Marriage

I don't get it. Apparently, you have a problem with people getting married. Well, not all people. You don't care if some people get married. And you don't care how long they stay married. And you really don't care how many times they get married. The confusing part is, you don't even seem to care what species is getting married, just as long as one is male and the other is female. So, what's the deal with not wanting queers to marry? I must have missed the part where that seemed totally ridiculous.

Is this over the word? The word 'marriage?' Is that what all the fuss is about? Fine, keep your stupid word. 'Marriage' can be a religious ceremony between a man and a woman. Neat, now your precious word is still sacred. Now the rest of us will enjoy 'scribblybop,' a new word I just made up that signifies a legal union between two consenting adults. Okay? Are you happy now? Your religion's got its word, the US has got its word, and never the twain shall meet. Done. Issue solved. Case closed.

But, just out of curiosity, what was it to you? What is so goddamned precious about your word? Is it some magic incantation? Is it a secret password? What is it? You fought so vehemently to protect it; it must have some special power that you're not telling us about. No? It doesn't? It's just some plain, ol', stupid word? Huh ... Weird.

Well, if we're just coopting words, then we get 'God.' You can't use 'God' to mean what it means to you any more. Yeah, sorry. We called it; you should have been quicker on the draw.

So, now we get to choose how to narrowly define 'God' to suit our whims. You can't use 'God' anymore to mean an excuse to be narrow-minded or as a means for being self-righteous in your persecution of others. Nope, sorry. We have a new definition of 'God.' Yeah, from now on, God is defined as a compassionate, all-loving force that unites humanity and is diametrically opposed to suffering and injustice. I guess you'll have to make up your own word for whatever you had been calling 'God' (and 'scribblybop' is already taken).

For a more practical method of bringing about change than made-up words and sarcasm, Mom in Real Life would like a moment of your time.

Faith Enough

Last night I prayed, sincerely, for the first time in half a decade. I prayed to a god that most days I'm not even sure exists. And even if it does, I hardly think that it's in this god's nature to heed prayer and grant wishes. But I prayed, and, like most prayers made by people who only have faith enough to believe in a god when it's convenient, my prayer was desperate and selfish.

I prayed as I've been taught, by asking for something and then offering up the sins I'm ready to repent. This is a strange vision of the economy of prayers: God grants us the things we request in exchange for a few paltry mea culpas. It doesn't seem like a reasonable exchange or a sound investment -- heaven's own sub-prime lending scheme.

I've eschewed dogmatic, institutional sins, preferring to believe that my character flaws will suffice in their place. My sins include Lacking Humility, Being Irresponsible, and Indulging in Anger. I confessed the sins I knew I'd committed; the one's I've yet to realize will have to wait.

In exchange I asked for Peace of Mind, Perseverance, and Contentment. And a job that pays rent.

Sad in Pants

Religassholes like this make me sad in my spiritual pants.

Little-Known Facts about Nanotechnology

To demonstrate why nanotechnology is morally unacceptable, I have compiled a list of little-known facts about nanotechnology:

1. The only way to manufacture nanotechnology is to chop up living human feti, along with the mothers carrying them
2. The bird flu was caused by nanotechnology gone awry
3. If allowed to exist, nanotechnology will put 100 million U.S. workers out of their jobs
4. Terrorists use nanotechnology to convert regular middle-eastern people into Muslim extemists
5. Nanotechnology will encourage virtuous young girls to participate in pre-marital sex
6. Nanotechnology can and will be used to control your thoughts and emotions
7. Nanotechnology is racist
8. John Hinkley, Jr. was acting under the influence of nanotechnology when he attempted to assassinate President Reagan
9. Nanobots are tiny man-made demons that the government will inject into your brain and scrotum
10. Nanotechnology causes loose bowel movements

Again, please don't believe everything you read.

Paid for by the people who brought you little-known facts about cloning.

Lesbian Lizards

Kansan 1: D'you hear about them damn lesbian lizards, them female ko-mo-do dragons or some such that's fornicatin' with one anothern?

