America's best Christian talks abortion...

William, you're, um... "talents" are truly wasted here. Clearly I am no match for you with my heathen beliefs and practices and utter inability to cherry-pick the same passages that you seem to think are the important ones.  So I'll leave it to Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian, to talk about abortion, and you can take up you're, um.... "sincerely held religious beliefs" with her.

...And they just keep coming!

WHAT A DAY FOR CONSERVATIVES, HUH?!

LOL

NASCAR decries Indiana Law! NASCAR! Fucking NASCAR!!! If the Right has lost NASCAR, then the culture war is over and WE WON!

Companies are actually Boycotting Indiana!  COMPANIES!  Not Liberal, LGBT advocacy groups but COMPANIES! JOB CREATORS! 1%'ers!  How far gone are the Republicans that they are now alienating BUSINESSES?!

Here's the Facebook Page of Memories Pizza in Indiana, who now proudly discriminate against Gays. Why don't you drop on in and offer a "review?" I did. I recommend that everyone does. (Not to be confused with memoriespizza.com, which they apparently never thought to secure the rights to.)

12 Sign that the Republicans are actually insane

HERE'S a Pastor who knows what Jesus stood for!

I'll leave you with these images that I snagged off of Facebook:

Because everyone knows that Fox viewers ARE, in fact the most INFROMED of anyone!

And, finally, because Zinnia Jones is so fucking awesome:

You really need to look that up. because that's funny as shit!

Running Behind, getting caught up...

Not surprisingly, I've been a fan of Keith Olbermann for MANY YEARS now, but this might be the single best broadcast I've ever seen from him...




And here's some other funny, and vaguely relevant stuff for your enjoyment...

Boys have swag, men have style, GENTLEMEN have CLASS.  Patrick Stewart is THE MAN.

If Obama has any balls at all, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning will receive full pardons by the end of his administration.  (Spoiler: They won't.)  And when they don't under Hillary either, maybe the Right will begin to understand what the Left doesn't like about her.

I probably hate anti-vaxers more than any other camp in the legion of science denialism.  They do orders of magnitude more harm than the Creationists and Climate-Deniers combined.  (And as the parents of two autistic boys, my wife and I have had more run-ins with "Autism Andy's" than I can count. It's all I can do not punch them in the face. If you won't (notice I didn't say"can't"!) vaccinate your children, they should be taken away form you. PERIOD. FUCK YOU. STICK 'EM, JAB 'EM and IMMUNIZE 'EM.(And while you're rotting in jail for child abuse/neglect, we'll immunize YOU while we're at it.) (Asshole.) I am so sick of hearing the media (and fucking OPRAH!) coddle these ignorant fucking morons, and I'm glad the press is FINALLY beginning to call them out on their genocidal bullshit, even if it is about Seventeen Years too late!

Best argument against religion that I've even heard:

Yep.

Kung-fu Panda... (lol)

Probably. (I love both. What the hell, people?!)

It would put me out of a job, but they've got a point!

Human Sexuality is Complciated...

So here's a GREAT educational video.  Right-Wing, Religious Conservatives, in particular, need to watch it and listen...



Now it is with all that in mind that I would also like to post the following from Dan Savage:

 "If the Bible got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong - slavery - what are the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong?"

Or this, which I don't know from whence it came originally, but I read in an email the other day:

"Religion is like penis. It's OK to have one, but it's not OK to shove it in my face."

 I post all this, as yet another counterpoint to the completely absurd argument that anyone chooses to be gay. Because this is not about gene's, or any other part of science that the Right wants to misuse.  It's not a scientific argument. Not YET anyway. Right now? It's a semantic one. We don't yet agree on the TERMS, because SOME PEOPLE insist on refusing to acknowledge what WORDS MEAN.  (If there's any question, I'll refer you to the video above. If you have a problem with that, go argue with THEM.)

Being Gay (Bi-, Lesbian, Pan-, A-) is not about one's BEHAVIOR. It is about one's PREFERENCES. That's what ORIENTATION means.  Obviously one chooses one's behavior. No one is arguing about that. (Outside of University Philosophy Classes at anyway.) (I married a philosophy major, so I've got to cover all bases.)  But you do not choose your PREFERENCES.

And saying that you do only demonstrates a complete ignorance of the fact that there even is a philosophical debate going on between Free Will and Determinism, never mind where you stand in it.  I actually happen to hold on to the quaint and romantic notion of free-will myself. But that doesn't means that I don't understand the argument of the Determinists, even if I don't accept it in its entirely. Though, to be fair, it is completely idiotic to reject it in its entirety as well. 

Go figure that so many Conservatives do exactly that.

You don't choose you're preferences. Period. They are the things that, consciously and unconsciously, influence you're choices. And that's not being Liberal - that's just not being a moron.

And remember:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 ~Jefferson

Remember him? THAT'S what America is all about.

Now would anyway like to try telling me, again, why these people shouldn't have THE SAME rights as everybody else? (And they ARE the SAME rights, BTW. So don't be a fucking moron and try to talk about them wanting "special rights."  That only marks YOU as "special!")


--------------------------------------------
BTW...
Date: 2/25/13
Morning Weight: 210.7 (BMI: 32.0)
Pounds Down: 4
Pounds to go: 36
No gym. (DW has Akido & Iado tonight.)

Amen!

I've always believed that morality exsists independantly from Religion, but I've never seen it put so perfectly.

For William & my recent "Anonymous" friend...

See? I told y'all that the MetaPicture has awesome stuff!

Great!

...As soon as they end their ban on atheists, I might start supporting them again!

Still, progress is progress.

Some unfiltered opinion about abortion

I've been away for a while, so this is going to cover a lot of stuff.  Bear with though, me because it all comes back to the 'pro-contraception' / 'abortion is a complex issue' theme that I wanted to pick up from the Sanger post.

First of all, let me say that I am relieved to see that Mississippi's"Personhood" measure was shot down by voters.  And while I did share pretty much all of the same concerns voiced by ClassicLiberal, I must say that I am not entirely surprised by the outcome.  While the pro-life camp has had their share of legislative and judicial victories, the historical record is largely filled with examples of public backlash anytime core abortion rights are threatened.  And that's what was happening here regardless of how much politically correct, verbal diarrhea the MI Legislature was trying to dress it up in.  They might rank 50th in adult literacy, but apparently the Republicans still can't overreach in Mississippi.  And let's face it: If you can't win an anti-abortion battle in Mississippi? YOU'RE OVERREACHING. And if you read the rest of that article, you'll see how Ohio voters responded to their anti-Union proposal, not to mention a recall-election, and a few others that went for the Democrats.  And this is coming off a HUGE win in 2010 and leading in to the 2012 election season.  Nice going, Republicans!  I'm seriously conflicted as to whether or not I want them to learn a lesson from all of this.  Part of me wants them to keep fucking everything up for themselves, but then that same part of me remembers just how mind-bendingly stupid and gullible the average American voter is.  Still: They've overreached, and the public spoke.  Every now and then? The good guys WIN ONE.

Now I wanted to say something about JLarue's comment from the Sanger post.

As far as abortion goes...  IMHO, morally speaking, it is simply never justified, with the exception of when it is being done to SAVE A LIFE.  Unless SOMEONE IS GOING TO DIE, I simply do not believe it is a morally justified course of action. And NO, that judgement does not change when it come to RAPE.  That being said? I am pro-choice. Period. Without a second thought. And why? Because in contrast to the funny-mentalists on the Right, I do not labor under the delusion that anyone else should have their own behavior bound or limited by my opinion. My opinion, my principles, my beliefs all affect exactly one person: ME.

