Modern Crimes of Faith

Modern Crimes of Faith

It is the tendency of the religious, to focus on what makes them feel good, to avoid those pesky facts that make a mockery of their religion, and more horridly to ignore crimes committed at the hand of their religion.  But the evil behind the mask of civility cannot be hidden forever.

Yet again, evidence surfaces that in 1986, then Cardinal Ratzinger declined to remove a priest found to have molested children.  The original request to remove him was submitted in 1981 and was ignored.  Yes, ignored for five years!  Ratzinger was put into office in 1986 and wrote a letter in response which declined to remove the priest for the sole reason of “the good of the church”.  Not the good of the children, but the good of the church.

Lest you make the incorrect assumption that this is an evil only perpetuated by the Catholic church, let me remind you we had two incidents here in Jacksonville in the last eight years, involving Protestant churches, where the church was made aware of sexual crimes committed by “pastors” and chose to handle it themselves rather than call the police.  In once case, the church defended the “pastor”, not the child, because the “pastor” had confessed and asked for forgiveness.  He was after all, they said, a “good pastor.”

There in lies the problem; the assumption by the church that they are some how above the law of the land, that some how their organization is faith based and crimes are theirs to forgive at their own discretion.  I am sure that BP would love to have that power! 

The public grants these purveyors of fantasy deference.  We stand while they pray to invisible beings without questioning it, we forgive their tax burdens, we watch as they build massive edifices to nothing and amass vast wealth, and we allow them to protect child molesters.  This is just wrong.

The Catholic church, in response to worldwide outcry, says they now report all such crimes to the local authorities, but I ask where is the proof of this?  Their records are not public and I personally have yet to see one headline where it reads, “Church turns in child molester.”  Where I ask, is the government? Why are they not prosecuting those who protect criminals?  Why are the records of the church still closed to inspection?

It is high time that this medieval deference to the church comes to an end.  We scrutinize every major corporation on the planet for the public good.  Yet somehow, this multi-billion dollar ponzi scheme can manipulate the tax code, influence foreign policy, ignore war crimes, and shuffle child molesters around willy nilly and no one takes much notice?

This must stop.  This system must be held accountable.  The church must be called to prove themselves.  Most importantly, the public needs to start asking some hard questions about the rationality of a faith which thinks itself above the law, and above the law of common sense.

On Faith

On faith ...I'm not a big fan.

Lets be clear, I am not talking about faith in things that are real and or possible; like faith that your spouse will return from war alive, or your favorite football team will win the game, or the your child will succeed in life. I am talking about religious faith; faith in something for which there is no supporting evidence or objective likelihood of reality.

Faith, it seems, is the most important thing to religious people, who regard facts as secondary. If you discuss Atheism with a religious person, no matter how much rock solid evidence you present to the religious, invariably they fall back on faith as the answer to any debate.

Their particular faith, mind you, disregarding the faith of billions of others who have different views.  Everyone's personal faith, is of course the only "true" faith.

I cannot tell you how many times I have been told, by otherwise intelligent people, "I don't care about that, in the end its all about faith." Ever hear the religious statement, "God said it, I believe it." Never mind the fact there are no documents or recordings of anything "god" said, its based solely on the individuals faith that "god" said something they like.

The religious will disregard the laws of physics, textual criticism of the bible, and gross contradictions within their own texts, and claim faith as their key ingredient. It's as though the religious willingly put on a pair of blinders, walk into the pens, and allow themselves to be herded like cattle.

So, the question begs to be asked, "How accurate are humans with faith?" I thought I would offer a few examples of faith, in order to put faith into perspective. You will find these examples silly and repulsive, but bear in mind the following examples were/are bed rock beliefs for millions of people.

For thousands of years, and based on nothing more than faith:

Ø Humans believed in the Greek god Zeus, the Norse god Thor, the Egyptian god Isis, and the Babylonian god Anu, just to name a few.

Ø Humans believed that sickness was caused by evil spirits - this actually continues today, in this country, in many civilized and educated societies.

Ø Humans believed the entire universe was comprised of four elements, Earth, Air, Fire, and Water.

Ø Humans believed certain races were cursed by god and made fitting slaves - sadly this also continues to this day and also in this country.

Ø Humans believed that women were an inferior gender, cursed by god to be subservient to males.

Ø Humans believed the Earth was flat.

Ø Children believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny

Now, I agree, every single one of the above is both silly, and in the case of slavery and women rights, disgusting and immoral. But every one of the above are/were matters of faith to billions of people, who in many cases, fought to the death to stand up for their "faith".

I think that most people will recognize the baseless nature of faith in Greek and Egyptian gods. Children grow up and find the Toothy Fairy was a quaint childhood fantasy. I also think that most people recognize that as humanity has evolved, grown more sophisticated, and expanded our scientific awareness, that as a result we no longer believe evil spirits are the cause for sickness and we found the Earth was actually round. I think that it is pretty obvious, to even a casual observer, that the aforementioned citations were the cause of widespread human rights violations, evils committed in the name of gods, and stymied the advancement of the human race for thousands of years.

All of this evil was based only on faith lacking any facts.

Faith; the human belief in the unknowable (or what is unknowable at the moment), it would appear, has a very very poor track record. Humans will believe just about anything. Yet, people still cling to it. It is human nature, so it is said, to try and put some order to what appears to be chaos around us, to assign the unknown to a divine hand. It gives people comfort (?) that they at least believe there is some order to the unknown. Despite overwhelming evidence, and a failed history behind it, humans still cling to faith.

The most obvious question to me, is just how far would the human race have advanced, without all the silly impediments found in faith? How many lives, for example, could have been saved, if faith had not stood in the way of science?

It is said, those who ignore history, are doomed to repeat it. Let's hope humanity does not repeat the uglier aspects of religious faith; its wars, its slaughter, its human rights violations.

I believe the human race is capable of getting beyond this, to become all that we aspire to be. I believe in the human spirit. There is evidence for that type of faith and that's what I am standing up for.

Why Atheist and Progressive Need To Speak Up

Why the Atheist and Progressive need to speak up!

