New Year, New Adventure

First came Susi's Soap Box, then PhiloSusi and now I have a website where all my thoughts will go.

IWriteHer.com

Please join me there. And/or you can like the FB page - I Write Her 

That's where you'll find me sharing my guts. :)

Duggar - Keep Digging, I'm Sure There's More

Josh Duggar is in the news again. Who's surprised by this? Not me!

Once again we feel all disgusted with him because he has shown the world that he is not only a child molester, but a cheat and a liar to boot! Add to that, he's a huge hypocrite doing all those sinful things right under the prayerful eyes of his wife and his family. He even admits that. Good for him. And honestly, as soon as the news was confirmed in both instances, good on him for not squirming out of it. He immediately admitted what he had done when he was finally exposed in the mainstream media.

But what else does that tell us about Josh Duggar? He got caught.

He may act as if he is just a fallen sinner and needs back into the good graces of his lord and savior, but in fact, what he actually is just that... caught. And he can't get out of it by hiding anymore.

In fact, it says the same thing about most of the public figures which have a religious bent.  And frankly, to me, this detail is the ONLY reason they fess up. It is because it hit the news cycle in a big way and there's no stepping back from that reality. It's called damage control. They were exposed and now they may be repentant. But it's only because it's now out in the open in all its glorious salaciousness!

How many times do we have to hear in the news what so and so has done after telling the whole world they are better than everyone else? I'm really getting sick and tired of seeing this kind of crap. Almost daily! But yet, me being an atheist - I'm the really nasty character. Right.

Here's an idea - Josh and all you other holier-than-thou types, how about you be brave and tell us now what else we can expect to find hidden in your closet? I'm sure there's so much more. Honestly, I think I would have much more respect for that. I'd really be willing and able to understand you were human and had a failing; we've all been there. But to have your type throwing in my face what a disaster I am for my belief system while you were out there being the lousiest humans ever, it's just unacceptable. Always was... still is.

Here's to the next shoe to drop...

I'm Angry

You know that feeling when you could jump out of your skin when you see a perceived injustice or stupidity unraveling before you?

I feel this quite often being on the Internet or just walking out my front door.

I'm really, really, really, REALLY, REALLY getting sick of things that bring me to this place. Realize that I understand I'm in control of my emotions, feeling this way is only brought on because of what I have deemed worthy of getting upset about. 

Here's just the short list...

• the unending stream of people who claim they have all the answers and, in reality, the lack of understanding they produce
• seeing proof of humans being unkind or hurtful, intentionally, for the fun of it or worse, to make a point - whatever that point may be
• having politicians who hold positions of power when all they really want is power in a position from which to control things
• watching illogical and unreasonable people decide the fate of others, not just in politics but in everyday life
• feeling betrayed by those claim to have your best interest at heart
• people suffering because of the lack of compassion in those who are in a position to help
• watching the innocent and the vulnerable be neglected by the greedy, powerful and disinterested in this world

This world needs to be a better place. Its inhabitants are counting on it. Really... if we don't get our shit together, and start taking care of each other and ourselves, what kind of place will we really end up inhabiting?

End Times On The Horizon. For Sure This Time? It Would Seem So.

Azure_Adonis's Bucket - Peace Fire War Ice

The chants are getting louder. The crazy section is convinced we're going down! When religion feels threatened, this usually occurs. Something is going to happen, and for them it seems it can't come soon enough. Can't you tell with all that's going on around us - droughts and other devastating weather events, uprisings, Christian's being murdered everywhere, abortions happening, the atheists are getting louder, and don't forget the gays! Oh, bring back the good old days when this was a Christian Nation!!! (BTW, NOT EVER!) You know it can only mean one thing... The End Times have arrived or we're shortly before them... as predicted for the 2000th year.

The scenario of End Times obviously predestined for the evangelical community speaks of believers being set free from this terrible world, but only doom and gloom for those who would dare not believe in their god! What inerrant, bible-thumping Christians (and many shy, quite god-fearing and all loving patrons of the mystical) hope for is the exalted one will finally lay down his wrath, smite all the evil ones with banishment to that dark, hot place reserved for them... burning and blackening crispiness awaits them while the true believers are floated to the utopia in the sky or wherever the hell his kingdom supposedly is. It is a reward for their belief and a punishment for those who couldn't quite get with the program. We see it all around us, they are chomping at the bit for their righteous to finally have what they deserve; a better place above us sinners. As if the majority haven't already been lording over us since they found out how we think. 

I hate to be the buster of bubbles, but here's my take on it.

