The Religion of Alternative Health Cults

I have some friends who work in the medical field with whom I have shared a table with in think tanks in the past. Several of them have enlisted my help recently in writing material to help dispel dangerous myths about various alternative health cults and fads that have seriously sickened some of their patients. It came up in conversation over the weekend about what the cause of such misinformation gaining popularity might be, and I believe I may have some helpful insights to share.


To a medical doctor who clearly understands the basic scientific principles involved in an issue, it can be easy to forget that the average person has no benchmark (or, at best, a very weak one) by which to judge information (or even the source thereof) which tells them they can cure themselves by some of the most bizarre means imaginable.


As one who suffers from chronic health problems myself, I have endured an endless barrage of people for the past couple of decades telling me that everything from eating ground-up cockroaches to drinking urine will "cure" what ails me, even before I had a diagnosis. (These people often think a diagnosis is unimportant and claim that all symptoms stem from the same "imbalances" which whatever they are promoting will remedy.)


We have a world full of chronically ill people who are very sick, experiencing chronic pain, and terribly frightened. These people struggle to function on a daily basis and they often feel alienated by their health care providers who either condescend to them or speak in a language they do not understand. Some doctors are good at finding that middle ground, where they don't insult the intelligence of their patient but keep things understandable enough that it doesn't require an advanced degree to comprehend what they are saying, but many medical professionals who work with the public simply haven't mastered that skill.


I am convinced that when people feel powerless, they are willing to accept anything that gives them a feeling of control... Someone sells them an idea that claims to have "inside information" that the vast majority of the rest of the population doesn't have, and they will accept it, even though it flies in the face of everything science and medicine has worked so hard to achieve, even if it puts the life and health of themselves or others in jeopardy.


This misinformation is indistinguishable to them from that which is actually true, and the feeling of power in possibly having "secret" or "little known" information is so intoxicating to those who are suffering with a malady that medical science has not yet been able to cure (or even adequately treat), that it becomes much like a religion to them. That they are willing to isolate and/or insulate themselves from anyone who disagrees with them, shunning anyone who voices any dispute or labeling them as "argumentative" for persisting in discussing facts as strongly as the cultist is persisting in declaring false information only bolsters this view of the cultist as irrational, if not mentally unstable.


That's not to say that there aren't some safe, effective alternative health options out there. There are. However, they can easily be distinguished from the dangerous diet/health/lifestyle cults by the fact that they actually encourage you to discuss the matter with your health care provider before incorporating any of them into your treatment plan rather than accusing anyone who questions their authority or validity of being "out to get them" because they are "a threat to mainstream science or large corporate interests".


As in religion, where anyone who disputes "the gospel" is said to be working for "the devil", in conspiracy theory camps and various cults promoting dangerous health care options, anyone who disagrees is said to be part of a conspiracy or has become the victim of one. Both examples are elements in our world that hinder intelligent thought and progress toward solutions for the problems we face.


And, as anyone who has ever encountered an irrational cure-all cultist will tell you, cultists don't just question mainstream science, they attempt to invalidate it entirely in the minds of those they are attempting to win over, lest their claims be revealed under its scrutiny as being false.


Questioning mainstream science is fine. In fact, it's encouraged, which is why mainstream science will always be superior to pseudo-scientific cults, because mainstream science is always willing to back up claims with evidence... actual evidence from double-blind, detailed studies reviewed by their peers, not general stabs in the dark which merely appear to suggest something and are then reported as fact and repeated by fellow cultists.


There is plenty of information available to clearly reveal any dangerous information being promoted as bunk. Whether anyone bothers to read such information when they are told by the illusionary wizard selling them snake oil "do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain" is another matter...




A.

God Read An Atheist Blog Post, And He Liked It!

After yesterday's unexpected flood of visitors to my blog I received many e-mails and comments. I'm happy to report that most of them were from people who had rather thoughtful things to share, even if some of them were the same, tired arguments we atheists have heard (and successfully refuted) time and again from religionists (and sometime agnostics) who are unable to think their way out of the mental maze they seem to be trapped in.


"Atheism is a religion." (Nope. It's simply a lack of belief based on the failure of anyone to make believing in invisible deities make any more sense than believing in the hallucinations of mental patients who also believe what they are telling you is true.) Atheism is a religion like "off" is a television channel.


"It takes a lot of faith not to believe in a god." Nope. Just a knife called "critical thinking" to cut through the bullshit. (And maybe some rudimentary science knowledge to bust up the myth that without a god nothing could exist.)


