I Went to Church

On Christmas Eve, I had to take a client from work to church for midnight communion.  I had the option of dropping her off or staying through the service; I chose the latter.  I have to say it was a lovely service.  As we walk in, the first thing I notice is the building itself. The building is beautiful. The vaulted ceilings are nothing short of impressive, which I suspect is to give the churchgoers a humbling experience.  Moving on through what I suppose we could call an entrance hall, we are greeted by a polite man handing out bulletins and candles in cups.  My candle was bent, probably due to sitting in a box for a full year.  We then enter the sanctuary, which is stunning.  It's enormous.  Two PowerPoint screens high on the wall, which is a pale golden color in the light, make hymns easier to sing, I suppose.  Red poinsettias are plentiful, which contrasted nicely with the gold of the walls, which have some nice looking wood carvings set into them.  The carvings were interesting.  They were a cross, naturally, but you know those optical tricks that ask you how many triangles there are, but as you look, more and more pop out?  That's what these carvings did.  All in all, the sheer building itself is a bit awe inspiring.  It isn't hard to see how some people might mistake that for the presence of a Holy Spirit. Or Jesus.  Or God.  Or somehow all three.

Like this, but with Bronze Age torture devices.

As we take our seats, the pastor gives a welcoming speech.  He's not a bad orator, overall.  His voice is lovely.  It's the kind of voice that a child might enjoy reading a bedtime story.  His accent was off, however.  I couldn't quite place where it was from, and that distracted me.  His welcome speech was nice.  It had draw to it, which I suspect is part of why the church was so large.  Once his welcome was over, the congregation stood and sang "Joy to the World." Even an atheist such as myself must appreciate the church music.  The song is lively and harmonious.  I'm sure, to believers especially, the lyrics are powerful, but I find them silly.  "Joy to the world! The lord is come?"  I'm sure the lord is considered many things, but somehow I suspect come is not one of those things.  Anyway, moving on to "The Lighting of the Christ Candle." This was, appallingly, done by high school seniors.  It was wild to see the conviction on these young ladies' faces as they took part in the symbolic ritual.  I always wonder, as I'm sitting in the pews, how many people believe and how many are there out of routine or societal pressure.  Here, with these girls, there was no question.  The reverence on their faces was apparent to me even in the back of the church.  With that devotion to the church and its teachings, it makes me wonder how educated they are in science and their own holy book.

Following the Christ candle bit, a female pastor read their Old Testament lesson.  I found that interesting, because of so many Christians I've seen denounce the parts of the Old Testament that they dislike as being what it is: Old.  Of course, if the person likes a particular book, chapter, or verse, then it's applicable.  The excerpt the lady pastor chose tonight was Isaiah 9:2-7:

"2. The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of deep darkness a light has dawned. 3. You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy; they rejoice before you as people rejoice at the harvest, as warriors rejoice when dividing the plunder. 4. For as the day of Midian's defeat, you have shattered the yoke that burdens them, the bar across their shoulders, the rod of their oppressor. 5. Every warriors boots used in battle and every garment rolled in blood will be destined for burning, will be fuel for the fire. 6.  For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7. Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end.  He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever.  The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this."

The language of the bible is always telling of its true intention.  This is a prime example.  It speaks of hope and a new order of peace, but the underlying message is still that the people will be slaves.  "...upholding it with justice...." the text says.  Let's not forget that this king of kings is the very same who orders the killing of gays, adulterers, and so on.  Let's not forget that this prince of peace is the same entity who casts people into eternal torture for insignificant and arbitrary rules.  Of course, it's always to remember that regardless of how grotesque the Old Testament teachings are, it's not until this gentle lamb of god comes that we hear of eternal damnation.  But, I digress.  The lady pastor chose this passage, probably because it sounds superficially inspiring.  Following this, there was special music sung by two very talented siblings.  They sang and harmonized very well.  I was impressed.

Once the special music was finished, the male pastor started telling his version of Jesus' birth.  Before he started, however, he explained that he pretty much said the same thing on Christmas and Easter year after year.  His reason was that it's such a powerful story that it need not change.  The pastor did caution people, though.  He warned that no matter how powerful a message is, it loses strength with each telling.  He suggested that every time they hear the story of Christ's birth, they take pause to let the message fully sink in. I heartily agree with him, because it allows for the holes in the story to become apparent.  To put what I mean into clearer words, I need only to move forward with the service.

The pastor explained that he would only be reading from the books of Luke and Matthew.  To a believer, this may seem reasonable.  These two are the most concise and inspiring versions of the story, a believer may say.  They're absolutely right.  The virgin birth isn't present in the other two Canonical Gospels of the New Testament!  It seems like that should wave red flags to a reader.  The most important event in human history and the four gospels don't agree on the events? No matter, since Luke focuses on Mary and Matthew focuses on Joseph.  The pastor reads Luke 2:1-20 and Matthew 2:1-11:

Luke 2:1-20 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.  2. This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3.  And everyone went to their own town to register. 4.  So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5.  He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6.  While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son.  She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.  8.  And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10.  But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid.  I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people.  11. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.  12.  This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."  13.  Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, 14"Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests."  15 When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let's go to Bethelehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about." 16. So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. 17. When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, 18 and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. 19 But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20 The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

 So, let's just recap before moving onto the next excerpt.  A bunch of shepherds, the lowest of the low, go to the people and just claim that some kid is a savior?  And they believe the shepherds?  Furthermore, is Joseph really that daft?  His wife comes to him and says she's knocked up.  An angel told her that it was the son of god.  Wait, no.  The authors of the bible have a clever loophole.  Another angel comes to tell Joseph that his wife has been impregnated by God.  Isn't that convenient? No, I'm terribly sorry.  This story absolutely reeks of adultery and a lie to cover it up.  Again, I digress.  Moving onto the excerpt from Matthew:

"Matthew 2:1-11 After jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east come to Jerusalem 2 and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews?  We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him." 3 When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. 5 "In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written: But you, in Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel. 7 Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared.  8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and search carefully for the child.  As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him."  9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star they were overjoyed. 11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him.  Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. 

 Again, the language here is telling.  To say that a ruler, a king no less, is going to make a journey just to bow down to a child is a truly humbling thought.  I digress again.  These were the two sections of the bible chosen for the service.  During the reading, a church member was silently lighting candles.  Each candle was meant to represent a person.  Each shepherd had a candle.  Each "wise man" had one, along with Mary, Joseph, and so on.  It was fascinating, because I could feel people being sucked in.  Call it intuition or what-have-you, but it's easy to understand people mistaking that feeling for the Holy Spirit.

Once these two readings were done, the congregation sang "O Come All Ye Faithful."  This time, more people joined in, but of course that's a great excuse for a person to exclaim, "Oh, well naturally!  That's the Holy Spirit moving people in praise!"  There is, of course, a simpler, more reasonable explanation.  People just get less self-conscious.  You know, like in junior high school dances.  Remember how people would stand around the edges of the gym at the start, awkwardly eyeing each other?  Then, that one couple bites the bullet and starts dancing?  Let's not pretend that things are more complex than they are.  People just loosen up over time.

