God

In thinking of my earlier post I’ve grown frustrated, the whole problem of a division in this country between the religious and the non-religious itself is ludicrous.

Why do Christians, or more broadly the religious, need to impose themselves upon others? I don’t care what another person believes, just don’t tell me I’m wrong because a book you read says so.

The worst of all is that all of the problems stem from semantics. God is just a word, it’s what that word means to you personally that matters.

Einstein believed in god, but not the one Christians, Jews, Muslims or any other religion would describe. He believed in mechanics of the universe, that there were binding truths that permeated the universe from beginning to end. That was Einstein’s god.

Thomas Paine believed too, but the one he describes is simply the fundamental nature of the universe, that there is good and bad but enlightenment was a choice to do the right thing, against nature itself in some cases.

Indeed if one were to ask the congregation of any given church on any given Sunday to individually describe god I’d wager that most of the answers would be different.

If there isn’t even a majority consensus to the definition of a word, how can there be such a two-sided argument about the idea of the word? It makes no sense to me.

The Atheist Blobby Mass

There's been a lot of talk lately about closet atheists. Many atheists are very upset by this and I can see their point, how do we as a minority get stronger when our people are afraid of showing themselves.

I can see the other side too. If you live in the south, quite frankly, it can be scary.

I have an evolve fish sticker on the back windshield of my car and I continually wonder how long it will be before that window is shattered or in some other way defaced. My neighborhood is about the only place I feel truly safe and not on edge, to its credit it is one of the few open-minded areas in my home state.

I often feel ostracized. I’m treated differently at my workplace though they don’t seem to see it. Some of my Christian friends who I knew before becoming an atheist now act differently around me. My parents don’t discuss it.

It’s not an easy road being an atheist in this country, much less as a preacher’s kid in the south. It’s not a choice I’d make if I didn’t have conviction about it.

The biggest problem in my mind is the fact that those who want to see non-believers gone (by assimilation or other means) are highly organized. Christianity reaches countless millions of people every week and agenda has never been hard to mix with religion. It could even be argued that religion was born of necessity for agenda.

There is strength in numbers and let’s be honest, they’ve got numbers. But we’re not weak, we have enough to make a difference. We simply lack the structure to be heard. Because of that it can be easy to feel alien in this country if you’re not a Christian, hence the high number of non-believers who are quiet about it.

We have no way to organize, no way to unify on various issues. There is no real leadership. For all the atheist groups, meetups, movies, books, blogs, websites and everything else there is no head, only a massive body with no direction.

There is no unified message and no way to spread it if there were. For as intelligent, wonderful, charismatic, giving, kind, and upstanding a group as atheists and non-believers are, we fall well short of our potential because of our ineptitude in politics and place in this nation.

This must change, I still think an atheist “church” type organization that based Sunday morning “sermons” on history, science, and philosophy would do very well. It would provide a community of security as well as a little bit louder voice. I’d bet it’s amazing what we could do with a little more volume.

Does anyone else think this is a good idea? Do you have a different idea? Do you agree that we need more organization?

Al Franken: Senate Hopeful, God Hater.

So I was reading this piece about Katherine Kersten’s apparent Christian based hatred of Al Franken (yes, that Al Franken) and I gotta stand up for Al, or against Kersten, I’m not sure which. Kersten by the way is a columnist for The Star Tribune in Minneapolis / St. Paul, I’m sure she and PZ are good friends.

Al Franken is running for the US Senate in Minnesota and Katherine seems to really hates this idea. Why, you might ask? Because he made jokes about God and that’s a no-no.

Now I don’t know how many of my readers (the three of you) actually grew up going to church but let me just say one thing. One of the biggest pastimes for any religious group is making fun of other religious groups. I have personally been a part of making fun of Baptists, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Scientologists, Hindus, and Buddhists, I actually didn’t get that Buddhism is not a religion at the time. The only difference now is that I make fun of all denominations of Christianity rather than just most of them.

The interesting thing about it in retrospect was that the joke was never the important part, the important part to my friends and fellow congregation members at the time was that we all agreed that those other sects and religions were wrong. It’s never the tenets of a religion that matter, it’s the need to be with those who agree. That’s why Christianity is so big on Sundays but the rest of the week is really vacation time for most followers.

I assure you that barring Katherine Kersten being an unusually upright person (and maybe she is, I’ve never met her) then she’s just as culpable as Franken. If in the past she hasn’t made the jokes herself about other religions then she has certainly taken part in laughing at other faiths, belittling them, looking down on them, and judging them. It is simply a part of fitting in with the Christian faith. But when it comes to their faith, they won’t stand for jokes all of a sudden. Typical Christian rhetoric. We can say whatever we want because we’re “washed in the blood of Jesus” but you heathens can’t say anything about us.

