel full for mere hours, tell him how elegant our Sunday service is and his spiritual gullet will never remain empty."
After a disaster, who would you rather have helping: a charitable group whose leader instructs, "Make sure a kid is safe, feed him or her, and then quickly move on," or a religious leader who instructs, "Make sure a kid is safe and then feed him or her. While they chow down for the first time in days, talk up the Old Testament. Answer any questions they may have about Deuteronomy. In their current state, they'll be even more confused by the concept of a Triune God so don't harp on the topic. Before you move on, give them a flyer promoting our Wednesday night youth service. Really emphasize the fact that our band mixes traditional hymns with pop-rock and our drummer used to have long hair."
The harm done by organized religion isn't restricted to brutality. Even when presented with the possibility of freedom, those who've lived under strict religious rule are unable to hop out of their cages. "Come on out. You can do it! Away from these walls you can abide by your holy book with equal vigor. Freedom just means changing your mind won't result in the death penalty and you'll be spared harsh punishment should you commit acts which were considered crimes under your former leader. There is literally no downside! Though law no longer forces them to abide by your every demented demand, you can even converse with uncovered women who aren't your relatives. You may even find a few attractive, both in appearance and in spirit, wouldn't that be nice... Wait, where are you going!? You don't have to talk to women!"
What causes a government to execute teenagers accused of experimenting with homosexuality?
Organized religion.
What causes a man to turn his back on a facially uncovered woman?
Organized religion.
What causes a father to murder his daughters for the crime of becoming too westernized?
Organized religion.
If you're right in your basic belief that a god exists and will judge all, once you reach those pearly gates and he asks, "You lived your life in strict accordance with rules drafted by an..." will you feel comfortable answering...
"Organized religion."
It's Finally Time to Ban Religion
Normally I'm a big backer of freedom. Sometimes I'm shocked at how much I have in common with Ayn Rand types who want the Christian-dominated U.S. Government out of our lives.
I don't have a problem with anyone sitting in their basement seething with anger over the fact that certain people don't share their faith. If people want to believe in a specific religion, fine.
At least that's what I used to think.
But it's become increasingly clear that the only way to ensure peace on earth is to ban all organized religion. I suppose I've seen one too many headlines such as, "Teen Girl Dies Receiving Lashes as Punishment for Being Raped."
If every religious person is forced to refrain from assembling with like-minded individuals, fanatical theocracies that carry out inhumane punishments would cease to exist. Not to mention the fact that violent acts which kill scores would undoubtedly decrease.
The one religion currently blamed for doing extensive damage hasn't always been the main culprit. Go back a few hundred years and you'll find it was another religion. Go back even further and you'll find it was... you guessed it.
In other words, I'm not calling out a specific religion; I'm saying we must get rid of them all to ensure the safety of ourselves as well as future generations.
Think of mass killings and then think about their root. Cancel out tragedies spurred by organized religion and we've got ourselves a fairly peaceful history.
Of course this piece was primarily written out of frustration. I don't actually want liberty limited. In fact I would like to see it expanded in every land. I'm very grateful to reside in a country where I can write a blog such as this and my face will not end up on a poster printed by Human Rights Watch which they created for the express purpose of reminding everyone on the planet that brutal stonings are still carried out against individuals whose actions have failed to harm a fellow human being.
Since this piece is a tad on the dark side, I'll conclude with a joke.
Why didn't Saddam Hussein's friends let him drink?
Because he was a mean drunk.
I don't have a problem with anyone sitting in their basement seething with anger over the fact that certain people don't share their faith. If people want to believe in a specific religion, fine.
At least that's what I used to think.
But it's become increasingly clear that the only way to ensure peace on earth is to ban all organized religion. I suppose I've seen one too many headlines such as, "Teen Girl Dies Receiving Lashes as Punishment for Being Raped."
If every religious person is forced to refrain from assembling with like-minded individuals, fanatical theocracies that carry out inhumane punishments would cease to exist. Not to mention the fact that violent acts which kill scores would undoubtedly decrease.
The one religion currently blamed for doing extensive damage hasn't always been the main culprit. Go back a few hundred years and you'll find it was another religion. Go back even further and you'll find it was... you guessed it.
In other words, I'm not calling out a specific religion; I'm saying we must get rid of them all to ensure the safety of ourselves as well as future generations.
Think of mass killings and then think about their root. Cancel out tragedies spurred by organized religion and we've got ourselves a fairly peaceful history.
Of course this piece was primarily written out of frustration. I don't actually want liberty limited. In fact I would like to see it expanded in every land. I'm very grateful to reside in a country where I can write a blog such as this and my face will not end up on a poster printed by Human Rights Watch which they created for the express purpose of reminding everyone on the planet that brutal stonings are still carried out against individuals whose actions have failed to harm a fellow human being.
Since this piece is a tad on the dark side, I'll conclude with a joke.
Why didn't Saddam Hussein's friends let him drink?
Because he was a mean drunk.
