"We The People" NOT "Our God Is A Mighty God"

BeSecular.com

Just because you have a personal relationship with Mr. Skydaddy does not dictate the outcome for "We the People". Making a personal decision to be ruled by an invisible man doesn't equate to a legal responsibility for him to rule the rest of the country, believers and non-believers. Stop interjecting religious law into secular law!

And also, please stop being misguided to thinking this is a Christian Nation... it is NOT! Do just a little bit of research (this is just a small start to get you in the right direction), and you will find our forefathers were indeed interested in keeping church and state separated. We are a secular nation because the historical dudes realized true freedom comes from allowing all to express their beliefs in this country, but legislating it would give religion opportunities to make decisions in a process where faith and beliefs just don't belong.

Our country has a long history of religion trying to creep back into having a strong-hold.

Don't let it!

Here's A Novel Idea...

GET THE FUCKING MONEY 
OUT OF POLITICS!!!

Stop peddling influence! How about we empower people to learn about the issues to elect non-corrupt people instead.

PACs serve a purpose, but they should only help to educate on the issue they support, lobbyists should just go the fuck away. If a congress person doesn't know about an issue, they should make the effort to inform themselves, not the other way around. That's why they are collecting a paycheck!

Every eligible citizen should become informed and exercise their right to vote for qualified candidates. Money grubbing politicians and special interest group supporting those politicians should not get to dictate who gets in. We need to clean house of anyone whose sole purpose is just to leech off the governmental teat to get power, which then procures them advancement in the private sector when they conclude their stint on our dime. Elections should not be a networking opportunity to continue their inevitably greater financial success, but rather be a representative to the fine people who elected them.

PEOPLE... NOT CORPORATIONS, DAMMIT!!

We need to find those who want for the better of the people they represent. Their job is to listen to their constituents, educate themselves about what needs to change, have an intelligent idea of the big picture for the district or state they represent and find ways for progress in the areas of most need.

That's it.

This will allow for a much more ethical group of people getting in and only staying because their desire is for improvement of who they represent rather than self-enhancement.

Will you join me in making that happen?

*end rant

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?

#LOVEWINS #LETHATEDIE

jthughes.blogspot.com

June 26, 2015 is a day we'll not soon forget. It was much too long in getting here, but it ultimately did arrive.  Love won and the majority of this country is just fine with it except...

You'll remember that Rick Scarborough, a Christian political activist, said...

"We are not going to bow. We are not going to bend, and if necessary we will burn." 

He implied things are going to hot for us if the immoral take over and make decisions for the righteous. He's inciting all the followers to rise up and protest in what could possibly end up in the worst case scenario - the lives of those who would like to think they know better, taking all the naughty ones with them.

Say we believed in their alleged god, do you ever wonder what he thinks right about now? Why aren't believers contemplating that instead of them deciding what the next step is? Who left and made them king? No one actually since we are all lowly sinners, people!

And that's my point. If god is the almighty ruler and life flows how he dictates (at least that's what believers keep chanting) then let your god decide what happens to this country for the decisions it's making for the collective.

Don't instigate, stop hating, stop fighting... you'll supposedly get what you deserve in the end anyways right? You'll be living the charmed life in heaven with your pops and the sinners will be down in hell flaming it up with satan. Let god make his appearance to either shit and finally get off the pot to punish us or he doesn't and you're just wrong that gay marriage is the be-all-end-all thing.

Let it go, and leave us in peace. That's all anyone ever wanted... RIGHT?!?!?! 

Mike Hucka - Be President?

salon.com

God allegedly wants him. I don't.

"We've divorced ourselves from an understanding that we cannot survive as a republic if we do not become once again a God-centered nation that understands that our laws do not come from man, they come from God," he said. "It is the natural law of God."

After insisting that he is not intending to create a theocracy, Robison piped up to declare that "we have a theocracy right now; it is a secular theocracy" and Huckabee readily agreed.

"That's it!" Huckabee said. "It is a humanistic, secular, atheistic, and even antagonistic toward Christian faith, and that's what we need to understand. Our basic fundamental rights are being robbed from us, taken from us piece by piece."
Later, Huckabee asked for the audience to pray that God's hand will be upon him as he decides whether to run for president.

"The only thing worse than not being elected president would be to be elected president without God's blessing," he said. "I can't think of a worse place in the world to be than in the Oval Office without God's hand upon you. I'd rather not get near the place."

- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mike-huckabee-plans-run-president-fight-secular-theocracy#sthash.ajpeNKrJ.dpuf

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/mike-huckabee-gods-blessing-will-make-me-president-to-stop-the-atheist-secular-theocracy/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unDAYiRg4uo

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mike-huckabee-plans-run-president-fight-secular-theocracy

http://www.salon.com/2007/11/13/huckabee_5/

Separation of church and state much?? Apparently not. :/

Ugh... I had to shower after reading

and watching the links.

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.

Dear Candidate 2016

It might seem like it's too far off, but it really won't be long before the lawns begin to sprout all those lovely candidate signs signaling the election season is upon us, once again.

I'm not a big fan of how long this process goes on. Plus I'm always hoping that we'll have some reasonable campaign reform before the next election season, which never happens. Change that nips not only the huge money in the bud, but also reels in the amount of time we have to spend listening to the candidates telling us who they are, what they stand for, and how they'll vote; usually a load of crap they think the masses want to hear, one lie after another after another. In a perfect world, campaigners would also curtail their boasting about how much they love their god and how they'll uphold that book once they get into office. As if it has any relevance to how well they will do the job. Check any paper after the election and you'll find just how immoral some of those leaders have been once they got into office.

The candidate(s) who would top my list would possess integrity, first and foremost. Don't lie, plain and simple. In this day and age when things can be fact checked relatively easy, just don't do it. And if, for whatever reason, it's found out that something was done improperly, admit it. Be intentional in transparency, stop putting up smoke screens to deflect away when being human is all that happened. I'd have much more respect for that than a cover-up. Oh, and using this as a photo-op is also not a good idea. Sincerity and honesty is key. Be the person who is represented on the campaign trail, not just give us a showy version of an ideal you think we want to elect.

Productivity is also very important. Did the candidate show up for the job and produce? I want to know that who I've got representing me is not afraid to get their hands dirty and work. Roll up the sleeves and get things done kind of effort. If they have political experience, were they present at the time of voting, were they in attendance on committees they served and, more importantly, did they do the research on whatever the issue was before they voted? And if they are new to politics, what did they bring to the table in their own communities or what were they active in and passionate about? How did they contribute that was meaningful and substantive? I'd vote for anyone who can demonstrate what working hard means and shows how it was done.

Along with being a person who knows how to contribute, the prospective candidate who has the ability to work well with others shows a genuineness for collaboration. It is another key trait which promises to ensure success in getting elected. It's certainly required in all positions, but politics demands the ability to see both sides of issues, and determine solutions that will achieve a balance between differing opinions. The end goal being that the welfare of the community is maintained, not the stroking of the biggest ego in the room.

The last qualities that would put a candidate in as a top contender for me are the ones who possess intelligence and common sense, and can speak without stammering about how to implement good ideas in a rational, sensible fashion. Having a good grasp on the overall big picture and how to solve problems is an enormous plus! Making the right choices for the people they represent as well as taking into consideration what is ethical will only enhance those choices.

What I want to see in a candidate who stands before me begging for my vote is someone who is a genuine and humane human being. We've all see the flashy, disingenuous, smug lifetime politician who says all the right things to one group and changes his or her tune to coincide with the next twenty agendas of organizations visited during the campaign. It's disgusting, it's manipulative and it's not what we need at the helm of legislating laws. Those that are supposed to be there for the betterment of the communities that elected them need a trustworthy candidate.

I'm always hoping that the selection offered up of local, state and federal campaigners has a quality and caliber about them that truly shows leadership and empathy for the communities they represent. And there are some, but not enough. The volume of good leaders has to increase substantially. I hope it does before the next election season.

In my old age, I've gotten rather cynical though as I've watched election after election boil down to the lesser of two evils in just about every one I've been privileged to participate in.

So, Dear Candidate 2016 - if you don't fit the proposed mold - don't even get in the ring this time.

Please and Thank You.

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.

SCOTUS Rules The Wrong Way Again

So there you have it, religion now gets to make health care decisions. Just one more chipping away at established law to appease the religious right. Just like the picture says - it is INJUSTICE and it's against women, and yes, they act like gods among us; the ones who are playing the part by making incredibly life-altering decisions with women's health care decisions.

With the recent ruling of the five scrotum... er, five old white guys of the SCOTUS, it's outrageous that now the belief system of the religious right, Christianity, seems to trump the belief system all others. What does SCOTUS not seem to understand about the concept of equal protection under the law in our country? I still believe every person has the right to express their beliefs, but seriously, to now be governed by the belief system of one religion? I don't think the justices got it right this time.

This fight being waged against women by Hobby Lobby, along with 100 other companies, and receiving the blessing of the Supreme Court Justices, shows us that they don't give a shit about religious freedom. They want their belief system to dominate this country. Don't you know by now that Christianists have all the answers and should make all the rules? Because of course - they have that book that tells them so. Argh...

