A Letter to My Christian Friends

This is a sincere letter to all of the people I know who are Christian.  I'm not going to be rude.  I'm not going to try and convince you that your faith is wrong.  I'm going to genuinely thank you for certain things, but I understand that every person thinks differently, and, by extension, every Christian thinks differently.  With that in mind, I'm going to have this letter in sections.  Each section will target a particular group, and some of you may find yourself in multiple groups or even no group at all.

To the first group:  You're the group who values women.  You're the group that takes the time to listen to what women think, how they think, and why they think what they think.  You're the person who doesn't think a woman is filthy while menstruating.  You understand that a simple act of nature doesn't mean a woman should be separated from men.  You don't think that if a man comes into contact with her, then he is also contaminated, and they should be banished.  You may think it's weird if a man has sex with a girl and later her mother.  Maybe you even think it's wrong, but you don't think the women should be set on fire.  We've all heard the stereotype about how preachers' daughters turn out.  I'm sure even some of you have first-hand knowledge, but, none of you would burn a to death a prostitute with a priest for a father.  You also don't view women as objects to the point that they should be considered spoils of war.  You might not approve of premarital sex, but I sincerely doubt you'd hold a public stoning of your daughter for doing it.  Men, if your wife interferes with an argument between you and another man by grabbing you by the nads, you might be a little put off, maybe even downright confused, but I doubt you'd lop of her hand for it.  You probably think that marriage should be between two people, and I doubt you'd be in favor of a ruler having seven hundred wives.  I'd argue that within the boundaries of that marriage, most of you think the husband and wife have equal say.  In your church, you let women teach, even if it's just a Sunday school class.  If your husband is mistreating you, or if you disagree, you probably evoke your right to tell him no, and if he continues, you'll take action.  You are modern people who understand that women are not property to be valued solely for their vaginas.

To the second group:  You are the group who doesn't condemn the gays.  You don't think two major cities should be destroyed because they allowed gay festivities.  In the same way a menstruating women isn't abominable, you likely don't think being gay is.  For these same reasons, you don't think a gay male should be killed.  If your son turned out to be gay, you wouldn't kill him or his lover.  In a similar vein, you don't think a woman wearing "manly" clothing, whatever that might be, is a horrendous crime.  You wouldn't condone the removal of all gay people from a society, and of course, this includes lesbian women.  You may not approve of gay people getting married, and while that still bothers me, you at least don't wish death upon them.  It's a step in the right direction.

To the third group:  You are the group who doesn't think slavery is OK.  You don't think people should be able to buy and sell other people like livestock.  A man is not a cow, a woman is not a sheep, and a child is not a goat.  Or any variation thereof.  You have grown past this belief and understand that people are people, and you should never pierce one's ear to mark them as property.  You might be OK with the idea of indentured servitude.  The notion that one might be a servant for a set amount of time before being freed would be a good bargaining chip if you're willing to partake.  It's a gray area of slavery, to be sure, but, I'd sincerely doubt you would hold your servant's child ransom in order to persuade the child's parent to remain your slave for life.  On the same not as child slavery, you're the group of people who would never sell your daughter as a slave.  You would be appalled to learn that, unless she "pleased" her master to his liking, she couldn't be resold to foreigners, since he picked her and should have picked better.  But, let's say that you see no problem with free labor, you'd have a problem with beating your laborers.  You see that it's wrong to beat people to death, but you also see it's wrong to nearly kill them, provided they live a day or two after your beating.  You likely would tell a slave to stand up to his captor, rather than treat the captor like a god.  You are the group who understands that slavery is wrong, regardless of the reason behind it.

To any Christian who finds that this letter is directed toward you:  I sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, thank you.  You have done what so many other Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. have said were impossible.  You've shown that you can be a good person without following God.  You've demonstrated to everyone around you that your bible got many moral questions wrong.  You don't kill your daughters for having premarital sex.  You don't kill you son for being gay.  You don't own slaves, least of all sex slaves.  You don't sell your daughter as a slave.

