Throwing the Baby Out With the Bathwater...

Most of us on Facebook have probably seen the little poll about Universal Healthcare, which asks "Are you in favor of a Government run healthcare system?"

Aside from finding it blatantly misleading (using an image of Obama, who doesn't promote anything near a universal healthcare system), I rather enjoy this poll. Not solely because I'm a HUGE advocate of such a plan, but because it gives me a glimpse into other people's perspectives, and I'm a student of human behavior.

Case in point, someone on my friends list voted "No" and left the following comment:

"I don't think my tax $ should pay for someones 'choice' to kill a baby!!"

Now, I obviously respect her (one of the kindest people I've ever met), or she wouldn't be on my friends list...but I'm going to use this as a case point to make a couple of observations.

She has every right to be concerned about what her tax money pays for. I don't want my tax dollars paying for religious schools, supporting faith-based initiatives and the batshit insane bigots that run them, buying bombs to kill brown people for oil in a religious crusade, paying the salaries of racist officials, creating an oppressively brutal police force, or any other myriad elements of our reality. But I'm only one 320 millionth—0.000000003125%— of the population, and I realize how democracy works (or is supposed to).

But the main problem here seems to be the typical over-zealousness and narrow-mindedness mixed with ignorance of the facts in the face of intentional misrepresentation. And I honestly mean nothing negative in that statement.

First, some of the facts as reported here:

"Abortion is not mentioned in the 1,018-page bill..."

"The Supreme Court has established a woman's right to abortion, but federal law prohibits government funds from being used to pay for the procedure in most cases. However, nearly 90 percent of employer-based private insurance plans routinely cover abortion."

OK. Pretty cut and dry.

Second, let's forget almost the entirety of my personal belief system, and attempt to deal with this just on the basis of these and a few other established facts (namely 1: there are a shit-ton of uninsured Americans, and 2: some pretty serious problems come along with being uninsured or not sufficiently insured in a society that has ridiculous healthcare costs).

So, she's saying that 46 MILLION uninsured Americans essentially should continue to suffer because the government MIGHT use tax dollars to fund abortions, most likely only in the event that it saves the mother's life (again, not even a definite option, but, if it is an option, a rarely used one)?

But in the meanwhile, the current private system covers almost all abortions, AND screws over 46 million American men, women (and their fetuses), and children. Not to mention, the dollars YOU pay into YOUR premiums are what the insurance companies use to pay for those abortions (!). So, in the current, private system you already ARE paying for abortions. For less debatable reasons. And there are still 46 MILLION people going without any health care or all, or substandard health care.

So, in a nutshell, the reasoning is "I don't want to help my fellow humans because it might lead to significantly lower levels of something that is already happening". I must say that doesn't make much sense at all.

It is worsened by the fact that the assumed reasoning is based on a religious affiliation with a faith that is supposedly defined by merciful dedication, sacrifice, and non-judgmental service to one's fellow humans according to the example set by a God/prophet that never once mentioned abortion but did prop up the poor, condemn the rich, and stress egalitarianism and beneficence.

My Other Side of the Fence...

Forbes let's us in on the Happiest Places on Earth.

No surprise at all that they're also ranked quite low in religiosity. It's a documented fact that the less religious nations rank higher in categories indicative of human happiness.

Well, waddaya know?...

Salon.com posted an article that says the most by having to say anything at all. Newsflash: America is not a Christian nation!!

Could go MUCH more in depth, and provide LOADS more FACT, but it does nicely. But, then again, how can you mess up the truth?

Also in news, scientists and medical professionals suggest heavy intake of oxygen may be beneficial.

Well, At Least It's For a Good Cause...

Proceeds will go to 'Faith based' teaching in public school.

That's FAITH-BASED Teaching. In PUBLIC SCHOOLS.


I see "In God We Trust" plates from Indiana almost daily, but this takes the cake.

The only thing more amazing than the ease at which they continually violate the Constitution is the complete lack of concern from the public.

Oh, yeah: "faith-based teaching in PUBLIC SCHOOL"!!

Can I get one with Frigga chucking a sprigg of mistletoe at Baldur? Or maybe Minerva springing forth from the head of Jupiter? Xenu hydrogen-bombing the volcanoes?

No? Well, then how about the signing of the Constitution?

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.

(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.)

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.