These past three days my blood pressure has been elevated when I think how much we are still fighting about, and what we are losing by the decisions being made in this country with respect to women and their rights. Today's woman and the future generations of women have to struggle even more now to regain what should have been guaranteed during all our lifetimes; equality, that which has eluded us for too long.

The only positive I see coming from this ruling is that women (and men) will be more united to stand against those who would continue to undermine the rights of women, and bring with it a conscious shift leading to more thoughtful and reasonable legislation. We've always had activists who fought the good fight and brought us farther than those before them, but this current level of anger, agitation, and passion created in the minds and hearts of much of our citizenry after the ruling... well, it is palpable. Social media is exploding - both sides of the issue - but it would seem the motivation for more progressive change has the stronger voice. The justices have managed to set in motion something I hadn't seen in a long time, and for that I'm glad. Who knew that Hobby Lobby would be the straw that finally broke the camel's back!

Two things are at stake here - the equality of women and complete separation of church and state. My hope is that these issues will finally be resolved in my lifetime.

This is only the beginning of one hell of a fight. Buckle in, it might get worse before it gets better. But let us not be mistaken, this is a fight we must have and finish. It speaks to the core of what is wrong in our country and across the world where women are being oppressed, mistreated and/or marginalized for their sex. And religion is at the heart of it. It is what propagates the discrimination and the oppression that exists in this world. 

And it needs to stop... NOW!

Can't.Have.Sex.Toys.

... as of right now. Yes, the city of Sandy Springs, GA has decided you can't have any. Guess I'll not be moving to Sandy Springs any time soon.

Who in the hell are these people and what in the hell are they thinking when they interject themselves into people's sex lives? Small government at its finest... NOT!

My pleasure and how I go about getting it (unless it actually would harm someone else) is NONE OF YOUR CONCERN!!! What do these flakes not get about private matters?!?

Keep your fingers crossed ladies and gentleman who are supporters of sex toys in the hands of the humans who desire them. We're hoping to find out later this month whether the Sandy Springs ordinance will be struck down as unconstitutional or not. They seem ripe for ridicule if they keep this one on the books. But hopefully it will also be struck down because obviously - what I want to introduce into my sex life is none of your business, assholes!

Let's hope that common sense and reason will prevail, and this prudish ordinance is kicked to the curb. But I'm not going to hold my breath. It would seem the stupid is strong with this city for this ordinance to have been introduced to begin with.

I Support Open-Carry Hugs

mastermarf.com

We've all seen the images or personally encountered people in real-life who are advocates of open-carry proudly showing us their weapons. As a person who doesn't particularly like guns, all I can try to do is understand what would motivate someone to want to be that person. And don't get me wrong, I'm not against the legal ownership of guns should citizens choose to exercise that right. But I wouldn't object if one day this country decided all guns should no longer exist here, nor would I complain if they were eliminated around the world.

What I often reflect on is the motivation and intention of those who advocate for open-carry laws. Especially when I listen to the enthusiasm with which they exclaim that right prior to and directly after getting those laws in place enabling them to finally do so. 

I consistently hear that the right to protect one's self is the biggest reason, and I would support that thought process as we do have a second amendment right to keep and bear arms. However, I would also think the desire to own guns for protection (whether one or an arsenal) and/or open-carry is motivated by fear, specifically being fearful of the intention of others. In other words, gun owners seem suspicious and not trusting; like they are thinking "someone, anyone whose actions at any time could or will potentially hurt me, so I must be prepared."

We all feel that way from time to time because we have encountered something that made us experience that emotion, but in open-carry situations it seems that is the mindset all day long. Smacks of paranoia to me if gun owners think everyone is potentially out to get them. On the outside they might say that's not true, but they are expecting something to happen otherwise why would they feel the need to be cloaked in a manner that will protect them 24/7? I guess someone needs to explain that to me if I've interpreted that incorrectly.

Living in this world, I see all the vile behaviors whether on the news, or in print and social media. Gun owners, and especially open-carry advocates, would tout this as a reason to have the right to protect themselves. Having personally encountered some unsavory situations in my past  - one when our home was broken into when I was a teenager, and another when an unwelcome visitor made an appearance in my apartment in the middle of the night when I was a young mother - I get that someone would want to have something at their disposal that could potentially protect them during acts of criminality. Luckily no one was hurt, us or the perpetrators, and no guns were involved in either situation. Both were frightening experiences, but I think they would have been made even more stressful had guns been present. Self-preservation is a factor in wanting protection, but I'm not sure that guns would have provided me with the outcome I was hoping for had I been in possession of a gun. Just as I would not like to end up with a bullet hole, neither do I want to inflict that kind of damage to another human being, even if that person was trying to hurt me. Also, data tends tell us that if a gun is in the home, the risks of violence and/or suicide increases. So, adding a potential threat, even if no other criminal action enters into my residence, tells me that guns really have no place in my life.