I'll grant religion that the music it has produced has been rather nice, so I was a little sad when the song ended, and the pastor began reading scripture again.  This time, he chose Luke 2:1-5:

1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was the governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their town to register. 4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of Davit. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.

Now, isn't it interesting here? Let's look at the timeline.  Matthew 2:1 expresses that Jesus was born in the days of Herod the king.  Luke 1:5 expresses the same thing.  But, wait.   Herod the Great died in the year 4 BCE!  So, which is wrong?  History or the bible?  Well, in the case of Christ's birth, let's look again at the words the pastor spoke.  "...census that took place while Quirinius was the governor of Syria."  That's fascinating to me, because according to other, more accurate sources than the bible, Quirinius didn't become governor of Syria until the year 6 CE!  In addition, there is no mention of any Augustan census by any Roman historian, but the Jewish chronicler Josephus mentions one that did occur.  The catch is that it did not have the requirement for people to return to their places of birth, and it was six years after the birth of Jesus is supposed to ahve taken place.  No matter, historical accuracy must not have been important to the people who wrote the most important books of the Christian bible, so it is easy to ignore, which the congregation gladly does out of ignorance or apathy.  They then join together again for song.  This time, the choice is "O Little Town of Bethlehem," which I must admit was a new one to me.  I'd either never heard it or paid enough attention as a child.  The song was alright, but it doesn't resonate like some of the other songs, which is fine.  The pastor took to the pulpit again once the voices subsided to read Luke 2:6-7 to pick up where he left off:

"6 And so it was that while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. 7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."

Now, again, something strikes me as odd.  What kind of inn would turn down a woman who was basically crowning?  Perhaps if that woman was known to be carrying an illegitimate child.  Let's not forget the historical context the Old Testament suggests.  Adulterous women should be punished at the very least.  Another bit of language that fascinates me is present in the passage, though.  "...and she brought forth her firstborn son."  Firstborn.  I have to wonder what life was like for her other sons, having a "Messiah" as a sibling and whatnot.  No matter for the congregation, again.  They move on to sing the famous "Away in a Manger," followed shortly thereafter by the single verse Luke 2:8:

"8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field keeping watch over their flock by night."

Frankly, I'm not entirely sure why the single verse was spoken.  It seems utterly unimportant.  Shepherds, by their very name, keep watch over flocks at night.  Surely, I wasn't the only person in the pews to wonder the significance of that particular verse, but my thoughts were interrupted by the congregation singing "The First Noel," which was a lovely song.  Once finished, however, the pastor recited a much lengthier block of scripture from Luke 2:9-14:

"9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. 10 And the angel said unto them, 'Fear not, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. 12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.' 13 And suddenly there was with the angle a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, 14 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.'"

Now, I remember in high school how fast word spread of pregnant classmates.  Not only did I hear about them in my own school, but I heard about pregnancies from counties over.  It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that word of an unmarried, adolescent girl claiming to be carrying an immaculately conceived child would spread across the land.  "Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes...."  Yes, naturally.  That's what children are covered with after birth.  Hardly a revelation.  Now, the rest of that is obviously utter hogwash and inconsistent.  For example, the idea that Jesus was born to spread peace is one that is sometimes true and sometimes not, depending on the cherry-picked verses.  The congregation seemingly doesn't mind the inconsistencies, but again, I digress.  Now, the church comes alive in song.  "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing" is sung.  I don't know about you, but I absolutely love this song.  I think it's extraordinarily pretty.  Though, as a child, I remember my cousin accusing me of singing the parody "Hark! The herald angels sing, 'Glory to the goober king!'" which is still funny to me.  Once the crowd quiets from singing about their goober king, whatever that means, Luke 2:15-17 is recited:

"15 And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, 'Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord has made unto us.' 16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. 17 And when they had seen it, they made it known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child."

Okay, wait.  Let me translate that incredibly formal, stiff conversation.  "Hey, bros, let's go to Bethlehem and see this 'kid' that is supposed to be our savior."  Then, they get there and see an ordinary child, they (without getting evidence according to the bible) leave and tell everyone that the child is the son of the Jewish god. One might take the time to point out to me that if the angel told them to go there, and they did and see exactly what the angel said, that would be proof.  Okay, fair point.  Let's get some outside stories corroborating the story.  Please bring me the written story by one of the shepherds.  I'll wait.  In the meantime, let's get back to business!  The pastor stopped reciting scripture, and the congregation sang "Go Tell It on the Mountains," which is another rather fun song.  Following the music, the pastor then read his final piece of scripture dealing with the famous wise men, Matthew 2:1-11:

"1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem. 2 Saying, 'Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.' 3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was trouble, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. 5 And they said unto him, 'In Bethlehem of Judea: for thus it is written by the prophet, 6 and thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor that shall rule my people in Israel.'  7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, 'Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.' 9 When they had heard the king, they departed, and lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. 11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary and his mother, and fell down, and worshiped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense  and myrrh."

Now, we've already addressed the issue of the chronological context of Christ's supposed birth, so I'm particularly interested in Matthew 2:2, which as you see above, expresses the idea that they followed the stars.  Let's don't forget Isaiah 47:13-14, which explicitly condemns astrologists.  Additionally, we can't ignore Deuteronomy 18:10-12, which does similarly.  A believer can reconcile these inconsistencies by pointing out that Jesus came to abolish the old law, which is (to anyone who has read the Christian bible) absolutely incorrect.  It always fascinates me, as someone who studies psychology, how very easily the authors of the bible catered the New Testament to the prophesies of the Old Testament, yet blatantly ignore the laws set forth by the OT.

Moving passed the scripture reading, the pastor gave his very short sermon, which was titled "Good News of Great Joy." It was more or less a rehash of the scripture readings of the whole night, and I won't bore you with the details.  Following that, was the communion or the sharing of the bread and up, which was, of course, the symbolic cannibalism that many Christians groups partake in.  I declined to eat the bread and drink the "wine" in order to observe the ritual.  The people went on their knees in front of the pulpit, and the pastor stood above them.  Of course, this creates a feeling of submission in those on their knees.  The pastor handed them a piece of bread and passed a single cup of "wine" down the row.  I found that to be rather gross.  People dipping their dirty fingers into a cup and eating soggy bread is not my thing.  Once everyone had their fill of metaphorical skin and blood, the pastor led the congregation in the prayer of hope:

"O almighty God, by the birth of your holy child Jesus, you gave us a great light to dawn on our darkness. Grant that in Christ's light, we may see light.  Bestow upon us that most excellent Christmas gift of love to all people, so that the likeness of your Son may be formed in us, and that we may have the ever brightening hope of everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Savior.  Amen."

 During the prayer, I unashamedly did not bow my head.  It was at that point, I looked around and made eye contact with another guy who wasn't praying. We acknowledged each other and had a gratifying head nod towards each other.  But let's talk about that prayer.  "Bestow upon us that most excellent Christmas gift of love to all people...." I wonder if that extends towards all those condemned by Christianity.  I wonder if these Christians have taken the time to send a letter or email or even make a quick phone call to the Catholics in Illinois who are fighting against homosexuality, because they say it isn't possible for two men to love each other.  Do they "love the sinner, but hate the sin?"

