New Location

I've moved my blog to:

http://AnythingButTheist.blogspot.com

Longer name, but it makes more sense. The old URL will remain as an archive, so anyone linking here will still find old posts. I figured now was a good time to move before I have readership in the double digits (maybe someday...).

Remember to change your bookmarks and links as needed!

Even More Scattered Thoughts

Little known facts about the blogger:
- World-renowned expert on weekends
- Allergic to ignorance
- Passionate supporter of anything with pasta
- Has never eaten horse meat
- Has a deep-rooted fear of long walks on the beach
- Is considered by some indigenous people to bring good luck

This morning, I ate a bowl of mint chocolate chip ice cream for breakfast. I figured it counts as both a glass of milk and brushing my teeth.

I put great effort into being funny, because funny guys don’t have to learn to dance.

The Joke That Technology Killed: “I hate phone numbers with a lot of 8’s and 9’s. It takes so long to dial them, am I right?” See, cause they had these dials… never mind.

Dehydrophobia – the fear of being thirsty

A republican’s idea of choice: heaven or hell.

Claiming a band’s music is good on drugs is like saying someone is attractive if you’re drunk.

Stress is a whetstone: it sharpens those who know how to handle it, and dulls those who don’t.

I can speak to animals, but it turns out to be a useless skill. They’re all compulsive liars.

A kid is like a tattoo: one drunken night, and you’re stuck with it forever.

Our errors never seem so right as when we are blindly defending them. This is why we fools love to bicker.

Christianity’s biggest problem is its simultaneous adherence to two concepts: the golden rule and self-sacrifice. How can you do unto others as you would have done unto you if you’re also willing to sacrifice yourself? It is merely a complex scheme of justifying the sacrifice of others. Those who deny themselves of certain rights and pleasures think nothing of denying it for others.

Liars trust no one, and thieves always lock their doors.

A kind man changes himself to better suit the world; a jerk changes the world to better suit himself. This is why the world is run by jerks.

The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. Hate is the product of ignorance, confusion, and frustration; its opposite is enlightened patience.

Some would have you believe that you can only be moral if you are also noticeably miserable.

I have seen hell. It is a mall, and it is always Christmas Eve.

If you envision wisdom to be an opiate that makes life bearable, cease learning and seek drink.

Scientists are wrong quite often; priests, always.

More Scattered Thoughts

Does breakfast the next morning count as a second date?

Every event has a cause; some have a reason; very few have a purpose.

How do the elderly have the balls to criticize modern music when oldies such as “Sixteen Candles” and “Sweet Little Sixteen” are overtly pedophilic? And just what is the Beach Boy’s song “Two Girls for Every Boy” trying to say: California is for threesomes, or in California you can treat your girlfriend like crap because you can replace her? That generation thinks it has a right to censor us, but in the poignant vernacular of my generation, all I have to say is “Move, bitch, get out da way!”

If you’d die for atheism, you missed the point.

Children’s book idea: “Everybody Screws.”

“Bottom line” sounds like a euphemism for “asscrack.”

My kids will be half Jewish, but I hear they round up.

Jesus may have been able to turn water into wine, but I can turn water into tea OR hot chocolate.

I’m thinking of getting into real estate. Not in the traditional sense. Are you familiar with “squatter’s rights?”

I yearn to work in a factory while machines take orders from customers. There far more satisfaction from making something than from having to deal with jackasses all day. We gave the wrong jobs to the machines.

I sometimes break the monotony of my day by being friendly. It really throws people off.

Viagra is a pretty popular commercial these days. So is that other stuff that you don’t need a prescription for… what’s it called… oh yeah, Girls Gone Wild.

Science becomes religion when theories outpace experimentation and data.

Bad drug combos
- Acid and pot: you risk having a life changing experience and forgetting it.
- Sleeping pills and laxatives: obvious
- Cocaine and Dave Matthew Band: recipe for instant douchebag
- This one is more of an equation: Alcohol + Ex = Abortion

I’m not gay, but Jesus is hot. He has a wicked six-pack. I’d nail him… wait, that came out wrong.

I owe my wonderful education to my luck of having horrible teachers who encouraged me to ignore school.

Dogs lick everything: your face, trash, their own ass, though usually in reverse order.

We should be able to sue MTV for false advertising. Change your name or change your programming. Can you imagine walking into Pizza Hut and trying to order pizza, and they tell you “Sorry, we sell electronic. If you want pizza, go to Bed, Bath and Beyond.”

The term “sixty-nine” doesn’t seem anatomically correct to me. Sure, two gay guys can do 69, but wouldn’t a guy and girl be 68? Lesbians would do 88. I dunno, maybe I’m picturing the numbers wrong. I don’t remember math being this fun in school.

Off My Chest...

I have some random, disparate ideas I have been pondering for a while. Some are open questions, some are statements of observation, some are meant to be funny, some are meant to sound pseudo-wise. I just want to get them off my chest.

I have yet to hear anyone define the words "good" or "bad" to my satisfaction, yet is doesn't seem to stop any of us from frequently using them with mutual understanding.

American politics are to democracy what professional wrestling is to sports: a lot of talk, very little action, and completely rigged.

Politicians on both sides go on and on about "family values," when what they really support is childhood naivete. The family isn't just children, it's also young and fully grown adults.

GOP: Gadflies Of Progress, Greed Over Prosperity, Gamble Our Pensions, Gag Order Politics, Greasey Old Perverts

It is strange to me that those who speak of "destroying the self" spend so much time alone in their own thoughts, "meditating."

Why do we only consider a man sane when he remains part of an insane system?

I think medical science is a rodent conspiracy. We have treatments for every disease that could ever be contracted by rats and mice.

If over half the population was depressed, would they diagnose happiness as a disorder? I'm sure they would if they found a pill that prevented it. What would they call it? Miserol? No, you need letters from the end of the alphabet for new medication... something like Sadizine or Depressix.

I don't know which teaches you more: words of wisdom or the follies of fools. I do know which is more entertaining.

My wedding went off without a hitch, although we got hitched.

Maybe everything has to die to ensure that nothing awful remains forever.

If I had followed half of the advice I've given, I'd be twice the man I am today.

Regarding God's omnipotence, I do know this: the Christian God DOES have limits. He failed and had to flood the world once, and Jesus was frequently frustrated by people's lack of comprehension. If there's one thing out of God's control, it's clearly us... and He can't believe how stupid we are.

Republicans know that once they can marry the same sex, they are one step closer to their darkest fantasy: marrying their pet. Sick people.

If someone asks you if you're wearing boxers or briefs, and you're going commando, they don't try to argue that being underwearless is a style of underwear. So why do people think atheism is a religion?

I know Jesus loves me, but I think He's rushing things. I barely know Him, I mean He hasn't even friended me on Facebook. In fact, I never even thought of Him as anything more than a fuck buddy. It's not Him, it's me. I just think we should see other deities.

Christians only talk about being like Jesus. If they actually did act like him, they might not be so annoying, and the world would be a better place. Just imagine, every Christian hanging on a cross... truly heaven on Earth.

It is time for white people to take some heat. We've been on the top shelf so long we're not even good anymore. No one likes stale crackers.

A Chain Of Violence

The lengths people will go to in order to prove a point has never ceased to amaze me, though it's no longer surprising. We have become a culture of social digression; the same things happen over and over, until we no longer take notice and they seem normal.

Dozens of husbands kill their families and then turn the gun on themselves. The predatory practices of lending institutions drive thousands into debt and homelessness. Our healthcare industry is the most profitable in the world, yet only third world nations have higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy than the US.

Now, another "pro-life" nut job killed an abortion doctor. The term "pro-life" has completely lost any semblance of relevance in the current political climate, as voting Republican means you support capital punishment. Apparently, it also means being able to kill people who disagree with you.

This is what is wrong at the core of all religious belief. Religion masquerades as morality, but it has nothing to do with making someone a better (or worse) person. Instead, it is a façade put on by most to appear acceptable, despite the complete lack of any implications. Religion didn't make this murderer kill a doctor, but it clearly didn't stop him. It seems to me that we would have the same results without any faith at all... assuming he had such a violently strong emotional attachment to his issue in the absence of religion.

In the end, the only way to end any of this is to stop reacting. Our reactionary tactics of answering violence with more violence, often in escalation, is unacceptable. We can see it in the way we wage war. We can see it in the way police handle their suspects. We can see it in our attitude towards anyone we deem "other."

I hope the man who killed that doctor receives the help he deserves. Simply executing him (or even throwing him in jail) is not going to help anyone. Dr. Tiller won't be brought back by any action taken against his killer. Maybe, with a little effort, the one who killed him may be shown the full extent of what he's done and be allowed to speak out against it. However, I doubt our society has the guts to try.

At some point, someone has to be the weak link in the chain of violence that keeps us tethered to our ignorance.

Married

I got married this past weekend. I feel no different, but I'm happy to have a ring on my finger and no more wedding chores to do. It was nice to see my family and some of my wife's friends.

I guess that feels different: saying “wife.” It's so much shorter than fiancé. We should allow homosexual marriage, considering how gay the word “fiancé” sounds. How did straight people even come up with this shit? Those French…

We have had a quiet honeymoon stay-cation. We didn’t go out much until Wednesday, when we went to see Star Trek. She’s now trying to get me to go to the zoo, as I type this. I’ll probably end up having to go, even though I’m allergic to the entirety of nature. Animal Planet has better angles and no foul smell. Plus, I can enjoy food at home that is not prepared downwind of hippo farts.

I have considered starting one or more other blogs that cover different topics, and allowing this blog to remain as my outlet for religious commentary. I'm probably going to decide to do this, but I have to balance my time between my hobbies like blogging and my unemployment/job search.

I’ll end this post with a picture of the live painting done at our wedding by Jonathon Blake at www.crazyredbeard.com

Need Inspiration?

Feeling uninspired? I have some to spare!

Commenting on Random Pictures

(You can click to enlarge any of the pictures)

Times are tough, even for stuffed animals:





Below are some people who probably should not have had children:









These are some inspirational posters I designed:







To all those who support abstinence education: Happy Mother's Day!

Random May Update

The world is a funny place.

Cops are robbing people in small Texas towns. In theory, this might be why people feel like they need guns: they can’t trust the police. Of course, only minorities seem to be targeted by the police. It’s mostly white people who stock up on guns and then kill people (usually their own family).

Miss California is back in the news, perhaps for the last time. It looks like we have some under-age topless photos to look forward to in the future. Good thing she’s a moral Christian with traditional values, like whoring herself to Victoria’s Secret. I am reminded of Matthew 7:3, “Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?” She and Michael Phelps have been linked, and I’m sure they’ll get married, have kids, and push their children to do all kinds of things they have no interest in.

For the record, I was right about swine flu. I don’t need anyone to admit it, I got all the satisfaction I needed seeing people wearing surgical masks for a week like they were Michael Jackson.

I’ve heard several people rant about “people who bought houses who couldn’t afford them.” Don’t listen to Republican nonsense about the housing crisis. We’re in this mess not because Americans wanted to buy homes, but because banks were ripping people off on their mortgages, raising the interest rates so high that homeowners could not afford to pay. Many people (1 in 5) owe more than their house is worth. If I were in that situation, not only would I not pay for the house and abandon it, I’d probably do something horrible to the bank who ruined my credit for life. No one should have to be a debt slave to the banking industry, and that is exactly what the financial sector has been moving towards.

Banks can’t even make their own payments. Bank of America needs to come up with $34 billion in capital in order to stay afloat. I’m sure we’ll bail out the bank, but where’s the help for everyday Americans? None of these Bank of America executives will be thrown out, homeless, like thousands of their customers. Anyone else agree we need to bring back the old tar and feathers? We should parade their naked, writhing, tar-covered bodies through Wall Street as a totemic reminder to all those who would bilk the citizenry of their dreams.

If you think I overreact, check out Richard Anthony McTear Jr. He threw his girlfriend’s baby from a moving vehicle while on the highway to get back at her. His response when asked about the incident is cryptic, though ten miles short of meaningful: “It’s a dirty game. A dirty game.” I can only assume he’s referring to his future of picking up the soap in the jail shower.

Is prison rape even funny? We’re spreading AIDS among the prison population because we see jail as retribution, not rehabilitation. We’ve given up on most people. Well, you may not be able to fix someone, but jail is systematically making our criminals more violent. It hardens them and provides them progressively worse and worse examples of how to behave. We are creatures of habit, so why do we make sure our criminals are in the habit of getting worse?

Of course, therapy only works if you’re rich. That’s why therepists have to charge so much. Poor people would get no benefit from talk therapy. You think that advice works for all forms of depression? “Yeah doc, sometimes when I wake up in the morning, I don’t have the energy to get out of my car.” That guy needs more than therapy has to offer.

I used to wonder why there’s religion in the world today. Then I really paid attention to everything religious person said. Eventually, I realized we need religion. Most people don’t have a fucking clue. Most of us need easy answers because we are just NEVER going to get it. Religion is psychological baby-sitting for the mentally infantile.

Is 50 Cent known in Canada as 63 Cent?

I’m thinking about going into the food business. I have an idea for a product: Christ Crisps. They’re potato chips with an image of Jesus burned onto every one. Our motto is: “A bag full of miracles!” I don’t like ripping people off, but I wouldn’t mind taking money from fat Christians. I could get to sleep at night doing that for a living.

People who are pro-life often display pictures of aborted babies, thinking the gore will shock people into changing their opinion. Not only have I seen an aborted fetus and still support abortion, I’ve tasted one. And you know what? It tastes like chimpanzee, which is why I also support evolution.

Will Swine Be The End Of Us?

Most Americans are finally showing their true colors again. For eight years, we had crazy religious nuts telling us the world was going to end. Now, it’s pseudo-science’s turn.

This swine flu nonsense is just one in a long series of scientific threats that don’t scare me. I sometimes wonder if people WANT to run around afraid. Is there some innate drive in humanity to fear ultimate destruction?

Stories such as this one show that even scientific-sounding people can still be crazy eschatologists. That word may be unfamiliar to most, because we’ve become so accustomed to religious vocabulary that terms like “apocalypse” and “Armageddon” have come to mean “end of the world.”

In fact, apocalypse merely means “lifting of the veil,” a poetic metaphor for John’s revelation of the end of times. Armageddon translates to Mount of Megiddo, which is the location of the final battle in Christianity’s eschatology. Neither apocalypse nor Armageddon are true synonyms for “end of times;” eschaton is the only word used in English that literal definition.

Science has always appealed to me because it tends to be pro-active and level-headed. While religion tends to act passively while dictating demands passionately, scientists tend to calmly get their hands dirty and report what they find.

Science is supposed to be optimistic. It should recognize problems and resolve them. It certainly does no good worrying that the world will end. Instead of worrying, we should just take what precautions we can. Will people consider me a prophet because I predict, here and now, that pig flu will blow over like every other overblown threat? I hope not.

Newspapers are in dire straits, and they’ll report on anything remotely frightening in order to sell copies. Hanta virus, SARS, avian flu, monkey pox, Ebola, even killer bees and terrorism: I let none of them scare me. I trust in the power of humanity to adapt. I believe the impossible is possible. After all, a pig flu.

Virtues - Commitment

I should begin by pointing out I have not been very committed to blogging lately. Things have gotten really busy, but my schedule is opening up (so to speak).

I'm going to work for the last time Friday. Nothing bad happened, the school year is just ending. However, it doesn't look like I'll be asked back next fall due to budget cuts. I'm the highest paid tutor where I work, and I already passed on a raise last January in order to stay employed this long. In all my years of half-assing life, I never dreamed I would lose a job for being over-qualified.

Looking for a job right now is about as fun as it sounds. However, it isn’t even my top priority. My wedding is in about three weeks, and there’s plenty to be done. I have yet to finish the vows/ceremony. We’re having a self-uniting marriage, so there is no officiate, and I’m writing the entire thing from scratch. I want there to be no mention (positive or negative) of religion. I’m not worried, since it looks like I’ll have plenty of time of unemployment before the wedding.

I don’t know what language “commitment” comes from, and I guess I don’t really care. I like the word and what it stands for. I like it much more than other terms for similar concepts. In particular, the word “duty” never sat well with me. For one thing, it’s a pseudo-homophone with “doody.” I don’t like the idea of duty, either, because it implies that people are expected to do certain things, regardless of who they are or what they believe. I think the only obligation we have in society is to stay out of the way unless you’re pitching in to help.

There’s no denying there are things in life we have to do, even if we don’t want to. However, duty often calls us to work towards an end we have no interest in. Armies and businesses rely on duty. “I was just doing my job” is the classic defense of scoundrels, from Nuremburg to Wall Street. Commitment, however, appeals to me because it always seems to apply to a personal goal.

