Raping Your Wife: It's not nearly as bad as smoking pot. (According to Todd Akin)

Earlier this year, I blogged about the scientifically and medically illiterate Stacey Campfield and his ignorant statements about H.I.V. and A.I.D.S. regarding how it spreads and who can and (allegedly) can not get it. (Anyone can get it.)

Now, it's time for yet another blog post about another politician who is even more scientifically and medically ignorant than Stacey Campfield. (Who knew THAT was possible?) I'm referring to Republican Todd Akin, who represents Missouri's 2nd Congressional District.

For the record, his statement was, when asked if he would support abortions for women who have been raped:

"It seems to me first of all from what I understand from doctors that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

(Continuing with this blog post required a short break where I had to get a drink of water, as the cognitive dissonance created from typing that quote dehydrated my brain severely, and I'm pretty sure the "doctors" he was referring to must have a Ph.D. in voodoo.)

He also said that he would prefer that punishment for rape be focused on the rapist and not "attacking the child".

First of all, anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of reproduction knows that a fertilized egg and/or a developing fetus is not a "child". Using the word "child" to describe any pregnancy is nothing more than political and/or religious rhetoric stemming from the fear-reactive area of the brain known as the amygdala which, despite its primitive nature, continues to override common sense in many who do not recognize that the only real reason why they do not like the idea of abortion is that they are wired to favor reproduction of the human species for survival purposes.

Any other claimed reasoning for why there is any concern for the developing fetus is nothing more than a rationalization of an involuntary reaction caused by the way the human brain is wired. That includes religious rationalizations, humanistic rationalizations, or any other reason given by those professing concern for a fetus.

Despite the fact that there is no reason for us to fear that our species will not survive if everyone does not reproduce abundantly, the instinct to bring forth spawn is so strong that our species is obsessed with the activity that brings it about (sex) to the point where it almost seems to override any of our other basic needs, including sustenance. (Don't believe me? Ask any teenage boy to choose between eating for a week and having sex, either with another human or via masturbation.)

The instinct to give birth upon becoming pregnant is so strong in some of us that even I believe that if I were gang-raped and became pregnant with quadruplets, knowing that it would likely kill me to carry the pregnancy to term, I still do not think that I could bring myself to have an abortion. The unnecessary instinct for survival via reproduction really is that strong in me.

Luckily, having an above-average understanding of both science in general and medicine specifically, my logical and critical thinking skills are able to override my primitive survival instincts when it comes to respecting the boundaries of other people's bodies.

Here are a few facts which, once understood, help intelligent people to achieve the necessary objectivity in order to behave less like a primitive human and more like an intelligent human regarding this issue:

• There is no "certificate of conception" or "certificate of pregnancy" issued during a pregnancy because fetuses are not persons.
• There is no death certificate issued after a miscarriage, because fetuses are not persons.
• Between 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 pregnancies usually ends in miscarriage, often before the woman realizes she is pregnant. This means that a pregnancy does not necessarily indicate a viable potential for human life.
• Claiming that the potential for development into a human life equals a "child" is the same thing as saying that an egg and a sperm which have not even been joined and are not even in the same body is a "child". It isn't. Potential does not equal existence.
• Not planting a seed for a tree is not the same thing as cutting a tree down, and not allowing a fetus to develop into a viable human being is not the same thing as killing a person.

Now that we have addressed the ridiculous statement that a "child" is being "punished" if a woman chooses not to allow a blob of cells to remain in her body, let's move on to the next point:

The only thing the female body can do to "shut that whole thing down" if she's raped and does not want to give birth as a result of that rape is walk into an abortion clinic and exercise her right to remove the cells which she does not wish to keep in her uterus. (An alternative would be for the female body to walk into a drug store and request a "morning after" pill.)

That's the ONLY thing the female body can do to "shut that whole thing down". There are no magical powers contained in the uterus or the vagina that suck an egg back into the ovary once it has been released during ovulation. There is no spermicide that is released that kills only the sperm that ejaculate from a rapist's penis.