These are grounds that you, Christians, and I, an atheist, have in common.  I also don't think any of this stuff is morally acceptable.  Neither you nor I think killing is morally acceptable.  The bible does.  Neither you nor I think a rape victim should be forced to marry her rapist, providing he pays her father for it.  The bible does.  Neither of us think murder is morally acceptable.  Neither is rape.  Neither is theft.  Neither is torture and genocide.  While I understand that not all of these things are specifically in the bible, we both probably agree with them.  We have both demonstrated that our sense of morality transcends the bible's sense of morality, and, by extension, the morality of the one you claim to have inspired it: God.  Christians, neither you nor I need the bible to teach us how to live.

Boobs, Sluts, and Double Standards

***This blog is more of an explanation on how I think.  My last few have been information-type blogs, but this is almost purely opinion***

I've always been confused by the double standard.  You know, the idea that guys are encouraged to sleep around, but girls are shamed for it? Guys aren't supposed to be gay, right?  So, how do guys sleep around without willing girls?  Obviously, I'm being sarcastic here.  Of course there are guys with conservative values who think that sex before marriage is wrong, same for girls.  There are girls who say that they should be able to have sex with anyone, anytime, provided it's consensual, same for guys.  My point is that people are complex.  No two people are exactly alike.  Yeah, I know, you've heard that since kindergarten.

It wasn't until about my junior year of college, or maybe my second sophomore semester, that I really was brought into the feminist world.  I'd always held the stereotype that feminists were the radically anti-men types, but being raised in Harrison, AR with no TV except local channels, how was I to know better?  When I say local channels, I mean my options were FOX and KY3.  I'm sure there are people reading this who can understand my ignorance.  But, enough defending my former views, let's get back to college!  I took a class called Sociology of Gender.  Honestly, I had some serious concerns about being a male in a class on gender that was taught by a female.  I was worried it was going to be a man-bashing class.  I'm not ashamed of that view, because I didn't know any better, but let me say that if I could go back and take a class over, it would be this one.  It absolutely was not a man-bashing class.  I learned a lot of cool, useful things in my other classes.  I learned about how drugs affect the brain, how black lights work, and I learned about how Aristotle's ethical ideas of moderation were strongly influenced by the Pythagoreans' rule to avoid stepping to far from your center.  But, Sociology of Gender is the first class where I found myself actually stirred by something.  I learned how as a straight, white, Christian male, one is given privilege without knowing it.  Of course, I'm not a Christian, but I'm still straight and white, so 2/3 majority rules:  I'm privileged.  This class, though, made me open my eyes to a problem that I didn't even know existed.  I never noticed the advantages I have and, by extension, never noticed the disadvantage that women have.  (If, by some odd chance, the professor of that class reads this, thank you for teaching it.)  Now, I'll freely admit this:  I probably won't ever understand what it feels like to be the under privileged person.  I'll never, as a white guy, understand what it's like to hear the "n" word, either.  But, I can try.   I do try.  As I said at the beginning of this post, the double standard has always confused me.  I've always been uncomfortable with it, but I've never been able to put my finger on the reason it made me squirmy.  As of right now, I still don't have a solid answer, but by the end of this post, maybe I will.

I've always been a bigger fan of psychology than sociology.  I like the mystery of how individual people think, rather than the monotonous mob mentality, but I think that society is the real culprit behind the double standard.  Boys grow up, to be conquistadors.  Girls, not so much.  I know that, growing up in a Baptist church, I constantly was hearing about abstinence, and why sex is bad, but when I would spend time with my dad's male friends, I would catch snippets of conversation talking about how "if I catch a boy in my daughter's room..." or the good ol' "I'm gonna bring my daughter's boyfriend into my man cave and let him see my gun collection" or, and this is my personal favorite, "My daughter doesn't get to date until she's xx years old!" While his son was 14 and had a girl in his room as we spoke!  This never ceased to amaze me!  I was given condoms when I was 15, but my younger sister wasn't "allowed" to date until she was 16.  Even my favorite TV show at the time, King of the Hill, made mention of the double standard.  So, what is it that causes this!?  If you follow anything I write, you'll probably guess my first thought is religion.  Well, you're right, but that's not what I want to harp on right now.  What I want to talk about is feminism from my point of view, not from a male's point of view, but mine.