However, there was one woman who mentioned something that was at least somewhat unique: she expressed disgust at the fact that I was bringing up all of the horrible things that had happened more than a century ago to non-believers at the hands of religionists as though they were still relevant today, and cited that as a reason why she found no value in my blog post. "These things aren't happening today. They have nothing to do with modern-day believers."


Well, let me tell you why this woman, like so many other religionists, is wrong.


Many of the things that were happening to non-believers at the hands of religionists more than a century ago are still happening today.


I mentioned the high school student here in Tennessee who was prevented from having her article included in the school newspaper because it promoted atheism.


I cited the fact that, even in the year 2012, the Boy Scouts of America does not allow atheists (or homosexuals) to hold positions of leadership in their organization, as though we are second-class citizens or incapable of serving as positive role-models, as though we are without morals. (Too bad there isn't a "critical thinking" badge Boy Scouts can earn.)


Teachers keep their atheism "in the closet" because they know it just isn't good for their career if the parents of their predominantly religious students start wondering if that atheist teacher is going to dismember their child and cannibalize him for lunch one day...


Yes, atheists are persecuted by religious folk even today. The fact that it happens so often and religionists seem to think it no longer occurs is rather curious, given the fact that persecution of atheists by the religious seems to be escalating now that it has become politically incorrect to persecute those who are members of different religions than your own.


It's become safer than ever to practice a religion different than the dominant religion in any given area in the United States, but we atheists are clearly taking up the slack... it seems that many religionists are now directing their persecution efforts toward non-believers more than ever. The message is clear: "You don't have to believe in the same thing we do, but you'd better believe in something that requires your brain to shut down, because we don't tolerate critical thinking 'round here."


They may not be burning us at the stake again quite yet, but we are starting to see some of the same fires of persecution rekindling that even most religionists thought had been burnt out for good long ago. We atheists know better, and if there were an all-knowing god, it would too.

Why I Live In The Bible Belt

So, it's Sunday night and I've just dropped Pam off after watching a movie ("Lock Out") which was so boring to me that I spent more time talking to Pam and getting pretend married to her on Facebook than I did watching the actual movie. (We had the entire theater to ourselves, stadium seats and all, if that gives you any idea how un-popular this movie apparently is, and for good reason.)

We chatted for a while after the movie was over and on the way home after dropping her off, I stopped at the post office to check the mail.

As I often do, I take the mail to one of the tables in the lobby to determine what is junk to be tossed in the trash can. When I arrived at the table, I was greeted by this lovely flyer asking me "?? WHY ??":

I can only presume that the person asking this question is implying that those of us who do not believe in their god should not be living in Tennessee. You'll notice there is an e-mail address (terrancepiedmont@yahoo.com) at the bottom of this flyer, to which I am sending a link to this blog post in order that the person asking such a ridiculous question might understand that not only am I willing to answer the question for her, him, or shim, but also for anyone else who might have ever pondered such a presumptive question.


Why do I live in the "bible belt" even though I do not believe in "God"? (I assume you are referring to the Christian god and not one of hundreds of other gods.)


First of all, I don't actually live in the bible belt. And yet, I do live in the bible belt. Let me explain.


I grew up mostly in the state of Tennessee. I find Tennessee to be one of the most beautiful areas in the country, with much to offer those of us who value mountains and trees and hills and valleys.


The geographical area referred to on maps as "Tennessee" is a natural part of planet earth. It has no belief system, no superstition, no preference for who walks upon its soil, to whom one living on its territory is married, whether or not they use birth control or with whom they have had sex...


The trees and the mountains do not require that anyone gazing upon them hold any superstitious belief in invisible beings whatsoever, nor is there any requirement that I am aware of that one speaks to these invisible deities in order to reside here.


The fact that the land mass known as "Tennessee" happens to be located in an area larger than itself labeled as "the bible belt" has nothing to do with the land mass, but rather with the majority of people who reside upon it.


As evidenced by the flyer under discussion, many of these people fancy themselves to be more worthy of living in this area than those who do not share their superstitious beliefs in invisible beings who make rules about what humans are forbidden to eat (shrimp, lobster, and all other shellfish) and then dictate them to ancient people who have no idea where lightning comes from.


Let me assure the author of the above flyer that, according to the United States Constitution, you are absolutely wrong.