Kansan 2: Shore did. There ought to be a law again' it. They're just out there, flaunting their "alternative lifestyle" and their sodomy like God ain't watchin'.

Kansan 1: They're corruptin' the moral fabric of America's what they're doin'! Now all these kids in school are gonna think it's alright to be a gay dragon when it is clearly against God's plan.

Kansan 2: Y'know, I wouldn't be surprised if it was homo-sec'shul reptiles that made God mad enough to allow nine-eleven to happen to his own country. Wouldn't be surprised 'tal.

The Golden Dumbass

Apparently, there's some hullaballoo about the movie The Golden Compass within the Christian community. (I'm not sure where the complaints were when the book was published.) The claim against is that it is anti-Christian because the book was written by an athiest.

My advice to all Christians up in arms about this: Don't believe everything you read and don't read everything you believe. Don't believe the crazies that say a children's fantasy novel is going to corrupt the children and cause the downfall of your religion. And don't read only the novels that say everything you already believe. Your faith won't grow stronger by petting it. Stretch it, scare it, flip it on its head; your faith will grow stronger by challenging it.

And most of all, don't take offense at every novel and short story that comes along. You've got your own book that's offensive enough for everyone.

The Source of Evil

The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness.

--Joseph Conrad

Never Wear a Brown Belt with a Black Bible

I think the Bible Belt should be renamed something like the Cravat of the Willfully Ignorant.

Pope Benedict XVI: That's Not a Dunce Cap

This Christian fundamentalist seems to actually have some sense!

The Meaning of It All Some of It

I just read the book The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen Scientist, a collection of three speaches made in 1963 by physicist Richard Feynman. In his speaches, Feynman not only discusses the nature of science, but also opines about religion, morality, politics, and other various topics. Here are some memorable quotes:

"Looking back at the worst times, it always seems that they were times in which there were people who believed with absolute faith and absolute dogmatism in something. And they were so serious in this matter that they insisted that the rest of the world agree with them. And then they would do things that were directly inconsistent with their own beliefs in order maintain that what they said was true."

"Science makes, indeed, an impact on many ideas associated with religion, but I do not believe it affects, in any very strong way, the moral conduct and ethical views."

"No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated."

"This is in the attitude of mind of the populace, that they have to have an answer and that a man who gives an answer is better than a man who gives no answer, when the real fact of the matter is, in most cases, it is the other way around.... It's all genereated, maybe, by the fact that the attitude of the populace is to try to find the answer instead of trying to find a man who has a way of getting at the answer."

The Secret. The Lie. Same Differene

Though I have not read it, watched it, or been told it by a giggly twelve-year-old girl, I'm guessing The Secret is probably the biggest New Age, pseudo-spiritual, mind-enema to hit the best sellerslist since L. Ron Hubbard last shit on a pile of paper and called it a book. As I understand it, the titular secret is the knowledge of the "Law of Attraction," some all-powerful force that binds the things people desire to the people who desire them. This law is not something as plain as gravity, mind you. In fact, it's a law that science can't even explain. How it even became a law is anyone's guess, but a definite law of the universe it is.

Apparently, by recognizing this law and using the power of positive thinking, a person can get anything they want: a new car, a wife, a cheese grater, anything! You could probably even hold your breath for an hour or make yourself taller or cure yourself of cancer just by hoping that nasty ol' tumor will go away. All this, of course, is a giant lie. Sorry, wishes can't cure cancer.

While I'm sure there are benefits to positive thinking (having a more cheerful disposition, getting a new perspective, decreasing stress levels, etc.), I don't think that's what the phrase implies. Blindly believing some book that tells you there is a magic wishing well inside your head is not positive thinking. That's not thinking at all.

I think the main point of positive thinking is the last half, the thinking part. The power of positive thinking comes into play when a person actually uses their brain to analyze a situation. You want something? So think about it. Focus on it for a while. Find out about it. Ask yourself why you want it. Figure out the best ways to get it. Imagine what it would be like to have it. Consider the differences between having it and not having it. All this positive thinking will make you more prepared to get what you want than idle wishing.