There is Truth and there is “Truthiness”; that which is fact and that which we want to be fact.

A society that is based on what is true, tends toward common goals, respect for human rights and equality, and has a respect for diversity.  The laws and goals of that society are based on clear, reasonable, and objective evidence, which people can all inspect and agree to.  Progressives and Atheists lean in this direction as they value new evidence and an ever changing society, choosing to grow and learn in the process of life.

I must say of course, not all Progressives are Atheists.  But most Atheists are Progressives.

A society that is based on truthiness, or opinion, tends towards conflicting goals, is rife with disrespect for human rights and equality, and does not value diversity.  The laws and goals of that society sway with public opinion and mob mentality, lack clear, reasonable, and objective evidence, and tend toward chaos.  Conservatives lean in this direction with dogmatic opinions and a refusal to change from the established “norms”.

Before Conservative religious heads explode, I know I am speaking in generalities.  I am an Atheist and a Progressive, so guess which way this blog is going to lean?

This is the problem:  Progressives and Atheists often recognize the above attitudes, and by and large have a live and let live mentality towards the process.  Unfortunately, everywhere and everyday, the religious and the Conservatives are working hard in both overt and slight means to press their agenda on everyone.  Progressives and Atheists, not so much – it’s often described as herding cats.

From the Muslims marching today in Bangladesh over free speech in Facebook, to Conservative and religious politicians in Washington trying to ban gays in the military, to the smiling little old lady who voted for candidate X because he/she wants to ban stem cell research, the religious and Conservatives are all working to deny human rights, impede science, and force their religion into your schools.  Was anyone paying any attention to the horror of the Jacksonville City Council during the Human Rights Commission votes?  Ask them if they are bigots and racists and the answer would be “NO!” – often with a fist shaking in your face.  But nevertheless, human rights, equality, and free speech are in fact the victims of the Conservative religious agenda.

So I say to you enough is enough.

If the religious and Conservatives are going to try and enforce an agenda upon humanity, then they should be required to produce viable evidence to support their assertions.  That’s right, just like in court.  As was demonstrated in England recently, religion has no factual basis and should not be allowed in court as evidence.  “Prove It!” should be the new cry!

If the religious and Conservatives want to ban homosexuals from the military, then scientific evidence should be presented, not the ramblings of a goat herder from thousands of years.  If the religious and Conservatives want to deny a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy, then scientific evidence should be presented as to why, not the fanciful opinion that “god” somehow “knew you before you were formed in the womb”, again the writings of another prehistoric goat herder.  The list goes on and on…

It is time we humans took charge of our own destiny from an objective, secular, and Progressive perspective.  It is way past the time that Progressives and Atheists stood up and shouted enough!  Standing by and hoping for an evolutionary social change is not working.  As is clearly evidenced by the American Conservative efforts in the last 17 months, Conservatives and the religious are willing to spend unlimited sums of money to enforce the (corporate) status quo, unlimited sums of money to deny human beings the right to love and marry, and unlimited sums of money to argue whether or not a frozen piece of tissue is “alive” or not.  All the while, human beings suffer over religious opinion.

As an Atheist, they call this the “New Atheism.”  “New” being Atheists who are not ashamed to speak up, not will to sit in the closet and be quiet, and willing to ask why.  While Progressives are not necessarily Atheists we do share common goals and methodology.  We all need to speak up.

I am a “New Atheist” and I want proof before you pass laws governing my life and the lives of millions.

Misperceptions About Atheists

I thought long and hard about what I would write as my first blog entry from The Atheist Perspective.  There are so many topics to choose from.

For instance, I could write about the recent fiasco with the Jacksonville City Council and its attempt to fill a position on the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission.  The illegalities and religious abuses of power leave room for so much to discuss, and I have pulled a muscle trying to avoid that as my first entry.

I could write about the recent ruling by a judge in England, where the judge refused to allow religious belief as evidence into court on the grounds that religious belief has no legal standing.  Oh!  The ramifications….

Instead, to start this off I decided to address some common misconceptions about atheist.  There are many, and some rather horrible and disgusting ones to choose from.  These of course flow directly from the religious crowd, who generally feel threatened by atheists and our irritating insistence upon facts. 

Atheism vs. theism is a debate we can have rationally, without slander.  Facts are facts, and opinion is opinion, and objective humans can sort that out.  But there in lies the rub, we need objective and rational human beings to accomplish this, and humans frequently fail at this.  It’s that lack of objectivity that prevents us from working out details, and it is also the source of some rather nasty accusations against atheist.

Now, I am not saying that all atheist are wonderful people, no more than I would say that all religious people are saints.  But by and large, and studies have born this out, atheist are the most reviled group on the planet for no discernable reason, and I would love to change that.  So let’s address three of the biggies shall we?

(1)  Atheist DO NOT eat babies.  Yes, I know.  It’s hard to believe, but we don’t.  This accusation was recently published in a small religious paper and was passed around liberally on various web sites and on Face Book.  The reasoning goes; atheist reject god, therefore atheist have no morals, therefore atheist could eat your baby.  Hey, I know this is stupid, that’s why I am bringing it up!  Baby killer actually gets used way too often.  The article did not indicate which type of sauce we used.

(2)  Atheist have no morals, therefore we are involved in every manner of evil behavior from drug abuse, to wild orgies, to the sacrifice of kittens.  Really?  Kittens?  Again, (need I say this?) this is not true.  Atheists are just as moral, and as good a citizen as the next person.  Only our morals come not from a fear of “god” and what might happen if we screw up, but rather out of a recognition that good behavior, love and compassion, are all attributes that benefit society at large and the over all happiness of humanity.  Things work better when we all work together, so yes we are “good without god”.  As a recently published paper disclosed, apes and other animals can exhibit basic attributes of compassion, sorrow, and the understanding of right and wrong behavior.  Humans, with our expanded abilities to conceptualize and expand upon those basics, have shown ourselves time and again to be compassionate and ethical, without the fear of “god” hanging over our shoulder.  That’s not to say we don’t enjoy a party just like you.  But Kittens?  Really?