Superstitious people who join clubs called "churches" and engage in group rituals where they drink wine and/or grape juice and pretend that it is the blood of their magical invisible friend and eat crackers or wafers and pretend that it is their magical invisible friend's flesh do NOT own the state of Tennessee, nor do they own any other part of the earth that falls under the label of "bible belt".


The reason certain parts of the geographical land mass of North America are called "the bible belt" is because those areas are known to have a majority of people who are extremely superstitious and engage in the ritual I have just described. The term "bible belt" came about because the majority of people in those areas are known to practice such superstitious rituals and are also known for having little or no tolerance for anyone different than themselves, but long before people ever lived in the area known as the "bible belt" and swarmed and settled there, it was, and still is, just a mass of beautiful land where any human being might wish to live and enjoy the view.


I happen to be one of those people. I also happen to be a humanist who values ALL human persons and believes it is my responsibility to help those whom I can personally rather than simply praying to an invisible friend and hoping they will feed them and provide their needs. I also happen to be an atheist - someone who does not believe in any god or gods.


For the most part, I can live peacefully and respect those who practice superstitious rituals in groups gathered in buildings called churches. I have many friends who do just that, and we get along just fabulously.


However, when I encounter people who do those things who imply that they are morally superior to me because I do not share their superstitious beliefs, that's where my tolerance ends.


I find it extremely disturbing that anyone would think they have any more right to the beautiful land mass known as Tennessee (or any other area contained in what is referred to as "the bible belt") than anyone else for ANY reason at all, whether because of the color of their skin, their gender, their hair color, or whether they talk to invisible people and engage in the symbolic cannibalism known as "communion".


The flyer in the image on this page is the perfect example of bigotry in its most insidious, vulgar form. It is extremely disturbing and vile to anyone who values human beings in general to imply that those who are not in the majority shouldn't choose to live in such a beautiful place as Tennessee.


As someone who has had people who used to be dear friends from childhood turn their backs on our friendship in favor of their superstitious practices which they believe precludes them from continuing a beautiful friendship with someone who does not share their desire to engage in superstitious beliefs, practices, or the studies thereof which teach one that they must do those things, I can tell you that I have every reason to be thoroughly alarmed and disgusted.


I am regularly criticized and even ridiculed by people, some of with whom I am friendly, for being so "militant" and "extreme" and making "incessant posts" and going on "atheist rants".


Nevermind that I don't criticize and ridicule people who post frequent prayer requests for things ranging from illness to job interviews and everything in between... (I usually post encouraging words and practical suggestions for finding quality health solutions and job interviewing techniques and refrain from any commentary on the prayer aspect of the request.) These people nonetheless find that my self-expression of why superstitious things make no sense to be less valid than the self-expression of those who are superstitious.


Sometimes the things I post may seem rather cruel. Sometimes they seem to ridicule and belittle those who practice superstitious rituals as a part of their belief system, but those people who know me and love me realize that my posts are not aimed at those who are merely religious, but rather at those who believe their religion entitles them to attempt to control others and force them to adhere to their religious views via legislative action and encroachment upon the rights of others.


Your right to your superstitious beliefs and symbolically cannibalistic rituals ends where my right to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster begins. Your right to pray in school ends where others' rights to allow you to pray silently or privately without forcing them to listen to it over a loud speaker begins.


Compared to many atheists I know, I am not militant at all. What I consider to be militant is someone who refuses to have anything whatsoever to do with anyone who is religious or believes in any god or gods, including family members. I believe that to be as ridiculous as a former friend of mine who severed our friendship going back to middle school because I refused to stop expressing my disgust for bigoted behavior in religious people when I see it.


So back to your question: Why do I live in "the bible belt" even though I don't believe in your god? Because I like the view. I may not like the fact that the place is infested with superstitious people who regularly practice bigotry as though it were a virtue, but it doesn't make the mountains any less beautiful.


Of course, there is another reason why I choose to stay here despite the fact that many religious people would like to see all non-believers leave so they can have the place to themselves... It's because I believe it is my responsibility to make sure that this beautiful area of North America remains open to ALL human beings, not just those who hold the belief that their superstitions are superior to anyone else's or that they are better people than those of us who value actual, real, flesh-and-blood human beings over invisible friends.


To that end, I am a brave soldier.


I may not wear a uniform. I may not receive a salary. I may not get any respect from my government or from many of my family or friends. I may not hold a special rank or title. But every day, I'm on the lookout for threats to the freedom of not only people like me who are not believers, but also people UNLIKE myself who ARE believers of a different variety than those who are in the majority in this area often referred to as "the bible belt".