Pew confirmed recently what many have suspected. The numbers of all prominent religions, with the exception of some non-Christian faiths, are going down. The Nones are happy to see the decline in religiosity, but also to see their sector is growing, and substantially at that. Many predicted this was inevitable, but most did not expect it to occur so quickly. My own thoughts were by 2020 we'd see around 30% listed as Nones. How validating to see we are actually on track for that possibility to occur, maybe even to surpass it!

So yes, there seems to be an end, but I don't think it's quite what the religious had in mind. Those of us who do not partake of religion, however it's dressed up, and choose to not align with it for a wide variety of reasons, we are entering what seems to be the fast track to the end times of religion itself. 

When the religious frame of mind is no longer the majority, it will die out and yes, it will end. But I predict it won't be with much fanfare, it'll just go away and we can finally live in a rational world. There will be no more need for the exhaustive pointing out of the hypocrisy, the contradictions of the faith, the history of it, the illogical, and the downright willful ignorance anymore. It will be such a relief to never have to address any of it ever again.

End times will result in a sort of metaphorical Utopia, it meaning we shall finally live a progressive, natural and rational future. I say bring on the End Times now!!!

afremov.com

Pro-Potential Life, But Really Pro-Choice

When I was pregnant with my two children, I was in situations that weren't entirely out of control and I had a mindset of not approving of abortions for myself. For me, the life I helped to create was one I was obligated to bring to term. My first pregnancy, I was invested from a place of love, even though the situation wasn't the greatest. But I believed it was the natural consequence for which I, along with my partner, should take full responsibility for. The second time there was no question we had two fully engaged and loving parents, and we knew we could raise him in a somewhat secure financial situation. Abortion was never a consideration, nor would it ever have been an option as I was so happy to have received the news and knew I would provide the best I could for my children.

But I've always felt that the decision to have an abortion lies with the woman who is about to have one. It is her body, her pregnancy and something that impacts the course of her life, making this her personal choice. She must confront and weigh all the options when making that decision - does she terminate the potential life within her or decide to see it through to the end of her legal responsibility to that imminent child?

I knew a person who, during her lifetime, had three abortions which honestly left me with a negative view of this woman for many years. And it evoked so many questions, ones she never fully nor satisfactorily answered when asked. How does someone let that happen three times, and each time the only option is termination of the pregnancy? How does a grown woman who obviously has the ability to educate herself and use any number of available contraceptive options get pregnant? And when that contraception fails, how does this same woman make that choice to not carry to term the potential life that is a product of her supposedly loving, close relationship with her significant other? Why would she decide to end a potential human being just because she has that option?

Those are questions I have struggled with as a pro-choice person all my life because I also have a tendency to think that if you get pregnant - you carry within you a potential life and it is developing in you because of actions you participated in. We all know that every action has a consequence and that is the part I get hung up on. The phrase You've made your bed, now lie in it comes to mind. But...

Every free woman is guaranteed by Roe V. Wade to make those decisions for herself but on some level to know that many who are supposed to be role models of adulthood would choose to end a potential life, it leaves me feeling sad. How could they make that decision? It is a part of you and the person you chose to be intimate with and probably love! That guided my thinking for a long time.

But then I lived life for many more years and began to look at the situations that many of these women face. The women could be single or married, and are just not able to financially ensure these children would get their basic needs met. Maybe they also endured a poor quality of life and don't want to subject another possible human to those conditions. Many of us know that a life of poverty is not a good place to be, but then the question is, what about the women who can afford to raise a child and still get an abortion?

Their situations could be fraught with emotional and/or physical abuse, the individual who contributed his DNA is in a bad place - unable to be a good parent, abusive, neglectful. Many times, this alone is an agonizing emotional situation that steers a woman to this place of choosing an abortion. Couple that with financial instability, and I can understand now making that choice.

After having had two children myself, I now understand these women could be wrestling with the idea their potential child might end up in a situation being deprived of the emotional security they deserved. As innocents brought into this world without their permission, they require that, at the very least. Babies being deprived of the best offering of loving and nurturing at the start of entering their new life is a set-up for disastrous consequences as they try to maneuver through life. Where would they get the basic foundation of becoming the whole human beings they need to be to enjoy a future quality of life when what they encounter is uncertainty, angst, volatility and deprivation? We would set them on a path of not having a stable sense of themselves or a safe family they could turn to when their future let them down. I understand why women would choose abortion in this case.

I can imagine these scenarios repeat over and over in the heads of women faced with a pregnancy that is not openly welcomed, planned for or even wanted at the time... regardless of the fact they might otherwise embrace a potential life. When they are faced with the reality that their lives are less than optimum, they choose to protect a potential life from having a rather bad one. I can see that now.

