You Are Not Alone

A message to anyone who has lost religious faith:

If doubts have replaced your religious faith, please understand that you are not alone-- regardless of your age, gender or race.

Some people embrace non-belief at a young age and feel very comfortable with the idea of godlessness. Other people grow up non-religious and never know what it's like to lose religious faith. And then, there are those like me whose faith was everything until it came apart like wet cardboard.

If you're new to losing your religion, try not to be afraid. Others have faced the same fears you have and end up fine. If you do feel afraid and alone, search for a local support group; or consider an online group where you can safely explore and express your feelings while you gather your thoughts. Processing these new emotions is important. Unfortunately, I must add a disclaimer here: I assume you're living in a somewhat free society-- and even free societies aren't always as free as advertised. So, don't expose yourself if you honestly think expressing your thoughts will endanger your life.

And to that previous point: While the non-religious community needs more of us to become visible and vocal, you don't have to come out of the closet immediately-- or ever. Only you should decide when to open up about your non-belief. Do not feel ashamed if you want to avoid losing your livelihood or a close family bond. Again: try making some non-religious friends through local groups or in online groups while you gather yourself. That way, you don't endure feeling alone while remaining in the closet at the same time.

You have a right to decide the manner in which you come to terms with your newfound non-belief. After all-- your private and personal beliefs shouldn't be a public debate. The day may come where you have the courage and need to come out of the closet. Fantastic! Just realize that a heavy price may come with being open-- depending on your circumstances. But also know that you will also bolster a community in need of further acceptance and understanding by modern-day society. Such a display of courage can bring about great rewards for yourself and others, too.

I hope one day the subject matter of my blog is laughable to all. When that day comes, people will no longer remain fearful concerning their privately held non-beliefs.

Until then, may comfort, camaraderie, and inner peace replace the religious faith that you have lost.

The Least of Us

With the First Amendment, the Framers of the Constitution bridled Congress from making legislation which gives preferential treatment to any religious establishment; Likewise, Congress shall make no law which prohibits the free exercise of a religious faith or establishment-- for free exercise of one faith demands on some level the rejection of another.

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

From the First Amendment of the United States Constitution

For if Congress introduces legislation that gives any religious establishment power over the people, then Congress by default places prohibitions upon any other group which differs from the religious establishment in question.

What better barometer do we have for measuring the true level of our freedom as a nation than to investigate how minority groups are treated? Often the minority is the least popular, least powerful group whose rights are rarely realized to the same, full extent as the majority.

On that premise, I submit the idea that the treatment of the agnostic and the atheist in the United States is a gauge of our true state of liberty concerning matters of religious freedom. If the non-religious don't have freedom from religion in the same way that believers may embrace their faith, then I dare say only the members of the most popular religions truly have the right to enjoy their own religious beliefs to the fullest.

Whenever society decides that liberty and justice is not for all, the treatment that befalls the least of us will eventually become everyone's lot in the end.

Perhaps It's None of Your Business

On my way into the grocery story, I overheard a mom speaking with her son-- who appeared to be around the age of five or six. They were walking right along beside me, so I wasn't trying to eavesdrop. Their proximity made hearing this tidbit impossible to ignore. I've changed the names for privacy sake.

son: Tony is mean to me.

mom: Well, don't play with Tony . . .

son: I wasn't playing with him. He was just mean. I play with Sally.

mom: How is Sally doing? Did you ask her why she didn't come to church Sunday? Did you tell her we missed her?

Huh? Did you ask her why she didn't come to church? 

Admittedly, their conversation was none of my business. But perhaps, that notion answers her question just as well.


I wonder sometimes if the majority of issues between believers and non-believers could be solve simply by people minding their own business concerning matters of faith.

Merry Christmas-- Damn It!

Many of the residents of Jesusland seem to have a bit of an attitude this Christmas season. I notice people saying that they are sick and tired of hearing the phrase "Happy Holidays" as opposed to "Merry Christmas". These same people assert that we ought to know the true reason for why we even have Christmas; Avoiding the very word Christmas is the same as being bullied by the proponents of secularism.

People in Jesusland have worn t-shirts admonishing people to not be afraid to say "Merry Christmas"-- as though they might possibly be persecuted or lose their jobs for keeping Christmas Christian. They make angry Facebook posts and tweets condemning anyone who says "Happy Holidays" in place of the mandatory phrasing for this time of year.

I submit today that people who share that sentiment wrongly believe that Christians should own the holiday season. I believe that such people unwittingly feel entitled to more rights than others. They assert there is a "war" on Christmas without realizing the irony of their words.

Let me explain.