See, I've touched on the immorality of Christianity in other posts, but this is a whole new topic.  The idea that Christianity can actually demean love. In Sunday school, Christianity begins by telling small children extraordinary stories of creation and life before the "fall."  It offers a glimpse of "perfect" life, of "perfect" love, and of someone who created you to care for you endlessly.  Even if that love comes with a price.  To any bible-believing Christian, the ideal view of love is and always will be God and his love for his creation.  This love is obviously not flawless in that you face infinite punishment for finite offenses.

Now, the prayer above does have a qualifier in it.  "....that we may have the ever brightening hope of everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Savior."  Yes, let's talk about this savior.  He absorbed all of humanities sin, if I am not mistaken.  What does that mean?  Christ took the punishment for those people who believe he did.  I don't know how people see that as moral.  Is it ethical to believe that if I murder or rape someone, another person could serve my sentence?  On the surface, it might seem reasonable that if someone makes the conscious decision to take my punishment, then that person is free to do so.  Fair enough!  The problem lies with the corollary: Is it ethical to let me, a hypothetical murderer, free on the grounds that an innocent man wants to take my place?  I'll let you, the reader, decide.  In the meantime, we're going to move on to the closing part of the service.

After that prayer was finished, the pastor lit a candle and passed the flame to other members of the church.  This was a symbol of receiving and spreading the "Light of the World to the world."  I have to say, it was very interesting from a psychological standpoint.  Everyone is in the dark with nearly no light save for the candles, and we get to watch that light grow.  Very inspiring to a believer, I would imagine.  After the everyone's candle was lit, the congregation sang "Silent Night" by candlelight.  I can imagine how inspiring it would have been to hear that song while seeing the candlelight exponentially grow, but from a safety standpoint, it probably wouldn't have been smart to sing while passing fire.  I suppose God doesn't protect his house from burning.

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen.  I went to church.  It was extremely fascinating to me, but ultimately like a magic show after learning how the tricks are done.  The fear-mongering sadism and the inspirational masochism loses its touch once a person realizes what is going on.  Maybe I'll go to another church one of these days, but I don't think anything will change unless the core principles of Christianity change.

Where I Stand on Guns

Anyone who reads my blog can see that I tend to lean liberal on most, if not all, issues I've touched on.  Today, I'll tackle gun control.  In light of the recent shooting in Connecticut, the internet has been exploding on both ends of the argument.  I've seen everything from, "Ban all guns.  No guns at all equals no gun violence," to "The teachers at schools should have guns."  I have one particular Facebook friend who went as far as to say the students should be armed.  Gun control is part of the problem.  Maybe people do have access to overly powerful weapons, and those weapons should be restricted.  Another part of the problem, however, is the mental health issue.  Perhaps we don't have sufficient screening for gun applicants.  And, yet a third issue to the gun problem is education.  Accidental deaths happen.  Now, let me preface this by stating that I am a gun owner.  I have a Mossberg 500 12 gauge shotgun with a tactical, collapsible stock.  Why do I have it?

First, and foremost, home defense.  It's true that I do have years of martial arts training.  There is also quite a distance from my bedroom door to the entrance to my home.  Now, do I ever expect to have to use my gun?  Well, let's consider what is meant by using a gun.  Do I intend to ever shoot my shotgun in the case of a  home invasion?  I doubt it, but I would if I had no other options.  Do I ever intend to smack someone with it? Sure, I'd hit an intruder with the butt of my shotgun if I had the opportunity.  But, let's be honest.  If I can hit someone with something, it means they're too close.  A likely scenario is that an intruder made it closer to my bedroom in a shorter time than I expected.  A third, far more practical purpose for owning a gun for defense is the intimidation factor.  Those of you who have never experienced the sound of a shotgun being pumped have no idea how terrifying that sound can be.  Movies to not do it justice.  I can't imagine the kind of criminal who would hear that and say, "Hmm, that's a shotgun being loaded.  Better not leave."  Any intruder who continues advancing after hearing the warning sound of a shotgun shell being chambered should probably be nominated for a Darwin Award.

A second reason I own a gun is for recreation.  Shooting guns is fun.  There's undeniably a feeling of power when someone obliterates a target downrange.  It's positively awe inspiring.  From a young age, I've enjoyed shooting.  It's challenging, requiring practical application of trigonometry and geometry.  Longer shots require a shooter to be able to anticipate how far the bullet will drop.  In that case, one has to also take into account that shorter-ranged shots will place high on the target.  The longest shots people can make even have to compensate for the curve of the earth.  Yes, I know, I could go to a range and pay to shoot their rifles.  No, thank you.  That would potentially leave my home defenseless.  "But if no one had a gun, you wouldn't need yours to defend against!" someone might say.  An invader may show up with a knife, true, but fuck you if you think I'm going to tangle with a knife-wielding criminal.  No, I'll minimize loss on my end.

My third reason for owning a shotgun is similar to the first reason:  precautionary.  Our country may not always be as stable as it is.  I could lose my job.  The list goes on, but the point is that in the situation where I cannot get food, I'll take myself right into the woods.  I will hunt for my food.  I could use a bow, but it's awfully hard to kill fast moving game with an arrow.  My scatter-shot is much more efficient.  Of course, I'll have the occasional person saying I could just grow my own food and eat that.  That's true, but I can't grow animals like plants.  If I could domesticate animals for myself, then the corporations could too, therefore I wouldn't be in that situation.  Hunting could prove to be an integral part of survival in the near future.  I'll stay prepared, just in case.

So, we've seen some reasons for why people may possess firearms.   I've seen people recommend that we take away all the guns.  They'll point to Europe and exclaim, "Well, see!  It works here!  Countries that have the fewest guns have the fewest gun-related crime!"  Yes, obviously.  The issue I have here is that European countries, from everything I've read, have a better government-citizen relationship.  The USA was founded by a ragtag army of people who wanted to get rid of an oppressive ruling.  I think it is only fair that we have that option today.  It's true that our current government has drones and missiles that can kill from miles away,  but it seems to me that it doesn't mean we should just roll over.  Let's say there are two people about to fist fight.  One of them is 6' 3", 280 pounds.  The other is 5' 9" and 150 pounds.  Both of them have brass knuckles with which to fight, and the larger person is better trained in hand to hand combat.  Would we expect the smaller person to give up the one equalizing factor in the fight?  I think not.  Now, while I can imagine an ideal world where there is no need to fear a government, we live in a country where laws like the NDAA may very well be a problem for ordinary citizens, like myself.  By this reasoning, I find it to be immoral to take away a person's right to defend against a larger threat, whether that threat is a home intruder, lack of resources, or some far-fetched government takeover.