Love is a compromise. It is also an acknowledgement that two people can achieve more together than they can alone, materially and emotionally. What makes us give up our egotistical lives in order to make it work with someone else? There is something gained, even as we are giving something up.

Of course, commitment may be crazy. In fact, we say people who are insane should be "committed." People also "commit" murder, or crimes of passion. The consequences are always severe when we commit, maybe because taking a stand is so hard.

I look forward to the commitment of marriage because I know there is no way I could ever be the person I hope to one day become without her. Nothing else in my life that hinges on belief the way love does, and it is times like these I am reminded I am not without some kind of faith. There isn't much certainty in the world, but I can say with complete honesty and conviction that I have found the woman I want to spend the rest of my life with (since we all know she'll outlive me).

Virtues - Detachment

Detachment entails overcoming desire and/or withdrawing into oneself. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism all include it prominently in their teachings. Paul goes so far as to say unmarried men and virgin women need not worry themselves with finding a mate, “for the form of this world is passing away” (1 Corinthians 7:25-31).

The first aspect of the virtue, overcoming desire, is an idyllic state of being. Often sought, rarely attained, the loosening of every fetter fastening us to this world is a thing much easier to talk about than to do. Many use self-sacrifice as a training tool, with the most apparent being the ritual fast. The believer abstains from eating, despite their hunger. In this way, the adherent may learn to suppress natural urges and motivations. The Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, has several legends premised on his proclivity for fasting.

The second aspect of detachment, the retreat into oneself, is also addressed as a positive in most religions. Prayer, meditation, Luke 17:21, etc, imply that there is something of value to be found within oneself, and that there is a need for calm self-focus. I can’t say I agree completely, but there is clearly a need to improve ourselves before judging others (and Jesus agrees in Matthew 7:3).

Beyond this, there is a danger of becoming self-involved and aloof if one delves too deeply into one’s mind/soul. Calm reflection may be a necessity, but to condemn and ignore the world is not something I think would work if practiced on a global scale. The hermit has his place; it is not inside society, but outside screaming crazy things about the end being neigh. For some reason, people sometimes listen and take them seriously. That, boys and girls, is how religions are born.

This is certainly the most seldom practiced of all virtues. While most people vocally claim to follow a system that preaches detachment, we are a society (and planet) obsessed with material existence. I see no fault in this, as this is the only world I perceive to exist. However, this leaves “Christian America” with no footing. We are a country that practices usury, fiscal manipulation, material obsession, and we plaster God’s name all over our money (for good luck, maybe?). If we’re a Christian nation, we’re a horrible one. Thank God we aren’t.

Systems that push detachment believe in life after death, so there is little problem in suggesting we deny ourselves the satisfaction of the here and now. I believe there is life before death. But unlike the message of greed, "He with the most toys wins," I believe the one who laughs most wins.

Swords: The Other Murder Weapon

Guns get all the press, but a much colder, more silent killer threatens America.

A 77-year old woman died in Indianapolis trying to break up a sword fight. There aren't many details in this article, but one fact I couldn't overlook is the name of the older man involved: Adolf. The swords used in this attack were a Japanese officer's sword and a sword with a "thicker blade." As a medeival weapon enthusiast, I wait with baited breath to know precisely what it was.

This wouldn't happen if people didn't have weapons just lying around. In the good old days, people just beat the shit out of each other with their fists. The fight was over quick because hitting someone in the face hurts both people, and you punch yourself out even if you win. Now, every kid has a replica sword of some kind. Why?

Douchebags sell these things everywhere. I hate salesmen in general, but people who sell dangerous stuff that has no practical purpose are a special kind of morality whore. At least some of them get what they deserve. Leave it to professional ninjas.

The only thing funnier than that video would be this. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but what if the whole thing was a Scientology set up? Vince Offer was planning to sue the church for what he calls unfair practices. He alleges they told his Scientology co-workers to abandon his business after he left the church. How expensive could it be to pay a girl to bite the ShamWow guy's tongue and provoke an attack? It's all coming together...

Quick Easter Joke

Why doesn't Jesus like M&M's?














































They keep falling through the holes in his hands. Happy Easter!

The True Meaning of Easter

As we celebrate another Easter, let us stop for a minute to consider the true meaning of the holiday. It isn't about silly things like chocolate, eggs, rabbits, or Jesus. It's about Eastre, Germanic goddess of the dawn (though her name has many alternate spellings, such as Ostara).

What is essentially the month of April was called Eastre's month (Eoster-monath) by early Germanic people. April was a time of rebirth, when winter was overcome by spring. The rabbits had mad amounts of bunny-sex, and eggs would begin to appear in nests throughout the woods. Eastre symbolized not only the coming of spring, but the light of morning. She symbolized, above all, new beginnings.

Beyond this, we know little of this goddess or the worship associated with her. We know chocolate was a late addition, as this is a gift of the New World. It was not available to Europe until long after Christianity had wiped away nearly all memory of Eastre.

I like to celebrate the holiday by considering how important it is to tolerate the ideas of others. We could have been left with a rich collection of Germanic mythology to compliment what we have now (largely Greek, Roman, and Semitic). Instead, the need to suppress that which is different has left us with a holiday whose name provides more questions than answers.

I wish I could be around in a few hundred years when little Scientologists ask, "What's Christmas named for?"

Open Letter to American Schools

Dear School Administrator,

I realize the debate between creationism/intelligent design and evolution has gotten a lot of press, but I would like to call attention to a matter of equal, or perhaps greater, importance.

You see, I am not a Christian, but I believe faith should be favored over science. Religion is the the glue of society: it holds us together and gets us high.

I myself worship the Norse Gods, including Odin and Thor. It has come to my attention that schools across the country are teaching something called "plate tectonic theory." It erroneously states that earthquakes are the result of "plates" in the Earth's crust shifting.

This is most certainly not the case. You see, the truth has been known by my religion for centuries. Loki, the trickster god of fire, is tied up with the intestines of his son under the ground. There is a snake over him dripping venom, and Loki's wife holds a cup over his head. When the cup fills and she goes to empty it, the venom hits Loki in the face and he writhes in pain, causing earthquakes.

I would be most appreciative if equal time might be provided for my culture's teachings to be presented in science classes. Plate tectonics is only a theory, after all. Because it is not proven fact, any competing idea I come up with is equally valid (as is my understanding of the American education system).

In case you do not believe my religion is important to Americans, ask yourself what day of the week it is. Every business day is named after a god in our pantheon:
- Monday: Mani, the moon
- Tuesday: Tyr, the one-armed god of duelling
- Wednesday: Odin, the All-Father
- Thursday: Thor, god of thunder
- Friday: Frey, god of good weather

Thank you for your time, and may valkyries carry you on winged steed to Valhalla upon your death in glorious battle.

- Weirdbeard

Liberals and Language

If you can't tell by my posts, I find language to be very interesting. I think it is important to carefully choose every word one uses. I also think understanding the origin of words can help shed light on how humanity thinks. While these actions can add new colors to the palette of language, some believe altering the way other people speak can change the way they think.

Conservatives do this effectively with euphemism. They aren’t “prisoners of war,” they’re “enemy combatants” (pesky Geneva Conventions). It’s not that consumer goods are less safe, there’s just “less government” thanks to “deregulation.” The private sector can treat you any way it wants, because only the government has to follow the constitution (and “big government” is scary to uneducated retards clutching guns in the night).

Liberals fail miserably at manipulating language. Many feel that if people would stop using offensive language, we'd all get along. Instead of controlling people’s minds, this forces people to use even more euphemistic language in order to communicate in a manner acceptable for liberals.

In short, liberal censorship (aka political correctness) has pushed conservative thought into the realm of the abstract. Meanwhile, liberals are stuck in the literal world fighting crusades against the use of masculine pronouns. Words like retard and fag are written about passionately as degrading our society.

This is all rubbish. The answer is not to censor, but to provide better alternatives. Rather than say a stupid film you just saw was retarded, say: “That movie was so christian.” Of course, most liberals are religious. So let’s try another one. If you see something really flamboyant (like a pink VW Beetle with a rainbow bumper sticker driven by a guy sporting a faux-hawk), remark how it’s conservative, or republican. Someone may point out these groups are against gays, but that shouldn’t stop you. Republicans have successfully convinced people that the word “elite” is a bad thing. Just trust me, you can get Americans to do anything if they see cool people do it first.

Of course, you could just use the neutral adjectives like “stupid” or “flamboyant.” However, if you do this, you won’t be adding anything to the language. Languages evolve over time, and if you do not help leave a mark on it, other people will. And no, asking the Pet Shop Boys to change their name is not helping. Fucking liberals, their naïveté knows no bounds.

Happy Passover!

Let us all celebrate that God killed Egyptian children, and may His wrath be forever appeased by our continued practice of meaningless sacrifice and prejudice.

Virtues - Passion

The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
- H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

Passion embodies a strange set of dualities: ecstasy and misery. Perhaps it is this fluctuation between joy and fury that makes it both popular and despised. There are innumerable objects of passion. Any person, place, thing, or idea can be venerated. The manner in which passion is expressed is even more diverse.

If this weren't confusing enough, the results of each passion and method of devotion can also vary, based on the person. Nothing definite can be said about whether passion has a positive or negative impact. Sometimes there is a positive impact for others and a negative impact for the individual. Many are the reverse, and provide comfort to the devotee at the expense of others. What's more, passion defies control, so perhaps understanding it can never help the passionate person.

The word passion derives from the Latin passio, meaning “suffering.” This in turn is a Latinization of the Greek word πάθος (pathos), which means “arousing sympathy, pity or compassion.” This derivation helps illustrate the Christian use of the word, which is applied to Jesus' crucifixion (and the crude obsession with the gory details leading up to it).

A common theme among most definitions is that passion compels. Passion bridges the gap between words and deeds. It is fervor, the urge to act. It provides the drive for nearly every change in human history. Passion is inspiring, if not inspiration itself. However, passion has a way of causing fixation, preventing one from seeing the big picture.

Passion has been described as both a virtue and a vice. In fact, the Stoics based their entire philosophy on removing passion from one's life in order to attain a feeling of apatheia. This is not the same as the modern term “apathy.” Instead, they sought total self-control, to the point of not even desiring to do wrong.

On the other hand, many religions are “enthusiastic.” Enthusiasm is an outburst of passion, sometimes abstract in nature, other times directed by ritual. This term also originates in ancient Greek: ἐνθουσιασμός (enthousiasmos): to be filled with, or possessed by, a god. This is done in various ways by many different groups, both ancient and modern. From the rituals of the bacchanal to Pentecostals speaking in tongues, it is a common component of religion to encourage a constructive outlet for the frantic emotions pent up in humanity.

Perhaps passion does more harm than good, but I certainly don’t see it that way. Passion can also be the need for human beings to connect to others, seek approval, and enjoy similar interests. It is our passions which bind us, just as strongly as they divide us. One person’s crazed fanatic is another person’s soul mate. What if the trick was not controlling our passions, but just giving each other enough space?

Guns

As most level-headed people predicted back in 2004, including police, the lapsed assault weapon ban has spawned a slew of attacks.

Everyone knows violence is going to happen, regardless of whether or not there are guns. The latest is a case involving an AK-47. Another incident in March also involved an AK-47.

I could go through a laundry list of cases and bore you with sob stories of the families. The bottom line is this: the violence is getting worse because we have encouraged an arms race among our own citizenry. We have convinced millions of Americans that owning a gun will make them safer. In reality, owning a gun just increases the likelihood of this.

Whatever happened to beating our swords into plowshares? Why are we flooding our country with the tools of war? Some cry that guns are one of our last industries. If this is true, why do we buy Russian AK-47's to kill fellow Americans? We've outsourced the production of our own misery. End the bullshit, outlaw assault rifles.

Virtues - Moderation

There are a few distinct ways of applying the term “moderation.” The primary context I want to focus on is its association with “temperance” or “lacking excess.” This is most often applied to consumptive acts like eating and drinking (alcoholic or otherwise). However, it is equally applied to other human endeavors, usually enjoyable leisure activities.

Moderation is often applied in the maxim, “Moderation in all things,” which is a contradiction in terms. One must be careful not to practice excessive moderation. Someone moderate in all things risks being an extreme bore. There will inevitably be some things each individual does more than is “normal.”

Normalcy is a strong component of moderation. Moderation relies upon social or cultural norms in order to determine the definition of “extreme.” However, one culture’s extreme is another’s norm, and vice versa. In a culture where no one drinks alcohol, even a sip is intemperate. In fact, the American “temperance movement” opposed all alcoholic beverage consumption, even going so far as to enact Prohibition. This seems like an extreme to me.

The preaching of moderation is sometimes thinly veiled opposition to indulgence. Moderation that calls for sacrifice and self-deprivation is not moderation at all. Moderation should allow room for enjoyment. Moderation should not call for self-denial, but self-control. Restraint and discipline, not avoidance and austerity, are the hallmarks of proper moderation.

Moderation is not a struggle; the term for the struggle is addiction. Addiction is an interesting phenomenon, with a fairly modern emergence (in name, not existence). I hesitate to apply it to anything beyond chemical dependency. However, all emotional responses to activity are chemical reactions, and are not that dissimilar from those of drug use. Add to this that humans are driven by habits, and one can see that addiction could a perfectly common human behavioral disorder.

Everything can be done in moderation by someone. William S. Burroughs was a “heroin addict” for over 50 years, and lived to be 83. He did it by staying gainfully employed, something most people can’t accomplish as a heroin user. Evel Knieval broke a record 37 bones and risked his life several times for attention, but he died at 69 of pulmonary fibrosis, completely unrelated to his daredevil profession. If moderation is a struggle, you’re doing something wrong. Hopefully, your standards are set too high. Worst case scenario, you found something you’re too weak to moderate.

Picture right now the person you respect most. Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Socrates, Einstein, Mohammed, the Buddha, L. Ron Hubbard, Kurt Cobain, whoever: they’re all “immoderate” in some way. They’re all radicals. They all opposed something and sought to redefine norms. And all of them had weird personal lives. Moderation sounds great, but the results don’t lie: the world remembers weird people.

Moderation would be a wonderful teaching if everyone was the same. If we were all born as clones living in the same environment and we all had the same preferences, tolerances, opinions, and life experiences, then there would probably be a set of guidelines that applied to everyone. Instead, we determine what we think works “best” for people, and we marginalize or criminalize those who disagree. We censor our actions as well as our words. I wonder how far we’ll go to appear moderate when what we need is an extreme correction.

Virtues - Honesty

Honesty is quite a complex concept. Nearly every ethical system forbids lying in some manner, though there are numerous exceptions.

First, what is honesty? Intent is at the very heart of honesty (and dishonesty). An honest person may say something untrue, but if they believe what they say, it is not a lie; it is a mistake. So while honesty may seem to be related to truth, it is not. Whether a statement is a lie depends not upon the objective truth of the statement, but in the intent of the speaker. In fact, a true statement may be made by someone lying.

Suppose a used car dealer sells you a car which he says is in great shape and was only driven by a little old lady to church on Sundays. It runs great for 15 years, with no major problems. You think he is an honest salesman. What you don’t know is that the salesman knew the car had recently been in a major accident, was repaired for a bargain, and he believed the car would fall apart in a year or two. In this case, the salesman is still dishonest, even though the results (luckily) did not victimize someone.

The most interesting lies are not the lies we tell others, but the lies we tell ourselves. It becomes stranger still if we begin to believe those lies. Our very perception of reality may be altered by the lies we tell ourselves. No woman I know can look in a mirror and see how beautiful she is, and no man I know says he has a small penis, but I assume most think it… which is why we buy nice cars.

One cannot discuss honesty without dealing with “the white lie,” or as I like to call it, the polite lie. The polite lie is a statement made by a speaker who knows it is not true when telling the truth would insult or upset others. The classic example is:

A wife asks her husband if she looks fat in something. The husband replies “no,” either without even looking or without any consideration for whether it is a true statement.

I don’t particularly like this example, as it seems to imply wives always look fat, but I assure the reader this is not what I mean (everyone knows they only look fat around when they’re getting their period). In this scenario, the husband knows the “right” answer before making any observation. The woman does the same thing when she tells her husband she enjoys sex.

I try not to do this. You may not believe me, but ask my friends (or lack thereof) and you’ll see I’m telling the truth. Truth is all I am ever concerned with. I openly criticize everything and everyone, even those I love. It does not make one popular among fools, but it can earn respect among the intelligent. Some people want friends who will tell them the honest truth.