And it it the very fact that the choice is mine to make that I value and will vehemently protect.

(Pretty much the same way I describe my position on Gun Control as well: I despise guns, but I value the fact that the decision of whether or not I own one is mine to make. I don't own one, and I likely never will. But I will fight, kill and die to keep that decision mine.)

Now...  JLarue goes on to describe how much abuse has been received regarding [what I perceive] a very moderate pro-choice / moderate pro-life position.  And I've encountered this as well, particularly on extremely feminist websites such as Jezebel and Feministing. (Two of my all-time fav's, BTW, to be sure. But it suffices to say that I don't agree with the bulk of their readership on this particular issue.) To suggest that a woman in labor can have an abortion up to the moment that the chord is cut? Well... it's every bit as psychopathic as it sounds: Which is to say, ENTIRELY. And yet? You'll get that!  I've gotten that!  DW has gotten that!  And it's completely, and utterly batshit insane!

Now, I'd LIKE to think that this kind of completely batshit insane extremism on the pro-choice side is purely in response to the completely batshit insane extremism on the Right, in general.  IOW: We have to take a hard-line, because they will absolutely, positively never stop!  They will never concede ANY GROUND, and they they will never stop clawing away at our rights no matter how much "common sense" / "common ground" we concede.  They will not stop until all abortion is punishable by death (by stoning, of course), sentence to be carried out immediately, without trial, followed by a Congressional declaration that the person now burns in hell.  In truth? That's where the political pro-life camp pretty much is, in the mainstream.  So, to be fair, I would like to think that any extremism on our side is nothing more than a reaction to that mentality on theirs. (I really would.) Unfortunately? No - we have our whackos too, Im sorry to say.  And even if a proposal (like the one I will present) would satisfy the Right forever (yeah, right!) you would probably find someone on our side who would say that I'm drinking the kool-aid.  They're idiots, yeah.  But they exist, sad as it is to have to acknowledge them.

Now... If you want to know how I feel about Abortion as a legal issue, as opposed to a moral one, you can click the on the Abortion Page at the top, check any of my past writings on the matter, or read the short version here.  This is what I would propose:

1) First Trimester: Abortion is legal, including federally funded as applicable, no questions asked.

2) Second Trimester: Abortion is legal when the health of the Mother is threatened.  And Congress would be obligated to define a list of health threats that would need to then be diagnosed. (Obviously, this list would be a source of continued debate, but I think that's OK. IMHO, this is really where the dabate should be anyway!)

3) Third Trimester: Abortion is legal only when the life of the Mother is in immediate jeopardy, and all other reasonable, commonly practiced options have failed, or have be ruled too risky. Doctor's judgement, but they may have to defend it.


An exception for Rape is not needed: It's covered in the first trimester.  Partial Birth Abortion?  Ugh.  COMPLETELY BANNED, at least until an ACTUAL MEDICAL Doctor provides me with ONE EXAMPLE in which this is actually needed, and explains to me why at that point a full vaginal birth, or C-Section could not be performed.  I've been told it can happen, but in all my reading I have yet to come across a single, definitive example.  And I can be tatlly flexible here. All I need is one example, spelled out for me in words that a product of the American Educational system can understand. So far? That hasn't happened. (And seriously... If you're an OB/GYN who's reading this? PLEASE feel free to educate me here! I'm 100%, dead serious! I really do want to know!)

And the problem with the "personhood clause" is that it not only would effectively outlaw abortion, but open a legal can of worms regarding stem cell research, IVF, and various forms of Contraception. Not cool.  I'm not going to get into a stem cell research debate here, but if you're interested you can read my proof.  Short version?


Until that embryo is fully implanted in the uterine wall, you haven't even reached the threshold of potential for life, let alone life.  (And please comment THERE if you feel you must, as I'd prefer to keep THIS POST strictly about Abortion and Contraception issues.)

And I don't fuck around when it comes to Contraception issues.  You might have gotten that feeling for my last post on Sanger, but... yeah.  I really don't fuck around there. And that absolutely includes this bullshit idea that Pharmacists should be allowed to choose not to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, based on their  religious objections. As far as I'm concerned, this is nowhere near a protected right of theirs, but rather grounds for them to lose their license and business. Period. I'll spell it out for anyone stupid enough to have a different opinion on this matter...

HEY, ASSHOLE: YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AFFECT AND DICTATE THE BEHAVIOR OF EXACTLY ONE PERSON: YOU! AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS GREAT NATION PROTECTS MY RIGHT NOT TO BE BOUND BY THE TENETS OF YOUR RELIGION, OR INDEED ANY RELIGION THAT I DON'T BELONG, OR DO BELONG TO YET CHOOSE TO IGNORE. IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO ANY FORM OF CONTRACEPTION: DON'T USE IT, AND DON'T HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE WHO IS! PERIOD. END OF STORY. NOW GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY FUCKING FACE AND SHUT THE FUCK UP BEFORE I HIT YOU IN THE HEAD WITH A BRICK!

I really don't think I could say it any more clearly. LOL.  And the Hatch Amendment has to go for exactly same reason.

(And if you disagree with me on that, you're either an idiot or you  just haven't thought things through completely: If there exists a legal medical procedure that costs-less than a covered alternative?The Government has a moral obligation to the tax payer to fund it! If you don't like abortion , don't have one! That fact that your political party has failed in it's efforts to outlaw is of no consequence to me, nor are that religious taboos to you choose to honor, but which have no bearing on anyone who does not. If you don't want it funded? Outlaw it. If you can't, because the majority of America is against you? Too bad. Suck to be you. The alternative is live birth which costs more. Abortion and contraception are low cost, L-E-G-A-L alternatives to that, and until that changes there is not reason to dick around on the periphery of it with things like funding.)

But I got to thinking over the past week... Why exactly is Contraception so important to me? I mean... sure, yeah: Copious amounts of consequence-free sex. But, in all seriousness... there's got to be more to it than that, doesn't there?

And I think there is.  And I think it goes beyond a parent's obligation to properly care for, raise and educate their children, and beyond our societies limited educational and social resources, not to mention our planet's finite environmental resources.  That's all fine and good, but I don't see any of it as a reasonable explanation for why I have such visceral feelings on the matter.  I mean: Environmentalism is a largely an academic issue to me.  It's a voting issue, yes, but I'm no eco-warrior.  I'm not going to get into a fist fight with anyone over it.  But you know what?  If a pharmacist's car were to get set on fire over his forcing his religion down his customers' throats because he refuses to fill birth control prescriptions? I'd sleep VERY well that night, and with a SATISFIED SMILE on my face, psychotic as that sounds.  My blood seriously boils that much over this.

And I'm not saying that to scare you.  (And I'm totally not kidding.) I just mean it to illustrate how strongly I feel about it.  As far as I am concerned:

Any restrictions on contraception, up to and including emergency contraception (aka: the morning after pill) I consider as a HATE CRIME against all women. 

You may feel that's an exaggeration, but it's how I feel.  And I think I can explain why.

I'm a feminist.

Not a political one in every way, perhaps... though I'm sure we'll agree on a lot of issues. Almost all of them, in fact. Just not one so extreme as to share any of the more psychotic opinions about abortion.  But you know what? I just value and respect women so much more than... well, than just about every single man I know.

A recent example of what I'm talking about...

