Dork in a Poncho

The above images were taken at the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Lima, Peru, where Bush joined representatives from numerous other nations.

Yes, I picked the photos that made him look most idiotic. At least Bush is good for a nice therapeutic laugh every now and then; he owes us that much for goodness sake!

'Tis the Season to be Oblivious

The holiday season for many is a time for charity. For freethinking members of society who don't wish to contribute to the painfully out of touch agenda of many religious charities, it can be difficult to find charitable organizations with a secular viewpoint. In the past, prior to my recovery from religious manipulation, I've personally donated to The Salvation Army, perhaps the most high profile charity during the holidays. As with too many Christian establishments, The Salvation Army maintains many views that exemplify just how detrimentally unaware many Christian institutions and those of other religious convictions are. To prove this point, I visited SA's website and reviewed their "position statements" regarding various topics, with special attention to the areas dealing with sexuality. Here are some "positions" that I found most disturbing:

"...sexual intimacy is not essential to a healthy, full, and rich life."

"...Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life."

"Men and women need each other, not only in the bonds of marriage, but in nearly every aspect of our lives."

"Marriage is the only proper context for sexual intimacy."

There is a plethora of other statements made on the site consistent with the insensible postulations of many religious assertions, including those related to abortion, assisted reproduction, birth control, even social drinking. They can be found here:

http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf/vw-text-dynamic-arrays/B6F3F4DF3150F5B585257434004C177D?openDocument

Even with unrealistic stances, there can be no doubt The Salvation Army, along with other charities, religious-based or not, do make real, positive impacts in people's lives. I can't imagine any responsible, compassionate member of society being opposed to helping our fellow world inhabitants, human or otherwise. However, what I personally cannot condone is the proliferation of ideas that contradict the very reality that we are immersed in and instead promote beliefs that devalue the human experience of others.

Would I accept the charity of a religious person or organization should I fall upon hard times in the future? I certainly would; just as I would not withhold my charitable contributions to other individuals based on religious beliefs. I would absolutely never deny much needed assistance to someone based on any of their beliefs; that is certainly not what I am promoting in the least. However, we do have the option of providing donations to organizations with secular ambitions, or those religious organizations more in tune with true understanding and humanism.

Here is a list of some secular charities:

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Charities

Faith based organizations I like to refer people to, which accept direct contributions, and which can likely cite other sensible venues for donations include:

http://www.uua.org/

http://www.calchurches.org/

Many, many other nonreligious groups, associations, businesses, ect., can be found at the following link. I'm sure many of these accept donations as well, and can be found either by nation or state wide:

http://www.atheistalliance.org/directory/list.php

Please feel free to add to this list by commenting or sending links for me to post. Thank you!

'Tis the season to give intelligently!

Milk

Looking forward to seeing Milk!!!

"Insecure Religious Egos"

I found the following article here:
http://www.ffrf.org/news/2008/censorship.php

I love Gaylor's comments! I recommend looking at the original article because at the bottom it gives additional news links and contact information for complaints.

Send a message to the city of Rancho Cucamonga with this automatic message generator: http://atheistsunited.org/about-atheists-united/programs/147-automatic-message-generator

________
"Imagine No Religion" Billboard Comes Down in Cucamonga

The Freedom From Religion Foundation's "Imagine No Religion" billboard, which only went up late last week in Rancho Cucamonga, Calif., for a two-month run, has been censored by General Outdoor Co., which took down the Foundation's vinyl message today. While the Foundation has encountered billboard companies unwilling to lease boards in several locations (Rapid City, Mich., Peoria, Ill., rural Nebraska and Salt Lake City), this is the first time one of its billboards has been censored after going up.

The colorful billboard carries the Freedom From Religion Foundation's name and website, and boasts a John Lennon-esque statement, "Imagine No Religion," against a stained-glass window background.

The billboard had already engendered a story in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, (Ontario, Calif.), which went out over the Associated Press wire, as well as major TV coverage in the valley on ABC and CBS TV stations last night.

Foundation co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor called such censorship "unprofessional and cavalier."

"Are religionists so thin-skinned they must squelch free debate? One small freethought billboard in the immense state of California is such a threat to insecure religious egos that it must be censored?"

Gaylor said: "With local freethinkers' help, the Freedom From Religion Foundation would love to plaster the valley with our message. Let's fight back!"

"There is nothing insulting in our message. We simply invite the public to think, to imagine a world free from religion. Think of the history of believers warring over their imaginary gods, the fact that more people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other reason! The human race needs to grow up. We should concentrate on improving this world, and stop worrying about the next," Gaylor added.

A Foundation billboard, using the stained-glass motif with a little holly added and the seasonal message, "Reason's Greetings," will be going up next month in Olympia, Wash., and in Madison, Wis., among other sites.