(3) Atheist are responsible for every war and act of slaughter on the planet.  This is a biggie, and oh boy is this wrong on so many levels.  This slander of atheist is reputedly portrayed in the acts of Hitler and every communist dictator to date as atheists.  Aside form the fact this is just silly, let’s look at some facts.  Hitler considered himself to be a Christian who was “doing gods work”.  People will argue this all day because no one wants to be linked to Hitler; but in his book Mein Kampf and in many of his public speeches, its pretty clear where he was coming from.  As for the communist, yes they are atheist according to their manifesto, and yes these dictators have killed countless millions.  But what is over looked is that communist kill because of a political agenda, not because they are atheist.  One could argue that they only killed because they lacked any morals as atheist (sound familiar?), but to date, no credible proof of that reasoning has been provided.  Saying that communist killed because they were atheist, is like saying Hitler killed millions because he was a Christian, there is just no credible association.  Hitler killed because he was crazy, and communist kill because they are crazy, its just that simple.

Well, I could go on and on, because the silliness is endless.  But I hope you get the point that Atheists are people just like you, but who do not share your fascination for “god”.  We put our pants on (yes we wear pants) one leg at a time, we take our kids to school, we go to the beach, and we work right beside you every day.  We have no belief structure, no secret hand shake – repeat, we have NO SECRET HAND SHAKE – and your kittens and babies are safe.

It would certainly go well with the world if we could all stop with the ridiculous accusations, the stereotypes, and the unfortunate human need to shove our opinion down every one else’s throat.  The world is in fact, in a perilous place right now for many reasons, and it will take every single one of us pulling together in the same direction, to get out of this mess.

Now, I must go mow my lawn just like my religious neighbors next door.

Atheist, A New Reformation

Atheism - A New Reformation

In 1517, Martin Luther nailed his declaration onto the doors of the All Saints Church, and thus was begun the Protestant Reformation and the eventual overthrow of the established Catholic Church order.

Prior to this, the Catholic Church essentially ran the world, either overtly or from behind the scenes.  The power of the bishops and the Pope was virtually unquestionable.  They alone held the keys to knowledge -- the scriptures, and thereby the salvation of your soul.  To question the church was to question god himself.

This old world order was eventually overthrown through one simple act, birthed by a new invention the printing press, which printed the first copies of the bible for the general public.  It was this new information that fueled the reformation.  Once the public was able to examine the scriptures for themselves, they immediately saw that the church had kept many things secret from them and that things were not as they seemed.  The established order of access to god only through the priest and the church’s hierarchy was then in question and began to crumble.

The ensuing 150 years were one bloody war after another as the people struggled to become free from the church, and the church struggled to maintain its hold on power.  One thing was absolute; once knowledge had escaped the clutches of the few, that genie could not be put back into the bottle.

While the church may have changed, it certainly did not go away.  It continues to make the claim of authority on issues of morality, holds power behind the scenes, and makes every attempt to direct the course of humanity and the sciences. 

Today, once again, humanity finds itself dealing with Religion run amok.  Holy wars are wreaking havoc on the planet, and because of faith-based hate, huge populations are living in fear – whether it is fear of what will happen to them at the hands of the religious police, or fear of stepping on an airplane to go on a simple business trip.  With so many “hotspots” across the globe, so many battles in the name of god, the time has come for philosophical change.

Across America, the voice of reason is being heard as Atheism comes to the forefront.  A bold new reformation is upon us, as once again a new challenge is nailed to the doors of the church by persons such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris.

It is knowledge that again challenges the church.  Knowledge brought to us by rapidly emerging scientific advances, greater understanding of humanity and the mind, and promulgated by – you guessed it – the internet.  Just like Martin Luther and others, humanity now has access to far greater stores of information and begins to see the world in a new light, a light which illuminates the fallacies and the failures of religion.  Where the church once claimed exclusive rights to morality and the understanding of the human condition, many are finding this claim unjustified.  Morality is a choice, one that humanity has developed on its own without the need of a god created by goat herders and mystics.  Morality and the human condition are far more complicated and diverse than the simplistic battles between one version of good and another version of good, while each calls the other evil.

Advances in science have shown no evidence – none whatsoever – of a god behind the process of life; rather, a complex pattern of energy, self balancing, which gave birth to and evolved into life as we know it.  Furthermore, research into consciousness shows us that our minds and our universe are indeed more vast, to paraphrase Hamlet’s remark to Horatio, “than are dreamt of in our philosophy.”  We find no god, and that is okay. Because what we have found is life, evolving and expanding, with our future bright and shinning, held not in the hand of a mythic being, but in the simple hands of humanity.

Atheism is the rejection of the old concepts of god(s).  Atheism does not propose to offer only cold hard science with no heart as is often the accusation.  Rather, the expansion of human consciousness, the acceptance of what we are and our world is, so that we all may grow and prosper.  Humanity will, as always, make its mistakes as it will also find its moral footing.  Compassion, kindness, beauty and the arts will find greater freedom when not chained to prehistoric gods and demigods who punish humanity for what it thinks.

So, as we enter this new reformation, this new understanding of who we are as individuals and as a species, perhaps we can avoid the pitfalls of the past; the slaughters over doctrine and faith.  Perhaps humanity can take different baby steps towards a greater understanding of ourselves, a brighter future, and our own new reformation.

Why Religion Makes For Bad Government

The religious would have us believe that if only we had more religion, then everything would be better.  Our governments and our schools would be better, crime would go down, the sun would come out, and birds would sing.  If only more of us were believers.  If only our laws matched “gods” laws.  You can hear it in the pulpit and sadly, you can hear it from some of our elected officials.

But, is that in fact true?

Statistically, the answer is no.  If one were to look at the SAT scores by state, and the FBI crime statistics by state, you will find the states in the bible belt rank lower in SATs and higher in crime than other states.  A 2008 study on religion and intelligence disclosed that Atheist scored 5.89 IQ points higher than “dogmatic” religious people – the difference was less when compared to less religious people.  That does not mean religion makes a person less intelligent, it only means that more intelligent people are less religious.

