Get Outta My Pants!

Isn't the notion odd that someone would dare forbid you the use of contraception?

The Catholic Church is claiming that President Obama's health care plan will force them to purchase and provide insurance that will offer medical features (contraception) which are against their faith. In so doing, this violates their rights to practice their faith.

I thought about this a bit. Maybe the Catholics have a good point. If their leaders think contraception is evil, they shouldn't be forced to purchase it or use it at their own free will.

But for all the ideals that their leadership attempts to unjustly impose, I think they cancel out their own point.

I noticed an organization named Amac who supports the Catholic Church's official stand against ObamaCare. They sent out a message to their members encouraging them to purchase arm bands and where them on certain days in order to vocalize their support of the Church. In that message, they quote and emphasize a potion of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

They really hone in on "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"-- which is extremely important, I must admit.

But, they seem to overlook the clause that balances out that statement-- which is also extremely important-- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Nope. No religious faith gets any special favors, attention, or exemptions by Congress when laws are made. The laws made shouldn't care what any establishment of religion thinks about them provided the free exercise of faith remain.

But don't get carried away. If the tenants of your faith include world domination, well . . . I don't think the Bill of Rights will cover that one . . .

That's why faith is a private thing . . . just like the inside of my pants.

No Choice

Prayer is neither peaceful nor sacred when someone is forced to participate in it.

Baby Steps

In my previous post, I discussed my recent feelings about whether I should remain in the closet or not about my atheism.

A day needs to come where keeping my dirty little secret no longer feels necessary.

Again, I'm not doing anything radical at the moment. But here's my first baby step towards coming out to the real world.

See . . . I never dropped my membership from the denominations with which I am still affiliated. I grew up being part of the Missionary Baptist Church but converted to Apostolic Pentecostalism at 18 years old. I never formally cut ties with the Baptist church when I moved. My last years as a Christian were spent being part of the Church of God based in Cleveland, TN. But, I never formally cut ties with the Apostolic Faith Church, either.

So, for my first baby step, I wrote a letter to the Church of God state office in my area and formally withdrew my membership. Below is a copy of the letter I wrote. I have edited out any personal information because at this time, I am not yet ready to share those details online:

XXXXXX COG State Office

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

To whom it may concern,

Please accept this letter as my formal request to withdraw my membership from the Church of God organization headquartered in Cleveland, TN. At the time that I joined this denomination, I was attending XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

My personal beliefs concerning God, Salvation, and the Bible are no longer fully aligned with all of the statements of faith held by the Church of God organization.

No one has done anything to drive me away from XXXXXXX or from the Church of God organization as a whole. I do not harbor any animosity towards anyone in the organization and everyone at XXXXXXXXXX was very kind and caring towards me and my family during my membership. My decision to withdraw my membership solely rests upon the personal changes in my faith when compared to the doctrines of the Church of God.

I realize that this letter will not be pleasing to receive, but ultimately I must be honest concerning the conflicts between your articles of faith and my current personal beliefs. Therefore, I hereby tender my withdrawal of membership and I wish you good fortune in all your endeavors as a church and organization.

Respectfully yours,

XXXXXXXXXXX

I know that this letter isn't radical. But this was a very big step for me. I didn't just ask to withdraw my membership. I let them know that I don't agree with their doctrine any longer. Although, I didn't say way or how.

And I think that may be the crux of the whole issue between the religious and the non-religious.

I shouldn't have to explain. And I won't. If someone from the church calls, I will simply say that my private beliefs have changed. It's honestly not the business of anyone else what I believe about God and why. My right as a human being, as an adult, and as United States citizen is to have my own private opinion about God and exercise that belief to my liking.

Well . . . assuming I'm not harming others, being cruel to animals or destroying the property of others, that is.

Anyhow . . .

That is my First Amendment right -- just as the members of other religions may enjoy this right, too.

I hope to one day write the other two denominations a very similar letter. But, my ties with the Church of God were much weaker and shorter lived. I'm not making too many waves writing a letter to them.