What if the wife in question is in fact wearing something that makes her appear fat? Perhaps the pants are too tight, and as a result she has developed a muffin top. Wearing something that bears the midriff would not be very flattering. An honest comment and simple change of clothes (baggy sweater) would be all that is necessary to rectify the situation. For guy problem, see also: cars.

This is innocent enough, but the board rooms of America are filled with opportunities for an even more dangerous, though equally infantile, game of denial. Perhaps our current economic situation might have been avoided if less “yes men” had encouraged the activities of the ignorant few at the top. There are many endeavors which have failed solely because no one had the guts to correct the boss.

We call these people whistleblowers, which isn’t too flattering. It reminds me of hallway monitors or something equally irritating and shrill. These people are more than whistleblowers. Anyone can nod their head in agreement and go with the flow. It takes a hero to stand against the stream, and even divert it elsewhere.

Honesty is something the world could use more of. Sometimes it appears that there is less integrity, reliability and authenticity in the world today. I attribute this to advertising, which is the industry of bullshit. America has perfected the fine art of deception. In a nation obsessed with appearance, honesty is in short supply. I sometimes wonder if it’s also in short demand as well. Better to just jack ourselves off as everything burns, right?

There simply isn’t enough candor anymore. People are afraid to speak up. This is a form of dishonesty: the lie of omission. This is not a lie in the traditional sense, because a lie is a knowingly false statement made by the speaker with the intent of deception. The lie of omission is deception, as the “liar” in this case knows something and purposely does not divulge it.

Worse yet, some people will not only omit the truth, they will inundate the us with meaningless drivel in an attempt to divert all attention away from the deception. Bush was a master at this. Some say he was a fool. I think he was a tactical genius. He achieved far more of his goals during his eight years than Obama or any liberal ever would.

It’s just truly unfortunate Bush felt it was more important to avenge his daddy, funnel money to the wealthy, deregulate our markets to the point of major recalls on a monthly basis, and let’s not forget assault weapons galore. All he had to do was rile up the liberal base on meaningless issues that affect almost no one, and while the liberals flooded talks shows with snide remarks about Bush not being about to complete a sentence, he was off cutting brush at home while his people did all the work in Washington. Bush got what he wanted, and he got it while staying home; that is the American dream, right there.

But I digress…

Honesty, while important, is only the tip of the ethical iceberg. It is superficial. Actions are the true measure of one’s morality. Words would have no power to them if they did not inspire, or incite, action.

Atheist April & A New Theme

For my first post of the month, I want to announce that April will be Atheist month. I picked it because of a post by Uruk which I found amusing.

The story goes: a judge dismissed a case by an Atheist (obviously a big A) who was suing to institute an Atheist holiday. The judge quotes Psalm 14:1 (The fool says in his heart there is no God), and it is declared that April first is the Atheist holiday, since it is April Fool's Day. The judge's logic is flawless, because as we all know the bible is American law.

So even though I will be going in to work today, I will be celebrating Atheist April by kicking it off with a nice April Fool's Day. While Uruk is quick to distance himself from the name-calling, I like it. There's nothing more natural and cathartic than honestly telling someone what you really think of them. For one thing, it quickly clears up misconceptions. If I call someone something and it doesn't actually apply to them, they're quick to point it out. If I had kept it to myself, who knows how long I would have believed them to be something they weren't.

However, the original word translated, according to my fiancé, is more closely degraded, evil or wicked. She had quite a bit of commentary on this passage alone. The commentary seems to say that the man overcome by passion says there is no god. This may imply the original intent was that believers undergoing anguish would question their beliefs.

There are far worse things than being a fool. While often associated with stupidity, this would be an incomplete definition. It can easily mean a trickster or joker, especially in its use for the holiday. This is its second listed definition on dictionary.com, and entering "fool" into Wikipedia will take you to the entry on "Jester." Its use as a pejorative dates back to late Latin, when the word follis (which meant bags of air or bellows) was used to refer to talkative people as "hot sacs of air," or the more familiar "windbags." It further changed over time to refer to entertainers, often comedians or court jesters. As far as I know, all of these apply to me.

So in light of this, I plan to work "fool" and the verse from Psalms into my blog's title. I will also be starting a brief series on virtues, where I will analyze various traits like honesty (my first subject) in my own view. This will serve to direct my posting in a logical manner AND help me to focus on not bashing religion, which I think is a topic I have exhausted.

What'd Jew Do This Weekend?

My fiancé and I have had nothing but awkward resistance from her family regarding the wedding. The older of her two younger brothers is coming, but her younger brother and parents are being sent an invitation anyway. Maybe she sees it as passive-aggressive; I think it’s a waste of a stamp. As with all disagreements, we did what she wanted.

Whether it was a nice gesture or a back-handed swipe, she seems to be trying to stay on their good side. One of her cousins is getting married today, and she was invited. I was not. She thought I would be insulted. I’m just glad I don’t have to go and wear a kippah.

That whole thing is a major sore spot with me. I don’t like impositions. I hate uniforms and dress codes. I believe people should be allowed to pre-judge you based on what you wear, but people should think before assuming the appearance of something implies the it is a reality. Remember, all the guys who ran this country into the ground over the last eight years wore suits.

So what’s the deal with making me wear a Jew-niform just to sit through a boring spiel? I’m already sitting through a ceremony that’s in a foreign language I don’t understand, how uncomfortable are you trying to make me feel?

I once went to some sort of dinner that was days after the wedding of one of my fiancé’s friend. It has some Hebrew name, and she’s not here to tell me what it is. So besides feeling completely uncomfortable, the food was unpalatable. I had some salad and bites of everything else. Then we had bread made from blond children (or so I hear).

Afterwards, she pointed out I was the only one without a kippah (that’s a yarmulke to most Gentiles). I hadn’t noticed, but apparently those who know to look probably did. It’s a very strange exclusionary practice. I for one have a full head of hair (perhaps my one good physical feature). I certainly don’t need a bald-spot cover.

So she’s gone to the “lion’s den,” although I’m only worried about her drive to Brooklyn… and being the only one to walk the dog tonight.

Above Criticism

The UN Human Rights Council has voted to adopt a text proposed by Pakistan that makes defamation of religion a human rights violation. Apparently the term "human rights" does not translate well into Arabic, as this resolution does not protect the rights of human beings, just religious ideas. The measure was pushed through by Muslim nations who seek to leverage the rule against those who would criticize their religion, and by extension their theocracy.

"Defamation of religious [sic] is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of their adherents and incitement to religious violence." Actually, reacting to criticism everyone else endures by moving to prevent people from ever questioning you is "restriction of freedom." As for "incitement to religious violence," that's a problem originating with the religious, not the critics.

This is largely a reaction to the Mohammed cartoons and the controversy they caused. Apparently the Muslim world is upset that they can't kill people who criticize Islam if they do it from free land. This measure seeks to put religion above reproach, outside of the realm of what can be discussed critically.

I doubt these measures will lead to any action, but they are an indicator of one major flaw of fundamentalism: the inability to take a joke.

The Wedding

It occurred to me that blogs are usually a catalogue of people's every day, mundane activity. This is why I hate reading most blogs and stopped blogging after the first three times I tried. If there's one thing worse than hearing about someone's boring, routine life, it's being reminded of my own boring, routine life. However, people don't just get married every day, so I thought I'd post about my upcoming wedding in May.

I met her through an online dating service that asks a bunch of questions and matches you up. It was not eHarmony, or any other pay site. It was a free one, so obviously we're both cheap. We had that in common from the start.

When we first met up, we had a good time and just kept hanging out, closer and closer together each date (both in time apart and proximity in space). Pretty soon I made my move. "Wanna hang out in bed?" I asked on the *censored for decency*th date. Like a lady, she said "sure."

She pretty much didn't leave my apartment for several months except to go to class and go out with me to get groceries. We talked about moving in together after a couple months, but we decided to wait until we'd been together a year... so we didn't look crazy.

We've been together over two years now and we're getting married in two months. I owned one cat before meeting her and she owned two. I rescued a fourth cat off the street when we still had separate residences, but we found him a home through Craigslist after it became clear that four cats and my feline allergy would not be realistic for our move in together.

We moved in last spring. By the summer, I went with her to a music festival. I can't stand the things, but I figure a weekend here or there each year is a whole lot less to sit through than church on a weekly basis. It's comparable to the less rigorous "Christmas/Easter" Christians. I don't care how anyone practices their faith, so long as it doesn't impose upon me (and I don't find parades or nativity scenes imposing, just kind of gay).

I feel bad, making fun of homosexuals in a piece about weddings. I wasn't trying to spit on anyone while they were down. I didn't mean it to insult gay people, just religious people (you know, since they would hate being gay). Oy...

So these music festivals... they're kind of like Vegas. What happens at music festivals stays at music festivals. It's nothing secretive, it's just that for some reason no one remembers a damn thing from the whole weekend… except for me. I remember things... horrible things...

Drum circles so big you can't see the other side. People tripping on acid mushrooms talking about elves darting through crowds of sheeople (that's people who look like sheep). Everyone is bright red from passing out in the noon sun, and they dance like Dionysian devils in the fire light, under a dark new moon by night. I may not believe in the gods, but I almost believe in demons after this.

I kid. It was mostly just sitting around, being unreachable outside cell phone range, while you sipped drinks and listened to awful jazz and funk musicians practice scales and arpeggios for hours on end.

My biggest true complaints were 1. the prevalence of vegetarian food to the exclusion of meat, and 2. the fact that people didn’t go to sleep until very late. I hate to be a bitch about going to bed early, it’s just a pain to sleep in a tent in the summer sun. I can’t sleep past nine in the summer. I don’t drink, so I’m not passed out; I’m actually conscious and having to make an effort to sleep.

My ability to tolerate a music festival cemented her love for me. We arranged to get married and set a tentative early summer date. We made the long drive from Pennsylvania to Indiana, where my parents live. We told them the good news. My mom’s reaction (looking straight at my fiancé): “Are you sure you want to marry him?” Priceless.

Things didn’t go so well with telling her parents. For one thing, I had (and still have) yet to meet her parents. This is by no fault of our own. Her parents simply aren’t interested in meeting her goyfriend turned fiancé. Something about demanding she inbreed, I can’t even pretend to understand it. Maybe it’s best he only uses his limited imagination, I might surpass that.

So she told them by phone from my parents’ house. They weren’t too thrilled. Letters began pouring in from people she barely knows. Long-lost cousins dropped in from out of town to nervously change the subject as I came in the room. It didn’t occur to me until now, but someone who didn’t love the person they were with so much might have been scared off by some of this. It just gives us a good laugh.

One night, my fiancé gets a call from one of her brothers. The half of the conversation I hear sounds like the brother has something important and that she needs to go somewhere private. Bastard knows I’m listening! Tricky!

I hear laughing and she comes back in to explain. Her brother informed her that he consulted a rabbi in Israel about our situation (as he was in Israel at the time… so this is a trans-Atlantic phone call...) who said that one of three things would happen: either I would convert to Judaism, we would break up within a year, or (this one’s my favorite) I would die. It’s Jewish Voodoo: Voojew.

Giving the curse the full benefit of the doubt, we look forward to celebrating our first year anniversary, even if she continues to beat me mercilessly. Not the face!

Obviously we aren’t having a lot of religion in our wedding. As it turns out, that leaves very little to the wedding besides the declaration and eating. I never liked the other stuff anyway. There will be no officiant, as Pennsylvania allows for self-uniting marriage (thank you Quakers). It will be just me, her, our closest friends and family in the great outdoors, surrounded by food. I even weaseled my way out of having to wear a tux.

As the date gets closer, things supposedly get more stressful. I don’t know, everything has gone smoothly and continues to fall into place. She has done a great job doing most of the planning and organizing for the wedding herself, and I’m eternally grateful that she doesn’t look down on me for every stupid attempt I make at helping.

I wish the wedding was over and done with. I look forward to marriage. The act is largely legal for me, as the symbolism is completely lost upon me. I would do anything for my fiancé, wedding or not. I don’t need a ring around my finger to remain faithful and loyal. She’s been the only woman I want to be with since the first time I told her I loved her, and as far as I’m concerned, everything else is just for show. The world wants a show, and she doesn’t mind giving them one, so wedding: here we come.

Politics, and Why I Hate It

I used to be quite interested in politics, and my opinions on it were as passionate as my feelings for religion. However, the 2008 presidential race turned me off to politics.

I have tried to pretend to be a Democrat, but like being religious, the tag just doesn't fit. I'm very clearly not a Republican, since I don't think the world would be a better place just by preventing gays from marrying and women from planning when they have a baby. However, the issues which are important to me are largely ignored by the general population. Worse yet, no political party sides with me on any of my most important issues.

If you want to limit government influence, you have no one to vote for. If you think churches should be taxed, you have no one to vote for. If you oppose funding the wars of foreign nations, you have no one to vote for. If you think the second amendment is an outdated rule from the era of single-shot muskets, you have no one to vote for. If you oppose the war on drugs, want to lower the drinking age, or think cigarette taxes are too high, you have no one to vote for. I'll get to Libertarians in a minute.

Republicans in particular voice their agreement with me on some issues, but their track record in the White House under Reagan and both Bushes has proven that it's all talk meant to garner the vote of people like me (angry men who don't want to be bothered). Republicans love to court the vote of "Libertarians" by making empty promises of smaller government and low taxes. Of course, Libertarian is just what young Republicans call themselves because it's so embarrassing to admit you voted for Bush or McCain.

If you vote Republican, the only things you will end up supporting are socially restrictive policies meant to intrude on private citizens and their rights. Republicans attack liberty at every turn, from the PATRIOT Act to bans on gay marriage and abortion. There's nothing Libertarian about the Republicans besides the horrendous tax policy shared by the two, a tax policy which only serves to create a massive gap in wealth between the rich and middle class.

Eisenhower, the last great Republican president, had it right when he signed off on a 90% tax for the wealthiest earners. This tax carried America through it's most prosperous years, enabling us to grow and build our infrastructure to what we have today.

Republicans and Libertarians would have us believe that the government screws up everything, but the truth is that government is only inefficient when Republicans are running it. The highway system, NASA's trip to the moon, the Postal System, parks, police, firemen, etc. are all "socialized." Republicans can't even say the words "our military" without immediately following it with some variant of the phrase, "which is the best in the world." So if socialism is good enough for the best military in the world... why not other things that benefit every citizen?

Democrats, on the other hand, are more open to the ideas I support... but they're also open to some I oppose as strongly as I would if they were Republican. PETA, Green Peace, censorship, media scapegoating, and countless other types of legislation which I would characterize as "Mommy Laws" all serve only to intrude on the choices of Americans. We don't need anything safer "for the kids." Fuck the kids, and fuck their lazy parents who don't bother raising them.

So if it's between Femacrats and Retardicans, I get bored. I think that's why I like discussing religion: there's more than two sides. The false dichotomy presented by American politics is dwarfed in intellectual size by the plurality of religious debate.

Traffic and Philosophy

Often, the case is made that the modern world is more fragmented and alienating that previous periods. On the contrary, I would argue that, while perhaps physically alienating, human beings are working together in a manner never before imaginable. For one thing, the internet simultaneously makes its user anonymous and connected to numerous others. They all enjoy an element of privacy that enables many to lower, or even completely shrug off, their inhibitions. It may be this sordid view of humanity that people don’t truly like: a simple, reptilian brain that still functions beneath the deep recesses of the complex cerebrum in all of us.

My favorite example of the modern dichotomy of anonymity and interconnectedness is traffic. Imagine the complexity of it all: the multitude of human beings sitting behind a large engine within which numerous tiny explosions are being converted into the power to reach speeds often exceeding seventy miles per hours, faster than any other land animal on earth. With the use of a modest system of signs and lights, hundreds of thousands of people pass daily with little effort over distances greater than many people two-hundred years ago would venture in a lifetime.

Traffic, with its thankless courtesies and required patience, might seem an impossible feat to someone who has never seen it. Philosophers for millennia have debated the capabilities of the average human being. Traffic appears to disprove the pessimists who would say that most people are incapable of… did you see that? He just cut me off! I’m gonna speed up and pass HIM, then slow down and see if he likes it. Oh what the fuck, let me in you faggoty ass semi. Goddamn butt-fucking truckers, I swear to God; they can all just eat my ass raw. Jesus Fucking Christ! What’s this asshole doing? GET OFF THE PHONE YOU JACKASS! Ahem, sorry.

Shit, what is the hold up here, why are we stopped? Looks like some kind of accident… God I wish they’d just scoop up the wreckage, corpses and all, with a snow plow and go sort it out someplace else. This is fucking ridiculous. I knew I should have taken the surface roads.