Now, I've never liked that word. Feminist. It still has that connotation of man-hating-rawr girl to me, but that's probably leftover from my younger days.  I know that feminists aren't all like that, but I'm stuck with that connotation for the time being.  Whatever.  I've always said that I don't buy into the "women's rights" kind of thing, because I prefer the idea of human rights.  Regardless of what I prefer, though, the word "feminist" does encompass how I feel about women, so yes, I'm a feminist.  No shame.  But, what does that mean to me?  Feminism, to me, means that women are men's equals.  I admit that humans are slightly sexually dimorphic, but besides that, we're generally equals.  Since this is a blog about the double standard, I'm going to skip all the information about spatial reasoning, cognition, math, language, etc.  

It's cool for guys to sleep around.  We all watch TV, read books, watch movies, etc., but I want to talk about some interesting things I've heard.  I work in an environment with nothing but men.  Often, the conversation is led by a guy, now married, who spent time in the US Army.  The stories he tells are sometimes funny, occasionally scary, and other times downright cruel.  According to him, if you're in the army and have a girlfriend, the other guys will constantly talk about how she's back home getting laid by someone else.  Regardless of how strong your trust for your girlfriend is, you're probably going to doubt her.  This leads to their encouragement to try and have sex with a girl next time you're allowed out.  They're planting the idea that because you're girlfriend might be promiscuous, you should too.  Just in case.  On the other hand, my coworker says that girls do just the opposite in the army.  They police each other.  If a girl has a boyfriend back home, they try to prevent her from having sex or shame her if she does.

An interesting thing to note here is the blame is on the female, regardless.  The guy cheats on his girlfriend as preemptive revenge.  The girl is watched like a hawk and shamed to prevent her from cheating.  She is the culprit.  It has been argued that religious guilt plays a massive role in why people cheat, but I think generic guilt is just as bad.  There are people who think that looking at another person with lust is wrong all the time. There are people who think that looking lustfully at someone is wrong when you're in a relationship.  To these people, I ask the question, "Why?"  Most of the time, when this issue comes up, I see two things.

1. Men are encouraged to be shirtless.  But only if they have a six pack. 
2. Girls, if your shorts are a centimeter too short, you better put your ass away, slut.

Totally Acceptable on Facebook

And that brings me to the point of this blog.  Girls, please stop shaming each other.  Stop judging based on clothes, especially if you're a feminist.  This picture:

Evil Boobies

Needs to stop. 

First, I want to draw a parallel between this kind of thinking, and the kind of thinking that goes on in the Middle East.  This automatically implies that the female body is supposed to be something to be covered at all times.  Second, I saw a few instances of this picture being posted, directly before or after that picture of  Tatum being "liked."  If you did this, you're promoting the double standard.  Third, I don't know a single girl who does not own a revealing shirt.  More importantly, I've personally seen a revealing shirt several of the girls who posted this picture!  Fourth, and least importantly, that self-satisfied smirk in the bottom-right picture just irritates me to no end.  