Add to this debate rape victims, and you have an even wider pool of reasons to terminate pregnancies. The devastation a woman potentially feels learning she would have to endure more physical evidence of that act of violence perpetrated on her. It would look into her eyes every day. Imagine being reminded of the fear and shame you had to endure at the hands of a maniac? What kind of love are you able to give a child who deserves your love and support but all you can feel is disgust? I would rather her bring a wanted and already loved child into the world.

We would hear the words uttered Every life is precious! The potential life brought into the world pro-lifers are trying to protect will be exposed to more risk factors like poverty and child abuse, are more likely to be dependent on social services, and/or end up in jail. Their lives overall won't be as precious as they'd like you to think. How about they look at that and the cost to this society versus that little clump of cells called a potential life. In reality, this life they want to save was just conceived at the wrong time.

Could a potentially bleak financial and/or emotionally distraught situation turn around in their future? Absolutely, but at the time these pregnant women make these decisions, their current state of being is the only one they can base their decision on. They are assessing their current state of affairs with everything coming in at them from every direction and trying to make the best rational decision. It is an extremely difficult decision to make with all that has to be considered.

But at the end of the day, I hope they answer the question that is most important. What does the potential emerging child deserve if they didn't abort? It deserves a good life filled with love, respect, a quality of life and a loved one with a support system that will do what it can to enrich, enlighten and protect that child. In other words, an innocent who never asked to be born deserves what we all crave and deserve - that potential can translate into a meaningful outcome. That's really what it means to be Pro-Life.

I may be Pro-Potential Life, but I'm still Pro-Choice because it's really not my choice. I'm not the pregnant one. And I'm not the one who has to grieve or feel guilty if they do bring another life into this world whose existence is tainted by the bad this world has to offer.

Hey Indiana! Learn The Definition Of Discrimination

Justin Burlin Pinterest, pinned from wolfysmuse.tumblr.com

The first business of Indiana is publicly stating their beliefs coincide with Governor Mike Pence's beliefs as well. He being the one who recently signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a bill designed to actively promote the discrimination of members of the LGBT community.

And of course, this restaurant supports this bill because, you know... god. They wear their religion on their sleeves and the bible tells them so. It didn't take them long to rush to the local media to show exactly how much their religious beliefs mean to them. Me thinks they don't understand how this legitimized discrimination will hurt them in the long run.

Their bigotry and ignorance is glaringly obvious, just watch the video as she can't even understand how their actions and this new law function in reality. Given how she blatantly says she will refuse service based on their religious beliefs, one can see she doesn't understand what the word means.

But that's OK, I guess. When they have to put up the "Going Out Of Business Sale" sign, maybe then they'll understand.

This bill may have been pushed through with the intention and restatement of what they already have a right to and hold dear, but ultimately what it will accomplish is to give those who support this bill the legal right to discriminate against a class of people who make them feel icky. That's it. They'll for sure tell you it's only about upholding their religious beliefs, but marginalizing others because you don't agree with their lifestyle is discrimination. Period.

But we're just supposed to throw out the fact that words have meanings.

dis·crim·i·na·tion

dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/

noun

1. 1.

   the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

   "victims of racial discrimination"

   synonyms:

   prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness,inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, partisanship

Wake up people... one religion is not more important than the other and if you think it is, you don't understand the basic tenets of our constitution. You have a right to freely practice your religion, but you do not have a right to impose your religion on others. Denying service to someone because of your religious beliefs IS imposing your beliefs on them.

All this new law wants to accomplish is to legitimize discrimination. Propping up religious beliefs as the reason for it is just wrong. Sharia Law, American-style baby! This is what it looks like.

We've come so far with all the states who have legalized gay marriage. To see Indiana pass this law, and do so gleefully, means we are going backwards. Sadly, there are others now trying to follow suit.

It just makes me sick to my stomach that we as a nation can't seem to get on the right page of history.



***Interesting Facebook page of Memories Pizza and be sure to check out the website. The backlash has begun.

****UPDATE: It got ugly quicker than I expected - Memories Pizza is closed for now... maybe permanently.

*****UPDATE 4/2/15:  The GoFundMe page for the owners of Memories Pizza has received donations in excess of $200,000 in support of them sticking to their principles and upholding their faith.

There's A Rainbow In Kansas!!!

www.gallery-rouge-blog.co.uk/tag/dorothy/

Well, it's in Johnson County for now, but things could be changing in a big way for the rest of Kansas, and hopefully soon!

I know that many of my friends in Kansas are ecstatic about the possibility of our state granting equal rights to the LGBT community, me included. It's been an issue that should have been resolved years ago.

Naturally, our Governor Brownback had this to say:

"I swore an oath to support the Constitution of the State of Kansas. An overwhelming majority of Kansas voters amended the Constitution to include a definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Activist judges should not overrule the people of Kansas."