I had to address the statements made by this arrogantly ignorant politician, simply because to not do so would be irresponsible just in case there might be others who have not been properly educated about these proven facts of life. However, this is not the most important point of this blog post.

(Also, I'd like to pause for a moment and recognize that many women who have been raped have experienced flashbacks triggered by these arrogantly ignorant comments spewed forth from the pie hole of Todd Akin, and if you need help, I recommend visiting rainn.org.)

The most disturbing thing isn't that there are people who don't understand these basic facts even after living in this country for 65 years and having access to every conceivable (no pun intended) necessary resource available at any public library which would allow them to know better.

The most disturbing thing isn't even that this same man thinks that it's a bad idea to criminalize raping your wife, as he claims it becomes a "legal weapon to beat up on the husband" during divorce proceedings. (He wouldn't vote to de-criminalize the use of marijuana, but he would vote to de-criminalize a man raping his wife. Note: This is the year 2012 and this is a Christian man who lives in America, not a Muslim living in Afghanistan.)

The most disturbing thing is that this man (if we can call him that... personally, I think "beast" would be more appropriate) holds public office with a considerable amount of power and authority attached to it, and was put there by American citizens who likely did not even know that he had these views.

Say what you want about "the media". Bitch about how inaccurate it often is, whine about how some things get way too much attention and others not enough, display your intellectual snobbery by claiming that anyone who pays attention to anything the media puts out is naive and "drinking the Kool-Aid", but do NOT tell me that the media always gets it wrong, and do not tell me that being able to watch the words come out of this idiot's mouth is not CRITICALLY important when it comes to understanding who exactly is in power in this country and why they shouldn't be there.

I propose that, in a country that requires any non-citizen wishing to become a citizen to pass a test showing a basic knowledge of this country and how it works which surpasses what even the average American-born citizen knows, we require that ANY political candidate pass a basic high school level science proficiency exam, including a test proving a basic understanding of sexual reproductive science and biology.

If you wonder how it is possible that any politician is against sex education in the classroom, including sex education and safe sex methods for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, it's only possible because they themselves do not have such knowledge, and therefore can not comprehend its importance.

The rest of us, however, know better, and if we don't start demanding that the people we pay to represent us in making policy in this country know what every high school student is required to know before walking across the stage to receive their diploma, we deserve whatever unpleasant results these ignorant people bring to our existence.

And to those who think it doesn't matter who they vote for or are considering not voting or voting for a candidate with no chance of winning because they can't decide which candidate they dislike and/or disagree with the most, understand that you are tolerating extreme ignorance in the leadership of your country by passively allowing it to continue, and you'll have no valid complaint about how unhappy you are with the state of our affairs if you make no effort to help bring about an outcome that promotes reason over superstition.

As a wise person once said:

You deserve what you tolerate.

Do you deserve to be represented by people who have less than a sixth-grade level understanding of reproductive science? Do you deserve to be represented by someone who thinks it's worse to smoke marijuana than it is to rape your own wife?

Vote accordingly.

A.

When I Was A Christian...

Before anyone who reads this decides that this is "just another post from the atheist point of view" or that it's about me being "against religion", you need to know that I felt EXACTLY THE SAME WAY about the topic I am about to discuss when I was a devout Christian as I do now. EXACTLY. THE. SAME.

When I was a teenager, I was called to give sermons to the SOUTHERN BAPTIST congregation where I was a member in Ringgold, GA MORE THAN ONCE. I remember one of my sermons dealt with what message we sent as Christians with our behavior, and I posed the question: "If someone who knew nothing about Christianity observed us in our daily lives, what would they learn about being a Christian from us? What would be their understanding of what it means to be a Christian?"

I am now going to answer that question.