I need to grow up a bit more before writing to the other two denominations. I hope to develop the strength in time.

I'm proud of my little baby step. Even if it is only a small one.

Just Give Us the Facts

Around 2001, students from Jefferson High School in Lafayette, Indiana petitioned the school board by requesting that Special Creationism (Intelligent Design) lessons be taught along side evolution.

These students were not asking for evolution to be muted in their classrooms. They simply wanted Special Creationism to be taught along side evolution.

These students articulated that they wanted to be given all of the facts and then be allowed to decide for themselves what was true. They felt that Special Creationism had merit and needed to be taught along side evolution so that they can make an informed decision.

While this petition was student led, I'm confident (though not certain, of course) that an adult or two were behind this effort.

I suspect this because I started a bible study back in my high school years. Despite my religious enthusiasm in those days, an adult prompted me to meet with my high school principal to gain permission to meet. He prepped me with legal information as leverage (which actually backed my principal into a corner when she first seemed hesitant to comply). Also, adults supported our meetings which furthered our drive as students. We didn't impose our meetings on others and did not meet during school hours. We could meet before or after, according to the law at the time (which I think is still valid, for those of you who insist that prayer has been taken out of school).

So, I'm confident these students had similar influences even thought they were probably just as passionate about this debate as the adults who possibly put them up to this petition.

During the formal presentation of their petition to the school board, the students eloquently made their case. And many of the students who supported the petition donned black T-shirts with white type that read:

Just give us the facts and then let us decide.

And on the back of their snazzy black T-shirts was printed the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Nice touch, I must say.

Students kept insisting to the school board that they deserved to have all the facts. Somehow, they seemed to "know" that Special Creationism was as valid as evolution and deserved to be taught in their biology classrooms. "Just give us all the facts and then leave us to decide", they reiterated.

Interesting . . .

Honestly, I loved their T-shirts. I want one! But I don't think they really understood what they were asking. I think they only fashioned their words to sound like they wanted all the scientific information that was available to them.

But what they really said was:

Just give us the facts and we'll decide which ones we like and don't like.

Because the fact is, Special Creationism is not a scientific theory.

Nope.

Special Creationism doesn't help us understand why a monster strain of Tuberculosis is on the rise. Nor does Special Creationism give us clues as to how we stop it.

Intelligent Design doesn't answer questions about why certain people are immune to the AIDS virus and how that may one day help us achieve a cure.

Special creation "theory" doesn't help HIV patients live longer by understanding that the virus evolves as it continually duplicates inside it's host-victim.

For example:

As an HIV patient takes medication for a while, a variant of the AIDS virus becomes resistant to the medication as the other variants of the virus die off in the patient's system. As a result, a dominant strain overcomes the medication and causes the patient's condition to worsen.

If planned carefully, medication can be paused for a period of time. During this time, the resistant variant starts to make varied strains of the virus again. But in doing so, the resistant HIV population becomes dwarfed by it's own diverse offspring of viruses which are once again susceptible to medication. This tactic has extended the survival and health of patients who are battling AIDS.

The insight for this treatment plan comes from acknowledging and studying evolution. Not from studying Special Creation or Intelligent Design.

Nope. Sorry.

Think of another example. What if you were studying fish in a pond? You needed to find out why the fish were contracting a fungus that was killing many of them. You soon discover that some of the fish are sexual in their reproduction and others are asexual (clones).

You learn from observation that the healthiest fish are offspring of sexual parents while the asexual fish become sick by the fungus most often.

Why?

During your study, the pond dries up due to a drought. All the fish either die or migrate. But fortunately, the pond fills up with water again after the drought and the fish population returns.

Ugh! But you see the previous health trends reverse! Now the asexual are healthier than the sexual fish and the fungus seems to hit the sexual population extra hard.

Why?

Can Intelligent Design answer this question?

No. But studying evolution can.