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)?

America the Christian Nation Part 5: Other US Presidents

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated." — George Washington

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." — Abraham Lincoln

"Keep the church and state forever separate" — Ulysses S. Grant

"I do not believe in the divinity of Christ, and there are many other of the postulates of the orthodox creed to which I cannot subscribe." — William Howard Taft

"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be nonsectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools." — Theodore Roosevelt

"The public schools shall be free from sectarian influences and, above all, free from any attitude of hostility to the adherents of any particular creed." — Franklin D. Roosevelt

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute...where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him." — John F. Kennedy

"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity..." — Rev. Bird Wilson, 1831


Ask yourself, what can you believe from someone who openly decieves you?

America the Christian Nation Part 4: Benjamin Franklin Quotes

I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absented myself from Christian assemblies."

"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."

"He [the Rev Mr. Whitefield] used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard."

"...I soon became a thorough Deist."


Benjamin Franklin. Founding Father. Signer of the Constitution. Delegate to the Second Continental Congress. Deist.

If their message is one of truth, why do they feel such a need to lie?

America the Christian Nation Part 3: John Adams Quotes

"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

"When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it."

"Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it."



John Adams. Founding Father. 2nd President of the United States. Deist.

If your foundation is built upon lies your "truth" will crumble.

America the Christian Nation Part 2: James Madison Quotes...

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect."

"Religion flourishes in greater purity without than with the aid of government."

"Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience."


James Madison. Founding Father. 4th President of the United States. "Father of the Constitution." Deist.

Arguments based on lies are arguments against your position.

America the Christian Nation Part 1: Thomas Jefferson Quotes...

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

"If by religion we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, 'that this would be the best of worlds if there were no religion in it.'"

"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind."

“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites.”


Thomas Jefferson. Founding Father. Author of the Declaration of Independence. 3rd President of the United States of America. Heavy influence on the US Constitution. Deist.

Stop the lies.

A Case for Public Schooling...

My daughters’ mother is “saved”. She received Christian schooling as a youth and even attended a Christian college. She now insists that my children follow in her footsteps. The idea of this horrifies me on many levels. I downloaded a copy of the Student Handbook to see if my fears were justified. Let’s see what I found:

The handbook starts out with the schools “Philosophy Of Education”:

Christian education directs the student toward a life goal of walking humbly before God. Students are challenged to fulfill his will by performing that which is good, acceptable and perfect. Only Christ-centered education gives true wisdom and understanding. At Delaware Christian School, the Bible is considered the inerrant Word of God and is integrated into every subject. Our faculty prepares students for more than academics. DCS students are taught character qualities and morals that will equip them to meet the challenges they will face in the world and influence others for Christ

Not a very good start. Where is the education part of this philosophy? I don’t see my children passing standardized tests, being accepted to college, or gaining employment based solely on “character qualities” and “morals”. Exactly which definitions of education, academics, and even school are they referring to?

The handbook then goes on to a rather lengthy Statement of Faith which includes this interesting tidbit (remember, they’re teaching this to children):

5. The Total Depravity of Man
We believe that the man was created in the image and likeness of God, but that in Adam’s sin the race fell, inherited a sinful nature, and became alienated from God; and, that man is totally depraved, and of himself utterly unable to remedy his lost condition.

That’s it – make them feel good about themselves. And this:

c. We believe that the souls of unbelievers remain, after death, in conscious misery until the second resurrection, when with soul and body are reunited they shall appear at the Great White Throne Judgment and shall be case into the Lake of Fire, not to be annihilated, but to suffer everlasting conscious punishment.

So now my children know that Daddy is going to hell, and the seed of fear has been planted to ensure they never think rationally, critically, or on their own. Great. Aside from the fact that this is pure gobbledygook, and nothing a child should be exposed to, notice the grammatically incorrect presentation. From an institution of “education” (typo or not, this is not good).

We are then fed more statements of faith, but this time they’re called by names like “purpose” and yet another “Philosophy” which includes this very telling gem:

We believe that God's purpose in the creation of man was to glorify Himself.

What an egotistical bastard.

We then move on to objectives. Oh, boy…

1. h. To stress individual responsibility of Christians for world missions.

History tells us how successful a venture this is. Those damn heathen savages. Good thing God’s watching over our brave soldiers while they slaughter them. Once we’ve forced our personal choice of government and economy on them, we can shove our religion down their throats too!