But I suppose it's much harder to sell a book that promotes analytical thinking than it is to sell one that tells people that all they need is to think happy thoughts, sprinkle on some fairy dust, and then they can fly, they can fly, they can fly!

Identity

I've been thinking a lot about identity recently, how it's formed, what it's made of. It seems that one's identity is a patchwork of self-assessment, societal labels, and scientific jargon. It all comes together to describe a person, but one's identity is never really who they are. They are more, much more than a bundle of ideas and words. Who I am is more than a demographic and a statistic.

But this does not mean that the labels that make up our identities are without value. Knowing how I am defined -- by myself and by others -- could be very useful for discovering who I am, why you am who I am, and how I got that way. Thus, I have tried to map out my identity along some major categories:

Category	Identity	Evidence	Comments
sex	male	unambiguous male genitalia, male hormones, and masculine body/facial structure	By “unambiguous” I mean readily identifiable and of adequate proportion and reasonable placement. And no, I don’t want to hear any dissenting opinions.
gender	man	view men as equals and opponents, objectify women, strive for self-reliance, am prone to violence, suppress emotional responses, prefer to communicate in terms of logical reasoning, view sex as power	This one was a hard one, and I’m not sure I completely got it. Gender, as I’ve tried to define it here, is a construct of society. I tried to ask myself what traits I posses, positive or negative, that identify someone as a “man” in modern American.
sexual orientation	non-deviant heterosexual	perform sexual acts solely with and desire only opposite-sex sex partners	I added the "non-deviant" with some reservations. By "deviant" I do not mean to say that what others may choose to do is bad or wrong. "Non-deviant," in this case, is a reference to the fact that I do not participate in any non-heterosexual activities. There are some people who engage in some homosexual acts, but are predominantly (morally, mentally, physically, or whatever the cause) heterosexual -- these I would consider to be "deviant" heterosexuals. Likewise, there are those who are homosexual who may, for whatever reason, perform heterosexual acts: deviant homosexuals. I'm not sure what the middle ground would be.
sexuality	straight	am uncomfortable with personal physical intimacy with same-sex/gender, refuse same-sex/gender sexual advances, approach only opposite sex/gender for sexual acts	This differs from "sexual orientation," in my mind, in that "sexual orientation" is what a person desires and "sexuality" is what a person actually practices.
race	Caucasian	am descended solely from European Caucasians	This is true as far as I know.
heritage	white	was brought up in a light-skinned family that claimed no inter-racial ancestors, think of people as white unless otherwise noted as "black," "Asian," etc.	I had trouble with this one. My evidence seems forced.
class status	middle-class	had my essential needs taken care of (and them some) while growing up, have a sustainable sustainable lifestyle, do not have an overwhelming amount of debt, have a post-high school education	Although I don't know exactly what demarcates the different classes, I think it's fairly easy to identify them.
religion	non-affiliated	do not attend any religious service, do not appreciate circular logic and self-aggrandizement often associated with religion	I almost wrote "post-Christian" for this one. By this I would have meant that I still appreciate the mythology and literature of Christianity, but do not necessarily believe that any of it is true or particularly relevant to my or any other modern life.
spiritual belief	agnostic	believe that there is some purpose to my life and human life in general, do not know or particularly care to know the source or scope of this purpose	"Agnostic" means "without knowing." For me, agnosticism is not only not knowing what greater power may or may not exist, but also being content in not knowing. Atheism is too adamant for my tastes.
political party affiliation	Libertarian	oppose the recent fusing of Republican party with the religious right, find many Democratic viewpoints too socialistic, oppose overreaching government involvement in my personal and business life and the lives of others	I've never voted Libertarian, nor am I registered. I would have very recently aligned myself with the Democratic party, but some recent political reading has led me to realize that I would like our nation to pursue the tenets of the Libertarian party platform: less government, more personal responsibility.
political ideology	conservative	believe that government money should be collected in equal shares and should only be spent on services that benefit or can be enjoyed by every citizen, would prefer less government to the point of anarchy rather than more government to the point of socialism	I recently told someone, much to their chagrin, that I am more closely an Anarchist than an espouser of a republic or a democracy. If a representative government is equally likely to slide into either an all-governing socialism or free-for-all anarchy, I'll choose anarchy.