Fun With Language: Atheism vs atheism

I have been challenged that atheism and Atheism cannot be different things simply because of capitalization. A poster in the comments of one of Uruk's posts claimed "what I do call nonsense is the idea that a definition changes simply because you capitalize a letter in the word. Atheist will always mean the same thing, whether it is a big A or a little a - and it does not mean the same thing as agnostic (big A or little a)."

I will refute your claim in two parts. The first part is easy. You must not be familiar with English if you don't understand that capitalization makes a huge difference in a word. The word God, for example, refers to the monotheistic deity followed by English-speaking Christians (and sometimes Jews and Muslims, though they have their own terminology which is borrowed from Hebrew and Arabic, respectively). The word god or gods refers to the basic idea of deities, and may refer to any divine beings from any of a number of religions.

But I'm not done there. I was so intrigued by the ignorance of this statement, I went on a quest to discover as many as I could. Many names have this trait. For example, Rich and Dick are both short for Richard, whereas rich and dick are synonyms for Republican. 10,000 Maniacs is a band, whereas 10,000 maniacs would be a Republican convention.

There's Earth, which is the name of the planet we inhabit, while earth is soil. The next one is in the form of two example sentences: "The Irish march through the streets in March for St. Patrick's Day. The gays may have a parade in May."

A Pole is someone from Poland, while a pole is something strippers dance around. If you fly west from California, you will reach the East (as the compass directions aren't capitalized, unless denoting a place). Much later, after writing some of these, I found this, which actually defines the term for this phenomenon of language (capitonym) and gives many more examples. It has two great poems at the bottom.

Now that we're clear that capitalization is clearly an important component of the English language, we can move on to whether there is (since there clearly can be) a difference between Atheist and atheist.

Before I go too in depth, realize that my goal in self-applying the term is to avoid confusion. While I could use some esoteric terminology, I pragmatically sided with atheism over agnosticism (the two most popular) because many theists, in my experience, think an agnostic is fodder for recruitment because there is some implication of doubt.

Short of the clouds parting and a heavenly voice calling my name and beckoning me, I can’t imagine anything that would make me rethink theism. To a percent, I am 99.9 repeating-forever sure. This is mathematically 100%, as .9 repeating is equal to 1. Don’t believe me? What is 1/3rd expressed as a fraction? The answer is .3 repeating to infinity. Triple that, and you have .9 repeating to infinity. So while I may not express myself as 100%, it is virtually the same. I may seem like a literalist, because I am. It is not that I fail to see symbolism, I just see through it.

Since theism cannot prove its existence, some people do not even acknowledge it. Some are apatheists, and don’t care about this “god” stuff. Some brush it off as something other people worry about, believing it won’t affect them. Then they get sick one day; it’s not a prophecy, its mortality. Suddenly the fact that religious fundamentalists hate funding science plays a direct role over whether there is medicine which will treat you. I can’t ignore this travesty, and the other little things that religion messes with will just be icing on the cake if religion ever loses its influence. Since religion won't topple itself, it's up to skeptics to help.

I’m more accurately a nontheist, or perhaps antitheist. However, some would misinterpret antitheist to mean I somehow envision myself as aligned in opposition to gods. This would in turn imply belief in gods, in order to oppose them. Antitheism has nothing to do with faith, only an opposition to theism. Nontheism, then, is probably the best descriptor for my stance on gods. Also, I think the title of my blog pretty much sums it up.

However, nontheism, like atheism, is not a statement of affirmation. Itstead, it is merely the rejection of a theory. If I were to describe myself, I would say I’m an opinionated, independent, argumentative rationalist who believes in total unification (though not homogenization) of the human race and who is fascinated by mythology, philosophy, morality, and ethics.

Divine Intervention and Spider Bites

The faithful have a phrase that has always bugged me: "Everything happens for a reason." I don't agree with this at all, as I am not a fatalist. Pre-determination is not an idea to which I subscribe. I think everything that happens has a cause, but not a "reason."

Reason would imply some sort of planned, designed, or even desired outcome. While some things do indeed happen for a reason, it is not a universal. While my initial goal of this post was to delve into free will, I would rather analyze a situation I found while browsing some online news stories.

In the past, ideologists would posit hypothetical, though plausible, scenarios in order to illustrate a point. Today, we have the internet to allow us access to countless real situations (in theory). The case of David Blancarte is one of great interest.

In 1988, at the age of 27, David was a boxer and dancer. Then, he had a motorcycle accident. He became paralyzed from the waist down. This was a tragedy of youth wasted, and the young man was confined to a wheelchair. The thoughts running through his mind must have been unthinkably bleak, as the situation seemed hopeless.

After 21 years, David had another bit of bad luck. He was bitten by a brown recluse spider. Though not deadly, the bite is painful and can lead to necrotic ulceration (epidermal damage resulting in dead tissue around the site). What could he have possibly done in a past life to deserve this?

But David's story doesn't end here. Instead, David's nurse attempts a treatment that has never been proven effective in clinical trials: electric shock to the affected area. David felt the shock as it was administered, even though the injury was to his leg.

After months of rehabilitation, David walked out of the hospital having been admitted paralyzed with a spider bite. His case is being hailed as a medical marvel(or "miracle," to those so inclined). Surely the gods must have some great plan for David, and he can't wait for the day when he will walk his 14-year-old twin daughters down the aisle of their respective weddings.

However, it would seem David is not interested in any of these plans, as he was arrested this month on an outstanding warrant stemming from a contempt of court charge that occurred during a domestic abuse case. Perhaps the gods wanted David to be able to walk himself into prison.

This case is a strange ride through destiny.

Atheism as Rebellion

I have often said atheism is not a religion, though Atheism (with a capital A, defined as one who claims and militantly defends the belief that there are not, or cannot be, gods) is a faith; when organized into a group, it can take on aspects of religion (like American Atheists or Brights).

On the other hand, atheism is simply a rebellion against religion, just as anarchy is not a system of government, but a complete lack thereof. Both of these ideas, anarchy and atheism, are statements of one saying that having nothing at all would be better than what we have now. Both are a call towards ideological emptiness, devoid of all culture, an intellectual vacuum. When a system begins to break down, and that system has successfully suppressed much of its outside influence, rejection of the old is directed towards nothing, figuratively and literally.

However, most individuals cannot stay in a state of rebellion for long, let alone a lifetime. It is not some form of weakness that draws people to faith, nor is it fear, or even emotional. Each person’s needs are fulfilled differently by religion, which is why we are fortunate to have such a vast choice. Religion offers many things to people: moral guidance, community, and some third one (I thought for five minutes and got nothing). However, it does not have a monopoly on any of them.

I would argue that there are more believers in America because there are more options (though more people in non-monotheistic religions would be nice). It’s the same reason we watch more TV: more channels. If you live in a country with few options, you will be driven to atheism. Many atheists will convert before they die. Many won’t. I have no idea what the break down would be, but it’s clear from observation that some, like Anne Rice, forsake their hedonistic past. Others, like Christopher Reeves, reject organized religion to the very end.

Perhaps the maps we follow are different because we do not seek to cross the same terrain. While some follow what they hope to be a master’s path, they must trust those who have tread upon and obscured the original footprints. Some push to new terrain, despite the herd’s shouted threats of danger. Atheists must be content to sit alone, laughing at those who pass.

Infomercial Invasion

Some people may have noticed a surge in primetime advertising for... well... crap. The most popular ones are Cash for Gold, the Snuggie, and ShamWow. My personal favorite is the last one, as this is a product I have had personal experience with. No, I never ordered one, but the material (mostly rayon) has been used as a towel by swimmers for years now.

I can attest that it makes a great pool towel, but I would highly discourage the use of it as a disposable towel replacement. I can't imagine the gross build up that would occur after cleaning up a couple soda or juice spills with that. An interesting side note: the guy who does the commercial is named Vince Offer. He's a former Scientologist. *daily Scientology reference quota met*

Why is there a surge in awful ads? TV advertising is going down in price, so that means we can expect more of these almost-great ideas. Of course, I stay up late, so I'm no stranger to awful commercials. I've seen midgets selling real estate, Esteban selling guitars, and about a dozen products from Billy Mays. I think it's fair that people on normal sleep schedules should suffer as I have for so long. In the end, you at least get a great laugh out of it (or sponsor a kid in Africa with a suspiciously Western name).

Atheism's Jewish Roots

I see religion as evolving through history. At first, man must have “worshipped” (or simply stood in awe at) the natural world that he saw. The sun, moon, stars, and weather must have seemed impressive and mysterious to the burgeoning rational human. Even some animals are impressive.

Some people, either through mind or might, would distinguish themselves as powerful. The worship of heroes and cults of personality would arise around those who seemed (or claimed) to possess knowledge or control over nature. Heroes who descend to the world of the dead and return are popular, but sometimes great chiefs and kings have been identified with sky or earth gods.

The end result of all this hero worship is a vast collection, or pantheon, of gods and goddesses. Polytheism was the natural progression from local tribal worship into communal and city systems. Within pantheons, gods seem to vie for power as their followers on Earth war with each other. In the end, these wars seemed to determine which systems “worked best” (or got lucky). Adaptable religions persisted, static religions died, and dynamic new ones filled in the gaps.

What does all of this have to do with a link between Judaism and Atheism? Judaism is the first persisting faith to deny the existence of gods. In fact, all Abrahamic religions owe their theology to Judaism. Prior to this, Greek and Roman theology had practiced syncretism, which is the belief that one small village’s chief god is merely a local manifestation of the father god of the conquering empire’s pantheon. This is why gods like Zeus, Ares, Athena, etc. have many additional epithets that denote local cult worship. Even Yahweh and Jesus were both invoked by non-Jewish, non-Christian Greeks and Romans for the purposes of ritual (most evidence that survives today is in the form of curse tablets, buried in the ground).

The Abrahamic attitude toward the religious faiths of others opened the door for atheism. While it may have taken a long time, this is because the monotheists were much better at quashing resistance than the open-minded pagans before them. While the Romans are criticized by modern Christians for their intolerance, Rome was far more accommodating to new ideas under polytheism than under the Church (as evidenced by the Church’s ability to rise to prominence). The treatment of “heretical” thought under monotheistic control is a direct result of the narrow, singular worldview presented as truth (evidenced by the complete lack of thinking that occurred in the Dark Ages).

So we have progressed from wonder, to hero worship, to a pantheon of gods, to one god. However, this is not where we are today. Instead, we live in a revisitation of the hero worship phase. The most popular religions around the world are Christianity and Islam, both of which are reliant on cult figures to define their worship. While Christians claim Jesus was God, and Muslims won’t bow down to a picture of Mohammed, the reverence for these very human (and therefore imperfect) men as unquestionable pillars of religious practice have resurrected the hero cult.

New personalities are always appearing, ready to lead their own flocks in the name of the one god. The heroes portrayed themselves as self-sacrificing, all in honor of the one god. Monotheism can potentiate one positive cause, but only if it is successful in complete membership of every person: complete unification under one goal. This is unrealistic, and perhaps frightening when one considers how foolishly humanity tends to act when no criticism is tolerated (and what methods are used to achieve complete “compliance”).

It would appear the next logical step was atheism, as this is the complete severance from the abstract notion of the divine. I have no doubt atheism will become popular, but it will likely never be a majority. Atheism, in the average person, is a vacuum of faith which sucks in any nearby idea. Those not intellectually motivated to pursue secular solutions to replace those of religion will be cursed to swallow the venom of dogma along with the waters of belief when the next person comes along claiming to have the answer. Old faiths will continue to disappear, and new faiths will replace them.

As atheism increases, the cult of personality will as well, and new religions will form more frequentlty. Scientology has already filled a niche in a scientifically minded society. It has constructed its theological and philosophical vocabulary around scientific sounding terms and theories. It has even gone so far as to paint their primary secular competition, psychiatry and psychology, as the enemy.

Whether popular religions today continue into the future will not be an issue of which faith is “better.” There is no better or worse faith, only ones that work for their time and place, and ones that do not. The one’s that work in the future will be ones that are compatible with society’s ever changing needs and situation. Whether a religion can evolve will determine whether it survives to lie another day, or retires to the night-time fairy tales of tomorrow’s children.

Technology and the Garden

There seems to be a fear of technology among some people. Movies are full of science-gone-wrong. The birth of science fiction, according to most, is in the very fear of science itself: Frankenstein.

Science is seen as unnatural, something we can't control and will never understand. The dinosaurs break out of 'Jurassic Park'; the cure for a disease becomes a killer virus in 'I Am Legend'; robots we build to help us end up hurting us in 'Tron', 'I, Robot', all the 'Terminator' films, etc.

Where does all this fear of knowledge come from? My first impulse is to assume it is an innate fear of failure, but this is an insecurity of the individual. I am unsure this would manifest itself in the societal psyche so aggressively if it were merely collective uncertainty.

Then it occurred to me that we in the West are exposed to a story from an early age that teaches us to fear technology. It is a story that is meant to make us avoid tasting of the fruit of knowledge. When we are told of Adam and Eve's eviction from Eden, we are told that the snake's luring words and promises of knowing God's secrets is the prime sin of mankind.

Perhaps this is why some believers are so vocal when it comes to opposing risky technological advances. However, it is apparent that people know better, especially in times of despair. In the end, the person having a heart attack does not call their pastor first; they call 911 to be taken to a hospital. It is technology that people turn to in their darkest moments of fear. Even when death creeps up on those who claim to believe in heaven, they still want to stay here. This evident doubt gives me hope that those who believe aren't as dumb as they want to be.

Born Again Atheist

Growing up, my father was an atheist and my mother was a Catholic. My father followed my mother to church, but he didn't go up for a holy cracker or say every prayer. He was just being polite (far more polite than I would ever be).

From an early age, I knew my dad was different than my mom in this respect, but it didn't really matter to me until I was older and started hearing that people who don't believe in Jesus go to hell. And worse, Catholics teach that according to section 1035 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (AKA: the shit Jesus apparently forgot to mention): "Immediately after death, the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell."

This made me upset, considering my father might go to hell. I didn't know what the mortal sins were, so I looked them up. It turns out one of them is disrespecting your parents, so I just left my dad to his own devices, for fear of bringing the wrath upon me.

A lot has changed since I was a legalistic Catholic who knew his Catechism and Bible front to back. I read the entire Bible (Catholic, New American Bible translation) by 5th grade. I have since read the bible several more times, though later readings were directed by a purpose and sometimes in different translations (and often not thoroughly). Since becoming an atheist when I was 14, I have read the KJV Bible from Genesis to Revelation. It is my closeness to the material that makes it impossible for me to believe. I refuse to acknowledge that any sane person can read the entire Bible and believe it to be literally true.

However, I have discovered there is a process by which one becomes an atheist. People like to focus on some sort of trauma inducing early event that triggers a dislike for religion, but this is not necessary. What makes someone become an atheist is unique and personal for each person. After this personal reason is established, there are phases a person goes through when becoming a "Born Again Atheist."

The focus of this post is on people who were formeraly religious and then cease to be. Some folks are lucky enough to be born without religion pressed upon them. For the rest of us, crawling out of the stagnant swamp of religion is a complex process.

The first stage is realization. There may be hesitation, backsliding into comfortable ritual, and continued adherence to many or all religious rules, but the mental decision is made in this stage. The thoughts in one's mind swim like sharks in a pool that is far too small. How do I tell those I love? Will they still love me? Am I making the right decision? What if I'm wrong? Why won't god answer my prayers?

This first stage can be one of desperation. Some people ease into this stage over time, perhaps when they go off to college (for those lucky and rich enough). This makes the whole process easier, as you can form a new network of friends and have space apart from those who may oppose your new ideas. Those who rely upon family for everything, however, often find themselves in a vastly more hostile situation, and may never progress to the next step.

The second stage is dropping your birth religion, in both word and action. This can be done quickly or gradually over time, and is not always a complete break. Many are the atheists who give gifts at Christmas (and it IS Christmas, not "Winter Solstice," you fucking PC police).

The third stage, and everyone goes through this (sometimes concurrently with step 2), is to briefly adopt a new religion. It happens, trust me. Nine times out of ten, the new atheist decides they're a Buddhist and spends months trying to convince themselves that Buddhism and atheism are basically compatible. Some just stick with it to varying degrees of seriousness. Every white person I ever met who is Buddhist took this path, and never progressed from this stage.

Stage four is full-fledged atheism. By this stage, one realizes that every religion is like a song. Every culture has it's own, but they're all in the same key. However, while every song is about peace and love, most followers only hum the words [out of tune].