1. j. To promote good citizenship through developing and understanding an appreciation of our Christian and American heritage of freedom and human dignity.

Christianity and America have a heritage of freedom and human dignity? Oh, that explains the Inquisition, Crusades, pogroms, genocides, misogyny, slavery, immense stockpile of nuclear arms, and Patriot Act, among countless other fine examples.

2. b. To foster wholesome personal relationships through development of social skills based on the Christian concept of love.

Is that the same Christian love that tells us to hate our father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters (Luke 14:26)?

2. c. To teach a realistic and Biblical view of life and work and provide skills for future endeavors in college and an occupation.

Aren’t the “realistic” and “Biblical” views of life completely contradictory? Nevertheless, a view of life populated with white, conservative, upper middle class Christians is hardly a realistic view of the world. My main issue with this statement is that it is the first with any mention whatsoever about skills, college, or occupation – and it is a full 22 lines of text into the schools objectives.

Ten lines later we finally arrive at the schools academic endeavors, which include:

3. b. To develop creative and critical thinking and the proper use of Biblical criteria for evaluation.

At the mention of “critical thinking”, my fear momentarily subsides and I crack a rib laughing. The humor is short lived, and the fear quickly returns:

3. d. To teach the basic concepts of scientific investigation and to show that all scientific facts are in agreement with God's Word.

(I’d say very basic.) Ah, yes, the flat Earth, geocentric universe, miscalculated pi, bat-birds, cud-chewing rabbits, and creation debacle of “God’s Word” are indeed scientific facts. Biblical anatomy, with its thinking based in the heart (never mentions the brain – SURPRISE!) and emotions based in the kidneys, was also centuries ahead of its time.

To my relief, I see that the school is accredited:

ACCREDITATION
Grades K-12 are chartered by the Ohio Board of Education.

But after a second thought, that relief turns into bitter disappointment: obviously, standards for accreditation aren’t exactly set very high.

Further on we get into discipline. Surprisingly, they have left the Biblical standards and the children aren’t going to be put to death if they are unruly and disobedient (Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9). This is good. They do, predictably, incorporate corporal punishment. I adamantly believe in discipline, received numerous spankings in school, and see no problem with this. But what exactly does this discipline entail?

(3) Teachers will be certain that the student understands what he has done is wrong and why it is sin.
(4) Teachers will pray with the student and help him understand God's forgiveness and the teacher's forgiveness.

Not only did you piss off the teacher, but God’s pretty damned upset with you too, little Timmy. Dirty sinner.

In case you’re wondering what kind of offenses are serious enough to warrant paddling:

b. Irreverence
k. Failure to fit into the spirit of the school
l. Immorality or compromising activity and pregnancy
m. Any action which may tarnish the student's testimony for Christ.

These are rather vague. For context, tobacco, drugs, and alcohol were h, i, and j, and possession of weapons is n. But the extremely subjective and broad-sweeping category of “irreverence” made number two on the list. Better to tote a pistol and pocket full of crack rocks to school in a drunken stupor than be “irreverent”.

Looking for more emphasis on actual education, I look to the section entitled “High School Graduation Requirements”:

3 units of Math
2 units of Science
4 units of English
3 units of Social Studies
4 units of Bible

Clearly, Bible is extremely important, especially when compared to something as inconsequential to academic achievement as science. Though, I guess it would be rather hard to teach a Biblically-correct science class for more than two years, since its pretty much all contained in the first two chapters of Genesis. I personally want to see the text book diagrams of God opening up the windows in the “firmament” so it can rain.

By now I see that the quality of my children’s education is pretty much on par with, oh, I don’t know – obedience school for dogs. Add to it an extremely limited representation of social diversity, a promise of naivety, and a thorough mind-fucking misanthropic guilt trip complete with promises of everlasting torture in a fiery pit, and a pretty clear picture is forming.

Yeah, horror was an appropriate response.

It gets even more interesting. In the section describing Health Policies, we see this rather vague entry:

AIDS POLICY
The Delaware Christian School has adopted a policy on aids based largely on the guidelines and recommendations of the Association of Christian Schools International. A copy of this policy may be attained by contacting the school office.

I wonder exactly what that policy is, and why they don’t just come out and say it.

