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.

America Is Not a Christian Nation

Tonight, it was brought to my attention that a Christian blogger made some pretty wild claims.  The claims are that atheists, secularists, etc. change or ignore historical fact to suit our needs, and that the USA was founded on Christianity, and we should apply its laws to our country's laws.  I'm here to defend the position that this country was not founded on Christian ideals, but was rather designed to protect it from Christian ideals.

The author points to the fact that the Puritans are the ones who founded the Colonies, and they wanted the Christian bible to be the law.  Not only did they not enforce their own ideals, but they're laws are completely irrelevant to today.  Their laws, while some might seem Christian, are not remarkably different than any other country's laws.

He then points to the fact that some of our Founding Fathers were Christian, and may have espoused the idea that Christianity was the best moral code.  This, too, is not relevant, because the Constitution that they wrote and signed has exactly one reference to a higher power, and it's the date.  Back then, dates were considered "In the Year of Our Lord."  Thankfully, that's no longer used.  Other than this one reference to any deity, the Constitution only refers to religion one time, which prohibits the government and religion from intermingling.  Moreover, in the Treaty of Tripoli, it is explicitly stated that the United States is not founded on Christian principles.

Furthermore, the author says near the end:

"The morality legislated in the United States of America has been decidedly Christian. Though many people throughout the history of this great nation have not been Christians, the morality that has been legislated from its very beginning has been Christian morality. It is ridiculous to say that Christian morality cannot be legislated, because it already has been."

I'm not entirely sure which laws he thinks are Christian.  We have plenty of laws that are found in Christianity, but they aren't exclusive to that religion.  Do not steal?  That's a common law everywhere.  Do not kill?  Same thing.  Do not rape?  Wait, no.  The Christian bible condones rape. What about when Jesus commands us to pluck out our eyes for looking at someone with lust?  That's not in our laws.

What the author has done is shown that, yes, the United States and Christianity do have laws in common.  The United States also has laws in common with the Koran.  The argument against that would be that the people who founded the colonies and country weren't Muslim so of course we aren't an Islamic country!  Again, their beliefs are not relevant.  The United States is not perfect, but if we were to base our laws strictly on Christianity, which I've shown is immoral by itself here, we would have a country not unlike Iran.

Furthermore, let's entertain the idea that the USA was designed to be a theocracy.  So, what?  We already know that the bible has some good things, but it has plenty of immoral atrocities that are commanded or performed by your god himself.  Christianity is not a good source of morals, nor is it a good thing to base a country on.  America is over 200 years older and wiser.  It no longer needs the morals of an angry, vengeful, sadist father figure.  America grew up.

Why Is Sex Talk Awkward?

This post is obviously about sex.  Lately, my Facebook feed has been full of pseudo-inspiring pictures talking about what real men and real women act like in a real relationship.  I've done a post already on why we should stop the slut shaming and double standard, but this one is about both genders.  In this post, I'm going to try not to bash religion too much, but its hard to talk about sex without talking about how much religion distorts sexuality.

I know that people like to talk about how special sex is, but it's not very often we ask why we think that.  It's been ingrained in us since before puberty.  Between abstinence-only education and no comprehensive sex education, we heard a lot about why we should wait until marriage to have sex, but it's been shown that between 90 and 95% of people don't wait.  Maybe they waited until they found someone special to do it with, but I remember back to my seventh and eighth grade abstinence classes (yes, I had two classes that told me not to have sex).  I also remember them giving surveys out before and after the class that asked, among other things, when we planned to have sex.  I very distinctly remember people around me afterwards talking about how they lied and said, on the survey, they planned to wait until they were either married or found someone special.  I know that I'm usually pretty against anecdotal arguments, so I want to be clear that I'm not using this as an argument or premise, but rather it's where my questioning began.

What was it that made these kids lie?  Why did they think it was necessary to lie on an anonymous survey?  Obviously, if you've read any of my other blog entries, you'll be able to guess where my first guess will be place:  Religion.  I participated in a research project in my senior undergraduate class that found that as people become more conservative or fundamental with religion, their level of support for offering birth control and comprehensive sex education to teenagers decreases.  It's also already known that the more conservative the religion is, the more guilt is present.  I'll let you draw your own conclusion for why you think that is.