Within atheism itself, there are further stages of complexity. The most common is the atheist who ceases interest in religion entirely. The most visible is the violently oppositional atheist, who does not hesitate to point out to all who will listen that there is no god. There are the empathetic atheists, who seek out other atheists so that they may join together in their similarity. Empathetic atheists often seek to build a community of Atheism (emphasis on the capital A), turning the idea of anti-religion on its head and instead embracing concepts like Freethought, Rationalism, and Science as uniting factors.

I have never met another atheist like myself, though I know we are out there (if only because there isn't an original atom in my body). I am technically an atheist, but I am more defined by my desire to oppose the idea of groups. It's not that I want to be a lone wolf, nor that I believe we as humans work poorly together. Rather, I oppose groups because while on the surface they appear to bind us, groups only divide us. There is only one group I want to be identified with: the human race. It is indivisible and excludes no one. Every group we form, border we draw, religion we found, and distinction we create between ourselves only furthers the notion that we as humans are focused on our own petty self interests. Everything that seperates the population into Us and Them succeeds only in pitting our power as a race against ourselves rather than creating music in concert together.

Religious, But Not Spiritual?

Everyone has heard some variation of the phrase, “I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual.” The comedian Daniel Tosh has the best reply to this so far: “Well I'm not honest, but you're interesting.” However, are followers and rationalists missing out on something?

I have known quite a few people who self-identify as “spiritual, but not religious.” My basic understanding of the term is that it applies to a person who holds some degree of supernatural belief, but does not feel they are adherent to a particular religion. There are many reasons for this that I have seen.

The first is that the person is just simply irreligious. They are usually the kind of person who is not interested in religion. Many people who are “spiritual, but not religious” would self-identify with a religion on a survey. However, like most people, they know little or nothing of their faith. This is not for lack of intelligence or any secret cover-up; most people just simply aren’t enthusiastic about religion, either for or against. Most people would probably prefer to never talk about it at all.

So the first group of people who self identify in this category are normal, average, non-practicing believers. This does not mean they don’t do anything religious (especially around fun holidays); they just don’t follow all the rules. Most followers fall into this category, whether they know it or not. Some people have the honesty to say they partially follow a religion, but not many. It’s easier to use a euphemism like the phrase being discussed in this post.

There are also agnostics who see themselves as culturally religious. They may doubt the whole idea of god, but generally appreciate the social functions that religion still engenders. Some may follow their own “brand” of a more popular mainstream religion (usually a foreign religion; bonus points for it being Eastern). Others may do the bare minimum publicly required of them to appease family and friends. Still others are closet atheists, waiting to expose their true identity.

Like any religious tag, the phrase will mean something personal to each person who says it. However, wouldn’t it be odd if someone unified these people into one religion called the Spiritual, But Not Religious (SBNR) Church? They could have a rule that everyone WON’T meet each week. They can incorporate every holiday into their church, and members may freely celebrate any, all, or none of them.

Myself, I’m religious, but not spiritual. I believe in no superstitions, but I am very ritualistic. Humans are creatures of habit, and not even I can escape that.

Anti-Intellectualism

There is a sub-culture of ignorance in America. Throughout the right wing, words like "elitist," "intellectual," "professor [unless followed by 'of Economics']," etc. mean something negative. This is sad for the Republican party. The only reason to hold such negative views towards those with the most knowledge in their field is because their views disagree with your own. When the experts disagree with you, maybe it's because you don't know what you're talking about.

The general attitude among the right wing has been to create an appearance that these somehow corrupt thinkers are ruining the country. Nevermind the eight years of no-holds-barred Republican capitalism, in which industries did as they pleased. How did that work out for us? We're in the worst economic situation since the Great Depression. We are a weaker nation in both health and international respect. Our children are scoring lower than most developed countries, as well as some developing ones.

The best part of all of this is that Republicans refuse to increase funding for schools. I would argue this is to help increase the number of Republicans, since it's harder to convince intelligent people of their views. All it would take is a lesson in history for Republicanism to be seen as obsolete.

The greatest claim of the Republican ideology is that of decreased government intervention. This is a wonderful idea, especially as it pertains to daily life for the individual citizen. However, Republicans want to butt government into many individual decisions: from who you love and marry to when your life begins and ends. Republicans repeatedly support measures that take control out of our control and puts it into the hands of Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, and the Supreme Douchebag Himself. So why do Republicans claim to support "small government?"

Republicans aren't lying when they say they support smaller government, they just don't express where the government will be getting smaller. Republicans always reduce help for the citizens, both in times of need (natural disasters, welfare, healthcare) and when dealing with companies (in the form of decreased regulation). You know all those food recalls? Classic Republican deregulation.

Right wingers are full of shit when it comes to being fiscally conservative; only a Democrat has ever balanced the budget in my lifetime. Republicans love to say Democrats spend too much money, yet every Republican president since Reagan has made it their sworn duty to put this country in debt beyond the point of ever being able to repay it. If you think my generation, the children of Gen X, are ever going to get off our asses and pay that... well you must be as high as we are.

Republicans fear those who might challenge our most basic, cherished, time-honored prejudices.
Republicans, please: stop being ignorant. I know you guys aren't stupid, and there's a big difference between being ignorant and being stupid: ignorance is temporary, but stupid is forever.

Below is a link to a great panel discussion, one that inspired me to write this rant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUMy71Mj9Vo

A visual representation of Bush's life:

Atheist Blogroll

I'd like to thank the Atheist Blogroll for adding me. I look forward to the added traffic :-P

Heliolatry

People reject the notion that one cannot have any faith. To theists, atheism is a faith because they cannot “prove” the non-existence of god(s). The root of this problem is that atheism is not a belief, but a lack of belief. However, theists do not view it this way because they see the disbelief in their theory of God as a leap of faith, even though they have presented a situation that cannot be disproven (which makes the statement utterly pointless to discuss).

In light of this attitude, a prevailing theory for those who do not believe in god(s) must be presented. A competing idea would be more substantial than an empty rejection, which relies on defining itself solely on its opposition to a proposed belief. This competing idea must coincide with the theist’s theory of god, but it must also being scientifically relevant.

The theory of God claims the existence of one or multiple deities. These deities are defined as having attributes including, but not limited to: creator of mankind/earth; controller of mankind/earth; provider of benefits; demander of respect; and ultimate destroyer. There is already something empirically proven to possess all these godly traits, and it’s something that we can all agree exists.

Life on this planet is not possible without the Sun. Every atom on Earth was fused in the center of the Sun at the birth of the solar system. We literally are borne out of the Sun. The cycle of day and night is governed by Earth’s rotational relationship to the Sun. The seasons are governed by the Earth’s tilt in relation to the Sun. The weather is a result of unequal heating of the Earth by the Sun. The Sun’s energy is converted into a usable form for life on Earth through photosynthesis. It provides the energy needed to drive farming, the lifeblood of human existence in the modern word. It bestows vitamin D upon exposure to human skin. The absence of the Sun causes many people to become depressed. Humanity relies upon the Sun.

The Sun has many other godly traits. The Sun cannot be stared into, perhaps out of respect for its greatness. The Sun can also punish those who do not follow this rule by blinding them. Skin cancer can be seen as ignoring or flaunting the Sun's power. These attributes demand reverence and are compounded by the fact that our planet revolves around the Sun. It is quite literally the center of our existence.

The Sun is also the bringer of the end. Assuming the Earth survives until the hydrogen in the Sun is used up, the Earth will be charred by the increased heat as the Sun expands and eventually engulfs our planet. The Sun created us, and the Sun will destroy us. At least the Sun probably won’t destroy the Earth for another couple billion years, so the Sun has not only given us life, but also the time required to become cognizant of our situation. The Sun is a merciful deity.

Knowing these facts, one can begin to explore the deeper aspects of what Heliolatry must entail. It gives man a purpose, and quite a positive one at that. Survival of the species relies upon our ability to leave our home, which is ultimately doomed. It may be all we have ever known, but it is apparent that our planet cannot support us forever.

It does not appear the Sun requires any type of worship. It is there every morning, and we know it isn’t really gone at night, nor when it’s cloudy, or even during an eclipse. Most importantly, it is a deity that we can prove exists and has a measurable influence. I urge everyone to try meditating in the sun (perhaps in a bathing suit on a beach) and then try to tell me you don’t feel heavenly.

Titles and Pleasantries

I give the world a fair amount of empathy. I never imply I am in a rush so that waiters, waitresses, store clerks, customer service reps, or tellers feel pressured. If I haven’t passed by anyone in a while, I smile to the next person or group of people I see, regardless of who they are (though I don’t walk around beaming in the middle of crowds of people).

However, I always look down upon those who demand respect or are trying to suck up to me. I like people who I can talk to casually, as if we were familiar with each other. People who demand superficial rituals to be performed in their honor disgust me and ignite my rage against their self deification. Having to address people with a title or anything other than simply their name is a gross perversion of the equality shared between all people.

I also hate to be on the receiving end of this malicious attack on basic humanism. I find petty pleasantries to be insulting to my intellect. “Sir” and “Ma’am” smack of mock flattery. They’re the 3-4 letter equivalent to saying “Hello sir, have you lost weight? Let me loosen your belt so we can slip those pants off. Then I can stick my nose directly up your ass. Oh yes sir, smells like flowers, sir. Now about that tip…”

My only regret in not furthering my education has to be that I could have earned the title "Doctor," but asked people to just call me by my first name.

Atheism vs. Iconoclasm

When it comes to the general consensus on atheism, I think the primary concern for believers is the preservation of their beliefs. This is perfectly valid, and religion should be respected as having a right to exist. Religion should never be attacked with intent to destroy. I don’t mean to imply that religions are above reproach. However, the actual destruction of religion, religious places of worship, or believers themselves is morally reprehensible.

Atheism's stance on religion will become very important with the rise in atheism's popularity. It is one of the fastest growing responses in polls regarding faith. While it clearly hasn’t happened yet, atheism may become a sought after voting demographic. Should atheism gain government support, it will be important to draw a sharp distinction between atheism and iconoclasm.

While an atheist does not believe in gods, an iconoclast seeks to destroy all ideas and faiths that differ from his own. An iconoclast can be an atheist, but most iconoclasts have been religious. The most successful iconoclasts in history have all been religious. The only government sanctioned atheist iconoclasms were in the Soviet Union and China; both failed miserably, as the countries remain largely religious. [The information on China is very nuanced; there is debate over what is a religion and what is a "thought system," or philosophy. Estimates show roughly 8-14% are "atheist." The number of people practicing Daoism and Buddhism, which are sometimes discounted as religions, brings China's religiosity to average levels for most developed nations, besides the especially religious US.]

Ancient iconoclasts include the early Christians. After attaining influence within the Roman government, they destroyed much of Rome's polytheistic culture and even secular philosophy. Epicurus, for example, is documented as having an exhaustive collection of over 300 works attributed to him, but what remains intact are only a few short letters, quotes, and interpretations of his philosophy by others. Epicurus believed that the gods deserved no worship, which is likely why so little of his ideas survived Christianization. Modern iconoclasts include the Taliban of Afghanistan, who destroyed the colossal Bamiyan Buddha statues, built over 1,500 year ago.

These acts are damaging to humanity as a whole. All religions and philosophies are collections of accumulated wisdom. They plumb the deepest recesses of the human condition. Every ideology has a value that is intangible to us. Who would have thought Freud would deduce such conclusions from the myth of Oedipus? Could Plato conceive that his ideas would be borrowed by rebellious Jews hundreds of years later, who would go on to call themselves Christians?

One day, all that we believe will be taught to young children, and they will mock us for it. We must keep a humble perspective on our place in history. Even our greatest institutions are but tiny pieces of a much greater puzzle. We must be sure not to forget any of them, but I could do without the blind obedience. Remember, one day your sacred texts will be read in Ancient History classes alongside Homer, and I have news for you: most people will prefer Homer.

Pascal Wagers; I raise

I find Pascal's Wager to be one of the most likely reasons people become religious followers. How can something most of the faithful have never heard of influence their decision?

Blaise Pascal was a mathematician and Christian apologist. He articulated in clear, mathematical terms why it was statistically preferable to believe in God. His theory can be expressed in this chart:



The chart represents a scenario all people are faced with: to believe, or not to believe. There are also two outcomes possible. The chart illustrates the four results of both belief and disbelief in either a world with God or a world without.

According to the chart, the believer is rewarded if there is a god, while the disbeliever is punished. If there is no god, both the believer and non-believer have a net gain/loss of zero from their choice. The outcome is that only belief can bring a positive gain, and that nothing can come of disbelief. To the believer, this idea is self-evident. However, there's some serious logical fallacies going on with the scenario.

The first thing I notice is that the chart assumes belief is the defining factor for salvation. Many have argued that one's actions, not beliefs, are the yardstick by which the soul is judged.

Another dilemma is the false dichotomoy presented us. In reality, there are far more options. Which gods are we talking about? The basic assumption is belief in YHWH, the Abrahamic monodeity (AKA: God). However, entire pantheons of gods are ignored on a daily basis. Should a follower of YHWH be saved if the decision is up to the Greek Zeus, Norse Odin, Egyptian Osiris, or Aztec Quetzalcoatl? "God" and "No God" are inadequate, and a new column would need to be added to include each deity who judges the dead from every religion, ever.

But wait, what if the gods have no interest in our dronings? Let's assume YHWH is the one true God for a minute, which also assumes man was made in God's image. From that, I can extrapolate that God has human tendencies, which is evident in the Bible's emotional and rash portrayal of the supreme being.

What if the chantings of the faithful followers annoy Him? What if He's ticked off by the countless prayers to help pay bills, conceive children, find a job, etc. (not to mention sports related prayers... I bet he's really pissed during playoffs)? In this case, some forms of belief may actually have drawbacks. This doesn't seem out of character for the Heavenly Father; what dad likes going to those gay performances their kids put on? The answer is none of the straight ones, and we know YHWH is all man, baby!

Then there's the "Jealous God" pitfall. Sure you can worship lots of gods, but what if that pisses of the more powerful ones? What if sacrificing a ram to Poseidon will piss off Thor? We know YHWH's hang-ups with other gods. I can't imagine they appreciate His claim to being the only one. By taking a side, one risks offending the divine, especially if you're wrong.

There is also the small matter of the inaccuracy of the "No God" results. The wager assumes that nothing is given up for faith, but any follower will tell you that to truly be religious takes self-sacrifice. It requires changes in life style, habits, manners, and even monetary investments, and that's even apart from charitable donations to the church. I have yet to hear of a religion that has never asked for a dime (even American Atheists takes donations... I hope they're taxed).

In the end, the wager is logical only to the uncreative believer. Still many believe, "just in case."

Why Is Atheism Distrusted?

Atheism appears to be the most popular belief to “distrust” in the United States. This does not surprise me, nor does it really worry me. In a country where faith in a fairy tale is very popular, those who choose not to play the game tend to be disliked by the participants. Imagine a basement full of geeks playing dungeons and dragons; sure the dwarves hate the orcs, but both of them (and even the elves) hate the older brother who barges in and asks where the dungeon master left the keys to the car right when the legendary Crystal Goblet of the Hydra is being unearthed from its millennial resting place...

According to many polls, atheists are not people who would be considered worthy candidates for the presidency. Atheists have been banned from serving public office or swearing testimony in court (the ban stands in 6 states, including Arkansas, but cannot be enforced due to being unconstitutional). Only one congressman, Pete Stark (D-CA), has admitted publicly to being an atheist.

Non-believers make up over a tenth of the population in every poll taken this decade, yet their lack of representation even overshadows that of women. There are 74 female representatives (out of 435) and 17 female senators (out of 100), constituting 17% of both the house and senate; at 51% of the population, this makes women’s current representation 33% of what it would be if it were a perfect representation. With one representative (that we know of), that gives atheists a .2% congressional presence (and I rounded up… generously). Going by recent polls of 16% of the population being non-believers, about 1.25% of atheists are being represented in congress.

To be honest, none of this worries me. For one, there have been very few directed attacks against atheists, perhaps because there is rarely a place we all gather together. It’s hard to target something like an idea when the person isn’t seen practicing anything that would suggest their stance. Other than the ban on public oaths, and the use of the term “god” on my money and in the pledge of allegiance, I have very few problems with how atheism is treated from a legal standpoint. I have no interest in an “atheist agenda,” nor would I vote for someone simply because they were atheist. In fact, it makes one begin to wonder, what is it about atheism that people claim to dislike?

I have compiled a list of the complaints I have heard over my years of engaging the faithful in conversation/debate/argument. The complaints tend to fall into one of a series of concerns:

1. If you don’t believe in God, what keeps you from running naked down the street molesting children with a heroin needle sticking out of your arm while throwing acid on puppies?