Arab World Needs "Cosby Show" Starring Whitey
CBS News anchor Katie Couric once suggested that a Cosby Show type program revolving around a typical American Muslim family should be aired in the United States for the express purpose of showing average citizens of our country that stateside followers of Islam are just like you and I. They're not suicide bombers in training, or even suicide bombing sympathizers. In fact, they hate terrorism just as much as whitey. Should such a television program air, most Muslim bashing would immediately cease. Or so Ms. Couric assumes.
I say a Cosby Show type program revolving around a typical religious American family should be shown on television sets throughout the Muslim world. This Cosby-like clan will show overtly religious Arabs exactly how intolerant church-going Americans are!
The television program I propose will focus on an American protestant couple struggling to raise their children to believe exactly as they do.
Despite pressures from outside influences to modernize, the apple pie eating parents preach endlessly to their children about the good that comes from preventing peers attracted to members of the same sex from acting on their inherent desires.
"Tell your friend Timmy that a life miserably spent sharing a bed with a member of the opposite sex will ensure he's happily greeted in heaven, while earthly fulfillment that results from spending every day and night with the person he actually loves means he'll eternally remain outside those exclusive gates," the mom will say to her son. They will then embrace, causing the studio audience to make a noise as if they were witnessing two adorable little panda cubs playing Patty Cake.
I think a few Middle Eastern Muslims would marvel at the fact that American matriarchs and patriarchs also teach their children that homosexuality is a sin most evil. Besides, some Muslim parents would likely be sympathetic to the fact that American mothers and fathers are forbidden from legally murdering offspring who engage in such deviant behavior. Therefore the television program could unite parents of differing faiths.
"You mean Americans caught experimenting with homosexuality are allowed to escape death by hanging and by multiple stones to the upper body!? Those poor American parents simply have no recourse!" they will sympathetically say. They will then symbolically reach their hand across the globe in an effort to comfort their kindred spirits.
Muslims will learn that many American couples have children who wish to date outside the religion. Like we Americans unsuccessfully yell to the protagonist near the end of a horror movie, "You better stick that spike through his spleen one more time cause that guy ain't dead," the overtly religious Muslim will scream to the adult characters on my proposed television program, "Gather together the townsfolk to carry out a community building honor killing and be done with it!? Hurry, before the sinners relocate to California where homosexuality is encouraged!"
I'm by no means suggesting that most Arab Muslims execute "misbehaving" children, but we clearly need to win the hearts and minds of people so fanatical they find carrying out such an extreme punishment the best way to handle immoral offspring, thus making radicals the target audience of my new show.
There's simply no good reason Hollywood shouldn't actively strive to bring together parents from all over the world who force their children to needlessly abide by prehistoric publications. After all, unjustified discrimination should never be restricted to a specific religion.
I say a Cosby Show type program revolving around a typical religious American family should be shown on television sets throughout the Muslim world. This Cosby-like clan will show overtly religious Arabs exactly how intolerant church-going Americans are!
The television program I propose will focus on an American protestant couple struggling to raise their children to believe exactly as they do.
Despite pressures from outside influences to modernize, the apple pie eating parents preach endlessly to their children about the good that comes from preventing peers attracted to members of the same sex from acting on their inherent desires.
"Tell your friend Timmy that a life miserably spent sharing a bed with a member of the opposite sex will ensure he's happily greeted in heaven, while earthly fulfillment that results from spending every day and night with the person he actually loves means he'll eternally remain outside those exclusive gates," the mom will say to her son. They will then embrace, causing the studio audience to make a noise as if they were witnessing two adorable little panda cubs playing Patty Cake.
I think a few Middle Eastern Muslims would marvel at the fact that American matriarchs and patriarchs also teach their children that homosexuality is a sin most evil. Besides, some Muslim parents would likely be sympathetic to the fact that American mothers and fathers are forbidden from legally murdering offspring who engage in such deviant behavior. Therefore the television program could unite parents of differing faiths.
"You mean Americans caught experimenting with homosexuality are allowed to escape death by hanging and by multiple stones to the upper body!? Those poor American parents simply have no recourse!" they will sympathetically say. They will then symbolically reach their hand across the globe in an effort to comfort their kindred spirits.
Muslims will learn that many American couples have children who wish to date outside the religion. Like we Americans unsuccessfully yell to the protagonist near the end of a horror movie, "You better stick that spike through his spleen one more time cause that guy ain't dead," the overtly religious Muslim will scream to the adult characters on my proposed television program, "Gather together the townsfolk to carry out a community building honor killing and be done with it!? Hurry, before the sinners relocate to California where homosexuality is encouraged!"
I'm by no means suggesting that most Arab Muslims execute "misbehaving" children, but we clearly need to win the hearts and minds of people so fanatical they find carrying out such an extreme punishment the best way to handle immoral offspring, thus making radicals the target audience of my new show.
There's simply no good reason Hollywood shouldn't actively strive to bring together parents from all over the world who force their children to needlessly abide by prehistoric publications. After all, unjustified discrimination should never be restricted to a specific religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)