My daughter comes home from school earlier this week (based on the time of this post) saying that Hanukkah is Israel's way of celebrating Christmas.

No. That's just not true about Hanukkah. But, this bit of misinformation shows how Christianity gradually absorbs so many non-Christian traditions over the centuries. Perhaps the teachers are unwittingly imposing their Christian bias onto others. But purposefully or not, they are slowly assimilating a Jewish celebration that has nothing to do with Christmas at all. As a rule of thumb, Jews simply do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. Christmas in it's most strict religious form is counter to mainstream Jewish belief; Didn't you learn anything in Sunday School?

Why would an Reformed Jew celebrate Christmas, then? I think it's safe to say that they only celebrate Christmas for as far as the gift giving and the decorations go. You know-- just to enjoy the holiday spirit of giving and such. Can you blame any Jewish parents who might not want their children to feel left out when all their Gentile classmates and friends rave on and on about how the baby Jesus-- um . . . I mean Santa Clause-- er . . . I mean . . . their parents left tons of toys and gadgets for them under their Christmas trees?

Judaism is a good example of why greeting others with the phrase "Happy Holidays" as opposed to the phrase "Merry Christmas" is, in my opinion, simply being sensitive to others. But, just as I feel offended that someone would mandate that I only greet others with "Merry Christmas", I don't want to suggest that the greeting in and of itself is inappropriate for this time of year, either. Like Thomas Jefferson said, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg". And quite frankly as an atheist, I feel that way when people greet me with "Merry Christmas". I don't mind the greeting and I even reply in kind. But, for people to get an attitude because you don't say it . . . I begin to wonder if they even understand why freedom of religion is so special and important at all.

With much attitude, I hear people insist that Jesus is the reason for the season as they decorate their "Christmas" trees and plan to buy their "Christmas" gifts. No harm in having a Christmas tree or buying gifts. Hell, I have a Christmas tree up in my home and I'm an atheist for crying out loud! I just got back from Christmas shopping before starting on this post. But, the difference: I'm willing to accept the fact that a Christmas tree ain't got shit to do with Jesus; and if a Jew can buy Christmas gifts, so can an atheist. But more importantly, consider how this season as a whole seems to come more from the Yule festivals of the Winter Solstice. Think of how Christianizing other cultures has overshadowed so many festivals and traditions over the centuries and made them Christian. Don't believe Christians ever assimilated other traditions? It's happening now as evidenced by my daughter coming home and calling Hanukkah the "Jewish Christmas".

The sort of Christians who demand that we all use the phrase "Merry Christmas" feel entitled whether they realize it or not. And worse, when such people don't get their entitlement, they claim to be bullied by everyone else. It's as if Christians of this sort feel their rights are being stepped on if they cannot make everyone else participate in their Christian activities. Take prayer in school, for example. The law is not telling Christians that they cannot pray. The law is telling them that they cannot have teachers lead the class into prayer and mandate that each child takes on prayer. Would a Christian parent want a Muslim teacher mandating that their child prays towards Mecca daily?

But, the law does protect the right for children of any faith to gather together before or after school (or even during the activity period within the school day) and pray to their hear's content so long as the activity is student initiated. Also, no one can be forced to participate against their will, either. Our children still have that precious right because of freedom of religion (and freedom from it, too). Yet, certain Christians feel that if they cannot make your child pray in school, you are stepping on their rights. That's a sense of entitlement. That's the same reason why certain Christians feel they own the Yuletide traditions all to themselves; they feel entitled.

And with all of this assimilation and entitlement going on, how can Christians honestly assert there is a "war" on Christmas? There is no war. People are merely tired of being assimilated.

Case in point: the office manager at my place of employment sent out a mass e-mail spreading the notion that Christians need to stand up against the secular bombardment upon their faith. In her thinking, she's got 100% support within the office and can send her message out in total confidence. Of course she won't be reprimanded or fired for circulating that e-mail to everyone in the office. Who in the world would object?

Never mind that the e-mail was a partially forged message attributed to Ben Stein. If integrity is so important to Christian faith, why go around spreading an e-mail that falsely attributes words to someone? I know we make mistakes, but I can't count how many e-mail messages I have received that spread fables in the place of truth only to make a an often unfair point.

Below, I'll share a portion of the e-mail I received. This portion below really was delivered in a commentary by Ben Stein back in the year 2005. But, it's being circulated as though he stated this during the 2012 Christmas season and extra paragraphs were added on by other authors. The message as a whole is made to look like it was signed as coming from Stein even though only a potion of the message in circulation comes from his original commentary:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish.  And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees...  I don't feel threatened..  I don't feel discriminated against.. That's what they are, Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me.  I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto.  In fact, I kind of like it.  It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu .  If people want a crèche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away. 