Upholding the constitution is a requirement, sure. I'll give him that. Having said that though, what is his reason for denying schools the funding that is guaranteed by the Kansas Constitution?

Hypocrite! He's picking and choosing what to get behind based on his ideology, plain and simple.

Tell Brownback with your vote in November that enough is enough with his antiquated and failing conservative, slimy politics. Make sure he gets the message loud and clear!

Fundamentalist governors should not overrule the people of Kansas.

Killing Anonymously

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

"Americans want guns without serial numbers. And apparently, they want to make them at home."

And I'm just asking myself.... why?

The answer seems to be they just want to be able to jump over regulation and do as they please. Isn't that what any reasonable person gets from this article? 

One of the things that sets us apart from the uncivilized is that we are above-board, upfront and state our intentions. This does nothing but say we want to be anonymous, behind the scenes and not let anyone know what we are up to... in other words, "I want to just do whatever the fuck I want to!"

I can't see this end any other way but badly. We will have victims of gun violence who won't be able to trace back to anyone because there are no records of gun ownership. And law enforcement won't be able to say to a potential law-breaker "Hey, can I get that registered gun to match to ballistics from a crime scene?" because they won't even know where to start! Printed guns that are not registered will not even be on anyone's radar to investigate! Yay! Criminals get another free pass! Really... how stupid is that?!?!

I'm not happy knowing that we do one more thing that just basically makes us more uncivilized than we were previously.

Did Louisiana Just Give The Boot To Buddhists?

Scott Lane has a problem. He wrote about it and he enlisted the ACLU to help him fight the good fight. His step-son, raised Buddhist, is having Christianity forced on him in a country that supposedly honors and respects, but especially claims to uphold a person's right to Freedom of Religion, any religion he chooses to practice. But Sabine Parish doesn't seem to think they did anything wrong. Christianity Rules, don'tcha know?!?!

It is despicable to me that a child would be harassed for any reason, but for it to be teachers and staff that would participate and encourage behavior that not only violates a constitutional law, and feel proud about forcing their religion onto children tells me we still have a long way to go when it comes to educating our society. Obviously Sabine Parish needs immediate attention in that arena.

I applaud Scott Lane and the ACLU for addressing the problems at Sabine Parish. It is a typical fight, sadly, but a necessary one. Indoctrination of students and promoting one religion over another does not belong in the school system, any school system. The active proselytizing and shaming we are seeing around the country, not only this school, has to stop.

If we want to educate then teaching the history of religion, all religions, wouldn't be a bad thing, but Christianity cannot be promoted as if it were the only religion practiced in this country by the citizens and their dependents. Teaching classes as if this religion were the only right religion is just not appropriate.

And it has to stop. Whenever we see injustices occur and our constitution is twisted to fit a selfish agenda, we must speak out and we must act. Scott Lane, I applaud you for standing up and the ACLU for aiding you in this fight. I'm with you 100%!

Give the boot to unconstitutional and unethical practices in Sabine Parish!

AZ S.B. 1062 - This State's Version of Sharia

bulgebull.files.wordpress.co

Biblical Law
Web definitions

Biblical: the code of law derived from the Bible and from the teachings and example of God; "Biblical laws are only applicable to Christians"; "under Christian law there is no separation of church and state"

I removed all references to Sharia, Muslim and Islam from the above Google definition of Sharia law. The change of just a few words gives you what Arizona S.B. 1062 is trying to accomplish - becoming a theocracy or theocrazy, as I would call it. This "expanding the definition of a person to include any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity", person-hood redefined to enable the other problematic part of this bill - legalized discrimination across all sectors of their state.

This bill would allow any person claiming to act in the best interests of his/her religion to do whatever they wanted based on their belief system, including breaking any already established law(s). Their religious beliefs would trump Arizona state laws. WTF?

What time period am I living in? I know it's 2014, not 1814 or the time of Jesus, but it's sure being hi-jacked by right wing religionists who would want to take us back to those days when god ruled with an iron fist! What other explanation can you give to their desire to retreat to the archaic with this action of introducing (again) this current version of legislated hate?

What part of blatant discrimination are he and his co-sponsors not seeing? They aren't seeing the discrimination they would want to foist onto their state (and planting the seed for other states to follow suit) because they aren't doing any different than the lord, their god, has already shown us to be; he's the biggest discriminator of them all! Pleasing the father is their goal; heaven, the reward for their obedience. Never mind we live in a country that has as its highest piece of law, The Constitution, which forbids discrimination. That doesn't seem to matter.

When will these people finally understand that this country is NOT a Christian nation? They won't EVER understand that this is not nor ever has been a Christian nation because plain and simple, they don't want to see it. They don't want to see the letters, thoughts, writings of our forefathers who would dispute their thinking, or the Constitution itself that is a secular document, protecting the rights of ALL its citizenry and their ideology. It's just not in them to let go of their incorrect thought process. Indoctrination will do that to a person; it's quite strong with this one obviously.