Religious guilt aside, and there's a lot of guilt tied up in the pews, my generation grew up in an environment that didn't talk about sex.  There was no formal education in schools, and in Arkansas at least, adults didn't really talk about sex with kids.  There was always this catch-22 where parents didn't want to talk to their kids about the birds and bees, but they didn't want the schools interfering.  I remember a King of the Hill episode about this exact topic.  You might remember it as this episode.  Do click the link, it's hilarious.  Now, I do want to point out that when practicing saying the names of organs, Peggy includes the uvula, which is not a sex organ.  For those of you who don't know, that's the little dangly thing that's in the back of your throat.  What I think is really interesting in that clip is that she's the one teaching sex ed.  I don't know if it was an intentional thing or if the producers or whoever honestly did not know that the uvula is very, very above the waist, but I think my point is still made.  Adults, whether fictional or not, don't know basic human anatomy.

I've talked to a good amount of my friends about what kind of sex education they got from their schools and parents.  Most of them said it was pretty awkward to hear it from their parents.  I, too, almost had an awkward sex talk, but luckily (or unluckily, I guess) I already knew most of the basics, so I got to duck out early.  It was awkward while it lasted, though.  Why, though, is it we feel uncomfortable discussing sex?  Why are those of us who attempt to openly talk about this topic called perverts?  I think the answer to the second question there is answered by the first one.  The first one can be answered by what I've been saying this whole time, I think.

First, we aren't knowledgeable enough about our own anatomy and physiology.  People are scared of what we don't understand.  I'm an example of this.  I used to fear certain sounds in the dark, but then I learned what made them!  Poof.  Fear gone.  I think sex is the same.  A lot of people don't understand that sex isn't something inherently evil.  It has dangers, yes.  Most things do, but sex is also natural.  The desires and urges?  Natural.  The awkward, random erections we guys get?  However unpleasant they may be when they happen in class right before you're asked to solve a math problem on the board, (am I right, guys?) they happen, and they're normal.

Second, we've been taught not to talk about sex.  The only thing my generation needed to know about sex was not to do it, talk about it, or think about it.  This one is the most egregious things about the entire topic.  Don't think about sex?  Don't think about a biological urge I have!?  Oh, no, Mr. Politician and Preacher, I'll think about sex when I do.  I'll also think about being hungry when I am.  You see a sign that says "Wet Paint, Don't Touch."  What do you do?  You touch it, because you're curious.  In hindsight, I just realized that's a perfect analogy for the topic, but moving on.  Thought crime legislation is one of the most grotesque ideas I've ever heard, and it's being applied to our children.

Not Atypical

It's time to stop this.  Telling someone what to think is wrong.  It's not really possible to enforce, but that doesn't stop us from trying.  My Facebook feed is full of a second kind of picture:  The children of people I went to high school with.  The people who were in junior high while I was in high school.  Unplanned pregnancies followed by engagements followed by marriage (sometimes) followed by breaking up or divorcing.  We like to talk a big game, it seems, about how sacred and holy marriage is, but how many of us actually think that?

Sex, we were told, is something for a married couple.  Marriage, we were told, is supposed to be a lifelong commitment.    How's that working out for my age group?  With these definitions, and the statistic I put up earlier, we can determine that roughly 90% of us aren't monogamous in that since.  We say we're serial monogamists when we talk to people, but even still, many people aren't.

I think it's high time we left this nonsense behind.  It's time to start educating people about the human body and it's natural urges.  You know what this silence on sex has given us?  We have a teen pregnancy rate that is four times the rate in The Netherlands.  It's three times the rate of France's and Germany's.  The difference is that in those other countries, sex is talked about openly.  It's not something to shy away from.  Sex is understood there, and taught to everyone so they can make an informed decision.

I beg you to imitate Europe here.  Please, everyone.  Teach your children about their bodies.  Do not shame them.  You see what America has become.  Let's stop this.