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians.  I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period.  I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country.  I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat...  

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him?  I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too.  But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to. 

Again-- my office manager can send this around the office with total confidence and not worry about losing her job. She can take for granted that she's sending this e-mail to an office full of supportive people who are undoubtedly in her corner and share this sentiment of entitlement.

However, should I talk too loudly about my atheism from behind my cubical wall, I feel that I could realistically put my employment status in jeopardy.

So then, tell me; who exactly has the upper hand in this supposed "war" on Christmas?

Look-- I don't feel pushed around when someone greets me with "Happy Holidays". I don't even feel pushed around when someone greets me with "Merry Christmas".

But, I do feel pushed around when I'm slapped in the face with a sentiment that basically and angrily says, "Merry Christmas-- damn it.". I'd rather be greeted with the infamous, "Bah! Humbug."

So much for making the Season bright with "Christmas" cheer.

Everything Evolves

During my June vacation in Washington D.C., I had the pleasure of visiting the Smithsonian Natural History Museum. Very cool! Free entry, too!

Rocks about 2.5 billion years old reveal that the Earth's atmosphere hasn't always been supportive of life as we know it today.

Water life adapts to droughts and evolve into land animals.

Ideas also evolve-- slavery was upheld by the United States Constitution at first; later, it was repealed. Women were second class citizens, now they are more and more being treated with proper fairness.

For one while, you couldn't legally buy a strong drink! 

Yikes!

And yup . . . even religions have evolved. Denominations splinter off from each other and become less and less familiar with how their scriptures lay out the tenants of their faith. Doctrines change and people tone down the more radical passages found in their scripture texts. Yes, even faith evolves.

And look at the United States today-- we seem to be at the threshold of allowing homosexuals to live their lives with full freedom as well. This is long over due in my opinion, just as Women's rights and Minority rights were long over due (and perhaps, still not fully realized even now).

Yes-- even the so called "Land of the Free" is still striving and evolving towards a more perfect union.

Evolution is everywhere. We might as well accept it. And we might as well use the engine of evolution to push our nation towards becoming a nation that is truly, fully free.

Life, Liberty, and Happiness

I had the wonderful pleasure of spending some time in our Nation's Capitol during the week of June 24th. While learning my way around on the Metro, something occurred to me. People on the Metro don't get too friendly with strangers. They'd rather read the news paper, interact with their smart phones, listen to their headphones, or even nod off to sleep before engaging in idle chit-chat with a stranger.


Don't get me wrong-- they will help you if you're lost or get on the wrong train. But outside of that, people expect you to leave them alone-- no matter how close they happen to be sitting next to you.


But, noticing the distant coldness of other people isn't really what occurred to me. The atmosphere that I just described is largely common knowledge concerning densely populated environments.


What occurred to me was how that perceived "coldness" from others may have simply been the people minding their own business while pursuing life, liberty, and happiness for themselves. And since they are so absorbed in their pursuit, they don't have time to worry about your pursuit; just don't get in their way.


For all my life, I have live in the Deep South. Here, strangers love to strike up conversations. Strangers often "speak" to each other-- meaning they say "hi" to you-- a total stranger on the street-- and expect a greeting in return. And many Southerners can take great offense if you don't respond; this is the beginning of politeness. Neighbors will meet you at the end of your driveway and start telling you all of their business as they seem to expect you'll trade your life story for theirs. They pry: What church do you attend? Where do you work? How many kids do you have? Why do you have two kids at your house during the week, but three kids at your house every other weekend?




But, in the smaller Southern cities we do not cram onto a Metro system like in D.C. We often commute 15 or 20 minutes to work by car. Now at work, a few of your co-workers may pry into your life just like your next-door neighbors do.




This same culture that I described (which is a generalization . . . so, it's not true for all of the South) also has a knack for wanting to squeeze everyone into their mold of objective morality. Is this behavior simply the result of people not knowing how to pursue freedom and happiness for themselves? Perhaps they need to know what you're doing in your private life so that they may know whether to ostracize you or accept you; they need knowledge of what you do behind closed doors so that they can know if you fit into their objective morality or not.




We'll, you don't have to worry about that on the Metro in D.C. Driving into D.C. is so difficult during rush hour that total strangers will carpool so that they can access the HOV lanes on the freeway. But, guess what-- they don't get into each other's business either. As a matter of fact, the carpooling culture has an unspoken rule to not strike up idle chit-chat with each other while riding into the city together.