2. Oh you’re just young, it’s a phase (not really a concern, just a condescending remark).

3. I’m sorry you had a horrible experience with religion, but at MY church, we…

4. So what do you think happens after we die?

People who ask some form of #1 are under the sad, misguided notion that people get their morality from their faith. You may get ideas for which signs to print up at your next protest or be told how to vote by your faith, but those things are less morality and more the ease with which the flock is controlled. I am not saying religion isn’t a great way to get people mobilized to ban something others enjoy, I’m just saying it’s irritating.

Which leads me to the jackass who thinks they’ve “been there.” You know the type: they were religious until they went to college, then they stopped going for four years, got married and had a kid. In a panic, they realized they had no clue how to raise a kid, so they turned to the cheapest support they could think of in a pinch: religion. Here’s a marvelous system that will teach your children who to love (at first, everyone), who to hate (queers and the godless, once you’re old enough to ask about them), and even how to behave… sort of. Sure the ten commandments don’t really apply to babies, but you tell yourself that religion will somehow transfer “values” into your baby through the osmosis of the magic voodoo gathering every week.

Why is it that so many people think that because I am no longer Catholic, I was raped by a priest? Don’t get me wrong, they like boys, but the kids they bang grow up to become priests more often than atheists. They like a priest who can keep a secret. But in all seriousness, you don’t need a traumatic event to one day realize it’s all bullshit. Trust me, you can just wake up one day and see the world for what it really is: a lucky wet rock hurtling through space around a nuclear furnace. Sounds ridiculous when you think about it.

Since I seem to act like I have all the answers, why don’t I let you in on the secret of what happens after we die, right? Unfortunately, I have little knowledge of the subject. If I had to guess, I would have to say that the eternity of death will be like the eternity before birth; largely uneventful for ourselves, but pretty exciting for everyone who’s alive. There's a lot of big questions in life, and while some people will be happy to claim to have the answers, there's no comfort in the end for those who believe an attractive lie.

I always much preferred the idea of reincarnation over an afterlife, not because I would like to be reincarnated, nor do I have any recollection of a past life. Rather, I find a romantic notion in believing that I should do my best in this life, since maybe the decisions I make in this world will affect me later when I come back. Why not fight for the rights of women, gays, and minorities, in case you come back as one? It hasn’t worked for India; they had/have a rigid caste system and believe those born in a low caste deserve it. I suppose people have a way of turning all good religious ideas into systems of oppression.

However, the most insidious atheist bashing is abstract. It is rarely expressed in the presence of a known atheist (and we can go covert, in moments of boredom). Atheists often get attributed many characteristics they don’t usually possess: a desire to recruit; a legislative agenda meant to oppress the religious; associations with everything from drugs to gothic rock music.

I would be foolish to say no atheist recruits (Richard Dawkins does, which offends the religious because he stole their idea of spreading viral ideology). However, I do not recruit. I see the necessity of religion as a sandbox to play in, away from the patio where the grown-ups are busy. I have no desire in dragging so much as a single person even capable of faith into atheism, for fear their belief will poison the well of objectivity with dogma.

As for the belief by the religious that atheism threatens religion in any way, reality paints a different picture: religion is an elephant running in fright from the mouse of atheism; neither is in competition with the other, as each fills a completely different niche in the environment, but the elephant is capable of great harm to the mouse (once it realizes it).

However, the ultimate problem with trying to criticize atheism is that nothing can be definitively pinned on atheism, as it defies any clear, concrete base of belief. Rather than get to know each individual atheist, it’s easier to try to picture atheists getting together to do unsavory things you tell yourself happen nightly in the homes of such awful people (I call it the Heathen Fantasy, where believers picture atheists as living in the movie "Eyes Wide Shut"). It’s far easier to assume there’s something linking all of these people who rejected such a perfectly reasonable belief as that of a bearded, flying daddy-figure.

I know I must have missed something, and a believer somewhere won’t hesitate to remind me of what specific nuance of the whole debate I have neglected, but that about sums up everything I have heard people complain about when it comes to atheism. There is one final note I have uncovered in my studies, however, that points me to an underlying factor that some of the faithful probably think, perhaps unconsciously.

Religion is, above all else, a system of formalities. Religion is not about ethics or even god, it’s about everyday rituals and behaviors. At the core of religion is the “Bless you” when someone sneezes. At the very heart of faith is the “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Hanukah” you say to coworkers around the holidays. Religion includes suspiciously eccentric dietary restrictions (Christianity being the only exception I can think of, and even then there were centuries of “no meat on Fridays”). In the end, religion is a contagious form of OCD, or Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. It is a system of checks, rechecks, and mental assurances that put us at ease. Anyone who has dealt with a person with OCD knows how irate they get if you are not accommodating of their eccentricities. I have seen this same behavior in the religious.

Some of us just don’t think stepping on a crack will break our mother’s back, sorry.

Leashes

I was out walking my dog and an odd thing happened...

I come to an intersection and wait for it to turn green to cross. On the other side is a woman and a little girl. When the light turns green, the women walks forward and I notice she is holding a rope or cord. The child lurches forward and begins following the mother. It seems very odd, me goading my dog to cross with me as a woman doing the same thing with her child mirrors from across the street. The leash was attached to a harness around the girl’s midsection.

*Public Confession Time* I was a leash kid. My mother kept me on a leash when in public. It was attached to my wrist with Velcro, and I don't recall what the other end was attached to (probably her wrist). The leash itself was a coiled, slinky-like plastic cabling that curled in tight, yellow loops. When we were close enough to hold hands, it was almost unnoticeable, but it's shape allowed it to stretch, should I run around. It was kind of like a more rigid phone cord… from when phones had cords (25 year olds shouldn’t sound that old… damn you rapidly advancing technology).

I wonder if I’ll have a leash kid. My sister never had to wear one, and she lives closer to home now than I do; maybe tying someone to you makes them want to get away. Maybe I over-emphasize whimsical childhood memories.

Pepsi/Obama Connection

On a lighter note...

Pepsi recently changed its logo. Some people say the change was to make it look like the Obama logo, and I didn't believe it until I did the comparison. Here's all three:



If the new logo is rotated 135 degrees counter clockwise, the red portion appears to be pretty similar:



A person looking at it as someone is tilting a can to finish it will see the logo oriented this way.

Perhaps the best evidence that Pepsi is jumping on to Obama's bandwagon is the Hope, Change, and other various Obama-esque slogans they have begun using:



Maybe this will be Pepsi's next move:

The Parable of the Yankees Fan

A baseball game between the Mets and Yankees plays on the TV above the heads of two men in a bar. One is wearing a Yankees hat and jersey. The other is in a button down white shirt and is balding slightly. Both have pints of beer in front of them.

The Yankees fan asks the man next to him who he’s rooting for, the Yankees or Mets. The man next to him says he is not a fan of either team, so he is not rooting for anyone.

The Yankees fan asks him if he’s a Red Sox fan or something. The man next to him says he is not a Red Sox fan, and is not rooting against either team.

The Yankees fan asks the man next to him which team he roots for. The man next to him says he is not a baseball fan at all and does not root for anyone.

The Yankees fan asks him if he’s a fag, or if he never learned how to play. The man next to him fingers his wedding ring and says he understands the rules of baseball and even played as a child.

The Yankees fan asks him if he is a basketball, football, or even hockey fan. The man next to him replies that he has other things in his life that make him happy besides sports.

The Yankees fan then tells the man that he is what is wrong with the country, and that America is obese because there is not enough support for athletics.

The man next to him points out the Yankees fan's sagging beer gut is evidence that being a fan of a sport does not make you in shape, and that there is exercise other than sports, and some sports like golf or fishing are not even exercise.

The Yankees fan tells the man baseball keeps kids off of drugs and out of trouble, and that he is probably a drug addict for how skinny he is, and probably a vegetarian who drives a Prius.

The man next to him orders hot wings and reminds the Yankees fan of use of steroids in the modern era and rampant amphetamine use during the "golden era," not to mention the increasingly long wrap-sheet of professional athletes who pose as role models for children.

The Yankees fan finishes his beer and goes over to the pool table and begins to argue with a large man in a Mets hat. The man who was sitting next to him calmly sits and finishes his beer while waiting for his wings.

Directed Medical Funding

Very often, we are confronted by a request to donate money to a cause. The most popular secular charities focus on medical research. However, I am curious how the money is being used. I also find President Obama’s comments during his joint session with congress about finding “a cure for cancer” disturbing. While I know these are noble things, medical research is a lot more random and undirected than people might be led to believe from these groups and statements.

I should point out that I majored in Pharmacy for my first four years of college. I also have several friends who have done medical research. While I’m no expert, I have a pretty good overall view of how it all works.

Most medical research is like blind hunting; researchers fire in the general direction of any sound they hear. Sometimes researchers hit something on the first shot, finding a useful drug after exploring a small group of compounds from a family suspected of providing the desired medical benefit. However, as with blind hunting, often what you aim for is not what you hit (which isn’t always a bad thing).

I have heard people, especially comedians, joke that America has no priorities because we developed Viagra. What these people don’t realize is that Viagra was developed by a lab researching blood-pressure medication, and that the test subjects pointed out that they were getting erections as a side effect. Viagra is still currently used for some heart conditions and to cure altitude sickness.

This is why all research is good. Many medical advances come about when fundamental advances in our knowledge of biology are discovered. I have no doubt that anti-aging research could bring about a cure for baldness, or that an HIV/AIDS researcher may cure the common cold. These would not be failures, even though the research has not achieved its desired goal.

When NASA was tasked with putting a man on the moon, many people began dreaming of the future: flying cars, everyone living past 100, metallic clothing, and lights on everything (maybe the last one is accurate). While we didn’t achieve those goals, I would argue the advances from the space program are even better than that: water and pool purification systems, scratch resistant lenses, enriched baby food, athletic shoe in-soles, anything using a satellite (cell phones, GPS, some TV), solar energy, calculators, light-weight fireman air tanks, etc.

If all of that comes from putting a man on the moon, one begins to wonder what might come from our mapping of the human genome or from an increased understanding of viruses. It will be fundamental research like this that drives innovation. This research is the expedition into the unknown where we hear those first, faint sounds, before we blindly start firing. However, we must realize the complexity of it all and avoid statements such as the one made by President Obama regarding cancer. There will likely never be a “cure for cancer.”

We already have treatments for most forms of cancer that have very high success rates when caught early. We must focus on new treatments for all the various diseases, ailments, and conditions we have, giving doctors more tools. We can’t claim to seek a cure for all forms of cancer, which has vastly different causes; some are likely caused by “carcinogens,” or chemicals which alter cells and can potentially make them cancerous; some cancers have been recently shown to be caused by viruses, as with cervical cancer’s link to HPV.

It’ll be up to researchers to isolate the compounds and see what they do when introduced into the human body. In the process, I wouldn’t be surprised if they discover a chemical that makes people talk backwards or smell like popcorn. It will then be up to the marketing department on how to sell those. (The backwards talking pill should be called Dysphonix… I’m not sure how to use popcorn as a Greek or Latin root.)

Atheism Can't Fix You

While I am no mind-reader, I sense that believers are guilty of what pschologists call "projection." This is a condition is commonly seen in many aspects of life: the liar trusts no one; the thief is overprotective of their things; self-loathers makes those around them miserable. People tend to attribute to other people the qualities which they themselves exhibit (whether consciously or unconciously). Believers tend to paint non-believers as intrusive for this and many other reasons (cultural training, feelings of victimization, etc).

Atheism isn't an answer. Atheism can't make someone a better person. Atheism won't fix someone who has problems. In this respect, it has a stark similarity to religion. The difference, however, is an issue of disclosure, as religions are not so open and honest about the fact that you won't become a better person by merely being religious (or even impossibly doing all that a religion prescribes of a person).

Society tows the line, "The family that prays together stays together," even as statistics show otherwise. Other faiths, such as Judaism, get away with being accepting of the beliefs of others in public while privately subjecting their own families to the harsh treatment that American Christians reserve for such moral miscreants as gays, scientists, and feminists.

Just as there are murderers and theives who are believers, there is likely an equal proportion among the faithless when compared to economic status. Many statistics show that non-believers have a proportionately lower crime rate, but I would attribute this to the fact that non-believers tend to have more education and are more affluent, two indicators which strongly favor low crime.

In the end, it is not one's choice in religion which will make one a better person, but rather one's situation. If one gets an education (a luxury that more people should have provided for them) and gets a good job, one tends to be a good person. If one does not seek those things, perhaps instead choosing to focus on something else, it will not matter whether that person focuses on starting a family too early in life due to religious pressure or whether they are godless drug addicts who have casual sex with multiple partners. The end result is statistically the same: you will be poor and less happy, making you more inclined to break the rules in order to get what you feel you deserve.

Atheism won't fix you, but religion can break you.

Elderly Vice

Old people have always criticized the young. However, thanks to modern information gathering, we can finally begin to empirically prove that the elderly are no better than the young when it comes to intelligence.

For one thing, old people get around. Unlike many people in my generation, however, it would seem the elderly feel condoms are unnecessary. While some of the blame is being shoved on Viagra, I find it ridiculous to blame ED pills for the desire to have sex. Humans are sexual beings, and the fire of passion does not dim simply because the body weathers. Was Senator Larry Craig packing Viagra when he got caught in the Minnesota airport bathroom? I think not.

The elderly are also stereotyped as lacking the computer skills of their tech-savvy children. While I cannot attest to how accurate this is on the whole, it is supported by most anecdotal evidence I have gathered (ie: the very scientific process of asking those I know). While this claim cannot be the case for all of the elderly (which I define as someone who can remember when a nickel bought something), we all know an old person who asks us for help doing mundane computer tasks like transferring photos from a digital camera to a computer or attaching a file to an email.

Both of these problems are, I think, linked to the human condition. People are born ready to learn. By the time we are in our twenties, the learning phase of life is replaced by the action phase. While we never stop learning new things, the sheer volume of new information goes from a wild torrent in school to a mere trickle in the real world or work environment. We transition from exploring a multifaceted fascination with all things to a gradual specialization, a transition which aids us in our ability to find a career and master it.

So basically, I think old people won't use condoms for the same reason they won't learn how to use computers.

Response for Mookie

Mookie made a comment on an earlier post that I found was very thoughtful and deserved a full response. Mookie begins with a quote from my post:

"No religion preaches at the highest levels that their faith is merely one of many acceptable beliefs; all religions are in it for themselves."

i've been thinking about this point, and im wondering - is atheism any different? does atheism accept other beliefs as plausible? can an atheist recognize the possibility of any (g-d based) religion as acceptable for its followers?

Since atheism is many things to many people, and certainly has no prescribed doctrines, I can only speak for my own views.

I take a positivist (or rationalist) view of knowledge, which is to say I believe nothing until it is proven plausible to me. I will not assume something is possible simply because there is no evidence against it. I want concrete evidence in all things I believe (and I do believe in many things), though I reserve a certain skepticism, even regarding the sun's morning rise.

I have yet to find a religion which can stand up to empirical scrutiny. However, I have absolutely no feelings either way regarding how others choose to view the world. I will also extend this courtesy to my child, as forcing something, even atheism, is counter-productive. So when it comes to defending my beliefs (as atheism is not a belief, simply a lack of one), I have only one that I would fight to defend: laissez-faire morality.

I believe it is up to us all as individuals to determine the small choices that define our lives. The legal system must be designed to protect the freedom of all people to choose what they believe, who they love, and how to go about enjoying their lives. So long as no one else is victimized, I believe strongly in the freedom of each person to do as they please, even if it harms themselves (everyone thinks drugs first, but motorcycles, rock climbing, and even casual sex fall under this umbrella).

While I do not object to people believing in something that cannot be proven, I do forcefully oppose anything that threatens freedom. Religions too often seek to influence others, infecting innocent victims (usually children and those most in need) with ignorance and self-loathing.

So now that I've successfully circumnavigated my entire ideology, we're back to the original question: is atheism self-serving and dismissive of religious faith? Many atheists are, and at a cursory glance I would appear to be one of them. However, my opposition to religion is not in what they believe, but instead in their actions. If religions could recognize their rightful place as bastions of moral discussion and teaching, I would have a far deeper appreciation for them. However, religions too often do things like meddle in government, legislating individual morality across broad populations. One might say I do not oppose religion so much as I oppose the actions of all religions. There is a way for believers to easily see what it is I am talking about.

For most believers, the bother over Scientology is not really the fact that Scientologists believe something different about the way the world was formed. It's not about belief in Xenu's braiswashing of thetans, or anything relating to what is written my L. Ron Hubbard. Instead, believers don't want people like Tom Cruise going on TV and saying psychiatry is wrong. Believers don't appreciate the way the Church of $cientology handles its money, or its government involvement, or any of a number of complaints. Many even say the church's treatment of its own members is abuse. In the end, mainstream believers may mock the views of divinity surrounding Scientology, but they truly have disdain for the empirically proven, earthly actions of the organization.