To do that, it is necessary that often I am a disruptor. I am a bucket of cold water in the face of those who engage in the delusion that the world works the way they believe it works simply because that is what they have decided to believe. I am a painful electrical jolt in the solar plexus of those who are content to exclude those unlike themselves from receiving respect and the ability to participate equally in receiving benefits from the government into which they have paid simply because they have found joy in living and expressing physical affection with someone who has the same genitalia as themselves.


Do I get death threats from people who call themselves "Christians"? Yes. Often.


Have I lost friends because I insist on standing up to the bigotry of those with whom I am friendly when I see it? Absolutely.


Does that make me any less relentless in demanding that people stop and take a good long look in the mirror of truth regarding the harm that their superstitious belief system has wrought in the past and continues to bring in the present? Fuck no.


Sometimes I'm a real cunt when it comes to ridiculing the ridiculous. I try not to hurt the feelings of those whom I love and make sure I express the fact that my ridicule is only aimed at those who use their superstition as an excuse for their own bigoted opinions, but I'm learning not to lose too much sleep over the fact that I may inadvertently offend some of those people who don't engage in such practices, and the reason why can best be summed up here:

If that doesn't explain to you why I choose to live in an area that I find quite beautiful despite the fact that it may be overrun with bigoted people who masquerade as morally superior individuals under the guise of religion, and why I choose to serve as a militant soldier fighting for the rights of ALL people to live here if they so choose, regardless of whether they engage in symbolic cannibalism of a zombie raised from the dead or not, then you are far beyond help and all I can do is pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that he will touch you with His Noodley Appendage and cure you of your mental infirmity.




A.

The Trans-Vaginal: It's Not Public Transportation OR Public Property

I haven't had much time for blogging this year. Behind the scenes, I've been dealing with paperwork snafus related to a book release and family health issues (including my own). There have been numerous issues that have come up that I desperately wanted to blog about but just couldn't find the time.


Inevitably, however, there is always that one issue that is such a hot button that it warrants addressing on the blog regardless of what I have to carve time from in order to do it. This is one of those issues.


What brought this issue to the top of my priority list was an amazing (and wisely anonymous) doctor who has started a movement advocating civil disobedience by doctors nationwide on behalf of their female patients who are seeking to terminate their pregnancies.


Here is the link to that story:


Roe V. World: A Doctor's Manifesto for Fighting Transvaginal Ultrasounds


Now, let me tell you that when I shared this story with some of my friends, I got a mixed reaction and it started a gaggle of responses not limited to this story in particular but to the whole anti-abortion/anti-choice issue in general.


No matter how often I say that I am anti-abortion and pro-choice, it seems there are people who just don't get it. You really can be totally repulsed by the idea of abortion (as I am) and at the same time still respect the fact that other people have the ultimate right to decide what does, and does not, stay inside of their bodies.


I have never been pregnant. Therefore, I can not say with certainty whether or not I would ever be able to have an abortion, regardless of how the pregnancy came about. However, I'm pretty sure I couldn't ever go through with it, even if it meant that the pregnancy would put my life in danger, as it probably would. (I've been told I probably wouldn't survive a pregnancy due to autoimmune issues, and probably would miscarry for the same reason.) Still, the very idea of abortion is so awful to me that I would likely risk all of that in order to avoid what would be a horrific idea for me to even consider and an even more horrific experience.


But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that my rheumatologist and cardiologist convinced me that terminating the pregnancy was my only option to ensure that my life was not put in jeopardy by a pregnancy. And let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the pregnancy came about as a result of a rape.


Under current legislation in many states, I would have to undergo a second rape before I would be legally allowed to terminate my pregnancy.


When I explained this to my anti-choice friends, they scoffed. "But it's just an ultrasound. It's not like it's invasive. How can you call that rape???"


This, my friends, is the perfect example of how arrogant ignorance lulls American citizens into complacency, which facilitates the passing of repugnant laws which even those signing the legislation into law likely do not fully understand.


Apparently, many people assume that there is only one kind of ultrasound... the kind they've seen on television where a happily pregnant woman has some slimy goo spread on her belly and there's a harmless-looking computer-mouse-like object being moved across her protruding stomach with the image of the developing fetus appearing on a monitor overhead. This is not the ultrasound you will have to undergo if you are ever raped and wish not to undergo the additional ordeal of carrying a pregnancy to term and enduring labor, which undoubtedly is a constant reminder to many women of the rape that impregnated them to begin with. (Yes, I know that some are able to overcome that, but that doesn't excuse the further traumatization of those who can not.)