Posting this kind of stuff is detrimental to the feminist movement, in my opinion.  To me, it says that your boobs are something to be ashamed of, but why are they?  I know plenty of girls who prefer a t-shirt and jeans.  No one is bothered by that.  I know plenty of girls who prefer to wear nice, business-like clothes.  That's cool, too!  Guys, too.  Except I go to the gym, and I see guys walking around without a shirt sometimes.  No one is bothered by that.  I remember I was once at the gym and a girl was on the elliptical in the farthest corner in basketball shorts and a sports bra.  That sports bra showed no boobage.  No cleavage.  Nothing.  You could see her stomach.  I actually heard a girl say to another girl, "Did you see that girl in a bra back there? She needs to put some clothes on!"  Some people might chalk that up to her being jealous of a "better" body, but I say it doesn't matter the reason.  The girl on the elliptical was breaking no rules.  She was covered, except her arms, stomach, and calves.  Big whoop.  

If you're uncomfortable dressing in clothes that might be inappropriate in church, don't dress like that.  That's your choice, but don't try to call another girl out for choosing to wear what she likes; we have decency laws for a reason.  I understand that not everyone may want to see someones cleavage, but maybe not everyone wants to see my plain black shirt that says "I Shaved My Balls for This?"  Girls, by posting this, you're perpetuating the guilt cycle that needs to end.  Telling someone they should be hide his or her body is not your call.  It's their body.  Let them do as they will.

Taxing of Churches

It's fairly well known that religious institutions don't get taxed.  They can claim that they're nonprofit charitable organizations, and can claim to be exempt from taxes.  Ok, that's fair, I think.  Nonprofit charities may not be required to pay taxes since all the income they get goes to things that don't directly benefit the organization.  For example, donations to a homeless shelter go to pay employees, buy food and supplies for inhabitants, etc., but the end result is not to make a buck.  Churches can claim similarly.  The donations collected go to upkeep, the pastor, his family, and... well the rest can go to whatever the church deems fit -- unless it involves politics.  Now, Mark Rienzi of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty says that Americans have decided that churches are good for us all, including believers and nonbelievers.  He says,

"Whether it is the Quakers opposing slavery, Reverend King arguing for equality, or a Catholic soup kitchen feeding and sheltering all in need, our history is full of examples of confirming the great public benefit of our religious diversity."

I accept that these things are all good, but do I attribute it to the churches?  Of course not.  These things were done by good people doing good.  The people supporting slavery used the bible to justify using slave labor, but the Quakers used the exact same book to condemn it.  Dr. King claimed his faith was what drove him to fight for civil rights, while the bigots used the same faith to fight against him.  Catholic soup kitchens may be helping the homeless because they read in the bible that Jesus wants them to, while republican Christians are telling the homeless that they're homeless because they didn't work hard enough, and Prosperity preachers claim that bad things happen to people, because they weren't faithful enough.

My point is that it doesn't take faith to do good things.  Most atheists understand that slavery is wrong, that racism is wrong, and that helping the needy is good.  We don't need to be told these things!  So where am I going with all this?  Dr. Ryan Cragun, and assistant professor of sociology and two students from the University of Tampa took a good, hard look at the tax laws of Florida and found that our country is missing out on $71 billion of revenue annually.  Some things to consider:

• States lose 26.2 billion dollars a year in property taxes.
• Capital gains tax exemptions may be as much as $41 million
• US clergy may claim as much as $1.2 billion, due to parsonage

All this money lost to churches.  I know that in 1969 the Supreme Court ruled that tax exemptions for churches is not unconstitutional, because it does not favor one religion over another.  That's all fair and good.  Churches are exempt from taxation, because they can benefit everyone.  

I challenge this.  Churches do not benefit everyone.  There are churches out there who do, sure.  You can go to a Catholic soup kitchen and they probably won't demand you say that you're Catholic or they'll boot you.  But, that's a soup kitchen, not a church.  Suppose the soup kitchen is for profit, but is using a kitchen in a church.  What happens then?  Honestly, I'm not sure.  I can't really think of any reason a soup kitchen could profit, but that's beside the point.  Soup kitchens benefit everyone.  All a church can do is offer a prayer or sermon.  The church members can help, but that's not the church.  A priest can roll up his, not her, sleeves and spoon some soup into a bowl, but the church obviously has no hands, and therefore no sleeves to roll up.  My point is that these church members are doing what they're doing regardless of their position, regardless of faith.