Last week, I was in a bar in Tempe, Arizona with four of my colleagues, travelling on business.  These are Engineers: educated people who's intellect and opinions I trust respect.  Now... We're all engaged in an activity that four guys would normally be engaged in, in a bar in Tempe: Ogling women.  (And no, I'm not proud to admit that, but I'll be honest here.)  (And what's more, considering that we're all middle-aged and married?  It crossed the boundaries of both sad and a little creepy as well! LOL)  And believe me when I say that  there was no shortage of extremely conventionally attractive women there, no matter where you looked.  Lot's of beautiful women there, no doubt about it.  (And four pretty pathetic guys, no doubt about that! LOL)  And amongst all this, I noticed a girl sitting just off my 3:00.  Short, dark hair - very short pixie cut, with a single long, thin braid on one side. Very little makeup.  Tee-Shirt with holes in it.  The slightness bit pudgy. Not obese, just having noticeably more jiggle than most of the girls in the bar.  Eyebrows were bit unkempt (though nowhere nearly uni-brow territory - come on!) Nose-ring. A plain face, I suppose. I hope you get the idea. Basically? A slightly frumpy, artistic-looking, possibly lesbian woman, who I had no doubt my co-workers would be turned off by, in a bar full of cheerleaders and barbie-doll types.  Do you know what my first (and only) thought was? 

Of all the women in that bar that night - she looked by far to be the most interesting.

That's it. That was my only opinion.  And, sure, maybe it was based on cliches as much as there's were, but of all the people there, if I was going to make the effort to talk to ANYONE, she was the only one I was the least bit interested in: Because she what the one who looked the most interesting.  And when she left?  One of my co-workers muttered, "What a train-wreck!" To which another replied, "The Lesbian? Yeah, I know!"  And that's the real difference between me and pretty much every other guy I know: I was interested in HER. Her, the person. WHO SHE WAS was something that interested me.  They were only interested in how people looked, and only then if they conformed to the "barbie doll" standard of beauty. It was a object lesson in the objectification of women.  And sure - I could have been wrong: After all I was going only by appearances as well.  But I didn't feel the need to say disparaging things about the other women.  Indeed I didn't feel anything negative about them at all.  At worst? I felt neutral, because I felt there was simply too little to be gleaned from their conformance to the conventional standard of style and beauty.  That's not a BAD thing, but it doesn't tell me anything beyond what I can already see: THAT THEY LOOK NICE.  Which... Just isn't all that important to me.

I've said it before, and I'll stand by it: The sexiest part of a woman's body is between her ears. I find so much more beauty (not to mention ugliness) in who people are than in what they look like. And that alone doesn't make me better than anyone else, at least  until they feel the need to unload disparaging comments on someone just because they don't give a shit whether some forty-year old, half drunk, married man in a bar finds them attractive.  But someone who refuses to play that game? Well, hey: THAT'S someone I'd look forward to talking to!

ANYWAY... I guess I just put that story out there to describe what I mean when I call myself a feminist. I simply respect and admire women as people, and I don't overly value physical appearance in women, anymore than I value say... money (for example) in men. It's just not important to me and does not define who you are. (Which is really all that matters.)

And so, for me, I think that explains why I feel so strongly about contraception.  Because as I see it there are three things, three accomplishments, that brought about the equality of women in society. (Which, it shoudl be apparent by now, I hold as an inherent good):

1) The first was the invention of firearms.  This may seem an odd choice, but consider it on a Darwinian level.  When your survival depends on hunting Mastodons with spears? There is no question that, by and large, men are better suited for that activity. When societal conflicts are settled in duels and in wars - both fought with swords, and possibly in armor as well - again, there is little doubt that men have an inherent advantage.  But two people with guns?  Well, hey: that's a 50-50 proposition, my friend!  And there is nothing about the basic physiology of men and women that gives one any inherent advantage over the others.  Unless you use you penis to help steady your shot, the FACT of the matter is that, given equal practice and equipment, there is no reason a women won't be every bit as good as shooting things as the man.  No so with spears, swords or even BOWS - since the power of the bow is in direct relation to its required drawing force. Physical strength, speed, agility and endurance gave men every advantage in hunting and in battle... Until the invention of the great equalizer: GUNS.

(That may also help explain my 2nd amendment stance as well, who knows? LOL.)

2) The second is women's suffrage.  And that one's pretty obvious.  Because proving that you can now do every important job every bit as good as a man (by shooting one, for example) will mean very little without a mechanism and the matching political clout to set things right.  So that's #2.

And #3...?

3) The invention, mainstreaming and full legalization of all effective forms of contraception, up to and including abortion.  Because even given the first two?  There is still no question that the sexes are not equal when it comes to pregnancy.  When two people have sex, at the moment of climax, the decision of insemination is ENTIRELY in the hands of the male, regardless of any previous agreement that may have existed.  (This is a particularly brutal reality in the case of rape.)  But ultimately? Absent of contraceptives, the MAN decides if pregnancy is going to be a possibility in any particular sexual encounter. And from that point on? It's the woman who carries the child. The woman who risks all the health implications of pregnancy. The woman who bears all of the all the lifestyle impacts of pregnancy. The woman who goes into labor. The woman who risks all the complications of delivery. (At one time accounting for up to HALF of all deaths amongst women, mind you!)  And until recently, it was the woman who was expected to either raise the child or surrender it for adoption.  Illegitimate fathers? Largely disappeared, up until a generation or two ago. And even now, it's the woman who takes the unpaid leave from her job to care for her newborn. And if she DID try to stop the pregnancy? The risk of death from abortion was entirely borne by the woman as well.

Contraception levels the playing field in the one area where things still remained inherently uneven.  Every discrimination law in the world cannot lesson the impact on a woman's life that a single unplanned pregnancy can have.  So I hold Contraception as a central pillar in the foundation of female equality in society.

Now... Getting back to abortion.  JLarue laid out what I think is arugably the ULTIMATE pro-life political principle: Do what is necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancy's in the first place.  [And if anyone opens their pie-hole about preaching abstinence, I'm going to hit you in the head with a brick. The FACT. FACT. FACT. Is that even in States that saw a reduction in teen pregnancies when their school's had abstinence-only sex-education, they still trailed behind the rest of the country in that reduction. It just doesn't work, so SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT!] And there are so many areas that we agree on here.  Here's MY anti-Abortion plan:

1) Mandatory, comprehensive sex education in the schools.  This would begin no later than ONE GRADE LEVEL BEFORE the average menarche for girls, and ONE GRADE LEVEL BEFORE the average boy becomes capable of getting a girl pregnant. If those grades are different? PICK THE EALIER ONE.  It would include a discussion of ALL forms of contraception, including a frank discussion of how they work, how they can fail, and how often they DO fail.  And, just to show any religious folks that I'm not a complete dick to their beliefs, it would include the FACT that abstinence is the ONLY way to protect yourself 100% from pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. (STD's, of course, would also be discussed, in depth.) AND? You can also have a frank, objective and factual discussion about what prohibitions exist in various religious circles.  This would, of course, be presented as  a matter of FACT, and not as an endorsement of those views. (The teacher can even share their own beliefs, but must also then remind the class that they are obligate to defer to the student's family's and the student's own personal judgement and values in these matters. It is simply not their place to moralize.)

2) EASY, CHEAP, and even SUBSIDIZED or FREE access to various forms of Contraception. Keeping Condoms out of schools will not stop teenagers from having sex.  Period. Just ask Sarah Palin.  Burying our heads in the sand on this point will only INCREASE the number of abortions that happened, completely independent of the legality there of.