Now that I'm done there, I'd like to discuss the proposed limitation of "assault weaponry."  What counts as an assault weapon?  This question is highly important, because it is a flexible definition.  Is an assault weapon a gun that can hold more than a certain amount of rounds?  What is the threshold for the weapon-assault weapon spectrum?  A standard 9mm pistol holds between 10 and 15 rounds.  Revolvers hold between 5 and 7 usually.  Is the issue of assault the distance from which an attack can be carried out?  A standard 9mm pistol isn't too accurate beyond 15 or 20 meters.  My shotgun?  The same, depending on what kind of shell I use.  I'm an untrained civilian, yet with my hunting rifle as a child I was able to hit a 1.5 inch square at 200 meters.  Think about that.  A person can walk into a building with a 9mm pistol loaded with 15 rounds and realistically expect to hit 10 targets or less.  That person, due to the short range of the pistol, can be taken down fairly easily.  A person with a long-range hunting rifle could assault a public place and be gone before anyone knew what was happening.  Which one of these weapons could be considered an assault weapon?

The problem is the world "assault," in my opinion.  From Google, assault is the act of committing a physical attack.  By that definition, both of my above examples are considered assault weapons.  Hell, every weapon is an assault weapon.  My machete, by that definition, could very well be considered an assault weapon.  I know, I'm being a little extreme with that definition, but I still think it's a problem.

So, what to do?  Banning guns isn't morally sound, because of the volatile state of our country.  Assault weaponry has no clear-cut definition, so it's tough to specify which weapons should be covered under an assault weapon ban.  What about, instead of trying to ban the weapon, we restrict access to it?  It's true that those deemed mentally incompetent cannot legally own firearms, but occasionally, a person experiences a psychotic break that leads to mass shootings.  How, then, do we compensate for that?  When I bought my shotgun, I was subjected to an FBI background check.  That's great!  If I had a history of violence, it would not be a good idea for me to have access to high-powered weapons.  Similarly, if I had a history of psychosis, I probably shouldn't have that access.  

Let's talk mental health.  Some of you know I work as a mental health paraprofessional (MHPP).  My job is to help people recover from mental illness.  I work as an extension of the therapists to help people develop and use coping strategies to counter symptoms of disorganized cognitions, impulsiveness, hallucinations, delusions, and so on.  The majority of the people I help are nonviolent.  A few are there because of violent acts, but that's not the average.  What's the significance of this?  Well, all these people are clinical cases.  The issue is that people who go on shooting rampages may very well be mentally ill at a subclinical level.  We have ways to screen for this.  

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is a tool that has ten individual scales that people can score on.  Hypochondriasis, which most people know is a concern with bodily symptoms.  This scale measures the likelihood that someone will suffer from these symptoms.  The second scale measures depression.  I don't think that needs much elaboration.  The third scale focuses on hysteria, which is an awareness of problems and vulnerability.  Someone scoring high on this scale might have attachment issues, for example.  The fourth scale measures whether a person is a psychopathic deviate.  This can reveal conflict, anger, and how respectful a person is for societal rules.  A psychological examiner could very likely use this scale to see how likely a person is to use their firearms for illegal activities.  The fifth scale measures stereotypical masculine or feminine behaviors and interests, but in the case of firearm safety, I don't see it having much impact.  Paranoia is the focus for the sixth scale, which like depression, I don't think needs much elaboration.  An overly paranoid person may be likely to perceive nonthreatening stimuli as threatening.  Perhaps here is another scale that could be an indication of how safely a person can use guns.  The seventh scale focuses on what is called psychasthenia, which contains symptoms like worry, anxiety, obsessiveness, and so on.  Schizophrenia is the eight scale.  Hypomania is the ninth scale, which is how excitable a person may be.  Last, we have social introversion as the tenth scale.  

Sample MMPI Scoring

Now, people may say that this is an unreliable tool, because people can lie and act "normal" on these tests.  That makes sense, but psychologists anticipated this.  The MMPI in particular has been built with the assumption that people will try to make themselves look like their best possible self.  With that in mind, it has subscales to look for things like lying to make a person sound mentally healthy and malingering to sound mentally ill.  A person with graduate training might be able to skew his or her responses in a desired way, but we have to remember that the questions aren't worded like, "I am paranoid."  In fact, there are even seemingly wildly out of place questions like, "I prefer to do my skydiving in the nude."  Now, over years, this test has been honed to weed out liars and malingerers.  The MMPI is a huge test consisting of several hundred questions.  These questions are often repeated many times, but worded differently.  The length of the test coupled with the repetitive questions catches people trying to fake their results.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to subject people who wish to buy firearms to have to undergo a psychological examination like this.  Additionally, subjecting everyone who buys a gun to a firearms safety class could very well reduce the number of fatalities involving guns.  People should be taught the specific laws for carrying and using weapons in particular circumstances.  

With all this in mind, I'd like to close by sending a message to people on both sides of this issue.  People, it's complicated.  No single person is 100% correct on the right course of action.  What we need to do is sit back and talk this through.  No fear mongering, no appeals to emotion.  Let's find a middle ground.  Both sides want the same thing:  fewer deaths.  We can yell across the room all day, and that's going to get us no where fast.  With that in mind, I'm going to sit back and see how the comments on this go.  My first guess is there will be two camps saying the other is wrong and the conversation will go no where.

I hope that guess is wrong.

The Madness of Rorschach

 Of course, anyone who has seen The Watchmen knows that Rorschach was among the most disturbed characters, aside from The Comedian perhaps.  Both exhibit clear signs of psychopathy.  The reasons behind this should be apparent to anyone, but just in case, let's review.  Walter was raised by a prostitute.  Now, this isn't necessarily detrimental to his psychological well-being, but consider the times the Johns poked fun at Walter.  Consider when Walter's mother told him she should have had an abortion.  Consider the kids at school who were making jokes at his mother's expense. Walter saw such cruelty, that it disturbed him.  He snapped and beat the ever living hell out of the teenagers who were making fun of his mother.  Walter went so far as to bite a chunk of skin out of one of their faces.

Seeing all the cruelty in the world led Walter to become a vigilante seeking justice where he saw it was needed.  He was not always moral in his methodology, but the end result is the same: Justice.  Walter Covacs was a man who, like the majority of people, existed in a world of moral absolutes.  For example, let's take the moral stance that is almost universal, murder is wrong.  Walter adheres to this ideology for the beginning of his transformation.  Consider the criminals he leaves tied up, for example.  The transformation is slow throughout his life, but the horrors he encountered brought him to the realization that there are no gods and no moral absolutes.  Morality and justice are man made.  They are what we determine.  What we impose.  This is particularly highlighted by his telling of the story of the little girl who got fed to the dogs.

"Stood in firelight, sweltering. Bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent. Felt cleansed. Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in night. Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves, go into oblivion. There is nothing else. Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world. Was Rorschach. Does that answer your questions, Doctor?"  

What do you see?

It is at this point that Rorschach is born.  He has realized that there isn't a god who hands down morality.  The most horrific part about that realization, perhaps, is the implication that must follow.  There is no devil.  All evil, even something as grotesque as chopping up a child and feeding it to dogs, is of human origin.  We are solely responsible for what we choose to do, regardless of how honorable or awful it may be.  The cruel and predatory use violence to impose their moral reality on the rest of the world, even on innocent little children; why shouldn't Rorschach use violence to impose his morality on the criminal?