The genetic diversity in the asexual fish is always very low. So the fungus can run amok with the asexual fish because they have little diversity driving traits that resist infections.

But when the pond dried up, the fish population shrank so much that the sexual population of fish had to inbreed in order to survive! As a result, the sexual fish became more clone-like than the asexual fish; the diversity of their gene pool fell lower than their asexual counterparts!

After understanding the problem, the solution can easily fixed the problem. Find some genetically diverse fish that reproduce sexually and add them to the pond. The offspring of the sexual fish become resistant to the fungus just as before-- all thanks to studying evolution.

If you must insist that Special Creationism is science, then the ways of creation must be studied through the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a fact. Of course we don't understand everything about it. And while we don't know if we humans came from slime billions of years ago, we do know that we have common ancestors with other species of apes from millions of years ago.

So when you say that you simply want the facts, be sure that you really mean that. That's what a good scientist strives for-- just the facts.

Even the uncomfortable ones.

So those students in Lafayette, Indiana were getting the facts. Some of the students simply didn't like what the facts started to imply concerning their literal interpretation of the bible. As a result, they decided that they wanted an alternative to the facts instead.

As it turns out, the school board kindly and gently rejected their petition.

And most of the biology and chemistry teachers at Jefferson High School wiped sweat from their brows as they sighed a great sigh of relief.

The Good Neighbor

Ever hear the saying? Good fences make good neighbors.

I personally find truth in that comment.

Before I moved into my current dwelling, we took on a mortgage for a home that had been vacant for a while. The neighbor was used to the house being empty and took the liberty to pull through our soon-to-be driveway, across part of our soon-to-be yard, and then on to his own property.

He had a perfectly good driveway of his own. But he used it only as his exit.

We had hoped our neighbor would stop using our driveway. Maybe he'd catch the hint that cars other than his own now occupy the space.

Nope. He would just squeeze through.

That is . . . until my wife hired a landscaper to plant shrubs along the property line.

The look on our neighbor's face was priceless.

He wanted to protest, but what could he say?

I like a neighbor that knows when it's time to go back home to his own property.

Don't get me wrong; doing favors for your neighbor is good. Helping each other out is commendable. Greeting the new person with brownies and cookies is a warm gesture. Those are good things that nobody can honestly berate.

Checking on each other after a nasty storm (Jesusland can have some really inclement weather at times). Loaning out some tools. Giving away some firewood. That's being a good neighbor.

But there comes a point when I want my neighbor to stay next door and stay the hell out of my damn business. So long as I'm not making too much noise, I'm keeping my property neat, and I'm minding my own damn business, I really want to be left alone.

Fundamentalist Christians are like neighbors who don't know where the property line is. They feel like their relationship with God gives them license to ignore the property line and absorb whatever space they feel they can claim for the "Kingdom of God".

A fence creates a healthy and necessary boundary between Fundamentalists and the rest of us. That fence is built by our United States Constitution and is named The First Amendment.

Find a land surveyor and discover where the property line really is.

Heretic

See??

This is what I was getting at when I point out the need for the separation of Church and State.

In Pakistan, extremist Muslims killed about 80 worshipers of a minority religious group known as the Ahmadis.

The Ahmadis are forbidden in the eyes of other Muslims to refer to themselves as members of Islam and may not refer to their places of worship as mosques.

The Ahmadis believe that the (so called) prophet Mohammad predicted a future messiah in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (whoever he might be).

Fundamentalist, extremist Muslims feel that this belief makes the Ahmadis non-Islamic-- not even worthy to be called a fringe group of Islam.

When the Ahmadis try to act like members of the Islamic faith, they committed a crime so horrible that extremists gunned down scores of worshipers today as two suicide bombers added to the carnage.

The Pakistani police tried to control the situation. But the police and the media made sure not to slip up and call the Ahmadis Muslims.

This sort of violence has been on the rise in Pakistan. The extremists claim that even Pakistani law forbids the Ahmadis from claiming to be true Muslims. So, that just further justifies their actions.