As the bumper sticker says Kathy, “If you don’t want me laughing at your beliefs, don’t have such funny beliefs.”

In her column she drones on for three paragraphs that Franken made a joke about her lord and savior Jesus T. F. Christ. To Franken’s credit it seemed like a funny bit, I’m not certain though because Kathy butchered it. She closed out that section of her article with the usual Christian moxie “Anyone wanna do a joke about Mohammed?”

Sure, I’ll give it a shot. “Mohammed, your followers are so stupid their lips move at stop signs.” Yeah it wasn’t that good, I basically just changed “Jesus” to “Mohammed” to make the joke. I phoned it in, so sue me.

One of my favorite pieces from the article is this gem “We’re used to slanderers of Christianity getting government arts grants.” Right, because the only people that would not believe in god are liberal artists who are smoking weed all the time and tripping balls on acid.

Bottom line is this, if you don’t like him, don’t vote for him. But if you’re trying to convince Americans that Franken shouldn’t be voted into office because of his religion then you Mrs. Kersten are very un-American.

The end of your article is a description of what the Senate is supposed to do, even going so far as to state that the Senate serves “the broader interests” of the people. Sounds to me like you only want Senators to serve the broader interests of Christians. And not once in all your political science rhetoric did you mention that whole separation of church and state idea.

Religion should have nothing to do with it Kathy, nothing at all. We’re talking about politics and government, you know, real entities. Whether he likes Christians or not has no bearing on whether or not he can do a good job in the Senate.

This sounds like yet another Christian trying to perpetuate the myth that Christianity and our government go hand in hand. Apparently history books aren't available to these people.

Final Debate

I’ll be honest, I did not watch the debate last night. I’ve since read about it and it was basically what I thought it would be.

“I’m better, he’s awful.”
“No, I’m better, he’s the one who’s awful.”

I don’t know how many “nuh-uh’s” were worked in over the evening. But, altogether it was pointless.

I would like to see some data on how many people watch the debates to actually choose who they’ll vote for, rather than watching to cheer on who they’ve already decided on. I’ll bet it’s not as many as we’d all like to think.

Our system is, while acceptable and useful, overrated to say the least. Where is the democracy really? There are two candidates. Yes, of course I can write in and there is typically at least one independent but these guy s have no shot. To believe that they do is naïve and foolish. It’s going to be one of two people.

What kind of choice is that? I don’t consider myself Democrat or Republican because they’re both poor choices. But I have to choose one. I align myself with Barack Obama, not because he has some brilliant new insight or because I actually believe he’s going to change the world, but because he’s not John McCain.

Republicans have had their chances, and they blew it, big time. Now it’s the Dems turn to ruin the nation. Fair is fair after all.

What’s worse, is that these two choices are mainly solidified by the “go team” aspect of most voters. People are voting straight party lines and they believe who they believe not because of what the candidate does, but what they say, how they pander.

On top of that you have 90% of churches in America pushing McCain or whoever the republican candidate is. Okay, I don’t know how many churches actually are, but I’m fairly confident it’s over 50%. I’ve never understood it since I began to understand politics, who in their right mind would think that Jesus “Turn the other cheek” Christ would vote republican? Then again who thinks he’d go to half the churches talking about him either.

The point is, we’re not voting on issues or even personalities which do have an effect. We’re voting because that’s what preacher/hubby/pastor/mommy said to. We’re voting so that our team can win, so that in our mundane and boring lives we can say “I’m with the winners” even though we all lose.

We need to change government, we need to stop worrying about what faith a candidate has or whether or not they agree with gay marriage. I can think of no bigger waste of American time and resources than another abortion debate.

We need more choices, a labor party perhaps. We need something, and I don’t know how to change it or what to do. Any suggestions would be more than welcome though.

Spanking Anyone?

So a friend of mine at work sends me this site she stumbled upon called Christian Domestic Discipline. And well… I’m… I don’t know what I am to be honest.

According to the site the followers of domestic discipline have the dominant partner (typically the male) actually discipline their spouse (typically the female) by spanking and other means. Grounding and computer restriction were also given as possible means of punishment.

I cannot get over this idea. I mean sure, I like to spank a woman I’m intimate with in a fun and playful way as much as the next person. But to actually discipline a full grown woman by spanking her as though she’d gotten bad grades at school? I’m having trouble with that one.

I just cannot picture bending a woman over my knee to spank her without her having a school girl outfit on and calling me professor as she twirls one of her pigtails and chews gum. Outside of that construct I would just feel silly and foolish.

To be fair, the site does not press itself on anyone, it clearly states that it is not a lifestyle for all. They even go so far as to encourage homosexuals to see if they’d like the idea. And let's not forget that the women have also willingly put themselves in this position.