3) STRENGTHEN THE INSTITUTION OF ADOPTION.  This is a big one for me: I'm adopted myself!  And it's hard for me to get specific about this (the post is getting too long as it is) but I have heard countless stories of birth parent's rights winning out over adoptive parents right's in so many case that take it to absurd levels due to the vagueness and weak language in adoption law. This does a great disservice to ALL parties involved, primarily the child.  Add to that the stigma that still exists when someone decides to give a child up for adoption. This has to be such a soul-crushingly difficult decision for someone to make.  And yet, what is the most common response from friends and family? "Oh, you should KEEP IT!  We'll help you!"  Um... No. No, you won't. You'll BABYSIT occasionally, and give a lecture about responsibility whenever you feel too much is being asked of you.  Fuck that.  Don't fall for that charade, unwed mothers of society!  If your life's plans didn't include children? Your choice is adoption or abortion. Period. And we really need to do a better job encouraging the former, and otherwise minding our own fucking business. Grandchildren are NOT a right!  What's more? There's a TEN-YEAR long waiting list for healthy, white babies in this country. Shit - that's what it was ten, twenty years ago! I'll be honest: I don't even know what it is now! So, seriously folks: They're not going to the orphanage.  That kid was adopted before you were even old enough to get pregnant.  S/He'll go to a good home.  (And before anyone tells me about foreign adoptions, make sure you've done your homework regarding the COSTS, RISKS and your LEGAL RIGHTS regarding those!)  But people really don't know very much about the process of adoption; public or private. And that's a shame. I think that's a huge problem.

4) STRENGTHEN THE SOCIAL SAFETY NETS AVAILABLE FOR SINGLE PARENTS.  I put this last, because I would completely prefer [number three] over the risk of incentivizing this kind of parenthood.  But the fact remains that if the person just can't bear the thought of adoption, society has a far greater moral imperative not to incentivize abortion.  So for all the Right's bed-wetting about Welfare Queens?  Either PAY UP on welfare, or SHUT UP on abortion.  You can't have it both ways. And having sex should not condemn you to a life of poverty and/or charity.  This is the United States of American not a fucking Charles Dickens novel. So get over it.

INFORMATION. ACCESS. ALTERNATIVES. and SUPPORT.

Now THAT'S a Pro-Life stance that doesn't need to even TOUCH Roe v. Wade!

Home again, DADT

Did you hear? It turns out even the troops don't support "Don't ask don't tell!"

This country is so absurd.  DADT costs us a fortune in recruiting, undermines our National security (in the same way: it eliminates qualified people) and isn't even supported by the very troops who's morale it's repeal is supposed to undermine.  This is a policy that exsists for no other other reason than to pander to the funny mentalists.  And it's high time the whack-jobs were kicked to the curb. As far as I'm concerned, they don't even deserve a seat at the table, they should not even be allowed into this debate or any other, because they don't possess even an elementary understanding of the Constitution and how our laws our SUPPOSED to be made.  Their opinions on matters of law have no validity and their differences are in no way legitimate.

Speaking of people who's differences are far from legitimate and who's opinions deserve nothing more that the most rank derision, check out the view from our hotel room when we were visiting my Brother-in -Law in Lynchburg...



Yes folks, we slept in the shadow of the late Reverend Jerry Falwelll's Orwellianly-named LIBERTY UNIVERSITY; truly one of the greatest temples of ignorance ever constructed by mankind.

(Young earth creationism is another viewpoint that deserves nothing but scorn, and whose proponents have no place in any debate either, as they do not possess even an elementary knowledge of how science works or how knowledge is created.)

God, I hate that place.

BUT... It's good to be back.  Hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving.

A Test of our Principles

The worst part about being an atheist might be knowing that some people will, in fact, not have hell to look forward to.

The most despised man in America is getting his day in court.

The Right Scumbag Reverend Fred Phelps is arguing before the Supreme Court that his protesting at Military Funerals, waving signs saying “Gods Hates Fags” and so forth, is in fact Constitutionally Protected Free Speech, and that he should not legally or civilly penalized for this (at issue is a $5 Million Dollar suit against the Westboro Baptist Church) and that he cannot be other wise prevented from doing so.

You have absolutely no idea how hard it is for me to write this, so please bear that in mind as you read this and respond, but…

I hope he wins.

My hands were almost shaking and it made me feel ill to type that just now.

Because I hate Fred Phelps. I hate him and his entire band of inbred mutants at the WBO with a venomous passion that I can taste in my balls. There is almost no way in which this disgusting little boil on the ass of humanity doesn’t inspire a nigh murderous rage in me. I’m sure by now, that I don’t need to burnish my credibility in terms of gay rights issues. To put it plainly: I fully support every single aspect of the “radical gay agenda” that has ever actually been presented to me. (Most of the RW nightmarish fantasies about the homosexual community are just that: Fantasy.) To me, there is nothing at all radical about wanting to be treated just like every other human being; nor about asking that society stay the hell out of their way as you pursue happiness on their own terms, especially as nothing but tolerance is asked of anyone else as they do so. On transgender issues, I’ll admit that I have been less certain about my position in the past, but the more I’ve read and the more I’ve come to understand, the more I’ve come to realize that they don’t ask any more than the gay community or any other persecuted group of people does: They simply want to be allowed to be who they are, and live their lives without being punished for being who they are by a society that they ask nothing of but tolerance. I fully understand that now, and am shamed for ever having doubted that. And, if it were even possible, the more I’ve come to hate Fred Phelps.

It is also self-evident that his brand of Religion - aside from being no more that a near transparent veil for his raw, naked hatred of his fellow man - embodies every one of the all of the worst aspects of Religion in general. Because he doesn’t just hate homosexuals (and anyone else he feels he can brand as a “sodomite”) but has every bit as much hatred for those who don’t SHARE his hatred for them. “Sodomite enablers,” as he calls them, are every bit as bad as the Sodomites. Worse, apparently, because the Military funerals these pieces of white trash picket are no for gay soldiers! He pickets the Military simply because, as I’ve stated previously, America stands for tolerance, not bigotry; for religious freedom, not Christian theocracy; for equality, not discrimination; and for freedom and liberty, not the Government climbing into your bedroom.

And he can’t stand that!

He can’t stand any disagreement with his radical doctrine of hatred. He is not merely intolerant, but intolerant of tolerance. Intolerant of that almost uniquely, all-American value: dissent. Basically he is intolerant of anyone who is not Fred Phelps.

Quite frankly, I can think of no more despicable American than this man. There are arguably more dangerous Americans in the public forum: Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck come to mind, not to mention Rupert Murdoch and the entire brand of merry GOP Propagandists on his payroll. But there is no more despicable American that Phelps. None. Jack Chick is so distant a second that Phelps appears to occupy the entire “bottom ten” (or twenty) all on his own. To find another HUMAN BEING more despicable, you have to leave the country, and find some member of the Taliban, or Al-Shabaab, or Al-Qaeda... IOW: the Middle-Eastern, Muslim version of Fred Phelps and the WBC. And those guys are only “worse” because, as far as I am aware, no one from the WBC has ever actually killed someone.

So… why the fuck am I ROOTING for this ass-pit?

Well, I’m not really… I’m rooting for freedom.

It may seem trite, but how many times have you said, or heard a free speech advocate say, something like, “I believe in free speech. I’ll even defend the rights of the Ku Klux Klan to march, protest, etc...” (Or some such thing.) The POINT being that we are willing to defend the right to speak, even for those with whom we disagree. Or, as Voltaire put it:

“I disagree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it."