A bit of humor follows in the Communicable Diseases section:

2. A student may be exempted from immunization upon the presentation of the written religious or moral objection of his parent or guardian…
3. A child will be excluded from school if the principal suspects the child has a communicable or nuisance disease...

Don’t rely on modern medicine to keep your child healthy when all you really have to do is pray, but also don’t expect your kid to be welcome in school in the event s/he does get sick.

Last but not least, we come to the school dress code. As expected, the school enforces uniforms. I’m on the fence with this one. It is much cheaper for me (or it would be thought until one sees the cost of school uniforms), and it removes one of the more obvious signs of class, and thus indicators for potential harassment, but it takes away some personal identity, more firmly cementing the perception of school as a factory of conformity. Whether yay or nay, I am both entertained and uncomfortable with this statement:

The purpose of requiring girls of all ages to wear skirts is to instill in young ladies an appreciation of their femininity and their unique role in God's plan for society.

As long as it isn’t the Principal’s “appreciation” of their femininity.

This is a nightmare. To add to the mess, their mother is requesting more child support to help cover tuition. I have seriously considered seeking legal resolve for this issue, but, besides being broke, I don’t see many courts, much less one in a blue state, siding with an atheist father (race traitor at that).

I constantly remind them to think for themselves though. During Columbus Day and Thanksgiving celebrations, my daughters spoke out in class about the European treatment of the indigenous Americans. The teacher insisted they were mistaken (she also told her students that their parents should vote for Bush because Kerry isn’t a Christian), which shows the strong ethical standards the school screens for in its hiring process.

I suppose it won’t be too long before they make me exceedingly proud and raise a little hell in “science class”.

A Compromise...

Over at The Evangelical Atheist, ~I AM~ has created yet another post that will easily collect near 100 comments. And rightfully so.

I, predicatably, got swept up in the commenting, and, lacking any discernable proclivity for terseness, penned a novella of sorts in response:

Both CT (Christian Theist) and Chad get right to the crux of the real issue (quite eloquently so, I must add). Bottom line, this is head butting, and the subsequent butting of heads on the wall is what works us into frenzy. These may just be irreconcilable differences. Our very view on existence is so vastly different we are nearly polar opposites.

But we recognize we aren't polar opposites. Our very nature of being human dictates this, but this rift lies at a level so essential to our actions - which define our existence - that it seemingly can not be ignored.

We (atheists) do indeed value reason, rationality, and logic so completely that they form a virtual trinity. I'm not saying that theists don't value reason, just that, in my opinion, they value not needing a reason even more so.

WE, on the other hand, need that reason. At times I think we fiend for it.

So We argue protocol. I would like to think us all naturally averse (or at least indifferent) to discord, and where there is a disagreement, there is a chance of solution. WE focus so completely on things of PROOF, or at least testing (i.e. science, math, logic), that we insist on it in everything. Of course We do, and I'm not at all saying that We're wrong in this, but We must acknowledge, and concede, that nobody else HAS to. Conversely, I'd hope theists can see why this prospect can be horrifying to an atheist.

In a society depending on human interaction, laws, based on value and enforced through judgment, are a necessity, and proper evaluation is paramount. Regardless of the nature of morality's origin, can we rely on morals alone to settle claims fairly? A central tenet of Christian belief is the fallibility of man, and without developments of the human mind - of our cognitive process through reason - our moral codes would not have a vessel for delivery. We apply logic to decide IF morals should be applied or not. We utilize advancements in science to investigate (forensics) and prove (DNA evidence) guilt or innocence - beyond merely questioning it. THEN we can apply morality in judgment.

Our prosperity too cannot be increased without stringent protocol. Theists acknowledge this when they go to a doctor, drive to church, turn on a television to watch evangelism, and log onto the internet to wage war with We infidels (j/k). The scientific method made all of that possible.

When a difference of opinion is recognized, and the next step - to investigate and consequently attempt to resolve it - is taken, the participants enter this realm of protocol, logic, and reason. Theists must then understand: you're on Our home court now. This is why We insist so strongly on concepts such as burden of proof. An established process is in place, and this dictates the rules of the game.