Churches in Support of Overturning Prop. 8

I wrote the following letter to the California Council of Churches, drawn from one of my most recent blog entries:

Dear Members of the California Council of Churches,

I simply would like to thank the Council, as well as everyone it represents, from the bottom of my heart, for supporting the efforts to overturn Proposition 8. I wish all people of faith were as insightful and truly compassionate and understanding to all. I further hope that more people of faith will follow the Council's example and be more mindful of the adverse impact religious teaching and belief potentially has on certain groups of society members. I'm immensely grateful for groups such as the California Council of Churches because I feel your organization is more in tune with how religion should be conducted, since religion is an inevitable component of the human condition. I'm personally agnostic, however, I appreciate having churches, groups, religious organizations, and so forth to refer people to in an effort to exemplify the positive impact people of faith can and do have. Since religion is a substantial part of our American culture, and thus highly influential, I feel organizations such as the CCC have the power to make vital impacts in our society for the greater good of all the world's inhabitants. What a breath of fresh air!

Again, I thank you most sincerely.

________
The Rev. Dr. Rick Schlosser, Executive Director of the CCC and California Church IMPACT, responded with the following:

Thank you so much for your words of encouragement. As you might guess, we are currently being flooded with hate mail and phone calls from the religious right and is a gift to read an email with appreciation rather than hate!

Thank you for taking the time to write.

-- Rick

________
Let Rev. Dr. Rick Schlosser, the CCC, and CC IMPACT know how much you appreciate their efforts in possibly overturning Prop. 8 by sending an e-mail to: rick@calchurches.org

This is a time when sensible Californians need to come together and show our support for what is right and just. For additional information about the California Council of Churches and California Church IMPACT, visit: http://www.calchurches.org/

Happy Thanksgiving

WOW!!! Where to start??!! For those of you who might not know, the above video represents an interview conducted after Sarah Palin pardoned a turkey in Wasilla, Alaska. That bit can be found here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#27831044

Earlier this month, on November 10, Rachel Maddow said in her special way, while covering Palin's insistent jabbering upon her return to Alaska after the election, "I find it difficult to read Sarah Palin quotes with appropriate cadence, so please forgive me." I was reminded of Rachel's humorous remarks after seeing this slaughter video. It's often difficult enough to following what Sarah Palin is trying to say without animals being killed in the background, which is why I had to watch the video a couple times before I really started to get what Palin was attempting to convey. Proper inflection, punctuation, diction, and statements distinguishable from one another really are assets of language. I think Palin's been taking her cues from Bush in one way or another. If you're interested in seeing the clip from The Rachel Maddow Show, in which she appears to comment on Palin's language impairments, it can be found at the following link, the quote can be heard about 2 minutes in:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#27652879

The slaughter video also reminds me of our tendency to avoid what unsettles us or disrupts our relatively peaceful existence. The first coverage I saw of the video on MSNBC utilized image blurring in what seemed to be an effort to disguise some of what was happening to the turkeys. Perhaps blurring also has the effect of heightening the drama, in that the apparent need to blur means some of what's being shown must be too sensational and startling to be fully seen. However, blurring also conversely has the impact of directing more attention to surrounding areas in hopes of fully understanding the scope of what's happening, such as to the piece of equipment being used and the violent shaking we can plainly see, which in turn may increase the dramatic affect.

I think we have a right and a responsibility to fully comprehend what we are contributing to, which is why I've posted the uncensored version of the video. I think if more people were more aware of and cared about what goes on around us, what we directly and indirectly influence, and the impact we can and/or do have, the better off we will all be. That's why things like reading, keeping informed through various news sources, voting, and intelligent thought are important. No matter what it involves, when our reality is blurred, either by us or for us, there will inevitably be a deficit in our consciousness that will have to be reconciled at some point; hopefully toward the positively productive.

Agnostic Proclamations, Part 1

Anyone who watches Real Time with Bill Maher is familiar with the final segment called "New Rules", in which Maher offers a sensible and comical perspective on current issues or events of interest. In reading and watching news throughout the day and conversing with people of various opinions, I often find my thoughts can be formulated into short, direct pieces of commentary as well. There is great value in precise, to-the-point arguments and evaluations, which is why I'm starting this ongoing series called "Agnostic Proclamations", my own sort of new rules and in reference to my perspective as an agnostic. First up, I'd like to address the idea, and resulting conclusions, rooted in religious writing, teaching, and belief, that God created man and woman, and therefore any sexual behavior conducted outside of this "natural intent" is wrong and sinful. My blog entries included in the series will start off with a statement or two and continue with my ensuing thoughts on the matter, as follows:

If you've EVER in a period of your life mainly had sex other than for the purposes of procreation, you don't get to claim sex, on an individual level, is mainly for the purpose of creating new life. Furthermore, if you have no control over who you're attracted to, you don't get to assume others DO have such a power.