While writing this piece, a story came to my attention about a mother who killed her two small children whilst performing an exorcism on them. If AZ S.B. 1062 were in force and she lived in Arizona not Maryland, wouldn't the courts be good with her since she was only exercising her rights? You know where it says "exercise of religion means practice or observance of religion...", that bit? It would seem to me that we give license to crazy when we allow a religion to dictate and excuse some one's behavior, be it discriminatory or criminal. The religious fundies and tea party members who would decry "We can't have Sharia Law!", but yet would create legislation in our country which basically has the same objective or goal. It numbs the mind when you think about the inability of people like Yarbrough to see this is exactly what they are trying to establish here.

If we are to be considered humane, evolved and on the side of reason then this law needs to considered nothing more than insane like most of the religiously driven legislature that has been put forth in AZ and in most conservatives states in this country in the last twenty years. We are better than that. Our country stands on the precipice of making so many good decisions with respect to some issues right now - marriage equality, decriminalization/legalization of recreational marijuana, striking down unconstitutional voter ID laws. Let's keep our eye on the ball and continue moving forward, not going backward. 2014 promises to be an interesting election year considering how many segments of the population the backwards-thinking politicians have pissed off with their 'social agenda' these last few years. Religion has been deserving of the push-back by those who support separation of church and state. I'm expecting the will of the people to be evident in the upcoming elections. They will be sending a message, loud and clear...

Keep religion out of politics. That is the only sane thing to do.

Are The Ducksters Decent? You Decide

godfreydaily.com

The Master Duckster feels safer with people who carry bibles.  My response? Get off your fan base exploiting pedestal!

Guess he never read ClergyGoneWild.com or any of the other sensationalized stories of bible thumpers who have committed atrocities, nor bothered to acknowledge that the highest percentage of people in jail are Christians!!! The truth, as I see it, him trying to sell the fantasy about how morally superior Christians are and ignoring the truth about everything is about only one thing... what will gain him the most attention, the most followers and the most money.

The actual truth is religious people DO NOT have the market cornered on decency! If anything, they are worse!!! Aren't Christians supposed to tell the truth? Aren't they supposed to just be all about love? Aren't they supposed to be against being stinking, filthy rich? When he chooses to perpetuate lies based on a faith that only benefits him and his family, HE is the one who is is indecent!

I actually would have some respect for him and tolerance of his views if only he would act like a supposed honorable Christian would. But he won't and neither will his family, sitting pretty in their ever growing pile of money that will continue to sustain them... and their 'beliefs'.

But hey, your right to free speech... er, hate speech is protected. And you've got one thing going for you. The West Boro Baptist church is on your side. Aren't you lucky?

Haters Gonna Hate - Love Is Gonna Win

Revolution of Love

When and UNTIL your god magically updates every single bible in existence and all future versions contain what you now call 'traditional marriage' between one man and one woman, and only when that happens will I listen to what you have to say, maybe... well, probably not because you know... knowledge about the validity of the bible and things. In the meantime, I will respectfully ask you to STFU! You use that book to support your position of disgust to deny the LGBT community marriage equality and I, along with millions of other people, demand that you stop using that book that you wave and continually cite during this struggle to achieve equality for this community.

Read your book again before you wag your tongue and wave your righteous finger. If we were truly doing 'traditional marriages' then our nation would NOT be what it is currently. One man and one woman bound by a desire to be together is what has evolved in these modern times because where we started with, that which is represented in the bible, is reprehensible. And contradictory to what you say the bible preaches today. Knock it off and get real.

The states in this country are moving (and quickly), one by one, into the direction of extending the same rights that current marriages enjoy to those who currently don't have them. The revolution of love is occurring whether you like it or not. Think about it. You've dissed the bible in favor of much more loving relationships by agreeing that your current 'traditional marriage' is more desirable... so do it again and stand with us. Stop fighting what is right and what will ultimately happen! Marriage Equality will happen in ALL states. Your protests are useless. And your bigotry and hate only injuring your own emotional health. If you replaced it with love and acceptance, just imagine what a kinder nation this would be.

Who Didn't Know This Was Coming?

And yet another 'big name/high level in the atheist', or as I like to call them 'longer in the movement than me' people, has now been named in our movement's Achilles Heel!