From that point on, Rorschach has completely abandoned the social contract which built the idea that justice should be handed down from a higher authority.  Why shouldn't he take justice into his own hands, particularly when justice doesn't appear to come from anywhere else?  He uses his observations and the child killer in particular as justification of this.  People may have ethical disagreements with vigilantism, but Rorschach has clear reasoning and sound justification for believing as he does.  His choices are not irrational, they aren't psychotic.  They're calculated.  The fact that Rorschach's behavior cannot simply be dismissed as mental illness appears to have dealt a serious blow to the psychologist who tried to study Rorschach.  Rorschach grew up in a world where there was little to no justice for victims of evil.  That sets his world apart from ours.

But why bring it up?  I bring Rorschach up, because his character highlights something important.  He is correct.  Humans kill each other.  Humans rob each other.  Humans set up our own system of morality.  I bring it up because when a little girl who needs a guide dog to function gets kicked out of a Christian school, we humans bear the responsibility to call that school out on being absurd.  Was it not Christ who helped those who needed it?  When people base their morality on an assertion of authority, rather than an understanding of reality, those people might beat their child to death for not reading a book that explicitly orders them to beat disobedient children (while simultaneously saying to kill the children in other parts of that book).

These are just two recent examples of people who do not use reason as a moral guide.  We need to stop letting people get away with doing evil just because they claim it was ordained by a higher authority.  There's not a higher authority.  We are guilty of letting those children suffer, too.

Of course, people might point to Stalin as an example of rationality gone too far.  I'll be happy to tackle that one in a later post.

Am I a "Pro-Gay" Bigot?

Thanks to Hemant Mehta, I became aware of a group called Mission: America.  Their website contains such links as "The Gay Agenda," "Marriage," and the one I'm about to have a little Q&A with, "Are You a Pro 'Gay' Bigot?"  This is a series of questions that, according to their site, are built for "those who care about current issues."  Let's take a look at the questions!

1.  Do you believe in free speech about homosexuality for everyone except conservatives or Christians?

No.  No, I don't.  The right to express opinions, whether wrong or right, apply to everyone.  I don't care if a person believes that the earth is flat.  It's of no concern to me if a group of people believe that humans reproduce through storks.  The right to share beliefs applies to everyone.

2.  Do you participate in name-calling of those who object to homosexuality -- names like bigot, hate-monger, etc.?

No, Mission: America, I don't.  I understand that there are misguided people out there who don't understand how homosexuality works.  Objecting to a particular lifestyle does not, in my mind, make one a bigot.  What does make a person a bigot is actively working to deny people the exact same rights that you enjoy.  This next part is particularly important.  If you deny people rights that don't even remotely affect you, or the people around you, you are absolutely a bigot.  Similar to how people are diagnosed with mental illness, bigotry isn't truly bigotry until you act on your issue.  If a person has a desire to rub his or her genitals on a person, he or she might have frotteuristic tendencies, but won't be diagnoses a with frotteruism until the desires are acted upon.  Similarly, you're welcome to have bigoted tendencies, if you don't act on them, I don't take issue with you.

3.Do you believe "gays" have been deprived the right to marry?  Doesn't pretty much everyone have the right to marry now -- to a person of the opposite sex?

Technically, you're right.  Homosexual people do have the right to marry people of the opposite sex.  But, why would they?  Would you, a heterosexual, marry a person of the opposite sex who you find completely unattractive?  If you found their personality repulsive and their appearance unpleasant, would you marry them?  My question to this is as follows:  How would you feel about your question being phrased like, "Do you believe "people attracted to different races" have been deprive the right to marry?  Doesn't pretty much everyone have the right to marry now -- to a person of the same race?  Let's not forget that the exact same book you use to justify "traditional" marriage was used to justify the denial of interracial marriage less than one hundred years ago.

4.  Do you believe those who object to homosexuality are motivated by fear or ignorance?  Do you believe they could never be motivated by compassion for the people involved, and if they say so, they must be lying?

This one I'm going to have to break apart, because it asks multiple questions, each one deserving of an answer.  Do I believe those who object to homosexuality are motivated by fear or ignorance?  I understand that research by Schachter and Singer has been performed to show that people can experience fear and assume it means sexual arousal.   Additionally, further research has been done that shows that those who report negative affect towards homosexuality showed higher sexual arousal when exposed to homoerotic stimuli.  So, yes.  Those who object to homosexuality have a good chance of being motivated by fear and ignorance.  Fear of being homosexuality and ignorance and/or denial of their own sexual orientation.  Now, might they be motivated by compassion?  Yeah, sure, they might be, but the research shows they're motivated by them misattributing their sexual arousal.  My question in response is as follows:  Do you care about research?

5.  Do you believe some people will just inevitably be homosexual, and that there's a set percentage of the population that will always be 'gay', and that this won't increase, even if a culture embraces 'gay' sex?  Do you think homosexual experimentation could never become 'chic' and popular?  Is there no risk for the people involved or our culture if this happens?

First, I have to point out how annoying it is that you ask multiple questions under the heading of one question.  Do I believe some people will just naturally be gay?  Yes.  There have been example of homosexuality throughout history.  There are non-human animals who are homosexual.  There are mountains of research that shows that brain structures that control attraction and arousal are different between homosexuals and heterosexuals.  This lends credibility to the idea that some people are "inevitably" homosexual.  Do I believe that the number of homosexuals will increase even if a culture embraces them?  No, of course not.  I want you to show me research that indicates that acceptance of homosexuals increases their population.  Keep in mind, that you have to show that acceptance of homosexuals causes an increase in their population, rather than the amount of people who stop hiding it out of fear of people like you.

6.  Do you automatically dismiss any conservative comments about homosexuality without listening?  Do you believe that you are well-informed, while refusing to learn about what homosexuals actually do and the risks involved?

No.  I'm open to my opinion changing if facts contradict my understanding of the world.  I do consider myself well-informed, because I've spent the better part of three years studying the research performed on this very topic.  As far as what homosexuals "actually do," I'm now curious about how it's any different than what we heterosexuals do.  Do you believe they love their partner more than you?  That would be a difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.  Do you believe they influence the children they raise to be homosexual?  If so, I implore you to find some research that supports that idea and show me.  As far as risks, I'm curious about what risks you specifically mean.  Do you mean an increase in STDs?  It's curious that there is a direct correlation between devoutness of religious belief and the number of STDs such that as devoutness goes up, so does the number of STDs.  The same can be said for teenage pregnancy.

7.  Do you believe that the tragedy of any suicide by someone involved in homosexuality is the fault of conservatives?  Is the best solution to these tragedies to demand that everyone in America accept homosexuality?

To the first question, I have to say not necessarily.  There are many factors that can lead to suicide.  If a person of color is bullied repeatedly for months or years on end for his or her color, then commits suicide, who is at blame?  If a person who is blind is picked on for his or her blindness for years on end, who is to blame if that person commits suicide?  You might say that it's the fault of the person who commits suicide.  I agree, to a small degree.  Everyone holds their lives in their own hands, but if a person is repeatedly told that they're a disgusting, abominable, immoral creature, what more do they have to live for?  You might say, "The glory of Jesus, of course!"  You have to remember, however, that there's no reason to believe that your god or Jesus even exist.