Human sexuality must not be cheapened to man+woman=baby=good. Even the Roman Catholic Church has brought itself to admit sexual activity is acceptable for married couples unable to bear children and during pregnancy, and promotes natural family planning. To me, such assertions acknowledge very plainly that sexual contact serves other functions outside of birthing new humans.

In my experience and frame of knowledge, the act of sex has a powerful emotional component. Beyond feeling damn good, which should be reason enough to encourage sex in safe practice, human sexuality promotes a special sort of intimacy that has the potential to heighten the bond with our partner(s). To put something so intricate in simple terms, sex can be an overwhelming and compelling expression of love. Who are we to define that love as experienced by others?

Additionally, no one has control over who they are drawn to in terms of emotional, intellectual, physical, psychological, and sexual attraction...it's simply something about ourselves that just is. We may be able to distinguish qualities of a specific person we're attracted to in order to explain why we favor them, but not completely why that is in the first place. Therefore, until the most qualified collaborative team of objective scientists, doctors, psychologist, and other gifted professionals come together and explain, without any conflict, the exact science of attraction, no one gets to discredit or degrade the attractions of any human for another. It's a ridiculous notion to assume we are able or will ever be able to fully explain human attraction and sexuality. It's one of those complicatedly complex matters we are well served by acknowledging we will never have all the answers to.

Let's not forget also that the physical sex of an individual, as well as their gender, are not always so easily defined. Labels such as man, woman, male, and female do not even come close to covering all the possibilities. Many intersexuals whose parents elected not to have them surgically more distinguishable as male or female commend their parents' decision. Furthermore, many people born with intersex, whose parents did choose to have them surgically altered, feel the right decision was not made in their case, especially in previous generations, before intersexuality was relatively well understood and societal pressures so disconcerting and unyielding. On the issue of gender, which is very socially and culturally defined, the usual dichotomy is absolutely not universal. There are other cultures, such as some Native American cultures, that recognize more than two genders. What's more, they not only identify multiple genders, but revere them. In such societies, a male thought to have a more female spirit and a female believed to have a more male spirit are both highly respected. Many of the world's cultures are starving for such a healthy dose of awareness and appreciation related to the gray area of physical sex, and especially the notion of gender.

We will never be able to fully explain the intricacies of human attraction and sexuality; therefore, we must not make the mistake of expecting we do understand and base our unfounded judgments on such arrogant assumptions. Not very many things in our scope of knowledge can be explained in black and white terms and sexuality will never be on that list. One of the fabulous things about humanity is the variation we embody in every characteristic and quality that is human. Just because we may not understand those variations absolutely does not give us license to dismiss such differences as unfavorable. It is an enriching and empowering experience to approach what we don't initially comprehend in each other with enthusiasm and with an open mind and heart, especially when our potentially false assumptions have the power to impact the very lives and happiness of others. Whether it concerns ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality, we must not make the mistaken of using our own yardstick to measure and judge the experiences of others; to do so would be especially unwise, haughty, and unscrupulous, potentially resulting in tragic consequences. All of human history, both ancient and what we are currently living, can attest to that.

An Important Day for Civil Equality in California

I just checked my e-mail to find the following message from Equality California:

"Today the California Supreme Court granted review in the legal challenges to Proposition 8, which passed by a narrow margin of 52 percent on November 4. In an order issued today, the Court agreed to hear the case and set an expedited briefing schedule. The Court also denied an immediate stay.

On November 5, 2008, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of Proposition 8 in the California Supreme Court on behalf of six couples and Equality California. The City of San Francisco, joined by the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and Santa Clara County, filed a similar challenge, as did a private attorney in Los Angeles.

The lawsuits allege that, on its face, Proposition 8 is an improper revision rather than an amendment of the California Constitution because, in its very title, which was "Eliminates the right to marry for same-sex couples," the initiative eliminated an existing right only for a targeted minority. If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would be the first time an initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution to take way an existing right only for a particular group. Such a change would defeat the very purpose of a constitution and fundamentally alter the role of the courts in protecting minority rights. According to the California Constitution, such a serious revision of our state Constitution cannot be enacted through a simple majority vote, but must first be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature.

Since the three lawsuits submitted on November 5, three other lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 have been filed. In a petition filed on November 14, 2008, leading African American, Latino, and Asian American groups argued that Proposition 8 threatens the equal protection rights of all Californians.

On November 17, 2008, the California Council of Churches and other religious leaders and faith organizations representing millions of members statewide, also filed a petition asserting that Proposition 8 poses a severe threat to the guarantee of equal protection for all, and was not enacted through the constitutionally required process for such a dramatic change to the California Constitution. On the same day, prominent California women's rights organizations filed a petition asking the Court to invalidate Proposition 8 because of its potentially disastrous implications for women and other groups that face discrimination.