Again, this seems like coldness and rudeness-- something Southerns generally hate on the surface. But, I wonder if that "coldness" is nothing more than an extension of people being extremely comfortable with themselves.




Then they silently dare you to tell them how else to live.




Isn't that really what life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is all about?




Happy Independence Day!

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.

Wits' End

About a month ago (from this post), my daughter plainly and flatly told her older cousin that we simply don't believe in god in our household.

At first, I got rather worried, but then I came to the realization that her cousin (my niece) probably won't make a stink of it. And so far-- she hasn't.

However, that incident forced the question of whether remaining a closeted atheist has any real benefit.

Summer vacation began and my kids started spending their days at my mom's house. The kids surprised my wife and me one evening by telling us that my mother was trying to make them memorize bible versus.

Now, we're strongly considering putting them in a secular summer program. But, something like that will be hard to find in Jesusland and we don't have tons of cash to spend on summer camp.

The question of whether remaining a closeted atheist comes up again. My wife becomes a bit flustered about having to hide what we really feel; I worry about how sick my seventy-four year old mother will become if we told her. I worry about how our relationship could fall apart just near the end of her life.

Then, both my mother and mother-in-law start really putting social pressure on us to come to church-- at least for Father's day. We didn't make Mother's day . . . my mother-in-law was quite cross. There was no gift, gesture, or convenience that made up for our missing church. Her daughters skipped church to cook her an amazing meal to eat after church service. She almost didn't come over to enjoy it out of disappointment at our absence from service.

And again-- we wonder if staying in the closet is even worth it.


I grow tired of the default expectation that everyone is a Christian. I grow tired of people compelling us to participate in an activity that-- for me-- feels like a waste of time.

I don't want to make other people stop being a Christian-- I just want them to stop trying to make me into one. Ah . . . but there's the problem. The very nature of being a Christian for many believers, is to faithfully spread the Gospel. These ideas are not mutually exclusive and poses a difficult problem for those who want to simply be left alone.

I'm at my wits' end.

Maybe the Nones Will Help Us

The March 12, 2012 edition of Time Magazine presented an interesting cover story entitled Ten Ideas That are Changing Your Life. This story was broken up into ten sub-articles each written by different authors. I found all of the articles highly interesting. But, due to the theme of this blog, I wanted to focus on only one particular article here-- The Rise of the Nones, by Amy Sullivan. She shares how the population of non-religious people is growing to an all time high in the United States (about 16% of the US population). But, this group isn't referencing mainly atheists or agnostics. The majority of this group seems to be made up of church-goers who have become tired of dogmatism; theists who are still seeking spirituality and fellowship with other believers-- but they refuse to be described by or bound by any particular denominational or sectarian label within Christianity.

So when filling out surveys, these people mark their religious preferences as "none".

Thus the title of the Time Magazine article: The Rise of the Nones.

This trend causes me to wonder if the Nones will help us atheists to be better accepted by the rest of the religious world. Have the Nones let go of dogmatism in exchange for tolerance and acceptance of non-believers? Will the Nones regard us atheists and agnostics as actual contributers to society rather than the cause of God's wrath upon America?

I wonder if this trend concerning the Nones is a sign that more and more people of religious faith are becoming flexible enough to believe without imposing upon others. Can the Nones fully appreciate and accept both sides of the coin concerning freedom of religion?

Can the Nones help us?

Maybe they can. Or, perhaps it's all wishful thinking on my part.

Time will tell. And when the results finally come in, I really hope the news is good.

Interesting TED talk about the Cyrus Cylinder

Neil MacGregor gives an interesting talk about the Cyrus Cylinder. 

Click the link to open the video:


An Interesting TED Talk About the Cyrus Cylinder

Freedom of Religion

Some people have still yet to realize that in order to have freedom of religion, there must be freedom from it as well. These are two sides of the same coin.

For, how can you exclusively worship a god without excluding other gods in the process?

I submit that one cannot avoid this; for in excerising your own freedom of religion, you are inevitably excercising your freedom from someone else's faith.

So then . . . stop feeling entitled and accept that everyone has this right-- and not just you.

The AFA is Right; Not Censoring New JC Show Would Be Unfair

I saw this e-mail today. I'll quote it first, then expound upon it:

Comedy Central set to blaspheme Christ with "JC" show

The Comedy Central network is planning a cartoon series about Jesus Christ entitled "JC."

June 7, 2010

Dear (name removed)

In its promotional material for the program "JC", Viacom describes Jesus as a "regular guy" - rather than the Son of God - and depicts him moving to New York to "escape his father's enormous shadow." The Father is depicted as an apathetic dad virtually addicted to video games and totally uninterested in his son's life.