But perhaps most intriguing is that some of the women on the site say that their relationships are better for it because now their husbands have a way of communicating with them. As the male takes on a disciplinarian role (very "manly") it allows him an outlet to discuss with his wife her shortcomings as he sees them in their relationship.

Since some of the males in these relationships can’t seem to communicate properly with their wives the woman is willing to completely degrade herself and lower her stature in the household. I have to imagine that by the wife proclaiming the husband as the disciplinary head of household then her input is less than equal.

What I don't understand is why these men can't just talk to their wives. Or at the least why can’t they just go to counseling and learn how to effectively talk to one another instead of initiating an age old idea that somehow men have authority over women? Instead of truly being a man and learning how to talk to their spouse they will continue to put up a show of man’s toughness. That way the men don’t have to acknowledge emotions or feelings. They don’t have to face their insecurities as they pertain to the relationship. They don’t have to do the real work of trying to make a harmonious union with this other person. Instead they simply make themselves "above" their wives and treat them as subordinates.

Weak, very weak in my opinion. I do not like people like this. The type of people that do this seem to be the tough kind, and I freely admit this is speculation, I honestly don’t know anyone who follows this lifestyle to my knowledge and I may be well off. But the following remains true regardless: what is so often thought of as “tough” is more often than not weak.

It’s the rule of opposites in human characteristics. If a person acts openly tough, bet your bottom dollar that when the heat is on they’re as weak as a mouse. If a person acts conceited and arrogant, I can personally acknowledge that it’s rooted in deep insecurities about themselves. This is simply what I’ve seen in life. People tend to be the opposite of that which they show to the world. It starts as a simple way to compensate for a flaw, but it ends up being an overcompensation that little good can come of.

Bottling up emotions, thinking that one’s problems are their own and not to be shared with others, facing the hardships of life alone and shutting all others out… these are not tough to do. All you have to do keep your mouth shut and deny everything when anyone asks. Anyone can do that. It is weakness, not strength that allows people to keep quiet. It is simply the fact that these types of individuals struggle to face their own shortcomings. Which is merely to say that they're human like the rest of us.

They know they have shortcomings, though they’re often hard pressed to give an example. The only way to work thru problems as such is to talk thru them, and you can rest assured if a person’s attitude is that they keep their problems quiet to others then they don’t spend a lot of effort thinking about them. To ignore problems is the easiest way to be tough.

That’s what 90% of our consumerism is about, creating distractions so that we don’t have to focus on ourselves.

To talk to someone about your shortcomings, just to be able to say them to another person is a tremendous feat. It takes true toughness to do that because once you do, it makes it real and true. No longer is it a secret kept in the vaults of the mind but thrust forth into reality. Men particularly have a hard time dealing with this. We like to be the superman to our counterpart's Lois Lane. Men do the dirty jobs, the hard work, and our reward is the love and adoration of the woman we cherish most. It's often hard for men to acknowledge that we are human, it's as if most men are afraid that they'll let down the one we care about the most.

Ever been told that a friend or family member had died and you took it surprisingly well? Not shedding a tear or having your voice break? What happened the first time you tried to pass the information on? Did your throat close? Eyes well with tears? That happens because it’s not truly real until you have to say it to another person.

Saying something aloud is a key in our society, it denotes that something is important enough to be spread to other people. A fact ceases to be private once it is shared with another. It gives that fact power, tangibility, and meaning.

Too often people can’t do this, they’re just too damned “tough” to let go and be human. And when that happens the people around them, the people that love them are often forced to do things they don’t want to and shouldn’t have to just to be around this "tough" person.

People must stop with this, your real friends will love you regardless of what insecurities you may spring on them. Matter of fact, your real friends probably know more than you do about your insecurities. Just talk to those you love, figure out what bothers you and then both of you can decide what to do about it. But don’t hide behind an imaginary wall of toughness.

Maybe I’m overstepping my bounds with these people, maybe I’m making too much out of it. But it’s what came out when I started writing, and I stand by it whether others do or not, and at least I had the courage to say it.

Fightin' Christians

Their god amighty where to start…

Thirty-three pastors in 22 states took to their pulpits and officially endorsed a candidate this past Sunday. Not surprisingly this is highly illegal but I’m expecting the current administration to fully endorse this based on that alone. Plus it seems that all of them endorsed McCain / Palin.

According to the US tax code if a church endorses a candidate for public office they are subject to losing their tax-exempt status. This makes perfect sense for a democracy; it is a safeguard to prevent religion from being blatantly injected into affairs of state giving whichever party that panders to them the most an army of loyal voters.