But, how does religion play out in public practice?  Personally, I’d call it a farce.  Need I list the numbers of government officials and religious leaders that screamed the loudest about morals and religion, just before the cameras rolled on their confession before the public about that affair?  Need I list the numbers of anti-homosexual crusaders caught in homosexual affairs?  Let me ask, how many people in prison right now are religious?  Answer: all of them.  While religion may claim to be the mother of all morals and development, it simply is not true. 

History bears this out.  There was a time when religion nearly ruled the entre planet.  From the king to the lowest slave, religion was woven through out society, and people willingly (or most of them did) accepted this as the norm.  If you will kindly remember, they called that era the Dark Ages.  Yes the Dark Ages, when scientific endeavor was repressed and if you got out of line with the church they disemboweled you or burned you at the stake – publicly.  Free speech, human rights, equality, the things one would expect from the claimed enlightenment and freedom of religion, were nonexistent.

But even in today’s societies it is no better in some places.  The worst offenders are in the Middle East, where the religion is the government, where women and children are abused mercilessly and science and truth must bear the stamp of the Mullahs approval.  Even in small town America women today are subject to their husband, forced to wear certain clothing, denied medical care, and science and history are subject to religious rewrites.  Can you spell Texas? 

No, religion continues to force its way into our lives and its affect has not been positive.  Even in Jacksonville, we have elected officials attempting to use their religious opinion to deny qualified persons, seats on a human rights commission of all things!  A human rights Commission!!!

Perhaps the answer to society’s woes is not religion or more faith, as those of faith seem to think?  Perhaps the answer is for us to drop our personal opinions – for that is exactly and only what religion is – and to govern ourselves by objective reason, scientific fact, and with the good of society in mind?  Perhaps the day of “My god said so…”, is passing?

Sadly, that day is far out on the horizon.  Today we still live in a world where those in power will use that power to enforce their personal opinion, their religion; Councilmen Yarborough and Redman come to mind, and that is why religion makes for bad government.

Reza Aslan

I just finished reading both of Reza Aslan's books: "No God But God" and "How to Win A Cosmic War". The book No God But God is a good background on Islam; how it started and how it got to where it is now. How to Win A Cosmic War is about the current situation in Islam and the movement of Jihad. If you want to understand what is happening in one of the most pivotal events of our times, I recommend both.

A War on Terror

The natural response to violence is more violence. This was best exemplified on 9/11. We were bombed and Bush bombed back. Escalations in violence resulted in further escalation on our part. So it continues. But is this our best and only recourse?

As detailed in Oren’s book, “Power Faith & Fantasy”, America has been in conflict with the Middle East for over 233 years, with essentially no real change in policy or approach. This has not resulted in one stable government or long term peace in the region. The West’ policies have in fact greatly exacerbated the problems as has our unquestioned support of Israel and blind eye to its crimes. The West’ policies are in fact a large part of the current problem.

This is lack of insight into the Middle East has become more detrimental in the last 90 odd years with the rise in Islamist fundamentalism, onto today’s Jihadist. Instead of addressing the fundamental causes of the problem; poverty, education, the lack of equality, and meddling in the affairs of other countries, the West has continued with the same failed policies of supporting corrupt dictators, war, and religious incursion.

We simply cannot continue with failed policies and expect a different result.

There is one glimmer of hope today in the fact that President Obama has chosen to pause and consider his options, before sending more troops to Afghanistan, and is looking for a new approach. No doubt he will be derided by Hawks who fail to see the mistakes of the past and offer no other options for the future. But it is only through open dialogue and fair treatment of the Middle East and its people, can we ever hope to achieve peace.

The Jihadist continues to taunt the West into further military action. Their goal is global war to end all wars; a “Cosmic War” of Good vs. Evil as Reza Aslan has described it. And as Aslan has suggested, the only way to avoid a cosmic war, is not to engage in it. The only logical path before us is to step back from the abyss and find another path.

Please. Just Prove It.

I find it interesting that over the last several thousand years, the church (religion) has generally been running the show. They have worked hard to dictate our morals, our laws, and public life. Where society has failed, the blame is laid squarely at the feet of the disbeliever, secular disorder, or humanistic evils. Certainly, no blame is directed at the flawed theology of religion. Anyone who has disagreed is usually publicly humiliated, and in many places tortured and or executed. Even the briefest look at human history bears this out. It’s an undeniable fact.

In recent history, with the waning power of the church and enlightened thinking, some have dared to question the unchallenged rule of the church. Some have even dared to question the validity of the church itself. Today, many of us are asking for out right proof before allowing the church to run our schools, our government, indoctrinate our children, or influence the direction of the sciences.

So I ask, please, just prove it. It’s an easy question folks. You have these world wide religions who ALL claim to be "the only true religion", "the only means of salvation”, and who all supposedly speak for god. These religions all want to control every aspect of human life - thereby taking away the "free will" supposedly given to us by "god".

All I ask, all I have ever asked, is that you prove that what you say is true. I also ask that if you cannot, then you must listen to what I have to say.

The response thus far has been interesting. No one has offered one piece of convincing proof. None has answered any of my questions. Instead they accuse those of us who dare to ask of being “mean”, “hateful”, and “disrespectful of their religion". Is it because we ask for proof, or is it that they have no answer? When asked to respect other people and faiths in public settings, they play the victim and claim discrimination.

I think that after millennia of autocratic rule, presumptive authority, abuse, and murder in the name of god, it’s about time that some one demanded the religious world prove themselves. That’s right. Just prove it.

Until then, I would ask that you please keep your religion out of our government, our health care, and our lives.

You're Just Wrong. Get Over It.

Please explain?