So Comedy Central is set - unless we intervene - to blaspheme two-thirds of the Trinity on a weekly basis.

A depiction of Jesus on Comedy Central's "South Park" (Courtesy of Comedy Central)See how we expect Comedy Central to mock Christ by viewing this previous offering of anti-Christian bigotry from the show "South Park." Warning - It is offensive, but depicts the animosity the network has toward Christianity.

Yet in recent weeks Comedy Central bowed to pressure from Islamic groups and heavily censored an episode of "South Park" that showed Mohammed in a bear costume. The hypocrisy here is staggering.

Comedy Central shows more respect for Mohammed and for Muslims, who represent two percent of the American population, than for Jesus Christ and the 83% of Americans who believe in him.

We need to send a loud, clear message to Comedy Central and all potential advertisers of "JC" that this kind of insulting programming is completely unacceptable. If we speak with one voice now we can keep this program from ever seeing the light of day.

Sign our petition today and make your voice heard. This petition, with your signature on it, will be sent to the decision-makers who will determine whether this program airs.

At first I thought, "these people have no right to suppress free speech".

Then I realized something else-- the violent, threating members of Islam have already done this when the most recent South Park's depiction of Mohammad was censored on television.

This is not fair after all.

We pick on Jesus because Christians probably won't come together in larger numbers and threaten to murder. One might kill, but a community of Christians won't come together and threaten everyone with misery and death if the JC show airs and offends the majority of America.

But we won't dare say anything about Allah or his (so called) prophet Mohammad (why should peace be upon him? he certainly isn't generating peace upon us after he's been gone for centuries!).

Just that comment above could get me killed if I had a wider audience. I could have this blog pulled because I defamed the name of Mohammad.

Until our society realizes that we need to have the balls to own up to our rights of free speech, free inquiry, and freedom to criticize, then we sure as hell have no business making fun of Jesus Christ without censoring him in the same way that South Park's recent depiction of Mohammad was censored.

We must not forget where we came from. During an era of witch hunts, despotic kings and governors, kidnappers and slave traders, inquisitions, and spreading of religion by dominant force-- a beacon of reason and Enlightenment declared that enough was enough. The people wanted a government that gave a rats ass about the people, a ruler that was respected, but could be taunted, and a freedom to pursue happiness and liberty.

And the people knew that in order to have this, an environment needed to be created where someone could discover controversial truths and express them openly for the ultimate betterment of human kind.

If people can't say something negative or controversial about Mohammad, Jesus Christ, Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, or even yours truly, then we will find ourselves too afraid to point out danger when we see it. We will hold on to delusions out of fear. We will dismiss the reasonable when insanity is handed to us. We will fall into a well of ignorance and usher in a new Dark Age.

Mohammad doesn't have the right to do that to us. But until we get that into our heads, we don't have a right to pick on JC while cowering in from of Allah.

The Sovereign Lord over America

I ran across another one of those crazy e-mail messages that I sometimes get.

Here are some quotes from it:

Since assuming office, President Obama has consistently misrepresented this country's religious heritage and our commitment to Christianity.

On his first trip abroad, Barack Hussein Obama told the Turkish Parliament: "Although we have a large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

Who is the "we," the president refers to? According to a 2009 survey, 62% of his fellow citizens believe America is a Christian nation.

Another quote:

Look at the currency in your wallet, Mr. President. Do the bills say "In God We Trust," or "In Allah We Trust," or "In the Ideals and Values That Bind Us As a Nation We Trust"?

Listen to our national Anthem, which contains the stirring words, "Then conquer we must when our cause it is just. And this be our motto, In God Is Our Trust." (Even the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the most liberal in the land, just ruled "In God We Trust" is constitutional.)

President Obama can hardly leave the White House without tripping over monuments to our Judeo-Christian heritage.

And the quote that really caught my eye:

For the first time in our history, atheists recently met with White House officials. No one knows if the president popped in to greet the God denying atheists. It was just one more in a series of moves that are apparently designed to de-Christianize America. Frightening when you consider the list of blessings and cursing associated with whether or not our country honors God listed in Deuteronomy 28!

And the goal of the e-mail:

Please consider signing our online petition reminding our President that this IS a Christian nation and urging him to once again acknowledge that the God of the Bible is the Sovereign Lord over America.

The problems with this whole thing?

• Fundamentalist Christians don't realize the danger in making our country a theocracy. Should it become fully Christian, what sort of "Christian" will it be? Will being the wrong kind of Christian become a crime? Will non-Fundamentalist Christians lose rights because they don't deserve basic freedoms? Are non-Fundamentalists lower than other human life? But what happens when the government stops liking your kind of Christian? What happens when the face of Fundamentalism changes and leaves you behind?