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and violates the fundamental right to marry. Proposition 8 would completely eliminate the right to marry only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group.

Over the past 100 years, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging either legislative enactments or initiatives as invalid revisions of the California Constitution. In three of those cases, the Court invalidated those measures."

After reading the e-mail, I went directly to the California Council of Churches website to review their comments directly regarding Prop. 8 and marriage equality. I wish all people of faith were as insightful and truly compassionate to all, as those represented by this religious council. I further hope that more people of faith will follow their example and be more mindful of the adverse impact religious teaching and belief potentially has on certain groups of society members. I'm immensely grateful for organizations such as the California Council of Churches because I feel they are more in tune with how religion should be done, since religion is an inevitable component of the human condition. What a breath of fresh air! The group's views regarding marriage equality can be found here:

http://www.calchurches.org/marriage/

Prop. 8 Dishonor Roll

I suggest consulting this list before giving any of your money (donations, business patronage, ect.) to any of these individuals, companies, and other organizations. This list indicates those in favor of Prop. 8, and therefore not in favor of civil equality. I personally consider support of any of these entities as support for discrimination, intolerance, unawareness, even hatefulness. Look carefully:

http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/dishonorRoll.html

Thank You, Keith Olbermann

The Shameful 70% and the Great Disservice of Religion: My Common Sense Theory

It perplexes and saddens me to know 70% of African Americans voted in favor of Proposition 8, compared to the vote of Latino, Asian, and white Americans, all which were closer to about 50% to 50%, according to exit polls. Before anyone accuses me of being racist, as white or non-black as I may look, I am of measurable African heritage. My maternal grandmother is Creole and my maternal grandfather was mixed, but appeared mostly black, not unlike the skin tone of Barack Obama. He was black enough that he couldn't walk on the platform of the train station, where the white soldiers were, when he shipped out to serve his country during the second World War; he had to walk through the gravel, outside the train station, with the rest of the black soldiers. Perhaps even more telling is my mother's birth certificate, produced in 1951 Louisiana, which states "negro" as her race. So, according to the state of Louisiana, I might as well be considered half black. I know the personal stories of segregation and discrimination as experienced by those I love and I am well aware that based on my genetic background, I could have been subject to the same maltreatment and worse, depending on how far back you wish to go. This information should really be inconsequential, but I want to dismiss the "racist" card right off the top.

I would think civil rights issues and conditions of discrimination would be near and dear to the hearts of black Americans, especially those who remember very well what being black meant in this country in the 30's, 40's, 50's, and 60's, and/or before, if they should remember that far back. Let's face it too, the election of Barack Obama didn't magically dismiss racism that still haunts us till today. So why would it seem 70% of black Californians did not relate their struggle for civil equality to that of the LGBTQI communities?

A black couple approached me in the parking lot of Target last Friday. Coincidentally, that's the second time I've gotten into a discussion over Prop. 8 with an African American in that same parking lot of that same Target. During this most recent exchange, which resulted from the woman seeing what was written on one of my "NO on 8" rally signs as I was switching around the contents of my trunk to accommodate my purchases, I was presented with the same religious argument that I am so tired of hearing. Let me reiterate that the lady approached me (I assume the man and woman were married, and the lady was the only one who opened her mouth to me); I hadn't even made eye contact with her before she told me she saw my sign and wanted to tell me it had nothing to do with hate. At which point I told her it was an issue of discrimination. She insisted that God made man and woman and that was his intent; after which I proclaimed Prop. 8 should not have been a religious issue, but a civil rights issue. She again rephrased her previous statement regarding man and woman, the only argument she was willing or able to share with me, and I told her I felt God was happy with people being who he made them to be, as long as they were not hurting anyone, and she proceeded on her way. Even though I don't believe in God without question, the moment didn't seem appropriate to declare myself agnostic. When you're trying to get your point across to a religious person, flat out telling them you're Godless doesn't help. It really shouldn't have been any of her concern in the first place.

I must say this lady was very nice; she didn't seem confrontational in the least (although one might think you should mind your own business when others are as well). Furthermore, she didn't have a look of disdain on her face, as her male companion did indeed display very plainly. If I had to speculate, I imagine he thought I was gay, considering my obvious opposition of Prop. 8 and my less than made-up appearance that day. In any event, I certainly didn't feel the need to dispel his likely assumptions; it's his business and his problem if he wished to judge me. I got the impression from her, on the other hand, she genuinely didn't want me to think Prop. 8 was about the hatred of gays and lesbians, but about a sinful act. The entire encounter probably didn't last for more than half a minute, so I was obviously unable to engage her in a full on debate. Although, I don't feel social equality and fundamental civil and human rights should be up for debate...both should just be, especially for a nation that claims equal protection, liberty, and justice for all.