There are simple things in the bible that anyone with a rational mind might question. I am thinking about the wholesale slaughter of anyone who does not believe in the one true god, for example. This is a loving and just god? Or verses that institute and support slavery, the subjugation of women and the treating of women as property and prostitutes. Or the really stupid versus that demand punishment for weaving with two different kinds of thread or touching the skin of a dead pig (does the NFL know this?). And my all time grand-daddy favorite, the verses that advise us that god has created us all for a specific purpose, some for eternal life and some for eternal damnation. Yes, that’s right, god created some of you to spend eternity in hell, just to prove he is right.

The list is long and mind you, none of these really fun things has ever been rescinded, apologized for, or explained. I am sorry, but “god works in mysterious ways”, or “only a fool questions god”, just does not cut it.

These are simple versus for one might reasonably ask, how in the name of all sanity can you believe that nonsense? By the way, that is the question that allowed me to drag myself out of religion.

But there are some real doctrinal issues I have with Christians that they just simply refuse to address. For example:

In Deuteronomy, the god of the Old Testament calls human sacrifice “detestable” and demands that all engaged in the practice be killed. But yet the god of John 3:16 offers god’s son as a human sacrifice for our sin. Did god just change his mind and is the “detestable” now okay? ? Explain this please?

In Deuteronomy, the god of the Old Testament says, “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.” Yet again, the god of John 3:16 offers god’s son as a human sacrifice for all our sins. That's a complete reversal of doctrine mind you. Explain this please

In three of the four books of the New Testament, Jesus was asked how to attain eternal life. The fourth book does not record the conversation. Jesus advised the supplicant to obey the laws of Moses. Was Jesus lying? Explain please.

Jesus himself is quoted as saying, “I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but through me.” But Paul is quoted in Corinthians as saying that “those without the law are a law unto themselves, and will be judged according to their own hearts.” Was Paul or Jesus wrong here, because Paul says heaven is open to all of a pure heart.

Again the list is long and I am not even touching on the historical textual inaccuracies. But the doctrines of faith are simply riddled with contradiction. By the way, Christianity is not the exception by any means.

When you take it all into consideration, and add to that the fact there is not one single shred of evidence or history to support the doctrines of faith contained in Christianity, one can reasonably ask how can you believe any of this? I mean its just plain silly and inconceivable.

More importantly, since the answer almost always falls back on “it’s a matter of faith”, thereby admittedly not on fact, how can you force feed this nonsense to your children, to the public, or the world? How can you in good conscience stand in the way of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with a belief system that is no better than belief in Peter Pan or Santa Clause (for whom there is some historical consistency)?

I mean really, your just wrong and its time to either make some reasonable factual answer or get out humanity's way. Because so far, your religion has just completely screwed things up.

Demacracy & The Court of Public Opinion

I once had an interesting conversation with a religious person, zealot actually.

For clarification, this was a person that I was employed by and who made it his mission to try and force feed me his Christianity every chance he got. This guy would deride my lack of Christianity out loud and in front of anyone standing by. This was a guy who's policy towards employees was, pay them as little as possible, work them to death, and then find another body. This was a guy who had his pastor acting as "Corporate Chaplin" and paid him under the table so his wife would not know. And finally, this was a guy on whose computer I found hundreds of cookies linked to gay sites. Go figure.

I was his operations manager and we had an employee in the security guard division who was thought to be gay. Never said anything or hit on anyone, but was a walking, talking, stereotypical gay. Well, this of course came to the attention of the employer who immediately wanted to fire this person. Mind you he was a good employee, he was just gay. So the employer decided to fire this person because his shirt was not tucked in properly and he presented a bad appearance.

You know me, even then I could not keep my mouth shut - and so to the point of this post.

We had quite the discussion / argument over this. My point being that firing some one for their sexual preference was just plain wrong, especially since that person did a good job and was not a problem. His point was that homosexuality was evil and against god's law. The conversation ultimately turned to constitutional protections, which for homosexuals do not exist.

My point on the constitution, was that the courts should protect the rights of everyone, just as they did for women, for blacks, and in many other situations, despite the personal prejudices of the people. His point was that homosexuals would never acquire constitutional protections because, "Christians held the majority opinion against such protections".

I've thought allot about that comment for many years - that the laws of our land, the rights of human beings, are not protected by rational decision or objective fact, but by the ever shifting whims of the public. That scares the shit out of me.

Lets take the rights of black people for example. It was a scientific fact many years before equal rights became the law of the land, that there are no differences between the races. Its was common sense even longer before that. yet we had to go through decades of building public opinion before equality was the law. The same was true of course for womens rights.

Consider the current effort to revamp health care. The conversation evolves around hyperbole and not around actual facts. The facts are there, we could talk about them and make an objective decision. But instead of facts we talk about death panels and screwing old people out of their Medicare. Again, fighting this out in the courts of public opinion.

Consider the plight of homosexuals. Every scientific fact there is supports their rights to equality. Do they have it? No. They are fighting for their rights in the court of public opinion.

We are way past the point in our evolution where we as human beings should be able to set aside public opinion & bigotry, to make objective, logical decisions for the public good. Instead of courting the opinions of the religious, the corporation, or the elite, we should be using our minds and resources to shape laws based on the benefit of the human race and long term goals. In the current state of affairs, America's conversation about homosexuals, health care, and public policy, is only one notch above that of Iraq, Afghanistan, and public beheading. Considering the insanity I see on the news, it might be less than a step.

Is democracy really only about public opinion? About who has the majority vote? Are we really only a vote away from Christian head scarves, incorporateing the bible into the consitution, and burning witches at the stake again? Are we that stupid?

Is it not possible to elect a government by the people and for the people, and make logical decisions for the people?

What If?

I think that just because you call something a religion, does not necessarily make it true. It just sad that people make a feel good decisions based on emotional impulse, and then lacking any fact, choose to enforce that decision on everyone else. Where would we be if Galileo had been supported instead of jailed? Where would we be if women had equality and blacks had freedom 100 or 200 years earlier? Where would we be if stem cell research had the full backing of the government 10 years ago? Where would the human race be if it was not shackled by religious dogma and misguided morals based on stone aged thinking?

How about we put “faith” where it belongs and get on with the business of making life better for our fellow humans?

