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."
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.
Targeting Losers
Most of us can recall a time in which a fresh-faced friend of the family lived in his or her parent's basement longer than their peers. Most of these young people eventually find their way in the world. Many years later we say to each other in disbelief, "Remember when Bobby spent his first two post-college years working at the Burger Barn for minimum wage. Then he found his passion."
Recent graduates like Bobby are the target of churches across the country. Religions reach out to these youngsters before a passion is discovered. Once Bobby has a well-paying job and family, the church makes it seem as if his inherent talent would have forever remained repressed without their assistance.
They then make the successful man or woman feel as if the church is owed something for their efforts. "Once you opened your heart to our teachings, your life went from hopeless to fruitful. Without us, your bed would still be in a location that doubled as the laundry room. And remember how difficult sleep was due to the pungent aroma emanating from your father's soiled unmentionables!"
Of course it's important to meet contacts while job hunting, but with the networking options available today there are literally thousands of ways to seek out potential employers and references. Were you to join a different group, you could not only get acquainted with helpful people, you could also learn to cook, get fit or assist the needy.
If organized religion is so phenomenal, why go after those desperately seeking fulfillment? Why don't churches recruit in the lobby of the Waldorf-Astoria or pass out fliers on the red carpet at the Golden Globes? Before hanging out at the local bus station, I doubt most religions have attempted to contact everyone on the Forbes 400 list.
Most reputable organizations don't look for lost souls to recruit and certainly don't take credit for successes that likely would have occurred had they never formed. "You're now making seven figures and have a handful of beautiful houses in the Hamptons; it's all because you joined the Ultimate Frisbee Golf Enthusiasts and Go-Kart Klub!"
Recent graduates like Bobby are the target of churches across the country. Religions reach out to these youngsters before a passion is discovered. Once Bobby has a well-paying job and family, the church makes it seem as if his inherent talent would have forever remained repressed without their assistance.
They then make the successful man or woman feel as if the church is owed something for their efforts. "Once you opened your heart to our teachings, your life went from hopeless to fruitful. Without us, your bed would still be in a location that doubled as the laundry room. And remember how difficult sleep was due to the pungent aroma emanating from your father's soiled unmentionables!"
Of course it's important to meet contacts while job hunting, but with the networking options available today there are literally thousands of ways to seek out potential employers and references. Were you to join a different group, you could not only get acquainted with helpful people, you could also learn to cook, get fit or assist the needy.
If organized religion is so phenomenal, why go after those desperately seeking fulfillment? Why don't churches recruit in the lobby of the Waldorf-Astoria or pass out fliers on the red carpet at the Golden Globes? Before hanging out at the local bus station, I doubt most religions have attempted to contact everyone on the Forbes 400 list.
Most reputable organizations don't look for lost souls to recruit and certainly don't take credit for successes that likely would have occurred had they never formed. "You're now making seven figures and have a handful of beautiful houses in the Hamptons; it's all because you joined the Ultimate Frisbee Golf Enthusiasts and Go-Kart Klub!"
The Selective Outrage of Religious Conservatives
Most modern day conservatives are angry because they feel the powers that be are hindering their ability to live freely.
The problem, however, is that they're only interested in preserving freedoms they deem moral.
I too am a big backer of freedom. In fact, I find it extremely off-putting when a public official instructs me how to live as if they're my self-appointed parent. For example, I would rather First Lady Obama help the underprivileged eat a meal of any kind than lecture the middle class on how much sodium they should consume on a daily basis. Unlike conservatives, I don't find the First Lady evil for attempting to influence the habits of average Americans, yet I do think her time could better be spent helping the downtrodden, as opposed to nagging those who know full well what excessive eating will do to their bodies yet choose gluttony.
Conservatives frantically say, "How dare Mrs. Obama instruct the citizenry to strictly devour foods of which she approves! Once she controls your diet, she'll come after the posters on your wall! So unless you want the cold eyes of Mr. Obama fixated on your bed as you make love to your wife, you must vote Republican!"