One might argue that if we tax churches, they can interfere with our politics, and that would violate the separation of church and state that we secularists hold so dearly.  To that I say that churches already do interfere, even if it is indirectly.  As said above, Dr. King fought for civil rights on the basis of his faith.  This helped change the law.  The opposition used their faith to justify their racism; they tried to prevent the law from changing, because of their faith.  There is only one reason for a person to oppose a woman's right to vote or speak in church: faith.  Whether a misogynist is Baptist, Muslim, Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, etc., he has only one argument aside from "I just think that."  I took a moment to compile a few bible verses that order the submission of women to men:

• Genesis 3:16  
• 1 Corinthians 11:3
• 1 Corinthians 14:34-36
• Ephesians 5:22-24
• Collosians 3:18
• 1 Timothy 2: 11-15
• Titus 2:4-5
• 1 Peter 3:1

Clearly, faith had a part in the opposition to women's rights.  Let's also not forget who wasn't in the pulpit, yet.  All this stuff is old hat, true, but the implications are still relevant, considering the fight by the Catholic clergy and congregation fighting against the coverage of contraceptives for women.  Let's not forget the non Christians who do the same.  Let's not forget the only possibly reason to oppose homosexuality. Faith. As with women's rights, I've compiled a list of bible verses condemning homosexuality:

• Leviticus 18:22
• Leviticus 20:13
• Deuteronomy 22:5
• Deuteronomy 23:17-18
• 1 Samuel 20:30
• 1 Samuel 20:31-33
• Romans 1:26-28
• Romans 1:31:32

Now, I'm going out on limb here... But I suspect that if the churches didn't say these things, women would have always had an equal say in politics, same-sex marriage would be legal, and slaves would have been freed much sooner. Apologists may point out that not all believers are like this.  To them, I say good.  Good for them.  But until they call other believers out on acting like this, I have nothing to say to them.  Apologists may also point out that people are the ones opposing these civil rights progressions.  To them I say true, but what is their reason for being a person to oppose equality?  Until faith stops being an excuse to oppose civil rights that don't even affect the faithful, I say let them be taxed.  Churches themselves may not be against progression, but the man in charge of most churches is.  This man who gets in his tie on Sunday goes in front of people who believe he is interpreting the word of God to them, who says it is the perfect, infallible, unchanging word of God is necessarily, by extension interfering with politics.  Should there be a separation of church and state? Absolutely.  But as long as faith weighs in on people's vote, the separation is not complete.
And that demands taxation, just like everyone else.

The Death of a Boy

Today, I read a story that thoroughly disturbed me.  A 17-year-old high school junior named Zachery Swezey fell ill with appendicitis. While this is an unpleasant, and painful, condition, it is usually treatable.  Generally, medical doctors will give the patient preliminary antibiotics, and after they've done some good, an appendectomy is performed.  Fair enough.   But what if your parents don't like doctors? Hemant Mehta made this analogy:

Imagine this scenario: A father and mother take their child to a park and the child falls into a lake. The parents can swim, but their child cannot. Despite this, they do nothing and watch the child drown.  What should happen to the parents? Immediate arrest? Removal of all their other children? Jail time for manslaughter? Some combination of those options?

Zachery's parents chose not to take him to the hospital.  They chose to not take him to a local physician.  They didn't even consider professional help, but rather assumed that he would be divinely cured; they thought prayer would save him.  It didn't.  In Washington, members of select faith groups are exempt from being morally accountable when they neglect to use modern medicine to care for their loved ones.  The legislature specifies that "a person who, in good faith, is furnished Christian Science treatment by a duly accredited Christian Science practitioner in lieu of medical care is not considered deprived of medically necessary health care or abandoned."  Read it again.  A person who believes in Christian Science, divine intervention when sick, is not considered to be a negligent caretaker should the person under his or her care die.  Zachery's parents were acquitted of all charges against them.  There are a few things that should be addressed here.