My interaction with the lady reiterated some of what I've discerned, and my resulting affirmations, in general terms, with regard to religion and many of the people who practice it. When someone is trying to sell you on an idea or a belief, especially one with so many applicable counterarguments, inconsistencies, and flat out contradictions, it always helps to maintain an impression of agreeableness, approachability, and politeness. The lady's method of approach in terms of her interaction with me suggested, from my assessment, an almost submissive quality as well. All elements considered, I cannot help but imagine a commissioned salesperson, the upbeat, likable young woman trying to sell you that uncomfortable pair of shoes you don't need (and are better off in the first place if you don't have them to try to walk in), or the television that's just a few inches larger than you intended to purchase, which upon getting home, you realize it doesn't even fit, or that overpriced additional to the car you just decided on to get you from point A to point B.

If I'm called on to judge my fellow humans as living or engaging in sin by utilizing selective parts of the "Word of God", while they are simply being themselves and not genuinely hurting anyone else, when I am an imperfect person myself, that's a pair of shoes I'm wholly unwilling to walk in; my conscience cannot afford such an expenditure. Nature, or perhaps God if he exists, has endowed me with my own intelligence and abilities to think vital things through analytically, sensibly, logically, and reasonably, with an empathic consideration for my fellow humans, other creatures, and the entire planet. When something doesn't make sense, that usually means it's nonsense and I do not need answers to unanswerable questions. Furthermore, I do not need answers that thoroughly reject actual, measurable, and otherwise testable phenomena. I will not dismiss what I can know in exchange for what I unquestionably cannot. I absolutely refuse to be sold on something I do not need because it seems to be better or more appropriate, or maybe because everyone seems to be doing it; I choose to find my proverbial pockets not emptied and my head clear and prepared to reach conclusion based on my own relatively enlightened and intellectually responsible evaluations.

Speaking of monetary disbursements and religion, it was during the Middle Ages if I remember correctly, when Christian church representatives would go around to common people and offer "passes" to forgive their sins, in exchange for a hefty price, of course. The more items of value you could offer, the more forgiven you would be. Is that not oddly reminiscent of the well dressed, well groomed, jewel bearing preacher who asks you for a generous "donation" of your income, perhaps 10-20% of your pay, or even your grocery money? They make sure to remind you how blessed you will be by giving to the church and how God will surely answer your prayers and forgive your sins as a repentant, active member of the congregation. Something doesn't seem right there.

Back to the issue at hand though...the 70% of black Americans who decided certain other members of their communities were not deserving, for whatever reason, of basic civil benefits and protections. My common sense theory is simple, thus my usage of the term. The very state of being black in this country for so long translated into judgment, injustice, intolerance, severe maltreatment, and the denial of fundamental human rights. Such a state of being, such a volatile, demeaning existence is breading ground for the comfort that religion can offer. If you, along with many generations of your ancestors, were subject to the most brutal, maddening, senseless treatment, as instituted, and therefore validated, by your very own government, then I think anyone in that circumstance would seek solace in another venue that confirms your essential value as a human being and provides a strong sense of supportive community.

But alas, with religion comes consequences, and unfortunately for members of the Californian LGBTQI communities, the years black Americans were subject to structured inequality and extremely reprehensible treatment, which turned many of them on to religion, also resulted in their belief that God's creation of man and woman translates somehow into the sinfulness of homosexuality, and thus their unworthiness of basic civil rights. I'm simply relaying the argument that has been presented to me. The vast majority of churchgoers I've heard from staunchly proclaim homosexuality a sin, which for them means homosexuals themselves do not deserve the same societal rights others have.

I, on the other hand, find is incredibly and appallingly ironic that many former second-class citizens do not sympathize with the plight of current second-class citizens. Moreover, it is further ironic and deplorable that those previously held as inferior have overwhelmingly supported the continued second-class standing of others. I think African Americans should be reminded of a time when their lowered social status was justified by those who thought it was God's will, or the natural order of things, that white men be elevated above the black.

What a great disservice of religion! The affiliation that provided such a necessary recourse is the exact same one that permits, encourages, and rationalizes the comparable marginalization of another group of society members. What ultimate incoherence and an absolute, indisputably horrid abomination as far as I'm concerned.