8.  Do you automatically dismiss the idea that anyone could be a former homosexual, despite the hundred of groups started by ex-'gays" and the thousands who live in America?

I don't dismiss them automatically.  What I do is consider the likelihood that a heterosexual individual could be conditioned to be gay.  It's highly unlikely, according to research.  I also would implore these people who claim to have once been homosexual to undergo the same research I mentioned above.  I would love to see how they reacted to homoerotic stimuli and compare it to their past sexual lives.  That might shed some light on these people.

9.  Do you believe that homosexuals are born that way?  Do you refuse to consider the evidence against this claim?  Have you ever looked at the connection between child sexual abuse and later homosexual attraction?

I do believe that homosexuals are born that way.  I believe it because of the mountains of research that back that claim up.  I would consider the research against that claim if any legitimate, peer-reviewed research existed.  Please present it.  I have looked at the connection between child sexual abuse and later homosexual attraction.  There isn't a legitimate claim.  If there is, please present it.  I have some follow-up questions.  Have you ever requested the arrest and prosecution of a Catholic priest, or any child molester for that matter, for homosexually molesting a child?  If not, why?   If so, I'd love to see documentation of this activity.

10.  Do you believe that only churches that accept homosexuality have interpreted the Bible in the 'correct' way?  Do you feel it isn't necessary to read the relevant Bible passages yourself, all of which are straightforward in condemning homosexual acts?  Do you believe it's impossible to be "kind" and oppose homosexuality?

No, I don't believe they have interpreted the Bible passages that condemn homosexuality in a "straightforward" way correctly.  I also doubt you interpret the Bible passages that condemn men looking lustfully at at a woman as worthy as plucking his own eye out, even though it states that straightforwardly.  I think a person can be kind and oppose homosexuality, so long as that person doesn't actively work to impede the happiness at others, particularly when that happiness does not affect the one who opposes in any way.  Now, I have to wonder if you, in a straightforward fashion, interpret the passages in the Bible that plainly state that a seven-headed beast will rise from the sea.  If your answer is that the seven-headed beast is symbolic, I'd like to see rationale for that.  Then, I'd like to see rationale for believing that the straightforward language condemning homosexuality is not symbolic while the seven-headed beast is.

11.  Are you quick to say, "Judge not, lest you be judged" (Matthew 7:1) and similar passages, without understanding the Christian theology behind it, and all while being very judgmental yourself?

Sure, I've pointed it out.  Has Mission: America ever said, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.  If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.  It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell," without considering the Christian theology behind it?  Sure, you might say that Jesus commanded it, and that makes it morally sound.  Does it?  How did you mean your husband or wife?  I put it to you that no marriage, outside arranged marriages, would have ever happened had someone not looked on another lustfully.  It's a fundamental part of our biology to be sexually attracted to others.  The bible got it wrong, here.  Who are you to say it's not wrong in other places?

12.  Do you sincerely believe Jesus would have accepted homosexual acts?  Do you believe Jesus is cool with whatever anyone wants to do?  Do you believe there is such a thing as 'sin' and if so, how is it defined?  Are you the one who defines sin for yourself?  Do you have no need of a savior and if not, wasn't Christ's death and resurrection pretty pointless?  Despite all these contradictory and self-constructed beliefs, do you consider yourself a "Christian"?

If Jesus existed, and the bible is correct, I believe that his love of the woman at the well speaks volumes about what he would have accepted.  This woman was an outcast and a sinner, yet he loved her for her flaws.  Yes.  Jesus would have accepted homosexuals.  Apparently, Jesus is not cool with people doing whatever.  He ordered people to pull their eyes out for being turned on!  I don't believe in "sin," but I do believe in immorality, which is defined as that which we ought not to do.  I define immorality for myself, yes.  I define it through an understanding of reality, not an assertion of authority.  I don't have need of a savior, because there is nothing to be saved from.  "Sin" is a uniquely religious invention designed to control people like you, Mission: America.  Christ may have lived and died, but I'd love to see evidence that he was resurrected.  It's because of all these contradictory and self-constructed beliefs that I'm proud to call myself "not a Christian."

13.  Do you believe sweeping stereotypes, like that all 'gay' people are innocent victims or that all conservatives must be mean and stupid?

No.  Do you believe that all gay people are guilty sinners or that all conservatives must be nice and smart?

14.  Do you close your ears and figure it's a conservative plot if you hear that at least 2/3 of all HIV transmission in the United States still involves males having anal sex with each other? 

No, of course not.  That can easily be explained by the fact that unprotected anal sex is more likely to result in HIV infection than unprotected vaginal sex.  What about lesbian sex?  What's your objection there?

15.  Do you believe anyone who objects to homosexuality is automatically "hateful," while you seethe with hate yourself?

No.  I try to explain the facts to them.  What's your excuse?

16.  Do you believe it's okay for thirteen- year- olds to learn at school that they have the right to have homosexual sex with each other?  Do you close your ears when concerned parents are outraged?  Would you call such parents "ignorant" and accuse them of "censorship"?

Your question is loaded.  The average person doesn't have sex until around sixteen.  The issue is that people become interested in sex around puberty, which can start before age thirteen.  I don't believe it is my place to tell anyone who they can have sex with or when they can.  Do you close your ears when concerned parents are outraged that schools aren't educating their children about the facts of sexual activity?  You probably say that it's up to the parents to educate children about sex.  Maybe so.  How do you account for the fact that when abstinence education was implemented, STD rates and teen pregnancy rates skyrocketed?   It's almost as if people have sex even when they're told not to!  Wouldn't it make more sense to present the facts to children?  Maybe, just maybe, if we told them that if they're going to have sex (whether gay buttsex or, in your eyes, "normal" sex) condoms reduce STD and pregnancy rates.  You know, educating people about proper firearm cleaning and safety doesn't lead to a higher rate of accidental gun deaths.  Consider that.

17.  Do you believe that, after several thousand years where most cultures have prohibited homosexuality, only now the 'real' truth is emerging?  Do you believe this is not an arrogant, narrow or immature position?

Let me answer your questions with a series of questions. So what if "several thousand years" of cultural prohibition of homosexuality happened?  That's a blink of an eye to the amount of time that species have participated in homosexuality.  Do you believe it's not arrogant, narrow, or immature to believe that you, with your severe lack of insight into human sexuality so quickly discount a large portion of it?  Wait, I doubt you understand evolution.  Do look that up, then come back with evidence disproving it, collect your Nobel prize, and then argue it with me

18.  Do you believe that 'gays' are the target of widespread violence that goes unpunished in the United States?  Do you understand that hate crimes stats don't support this claim and that laws already exist to punish all crimes, no matter why they are committed?  Would you be unconcerned about how overall civil liberties if trumped- up charges of so- called "hate speech" were used to silence people? 