Political Christianity

I recently read two interesting articles (America's Most Persecuted Minority by Murray N. Rothbard and The Rise of Christian Fascism and Its Threat to American Democracy by Chris Hedges) that were about completely different subjects, but both led me to the same conclusion: political Christians -- the Christian Right, the moral majority, or whatever you want to call them -- are (and have been) ruining our country.

I'm all for people being allowed to believe what they want to believe. I'm even okay with people telling other people what they should believe -- do what you've got to do, just don't be a dick about it. But once you make a law forcing people to believe like you do, you've gone to far.

I don't have a problem with people smoking dope or tripping acid. I don't have a problem with anyone having access to birth control methods. I don't have a problem with people under the age of twenty-one drinking alcohol. I know you and your god have a problem with it, but what's that got to do with me?

I'm sorry your crazy voodoo god said that you're not allowed to have fun, but don't spoil shit for the rest of us. My God said that I can do pretty much whatever I want as long as I do it responsibly and "do unto others as I would do unto myself."

God, Inc. and a Rant about TV

I just discovered God, Inc. by FrancisStokes.com. It's a pretty clever web video series about working for God in a corporate setting. If I had the resources, I would love to make a web video series like this or like Ask a Ninja. Hell, I'd just like to be involved in making it: writing, directing, shooting, editing, anything!

Every time I see something like these, I am relieved. Relieved to find that there are still creative, frugal, intelligent people out there making quality entertainment. Every time I watch TV, unless I'm watching House or Lost, I'm disappointed. I want to laugh. I want to cry. I want to be entertained! Instead, I usually chuckle a little, or grimace, and then turn off the television and read a book. Television just isn't entertaining anymore. Most of it shouldn't even be called "entertainment." Why would I want to watch people bitching at each other on some "reality" show, or watch some washed up actor learn how to dance? Most TV today isn't just bad, it's insulting. It is insulting to me to know that instead of coming up with real, actual entertain, someone shot a whole bunch of footage of ugly people being chopped up by plastic surgeons or fat people complaining about how it's hard to exercise, and called it a show.

So, when I see some quality video entertainment with decent writing, decent acting, decent cinemotography, made for less than the weekly wage of the best boy grip from The Class (My God, that's a horrible show!), it makes me smile. There are people out there who actually care about entertainment, and don't just settle for pretty people and flashing lights. Bravo, God, Inc. et al

• Tags
• internet
• video
• tv

Intolerance as a Virtue

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.

--Voltaire

Intolerance is the new compassion, according to Dr. Whitehurst's The Intolerance of Christian Conservatives.

• Tags
• religion

There's No Vaccine for Stupid

Fortunately, there is a vaccine for HPV, a relatively obscure STI that causes cervical cancer (as well as other types of cancers).

There are many people that would say this is a good thing. "Yeah! Down with cancer!"

Then there is the religious right. They're siding with cancer.

My first question: What young woman was refraining from sex purely because of a disease that no one knows about and that can't be protected against with condoms? Is there a horde of little baby-making teenagers out there that are busting down the doors of Planned Parenthoods across the nation to get their hands on this vaccine so they can finally start having sex? Because if so, what are their names and where do they hang out?

My second question: Why is getting an STI and contracting cancer more acceptable than getting laid and contracting intimiacy? God forbid you experience pleasure. (No, literally. Christian nutjobs believe God forbids feeling good!)

I can't wait until it's found that abstinance causes cancer.

• Tags
• HPV

Final Battle

In the final battle at Armeggedon, God will vanquish Satan. Everyone knows this, from the good little Christians to the big bad Devil himself. God told us this through His Holy Words in Revelations, right? So, why does Satan continue to oppose God, if he knows he's eventually going to lose?

I suppose the argument that I grew up believing was that Satan doesn't think he will lose. The Devil actually believes he has a chance of coming out on top in the end, but the Great Deceiver is only deceiving himself. I suppose that's sound enough reasoning, but to me it doesn't jibe.