LIFE by the DALAI LAMA

LIFE by the DALAI LAMA

This is what The Dalai Lama has to say on the millennium. All it takes is a few seconds to read and think over.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR LIFE

1. Take into account that great love and great achievements, involve great risk.
2. When you lose, don't lose the lesson.
3. Follow the three Rs: Respect for self, Respect for others, Responsibility for all your actions.
4. Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck.
5. Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
6. Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship.
7. When you realize you've made a mistake, take immediate steps to correct it.
8. Spend some time alone every day.
9. Open your arms to change, but don't let go of your values.
10. Remember that silence is sometimes the best answer.
11. Live a good, honorable life. Then when you get older and think back, you'll be able to enjoy it a second time.
12. A loving atmosphere in your home is the foundation for your life.
13. In disagreements with loved ones, deal only with the current situation. Don't bring up the past.
14. Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality.
15. Be gentle with the earth.
16. Once a year, go someplace you've never been before.
17. Remember that the best relationship is one in which your love for each other exceeds your need for each other.
18. Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.
19. Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon.

Enlightenment

An acient proverb, probably horribly misquoted, but essentially correct:

A student, searching for enlightenment, was walking the path one hot sunny day, when the student met a traveler walking the path down the hill and carrying a heavy load. The student at once recognized the traveler as an enlightened being and stopped the traveler to speak with him. The student asked the traveler, "Master, what is enlightenment?" The traveler stopped, thought a moment, set his heavy load to the ground, and looked at the student with a sly smile on his face. The student realized the leason, and then asked, "Master, but after enlightenment, then what?" At that, the traveler smiled broadly, took up his heavy load, and continued his walk along the path.

Face the Facts

I find it disingenuous when people quote bible verses. They always go for the prosaic ones like, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son…”, which is by the way blasphemy if you read all of the bible, or "I am the way the truth and the life...", which is just absurd. These people quote the pretty verses, but completely ignore the verses which institute slavery, which treat women as property, and which order bigotry and unmitigated slaughter. Mind you, none of these biblical institutions has ever been rescinded.

Is it possible people are just unaware? Or is it possible they do not want to face the ugly truth of the bible, which is that it is a stone aged religion lacking any “truth” what so ever.

THINK! The mind is a terrible thing to waste.

The Indefensible Defense of Marriage Act

BIGOTRY: –noun, plural -ries. Defined as a stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Let’s be honest, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law on September 21, 1996, is in effect legalized bigotry. It should be over turned.

The DOMA has two aspects: It enforces “state’s rights” not to acknowledge marriages made in other states, where that marriage involves the marriage of same sex couples. It also defines marriage as that made between a man and a woman only. So there are two issues here, state’s rights and homosexual marriage.

My post is not about states rights, but I can’t pass this and not say something on the matter. State’s rights, simply put, is about recognizing each state’s right to make its own laws and to govern itself. On the face of it, that sounds like a great thing; maintaining state individuality, local control, and avoiding big brother and all that. But under the surface, it means that any state can continue to do what it wants, say in the case of homosexual marriage. When it comes to discrimination, I think that’s a bad thing and I think that the end of slavery was a great example of the abuse of state’s rights. I’ll leave it at that.

The issue of the federal government “defining” marriage is just plain spurious. The thinking, hypothetically, goes like this; the tradition is that marriage is between a man and a woman, we like that tradition, we will keep that tradition, we will make it law. Hence the DOMA. For some reason, homosexuals are not afforded the same rights as the rest of humanity, and are not allowed to marry.

Seriously, where did this definition come from, if not from tradition, and religious tradition at that? No where and I mean NO WHERE on this planet is there a definition of marriage except within religious books. Marriage is a religious ceremony for crying out loud. The standard definition of marriage is merely a religious view point, held as a tradition among the people. That’s a problem when we define human rights by tradition and not by the law.

Amendment 1 of the Constitution of the United States says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Problem 1: The DOMA in effect makes the religious view point of some; the religious definition of marriage, the law of the land.

Problem 2: The DOMA restricts the religious rights of homosexuals to obtain a legally recognized, religious marriage, anywhere in the United States.

There is also another document that speaks to this issue, which seems to have been over looked, the Declaration of Independence, where in is stated, “…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….”

Equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is the very core of that upon which this country was founded. Human rights for each and every one of us, except for homosexuals? Apparently, its not so “self evident” any longer.

The Blame Game of Who's a Terrorist Now

A report released by the Pentagon on May 26, 2009 disclosed some interesting facts pertaining to the release of Gitmo detainees. As of the date of the report, 530 detainees had been released from Gitmo. According to that report, “14% of those released had turned to or are suspected of having turned to” acts of terrorism.

Now this information has been used by some people to draw negative conclusions on President Obama’s plans to shut down Gitmo, and the on going legal review of the detainees still held there. But there are some facts buried here that need a closer look.

To start with those released, either directly by the U.S., or indirectly through third party countries, were found to have had no credible connection to acts of terrorism. To put that in plain language, they were innocent of the charges against them after years of detention, mistreatment, and out right torture.

In a side point: Mind you this detention was based on the thinnest of excuses, i.e., that we were “at war with terrorism”, and therefore normal justice (and apparently common sense) did not apply. However, terrorism is technically a criminal act when perpetuated by individuals or groups, and a military act when perpetuated by a government or country – but illegal in any sense. In the past, we investigated and arrested criminals and went to war with countries and governments.

So the only way this “war” can be maintained, there by justifying (among other things) detention outside of the justice system, is by focusing on one group instead of the dozens of religious nut jobs waging war against unbelievers. We don’t have a country to wage war against – we did not them and we still do not. Hence, to give us a boogie man to wage war against, its all blamed on Al-Qaeda.

Just after 9-11, Al-Qaeda was a fractured (and according to some failing) group that was, after the act of terrorism called 9-11, denounced by most Jihadist leaders. If only we had let them alone, and hunted them down as criminals. But we did not and we invaded a country, and then another. Within a very short period of time, the very people who refused to take any note of Al-Qaeda to start with, suddenly found Al-Qaeda was a global organization against whom we should wage war. Rather convenient if you ask me. Suddenly, every Islamist faction trying to gain ground in every backwater country around the world, was linked to Al-Qaeda and we are looking at waging “war” in almost every country around the globe. The simple fact is that this should never have been viewed as a war, but as a criminal act and investigated as such. But war fit rather nicely in the plans of some.