I understand that all minorities are the target of violence that does go unpunished in the U.S.  I understand that hate crimes might, just maybe, be committed by hate groups with the power to evade persecution.  Would I be unconcerned about how overall civil liberties if trumped-up charges of so-called "hate speech" were used to silence people?  I'd be concerned if anyone had a claim of being the victim of unfounded hate, like black people during Dr. King's era.  Would you stand up for someone, regardless of his or her sexual orientation if he or she were subject to violence or discrimination because of sexual orientation?

19.  Do you believe that conservatives are making a big deal out of a behavior that has no harmful effects on individuals, families, communities, or societies?  Do you scoff at any claims that serious public health issues are involved, like sexually transmitted diseases or risks to children?

I'm assuming that "a behavior" means homosexual behavior.  I am absolutely concerned that conservatives are making a big deal out of homosexual behavior.  There is not any evidence to support that homosexuality is harmful to individuals, families, communities, or societies.  You go on to ask about the health issues like STDs.  As said earlier, STDs and teen pregnancy rates increase as religiosity does.  Are you not concerned that as a strength in Christianity increases, so does the number of STDs and teen pregnancy within a community and society?  It's almost as if your belief causes the same problems it claims to want to combat... Strange, no?

20.  And--very big question:  Is your need for other people's approval greater than your appreciation of truth?  Do you refuse to consider an unpopular viewpoint because it might make you appear unenlightened to some people?  If your mind and heart changed about this issue, would you have the courage to be a rebel for a worth cause, to speak up and inform family, friends--and fellow humans who are involved in homosexuality?

No, my need for approval is far less than my appreciation of truth.  My speaking against you goes against an unpopular belief, Mission: America.  You refuse to take a viewpoint that is, for now, unpopular because you fear change.  I sincerely doubt that you were once a person who understood equality but changed your mind.    If evidence surfaced that showed that homosexuality was immoral, harmful to society, or any of the other claims you make, I would gladly switch sides.  If you have it, please present it.

And remember, you might be a born again child of some god, but not all of us need to be born again.  Some of us grow up the first time.

When Muslims Attack

I've had plenty of people ask me why I seem to detest religious beliefs so intensely.  I've also given a decent response to that question in this post.  That being said, I'm going to give my readers another example of faith causing harm.  Today, it was brought to my attention that September 11, 2012 is International Judge Muhammad Day.  You're more than welcome to watch the video, but I'll transcribe it:

International Judge Muhammad Day.  Or, as we like to call him here: Mo. Or, to borrow a phrase from Dr. Manning, which o'course is appropriate for Hussein Obama, but is also appropriate for [gestures to a figure hanging from a gallows] Muhammad the Mo, the "Long Legged Mack Daddy."  Muhammad will be put on trial. The charges against him are as follows:  Muhammad "Mo" is charged with being a false prophet, thus leading 1.6 billion people astray. Number two.  Mo is charged with promoting of murder, rape, destruction of people, and property through his writings called the Koran.  Number three.  Mo is charged with violations against women, minorities, Christians, and any person that is non-Muslim, leading to the deaths of 370,000,000 people in the 1400 year history of Islam.  Join us on September the 11th, 2012 for International Judge Muhammad "Mo" Day as we examine his life, as we look at his teachings and what he promoted.  I believe that you will come to the same conclusion.  That Muhammad, Islam, and his teachings are indeed of the devil.  Thank you.

 Wow.  Where to start?  I guess I'll start with what I agree with.

I agree that Muhammad was very likely a pedophile, as the speaker in the video said in a roundabout way.  I agree that Muhammad should have been put on trial.  I also believe that he is a false prophet who led way too many people astray.  Muhammad should be found guilty of promoting rape, murder, and destruction of property.  He should is also guilty of violations against women, minorities, Christians, and non-Muslims.

Here's the kicker, though.  The guy who made up this International Judge Muhammad Day is the Christian pastor, Terry Jones.  I have to point out the irony of him condemning the promotion of false prophecy, leading people astray, rape, murder, destruction of property, and (now, this part just kills me) violations against women, minorities, and non-Muslims.  All of these things were carried out in the bible in some way or another.  Of course, he'd never see it that way.  He can't get his head around the fact that both Muslims and Christians tend to see their own religion as peaceful and noninvasive.

Now, the parts I disagree with.  I get calling President Obama by his middle name.  It's technically not incorrect, but it's wrong at the same time.  I'm under the impression that Jones thinks Obama is a Muslim, and by calling him Hussein, he's implying it.  The other major thing that I disagree with is his belief that I'll see Islam and Muhammad are of the devil.  That makes as much sense as saying that Jones is of the Zeus.

I wanted to talk about these things first, because it all has some interesting ramifications.  In Libya and Egypt, Muslims are furious.  Why are they furious?  They're furious, because Terry Jones insulted Islam.  That hanging figure in the video is clearly supposed to be Muhammad, and devout Muslims find that to be incredibly disrespectful and insulting.

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the fact that Muslims are getting bent out of shape to the point of violence because a non-Muslim violated their laws outside their vicinity.  American people cannot legally drink alcohol until they turn 21 years old.  Germany allows people as young as 14 to drink alcohol.  How much sense would it make for Americans to set fire to a German embassy, because one of Germany's citizens drank beer in Germany?  Absolutely none.  That's how much.  The Muslims who are doing the rioting are acting incredibly irrational.  Why?  Because of their faith.

I'm not here to talk about why faith is bad, though.  These Muslims do a dandy job of that.  What I'd like to do is point an interesting thing out.  I think we can all agree that it makes no sense for these Muslims to get so worked up over some Infidel who is doomed to jahannam, the Muslim hell, for not being part of their group.  Regardless of our faith, we should agree.

It reminds me of all the Christians who think it's okay to try and ban same sex marriage for people outside their little club.

To end, I give you a quote from Christopher Hitchens:

"Ladies and gentlemen, I close by saying.  I cannot believe there is a thinking person here who does not realize that our species would begin to grow to something like its full height, if it left this childishness behind.  If it emancipated itself from this sinister, childish nonsense."

 There.  Both sides need to grow up.

To a Disgusting Arkansan Candidate

Today, I caught wind that a woman running for congress in Arkansas ran an ad that makes me gag.  I intend to write a letter to Mary, the candidate, letting her know that she will never have my vote so long as she continues her bigotry.  Here is the advertisement:

Democrat Party backs Gay Marriage on Party Platform

This past weekend the Democrat party backed Gay marriage for the first time on their party platform. The choice this November on moral issues could not be clearer.  Do you support Gay marriage and abortion?  The democrat party does.  Thankfully here in Arkansas we passed the defense of marriage act defining marriage as between one man and one woman.  But as we have seen in Washington with President Obama's refusal to defend DOMA just having the law doesn't prevent Officials from ignoring it or the  will of the people who passed it.  Case in point here is Governor Beebe's latest appointment to the State School Board.  Dr. Jay Barth is a liberal political science professor from Hendrix who happens to be a homosexual activist and married to another man. I have not heard a single word of opposition to this appointment from any of the democratic legislators in Arkansas. On the case for abortion the democrat party in Arkansas killed 10 prolife bills proposed by republicans in committee this past legislative session and brag about it. I am a republican because they represent my Christian values, faith in God and what the bible teaches about life and marriage. I am a business owner and I am passionate about seeing our state prosperous, but my hopes of seeing the laws in Arkansas reflecting our Christian family values about abortion and continuing to reflect them on marriage drive me even harder to win this election in November!"