• Fundamentalist Christians don't realize that this nation is not (and was not) meant to be a theocracy. Read a little bit of your Constitution sometime. Oh . . . I'm sorry . . . so you haven't read any of that document either, huh? (OK, OK, that's not fair-- but it's so fun to say . . .)

• Fundamentalist Christians don't realize that "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" were *not* always on our money or in our pledge. Congress didn't add these mottoes until the mid 1950s. Why didn't the Founding Fathers establish this precedent if they were so pious and religious while supposedly meaning for this to be a Christian nation?

• Fundamentalist Christians don't realize that atheists can run for office, too. Though some states may still outlaw atheists from running for public office on paper, this can be corrected with a quick visit to an appeals court. This freedom for an American citizen to run for office holds true for Muslims, Jews, Mormons, as well as all other religious groups and ethnic races who are American Citizens*. And it's not necessary to swear on the Bible to take office, either. That's just a tradition.

Say it with me: ˈsi-tə-zən

• Fundamentalist don't realize that the curses in Deuteronomy 28 do not apply to us. If you're Christian, they don't apply because that was to the people of Israel back in the bronze age or something like that. The United States is not Israel. And if you're non-Christian, then Deuteronomy 28 never mattered to anyone.

This mindless drive to Christianize our nation bothers me deeply. The drive to make everyone adhere to "Christian" values . . . to force everyone to be as religious as you are by force of law . . . such a drive is reminiscent of despotism and hate.

This kind of Fundamentalism is hate hiding under a Christian blanket.

* As for "citizens" who commit acts of terrorism against the nation in which they live-- such people don't deserve the rights of citizenship in my opinion. I feel that statement should go without saying . . . but someone might think I support the citizenship of anyone who commits a terrorist act or is involved in some plot against the United States. Well, nope, I don't. Absolutely not.

The only thing that person deserves is jail.

If 6 Were 9

Like good ol' Jimi Hendrix said in his song If 6 were 9:

I'm the one that's gotta die when it's time for me to die. So, let me live my life the way I want to.

Those sentiments remind me of some grocery store music that I recently heard. The song went like this:

I've got a right to be wrong. I've been held down too long.

I've got to break free. So I can finally breathe.

I've got a right to be wrong. Got to sing my own song.

I might be singing out of key. But it sure feels good to me.

Got a right to be wrong. So just leave me alone.



You're entitled to your opinion, but it's really my decision.

I can't turn back I'm on a mission. If you care, don't you dare blur my vision.

Let me be all that I can be. Don't smother me with negativity.

Whatever's out there waiting for me, I'm going to faced it willingly.



I've got a right to be wrong. My mistakes will make me strong.

I'm stepping out into the great unknown. I'm feeling wings though I've never flown.

I've got a mind of my own. Flesh and blood to the bone.

See, I'm not made of stone. I've got a right to be wrong.

So just leave me alone.

To me, that song said a lot to be grocery store music.

While at the self-check out, another song came on-- Let the Music Play, by Shannon. An 80's song. If you're not a child of the 80's then . . . well, just ask yourself-- would you sing along with an 80's song out loud in a public place?

I wanted to. And the self-checkout attendant did at the top of her lungs.

And she shook it, too.

Somehow, that was all quite liberating. I realized I wasn't the only one who wanted to cut loose.


After that moment, I finally realized a very strong desire for the citizens of Jesusland to let us atheists be and treat us like the normal people we are. That same right should be extended to anyone else who expresses individuality within Jesusland.

Give me the same rights that you claim for yourself.

In other words, just leave us alone.

Geaux Saints!

The province of Jesusland in which I live does not have it's own professional NFL football team. As a result, most of the population in my province cheers for the New Orleans Saints.

Geaux Saints!

Saints gear, such as jerseys, hats, and  shirts have become quite scarce. Bakeries have even started refusing new orders because they've been inundated with special requests for Super Bowl cookies and cakes which don the Saints name and logo.

Between advertisements, electronic billboards flash the count down to Super Bowl Sunday.

Geaux Saints!

When I arrived at work this morning, I was greeted with a smile and a humongous "Geaux Saints" button.

But . . . I'm for the Colts.

Just kidding. Actually, I'm ambivalent. I'm interested in the big game and I plan to watch it. However, the only outcome I care for is an exciting, overtime nail biter. I'd hate for either team to obliterate the other. That's football at it's absolute worst.