The actual ultrasound you will be FORCED to undergo BY LAW if you should ever find yourself wanting to end a pregnancy in any state requiring it is a transvaginal ultrasound, and it is NOT DONE EXTERNALLY.


After being told I had a palpable cyst on my right ovary, I was scheduled for a transvaginal ultrasound. I had never heard of such a thing, but it was explained to me that a probe would be inserted vaginally in order to explore internal reproductive organs, and that would hopefully allow a determination of whether this cyst was something to be concerned about or not.


I have a horrible phobia of anything being inserted into my body of any kind, but especially something so intimate. You want to talk about something that goes "against nature", don't let me hear the word "homosexual" come out of your mouth. How about ramming an object up your twat and beaming pictures of your insides onto a television screen? Doesn't get more "against nature" than that. If there were a god or gods, I'm quite certain he/she/it/they never would have intended for their "special creatures" to experience such a humiliating and agonizing procedure.


What's so bad about it? How is it like rape?


Well, for me, it was something I did voluntarily. But even then, one must understand that any kind of penetration of a sexual orifice not done for pleasure or pro-creation is very unpleasant for many of us, and sometimes even painful. Imagine, then, that you are forced to undergo the following procedure NOT in order to diagnose a condition, but because some needle-dicked, sanctimonious prick who has no idea what a transvaginal ultrasound even INVOLVES signed something into law that says you can't have a medically-recommended abortion unless you undergo this VERY INVASIVE AND UNCOMFORTABLE procedure.


First, there's the fact that you're opening your legs to someone who isn't a lover. Some people are able to disconnect themselves enough that that doesn't bother them, but not everyone can.


Second, they take a probe, and they put a CONDOM on it. That's right, they put a CONDOM on the probe for hygiene purposes before they insert it into your vagina. COULD THERE POSSIBLY BE A MORE RAPE-LIKE SCENARIO AND MEMORY-TRIGGERING EXPERIENCE IN THE MIND OF THE PERSON UNDERGOING SUCH A PROCEDURE WHO HAS BEEN THROUGH A RAPE WHICH PROMPTED THEM TO SEEK AN ABORTION REQUIRING SUCH PROCEDURE IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?


Third, the probe, since it is made of rigid material and is NOT made of flexible organic material like a penis, does NOT conform to your shape AT ALL and is QUITE uncomfortable as it is being moved around inside of you to explore your internal organs.


Because I have severe anxiety issues in general, and medical anxiety issues specifically, and penetration anxiety issues even MORE specifically, I have to have a sedative before I can even think about such a procedure. And yet, even with a sedative, I can tell you that this was an unpleasant and painful experience, despite the fact that I knew and am very comfortable with the person performing it. I can only imagine that someone in a different situation undergoing the procedure for different reasons with someone they don't even know would be quite traumatized, and for what? Because other people think they have the right to influence the decision the patient is making?


You do NOT have the right to force ANYONE to consider YOUR point of view when they are making decisions about THEIR BODIES or THEIR HEALTH or THEIR LIVES. You. Just. Don't. But you ESPECIALLY do not have the right to do so in such a way that amounts to the legal definition of rape as described in the article I cited above and am quoting below:

"I do not feel that it is reactionary or even inaccurate to describe an unwanted, non-indicated transvaginal ultrasound as "rape". If I insert ANY object into ANY orifice without informed consent, it is rape. And coercion of any kind negates consent, informed or otherwise."

At one point during my procedure, the ultrasound wand made contact with my right ovary and the cyst of which it was attempting to transmit an image. It was obviously tender, and the contact was so painful that I remember struggling to get up. It was an instinctive reaction that caused even MORE pain since that caused jostling of the wand, still inside of me, as I panicked and tried to escape the pain. I don't know if the pain put me into shock or if I blacked out after that. I don't remember much after that except coming back to awareness and being glad that it was over. But I can tell you that if that was that painful for me, someone who is pregnant is likely going to experience similar "discomfort" as pain-minimizing doctors are prone to call it.


It is astonishing to me that the same people who expect everyone to butt out of THEIR lives regarding whom they marry, (so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex, of course, since the same anti-choice folks are usually also homophobic), where they live, their career of choice, how they educate or raise their children, and how they express their "spirituality" or what god or gods they worship seem to think so much of themselves that they think THEY should have the right to tell someone ELSE what to do with what is inside of their body.