But I wander from my point, which is the interesting language used by the Pentagon with regards to the detainees, i.e., “14% of those released had turned to or are suspected of having turned to” acts of terrorism. What that language means is one of two things. Either some one was unable to obtain credible evidence against the detainee, therefore the detainee was released having been a terrorist all along. Or the detainee was actually innocent all along of the charges laid against them, was released accordingly, and then for some reason – oh I don’t know, perhaps they were water boarded one too many times – they turned to terrorism.

One last point is a problem with the numbers. The number of 14% represents both detainees who were confirmed to be acting terrorist after release and those suspected of acts of terrorism. The actual number is 5% of those released have actually been confirmed to have turned to terrorism after their release.

So the question that begs to be asked is were these people terrorist who got away with their crime, or are these terrorists that we created? The language used by the Pentagon would appear to suggest the latter, that these people “turned to” terrorism subsequent to their release. That is a very important point since the accusation is that the Obama administration is releasing terrorist back into the wild – not technically true since Bush released most of them and the reverse (and silly) argument could be made that statistically Bush released the terrorists and not Obama.

The argument is no less thin even if you use the number of 14%. The fact still remains that nothing was found to hold these people and legally and morally, they had to be released. They were found to be innocent, and something happened to change these people’s minds and set them on the path of the terrorist. Humm, what could that have been?

I think it is high time for America to take responsibility for its actions. We cannot hold people for years and expect to avoid the consequence for that action. We cannot invade a country with no valid reason and expect to avoid the consequences of that action. America has, for over 233 years, through one administration after another, continued with the same failed policies in the Middle East. It is time for a new approach to a very old problem.

In God's Hands

Isn't in interesting. When something "good" happens to one person, its god's handiwork. But to the person on the other side of the same situation, who may have lost out on the deal, its satan's handiwork.

What one person defines as good, another can as equally define as bad, and the corresponding diety gets the credit or blame.

We spend so much time defining good and bad, god and not god, we loose sight of the real truth behind it all. There is no good, there is no bad, there is only life which must be embraced for all it has to offer.We spend so much time trying to find god's path in our lives, we fail to see that we have been standing on the path the entire time. Metaphorically speaking, god has been standing just down the path waiting for us to open our eyes and to put one foot in front of the other.

We spend an awful lot of time trying to find that which exists right in front of us, in every birth, in every death, in every sunrise, every storm, in every grain of sand. You may call it god, or like me you may call it the Tao, but it is in us and around us all the time. You do not have to "find" it, because it is you.

Defining God

They call god Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, Krishna, and a thousand other names. Can they all be right? They give god many attributes; "just", "loving", "stern", and a thousand faces as well. Can they all be right? They quote god's words and directions to us in book after book called the bible, the koran, and another thousand other works. Can they all be right? Quite obviously the answer is no.

The problem with trying to define god, is that the moment you you do you loose all ability to see god for what god truely is. If you can only see god through rose colored glasses, then you are blind to anything but rose colored attributes.

But what if god isn't rose colored at all? What if god can only be seen through yellow tint glasses? What if god can't be define by the colors you or I choose? What if god is something beyond human definition completely?

Given the fact that there is no evidence, what so ever, to support the world's religous definition of god, and that there are countless versions all contradicting each other, why do we as humans insist on forcing our definition of god on everyone else? Why do we kill and discriminate against each other over this?

How about we all step back and accept the fact that we just don't know, and allow that perhaps the definition of god, if god needs any definition to begin with, is beyond our capability. Perhaps then we can find god. Perhaps god has been right on the other side of that fence all along.

Is Religion a Benefit to Humankind?

One might ask what difference it makes whether Christianity – or any other religion for that matter – is fact or fiction. Is it in fact of benefit to humanity? Valid question. To answer that lets look at the affect religion has had on the world, both individually and globally.

Let's take Christianity as the example. Lets look at the basic problem of "Us" versus "Them":

When one takes up a religious code – this is especially true of a religion that declares itself to be the "truth" and all others pagan fakes - there is an immediate declaration in doing so that one knows something all others do not. When you become a Christian, the doctrine of your faith states that you are "privileged", "chosen", and "enlightened". Everyone else is in the darkness and is going to "hell", AKA: torture for eternity. This style of dogma creates the basic "us" or "them" attitude that is the base of the problem. This is made clear in every act by Christians and pre-Christian faiths since the beginning of time, where "god's people" slaughter anyone "god" tells them to. The very heart of the ability to conduct such horrible abuses of human life is the belief that the victims are of less value than those committing the abuse. History is full with examples of slaughter that defies human imagination. Just off the top of my head the Jewish slaughter of complete cities through out the old testament at "god's direction, the slaughter of Muslims by Christians in the crusades, the slaughter of everyone by Christians during the Inquisitions, the slaughter of Christians and Jews by Muslims, and on and on. This continues to this day of course. The slaughter of innocents by Muslim extremists, the slaughter and enslavement of Palestinians by Israel, slavery in American just a few hundred years ago, and the abuse of women to this day, are all examples. Name your faith and you can find it today. This religious bigotry is the mother of every religious war and all manner of abuse.

And lets not forget Bigotry, racism, and discrimination:

This is of course just another example of the above, but it bears clarification. Religion is at the root of just about every form of discrimination occurring today, or has been intimately involved. The Baptist church (and others) discriminate against women and declare, proudly I might add, that women are subordinate to men. They enforce a dress code on "their women", control their behavior and lives, and teach their children to do the same. The church has literally treated women as property in the past. Not long ago the Mormon Church declared men could not get into heaven unless they have a certain number of wives which their elders handed out to them. Of course we cannot forget today’s bigoted discrimination of the Gays and Lesbians who are treated like second hand citizens and denied their equal rights in our own country. It was not all that long ago that the church actively sought to keep bibles away from black people, partly because the church believed the blacks were damned by god and partly because they did not want blacks to learn to read. The list goes on and is equally stupid.