Regardless, I wasn't all that interested in wearing my company-issue Saints button. 

Another fellow stood nearby and said that he didn't like the Saints and refused his button. The person issuing the buttons exclaimed, "I can't believe you're not a Saints fan! We need to convert you; I'm going to convert everyone to be a Saints fan. This is just like us Christians against those non-believers. You need to at least support the Saints if you haven't chosen a side!"

Was this person joking?

Yes. 

And no.

I took a button, but I never put it on. Not after that comment.

And that's precisely the crux of the matter. The citizens of Jesusland think you need to be on their side. They are right. If you don't agree, you are wrong, dysfunctional, and perhaps the weakest link in Jesusland society.  When God decides to punish Jesusland and purge the sin, the fault falls on those pesky non-believers-- be they atheists, homosexuals, or political liberals.

And apparently in Jesusland, worshiping Jesus is not enough! You need to be a Saints fan, too.

Praise Jesus!

Geaux Saints!

Just for that . . . I think I'll start cheering for the Colts.

Don't Blame the Blasphemer

Suppose a blasphemer speaks out against a deity, causing many offended worshipers to angrily spew death threats and stage destructive riots.

In such a situation, who did the most harm?

Suppose a blasphemer speaks out against any given deity and one or more of the various followers apprehend and murder the culprit.

Who was wrong?

To me, any free nation that supports a blasphemy law (national, or international) is reminiscent of a parent who is willing to do anything in order to circumvent a child's temper tantrum. Such a parent hopes to avoid all conflict because the child is in control and not the parent.

Many children hold their parents hostage in this way.

So then, at what point will the child decide to become reasonable and stop making unrealistic demands without the threat of throwing tantrums? What will finally satisfy the insatiable drive of a spoiled, rotten little child?

At what point will any sort of blasphemy law curb violent outbursts from worshipers of a deity that has been insulted? Who (or what) is protected by blasphemy laws? Who is the true victim when a potential blasphemy law is broken?

Who is the victim when someone is fined, flogged, or even place on death row for blasphemy?

Are we not all blasphemers against at least one other deity? Even theists refuse to pay honor and respect towards any deity in which they do not believe.

Yes, even the theists who desire to enforce the absurdity of blasphemy laws is in some sense guilty of blasphemy themselves!

Does blasphemy injure worshipers so horribly that they have a right to call for fines, imprisonment, beatings or even capital punishment in order to protect their faith?

Why follow a deity that can't protect his worshipers, his religion, his specially chosen leaders, or --for that matter-- himself?

Why follow such an inept being?

I dare say that such a deity is asking to be blasphemed.

And furthermore, the worshipers of such an inept deity needn't throw tantrums.

After all, it's not the blasphemer's fault that their deity cannot stand up for himself.

Liberty Enlightening the World

I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward for evermore.

-- John Adams

Our nation absolved allegiance from the British Crown in order to rule itself on July 4th, 1776 by issuing the Declaration of Independence.

This event makes every Fourth of July special. Each Fourth of July marks one more year that this nation has remained free. And today, we've reached 233 years now.

Let us all contemplate how wonderful liberty is. Let us all appreciate our freedom by learning about where it came from in the first place.

Let us be grateful for all servicemen and servicewomen who sacrifice and join our all-volunteer military so that our freedom is protected.

Be grateful for the democratic process and our elected officials who participate in this great political experiment. And be grateful for our justice system. Even with the flaws and frustrations of our legal system, we could be worse off.

And be grateful that we can complain to our elected officials and even poke fun at them when it suits us, because we have freedom of speech and expression.

And, thank your God, should you believe in him (or her) -- exercise your freedom of religious expression.

And if you are a non-believer, breath in the fresh air of freedom because you may exercise your freedom of personal expression and freedom of any sort of religious oppression.

Think of how ancient Greece and Rome once stood as beacons of light to the rest of civilization. Then consider how these empires fell and plunged the world into the Dark Ages. Consider the events which characterized the Dark Ages, then think on the Age of Enlightenment and how it emerged from that period of darkness. Consider how great minds, great discoveries, and great words of expression re-kindled the flame that illuminated the dark world once again.

Know that liberty is the cornerstone of enlightenment; Liberty enlightens the world.

Think on the original name of our great Statue of Liberty. Consider how it was a gift from the French who helped us during our Revolution. Then take time to contemplate the French's role in the Enlightenment era. And take time to think about how a French sculptor took symbols from the best of world civilization and embodied them in our greatest monument of freedom -- a token given to our country to celebrate it's centennial birthday.

Celebrate this day. Eat some potato salad and barbecue. And if your vegan, eat some barbecue tofu in honor of this day.