There was another conversation among friends where someone attempted to derail the point by challenging everyone to explain when they thought life began, and mentioning that the scientific definition of life is that it begins at the moment of conception.


I do not disagree with that at all. Life definitely begins at the moment of conception.


However, it is important that we learn to have a more intelligent understanding of "life".


An amoeba is "alive". A couple of cells that have the potential to become an organism if they are allowed to develop could be considered "alive", but "alive" and "life" is not a valid benchmark by which to judge whether or not a living, breathing, consciously-aware woman with an already-developed brain should have her entire personhood invalidated in favor of a developing organism inside of her that is scientifically also defined as a parasite until it is fully-developed and delivered.


It is unintelligent to even CONSIDER that a developing organism is more important or even EQUALLY as important as the fully-developed human being inside of whom it is developing. I make no apology for pointing out the unintelligent nature of such a thought process, either. Unintelligent is as unintelligent does.


And, despite the fact that I am totally repulsed by even the IDEA of an abortion, I find that the attitude toward women, that they are nothing more than unimportant incubators the moment they become pregnant and are less important than the developing organism inside of them to the point where they must be subjected to rape-by-ultrasound before they are allowed to undergo an abortion which they, for whatever reason, believe to be necessary for their survival, either physically or psychologically or emotionally, to be even more repugnant than the idea of abortion itself.


If you are a man seeking Viagra because you can't get your penis hard anymore, I say that before you should be given a prescription you should be required to experience religious people protesting outside of your doctor's office and carrying signs saying that your god or gods do not want you having sex and that taking Viagra is a morally reprehensible crime against nature. Then, once inside the exam room, you should also be forced to undergo a trans-penile ultrasound showing you exactly which parts of your penis said Viagra is going to affect and how it is going to affect it, and for good measure, since Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs carry with them a risk of stroke, you should also be required to view stroke patients slobbering all over themselves as their family members wipe their asses for them... and then, if you decide that you still want to go ahead with your un-natural sexual activities in violation of "nature's" or "God's" wishes, then you may proceed.


We live in a world full of hypocrites who claim everything THEY do is NOBODY else's business, but if you dare do something THEY wouldn't do, they seem to have the opinion that they have the right to FORCE you to hear THEIR reasonings, and only after torturing you physically in order to get you to "see" their point of view, you may proceed with what they know is already your right to begin with, or it wouldn't be legal, with or without said torturous "medical procedures".


Most doctors I know are disgusted with politicians attempting to practice medicine and/or tell them how to practice medicine. I can understand their disgust. Twelve years or more of higher education and some sniveling, smug-faced politician with MAYBE a Master's degree is telling you what you MUST put your patient through, even in violation of the Hippocratic oath, which states "First, do no harm...", and presumably indicates no PSYCHOLOGICAL harm as well.


And they wonder why we hate politicians.


I'll say it one more time: Stay the HELL out of my VaJayJay. And everybody else's too, please.


A.

Discrimination Against Bigots

Ok, you knew it was coming. How could I *not* blog about our oh-so-arrogantly-ignorant Senator Stacey Campfield and the bomb of misinformation which he has released lately?

First, let's start with the fact that this woefully uneducated Senator made the statement that it was his understanding that A.I.D.S. was introduced into the human species by a single airline pilot who had sex with a monkey and then had sex with men.

Now, Senator Campfield claims that the comment was made "on the fly". In other words, he attempted to discuss a topic about which he knows nothing and grabbed the first myth that popped into his head.

He also went on to say that:

"I'm not a historian on AIDS," he said in an interview Friday. "But I've read and seen what other people have read and seen, and those facts are out there."

Ok, well, nobody said you had to be a historian on A.I.D.S. My question is, why are you working with the level of information that the average 5-year-old child might have on the subject when you are attempting to make policy on whether or not homosexual safe sex should be taught in schools?

Furthermore, notice that he claims that he has "read and seen what other people have read and seen, and those facts are out there." Ok, first of all, I've read and seen all kinds of ridiculous things that other people have read and seen, that doesn't mean that I judge whether something is valid or not based on such ridiculous criteria.


Furthermore, "those facts are out there" shows that he clearly doesn't understand the difference between "facts" and "claims". Yes, those claims are out there. They are not facts. In FACT, his information is based on material from more than 20 years ago. Surely he realizes that keeping abreast of current science research is part of his responsibility when making policy regarding such issues?