I have no doubt that many problems with our society are directly linked to our inability to move beyond the Iron Age when it comes to religion. Religion's views on sexual preference, for example, are acceptable to me when practiced individually, but it becomes an obstruction of freedom when believers band together to decide how everyone has to love. I believe pacifism is the only belief worth fighting for, and the only thing I cannot tolerate is intolerance. I often find it difficult to tolerate religion, but I have no desire to take someone's comfort from them.

Woman With Walker

I was out walking my dog today when an odd thing happened. I saw an old woman with a walker walking towards me from about a block away. She is almost to an intersection. I notice she walks very slowly, almost an exaggeration of how slow someone with a walk would walk.

At this point, I suppose I should point out it had snowed the day before. It was a cold morning, and the sidewalks were very icy. Philly doesn’t have the money to keep its sidewalks wheel-chair accessible, let alone enough cash to shovel or even salt them in the winter. Perhaps there was a reason for the woman inching her way towards me, as each step really was an inch. As I passed, I looked up and said hello. She looked up at me and said, “You just made me smile for the first time today.”

I was dumbstruck. I checked my watch; it was 9:46. I guess it was still pretty early. It was quite a thing to hear, at any time of day, but I kept walking without a reply.

I should have said thanks or something. I kept thinking about it as we wandered aimlessly, waiting for my dog, Barkley, to shit. I pondered the generational distance between us; I don’t know if someone from my generation would say that to a stranger. What she said seemed to honest, genuine, and polite.

It didn’t hit me until I was back home writing about it, but what if saying that was her kind way of asking for help crossing the street? Maybe there was an implied reciprocity in her comment. What if, in an early morning haze, I neglected to help an old lady cross an icy street? What if I personify the problem with my generation? Maybe we’re all too dazed and distracted to even realize there are those crying out for help around us. Maybe only I am.

Marriage

Marriage is one of those things that religion has fervently latched onto. Religion cling to marriage, like a stain, leading to embarrassing opposition to homosexual unions. There’s nothing quite as pathetic as when religion attempts to stand firmly between two people who love each other.

Like it has done with ethics, religion often claims to be the source of marriage. It even proports to be the key to marital success. However, statistics show that atheist/agnostic couples have lower divorce rates than religious couples. The difference is even more pronounced when comparing non-believers to fundamentalists.

One of the basic religious myths is that religion itself does anything. In point of fact, religion does absolutely nothing; the believers are the religion, and religion itself is an inanimate concept. In the end, every religion is as weak as its human members. However, there is little good that can come from an ideology that encourages hasty unions. This is likely the cause of higher divorce among the religious.

Case in point, a fourteen year old was married in Israel on a school yard because they uttered the right sacred words, exchanged rings, and had sex (whether this last part was on the school yard is my question). This is an instance in which theocracy attempts to supersede the rule of secular law. This news story shows the ridiculous nature of literal religious belief. Another divorce in the name of God.

This is really why gay marriage should be allowed. Aside from the fact that allowing gays to marry does not alter the sanctity of marriage, heterosexual religious couples have successfully made a mockery of the institution long ago. The opposition for gay marriage will go down as a hideous reminder of intolerance, and hopefully serves as a reminder of why tradition was meant to be changed.

Why So Serious?

Religion takes itself very seriously. It’s not a concept that lends itself to comedy. It is a short step from ridiculous to ridicule; if the believer sees how silly it all is, the gig is up.

Of course, there is lots of comedy that comes from religion… but it’s usually not flattering. While the witchdoctor talking to his congregation may garner a chuckle from the podium, the comedian can bring roars of laughter at the church’s expense by merely stating the obvious.

However, this comedy is dependent upon an audience lacking the mocked faith. It is amusing how criticism of Catholic priests’ predilection for altar boys is sure to make non-Catholics laugh, while it makes Catholics jump to defend. That same Catholic will undoubtedly laugh at a joke about Scientology, though.

It comes down to the fact that religions are viral ideology, programs of thought that encourage spread. All religions are programmed to belittle others while defending their own. Most of the faithful, when confronted with this fact, will deny it. Some claim that as long as someone is good, they will be rewarded in some other life. However, this is a bullshit façade that pea-brained followers repeat as a PR move. No religion preaches at the highest levels that their faith is merely one of many acceptable beliefs; all religions are in it for themselves.

Faithless Children

I’m twenty-five: the age when people start giving you serious advice about children. The fact that I’m getting married in a few months definitely adds to it. One thing I hear quite a bit is that I should raise my children with religion. I was raised Catholic and my fiancé was raised Orthodox Jewish, but we are both non-religious.

If my kid grows up to want to believe something, be it Christianity, Judaism, or even Buddhism, I’m not the kind of person who would stop them. Islam… maybe. But in all honesty, I have no doubts regarding how to approach teaching a child about life without religion or gods. Some people find the idea appalling, but I find the notion of foisting a complex system of faith upon a trusting child is borderline child abuse. So I suppose if you disapprove of my decision, the feeling is mutual.

There are several advantages to a rationalist approach to morality. Statistically, atheists commit less crime and have lower divorce rates. Also, I won’t dread the sex talk; it’s not very hard to say: “Use protection, it’s a lot cheaper than abortion and some STD’s don’t have cures.” Statistically, atheists have a low teen-age pregnancy rate, so I can rest assured they’re fooling around as much as the religious kids, but with the knowledge of how to be responsible.

My kid won’t know about Santa Claus or the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy probably won’t be included in their childhood either. Will their life be deprived because of this? Is a magician less amazing if you know the lady isn’t really being sawn in half? I’ll never know, because I was raised on superstitions and empty rituals. I’ll let you know when I ask my grown child decades from now.

So how will I address religion? “Some adults like to play dress-up and pretend like kids do. They create lots of rules for their made up games and even have an imaginary friend, like you did when you were young. When adults do this, it’s called religion.” How do I explain where he or she comes from? “Your mother and I made you because we wanted someone to share our love with.” What happens when the child must confront the concept of death (likely a pet)? “Every living thing dies and ceases to exist, just as every living thing ceased to exist before it was born.”

More than any questions I fear answering, I wonder how it is religious people explain religion to their children. The best one could do is a rudimentary, over-simplified model of a loving god who will send you to burning hell if you’re bad, but lets you live with him in heaven if you’re good. This whole concept seems very barbaric and draconian to me. Also, when do I explain who the whore of Babylon is, before or after I explain how to stone someone to death?

Muslims: The Fountain of Irony

Islam is one hysterical religion. It is so deep in denial it can't even see daylight anymore. The last massive PR blunder was the Mohammed cartoon debacle, in which Muslims were depicted as being violent. In response, Muslims acted violently. Brilliant.

What I love about Islam is that they don't just have some Pope who says something mildly offensive from time to time. Muslim fundementalists are some of the most ridiculous lunatics on the planet. Case in point: this story surfaced today. Basically, a guy who started a TV station that broadcasts messages to counter Muslim stereotypes has beheaded his wife for wanting a divorce. I'm sure the butchering at least took place according to halal tradition.

Submit to the will of Allah by having zero respect for humanity.

Is Atheism a Faith?

Religion is a funny thing, but only because it takes itself so seriously. It seeks to tame man, even though it is our wild, natural ambitions that drive us to run against the leash of tradition towards progress. Religion fills the follower’s head with ideas of what to do, say or even think. This would be fine, except that it inevitably drives the follower to impress these ethics upon others. Religion is infectious ideology. Religion is contagion. This is the only regrettable trait of religion: its inability to acknowledge what limited scope of influence it deserves.

Speaking only for myself (as this is all I can ever do), I do not believe in any Gods. This is distinct from the statement, “I believe there are no Gods.” That is a statement of belief. For whatever reason, I lack the ability to suspend reason. Atheism may be a religion, especially for those who seek to convince others to believe in the absence of anything divine. However, for me it is not. Perhaps I am not an Atheist with a big A, but an atheist with a small a. To be honest, I prefer to the term “apatheist,” as I simply don’t care whether or not there are gods.

Despite these views, I see religion as playing a vital role in the world. It is like the sewers of society: an unseemly system for funneling refuse away from where it is not wanted. I would hate to see a day when religion is crushed, leaving the dogmatic masses with nothing to do but descend upon science with their blind trust and resistance to change.

Science is for constructive skeptics; it is for those who not only question, but also seek answers. Science must evolve over time, acknowledging and correcting its errors. It must relish in every opportunity to redefine itself. It must never become so comfortable with a “theory” as to accept it as the complete and total truth. Ideologies, philosophy, morality, and ethics can maintain a façade of constant tradition in the follower’s belief that they are mimicking the actions of their ancestors – though anyone who studies traditions through history knows they are only unchanged for generations at best. Some, perhaps many, people become reluctant to alter their familiar thoughts, and this is the sin which science must avoid.

The Ocotomom

Another set of octuplets have been born. Once again, some people are hailing it as a miracle. However, the only miracle here is modern medicine.

For one thing, the fact that there are eight is due solely to medical science. Like most litters of children born these days, the woman was taking fertility medication. In fact, this woman in California had the embyros implanted. It's also stated that she knew of the multiple births and decided to keep them all. She also has six other children. Clearly she didn't have enough.

The other "miracle" of this event is the survival of all eight babies. Again, the only miracle is medicine, as the closest thing to an angel in that delivery room would have been the highly trained and skilled doctors and nurses operating on this misguided concubine.

In case one couldn't tell from my tone, I find this situation to be deplorable. For one thing, I think having eight children is a rather selfish and egocentric choice, even if they are spaced out. Having eight at one time is bordering on child abuse. I don't believe these children will have the opportunity to grow up as individuals. I also doubt they will receive the attention they each deserve. However, my biggest complaint would seem more of a stretch to most people.

I find fundamentalism to be the prime problem with human beings. The mother has decided to remain anonymous, but I can extrapolate certain things from the details we do know. That she wanted more than six children, was willing to take fertility drugs and have embryos implanted, and that she would not abort any of the embryos signals to me that she is a religious nut (the technical term). I feel pity for those children in so many ways, and hope they can make it out of that home before they hurt themselves or others.

That would be a miracle.

Like a Virgin...

It appears that in Santiago, Chile, there is a brewing brouhaha over scantily clad models "inspired by" the Virgin Mary. Having been raised Catholic, I thought long and hard about why an artist might sexualize the Virgin Mary. Of course, I didn’t have to ponder long.

It occurred to me I’ve seen many depictions of Mary when I was growing up, and I remember finding her to be drop-dead sexy. I couldn’t really recall many details, but maybe this Chilean artist is on to something.

In fact, I know he is. I found the images below after a quick search, though I can't say I directly recall seeing any of these specifically:









(Jesus looks a bit old...)



The last one is a personal favorite, as it disproves the instant reaction most Christians would have to the first ones, which is, "There's nothing sexual or wrong with a mother feeding her child."

The article also includes a comment coming from bishops which claims events like this encourage the treatment of women as "object[s] of consumption." It's odd that a group of men who exclude women from their rank would make this kind of statement, because most women I know say religion has successfully subjugated women for centuries. I guess they're experts.

Maybe this fixation on a Jewish girl is why I've dated so many Jews, not to mention the one I'm engaged to...

Misology

Everyone hates. Some see it as contempt, some people prefer to loathe, while others call it scorn or hostility. Many (mostly whiney liberal types) mask it with weak sounding words like dislike or aversion. But in the end, everyone hates. It’s a perfectly natural thing. You don’t even have to hate anyone, you can hate a thing. Bottom line: not everything in the world gives us a positive experience. However, this essay will serve as an introduction to a [sham] subfield of study which focuses on hatred among humans; I call it Misanthropology (a branch of Antisociology).

There are two simple ways of categorizing hatred between humans: primary and peripheral. Primary hatred derives from emotions (such as irritation) which are a direct result of time spent with an individual. It is tantamount to a social allergy, in which distinct negative reactions are manifest through prolonged exposure. Peripheral hatred is based upon recognition of another individual’s membership in a community (racial, religious, class, subculture, etc) or by the individual’s reputation. Primary can lead to peripheral hatred if the individual chooses to associate the negative behavior of one with the behavior of the group.

These types of hate differentiate discrimination and prejudice. Discrimination is a normal, natural, useful, and important human tool. To discriminate is to observe and be able to recognize differences. There is no dishonor in discrimination. Prejudice and bigotry are the pre-conceived negative attributes that are damagingly applied to individuals who are part of a group (stereotypes are the collective negative, neutral, and positive attributes applied to a group). Discrimination is an important tool for evaluating individuals, while prejudice draws from the human desire to associate like things in order to simplify existence.

There’s really nothing one can do about primary hatred, or discrimination. Let’s face it: some people are really annoying. In fact, spontaneous violence between individuals who know each other is vastly more common than violence between strangers or acts of bigotry. Every day, husbands beat their wives, parents beat their children, and fathers kill their whole family before turning the gun on themselves.

Prejudice is logical to those who do not properly discriminate. No trait observable in one group of individuals is absent in any other, nor are traits ever ubiquitous within an entire group. Prejudice, then, is a failure to discriminate. In this way, one can see hate has been misunderstood by liberals. It is an ultimate truth that in order to hate someone, you have to get to know them. If you “hate” someone from afar, someone you have never met, you are pre-applying labels, either from your own past experience with similar looking people or possibly based on second-hand accounts of others. Either way, take the time to learn what it is about someone you can’t stand before you decide to hate them.

Who Are the Palestinians?

Since American tax dollars are being used to fund their annihilation, I find it important to understand who the Palestinian people are. They are largely Muslim (specifically Sunni), though some are Christian and Druze. The primary factor linking Palestinians together is that they and their ancestors have lived peacefully in the region for 500 years under the Ottoman Empire, contested before this only by invading Christian Crusaders.

This region had been Muslim since its 7th century Arab conquest, with only fleeting periods of Christian control during the Middle Ages. It is the Arabian side of the land bridge to Egypt, linking the continents of Africa and Asia. The land has been surprisingly peaceful, considering it is one of the most strategic locations in the world. The bottom line: Palestinians are a people in diaspora who are being segregated from Israeli society and forced into ghettos where they can be easily targeted for abuse.

Now a short history of Israel is in order. After World War II, with the Ottoman Empire completely dissolved and the region in geopolitical disarray, England and the UN arbitrarily drew lines in the sand and called them nations. While many decisions during this time were disputed, the most controversial was the formation of a Jewish state in the region of Palestine.

Zionism (or the belief in a Jewish State) has its origins in systemic European anti-Semitism. Beyond bigotry, Europe had gone so far as to legislate maliciously against Jewish interests and practices during and after the so-called “Enlightenment” period of the 18th century. Jews, non-Jews, and even the bigots themselves sought a solution to the growing problem, all under different auspices. The agreed upon solution harkens back to similar American ignorance: send them back where they came from.

It is this general attitude, this underlying anti-Semitism, that drives my dislike for the Nation of Israel. It is a solution born out of ignorance and intolerance. It is also a situation that fosters a new problem: if a disliked group is moved to one location, is it really safer for the group? The equation appears to be one that only equals the wholesale slaughter of Jews at the hands of their enraged Muslim neighbors, an atrocity that is set up by seemingly blameless Christian Europe and America.

Israel/Palestine

What is happening between Israel and Palestine is another event in an American-funded catastrophe. If you don’t care about what’s going on, I can’t say I blame you; it’s a mess. What irritates me, however, are those who seem to be paying attention but are blind supporters of monstrous acts. There is a popular myth that the Middle East has been in conflict for 2000 years. Actually, things had settled down for centuries until 60 years ago, when Israel was formed.

A nation born out of post-WWII pity, without any consideration for the people already living there, Israel has been supplied state-of-the-art armaments from the West since its inception. It has used the generous foreign aid it receives (and we’re talking billions of dollars per year from the US alone) to wage a war of expansion and suppression on Palestine.

The treatment of the Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis has been nothing short of brutal. It is a dark day when the culture that penned “an eye for an eye” has resorted to such exchanges as bullets for rocks, tanks for bullets, and laser-guided bombs for rockets. The death toll says it all; for every Israeli who died, over a hundred Palestinians were killed. All of this is happening because a few Palestinians (organized or not) have been firing rockets at Israelis, killing four. Meanwhile, Israel has shelled UN schools.