If you had to work today, I hope you can still take time to celebrate. Sit back, relax, and enjoy your freedom -- even if you have to take a rain check and celebrate tomorrow.

Give Me Liberty, Give Me Death: An Update

In a very recent post, I referenced an article about a father in Italy who is trying to allow his daughter to pass away after being in a vegetative state for 17 years.

The father finally received permission for the courts, only to have his wishes for his daughter revoked at the last moment.

Many religious people speak out against the father's desire for euthanasia, calling the act outright murder.

And the courts say that the clinic cannot allow the daughter to die because of the unlawfulness to pull feeding tubes from a patient. Doing so would be refusing food to a patient.

I wonder if church leaders would change their minds about euthanasia should one of their Cardinals or priests fall ill and remain in a vegetative state for the next 17 years.

I also wonder how many religious people can call euthanasia outright murder when they don't even want scientists to learn more about stem cells -- which can prolong and save lives.

I admit, pulling feeding tubes does seem harsh. But can't a peaceful, humane way be found besides starvation?

Can't a more humane solution be found than just keeping her alive as a vegetable? How is keeping this poor woman in this state any more humane than euthanasia?

Oh, that's right . . . her vegetative state is God's will.

Sorry, I forgot about that.

Here's the follow-up article: Italian Right-to-die move blocked

Give Me Liberty, Give Me Death

On matters of abortion, I have mixed feelings. I get uneasy trying to say that we can draw the line between when an embryo becomes a human life as opposed to when it is not.

From a purely biological and genetic view, an embryo seems to only be a cluster of cells during the very early stages of a pregnancy.

But, for someone who believes in God, the soul, and divine purpose -- that embryo is life right then and there. Even if birth control was employed, but failed in some way.

But also consider the drive for reproduction and how it cause people to make poor choices. Some people are not ready for offspring though they engage in sexual activity. And unfortunately, many people will go to dangerous lengths to terminate a pregnancy.

But for all one's trying to avoid pregnancy, you wonder why people allow such to happen if they didn't really want a child.

So, I understand the complexity of the debate on abortion. This is very difficult to solve.


But, sometimes wanting to preserve life only for the sake of preserving life could be a mistake.

But I'm no longer talking about abortion. Now, I'm talking about euthanasia.


I distinguish euthanasia from suicide only in that one who commits euthanasia is in the painful last stages of a terminal illness or is in a vegetative state. Or, arguably, a person has requested not to be resuscitated should they lose consciousness and the capacity to breath on one's own.

Should the religious beliefs of the living block the free will of people in such circumstances?

Consider the story covered in the following article? When it comes to euthanasia, do we even have a right to be the judge?

Italy Woman Sent to Clinic to Die

The Buddhism Bail-Out

My jaw dropped when I read the following headline:

Mass Rally in India at Which Tens of Thousands of Outcastes Renounced Hinduism

To my astonishment, a rally was planned back in 2001 where a massive group of Dalits would renounce Hinduism and convert to Buddhism. Maybe I was hiding under a rock when all this happened and I should have know about this already. I just learned about these events this week; So, I realize this is old news.

But, I still found the news to be interesting despite the news being old.

Members of the lower castes systems were growing tired of the obvious discrimination created by their religious faith. So, they decided to rally together and collectively renounce Hinduism for Buddhism instead.

Then, a group of Christians heard the news. They made plans to join the rally and give out copies of the Gospel. One million people were expected to attend as the time for the rally drew closer.

The plans didn't unfold as expected. The government got involved and tried to shut down the rally. Military involvement created a scene where hundreds of thousands of people were turned away at gun point from the proposed meeting place for the rally. The government didn't want Christian groups coaxing caste members to become Christian. The government did not want one million new Buddhists on their hands, either.

The government at that time was controlled by members of the higher caste system. The government really wanted the Dalits to stay in their place. Religion justified all of this. That's what this was all about.

The Dalits were hoping that Buddhism would bail them out of their troubles and make a statement to the Indian government.

I'd like to think converting from Hinduism to Buddhism is a step in the right direction. I could be wrong, but Buddhism tends not to have strict religious rules, angry deities, and all powerful clergy keeping followers under foot. Otherwise, this conversion would have little difference from moving out of a small jail cell and into a more spacious, comfortable jail cell.

The Dalits would still be in jail. Especially since the government doesn't seem interested in upholding basic human rights in this case.

Out of the fire . . . and into the frying pan.

Consider reading a detailed summary of the Dalits'' rally and how the situation unfolded. The implications of the whole event are worth reflecting upon in my opinion.