If *I* knew nothing about Christianity and were observing many Christians today, my impression of Christianity would be that it is mainly about making sure we made a huge show about praying in public before football games, before school started, and at government functions and political events. Also: a lot of whining about the fact that not everyone gives a Christian-specific greeting during seasonal holidays, even though most Christian holidays have pagan origins...

Forget the fact that the Christian holy book makes it VERY CLEAR that making a big show of praying in public is NOT what Christianity is about:

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. (6) But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (7) And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. (8) Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. – Matthew 6.5-8 NASB

The Christian holy book ALSO makes it very clear that mindlessly reciting prayers by rote is not meaningful Christian behavior, and yet that is exactly what goes on when "The Lord's Prayer" is recited at public events as some sort of obligatory ritual.

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. - Matthew 6:7 KJV

It's quite clear that both of the foundations on which all of this noise is being made about prayer before football games is based are discouraged in the Christian holy book. How ironic.

But perhaps the most sad aspect of this drama is that it sends the wrong message not only to non-Christians, who increasingly view Christians as political invaders who wish to force their religion on everyone else, but also to our children.

When your government denies you special privileges when you demand that they treat your religion as though it is the "official" religion of this country (which we do not have, since our forefathers, in their wisdom, made it clear that we were NOT to make an establishment of religion in our government), when they deny your request for special recognition over all of the HUNDREDS OF OTHER RELIGIONS practiced in this country, and you then behave by claiming that you are persecuted, you are teaching children to take on an attitude of entitlement... you are teaching them that if they do not get special treatment as Christians, they are somehow victims.

This is where bigotry begins, folks. It starts with indulging in the delusional behavior that not getting special privileges equals persecution, and it progresses to believing that you are superior because of your beliefs, and/or that your beliefs are superior to those of others.

From there, the attitude grows into the view that other religions are not only NOT entitled to the special privileges that you fancy YOURSELF to be entitled to, but that they are LESS entitled to EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

This is why Christians who view marriage between two people of the same sex as PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE (the same way many anti-gay-marriage Christians are FINE with eating shrimp, also listed as an abomination in the Christian holy book) are upset that some Christians are attempting to step on THEIR toes by disallowing THEM to legally marry gay couples in their churches.

And, even worse, the massive efforts and grandstanding that goes into "fighting for prayer" at football games, schools, and government assemblies does absolutely NOTHING to advance the cause of Christianity. In fact, it diminishes its true purpose and everything that it is supposed to stand for, which is practicing kindness and respect toward others, remaining humble in the expression and practice of your faith, (as opposed to loudly demanding that everyone wait while and take notice as you do so publicly) and helping those who are homeless, hungry, naked, and sick.

The only thing that comes from praying before these events is self-satisfaction of the Christian ego.

Now, if the same people who are congratulating themselves for "coming together" as Christians from multiple denominations with the common goal of making a huge drama out of praying before a football game were also putting the same amount of effort into collecting food for the homeless at said football games, it might not be such a vulgar display of selfishness on their part to demand that everyone wait while they recite a rote prayer before the game.

I have no problem with anyone who wants to pray anytime or anywhere, so long as they don't whine about not being allowed to do it over a loud speaker as part of an officially mandated activity on government or taxpayer-owned/funded property. I do, however, find it very sad that so many Christians show such a lack of respect for their own religion by ignoring the truly important aspects of practicing it in favor of superficial shows of power before football games.

I feel that way now, and I felt that way when I was a Christian.

Clearly, being an atheist hasn't changed me. It has merely revealed that my ability to tell right from wrong does not stem from religion, but comes from common sense which we all have the ability to exercise, if only we will shed the ego and focus on what really matters.

A.

The Lesser of Evils

I have a Twitter friend whom I once viewed as a wise person. Lately, many of our mutual friends have begun to wonder what's happened to him, as he seems to have lost all perspective and logical capabilities, and has begun sounding more like a schizophrenic than someone espousing wisdom.