The sad thing is, even the most skimming glance at the CDC web site, which is perhaps the primary source for reliable information on H.I.V. and A.I.D.S., would have allowed him to avoid making himself look like such a buffoon.


The problem isn't necessarily just that Stacey Campfield's education-level regarding one of the most devastating viruses known to the human race in the past 100 years is stuck at about a second-grade level. The problem is that his failure to educate himself before forming an opinion has not only revealed him to be something of a monkey himself, but he is spreading the disease of ignorance via misinformation in a way that actually endangers lives.


That's where we get to the second leg of his ridiculous comments, which include the statement that it is "virtually impossible" for individuals to become infected with the H.I.V. virus via heterosexual sex.


Really? Here is a direct quote from the CDC web site:

"Heterosexual transmission accounted for the second largest route of HIV transmission in the United States in 2006."

Wow. The second LARGEST ROUTE of HIV transmission in the United States in 2006. If that's "virtually impossible", I'd hate to see what "highly likely" looks like!


But let's just say for the sake of argument that all of the bullshit spewed from the mouth of this arrogantly ignorant mis-representative of the people of Tennessee were true... does it really matter?


Whether the information he claimed was true or not (it isn't), he is attempting to exclude homosexual safe sex education from being taught along with other types of safe sex instruction because he "doesn't agree" with homosexuals.


I'm not sure what delusion one would suffer from in order to believe that not agreeing with who a person is allows one the privilege of denying them life-saving information that can a) prevent them from dying a long, slow, horrible death and b) save the taxpayers from having to foot the bill for the medical care for as many A.I.D.S. patients which most often have no choice but to make use of indigent care programs paid for by taxpayers.


In essence, the message that Senator Campfield is sending is that he thinks it's perfectly fine if homosexuals die of A.I.D.S. because they didn't receive proper education in sex-ed class, because he thinks they are sinful people who are an abomination to his invisible friend.


I "don't agree" with religious people who attempt to create a country with policies based on what people wrote thousands of years ago who didn't even know where lightning comes from. That doesn't mean that I would deny him or his kind a proper education about how to save his life.


I won't get into the realities of how there are more than 300 species of animals with homosexual populations among them, because that is obviously way over the head of anyone like Stacey Campfield and I wouldn't want his head to explode from too much science being introduced at once.


What I will say is that I am very proud of Bistro owner Martha Boggs for having the courage to stand up to such an arrogantly ignorant jackass and not just mindlessly smile and not like so many southern women have been taught to do in the presence of "authority figures".


If a man-child like Stacey Campfield had the courage to face someone like me and I had the opportunity to present counter-arguments face-to-face with him, I would most like to address his claim that Martha Boggs was "unprofessional" in her interaction with him:


Senator Campfield: What is "unprofessional" is when someone allows their religion to get in the way of adequately advocating for the rights of ALL of their constituents based solely on the fact that they believe in invisible beings whom they believe have spoken through ancient people to say that having a natural attraction to people of the same sex is morally wrong.


I am 100% certain that Senator Campfield commits quite a few sins on a daily basis.


When you allow your personal religious beliefs to prevent you from doing your job, which is to serve ALL of your constituents and not just the ones you "agree" with, ESPECIALLY when it comes to life-saving health education, you have proven yourself unworthy to serve at taxpayer expense.


If you would like to refund every homosexual person the amount of tax money they have been forced to pay toward your salary, perhaps they wouldn't mind so much that you are practicing religious-based bigotry against a large portion of Tennessee's population. Until then, you need to re-evaluate your priorities.


If your beliefs put you at odds with your duties, the morally right thing to do would be to give up the one which you feel is less important. You have a right to your religious views. You do not have a right to deny life-saving education to ANYONE based on religious beliefs.


In fact, your attempt to enact laws which you have clearly acknowledged are based solely on religion would seem to be in violation of the United States Constitution, since it prefers your particular religion which happens to view homosexuality as "wrong", despite the fact that there are other religions which do not view it as such.

Separation of church and state. That includes those who attempt to legislate based on personal religious beliefs alone.

Tennessee is not your church, and you do not have the right to subject us to the views of your church to the detriment of an entire segment of our population.


Either give up your attempts to make the state of Tennessee into your own personal Sunday school class, or go monkey around somewhere else.


A.