Despite this, most members of the GOP are not so keen on freedom when it applies to prostitution, gambling and marijuana smoking.
Some conservatives say such acts should be outlawed due to public safety concerns. But if we're going to make actions illegal because we can't trust people to be responsible, why are cars on the road? Why is the sale of alcohol legal? Why can amateur male athletes buy balls that could strike them in the same groin that produced the very offspring whose errant throw was directly responsible for the infliction of what I infer is immensely intense pain?
It's a common theme in my columns, but no one can claim to fully support freedom when they're only a proponent of individuals retaining the freedom to participate in activities that "feel right." Like pornography, conservatives know actions that should remain free when they see them. A family eating five happy meals per day: must remain free. A camouflage clad clan taking an SUV full of hunting rifles to the nearest forest: must remain free. A man selling another man a dime bag in the privacy of a dwelling in which no children are present: must remain forever forbidden.
I suppose I'm harping on the topic because I'm so extremely tired of hearing conservatives say, "They're taking away my freedom to purchase the light bulb I deem ideal for placing in the lamp under which I frequently re-read Rush Limbaugh's 1992 bestseller, The Way Things Ought to Be," and, "They're taking away my freedom to keep the healthcare plan I've grown to love over the past several years even though I haven't stepped foot inside a doctor's office since 1998."
How do I respond to the cries of the concerned conservative? I say to them, "All I caught was chirping crickets when I communicated consternation at the complete lack of freedom that has for years hindered the ability of others to partake in victimless acts."
The problem, however, is that they're only interested in preserving freedoms they deem moral.
I too am a big backer of freedom. In fact, I find it extremely off-putting when a public official instructs me how to live as if they're my self-appointed parent. For example, I would rather First Lady Obama help the underprivileged eat a meal of any kind than lecture the middle class on how much sodium they should consume on a daily basis. Unlike conservatives, I don't find the First Lady evil for attempting to influence the habits of average Americans, yet I do think her time could better be spent helping the downtrodden, as opposed to nagging those who know full well what excessive eating will do to their bodies yet choose gluttony.
Conservatives frantically say, "How dare Mrs. Obama instruct the citizenry to strictly devour foods of which she approves! Once she controls your diet, she'll come after the posters on your wall! So unless you want the cold eyes of Mr. Obama fixated on your bed as you make love to your wife, you must vote Republican!"
Despite this, most members of the GOP are not so keen on freedom when it applies to prostitution, gambling and marijuana smoking.
Some conservatives say such acts should be outlawed due to public safety concerns. But if we're going to make actions illegal because we can't trust people to be responsible, why are cars on the road? Why is the sale of alcohol legal? Why can amateur male athletes buy balls that could strike them in the same groin that produced the very offspring whose errant throw was directly responsible for the infliction of what I infer is immensely intense pain?
It's a common theme in my columns, but no one can claim to fully support freedom when they're only a proponent of individuals retaining the freedom to participate in activities that "feel right." Like pornography, conservatives know actions that should remain free when they see them. A family eating five happy meals per day: must remain free. A camouflage clad clan taking an SUV full of hunting rifles to the nearest forest: must remain free. A man selling another man a dime bag in the privacy of a dwelling in which no children are present: must remain forever forbidden.
I suppose I'm harping on the topic because I'm so extremely tired of hearing conservatives say, "They're taking away my freedom to purchase the light bulb I deem ideal for placing in the lamp under which I frequently re-read Rush Limbaugh's 1992 bestseller, The Way Things Ought to Be," and, "They're taking away my freedom to keep the healthcare plan I've grown to love over the past several years even though I haven't stepped foot inside a doctor's office since 1998."
How do I respond to the cries of the concerned conservative? I say to them, "All I caught was chirping crickets when I communicated consternation at the complete lack of freedom that has for years hindered the ability of others to partake in victimless acts."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)