I was discussing the fact that, if I could vote, given the inevitability that either Obama or Romney will end up in office (barring something extremely unexpected taking place), I would choose Obama. When asked why, I cited the fact that, even though I do not agree with much of Obama's economic policy, I view human rights issues as a priority over the economy. After all, without human rights, no economic policy will be of much help to any of us.

That's when "Mr. T.", as I'll call him, broke in with a mostly incoherent diatribe on why Obama isn't worthy of being credited with having human rights as a priority, because he's a "mass murderer just like all the others" (including Romney).

Apparently, he's calling Obama a mass murderer because of the ongoing wars and additional potential warfare we are facing. While I do not agree with the general consensus that it is our country's responsibility to police the world, I think most reasonable people agree that it's a stretch to call it "mass murder". Death and destruction is an inevitability in any war, but murder is something one intentionally carries out as a goal, not something that comes with the territory of waging a war against a country based on a perceived threat (however misperceived) or any other basis.

Mr. T. proceeded to say that both Obama and Romney are mass murderers, and that I was "crazy" for saying that it made sense to vote for EITHER of them, and that supporting either of them was me condoning mass murder.

In an attempt to bring reason into the conversation, I laid it out like this:

If both candidates are equally guilty of mass murder, and it is inevitable that one of them will end up in office, it makes sense to choose the candidate that will bring less restriction of freedom. I can't control either candidate's decision on warfare or "mass murder", but if I am forced to choose only between two "mass murderers", I choose the one who is for marriage equality and doesn't think he owns my vagina.

He made several pathetic attempts to ridicule me for that statement, calling me selfish and claiming that I think my vagina is more important than the innocent lives of children whom he is accusing Obama of (apparently intentionally) killing. His logical fallacy is quite glaring to me, but to him, it's the most perfect logic ever known to humanity.

I think it's important to mention that there is no evidence whatsoever that Obama (or even Romney, for that matter) intends to murder innocent children. Do innocent children die in a war? Unfortunately, yes. To stretch and distort that into intentionally murdering them is not only inaccurate, it shows a lack of clarity and a very distorted thinking process.

But, just for the sake of argument, let's say that he's right and that both Romney and Obama are mass murderers. I don't agree, but let's just pretend for a moment that it's true.

He repeatedly claimed that voting for someone who is a "mass murderer" simply because they have other policies that I agree with somehow makes me a party to said "mass murder". That would be true if there were only ONE candidate guilty of mass murder and I chose the mass murderer based on my priority of wanting them to keep the hell out of my genitalia. However, if both parties are equally guilty of being mass murderers, and one of those two is guaranteed to end up in office, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it makes sense to go for the lesser of two evils.

Penn Jillette, someone who is good at coming up with great sound bytes that promote critical thinking, has been quoted many times as saying "If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you end up with more evil."

The glaring logical fallacy there is that voting for LESS evil vs. MORE evil somehow creates more evil. It doesn't. Yes, you'll continue to have evil, but you'll have less evil than you would otherwise have had if you voted for the greater quantity of evil over the lesser quantity of evil. The quote makes the assumption that there is at least one viable alternative to the two evils, and at this point in the campaign, there just isn't. Fan or not, that quote is just nonsense.

Ironically, Mr. T. is not a fan of Penn's, perhaps even an enemy, but seems to be saying the exact same thing in accusing me of being "crazy" for saying it makes sense to vote for the lesser of two evils. Somehow in his eyes, me voting for a candidate whom he views to be a mass murderer is the same thing as promoting mass murder. It's not... not unless there is a candidate who stands a chance to make it into the White House who is NOT a mass murderer and I pass them up in favor of my own civil liberties over the lives of innocent children.

In a fantasy world, things might be that simple. In the real world, we are almost always faced with voting for a candidate based on prioritized issues, since there will rarely ever be a candidate with whom we are in complete agreement on everything.