Now before every one's hair on the back of their necks starts bristling, keyboard ready and fingers twitching... I'm not saying there isn't a problem. There is if women are being raped, attacked, assaulted - verbally or otherwise, or in any way being demeaned because of their sex. And it should not be tolerated. What I am trying to say is that this is not unique to the atheist community. Women have been on the shit end of the stick when it comes to these issues for thousands of years and are still dealing with them. Slowly, things are changing, but they still face a battle. But had we not had rational people at the helm of some of these major atheist organizations, we wouldn't have seen regulations and guidelines pop up as quickly as they did when allegations began to be leveled. What is different between this country's history within various organizations/movements dealing with women's issues and our atheist community, is atheists have been quicker to address and, in general, been a lot more responsive to the voices of the vocal women (and men)  in this movement.

I could be wrong (and I frequently am), but I haven't seen the problem as wide spread as the chatter on the Interwebs would indicate. Having never personally experienced any bad things happening to me because I'm a woman at an atheist convention is primarily why I say this, but also after getting to know many women in the movement, I've not heard one case of harassment or rape at a convention. Maybe they didn't share their story with me. Or maybe I never had it happen to me because I'm not pretty enough, maybe I'm too old, maybe it's because I'm a tall and strong looking woman, maybe because I usually just go back to my room alone or if I do meet up with people it's in a large crowd or if I'm with someone, he's not a dick. And I'm also not saying with my assessment of why I've never been raped and someone else could be raped or mistreated badly is because they would have to be pretty, young, short and waif-like, like to party, hook up with one guy, or just a bad judge of character and basically asked for it. That's NOT what I'm saying, so don't make that judgment either. I'm speaking strictly from my perspective.

I'm also not being dismissive of any woman's claim of being raped or assaulted. Any crime that is committed should be dealt with quickly and appropriately. Any steps that can be put in place to prevent it from ever happening again should also be implemented. Serious offenses should be taken seriously, period and misogyny should not be tolerated.

Frankly spoken though, all the attention to isolated incidents and certain individuals in our movement gives us a serious bad reputation. Not just from the incidents alone, but the back and forth atheist bashing and 'who's camp are you in?' allegiance atmosphere has created a division that just doesn't make sense to me. Let's not go there, please. It's hard enough to find credibility as intelligent, rational human beings in this religionist dominated country. But now, all eyes are focused on us as if all our atheist men ever do is rape other atheist women and then afterwards we slander the whole male sex in the process when it's just isolated incidents. We're supposed to be the realists, so act like it.

Let's call this what it really is... some men are misogynists, some men are rapists, some are being incredible douche bags and some men who think with their dicks instead of their compassion and brains in a situation that could be complicated by the usage of said appendage - those men are the problem. And again, I think in most situations, conventions or otherwise, the standards and expectations are that men AND women will be respectful of each other. If not, they are dealt with. But let's not demonize ALL men in the process or create an atmosphere where MOST men can't be trusted. That's just unreasonable, and something I thought we atheists weren't.

Killer, Hero... Dead

topoften.com

I learned of his death recently in the Time piece "Killer ~ Healer ~ Victim", where Mark Thompson glorifies Chris Kyle for his heroic actions on and off the battlefield. I would say somewhat rightly so, but it would depend on what you feel should be considered heroic.

It is tragic and sad that Kyle's life was cut short by Eddie Ray Routh, the man who gunned him down; the man that Kyle was trying to help. However, frankly spoken, I think we should be talking more about his recklessness for bringing a mentally unstable man to target practice. Even a retired Army colonel piped in that it seemed crazy to bring a troubled young man to a firing range.

My intent isn't to malign Kyle in this forum, but rather to question his decision-making processes and hopefully learn from this tragedy. I've not stepped into this topic very deeply or discussed it at length previously besides posting a few images on Facebook that reflect my sentiments, but this piece struck a chord for me. This story highlights the crux of the gun violence debate, specifically the ones that are the most devastating.

Routh was unstable. He had a history of steadily deteriorating mental health, battled with drinking problems and his inability to maintain steady work only compounded his situation. It was very evident that he had problems coping after his four-year stint with the Marines, one incident clearly demonstrating this was the attempt he made to kill his parents in September 2012.

As much as Kyle has been glorified for his past actions, privately and work-related, wasn't using some common sense in this situation in order? It would seem that he was a smart man, what with his history and all. Did he possibly just misjudge this situation or are we to believe that he just thinks that guns are appropriate in any and every situation? Either scenario tells me that there was something lacking in Kyle's critical thinking skills when he made the decision to bring Routh to the firing range.

We've all heard the suggestion that guns don't kill people, people kill people; at least the NRA and many of the loud gun owners proclaim this to justify holding onto their guns. Why did this exact line of thinking not cross Kyle's mind in this situation? How does bringing Routh to the shooting range for treatment, this potential killer with training and someone Kyle knew was mentally unstable, even become a viable option? How does Kyle not stop to think of the possible deadly outcome considering what he was aware of with Routh? It seems a little common sense was in order.