Whatever the cause may be, I challenge anyone who is in favor of denying basic civil and human rights, benefits, and protections to those of so-called "divergent" sexualities make themselves familiar with the personal stories of members of the LGBTQI community. Read or listen to first hand accounts, read Stone Butch Blues, read Middlesex, learn about same-sex couples who have been happy with, committed to, and loving toward each other for decades, who have raised and nurtured perfectly normal, functional, contributing, heterosexual members of society. Make friends with these pleasant people, have dinner with them. Learn about their accomplishments, their hopes, their goals for the future. Learn about their experiences growing up and what hardships they faced simply for being themselves. Ask yourself if a 4, 5, 6, or 7-year-old can really "choose" to be gay or transgender, if they can really decide on that "sin" as you claim. Ask them how it feels to be told by their fellow citizens they can't marry the person they love. Ask them what if feels like not to have any legal right or say when their loved one is sick or otherwise incapacitated. Find out how very "average" they are. I can promise, without any shred of doubt in my being, you will find they are not unlike you and are no less perfect than you are. Walk beside and hear these people then ask yourself again if they are undeserving, unworthy of the same rights you enjoy.

In Response to a Friend

A friend sent me the following in response to one of my blog entries:

"You know..., I know that you are upset and seeing red, but the best way to change someone's mind isnt by insulting them. When you call someone's religious views "acinine" they are automatically going to get upset and go on the defensive side and more than likely be offended, which isnt going to help your cause. Maybe the best way to handle christians isnt to attack their religion but to use is to sway them. As a christian, I know that the Bible is God's word, and that each individual is to interpret it according to their own views and life situations. I think if you take some time and look through the Bible, as someone who hasnt grown up with religion, you could find some sections in there that could help you."

I'm sharing my response to her in an effort to make clear some of my views concerning religion and my personal experiences in the matter:

"Dear...

Are you claiming I didn't grow up with religion? I'm really not sure. If so, I assure you I absolutely did, in the Catholic Church nonetheless. I went to "Sunday School" ever since I could remember, had my First Communion when I was 7, Confirmation class for two years by personal choice from the ages of about 15-16, and made my actual Confirmation when I was 17, at the same time as (two of our mutual friends) did. In my late teens and early 20's, after my friend,..., if you recall, was incarcerated, I went to Mass nearly every Sunday with my grandmother in hopes that I would find some motivation to help him through a difficult time in his life. So let me assure you, I am very familiar with religion, and not just Christianity. I am a student of religious studies; I have examined various religions from an intellectual standpoint, beyond my personal experiences in faith. So to suggest I'm not familiar with any religion, especially Christianity, and further propose I didn't grow up with religion is completely erroneous. Again of course, I'm not completely sure if you were trying to state you grew up without religion, or I didn't. If it's the latter, I apologize for my initial interpretation, but even so, I think it's important to state I'm not just pulling my feelings about religion out of my ass.

I'm coming to realize how many people I am just simply incompatible with, not only as an absolute agnostic, but as someone who feels very strongly that people who so fiercely adhere to uninformed, misguided points of view, seemingly and selectively devoid of any shred of true human compassion for people who actually live life along side us in the present day, should be called out. I feel such individuals should be challenged to formulate a viable argument and if unable, told as such.

My "cause" is not to sugar coat things. I call things the way I see them, and I suggest if you prefer not to hear or read it, please look elsewhere. I'm not into making things seem nice and pleasant so people will find appeal in it; that's something someone with a weak justification might resort to, not unlike religious folks trying to convince others they have all the answers to the questions they seek.

I feel religion is a production of man, created in response to unanswerable questions, for times of agony and despair, and in order to exert power and facilitate control. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the good parts of religion; charity, a sense of community and belonging, treating others as you would like to be treated, being honest on a personal level, along with many others. However, incorporating those qualities into your life does not at all require religious belief and if fact, in a counterproductive sense, those who claim a religion often dramatically assault these basic guidelines of human interaction, in the name of their religion tragically enough. Furthermore, when faith gets to the point of intolerance and degradation of some of your fellow humans by utilizing selective parts of the "Word of God", that is unacceptable, senseless, and shameful.

I will always sacrifice personal comforts for the sake of standing up for what I know in my mind and feel in my heart is the right, just thing to do. It is not in my character to do otherwise. If ignorance is bliss, I choose to lead a very discontented, miserable existence. More importantly, however, I am open to new information that may change my thinking and assessment of an issue or subject. I think that's what bright, capable people do in search of intellectual growth.

And if I may make a levelheaded suggestion as a friend, if you're interested in any religion, might I refer you to Unitarian Universalism? From what I know about their spectrum of practices and beliefs, they are the most enlightened religious group I'm currently aware of.

With Warm Regard..."

From the Mouth/Pen of a Founding Father

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

~ Thomas Jefferson

Does this make anyone feel any better about the religious mob that voted for Prop. 8?

(For those of you who might wonder, that question is meant to be rhetorical, sarcastic. It's impossible to feel any better about Prop. 8.)

I'm also working on collecting quotes from the Founding Fathers that express their distaste for religion, namely Christianity, in an effort to discredit the argument that this was meant to be a Christian nation. They did after all insist on separation of church and state! More to come...

Please send along any quotes you have pertaining to this topic. Thanks!