En-Lighten-Ment

The new year is well underway, and most of the decorations one sees while driving around during the winter holiday season are gone. However, there are a surprising number of people who, like myself, enjoy the soft glow of lights on the trees we put up inside our homes so much that we are not so anxious to see them gone (especially the fire-safe, artificial variety).

I often remind people who celebrate Christmas yet are in a huge rush to dismantle all of their decorations before New Year's Eve that Christmas BEGINS on December 25th, but doesn't officially end until January 6th. That's because January 6th is the 12th day of Christmas, which is Epiphany. It is on that day that, according to legend, the three kings arrived to visit the baby Jesus.

I often hear my Christian friends reminding one another that "Jesus is the reason for the season", and yet, it seems that once the presents are unwrapped and the stockings emptied, there's as big a rush to dismantle all visual signs of the Christian holiday as there was to get the "black Friday" deals at the stores.

You'd think this wouldn't bother an atheist like me, but it does. Perhaps the biggest problem I have with it is that it seems that once the visual reminders of the holiday celebrations are gone, many people (not just Christians) develop amnesia when it comes to remembering to practice compassion and kindness.

I also happen to enjoy holiday music, especially the secular tunes. I'm so disappointed when, after playing the holiday music on the local radio stations for weeks, it comes to a screeching halt after midnight on December 26th each year.

Really? You started playing it shortly after Halloween, but you can't manage to tolerate it until January 6th? How about we wait until after Thanksgiving to START playing it, then surely we can manage to continue playing it until after the cultural holiday traditions are commpleted and the holidays have officially ended?

Most of the holidays we celebrate which are hailed as "religious" holidays are actually more secular and cultural in origin, with religions adopting and adapting them after the fact, and it is the cultural value that I appreciate most in these celebrations, since understanding what is behind them teaches us so much about our ancestors and our biological history.

Back to the diminishing compassion and kindness: I've heard people who claim to be "good Christians" judging people who leave their decorations up after New Year's as being "tacky" or "trashy". How ironic that the people who are being called tacky are the ones who are observing the full length of the holiday rather than the commercial version, which ends just as soon as the gifts are all opened.

How ironic that the theme of the holiday is kindness and compassion toward others, yet those who dismantle every possible sign of the holiday in such a rush are judging other people for such trivial things, labeling them as undesirables for attempting to keep the tenderness and beauty of the season alive as long as possible.

I've seen other signs of lacking compassion and kindness in the new year... People who are frightened by inclement weather they aren't accustomed to are ridiculed because they "don't know how to drive in the snow", with nary a thought given to the fact that they just might be motivated by a deep love for their children in the back seat to go a little more slowly than their impatient counterparts find desirable, because they just really want to make sure they (and others) get home safely.

Does anyone remember when they were first learning to drive in the snow? Have we forgotten that there are many young drivers on the road today? Call me an old sap, but when I see people slowing down far more than they probably need to as snow is falling, I find myself wishing they'd be this cautious when approaching traffic lights and stop signs even on a clear, sunny day.

Annoyance is something we all feel, and I think it can be healthy to express it, but sometimes I think we focus a bit much on the fact that we are annoyed and forget what annoyance really is: ego. Annoyance is something the ego feels when it doesn't like the fact that the world isn't catering to our wishes. It says "My desire to get where I'm going more quickly is more important than anyone else's fear or safety. My wishes are more important than anything else that could cause things to not go my way."

It seems that we are able to put our egos aside for a short while during December (at least once we've braved the stores for the gifts we hope will put a smile on our loved ones faces). However, it is a very short-lived sentiment that I would like to see year 'round, and I have noticed that those of us who can't bear to put our lighted trees away tend to have this desire for lasting compassion and kindness in common.

I'm known for being somewhat of a non-conformist, and I knew there were others like me. However, I recently happened upon a post by a dear friend of mine from grade school who was "confessing" that she still had her tree up and how she enjoyed the beauty of the soft glowing lights. I planned to comment, but first I read the other comments (as I often do). I was filled with joy when I saw post after post of others happily proclaiming their love for their tree lights still up and proudly burning, and the accompanying warmth and joy they feel as they associate those lights with time spent in the company of loved ones.

If there is anything we can and should carry into this new year, it is the knowledge that no matter how strange we think we are, no matter how others ridicule us because we don't blindly follow the masses, there are far more people just like us than we realize.

Go forward in this new year with confidence that you are not only perfectly acceptable just as you are, but that you are also in far more good company than you may ever know!

A.