What of the religious influence upon science:

Religion has always stood in the way of scientific progress. The famous story of Galileo comes to mind who was ordered by the church to recant his scientific observations that the earth was round and revolved around the sun (as opposed to the universe revolving around the Earth and the church). This attitude continues today of course in the form of blocking stem cell research, considered one of the most promising technologies to date in the fight against many diseases. Then there is the control of government funds in the fight against HIV where the government only funds abstinence programs which are favored by the church and proven technologies such as promoting condoms is shelved. That list is also long and equally absurd. Many would argue that religion has given mankind many exciting benefits. Ask any Christian and they will tell you all about god’s love for man and all the wonderful things the church has done. Time and again I have heard Christians in paticular declare that their reglion, and their's alone, has alone brought enlightenment to the world. But the exact opposite is true. Religion and its churches have stood in the way of every single advancement of human kind and continue to do so to this day. History my friends does not lie.

So when one asks what benefit religion has had upon human kind, the only factual answer is NONE.

And then, the following question is a personal one. What are YOU going to do about it?

Christianity, fact or fiction

Okay. Its fiction. Don't believe me? Then I challenge you to look at some very basic facts:

Christianity is supposed to be the end all and be all of "god's" entire plan. It is supposed to be the culmination of the Jewish religion, that provides salvation for all of humanity. In this plan, the person of Jesus, purported to be god's son, is sacrificed for the sins of the world, making heaven available to all and ending all need for individual redemption / sacrifice. That's the basis of it all.

Couple of pretty important points:

No. 1: In the Jewish faith, each person is responsible for their own sacrifice and redemption. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. In fact, it states in the Old Testament that each man is responsible for his own sacrifice before god. The son cannot sacrifice for the father or the father for the son. The very basis of the Jewish religion, its "plan" of redemption is individual sacrifice and atonement before god.

No. 2: In the Old Testament, god HATED human sacrifice. He really REALY did. Time and again, he ordered the Israelites to enter cities that practiced human sacrifice and slaughter every single man, woman, child, and animal, they found, to purge this "sin" from the world.

So ask yourself, how is it that a "god" who establishes a plan of salvation that demands individual atonement, who rejects as evil the practice of human sacrifice, suddenly jumps from that to sacrificing his own son for everyone and doing away with everything he stood for previously? How is it that this "god", who supposedly established the above covenant with Israel "forever", who repeatedly brags about being "unchanging", suddenly changes everything into a new covenant that is in complete contradiction to what "god" supposedly stood for thousands of years?

The answer of course is that "god" did no such thing. It is all bullshit.

How that bullshit became to be is another story. Stay tuned.

THINK FOR YOURSELF!

Our Inability to See

The greatest single threat to world peace is not what most might think. It is not crime, sin, or war. It is intolerance; the inability to accept others for who they are and as they are.

As long as we create expectations and demand that others force themselves into our conception of what is right, wrong, or acceptable, we will always have strife. The old "Us" versus "Them" attitude, the "I" am right and "You" are wrong way of thinking will never bring peace. "We" will never covert "Them" to our way of thinking. So how much better would it be if we stopped trying to remake the world into our image? The old Wiccan saying, "Do as you will, but do no harm", is a good rule to follow.

That is not meant to mean that injustice must be over looked. "Harm" and injustice must not be allowed and I don't see anything wrong with protecting the world and its citizens from it. A civilized society, where all are protected and free, is the only sane place to live. Of course, what is really harmful and what is my personal opinion can be two different things, and that is where intolerance raises its ugly head.

Murder, rape, theft, denying someone their freedom or equality, those things are easy. Those things are not acceptable. Walking naked down the street with a daisy behind my ear? That is probably not a good thing and it is a bit gross. Harmful and distasteful, or that which does not serve the greater public good, can often be difficult to seperate.

Let's use a hot button issue as an example; homosexuality. That's one of those things that some people just have to believe is unacceptable, sinful, and must be stamped out. But I hate to burst your bubble, its just none of your business with whom another person falls in love with or what type of sex they have.

Its interesting to me that the people who protest homosexuality, cannot see that ultimately their objection is based on their personal opinion and absolutely nothing else. Now apply that reasoning to your religion, your politics, your social standing, etc, and you might be able to see that much of what we assume to be true about the world around us is not based on freedom and equality, it is based on our intolerance and inability to see beyond our own ignorance.

Thankfully, ignorance can be cured.

When you see that many of the things we try and force on the world are in fact our personal opinion, even perhaps the opinion of many people, you come to the ultimate question; "What right does anyone have to force their opinion on other people?"

The answer is you don't have that right.

There is a problem between the church and the state. Let me give you a few recent examples of the “above the law” attitude the church has in our society.

In today’s news we are told of a decision by a representative of the Roman Catholic Church that “the sexual abuse of its priests must not be made known to his parishioners”, that the “…reputation of the church must be protected”, and that priests found to have committed sexual abuse “must not be turned over to the authorities unless the priest has been found to be useless”. In layman’s terms, these people can commit some of the most heinous crimes known in our society and the church will cover it up. The criminal, not the victim, must be protected. They believe they have no obligation to obey the laws of the society in which they serve.

In this weeks news I read about a woman who’s daughter was ejected from a “Christian” school because the church did not approve of the mother’s life style. A perfect example of why Christian schools cannot be used in public education. The mother could not afford to feed her child and was caught working as a stripper. So much for compassion.

In this weeks news I read how the Morman church bought an entire public street and is in the process of evicting people who’s life styles do not meet the church’s standards. The church also pressured to have state law changed to allow the church to purchase national park property in order to create a church exhibit.

This is the attitude of the religious zealot, that they are above the law and the Constitution of this United States. Your personal freedom and protections provided by the law of the land mean nothing to the religious.

It is truly frightening that people like this are currently serving at every level in our own government.