This brings about a conflict in the atheist's mind: As bewildering and infuriating as it is for Us to deal with people who won't play by the rules, We are still moved – compelled - to engage. Our system dictates that we MUST, but, at the same time, We feel if you won't, or are incapable of, abiding by these rules, then don't bother getting involved. Just don't assert your position. Add to this a previous observation of theists abiding by the very same principles, in the larger sphere of things, that they eschew in the arena (such as going to the doctor when ill) and we are beset with a maddening sense of hypocrisy.

What you must not forget is the very real implications this has on our lives. This is unavoidable. We all do live together, and that will not change - nor do I really feel we wish it truly would.

In our world theists preach personal salvation, a personal relationship with their god, a personal Faith.

Then keep it personal. Pardon my directness, but don't push your personal belief on our public sphere.

Here, again, morality is sure to rear its multi-faced head, but please, just bear with me…

Our system of protocol is established. Its practice is widespread and its merit apparent - personal value given, or faith taken in it may vary, but we cannot, and more importantly do not deny it.

When we and the ones we love are ill, we take them to get a diagnosis. If that diagnosis is threatening, we act and look to treatment. If a crime is committed against us, we urge a systematic, deductive, forensic investigation (and subsequent procedure of debate) in hopes justice can be served, and retribution paid.

Some of us also appeal to and enlist other help, and employ additional methods. And this is their personal choice and right, as much as it is mine to not.

I, personally, am definitely not 100% satisfied with the mechanics of the system we have in place (here along the lines of the social system, not scientific system), and I’d be a fool to suggest anybody is. But, overall, we ALL reap the benefits.

Don’t remind me that you believe in a god every time I look at money. Don’t have me fear that a prejudice against me due to my belief system will affect me negatively. Don’t decide my personal decisions. Do not impose your will on me. Let us have a system that centers on the personal FREE WILL your religion emphasizes. Let us have a system that allows ALL personal choice. Vote officials to a position of power that will affect ALL of us based on their track record pertaining to the task at hand, and their personal merit, not their personal belief.

We have enough prejudice and discrimination based on how people look. That is exterior and can’t be avoided. Let’s not extend it internally, and base it on belief or opinion - remember, neither HAS to be expressed: that is a choice.

This is in no way an urge to deny or hide WHO you are, but in a system that is blind to personal beliefs, no one’s personal beliefs can be infringed upon.

{For instance, when testifying in court, by not swearing on a Bible, I may deem myself untrustworthy to Christian jurors, but if this were not an option, such potential prejudice is completely circumvented. A serious theist who subscribes to a system of belief that emphasizes sound moral action – e.g. honesty – should not be compelled by the simple omission of a Bible to go against such standards.}

When I decide I don’t want my child acknowledging a god I have no belief in as a condition to her proclamation and affirmation of her citizenship of this nation, it has no ill effect on those who do – nor does their silent approbation.

This in no way prohibits your personal faith or beliefs. If I run up on you, snatch off your symbol (cross, WWJD bracelet, Jesus fish), and lock up your church, THAT is prohibition. That is a violation of your rights.

Uncertainty about equality and fairness are certain. But theists here, especially Christians, have a bonus. Your God loves you. Your God favors you. Your religion is full of examples and promises of this. You have your own system to guarantee it – the same system I’m requesting you not push on me. Afterall, this world is temporary. YOU have a greater goal. But my world is finite. This is it for me, and prosperity in this life is my goal.

The very Faith you rely on so thoroughly to support the positions We attempt to argue with you, should not only pertain to the reason why you believe, it should dictate how you live.

Your God should protect you. This is what you preach! Have faith in it and live by it. Hold that Faith that you will not be ill-effected in our system. I don’t mean to sound at all insensitive, but heck, even if Our proposed system does affect you adversely, it’s only temporal. If you swear by a religion that promises not only eternal happiness, but earthly struggle beforehand, why are you so scared at and averse to the prospect of the fulfillment of that promise? Christianity, in its Gospels, champions the underdog so thoroughly, but most Christians fail to embody this. Rather than submit to their Heavenly Authority, they’d rather BE the authority.

I am not at all proposing a system that will discriminate against those of Faith – ANY faith - or disproportionately benefit the faithless. Nor will I allow such a system, and if one arose, I would martyr myself to the cause of liberty and equality alongside those martyring themselves to a god in which I don’t believe. In all actuality, I’m suggesting a system that a revolutionary group of men put forth in the late eighteenth century.