First, I want to be clear. Zachery would have most likely lived had his parents done the right thing.  It takes a special kind of person to watch a child die, let alone a child you raised for seventeen years.  These parents put their faith, their untested, unproven, ungrounded faith over tested, proven, grounded science.  For anyone who says "faith is a virtue," I say to you that faith killed Zachery.


Second, I want to talk about prayer for just a second.  No, I'm not going into the bible, Koran, etc., but rather I'm going to talk about a scientific study on prayer.  The study found that not only was there no discernible difference between people who were prayed for and people who were not.  Furthermore, and most interestingly, it was found that people who knew they were being prayed for did worse than the other two.  So what do we learn from this?  If you pray for someone in the hospital, fine.  Just don't tell them.


Third, I want to request anyone who reads this and needs help whether it be mentally, medically, financially, etc. to not use prayer by itself.  If your marriage is falling apart, and you think your pastor can help, by all means, go see him or her.  If all he or she does is hold your hand and pray, walk out and see a professional counselor.  If you're mentally ill, and you think your pastor can help, but has no education in mental illness or how to treat one, don't go to him.  If your father is in a car wreck and having issues with PTSD, and puts off seeing a professional so he can pray for guidance, do whatever it takes to get him to see a doctor.  I've heard far too many pastors, preachers, etc. say that a person is troubled because he or she didn't pray enough or wasn't faithful enough.  I sincerely doubt that a divine being blew up Zachery's appendix due to a lack of faith.  


Fourth, and I touched on this above:  We have medical schools, clinical psychology schools, and marriage counseling schools for a reason.  We have divinity schools, seminary schools, and theology schools for a reason.  It's rare science and faith overlap, but where it does, you can bet that answers will be found in science.  Faith may leave you feeling like you helped someone, or it may leave you feeling more guilty and anxious that you aren't faithful enough.  But scientists will be working diligently to find a solution to the problem.  You just have to accept the help.

The Flood That Didn't Happen

 There are people who believe the Holocaust didn’t happen.  There are people who believe the earth is flat.  There are people who believe that a few thousand years ago, a flood wiped the world clean except for a specific family and the land animals.  Of course, I'm talking about Noah's Ark.  According to the bible, God told Noah that the world was about to be flooded, and he should build a boat for all the animals and his family in which they could take refuge.  The size of this boat was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits tall.  A cubit, as I’m sure you’re aware, is the length of a grown man’s forearm, which averages roughly 18 inches.  So, using simple math, we can estimate the ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall with a total volume of 1,518,750 cubic feet.  To put that into perspective, consider that the new Dallas Cowboy’s Stadium contains 104 million cubic feet.  Noah’s ark would be 0.015% of the volume of the stadium, which holds up to 100,000 people.  Now, I accept that there was only one fairly large family, but if we take into account the animals, and I mean all of them, I’d wager that they’d run out of room fairly quickly.  The African elephant and Indian elephant would take up mounds of space, and let’s not forget all the species of insects, arachnids, equestrian species, canine breeds, etc. Are we to really believe that all these species fit into one boat?

But, let’s just pretend that Noah was able to pull some hockety pockety trick, and these animals were able to squish together tighter than an overcrowded animal shelter (abuse, much?).  What did they do about food and water? The African elephant consumes roughly 60 gallons of water in one day, and eats only plants, but cannot digest cellulose, which limits its food options to just over fifty types of food.  Elephants eat between 220 and 440 pounds of plant material in one day, most of it grass.  To put that in perspective, an average square bale of hay is 12 cubic feet and weighs between 80 and 140 lbs.  We’ll assume that Noah was able to bundle the elephants’ plant material into the tightest bales, weighing in at 140 lbs.  At minimum, an elephant would eat roughly a bale and a half, meaning 18 cubic feet per day.  One elephant eats a minimum of 720 cubic feet of food per day, and since there had to be at least four elephants it would take 2,880 cubic feet to feed them for forty days.  These are the food requirements for just elephants, so remember, there would have been zebras, horses, camels, antelope, porcupine, bats, sheep, hares, bilbies, chuckwallas, etc. that all eat plants on board.  Also, remember that the Dallas Cowboys Stadium contains enough food to serve the 100,000 maximum people for an afternoon of football, plus some. 