And we use groups like the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazi’s, etc… as examples because:

1) They’re groups that pretty much EVERYONE disagrees with. So we reveal very little about our own personal politics and thus risk very little in using them.

2) They’re groups that don’t have much of a presence anymore, politically, and don’t pose much of a threat to our sense of well being. They’re kind of a cartoony caricature; a phantom example that we can use without any fear that our statement will ever REALLY be put to the test. They’re insignificant CLICHES that no one really takes all that seriously.

So we risk even less (nothing really) in using them as examples. And one could also argue that since most of us (in America, and in its media) are white and are likely having these discussions with other whites and these are groups that mainly hate minorities, there is a racial element as well that even further reduces our risk of using these examples. Two white people talking about the Klan? That’s hardly a test of their 1st Amendment principles, since neither is likely to ever be targeted by the Klan, even where it not basically a joke. They will never have to experience the Klan in their lives.

But Fred Phelps has managed to go beyond that safe, cartoon villain mold and become not only a significant public figure, but one that’s venomously despised by, everyone: Liberals, for his general message of hate; Conservatives for his Unpatriotic, Anti-Military rhetoric and tactics. (That… and there’s little that pisses of a Christian Conservative more than a serious allegation of being either a “fag” or a “fag enabler.”) So he hates - and pisses off - Gays and Straits, regardless of race, religion, political orientation, etc… There is no one in this country who is not a relevant target of his venom because this man, quite literally, hates America.

You may recall that George W. Bush – no great defender of free speech, IMHO – actually passed a law banning protests within a certain distance of military funerals. He may as well have called it the “Fred Phelps is an Asshole Law.” Most of my liberal and moderate friends applauded it at the time, concluding it would never effect more than the activities of Fred Phelps himself. Then I asked them: What it, many years from now, what if George W. Bush if granted a State Funeral by some future Republican President? This law could be used to prevent them from quietly standing along the route, holding a perfectly respectful sign expressing your personal regret that our nation went to war in Iraq, for example. Because that could also, very reasonably, be interpreted as “protesting at a funeral.” One can argue that it’s not a “Military Funeral,” but why exactly would an official State Funeral for the former Commander in Chief of the U.S Military, be excluded? I certainly don’t think it would. This DID get them to see the law in a different light, but I am afraid that with most of them, their hatred of Phelps continued to cloud their judgment on this most basic of freedoms.

If the protesters were protesting against the war - as opposed to against our national status as 'fag-enablers?' While many of them would still agree that this kind of protest takes things way too far, the ISSUE at hand would have been more relevant to them, and I’m pretty sure this might have changed some of their judgments about the law. But you’ll be hard pressed to find many people willing to defend Phelps that aren’t being paid to do so and in a purely legal capacity. So Phelps gave Bush an apparently reasonable way to close off a potential venue of Anti-War protests. So no one batted an eye, mainly because most Liberals are generally more decent than that by nature and wouldn’t consider picketing a funeral, as a family buries their child, anyway. But it was still a curtailing of our freedoms. A curtailing of dissent, even as that message came in the most offensive, possible form.

Certainly no man has ever wanted to express a more hateful message. Certainly no man has ever found a more despicable way of expressing that inherently hateful message. In short, no man has even gone farther to TEST THE LIMITS of his freedom of speech.

But that is exactly what makes this the perfect, if not the only really valid test of our principles. If we say that we support freedom, but not freedom for those who would abuse it, or use it irresponsibly? Then we don’t support freedom.

Pure and simple.

If we start getting into the business of deciding where people can speak, and what messages might be “too harmful…”

Then we don’t believe in free speech.

The fact that this diseased little toad have made every effort to break every single boundary of human decency makes him the perfect test case; maybe the ONLY real test case. Because if we say that “decency” can used as a limit on our speech? Then we don’t have free speech. If speech must “respect the feelings of others?” The we don’t have free speech. If certain kind of speech can be limited in certain places by our Government, or if Civil Penalties can be levied because to the (perfectly legitimate) mental duress that someone’s speech has caused?

Then we don’t have free speech.

Because concepts like “Offensive” “Decency” and “Respect” have been used, without a scrap of extremism or logical reaching whatsoever, to limit all manner of freedoms since the dawn of mankind. And American history, especially within the last Century, is replete with examples of this. As soon as you want to authorize judgment of the message, or it’s method of delivery, you allow the government to limit speech. Period. There’s simply no way around (or off) that slippery slope.

We needn’t be tolerant of intolerance in our personal lives, but we MUST stop short of allowing – and in some case encouraging – the Government to take away our freedom. Because right of someone to live their lives as a homosexual or a transgendered person is the same right that Phelps has to live his life as an asshole. And the way to protect freedom is to do just that: PROTECT FREEDOM.

I really am sick over this. I really am.  And win or lose, I will likely shed a tear about it either way. Either for there being one more nail in the coffin of our personal liberty, or for the necessary victory of such a vile, hateful, thoroughly despicable little man in order to protect that liberty. But that’s what it means to have principles. You must hold true to them, even when it pains you to do so. And my support of free speech absolutely goes that far, even as it makes my sick to say it.

And for putting me in the position of have to defend something so vile that it almost makes me nauseous to do so; and for possibly having to do so to against my friends; people with whom I am otherwise allied with, socially, politically, and philosophically and for whom I hold is such high regard and with the utmost respect? In the words of John Hammond, “I really hate that man.”

All the same…

I hope he wins.

And I sincerely ask for your forgiveness for this.



(I'm going to go wash my hands now and try not to vomit.)

Religious musing in four acts...

Parte the first...

This came as absolutely no surprise to me. None at all.

After all… the more you REALLY KNOW about Religion, the less likely you are to buy into any of it. At least that how I look at it. Because I believed once… before I really knew much about it. So it doesn’t surprise me in the least that many others have apparently taken the same path… Or went the opposite way: Starting from non-belief, looked for something to believe in and came up empty. Hey, I may be making an improper jump from positive correlation to causality here, but what can I say? This just makes sense…

And amuses me, to no end. LOL


Parte the seconde...

This post started out as something completely different, and I’d like to leave the infinite wisdom of atheism aside for the moment and talk about something else...

I originally planned to write a really scathing, venting post about Pastor Eddie Long, and use that to segue into a scathing, venting rant about Pope Benedict – discussing both men’s involvement in pedophilia: Long as a perpetrator and the former Cardinal Ratzinger as an enabler. The thing is… As I started to do research, I had a bit of a change of heart. Regarding Long it comes down to little more than a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. That’s a principle I believe in, and I’ll stand by it here. (Though Long MINISTRY is still a stinking pile of scumbaggery, but I’ll get to that in a moment.)

(And I still fully endorse what the chicks over on Jezebel.com had to say about him!)

But with the Pope, it was a little different.

Pope Benedict has his share of critics over what went on while he was Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1981–2005. Particularly after 2001, when that body was charged with taking over the investigation of allegations of Sexual Abuse and the disciplining of the Priests it found guilty. It’s very easy (and very fair) to say that, “More should have been done” and that “more needs to be done” and I don’t intend on giving the former Cardinal Ratzinger much credit for what progress has been made in these matters in the past decade.  Not enough was done, more needs to be done, and they’re predictable scapegoating of HOMOSEXUALITY in these matters is downright despicable. But the more I've read about the man, and his actions, the more I've come to realize that the truth was far more complicated than the picture I would be able to paint if I cherry-picked my information, and interpreted the rest in the most cynical light possible. I could easy have written a very (personally) satisfying post, vilifying the man and likely pissing off a lot of religious folks. And it’s not like pissing off religious folks isn’t one of my favorite hobbies, but I prefer to do this with what I see as the TRUTH, not shit that I honestly feel I'm making up.