This entire staged event was choreographed by Arizona based Alliance Defense Fund purposely seeking to challenge the tax law. Their argument is that it is not an issue of church and state separation but one of first amendment rights. It’s not an endorsement but a personal choice.

Also not surprising, this isn’t true, any pastor is free to have personal choices, they are not free to impose that choice thru their religious authority. The challenge is sure to fail, it’s a ridiculous idea in the first place, but as usual there are interesting quotes.

Pastor Luke Emrich of New Life Church in Wisconsin addressed his congregation of about 100 stating “I’m telling you straight up, I would choose life…” before endorsing McCain and Palin following it with “But friends it’s your choice to make, it’s not my choice.”

Very Jesus like, giving followers the choice to take away the right to choose for others… because oppression is what the New Testament was all about.

Pastor Jody Hice of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Georgia stated “To say the church can’t deal with moral and societal issues if it enters into the political arena is just wrong, it’s unconstitutional.”

No one is saying that, pay attention while the teacher’s mouth is talking okay? You can talk about issues all you want whether or not the issue enters into the political arena is a moot point. What’s being said is that you can’t enter into the political arena. By endorsing a candidate a church would breach that, it would be an official entry into political activism.

Oklahoma’s Fairview Baptist Church pastor Paul Blair stated “It’s absolutely vital to proclaim the truth and not be afraid to proclaim the truth from our pulpits.”

I just love that one; the arrogance, the desperation to be believed, the ignorance of confusing truth with opinion, it has all the stalwarts of great propaganda.

One alarming fact was cited in the article, 52% of adults want churches and other places of worship completely out of politics. That number seems awfully low to me, that should easily be a majority ideal in a democratic, land of the free home of the brave type of government.

In the end this is the same as what all religions of power try, to abuse government to advance their own ideas and make their lands a theocracy. It is up to the people, to us, to keep them from doing that.

Christians talk a lot about tolerance, that they aren’t being heard. But they are being heard all too clearly, the real problem is that Christians don’t listen very well. Christian beliefs are Christian beliefs, and that’s fine, but Christians must let others have their beliefs too, to do that, they must stay out of politics.

VP Debate

Their god I hate debates, it’s like watching two dogs chase each other’s tail. If you missed it the gist went as such:
“Senator McBama does/doesn’t like/dislike this/that. Voted for/against this/that. Will bring this country to ruin/success, loves/hates the people, ”
Reply Senanovenor Bilin?
“I will. That statement was plainly false about this/that.”
Listening to the two of them they’re both awesome and evil, they’re awesomely evil. We’re such a lucky country.

As a rule I’m not a fan of our current political system, republicans are just stark raving mad and democrats are spineless pansies. Both veep possibilities are full of shit, they’re politicians. But I will say this, Palin scares the bejebus out of me. Her beliefs seem so self righteous. I’m afraid her religious beliefs may be too deep rooted in her psyche to be kept out of her politics.

And why are they still trying to sell McCain as a “maverick”? McCain was a Maverick, WAS. In the last few years he’s pretty much been a lackey for Bush. He’s flip-flopped between so many things it’s unbelievable. And he’s OLD! Who honestly doesn’t feel like McCain could die in his first term? Who’ll take odds he makes it thru a second? Which would leave us in Palin’s incapable hands.

According to NBC’s live polls people liked that Palin told the moderator “I may not answer the question the way the moderator wants me to…” Why? It sounds tough but really isn’t she saying that she’ll make her own rules and ignore the ones already in place. Hasn’t that been Bush’s motto? And it certainly doesn’t make her a pitbull. She didn’t stand up to terrorism, she didn’t stand up to injustice, she stood up to a moderator.

The politician speak, intended to confuse the voter was just too much. Palin stated many times that Obama and Biden couldn’t be looking to change the system since they kept pointing to the past. Really she was just pissed that Biden was pointing out the faults of Bush and McCain. In my experience the best way to change the future is to find out what went wrong in the past.

The thing that is great about this country is that the appointment of leadership rests in the hands of the people. The great downfall of this country is that the appointment of leadership rests in the hands of the people.

The point is, vote for whomever you wish, but do it because you agree on issues. Don’t listen to the sales pitch of any of them. Read and study both sides, then see which parts are propaganda and which parts are true. Voting along party lines is ridiculous, it is a sin against the very nature of free elections to blanket vote for a particular side. We have to remember that sometimes even the team you love deserves to lose.

Voting is not a privilege. I know this now because I used to not vote at all. I stayed out of politics, I didn’t really realize how deep it ran into society. But now I know better. Voting is a responsibility. It’s not about your insecurities or prejudices or beliefs: to vote along those lines is tyrannical and truly unAmerican. It’s not about what’s best for you, it’s about what’s best for the people. Remember the people?