Again, let’s assume all the aforementioned things are logistically possible.  We’ll assume there was room enough for a conservative estimate of 1,000 animals and all their food, plus the food for carnivores.  What happened after the flood, when the ark was up at the top of a mountain?  We know there are plants and animals that are found exclusively in certain places in the world.  For example, Cephalotus follicularis grows only in southwestern Australia near the coast.  Seeds might be explained by the idea that when the flood waters disperse, the seeds floated and clung together somehow so they ended up in certain areas of the world, but what about animals? 

The kiwi, for example, is a flightless bird found only in New Zealand.  The specific species of kiwis have specific types of feather louse found on only one species, respectively.  If all the kiwi species were once shut up on a boat together, wouldn't you expect to find louse and hosts overlapping?  After the flood waters vanished, the kiwis had to travel down the mountainous terrain and make their way to New Zealand.  For those of you who aren’t aware, there’s an ocean between Turkey and New Zealand. Kiwis can neither fly nor swim, so not only did the kiwi have to travel the 10,500 miles from the Turkish mountains to New Zealand, but the flightless, now extinct, moas has to come along.  Additionally, emus had to travel to Australia.  Rheas, flightless birds which live in places that have similar climates to those of ostriches and emus, had to find their way to South America.  Don’t forget, these flightless animals, essentially defenseless against such predators as leopards, lions, and wolves made these journeys while bears and tigers did not.  These unlikely travelers made it to such bizarre places like New Zealand, but did not end up anywhere else.  If rheas can live in the Pampas of Argentina, why don’t they inhabit the grasslands of southern Africa which, by comparison, is right next door to Turkey?  Furthermore, fossilized rheas are found in America only.  None have been found anywhere between Turkey and South America.  Curious, no?

Another perplexing question Noah’s story poses is the exclusive club that Australian mammals belong to.  The marsupial population of Australia contains animals found nowhere else on earth, with the exception of modern zoos.  The savannah region of Africa bears a markedly similar resemblance to the grasslands of Australia, yet we don’t find kangaroos in Africa.  Again, remember how much closer Africa is to Turkey than Australia.

Yet another problem with the idea of a worldwide flood  is the aquatic life.  Is it not astonishing that 170 species of cichlid fishes settled out of the biblical brine into Lake Victoria, but not into any other lake in the world, including lakes only several miles from Lake Victoria? What about the poisonous stonefish that is found in Australia and nowhere else?  I find it rather difficult to believe that fish that require saltwater to survive and fish that require fresh water to survive managed to live through a muddy flood, and I think it’s safe to assume the water would be terribly muddy considering how murky the waters of a clear river are after a slight rainstorm. 

Additionally, there are records of humans existing in America before, during, and immediately after the flood supposedly killed them.  So, which is more likely:  That a flood wiped the world of all breathing life, spared the aquatic life, and then the animals traveled impossible distances over oceans, mountains, and continents, or ancient texts were severely mistaken?


For more information, click here or here.

Why Test on Animals When We Have Prisons Full Of Pedophiles?

I mentioned in my first post that I'd be posting about psychology and whatnot.  Another thing I'm a very big advocate of is rational thought.  Thinking before you react, essentially.  There has been an image floating around Facebook for a few days, and I think it requires some serious consideration, crappy grammar the least of my issues.  