It is this heavy-handed mentality which fuels terrorism; consider that many terrorists have lost an immediate family member in conflict with the West. Israel’s actions are a catalyst for the frustration that drives many Muslim terrorist organizations, just as the invasion of Iraq by the US has only encouraged unrest. War will only solve the problem if Israel is planning to annihilate the Palestinians. Jews will one day have to live in peace with the Palestinians (even the rowdy ones), or leave.

Street Smarts

I hate the term street smarts. It’s an attribute that is often presented as the polar opposite of book smarts, which is another term I despise. What book are we talking about? Text books? Cook books? The Anarchist Cookbook? Coloring books? The Bible? What about books depicting the street?

I find people classify book smarts as intelligence that can be measured by tests, teachers, and schools (i.e. academic success). It carries a derogatory connotation for some people, as someone who is book smart can be perceived as lacking in other forms of intelligence (such as lacking the ability to effectively communicate to someone ignorant).

There is not only one type of knowledge worth knowing, and there are important things applicable to daily life that can’t be learned in a classroom. However, the experience gleaned from formal education is required for many real-life applications, despite what street smart advocates claim. In fact, the work habits and the dedication required to finish school are often more important than any piece of information learned.

I digress… back to street smarts. The word street has become synonymous with urban rap culture. However, most people thought of as being from the street in fact spend most of their outside time on porches and sidewalks. Why not porch smarts or sidewalk smarts? In fact, not standing in the middle of the street is a sign of having street smarts, as one would get run over. This is actually what most people mean when they say street smarts; they mean common sense. We’ve all seen the buddy comedies; the rigid W.A.S.P. is paired with the street-wise brotha from the hood and together they must overcome the odds. The white guy always loosens up by the end of the movie (a reminder that it’s fiction), and the black guy at some point has to apply his knowledge of the street to get them out of a jam.

This kind of movie is a psychological pacifier to the American public at large. It’s supposed to make black people feel like white people now respect them for being cool while simultaneously making white people feel good about a white guy and black guy getting along (so they don’t have to go out and do so in real life). The very presence of these movies proves the vast difference that still exists. White people don’t mind being called uncool because they control everything.

In practical terms, what are street smarts? Is it being able to talk a hooker down from thirty to twenty? Is it being able to track down weed at 3am on a Tuesday? Is it knowing how to hotwire a car? These might be useful skills, but not only are they illegal, they can all be learned in schools and books. These activities are merely negotiation, networking, and electrical engineering (respectively) applied to criminal endeavors.

This is the basic problem with the term. It wouldn’t be so bothersome if street smarts weren’t applied mostly to minorities and those who don’t do well in school, as if it’s a suggestion that their skills are best applied to some sinister cause outside our mainstream, productive society. Sadly, there may never be any street inspired rebellions; they often don’t show up to the meetings on time.

I don’t think of myself as book smart or street smart; I’m more Wikipedia smart.

Privacy and Social Networks

The fact that employers look up a person's myspace or facebook page doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that they may not hire someone because of petty things that have nothing to do with that person's ability as a worker. Corporations are cold, soulless machines that want us to believe that the buttoned shirt and slacks cubicle existence should be enough fun to sustain anyone without the need for such indulgences as drinking, concerts or parties. Frankly, I wouldn't want to work for a company who wants to hire boring people. When I send a resume, I send a few pictures of me playing beer pong in a toga just to make my stance clear.

This all comes down to the fact that people lead fractured lives, exhibiting different personalities for when they are in public or private settings, respectively. Even private life is itself fractured among extended family and varying circles of friends. There’s a big difference for many people between how they act among distant relatives and among high school pals. This is disheartening, in a way, as it encourages the division of people into incompatible sub-cultures. I wouldn’t be surprised if entirely different dialects could be derived between polite dinner table conversation and barroom banter.

I think it would be interesting if privacy disappeared. I imagine pretty soon we would stop faking our public lives and all live our private lives openly. Once we realized what we’ve been hiding all these years is all basically the same, I can’t imagine any of us would choose to act the way we do in formal settings.

Old Man Ramblings

DISCLAIMER: This is a work of fiction inspired by real complaints.

I don’t know nothing bout this hurry everyone seems to be in. I seem to remember a time when people could wait ten seconds for change without giving the clerk a dirty look. Just the other day at the corner store, an elderly old Indian man was baggin my purchase. Dot Indian, not feather Indian. Then he takes my money and makes change. He was no spring chicken, and the whole process was slowed down by the fact there was only a small opening in this thick, vaguely cloudy glass that was put up between us. I reckon it’s bullet proof. Well anyways, the whole point of the story is these kids behind me said, plain as day for all to hear, “This old man is slow.” Two girls in shorts so high-up they have to worry about two hairstyles.

I remember Andy Rooney talking about something like this in the eighties, bout how we’re surrounded by modern convenience and robots that do most of our work and how Americans have more free time than anybody in history. We got machines to wash our dishes, machines to wash our clothes, and of course machines to make those machines. We can order a pizza, a pair of shoes, and a new car by phone or even online, I guess... not that I’d know how. Yet despite all this “progress,” we’re all in a big hurry. I don’t know what it is that people are in such a hurry for. Then again I don’t have to worry bout two hairstyles.

Of course, maybe people is just more ornery these days. More ill tempered. More… unrestrained. Maybe that’s our fault, my generation’s. We made all these machines to do jobs better, faster, more efficient. Pretty soon the world got so efficient, there ain’t no room left for some of us. Some of us are old models. We’re being phased out, as they say. Out with the old, in with the new. Then again, they don’t make em like they used to. I remember my daddy sayin them exact same words to me when I was sittin down to watch Howdy Doody in the fifties. My dad’d rant bout how kids today have no work ethic, how we were slackers. And thems were the fifties. I thank the Good Lord he never lived to see the late sixties.

Except they do make em like they used to. We’re still the same old folks. We didn’t improve or progress none. We still have drinkin problems, drug problems, too little religion, too much religion. We hurt each other, but I can’t say I’m surprised none, considerin we hurt ourselves. “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.” Maybe the Good Lord need revise that little phrase to mean "do what others expect of ya." Course some people you can’t talk to bout right and wrong, say it don’t exist. Well I tell ya, if you don’t know what’s right and what’s wrong, I hope you’re one of the models bein phased out.

Aw hell, I don’t know what I’m talkin bout. There ain’t no one to blame but ourselves, really. We raised the ones who raised the ones who raise hell now, as we speak. Shootin up schools and shoppin malls like they were galleries. Course not really much space for most of these kids. Where I grew up, you couldn’t see the nearest house from your own porch. Wasn’t nothin to set up a few cans on a fence post and shoot em off. I remember I used to imagine they was Indians. Feather this time. Spose that was mighty insensitive of me, by today’s standards. But that’s what it was back then, cowboys and Indians.

We had a clear sense of right and wrong. Maybe some of what we thought was right wasn’t. No shame in admitting you was wrong. Them Indians, they got a tough deal. Isn’t much more you can say bout it, since ain’t no one offerin to give it back. Shoot, can you imagine a bunch of Indians in feathered headdresses marching up to Washington D.C., right up to the steps of Congress or maybe even the White House, and demanding Long Island be returned to them? Course Long Island is full of Jews. You’d think on account of Israel and the Holocaust and all, they’d be understandin. I’m sure them ideals of compensation, sacred land, and birth right don’t extend too far outside their own interests.

Then again, maybe they don’t need borders to define their own county. Mexicans been slowly but surely reclaiming the Southwest. Maybe we oughta let em. Maybe when they write the history books centuries from now they’ll talk bout how America really became free here and now. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if we become so free that we ain’t one big country no more. Seems like we’s already speakin different languages. We got all kinds of different cultures, not just from outside, but new ones from within. I seen a little girl in church last week pull up her shirt to fidget with something on her belly. At first I couldn’t believe it was a piercing, the kid couldn’ta been more than ten. I don’t know where we’re goin, but I know we’re goin there fast.

I hope I’m just slow. Wouldn’t mind being left behind.

Groups

I got to thinking: I really don’t like people. I can like a person. Hell, I can love a person. Yet, I hate people. There’s just something about a group of people that really upsets me. To make matters worse, I love humanity. There is something about the individual and the collective whole that I appreciate, while at the same time I am sickened by the little groups we partition ourselves into.

For a long time, I considered myself a misanthrope in the truest and most literal sense of the word. Social gatherings bore me, with their long periods of silent observation or loud music, both of which act to discourage conversation and the free exchange of ideas in favor of mindless ritual. I feel little in common with people unless we are in a calm, quiet setting where we may talk peacefully.

It’s easy to see why I might like a person. You can talk with a person, get to know them. They share the interesting things of their life experience which causes you to relate something about yourself to them which inevitably reminds the other person of something about themselves. There is an exchange of mutual experience and each of us is reminded that we are not alone (in both the physical and philosophical sense).

However, whenever I witness people, I am appalled. Groups are a paradoxical atrocity; they are the collective selfish will of a group of people. The only aim of a group is to benefit the members. There is no other reason to form a group. Even the simple formation and existence of the group designates the first trait of that group: it provides a feeling of belonging for the members. In this respect, they are harmless. However, groups rarely stop here.

Groups all seek to exclude others. Any number of criteria may be used here. It should also be noted that while a group may be open to any who wish to join, it can still engage in exclusionary tactics. For example, Christianity and Islam pride themselves on accepting any convert, but they will exclude even those who want to be in the group if they deviate from certain rules.

Besides being difficult to remain a member, a group can also create barriers of entry that cause it to be difficult to become a part of the community. Initiation rituals and hazing are the most extreme examples. It is important in a group for membership to seem meaningful, and this can be artificially achieved through difficult entry or exclusion.

The worst aspect of a group is what happens when the group achieves any kind of power. A group acts through the group’s shared id, the simplest of mindsets which can be deemed similar among all members. This is the “attitude” or ideology the group adopts. The simplistic ideology of groups derives from their need to cater to the lowest common denominator in the group; while an individual’s understanding of a topic may be complex and nuanced, it is necessary for groups to have a simple, dogmatic view of things. This dehumanizes, oversimplifies, and ultimately misrepresents the individuals of the group.

It was not until I contemplated the whole of humanity as the only true group distinction that I came to understand I lacked a distinct hatred humanity. There’s plenty of groups I do hate: Christians, Muslims, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, the NRA, PETA, etc. However, I have met many individuals from these groups whose presence I not only tolerate, but enjoy. What was it about an individual I found so compelling?

It is not that I dislike everyone who is a part of anything, I simply dislike all organizations. The human race is the only group I wish I be a part of; it excludes no one and has no agenda except continuation of the species, which is something I can support. Groucho Marx once said “I would never join a club that would have me as a member.” Well, I wouldn’t join a club where I had to become a member to feel like I belonged.

Bacon and Homosexuality

Not many people would see much similarity between the two things listed above. However, they are actually quite similar, especially to a Jew.

While I myself am not Jewish, my fiancé is, and I am more than happy to use her as my example. She grew up in an Orthodox Jewish home that was kept kosher. When I met her, she was 24 years old and had never tried bacon.

Eventually, I got her to try it. She loved it of course, because bacon is delicious. Most people would agree with this statement, and people who don’t like bacon would probably not mind me saying so. In reality, this is very similar to how homosexuality could naturally be treated, if there was not such a heavy-handed opposition to it in our culture. The only people who might be offended by my fiancé trying bacon would be Jews or maybe Muslims, but I doubt a Muslim would care what a Jew eats. So why are Christians so nosey about gays?

I don’t believe homosexuality is genetic. This belief garners strong criticism from liberals, who insist it is not a choice. Yet, I agree: homosexuality is not a choice. People do not wake up one day and decide they want to be attracted to people of the same gender any more than people decide to be attracted to the opposite.

There is in fact no natural order to this preference. Those who oppose homosexuality are quick to point out the physiological process of procreation, as if sex is merely an activity for making babies and nothing more. Never mind that this is tantamount to saying a tool such as language should only be utilized for business, but never poetry, fiction or any kind of frivolous enjoyment.

Homosexuality is a natural occurrence. Homosexuality occurs naturally in all types of animals, from fish to reptiles to birds to mammals. There's even queer insects. There is simply no denying the natural state of homosexuality. Like masturbation, it is simply another way of enjoying life that culture (primarily religion) has deemed pointless, and therefore immoral.

But what does this all have to do with bacon? Well, quite frankly, homosexuality is merely a particular taste that can satiate an appetite present in all of us. It would be inaccurate to claim everyone was homosexual; it would be more accurate to assert that all humans are bisexual (in that it is technically possible for them to have sex with either gender, which it is). However, just as some people enjoy bacon, others do not, and others are told never to try it and may go their whole lives never doing so, homosexuality has its fans, indifferent observers and blind opposition.

All the arguments against homosexuality hold up for bacon: bacon is not necessary and a person can lead a long (perhaps even longer) life with a varied diet that does not include bacon. In fact, bacon isn’t good for you, even in moderation. Yahweh has even stated his dislike for both. However, the idea of outlawing bacon is ludicrous to us. Why is it acceptable to be intolerant of homosexuals?

We would all find it a great injustice is one day Jewish people fought to ban bacon (and all pork products for that matter). We would tell them no one is requiring them to have any. Their defense would likely sound something like the defense against homosexuality: “I don’t care what you do in your own home, but you bring it out on the streets and entice my children with it and we got a problem. You people put up billboards with bacon in cheese burgers, a double kosher no-no!"

The anti-homosexual side is merely petty and needs not even be addressed; suffice to say, those who oppose homosexuality or gay marriage are fools who can be led to believe anything as long as you get to them first or when they're questioning their life. However, the pro-homosexuality side is receptive to logic, but is misguided. They struggle to convince others of untruths in the name of justice; it is not that they are convincing people of lies for some evil cause. Because they lack the tools to win the debate in which they are correct, they rely upon inaccuracies for justification.

To say homosexuality is genetic is a dangerous claim. One must understand what this claim entails before realizing why it should be abandoned. For one, it assumes a lack of free will. It assumes we are hardwired at birth to do certain things. Who’s to say someone isn’t genetically a murderer, and therefore should not be held accountable for their actions? In the end, the pro-gay side seeks to somehow prove that homosexuals are out of control and can’t help their condition. This is clearly not the case, as they are in complete control and need no help besides the basic human rights they deserve.

This argument comes from a good place but leads to a bad one. Homosexuals have been subjected to dehumanizing treatment in Western Civilization since Christianity overtook paganism. “Homosexuality” in fact finds its naming origin in 19th century medical writing, where it is classed as a mental disorder. Even today, centers exist where homosexuals go (or are sent against their will) to be “fixed” or “reprogrammed.” It seems a logical step to prove that it is not something that CAN be fixed in order to prevent this kind of treatment. However, there is sufficient evidence to show one can essentially "acquire" a taste for heterosexuality, just as one can for homosexuality. It's just not as simple as being "born gay" or "born straight."

When my fiancé was born, there was nothing in her genes that dictated she would prefer men and also enjoy bacon. As she was raised, she had no exposure to bacon but was driven towards finding the love of a man. Her current situation, in which she has chosen to follow her culture’s gender role while ignoring her culture’s dietary rules, is a triumph of her freedom to determine what is best for her, personally, rather than what is best for all people at all times. This is the very definition of freedom: acknowledgement that what is best for you is not necessarily best for all, and that those different from you have every right to be that way.

Indeed, homosexuality is not something that needs to be fixed or altered. The preference for homosexuality is not a conscious choice, but it is something that the person has control over. The choice to perform a homosexual or heterosexual (or a non-sexual) act lies solely with the individual. This is not something anyone should dispute. What is disputable is whether or not they should be allowed to, but any person who is a supporter of freedom has only one choice in the matter: allowance.

In Memory of George Carlin

Why is it wrong to use the word "fuck," but it's ok to use a term like "the F word?" What is a word? I think it’s an abstract concept composed of sounds when spoken and letters when written that represent and symbolize something we recognize. So if saying "fuck" is wrong, then it must somehow be wrong to refer to the act of copulation. However, "copulation" is acceptable, though perhaps not at the dinner table. And saying "the f word," which is merely a representation of "fuck," is also acceptable. So in the end, we have merely danced around a specific collection of ordered letters, while still conveying the exact same ideas, of which we were all previously familiar. So what the fuck is the problem here?

In fact the confusion does not end there. This type of language is given a paradoxical categorization in common English vernacular. When you are a child, you are told that words like fuck are “adult language.” However, the minute you are an adult and attempt to use this language, you are considered "childish" in most circles. In fact, words like “fuck” are like marijuana: only socially acceptable in college, behind closed doors with friends, or in the “streets.” On the contrary, I find this language to be the spice of conversation: best in small amounts but necessary for any kind of flavor. This is why I prefer “salty language” over “dirty language;” it seems a lot easier to swallow.