This is not (expressly) a political forum, and pardon my venture into this realm.

If two men (or women) desire to get married, or to merely be attracted to one another and act on that affinity, it does not reflect on you personally. If these two individuals carry through with their desires, you are not personally hurt. If we prevent them from doing so, it is not going to set in motion the eventual extinction of homosexuality. If we outlaw abortion, abortion won’t stop, nor will miscarriages or even death itself. You may view it as murder and be terrified, but as long as it isn’t mandated, it is a murder that can be guaranteed to never be perpetrated against you or those you love. If we outlaw stem cell research, the abundance of human embryos that already exist due to fertilization efforts will not simply cease to be.

I am not homosexual. It is physically impossible for me to get an abortion. I am not personally presently afflicted with a terminal disease (other than life itself).

But I desire that we not legislate or dictate activity between our fellow grown, mutually consenting, competent humans, which does not directly assault us physically or prohibit our prosperity personally – unless for the greater good of humanity.

(Remember – your God looked out for Noah and Lot.)

In the arena of debate, we can argue all we want, regardless of who does and doesn’t decide to follow the rules. But in the arena of public life we need to practice what we preach.

Just have faith.

Breaks Over, Get to Work...

Another brilliant post from EA. He quotes Louisiana Governor Blanco:

"I have declared August 31, 2005, a Day of Prayer in the State of Louisiana.

[...]

"I know, by praying together on Wednesday, that we can pull together and draw strength we need; strength, that only God can give us."

EA then injects some insulin of sanity in the face of this diabetic coma of inanity:

Well, I have this to say:

Shut the fuck up. Where is your god, Governor? Where is your benevolent, omnipotent being? Is he busy being thanked by the starving survivors who sit on their rooftops as the odor of their rotting neighbors wafts over them? Is he busy being thanked by the critical-care patients who avoided the bullets of the snipers that tried to kill them as they were being evacuated today? Is he busy being thanked by the evacuees who have returned to southern Mississippi to pick through the piles of matchsticks and memories that cover the ground their homes used to occupy? He must be busy, because he’s nowhere to be found. It’s not god providing the cots and MREs for 45,000 refugees, it’s the city of Houston. It’s not god picking people off rooftops, it’s the Coast Guard. It’s not god stopping the floodwaters from Lake Pontchartrain, it’s the Army Corps of Engineers

Wisdom and should-be common sense then continue to surge forth. I wholeheartedly suggest - plead that - people read what he has to say.

Now for my thoughts.

Ouch.

Everybody pray for me. I fear that I am slipping out of consciousness from repetitively bludgeoning the desk with my head after reading this post.

This line of thought, combined with the continued reports of malevolent, inhumane actions from people in the face of mounting hopelessness, is not conducive to repelling a perpetual mental siege by an overwhelming sense of misanthropy. My already slippery grip on the idea (pipe dream?) of the mere humanity of humans is weakening.

When cornered, or merely given an opportunity, we lunge for each other’s throats, blinded by self preservation and/or greed. Can’t we see one another in the mirror and in that recognition gain some semblance of compassion?

But, then again, why bother?

If we refuse to believe in our own strength, and shell out credit to invisible forces outside of and separate from us when given concrete examples of both the existence of our own, and complete absence of any supernatural benevolence, then where is a need for responsibility?

Why bother helping another human if it’s ultimately not of your own accord, will, and ability? In the face of their own cowardice, ineptitude, and lethargy, people will readily give credit to a god instead of a fellow human who possessed enough intestinal fortitude to overcome those same dilemmas. The viable choice is to continue in self-denial and delusion, choosing an omnipotent god, rather than admit one’s own shortcomings.

As for those who actually do care enough to help, yet still heap recognition in god’s lap? I suppose they do so on two accounts:

• fear of damnation/hope for eternal reward
• they’d prefer to believe their own strength and conviction was bestowed upon them from the unknown rather than acknowledge the complacent negligence of fellow humans

The prevailing thought seems to be that all the ills of humanity string from within, and any graces of humanity are granted to us. Furthermore, tragedies that fall upon us spring forth from those very self conceived ills, and any fortune is a merely a blessing, usually gained from shunning those who ill.

It shouldn’t be so damned difficult (and rarely tangibly rewarding) to just simply do right for right’s sake.