But I guess what I always keep coming back to is that mindset of paranoia. I remember how I felt after those incidents, and they weren't pleasant. I was fearful and I was anxious, but I still didn't want to go out and buy a gun. Maybe it would have empowered me in that moment. I'm sure that many, if not most, gun advocates would say "exactly!" and that's the point they've been trying to make all along. It's not about paranoia, but being in control rather than being at the mercy of another and their indecent intentions. It's as if they legitimize their strength (paranoia) because a gun makes them feel invincible. Maybe not to the point where they would go around pistol-whipping complete innocents, but still they scrutinize and assess any situation as potentially threatening while being rational about their paranoia. Otherwise, why carry a gun to begin with? I know I can't speak for others, only myself, but open-carry still suggests to me there is a certain amount of paranoia. 

Paranoia is a form of fear, and fear can create panic. When you have anxiety about something it is sometimes difficult to think rationally in a situation that should actually require it in order to remain calm and ensure your safety. An anxiety-filled situation can leave you with no desire to think positively about the person in this situation that you believe will do you harm. It is quite understandable. One hopes that would only be in a life-threatening situation and one where you think someone is truly out to get you.

Imagine a nation, hell a world, where the opposite of that mindset existed! They actually have a word for that state of mind - pronoia, enjoying the feeling that the world around them conspires to do them good. What if we all went around expecting we were going to be treated right by others? Just wow. The deep-feeling, empathetic human in me is experiencing thrills as I picture this. How could we not want to feel like this always? The imagery would obviously not include guns because living in a world where you know everyone has your back wouldn't require guns or the fear they instill. We would have nothing to be fearful about as no one desires anything but the best for us.

So, I'll start. I have an arsenal and it's called my arms. I'm prepared to use them at the appropriate time. It'll be my mission to see that sad people are to be comforted and uplifted, happy people would experience one more bonus of good fortune in their day, hurried people would slow down and enjoy the humanity. People with an aversion to touch, please wear signs. What I think is appropriate, you may not! But small problem considering this world would be a better place, and certainly the more loving place that we always talk about wanting.

I propose that what would help to change the current mindset in this country is for people to want to think well of others rather than believe other's intentions are only about hurting them. Because in reality, it's not just gun owners in favor of open-carry who feel this way, it's many others who don't own guns who have a chip on their shoulder about people who are out to get them. Of course, we know there are bad people out there, but let's not have fear or paranoia claim there are more out there on the wrong side than there are good ones.

What sends a more powerful positive message to the people around you - a warm embrace and smiles or guns at the hip ready to discharge? Would you rather be on the receiving end of a hug or a bullet? Because really, that's what it boils down to emotionally - someone either suspects an imminent commission of crime out of you or they think you are worthy of their humanity. Which mindset would you prefer?

I support open-carry hugs and less paranoia.

SCOTUS - Delivered Exactly What The Plutocracy Wanted... Again

Andy Borowitz may have posted satire, but his commentary was spot on in the sense this is exactly what the court's recent decision does to this country.

Will this latest ruling of the SCOTUS instill citizens to realize that their vote means more now than ever? Oh, please let common sense and reasonable actions finally rule! The people who think they have the right to own the politicians by what they give them need to hear the citizenry refuses to be ruled by their money.

I sure do hope Bernie is right. This plutocracy needs to end and the sooner, the better.

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.

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.

Support the National Atheist Party

YES! You could be rocking the NAP t-shirt like me! Go to www.usanap.org, get your t-shirt and join us! We need YOU! Find out more about our presence at the Reason Rally in Washington, DC in March 2012 and tons more happenings going on.

The NAP needs your donations to keep this party formation moving! While supplies last get a FREE gift with every donation over $5!

Would you consider putting a FundRazr button on your websites and blogs? Every effort will only help us! Please do what you can. THANK YOU!!!

To our online store: http://www.USANAP.org/store/

Link to Reason Rally video w/Lee Moore: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvc-9FDzXuQ

Link to donation buttons for your website/blog/etc: http://www.USANAP.org/donate/

Link to FundRazr: http://apps.facebook.com/fundrazr/activity/9b19c63527a54f6d99dfd39e51da97fe?type=endorsement

Link to Reason Rally: www.ReasonRally.org

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