And the truth as I see it is that while then Cardinal Ratzinger is perhaps no hero when it comes to fighting pedophilia in the priesthood, he is far from the enabler that he has sometimes been painted as, and he is very far from the villain in this whole sordid affair. In fact, progress didn't really start being made in full until he took over and got a sense of how widespread the problem really was. (Worldwide.) So while Pope-bashing may be a fashionable sport these days, and Benedict is pretty fucking far from being my favorite human being on earth, I’m NOT going to engage in it. Not out of any respect for the Holy See or the Catholic Church or Religion in general mind you, but out of respect for my own philosophy, and the fact that the truth depends greatly upon one’s own point of view. And thus it is incumbent upon us not to ever be too convinced that the reality we perceive – the one we create for ourselves – is necessarily the way things are; the only way they could possibly be.

The church will be drug over the coals for this, and that’s as it should be. And Pope Benedict, as its head, will receive his share of barbs over it. Which is also as it should be. My faith in that precludes the need for me to pile on. I’d have loved to… But I could not do so in good conscience.


Parte the thirde...

What I would like to do is to drop my two cents regarding the Gospel being preached by newly accused  / alleged pedophile Pastor Eddie Long: The Prosperity Gospel.

I’ve long held the view that the Prosperity Gospel is the most dangerous piece of theology to come down the pike since we stopped burning witches. And I made an analogy the other day, regarding Democrats and Republicans, that I think is equally apt when it comes to God, Satan and the Prosperity Gospel. The analogy was that of a Doctor and a Prostitute.

One wants you quit smoking, quit drinking, lose weight, exercise and undergo all manner of uncomfortable examinations and sometime painful procedures. The other will bring the beer and cigarettes and have sex with you. Which one is your friend?

(Yeah,  I know which one you'd rather be with NOW, but...  which one is REALLY your friend?)

Consider for a moment the Abramahic God. The God of the commandments. Of “thou shalt not...” Of  "passing a rich man through the eye of a needle,” and all that. Consider His message and the message of Jesus. You know… that guy who trashed the temple market, screaming about “money changers?”

Which role do you think He would more resemble – the Doctor or the Prostitute?

Now consider Satan. Consider sin. Consider temptation. Consider the nature of material greed. It should be pretty clear which role HE fits in.

Now consider the prosperity Gospel. Is it a Gospel of delayed gratification? A Gospel of Sacrifice? Of FAITH even?  Is it in any way shape of form the DOCTOR'S Gospel?

No it’s not. It’s not the Doctor's gospel at all. It the WHORE’S Gospel.

It’s the Gospel that brings the beer and cigarettes, and no small helping of venereal disease as well. It is a gospel that celebrates material wealth in THIS WORLD. It is a gospel that clearly rejects the message of the DOCTOR. The message of sacrifice, or self-restraint, of sacrifice and of delayed gratification, as one waits for the rewards that are to be found in heaven. In place it says: Grab all the cash you can! God WANTS you to have it! And don’t worry about the poor… God WANTS them to be poor! It’s their own fault for not following the Prosperity Gospel!

Or the PROSTITUTE’S Gospel, according to my analogy.

Now I'm not a religious mane, as you know.  But if there is a God, and there is a Satan, I have no doubt that the Prosperity Gospel, ranks among the latter’s singularly greatest achievements.


Parte the fourthe...

Last night, my darling, atheist, wife said that she wouldn’t want to go to heaven if it meant following (and thus ending up with the likes of)Jerry Fallwall, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, etc…

Well… what I told her was, assuming that there was some kind of afterlife with two or more destinations:

1) Since you and Falwell preach opposite things, you can’t BOTH be right.

BUT…

2) If you’re right? Rest assured, you and Fallwell will end up in different places.

3) And if he’s right? You and Fallwell will STILL end up in different places!

OTOH…

4) If you’re both wrong, you’ll both end up in the SAME place!

She hasn't laughed that hard in quite a while.

Cooler heads Prevail...

So it turns out that the Southern Florida Pastor with nothing going for him but a moustache will NOT end up burning the Koran after all.

I chalk that up to a fluke victory of common sense over Religious fanaticism, but in other news John Boehner has indicated that he may be willing to work with Democrats to preserve the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, even if it means that the top tier cuts will expire.

Now... Both of these are hard for me to read.  Did they finally realize just how stupid they were being?  Did they give in to public pressure?  Were they just otherwise good people got carried away in the moment and have came (back) to their senses just in time?  Who knows.  Although with Boehner, I have no doubt that he NEVER had any sense and still doesn't.  I don't know about Father Fu-manchu, but somehow I just can't trust a preacher with such stylized facial hair. LOL. 

Whatever.

I'm interested to see how this all plays out.  Will the pastor catch flack for not standing firm?  I know he won't get much credit for NOT doing ti, since anyone inclined to give him THAT was appalled that he was considering it in the first place.  And what about Boehner? How does THAT play out?  Can the Republicans take credit for helping tax relief get through, even though they were stalling it?  Seems to me that this SHOULD hand the Democrats some good ammo heading into November. Not the press is likely to let them have it though. OTOH... how will the "all or nothing" tea-baggers respond?  They should be happy with the compromise, especially seeing as how 99.999% of them fall into the lower 98% that will benefit from what Obama is proposing, and who have already benefited from the lower taxes as part of the stimulus package that they all hate so much.  "Taxed enough already" but they are scared to death about the deficit.  They want lower taxes and will vote Republican, despite the fact that Republicans were obstructing... LOWER TAXES.  Well... it looks like they'll get they're lower taxes, but do the Republicans get hurt simply for going along with the hated Democrats and the hated Pelosi and the Hated Obama?

You wouldn't think so, but then... WHY ARE they the "hated" Democrats, Pelosi, Obama, etc... when 98% of these idiots are getting EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT from them?  It's really absurd.  But you never can figure out what will happen when so many people act so stupidly. 

Anyway... Lots of questions.  And I don't have the answers.  But I'm curious to hear your all's take on it so let me know.

(BTW... This kind of leads into my post about the Republican Propaganda Video that shows how stupid Republicans are, which should be the next thing I post.)

Hope your all having a nice weekend.  Later!

On Death...

Death, part one


If I wanted to show how much class a Liberal can have, and how much respect we’re capable of showing, I might say, regarding the recent fatal plane crash involving the former Senator Ted Stevens, that “The people of Alaska have lost a dedicated public servant who represented their interests, and acted as a strong voice in Washington for their values.”

On the other hand…

If I was to display the level of class that Rush Limbaugh did upon the deaths of Kurt Cobain or Jerry Garcia, or for that mater just about ANY Conservative ANYWHERE did regarding the more recent deaths of Senators Kennedy or Byrd or Representative Rostenkowski, I’d say, “Good riddance to bad garbage. Those ignorant red-necks in Alaska kept electing this crook, and we couldn’t get rid of the evil bastard soon enough. I rest easy knowing that he now burns in hell!”

In any case, my thoughts go out to his family and I am deeply sorry for their great loss.