Satan already lost to God's forces once -- God didn't even deign to fight the Devil. He sent His lacky, Michael the Archangel, to dispense of the nuisance. And it has to be assumed that Satan has access to all the reading material that humans do; he should know just how powerful God really is. Heck, Satan's job before the fall of the angels was the chief angel among the choir that sang God's praises. Satan should know his chances of winning against The Supreme Being are slim to none. And he still thinks he's going to win?

Maybe the outcome isn't as definite as prophecies of the End Times would have us believe. Maybe Satan does have a shot at bringing down the Creator. It would make sense that The Bible would be so resolute in its predictions, though. It's basically just war-time propaganda. What leader would tell his soldiers that there is a chance of them losing the war? Even George W. Bush isn't that dumb.

Maybe, though, Satan does know that he will lose. Maybe that's the point. Just as God's gift to humanity was free will, Satan's gift was giving meaning to that free will. What's the benifit of choosing eternal life if there is no damnation? What's the point of choosing Good if there is no Evil?

| Tags || religion |

Secret Name of God

Wouldn't it be disappointing if Kabbalists actually found out the secret name of God, and it turned out to be "Randy" or "Nate" or some other plain name?

Maybe the reason God keeps his name secret in the first place is because it's embarassing, like "Milton" or "Eustace" or "Moonbeam." That would explain why God only goes by nicknames, like "I am" or "Alpha and omega."

I think well enough should be left alone. I, for one, would have a hard time respecting a God named Rod.

| Tags || religion |

Christian vs. Nazi: Who Hates More?

This recent post by The Magster reminded me of this webpage I ran into a while ago. It's an interesting comparison, and just a little apalling to say the least.

| Tags || religion | homosexuality | politics |

God & Creation

Blake Ostler argues the classical concept of the creation of the cosmos:

1. If God possess aseity [self-existence] and exists, then he is not dependent on anything nor lacking in any conceivable manner (i.e., God is self-sufficient).
2. A self-sufficient being cannot manifest a need nor be enhanced by any action (1).
3. Every positive action requires an explanation sufficient to account for it (Criteria of Sufficient Reason).
4. Creation of the cosmos is a positive action.
5. A self-sufficient being could not manifest a reason sufficient to explain why it preferred existence of the cosmos to its nonexistence (1,2).
6. Hence, God did not create the cosmos (3,4,5). (Beckwith 8-9)

While this arguement is interesting, I think there are some gaps in its logic. I can agree completely with Assertion 1; if the nature of God is omnipotent, then he needs or wants nothing. However, Assertion 2 intends to limit God's omnipotence by saying that he "cannot manifest a need." This is the schoolyard philosopher's question "Can God make a rock so heavy even He can't move it?" If the answer is yes, then God isn't all-powerful, he can't even move a rock. If the answer is no, then God still isn't all-powerful, he can't even create a rock. Quite a conundrum.

This arguement falls into the realm of the moot, though. Being all-powerful precludes need, want, action, and enhancement. The assertion that God cannot manifest a need nor be enhanced by any action only seems to contradict omnipotence because that is the only way that limited human language can express limitless power. The arguement is mostly syntactical.

Assertion 3 seems ludicrous. There is no logical reason for why such a required explanation should exist to account for a positive action (or for a negative action, for that matter). I believe this assertion means to say that God must have had a reason for creating everything, but that, again, is projecting human reasoning onto a being of limitless power. As the Assertion 1 states, God doesn't need anything, let alone a reason for creation.

Assertion 4 is just stupid. I'll give Mr. Douglas Adams the credit for an excellent rebuttal: "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."

As I said for Assertion 2, the flaw of Assertion 5 is that it relies on limited human syntax to describe concepts that are limitless.

Assertion 6, while a derivative of faulty logic, is the most intriguing assertion of them all. Because if God did not create the cosmos, who did? It boggles the mind!

Works Cited

• Adams, Douglas. The Restaurant At the End of the Universe. New York: Pocket, 1982.
• Beckwith, Francis J., and Stephen E. Parrish. The Mormon Concept of God. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1991.

| Tags || god |