A Bit on Relationships

(I wrote this back on May 1, 2008 and is edited in the interest of subject matter.)

This is certainly a fascinating time for me. I’m not exactly sure when it started. The real, more encompassing answer is probably ever since I was born, with all society has fed me and the subsequent, often tragic, consequences; or perhaps it began even before, but that is another topic entirely. The fact is we are all products of our collective individual experiences, and how socialization has told us to respond to, interpret, and feel about those events in our lives.

(Here's where editing really comes in...this writing consisted of more topics, however in this entry, I've chosen to stick with relationships. Excuse any apparently awkward transitions.)

In what context did this “interesting” time in my life begin? It should be stated that I’ve always had an independent streak in my thinking. Nonetheless, as our American culture would dictate, I was raised on the notion that I would grown up one day, get married, have kids, and have a happy little life. Please let me ask right now…who does that work for? I know it works, for some, to build a happy life with their partner (happy being the emphasized word there), but how often? Really…how often does that happen? We are raised to believe that’s just the way life is…but it really isn’t and it’s dangerous to believe in something that likely will not materialize for you. For me, this is not an issue of being pessimistic or cynical; it’s an issue of being realistic.

In my previous relationship, which I was smart enough (or dumb enough, however you want to look at it) to get out of after two and a half years, I thought I had found the person I would build my life with. I loved this smart, attractive individual who was a great parent to a daughter from a previous relationship (evidenced by her sweet hearted nature…she was seriously an angel…now that I’m not immersed in the disappointment that relationship brought about, it’s abundantly clear SHE was what I lost in that relationship); this person was also adequately ambitious and had comical moments. In the beginning of our relationship, I was certain I had found the one I would carry out my American dream (delusion) with. It obviously didn’t work that way.

In the coming months, I would hear about problems some of my girlfriends were having with their husbands or ex-husbands, two in particular, both my age…in their early 20’s. One had only been married for a very short time, not even two years, before divorcing and another’s husband had gone outside their relationship for sex (and attention/affection perhaps) at least a couple of times already during their very short marriage. And on top of that, my own sister called me one afternoon and told me she was likely leaving her husband. It was quite a blow because I was under the impression that they were indeed living the American “dream” I had previously been looking forward to pursuing.

There is always more to a subject, but THAT is the context in which my current line of thinking in regards to relationships has fallen. Again let me emphasize that I’m not intending to be contemptuous concerning relationships and/or marriage, but realistic. Statically, who has that happy married life we are supposed to want and how many people who pursued it don’t? I don’t know, but my money is on the latter group being more plentiful. You can argue about definitions and ideals…obviously no one lives the ideal, but who really lives that happy life that is within attainable reach? I believe very, very few. So, again I will say that I feel it’s downright harmful, even dangerous to so adamantly believe in something that will likely not happen. It’s a setup for disappointment, bitterness, and unhappy children.

(I later reviewed statistics that indicate only about half of people who actually stay married are in a fulfilling, happy relationship. That means of all people who get married, only about 1/4th of them actually stay married and are happy, since the divorce rate is over 50%.)

My sister and her current situation has been a huge influence over me. Ever since she came to me with the shocking revelation that she was not happy in her marriage, we’ve often talked very openly about relationships, sexuality, and the consequences of being in a partnership that is not meeting your needs. We’ve engaged in many more meaningful conversations over the past few months than we ever have and as a result have elevated our sibling bond…one positive out of a highly unfavorable situation.

My sister’s circumstances and our ensuing exchanges can certainly be considered the catalyst through which my current thinking regarding relationships was born. The different gender perspectives are without a doubt very different when considering serious involvement with one another in a relationship. Nonetheless, there are questions that come to my mind involving all genders. Can monogamy really work? Why do we love? Is our society changing in such a way that will deem marriage outdated in the relatively near future? Why does it work for some people?

It's always fitting to have more questions than answers. All life is an experiment, or at least it should be; if you think you’ve mastered it or figured it out, you are greatly screwed.

What's Wrong with America

(I came across this back on Oct. 28; these were my comments at the time.)

www.thecall.com

This is what religious fanatics do...they use GOD to cover up their DISGUSTING hate! Look at the video...it's there...strategically buried, but absolutely clear.

Stand against this loathsome display of what's most vile of the human condition - the malicious hatred and unawareness of the so-called "other".

Embrace people for who they are, not what you think they should be.

Thank you!

They are Proving my Point: A Bitter, Semi-comical Rant

I went to the protectmarriage.com website, a.k.a. the hateful bigots website, in order to get contact information to share my disgust with them and before I proceed to their actual homepage, they have a screen that explicitly tells me:

"Voting YES restores traditional marriage."

"Voting NO means same-sex marriage."