Before any meaningful discussion on this image can take place, I think people need to understand a thing or two about pedophilia.  Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to prepubescent individuals by a person who must be at least 16 years of age and at least five years older than the victim.  According to the DSM-IV-TR, the sexual activity is, in the mind of the pedophile, educational or enjoyable for the child. (p. 571).  More on this later.  A person who is attracted to, say, a 14 year old, well-developed female is not a pedophile, but rather a hebephile.  This is a major distinction, in my mind, because after puberty, the human body is generally capable of reproduction.  A pedophile is a person who is sexually interested in those who are not yet capable of having children.  

But, many of you may be saying, "Well, so what!? How can a person hurt an innocent child!?  They must be monsters!" In fact, on the comment section, on man has this to say: 

"Give me a ball bat and a room full of child molesters'. Ya know, I never have claimed to be a badass, In my heart I believe that I could murder.  You cant stop something that powerful.  You would have to shoot me.  Anyways, moving on."

This is where my earlier comment about rationality needs be particularly stressed.  This is a person advocating taking someone's life based on what he does not understand.  This is the kind of person you are if you posted this picture.  "But they're still monsters!" you might say.  Maybe some are.  But the difference is in the thought process of a "monster" and a pedophile.  According to a former professor of clinical psychology at the university I attend, pedophiles have a completely different worldview.  You may see it as sick and disgusting, and I agree.  Having sex with a child is definitely immoral.  But how can I say that these people shouldn't be tortured? Because, you see, pedophilia is highly treatable.  Yes.  I have evidence, some of it is cited above.  But consider this:  A person who engages in pedophilia is not necessarily inherently evil.  They're doing morally wrong, but they do not understand that it is wrong.  As I said earlier, the pedophile might think it's enjoyable for the child or, consider the wild idea that maybe the child actually does.  Do these things make it less wrong? Of course not.  But, and let me be very, very clear here: Being a pedophile is not the same as being a rapist.  

A rapist is one who enjoys inflicting pain, dominance, etc.  I argue that a majority rapists are also psychopathic and/or people with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD).  As evidence, I present the fact that in the diagnostic criteria for ASPD, one criterion is "forced someone into sexual activity."  Pedophiles can be rapists, yes.  But that's not what we're talking about in the topic picture.  The picture does not say "pedophiles' who rape."  Pedophilia is a nonviolent crime, until it is force. Nonviolent pedophiles have basically the same chance of reoffending as other nonviolent criminals, which means they can be treated.  Will the perverse thoughts stop? Maybe, maybe not.  Does the behavior?  Usually.  With rapists, however, the chance that he or she will reoffend is considerably higher, meaning that a rapist is much less likely to be rehabilitated in prison and therapy.

Now that we've empirically established that pedophiles are not necessarily incurable monsters, how can people, in good conscience, advocate cruel testing, torture, etc.?  My knee-jerk reaction is that people who favor such things are, in fact, as despicable as the pedophiles they hate.  After consideration, and using my rational thought, it makes more sense to me that they are just simply misinformed.  There are books, tv shows, movies, etc. that depict pedophiles as being incurably sick and twisted; think Steve Buscemi's character in Con Air.  This is, obviously not the case; pedophiles can be taught proper behavior, so let's stop the "torture the pedophiles!" crap.  Torture is wrong, regardless of who is being tortured.  I'm still grey area on the death penalty, but what I can say for sure is that criminals who commit crimes that have been empirically shown will be committed by the same person again should be locked up permanently.  They do not have the right to mingle among those of us who try to live day-by-day.  But why torture them?  That takes time, and sometimes resources.  If they choose to be tested on, then by all means.  Why not instead train them in a skill, and let them work within the walls of a prison?  Why not let them benefit society?  Some might argue that this would count as slavery, and I'm not trying to say slavery is cool; it's not, but there are alternatives to torture.

You people should be ashamed of yourselves if you still think all pedophiles should be tortured.  

***Pardon any errors, I'm writing a blog, not a paper.***