And Fundamentalists in the United States want a Christian nation?

The heretic is the one who isn't mainstream while the orthodox believer is the one with the majority and the muscle. Should the tables turn and you one day become a heretic through no fault of your own, will you still want Church and State to mix?

Why Can't I Own a Canadian?

A member posted an interesting link on a message board that I follow. I felt that the link would nicely follow my previous post concerning Uganda.

The piece seems anecdotal, and I tend to shy away from anecdotes as proof of anything. But the point made is quite worth considering.

Here's the link below:


Why Can't I Own a Canadian?

An Anonymous Atheist in Jesusland

Atheists can catch a hard time in Jesusland. As a result, many of us who live there keep quiet. I know atheists in my area who fear losing their jobs if they are open about their non-belief. Some atheists in Jesusland don't worry about losing their jobs. But when the "cat's out of the bag", they find that their co-workers often distance themselves even though no one threatens to fire them.

I'm tired of staying in the closet.

A few atheists that I've met have made promises to become open activists for atheism when they retire.

When they retire.

Hell, my spouse could lose her job if her employer knew I was an atheist!

I'll have to avoid becoming an active, open atheist until she and I both retire!

But what exactly does activism for atheism mean? Atheist activism simply means that we help the citizens of Jesusland realize that atheists are among them-- and no, we don't have horns on our heads and long tails coming out of our butts. We don't carry pitch forks and we don't worship satan. We won't eat their babies and we deserve to be treated like citizens just like any other citizen of Jesusland.

No. The citizens of Jesusland do not have a right to make us assimilate.

Why? Because, it's not supposed to be Jesusland in the first place. Last time I looked at a map, I lived in the United States of America.

The good citizens of Jesusland wouldn't want to be pressured into Islam, Judaism, or even an opposing denomination within their own Christian faith. So, why should we atheists feel pressured to believe in god?

I didn't think discrimination was Christlike.

Bible Verses + Firearms = Holy War

A company called Trijicon has a multimillion dollar contract with the U.S. military to manufacture sights for firearms.

The serial numbers on these sights actually turn out to be encoded New Testament Bible verses.

Well . . . if nobody notices, what's the harm?

That question is moot now because someone has noticed and the media has reported the findings. The company doesn't deny doing this and doesn't see any problem with inscribing military firearms with encoded Bible verses.

After all, the holy, illuminating light of Jesus will help our military forces acquire their targets with Godly accuracy.

What a way to convince the world that we aren't waging a Holy war against the Musli . . . er, I mean, terrorists!

History has already shown us that when we allow religion to control the government, we get brutal inquisitions.

Allow religion to control the military, and we get a Holy war.

The radically Religious fundamentalists who want to wage a Holy war tend to think their god will triumphantly bring victory with him when he returns to earth. (Returns to earth? From where?) I fear that such believers secretly rationalize that a powerful weapon like a nuclear bomb would be the perfect way to commence the coming of their savior and the end of the Age.

Ergo, the triumphant end of the Holy war.

See why even the smallest mix of church and state is harmful? See why we don't need scripture verses inscribed on the gear of our military? See why we don't need a theocracy?

Can you see nuclear missiles raining down upon the earth causing everyone to suffer-- even those who thought they could win victory through such horrific means?

Can you see why we do not need a Holy war?

You Can't Have Your Cake and Eat It, Too

Obama gave an address to school children on September 8th. I didn't watch it. I didn't really need to watch it. But, I might catch it later on-line or something. We'll see.

However, I did watch parents on local area news stations say that schools should not show Obama's speech because they do not want their children politically indoctrinated by that liberal, closet Muslim snake our President.

And schools in my community (from what I hear) refused to show his address.

I admit to making an assumption here. I assume that most people who did not support Obama, do not want his address to be shown in public schools. Yet, many of these same people would still argue that prayer and religious indoctrination should remain in schools.

Ah! But now, they finally get it!!

