Correction, we didn't evolve from monkeys...

We are monkeys.

Well, we're still of the taxonomic parvorder Catarrhini. I suppose it's still more "accurate" to say we're apes, being of the superfamily Hominoidea, but the point remains.

This isn't about opinion or feelings. We're primates, plain and simple. This proves to be a very difficult FACT for some people to accept, and this is mainly due to a certain arrogance: people find it "dehumanizing" and somehow degrading to think of themselves as animals. This, of course, is ridiculous. These are technical terms. If you're a living, locomotive organism that digests other living organisms to survive, well, guess what? You're an animal. Lose the self-righteous indignation.

Okay, perhaps I simplified things with motile and heterotrophic. As AronRa puts it in his excellent video on cladistic phylogenetics, you ARE a primate as long as you are a:

"gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebrial cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle."

If for any reason you feel the above passage doesn't describe you...

...well, I don't know what to say to that. Just watch out for those government agents, and good luck phoning home.

Bible Study: Judges 1:19

"The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots." — Judges 1:19

So, Judah had God on his side, which is pretty kick-ass, so he and his buddies do a lot of ass kicking. With the omnipotent, omniscient creator on their side, they were just whoopin' Canaanite and Perizzite tail. They killed 10,000 in Bezek alone, burnt Jerusalem, and cut off Adonibezek's thumbs and big-toes. NOBODY was left standing in their path...

...until they got to the valley. Because, after all, those people had iron chariots for, uh...God's sake.

Yeah. The most powerful entity in the universe can't fuck with iron chariots. Even though he made iron. And chariots. Flooding the planet? No problem. Pillars of fire and gaping holes in the earth? Easy. I mean, you'd think he could at least kill the horses, leaving the people trying to kick-push the chariots Flintstone or skateboard style. But no. God turns completely flaccid at the sight of iron chariots. Kinda like me and Star Jones.

I still think I could whoop Star's ass, though, and I can't even open those windows in the sky to let it rain.

But at least he gave them fair warning:

"but the forested hill country as well. Clear it, and its farthest limits will be yours; though the Canaanites have iron chariots and though they are strong, you can drive them out." — Joshua 17:18

Or that could just be one of those pesky contradictions. Or God lying. Or changing His omniscient mind. Or just the ancient ramblings of a superstitious Bronze-Age goat herder.

Bible Study: II Kings 2:23-24

"From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. 'Go on up, you baldhead!' they said. 'Go on up, you baldhead!' He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths." — II Kings 2:23-24

42 children attacked and killed by bears.

For calling a man "bald".

God is good.

Upon having this verse brought to his attention, my cousin voiced that his position on Christianity might be worthy of reconsideration if it allows one the ability to have bears maul all who harass you. I do suppose that one of the fringe benefits of being JEWISH appears to be summoning "Power of Bear" whenever necessary. Of course you lose Resistance to Iron Chariot, but it's a fairly even trade off. Especially considering you also get the ability to live in fish bellies, Water Control, complete dominion over women, Pillar of Fire, and Gaping Hole in Earth. You do lose all sense of direction and occasionally spend a few decades wandering around aimlessly, but all in all it's one hell of a deal.

If you like having to constantly fawn over a fiercely jealous god who has a obsessive fascination with foreskins, menses, and burning meat, that is.

Bible Study: Ezekiel 23:19-20

"Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." — Ezekiel 23:19-20

Yes, this means exactly what you think it does.

I've often pondered the potential influence of this verse on Afrocentrists and their "Egyptians were black" claims, but quickly realized the negative effects it would have on the "Jesus was black" claim.

I mean, ya gotta pick which one "uplifts" your ego more: you have a HUGE penis or God looks like you?

Tough choice.

Bible Study: 2 Kings 15:16

"At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women." — 2 Kings 15:16

Ripping open pregnant womens' bellies? In the Bible. Condemning slavery? Not in the Bible. It's the Good Book.

Oh, and God loves little unborn babies more than actual people and will send you to hell forever if you get an abortion.

Exactly who should be offended?

"Warning: This Message Contains Blocked ContentSome content in this message has been reported as abusive by Facebook users."

Over at Facebook, I tried to post a link to a site I feel is of great value, but was unable to do so, as it seems some Facebookians have apparently reported the site as "offensive".

Wonderful. Also painfully typical. Apparently the folks over at Facebook investigate such claims as thoroughly as they believe breastfeeding is natural. Shame they aren't equally vigilant about those racist frat parties.

The site is called The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptics Guide to Christianity. Ooo, watch out for those scary ideas!! Wouldn't want people to...*gulp*...think!!