Speaking of which…


Death, part two

I recently learned that Christopher Hitchens is dying, of metastic Esophageal Cancer. The news first broke about a month ago, so I must have missed it. In any case he’s not doing well, and I’m truly saddened to hear that. I don’t know if I really ever LIKED the guy, but I always found him INTERESTING.

First of all, he’s a drinkin’ man. And those guys are never boring. Second of all, he’s a staunch Conservative on almost every issue, EXCEPT for Religion: As many of you probably know, Hitchens is an outspoken atheist; anti-theist, really. And when I originally discovered him, through his atheistic writings, I thought, “Yeah! This guy rocks!” Then I heard him talk about politics and thought, “What an asshole!” LOL

But I bring him up, because I think I can use him as an example of what I was trying to say a few posts back in my response to Metal Matt’s comment in my “Reply to Steeve” post. I was trying to express my frustration in debating with the Religious Left. Posters like JLarue and Steeve, with whom I share almost all political positions, but with whom I differ SHARPLY in the area of Religion. And I suppose I feel the same way about them that the Right may feel about Hitchens. Because they agree on almost all political points, but differ sharply on religion. So, just as myself, with JLarue and Steeve, the Right can’t just write off Hitchens as a heathen (or a fool) because he shares the REST of their political views. And they are force to deal with his religious beliefs (or lack there of) in a serious manner because of this. And (just as in my own case) they’re not going to convince him to change – they’re not going to WIN that argument. And that is supremely frustrating when it occurs in the case of someone that you otherwise see eye to eye with.

I don’t know. I guess if JLarue and Steeve were pissed at me already over any comments I may have made, being compared to Chris Hitchens (who they likely disagree with on EVERYTHING) is probably not going to mend any fences. LOL. Although what I’m saying in effect is that they are the exact opposite, so… whatever.

Also, before anyone [Duta, I’m looking at you!] tells me that Hitchens is sick and dying because of his lack of faith, let me say, unequivocally, that Hitchens is dying because he smoked three packs of cigarettes a day since he was 15 years old, and for no other reason. And yes, tobaccos use causes way more than just Lung Cancer. The risks of ALL KINDS of Cancers such as Esophageal Caner (my Grandfather,) and even Bladder Cancer (my Father) are increased by the use of Tobacco – even if you quit YEARS ago. It’s just all around nasty stuff.

Which brings me to…


Death, part three

You know how the Tobacco companies argued for YEARS, using the same pseudo-scientific logic that the Climate Change Deniers use today regarding Global Warming BTW, that there was no definitive proof that their product caused Cancer? And how that protected them in court? Well, my Grandfather worked for Monsanto for most of his adult life. He died in 1982, six months after he retired, of Esophageal Cancer. When my Grandmother sued Monsanto, alleging that their poor workplace safety practices in dealing with their chemicals contributed to his early death, she lost the case.

The sharpest arrow in the quiver of Monsanto’s defense?

My Grandfather had been a smoker.

Talk about trying to have it both ways!


-------------------

BTW, Bob Carroll wrote a great piece on Hicthens and Deathbed religious conversions. I highly recommend reading it.

I also recomend the article, by Jeffery Goldberg in the Atlantic, that Carroll links to just below his piece on Hitchens.  My sentiments EXACTLY.

My Reply to Steeve

(Ed Note: If there is a tone of voice that you can use when you read this that sounds sincere, rather than snarky, please use it.  I'm not pulling any punches, but I want everyone to know that I have a great deal of respect for Steeve and his views - most of which I SHARE, at least politically speaking.  So I hope that he takes it as a sign of my respect for him that I'm not holding back here!)

This post picks up form a conversation that left off back in March of this year.  The post started out with me presenting some of the latest (at the time) examples from Bob Carrol's "What's the harm?" section of Skepdic.com.  This section covers everything religion from Voodoo to Islam to Christianity to Scientology, but the examples I sighted both came from "Christians." One was of a boy starved to death, the other of children being beaten to death, all in the name of bringing them "closer to God" or some such thing.  And I expected that most people would say that, "MY religion is not like that!" And sure enough no one really stepped up to defend the practice. (Obviously.)

But as the piece evolved, I came to a realization: That if you take ANY person, no matter how religious they are, if you find some who they would consider "more religious" than themselves, they'd also inevitably think that other person was a little crazy as well.  And this judgment would become stronger the greater the difference in religious zeal.  The Atheist thinks the twice-a-year Church goer is a little crazy. (Just a little.)  The twice-a-year guy thinks the once-a-week guy is a a little crazy.  That guy thinks the guy with his kids in bible school is a little crazy. That moderate guy thinks the fundamentalist is a little crazy. The Fundamentalist thinks the Cultist is a little crazy.  And the Cultist thinks the Terrorist is a little crazy.  Line these people up by religious faith on the X-axis, and plot their judgment of the next guy down on the Y-axis and you'll find that amount of crazy you are, is some positive function of how religious you are.  Not a very encouraging thought, for pretty much ANY believer, but think about it. I don't think you can deny the observation, even if you don't appreciate the implication...

Think about someone who you think is significantly more religious than you are. 

Don't you think they're at least a little crazy? 

The thing is that no matter where you are on the spectrum, this holds true!  (OK, yeah, I don't know who's to the right of some guy who's strapping a bomb to himself, with the intent of blowing his crazy ass up and taking as many people with as he can, but... well... You can't deny the man's FAITH now, can you? Misplaced though it may be, this man has FAITH on a level I cannot even comprehend. In that case? No one is more Religious and no one is more crazy!

Anyway, that was the gist of the original post.  And my final question was, since we can all acknowledge the increasing level of insanity that it brings, and with so many well-documented example of demonstrable and unnecessary harm, bloodshed and death being caused by EVERY religion under the Sun...

Why do we need it?  What good does it do that we couldn't accomplish without it?

Now a LOT of really good comments came out of that post.  Some agreed with me (Kevin Kelly, TomCat)some took issue with me to varying degrees. (JLarue) and that's all good.  That's why I DO this blog, in fact. I particularly liked poser Kimberly's statement that "going to church doesn't make me a Christian anymore than standing in my garage makes me a car."  I really liked that. LOL

But the most intriguing, and by far the most frustrating (LOL), comments came from poster Steeve.

In response to my request that, "I would really like for some moderate, liberal defender of religion to try and convince me of it's inherent goodness." He replied:

No can do, because a religion is not a social club or a set of rules. It is a truth proposition. I'll debate the truth of my religion with you all day long. If it's true, I don't really care how good it is. Reality is reality.

OK.  I can accept this.  After all, I don't believe in the Scientific Method because it's GOOD.  I believe it is, but that's not why it serves as such an important part of my life's philosophy.  I hold in such high esteem because it is the WAY that we determine what is TRUE. (Or... at least what should be accepted as FACT.) And as Steve says, "Reality is reality."

But is Religion "reality?"  Does it really satisfy any objective measure of the "truth"?  Maybe to Steeve.  And I'm willing to let him have that much.  But it being the truth from his point of view is no more profound than me saying it's NOT the truth from mine.  One of us will have to do better.  Now, in addition to Bob Carroll's 'What's the harm' section of Skepdic.com, I could refer to Joe Sommer's website (another member of my Hall of Fame) and his article "Why the Bible is Unreliable" which calls out logical contradictions, claims disproven by scientific evidence and moral position that not even the most hard-core fundamentalist would still consider to be 'moral.'  (And for the whackos that DO, I'll refer you back to Bob Caroll.)