Guns do kill people, especially when we put them in situations that give them license to do so, and in this situation, it was obviously to Kyle's detriment. I understand that no one really knows what set Routh off and why he chose to act out the way that he did, but how did Kyle not stop to think that putting a gun in the hands of someone disturbed wouldn't make it all better??? Again, no common sense.

"Kyle was a killer who became a healer. How could he so suddenly be transformed again, into a victim?" He died because he felt that "shooting was a key part of the process of treating troubled soldiers. He felt this helped them be "treated like they men they are: equals, heroes and people who still have tremendous value for society." His heart may have been in the right place, but his head really needed to be there as well.

Yes, guns don't actually make the choice to kill someone; it takes someone to pull the trigger. But can we at least all agree that keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people is appropriate and in the best interest of those around them. The disturbed might not be the best people to hand guns over to when we don't really know what they feel themselves capable of doing.

Can we use some common sense? Please?

No Swearing on the Bible

Today, Dean Obeidallah, had an opinion piece on CNN.com. He nailed it.

As I'm reading it, all I kept saying was "Exactly!" To me, those who chose to be sworn in on a bible are saying they can't do the job without their god. Well, that or they don't want to offend the religious base. That is probably the more likely reasoning for choosing to swear on the bible rather than the constitution.

IMO, if you aren't able to lead this country (the one that DOES NOT exist on the supernatural plane but ACTUALLY exists) without the help of a god... why are you even pretending that you can lead it at all? AND then pulling a paycheck for it?

Being an elected official, representing your constituents is supposed to mean that you alone are qualified for the position. Isn't that why you run on policies, positions and proposals for change? YOU are going to make a difference, YOU will make things happen, YOU will LEAD... NOT A GOD!

There... I'm done now.

Religionized Democracy: Current State of Affairs

Can we truly be a Democratic society if we run our country based on religious concepts and not a country based on the idea 

of separation of church and state?

Dictionary.com would define democracy as a type of government that is run by the people and one in which people are the supreme power; power would be exercised by them or their elected agents under a free electoral system. As it is a government of the people, it would follow that it would be invested in the success of all the people. However, democracies are generally of the opinion that majority rules and it does not guarantee that people will have an equal say or favorable outcome in those decisions that affect their lives. The United States is a representative Republic and as such, attempts to protect the voices of the minority. It operates within many of the essences of a democracy, thereby cherry picking the best of both forms in its current state of being.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The first amendment clearly gives the citizenry of the United States the right to practice or believe whatever they choose, but it also clearly tells them that the government shall not give favor to one religion over another or permit any faction of religion to be a ruling force in our government or in the nation within the context of that freedom. The government takes a neutral or secular stance in all levels of government on the issue of religion. Rather, it should take that position, but, too often, we are seeing that is not the case within the framework of our current government and, in particular, the election process.

The United States citizenry is made up of all different cultures, ethnicities and having a wide variety of religious affiliations. Pew Forum's U.S. ReligiousLandscape Survey, which draws primarily on a nationwide survey conducted from May 8 to Aug. 13, 2007, finds the largest majority (83%) of our citizens identify as religious; 78.4% considering themselves as being Christians. The remaining 17% minority claims to either not believe in or identify with a particular religion or didn’t know their religious status. While a majority of the citizens claiming a religious affiliation are not the issue, the assumption by that majority that religion should play a large part in government is the problem.

Religion and politics should remain separate, but one only needs to look to the current crop of Republican contenders for the presidency of 2012, who wear their religious identification on their sleeves, and listen to their speeches - one can see that is not what is happening in the United States right now. The Democrats are just as guilty of using religion at every opportunity as a means to getting elected. When either party gives a speech peppered with religiosity and ends with “God Bless America” they are pandering to the base that will see to it they are elected. We watch as religion is being employed as the driving force behind using our citizens to bypass what our Founding Fathers had originally intended. The fact that they use their religion to attain a seat in any position of government reflects how this country’s original dialog and the basis of our freedoms are not being upheld in today’s society. Politicians have the right to a religious belief of their choosing, but they also have the obligation when seeking public office to act as proxy to all of their constituents by respecting the constitution in that election process.

Article 6 of the Constitution states: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." After the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was proclaimed on July 21, 1868, its Article 6 became binding on individual states. The religious requirement clauses in state constitutions became null and void. The 14th Amendment stated:  "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Yet, there are still some state clauses that proclaim that if a person doesn’t have faith in a god he or she would not be eligible to run for office. Some of the states still using a religious test include: Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee & Texas. In Pennsylvania, the statute reads: Pennsylvania, Article I, Section 4: No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth. This doesn’t say that a person claiming no religious affiliation could be disqualified, but rather, that believers can’t be disqualified. The fact that this language is even present in any laws, specifically as there is no religious test for office, is a testament to the unwillingness of religious forces to remove religion from our politics and keep the original secular intent in place.