For those who aren't familiar, Pascal's Wager is that "clever" little bit of pseudo-logic that theists chuck around wantonly, whilst patting themselves on the backs and beaming with supercilious ostentation, that goes a little something like "wouldn't you rather BELIEVE and be wrong than NOT believe and be wrong?" This was suggested by Blaise Pascal in 1657, and had respective variants by Muslim Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni and Hindu Vararuci.

Problem is it's myopic, unbelievably arrogant, and a blatant example of a false dichotomy. Anybody who's ever thought this was intellectual checkmate—or even a philosophical stumbling block—for more than a brief second...well, let me be kind.

The immediate response should be to ask "which god/s?" Obviously the one/s with the most severe punishment (start facing Mecca). Shortly thereafter we should question the validity of the assumption that believing does no harm. I for one feel that limiting my mind and living in guilt and fear are bad things, but that's just me.

Anyway, I wonder if I'm going to to be marked as offensive? Even more so, I wonder if they'd listen if I found certain sites offensive?

Oh, well. Just a small taste of the rampant Christian privilege that's out there—benefiting the very same folk who are claiming they're the ones who are oppressed.

The Greatest of Days...

OK. Yes, I'm disappointed that he'll be continuing the 22 President trend of violating the very document he's pledging to uphold.

Yes, I'm discouraged that he's having ANY inaugural invocation whatsoever, and further disheartened that he's invited a bigoted, heterosexist to do so...and belittling two legitimate outcries by adding another—gay—clergyperson for good measure.

Of course I'm brokenhearted that the man I so thoroughly supported and worked for is failing to support me.

But I'm also rational and determined to be lead by reason over emotion. And just as I know evolution works through cumulative steps, I'm aware that at times revolutions must lose that initial "r". And I'm humble enough to acquiesce to my emotion over my reason and still be brought to tears at this incredible achievement and the knowledge that I can now tell my daughters they truly can do anything their ambitions and aspirations have them strive for—and not feel as though I'm lying.

Yes, we did.

America the Christian Nation Part 6: The Pledge of Allegiance...

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

This is the original Pledge, as written by Francis Bellamy—a Baptist minister—in August of 1892.

Notice anything? Something conspicuously missing?

Bellamy considered adding "equality" along with "liberty" and "justice," but due to the overwhelming intolerance toward women and black folk amongst his contemporaries he relented.

But, even though "equality" should have been included, that's not what's missing here, is it?

In October 1892, two months after its inception, "to" was added before "the Republic".

In 1923, against Bellamy's protest, "the Flag of the United States of America" replaced "my flag".

So, it's getting closer to what we would find familiar, but it's still not quite the same.

June 3, 1940. With an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Minersville School District v. Gobitis that public school students could be compelled to recite the Pledge. The hearing came as a result of the—Christian group—Jehovah's Witness claim to religious freedom and refusal to recite the Pledge as an act of idolatry in accordance with Exodus 20:4-6, John 5:21, and Matthew 22:21. Minersville was 90% Roman Catholic. After the ruling, nationwide, 1,500 JW's were physically assaulted. Witnesses were arrested, tarred and feathered, beaten, driven from their homes and communities, and their churches burned. This clear violation of the First Amendment was overturned by the Supreme Court three years later—on Flag Day—in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

But our Pledge still doesn't have that familiar ring.

1954. The era of the Cold War and Red Scare. In an act of cognitive dissonance and attempt to further distinguish and separate ourselves from those our government told us were our "enemies", yet another change was made. The Catholic group Knights of Columbus took advantage of the situation and pressured Congress. "Under God" was added to the Pledge, officially making it a prayer. Officially excluding any United States citizen who doesn't happen to claim the Judeo Christian faith and conveniently accepts idolatry. Officially violating the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 178 years after the Declaration of Independence.

(Interesting that two God-fearing, God-loving, Christian groups were in the middle of a rather brutal skirmish over the Pledge before there was even a mention to God in that Pledge.)

So, why is the fact that the Pledge (illegally) includes two words, added sixty-two years after it was originally written, used as "proof" that the United States of America is, and has always been intended to be, a Christian nation, founded upon Christian principals, its laws based firmly upon the Ten Commandments?

Why the uproar and demand that we "keep" God in the Pledge? Why not an uproar that we keep the Bellamy salute instead of placing our hands over our hearts? Oh, what's that? How exactly did we say recite the Pledge prior to June 22, 1942, the year Congress officially recognized it as the official national pledge (two years after SCOTUS ruled its recitation compulsory and during our war with Germany)?