Okay...were the people going to that site in questionable support of the proposition and who voted "yes" so painfully simpleminded and unintelligent they had to be told so categorically what their vote actually meant in plain terms like that? If so, THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VOTING IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! Such a weighty issue with unimaginable social and personal consequences should not be degraded to those two simple phrases; furthermore, for anyone who looks at it that simply, their voting fitness should be brought into question.

I'm really not surprised though, these are the same people who look at what they think they know as love and commitment in black and white terms and think marriage should be between two reluctant teenagers who made a mistake and want to compound the problem with another. These are also the same individuals who have to be told what to think by people like Billo the Clown and some deluded, earth bound church that wouldn't know genuine human values if they were really raining down on them in a forest somewhere.

If you go to the site, let me know if you get the same thing. I took a screen shot too if you're interested.

How about this instead (to be gracious and assume they would know all these big words):

"Voting YES means you're in favor of injudicious tradition that has created and proliferated centuries of flagrant inequality, you're in favor of discriminating against your fellow citizens, and suffer from flaming intolerance."

"Voting NO means you're an independently intelligent thinker, you're kindhearted, with a keen sense of what's right and fair, and know hate is not included in any family values."

THAT'S how it should be stated!

Moments of History in the Making

First the great news...the country will soon be free from the terrorism and dim-witted dictatorship of the Bush Administration and the imbecile that leads it. I hear Bushwack is now signing up volunteers to go to the White House in order to help collect his shit and throw it out the closet window, at which time all of the new destitute people he has helped create can come and rummage through it. No...I made that up; that would be way too charitable for this guy, he's only in favor of helping the wealthiest among us.

Now the greater news...Americans have elected an immensely talented, intelligent, and otherwise gifted man who will lead us for the next four years, hopefully toward global vindication. Barack Obama has made lots of assertions and promises over the past several months and I hope he proves himself deserving and capable of such declarations. My prediction is after eight years of accomplished service to the nation and entire world, Obama will be considered one of the most distinguished and successful presidents in history, made even more impressive by instituting policies that recover us from international peril and being the first American of African decent to assume the highest office in the land.

I must also express my exuberance for the passing of Proposition 2 here in California, which will simply allow animals raised for food the space needed to extend their limbs and move in relative ease, a drastic improvement from the torture they were subject to before. This new law has been called the single most important victory for farm animals in U.S. history, and will undeniably pave the way for similar legislation in other parts of the nation.

I regard the election of Obama and the victory of Prop. 2 with much enthusiasm; I see these two achievements as indicators of what's going right in this country. However, even in light of such progress, I can't help but be fiercely disappointed with the results so far in terms of Proposition 8. We should not be voting to take away the basic civil rights of any Americans in the first place, but even in doing so, the race should not be even remotely as close as it remains. Millions of absentee ballots have yet to be counted, so there is still a glimmer of hope.

Those bigoted, hateful people, those maliciously ignorant and unwilling to engage in enlightened compassion, those who would have their misguided religious beliefs imposed on all of us and who stubbornly adhere to their asinine, hypocritical "values" will have their day. And people whose cognitive processes follow that similar to those who concurred slavery was a good idea, condoned Jim Crow laws, hunted down and lynched black Americans, were in favor of the disenfranchisement of women and minorities, thought it was fine to disallow white Americans to marry non-whites, didn't see anything wrong with the internment of Japanese-Americans, and whose brutal thought processes resulted in the utmost agony and murder of millions of Jews AND gays, AND the disabled, as well as others, should not rejoice in this day, but be scared shitless. The vote is not 62% to 38%, like it was in 2000 regarding a similar measure, but nearly 50% to 50%! More Californians are unwilling to proclaim that some of their fellow citizens are not deserving of the same benefits and protections that other Californians enjoy. More Californians are taking a stand for what they know in their minds and feel in their hearts is the right thing to do.

If there's one thing we learned last night without question, it's that even those who would have come from the most oppressed circumstances, complete with forced bondage and labor, and those who were once forsaken their fundamental civil and human rights, can rise to the most powerful position, not only in the nation, but in the world. Barack Obama affirms the promise of America and that same promise will not evade those of any sexuality.

And to everyone who is afraid their children will be taught it is not acceptable to discriminate against anyone based on any reason, your children WILL BE TAUGHT, whether you like it or not, that in The United States of America, even someone who comes from humble beginnings, someone whose no-so-distant ancestors would have been slaves and counted as only three-fifths of a person, someone whose inconsequential human qualities they have no power over would have made them subject to the most heinous treatment and denial of essential societal protections, can elevate themselves to the most powerful position on the face of the planet.

I, along with your intelligent children, will revel in the day we see an openly gay, lesbian, or transgendered president. I hope I live to see that day; I will experience similar feelings of elation and satisfaction I felt last night when I saw the Obama family walk onto that stage. That's what I hope for, and that day will come.