In recent and past history, many political figures have, in fact, come out publicly, that religion should play an important part in our politics in spite of the illegality of demanding it as a requirement to hold office. On March 27, 2011, Newt Gingrich, in a speech at Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, TX, said “I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American." The implication being that we should only be a Christian nation and not one of mixture and variety of faiths or non-faiths.

On August 27, 1987 in Chicago, IL, George Bush said the following to Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal: Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God. Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church? Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists. In his demonization of atheists, his statements conflict with the idea that he supports a separation of church and state and, in the process, denigrates a segment of the population.

Pat Buchanan attempted to run for President in 1992, 1996 and 2000, but was also not successful in his bid. Nevertheless, Buchanan injects his faith into discussions where he can. One example, while speaking before the Christian Coalition in 1993, he said “Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free.”  He continued his rhetoric out on the campaign trail while speaking at an anti-gay rally in Des Moines, IA on February 11, 1996. “We're going to bring back God and the Bible and drive the gods of secular humanism right out of the public schools of America.” This type of campaigning, where it is perfectly acceptable to use one’s ideology in getting elected to a political office, goes completely against what our constitution stands for.

The fact that the 78.4% of our country is made up of Christians is not lost on politicians. They capitalize on seeming to be one of the faithful and show disdain for those who do not share their faith. The citizens who are hearing these statements and identify with the sentiments will ultimately, with their vote, support the point of view of that politician. Those campaigning are attempting to influence the majority in this country using their religion and ignoring what was intended in the founding of our country.

This country was established with a secular government in mind; ensuring that the rights of all were to be recognized. However, our society, although democratic in nature, is not upholding the democratic ideal of the separation of church and state if it allows campaigns to run under the pretense that religion is allowed to infiltrate the process. When we allow religious overtones to permeate campaign rhetoric and also let the religious influences dictate how affairs are conducted in governmental offices, this country is no longer based on the idea of separation of church and state.

The United States considers itself a democracy and the virtue of its society characterized by a formal equality of rights and privileges. If those rights and privileges of the non-religious and/or other religions are being denied in favor of Christianity only, we do not have a democracy guaranteeing a government for or by the people; and the ideal of a representative republic, in which minority rights are protected from the tyranny of the majority, is a complete fiction.

Also published at Atheism Resource

No More Doom and Gloom

via Ray Garton

On December 21, 2012, we can expect yet another 'non-event'. To us rational thinking people, it's called Friday. A day that we anticipate at the end of a long week at work and look forward to enjoying it with family or friends. Most of us won't have to work the next day, so for us "Let the weekend begin!"

For others, it is the next official guess on the books that this world will come to an end. Yes, you heard right - we are to experience yet another "End of the World" scenario. Three in a year and a half, it's just really getting ridiculous. I know you are just sitting there and shaking your head like I am at the stupidity of this, but there are people actually speculating that the world will come to an end on December 21, 2012.

*sigh

It really is just too stupid for words anymore. I've got better things to write about.

We're Still Here

It is now exactly the end of October 21, 2011 in my time zone and guess what?!?!?! We're ALL STILL HERE!

Deviant Art

I'm sure this came as a big bag of disappointment to some people. End of the world as we know it or  the mass evacuation of good souls all over the world... it just didn't happen... again. DUH!!! Of course it didn't happen. Rational and reasonable people knew that, as well as the smug-smile-on-their-face christians who quoted Mark 13:32; no one will ever know the exact date of the end of the earth. It may come one of these days, but my guess, unless someone pushes the big red button and releases launch codes of all the nuclear missiles... it's not going to happen for a very long time.

The Rapture

Silly people, rapture is for con artists who want to take advantage of you because you have 'blind faith'. They know how gullible you are and understand you weren't taught to think for yourselves. I do hope that you've learned a valuable lesson and that it will kick-start your brain into functioning as it was intended to. But if it doesn't and you continue to just fall for crap like this, please understand that there are potentially serious consequences for not using logic and reason in your thinking.

That also goes for those people who think that Harold Campings' only mistake was in assuming that he could predict the eventual rapture you think IS coming. Being rational, questioning things that don't make sense, understanding the real world and admitting that you don't have all the answers is a lot more honest and real than believing in a supernatural being for which there is absolutely no proof for beyond the indoctrination you received, the blind faith you accept whilst parking your thinking skills to the curb, the fear of retribution you think you'll receive for not being a good little follower or the salvation you dream of experiencing at the end of your days. Being rational, using logic and reason; those things are not evil, they are highly recommended in this thing we call reality.