No more excuses. In order to protest against Obama's address, one has to also grasp the reasons why the courts keep religious indoctrination out of public schools.

Well at least, such people should finally understand.

Because-- when they concluded that they didn't want Obama to brainwash address their children, they inadvertently and inescapably admitted that any sort of indoctrination of our children by the State is problematic. The State should not even have leverage to indoctrinate our children with "wholesome" activities such as cooperate prayer during school hours or Intelligent Design (so that our kids won't grow up thinking they're monkeys).

And to be honest-- was Obama really trying to indoctrinate our children with anything more than the "stay in school" mantra we constantly hear as children?

I'm not sayin' . . . but, I'm just sayin' . . .

Sorry, Obama-speech haters-- you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Love and Marriage Pt. 2

In my previous post, I submitted the idea that marriage in the United States had nothing to do with god, from a legal perspective. Because of this, marriage doesn't make sexual activity moral in my opinion.

Legal -- yes. Moral -- not necessarily. A lot of unethical activities are "legal". And lot of illegal activities should be legal -- this is how the unethical suppression of civil rights is committed.

So then, if the the law only regards marriage as a contract between husband, wife, and the State -- how can the State ban homosexuals from marriage without being unconstitutional and discriminatory?

Remember that from the State's perspective, God has nothing to do with marriage. So, if religion cannot be the State's excuse for banning same-sex marriage --what excuse does the State have?

By the way, did you know that years ago interracial marriages were illegal?

Banning interracial marriage didn't have anything to do with God either.

Or did it?

Love and Marriage

Love and marriage, love and marriage | Its an institute you can't disparage
Ask the local gentry | And they will say its elementary

Song : Love and Marriage -- words by Sammy Cahn & Jimmy Van Heusen

Girls who made abstinence pledges after participating in abstinence-only programs had premarital sex just as often as girls who did not make such pledges. And interestingly, contraception use and safe sex practices were lower among the group that broke their abstinence pledges when compared to the group that never made pledges.

The popular conclusion: abstinence-only programs don't work. But programs that couple abstinence awareness with contraception awareness work best.

Die hard supporters of abstinence-only programs argue that higher moral values due to religion and family upbringing caused the abstaining girls of both groups to practice their abstinence until marriage.

After mulling this study over, I started to wonder:

Does does marriage truly make sex moral?

Consider that marriage exists in two forms here in the United States.

Marriage is first and foremost a secular contract between the you, your spouse and the State. God is not a true part of the marriage equation according to the State.

Don't believe me? Ask your pastor to give you a divorce. Won't work. The State will still consider you married until you use legal measures to get a divorce.

Still don't believe me? Ask your pastor to marry you and your mate. Either before or after the ceremony, he'll ask you for the marriage license. See what happens if you don't already have one.

Marriage as a religious union between God and a united couple has no legal weight.

A religious group can consider you married all day long . . . but you'd better not file your taxes together if you didn't get your marriage license signed.

Unless of course, you were married based on Common Law. But that's the "immoral" way to get married, right? That doesn't count before God. But Common Law matters to the State.

So again, what power does marriage have to make sex moral? Because, here in the United States, God has no real power over marriage.

If God does have power over marriage, then why does the State control marriage and divorce?

After considering this, my view is that consenting adults have committed no crime or immorality if they choose to have sex outside of marriage. Immorality begins when an adult takes advantage of an adolescent or another adult who is non-consenting.

And as for adolescents with adolescents . . . well, few parents want to condone this. But, this happens often. Some parents today may blush when they think back on their own teen years.

So then, be prepared for your adolescent to have premarital sex one day. Yes, teach him or her abstinence. But, also teach him or her to use a condom or birth control. Your teen just might yield to the temptation of premarital sex one day. In such a case, wouldn't you want your teen to practice safe sex?

Here are a few consider:

How Government Got Involved in Marriage
(This is a PDF file. But if you got this far, it's worth it!)

Husband and Wife