Dear Mary:

I want to respond thoughtfully to your campaign advertisement, and I hope you'll read my response as carefully as I read your advertisement.  It should be noted that the "Democrat party" did nothing.  It's called the Democratic Party.  You're right, though.  The choice on moral issues could not be any more black and white.  I want to know how you live with yourself.  The democrats support gay marriage?  I don't.  I support everyone's right to marry.  Homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, pansexuals, etc., are all human, just like you.  You are on the wrong side of morality, Mary.  I'm going to assume that you aren't racist.  Well, actually, I'm going to assume that you advocate racial equality in public, even if you think minorities are inferior.  Now, imagine the kind of outrage you would be met with if you replaced "Gay marriage" with "interracial marriage."  How silly would you look if you tried to deny brown-eyed people the right to marry other brown-eyed people?

Homosexual individuals are no more responsible for their sexual preference than blue-eyed people are for their blue eyes.  You may be under the impression that people choose to be homosexual.  To that, I have to ask how it matters.  Additionally, if you do think people choose it, you are simply wrong.  Every reputable scientist can attest to that.  If you deny people the right to marry who they love, you are no different than the racists who claimed that allowing a black person to marry a white person is immoral and would ruin marriage for everyone else.  It's time to put the bigotry aside, Mary.

You seem to be opposed to Dr. Barth's appointment to the school board, because he is a homosexual.  I would really like to know how it matters.  What if you received a letter saying that you should be opposed because you are a female?  I understand that the Christian bible condemns homosexual behavior, but it also condemns you, a woman, from teaching or holding authority over a man in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.  How dare you use the exact same book to condemn this man?  Does he do his job?  Does the fact he is sexually and emotionally attracted to men somehow change his job performance?

I am of the opinion that you are far less qualified to hold a seat in congress than Dr. Barth is to be on the school board.  You are putting your own beliefs on a higher pedestal than the rights of the citizens you wish to serve.  How dare you claim to be qualified for the job you seek?

On the case of abortion, until you take action to right the real moral injustices of the world, should you really worry about these issues?  Of course, I'm sure your response to that question will be that the killing of children should be a high priority for any moral person, and the Christian bible backs you up.  I would like to know, specifically, where the bible condemns abortion.  Perhaps you'd appreciate Psalm 137:9?

"Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock."

It seems that the very same book you use to oppose abortion isn't too opposed to infanticide, so why are you?  The children who are killed in the bible were already born, rather than fetuses.  I guess that makes sense, given the religious right's opposition to helping children who have been born.

I suggest that, if you plan to use your religion to dictate how everyone else should live, you learn what your bible says on these topics.  According to Matthew 10:35-38, Jesus specifically says that people who do not leave their families, take up the cross, and follow him are not worthy of his grace.  In 1 Corinthians 7:1-9, Paul makes it very clear that the only reason people should get married is to avoid being sent to hell for the sin of lust.

Again, I submit that you have no authority to speak on morality, Mary.  You clearly are a bigot.  You are not a selfless person that an elected official should be.  You, like everyone else who reads the bible, pick and choose what you believe should be enforced.  Under no circumstance will I ever cast a vote in your direction.  I could never vote for a person who believes such vile things, and espouses them with the grammar of a second grade student.

I thank you for your time, Mary.  I hope you find happiness by letting others be happy.

Things To Remember When Debating

I've been quiet lately on here.  I wanted to let the Aurora Shooting slide out of the spotlight, but during the downtime, I've been doing quite a bit of thinking.  It's occurred to me that we, the atheist community, do a few things that I don't quite like.  You're all free to disagree with me on any of these points, but I think there are a few things we could do better when interacting and debating religious folk.  I've noticed that, especially when we have the bible quoted to us, we quote it back.  Oftentimes it'll be an exchange like this:

Theist:  Well, of course, you know that Leviticus says that gays are an abomination.

 Atheist:  True, but it also says that you shouldn't eat shellfish, cut your hair, etc.

 As true as this statement from our hypothetical atheist is, it does something that should be avoided.  Quoting the bible back in this fashion actually lends credibility to the very book we seek to show is fallible.  There are times when quoting from the bible is a great technique.  When we point to the contradictions, inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, and scientific misunderstandings, we discredit the infallibility of the bible.  I think I can say with some amount of certainty that atheists generally understand how very errant the bible is, so we should use this to our advantage.

 Another thing we tend to do is get angry and resort to insults.  We know that an ad hominem is not a valid argument; or we should, at least.  In fact, I see atheists call their opponents out for using the personal attack, then turn around and use it a few comments later.  In my experience, theists use this more often than atheists, but the fact remains that it's not appropriate on either side.  If either side expects any ground to be gained, attacking the people rather than the arguments only stops the conversation.  I give the benefit of the doubt to both sides of the argument, and I'll assume they both know that the ad hominem is a bad idea, but sometimes, during the heat of the moment, it's easier to call someone a jackass douchemonkey rather than point out the jackassery douchemonkey-shenanigans of the argument.  Most theistic religions espouse peace.  Theists, do you want to be the angry vengeful kind of person your god(s) say are bad?   Atheists, do you want to seem irrational?  I rest my case.

A third issue I take with how atheists take to the debate floor is similar to the previous one.  Humility.  If you have no response to your opponent, admit it.  There is absolutely no shame in saying, "I don't know."  Don't we often talk about how there's no shame in science not knowing all the answers?  If it did, there would be no more need for science.  We are no different.  While there has never been a sufficient argument for the existence of any god at all, it's doubtful we know how to respond to every single argument for the existence of a god.  There's no shame in that.  We should admit it, and, if we can, come back with an answer.

The final thing I'd like us to take into consideration is how we respond.  Many comments end up being a full paragraph, and it's important to notice that not everyone understands how paragraphs work.  There are often many different ideas and thoughts that should be addressed within each of these paragraphs.  With that in mind, I'd like to suggest that we break up each topic into its own section.  For example, if we see that one paragraph, comment, or whatever has arguments x, y, and z, we should format our response like this:

Argument X.

Your response to that specific argument or thought.

Argument Y

Your response to this argument

Argument Z

Do I really need to explain again?

Not only does this clarify what you're responding to, it should eliminate any confusion on both sides.  This will eliminate people taking things out of context.  In your response to Argument X, you might have said something that pertained to a different argument, and your opponent could take that to meant that your response to this argument was actually a response to a different argument, and therefore makes no sense.  I seek to eliminate these issues, not only for clarity, but because it also allows each side to be extremely aware if one argument wasn't addressed.

I implore all theists who defend theism to follow these guidelines, too.  You don't have all the answers, either.   There's no need in name-calling, or faulty logic.  If we can discuss these things peacefully, I'm sure we'll cover much more ground.