So there: I've done better. And with all due respect to poster Steeve, and much is due, either a whole lot more is needed, or I'm forced to conclude that what you call "reality" is what I call "Shit you made up" or "Shit you happen to believe."  Unless there some objective truth or facts to support it, you are playing VERY hard and fast with the definition of the word "reality."  Granted, we do all live our own respective realities, but I only expect anyone else to see the one reality that we all share.  And that is NOT one described by religion - it is one that quantified and defined by Science.

He replies:

Do you actually need to be CONVERTED to simply accept that other people think that Christianity is reality? Your original question was along the lines of "given that religion is crap, how is it justified?" The correct answer is "Well, I don't think it's crap."

And I went on to reply that I didn't just say "religion was crap." I pointed out that it does DEMONSTRABLE, TANGIBLE HARM. Then, I asked if it did any GOOD. I also asked whether or not that same GOOD could be done without all the mental baggage: asking me to believe many things that have been proven false AND asking me to condemn things that I don't see as wrong.  I'm keen to let anyone believe anything they want provided that (1) it is not the answer to a question already answered by science (like... the earth is 4000 years old and dinosaurs and man lived side-by-side, for example) and (2) does not do harm.  And whether it's a dramatic as beating a child to death or merely denying two gays the right to marry or a rape victim the right to terminate the resulting pregnancy, there is no shortage of harm being done. 

You want to talk about souls, heaven, hell, the afterlife, God...? Fine.  I won't tell you you're wrong, because I can't proove you wrong.  But I have no reason to concede that you're RIGHT, because you can't proove it either.  If you want to believe it's "reality?"  Knock yourself out.  But that kind of "Reality" - the kind that each one of us has, and which is distinct for every person...? is hardly anything profound.  At that point, "reality" DOES simply mean, "Shit I made up, that I REALLY BELIEVE."

Now, while this all sound very hostile and confrontational, I want to reiterate that I RESPECT whatever beliefs of this kind any of you may hold.  HOW, you ask? Simple: If you don't expect me to live in your reality, I won't expect you to live in mine.  BUT... when something is PROVEN by Science, it's time to accept it.  And when HARM is being done to another, it time to STOP it.  That's all I'm saying.

A simple "Separation of Church and State" issue, really.

Now... Steve DID say that he accepts evolution, rather than Genesis as a literal story.  Fine. Good.  But it's just after that where he really loses me:

I do believe in the resurrection of Jesus, because that's where the real evidence in the real world points. Anyone who can show that the real evidence in the real world points somewhere else is welcome to, but as I started to show in my previous post, it's been nothing but decades of failure by all of the best minds in the business.

I will say to Steeve exactly what I have said to EVERYONE who's ever said something like this.  First of all: WHAT "real evidence in the real world?"  All you've got is a STORY written by someone trying to get you to WORSHIP them! (Or, OK, worship as they do.) It's still no more than a fanciful claim at that point!  There IS no "evidence." Just a claim, made in a book that's already been shown to have gotten it wrong MANY, MANY times!  Second: It is not up to me to prove that it DIDN'T happen.  YOU'RE the one making the positive claim.  You're the one who has the burden of proof.  I say it's impossible, and I've got every single atom of Science that has withstood public and peer scrutiny over the past 2000 years on my side.  I got the billions and billions of people who have died in the past 2000 years who DIDN'T come back from the dead to establish the null hypothesis. And there is no evidence to support the positive claim.  Null assumption? "X" didn't happen, unless you can show some evidence that it did.  And someone else merely making the claim and having a lot of people believing it is NOT "evidence."

And it was about this point that the famous meme from Steven F Roberts came up.  I paraphrased, but it goes like this:

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

The way I said it was:

Many religions have resurrection stories, virgin or divine births, fulfilled prophecies, etc... I see no reason to reject some and accept others, just based on the number of people who believe them.

And this is a critical point.  Because that is really all that's being presented as "evidence." Lot's of people believe in the Bible.  Well... Lot's of people believe in the Koran.  But Steeve doesn't.  Lot's of people believe in the Tora.  But Steeve doesn't.  Lot's of people believed these claims when Siddartha Guatama made them.  But Steeve doesn't.  And lots of people believe in Shiva, Vishnu, Kali, etc... But Steve doesn't. 

So if Steeve expects me to accept the claims made by Christianity, after BOTH OF US have rejected them when they were made by everybody else... I'm going to need a damned good reason to accept it this time around.  If there's nothing NOVEL about what's being proposed and no more EVIDENCE to support it? Why on earth should I treat it any differently than I did the LAST time I came across the claim?

Now... I may have missed something at this point because he then says:

You should look into Christianity again, if you're so inclined, because you can't explain its origin. You still believe the grafted-on myth thing, which is historical and collapses on inspection. The definitive work on this is here.

I don't know who's telling you to believe Christianity because Bible stories are unique or because there are lots of believers, but they're wrong, and they're not me. They haven't posted on this thread. Yet you're arguing with them.

 
OK... so to be fair, maybe I was misrepresenting Steeve's position or what he was saying of putting words in his mouth.  OK. I can accept that.  But... at no point was I offered any OTHER reason to believe what was being claimed.  Maybe it ended up being a strawman, but I don't see where else I was supposed to go with this.  And I don't think my points were being addressed either. 
 
He DID offer me a link to a work that he recommended.  But I didn't end up buying the book, which he describes thusly:
 

That link should have been more about what the atheistic community needs to argue with, not what you need to argue with. It would be a prohibitive time investment, and I don't have the slightest idea if the book would be of any value to you.


It's sort of a compendium of everything that's historically knowable about what the earliest Christians thought about the resurrection. He draws on essentially everything available that's relevant to that topic, although that topic is so narrow that 2/3 of what's relevant is the bible. The argument is of the form "what could have caused this belief to emerge in the way that it did".

At this point, I forced to conclude that we ARE in fact missing each other's points.

I don't CARE what "the earliest christian thought about the resurrection."  Especially if 2/3 of the work references the Bible.  The BIBLE is what's under scrutiny here.  So it can't be used as evidence to support its own claims.  Whether they believed it the way it's described today, or slightly differently, is irrelevant.  That will not answer the question, "DID IT ACTUALLY HAPPEN?"

And it does not answer the question of why I should accept THIS CLAIM on the basis of no more than a BOOK, when it's been made before and I've rejected it on the basis that I had no more evidence that (1) The Claim, in (2) a Book that (3) a lot of people believe.

Steeve...

This may not be what you offering me as a "Reason to believe" and it may not be YOURS, but I've just gone back and read the comments, and you don't offer me anything else!

I'll say it again: If you get something good out of believe in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, than fine.  I'll let you have it.  In fact, I'll fight, kill and die for your right to.  I will still hold that:

1) There is not inherent good done by Religion that could not be accomplished with all the mental baggage.  (Believe in Genesis, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Miracles, etc...)

2) There are no necessary rules of morality that are part of Religion that are not part of a Secular Humanist philosophy.

3) Science is contradicted and harm is being done.  This is a FACT, and even you - who I truly do respect, and who's input on these matter I truly value - have done nothing to tell me why I shouldn't let this PISS ME THE FUCK OFF!

and 4) The Steven Roberts quote:

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

In particular, I don't see where you even tried to address this, let alone "thoroughly destroyed" it (in our "little religious war" as you claimed.  But I'd love to see you try.  And I wouldn't ask if I wasn't truly interested.

So HIT ME (or Misters Carroll, Sommers and Roberts) with your best shot!