When bills get passed in Congress, there are always undesirable things embedded in them that we'd rather not pass. We aren't voting to pass those undesirable things simply because we view other things as important enough to pass despite the accompanying undesirables embedded within the bill.

Likewise, when I condone voting for a candidate who stands for marriage equality and women's rights over one who is the polar opposite, that in no way requires me to condone other political views or behaviors of those candidates.

If we follow the suggestion that we shouldn't vote at all unless there is a candidate we agree with 100% on everything, then we don't ever vote, and the few control who ends up in office. We still end up with one of two main candidates in office, but we have no say in whether the lesser or greater evils of the two reigns. That's asinine.

According to Mr. T., this view means I am insane. If that's the case, then I'm fine with being insane. Insanity is better than indulging in the foolishness of logical fallacy and hyperbole at the expense of what little influence we taxpayers have. I'll take my crazy ass insane opinion that we should vote for the lesser of two evils over the idea that we should passively allow the worse of two evils to take office just to play make believe that we are better people for "not voting for someone who is guilty of (fill in the blank here)" any day.

All things being equal, if Hitler # 1 wants to kill off entire segments of the population AND control your genitalia, and Hitler # 2 wants to kill off entire segments of the population but does NOT want control of your genitalia, logic dictates that you're a fool for not at least trying to prevent having BOTH evils inflicted on the populace. That doesn't make mass murder ok, and it doesn't mean you are condoning it. It simply means you are trying to avoid that evil which you may have SOME control over.

Yeah, I know. That's just fucking insane. We should all just sit passively by and hope that not voting for either inevitable candidate somehow works out for the best, because it's so much better to pretend we have the moral high ground for never voting for anyone with whom we are not 100% in agreement.

Somebody get me a straight jacket.


A.

Blast From The Past - Beware of Bigots

Most of you who follow my blogs know that my father, who died of brain cancer at age 38, was bi-sexual with a tendency toward being attracted to men more than women.


He was a public school music teacher in the 80's, and most people had some idea that he might not be heterosexual. And yet, it just wasn't safe to come out back then... not that it's much safer now more than 20 years later.


I miss my father and would give anything to have him alive today. Still, there's a part of me that is glad he isn't around to see just how poorly things have developed.


Sure, there's been progress made, but when fast-food restaurants owned by religious groups are donating millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations that exist solely to restrict the freedoms of those in the GLBT category, we can't be very proud of who we are as humans just yet.


I have quite a few former classmates from grade school who are religious zealots. They do not question where their religious holy book came from or whether it makes sense to blindly believe what it says (or what they are told that what someone else thinks it says means). It's bad enough that when they are part of any debate, they constantly cite their "Holy Bible" as why "being gay is wrong". (Forget that they are cherry-picking and ignoring the fact that working on the sabbath is listed as a sin that one should be killed for right next to "lying with a man as you would with a woman"...) but what they don't seem to understand is that their view that "being gay is wrong" does not entitle them to make decisions on what types of legal contracts they are allowed to enter into, and what our government should be allowed to call those contracts.


The idea that any religion should have a say in public policy is about as un-American as it gets. And yet, there are people who not only believe that their religious views give them the right to restrict the freedoms of others who do not share their views, they actually come up with some rather bizarre reasons why two people of the same sex should not be able to use the word "marriage" in their legally binding, non-religious, civil marriage contract.


(FYI: Marriage dates back more than 4,000 years, and there is evidence of homosexual marriage that far back as well. This means that Christians did not invent marriage, nor do they own the monopoly on the word.)


Covenant is another word that is used by both governments and religions. That doesn't mean that one has the authority to dictate how the other must define it.


In a social network debate with one of said religious zealots from my grade school years, I challenged his views. His response? That I just don't understand, and that the reason why gay people should not be legally allowed to marry is that it "forces him to redefine his view of  marriage".


No. It doesn't. He is still free to view marriage however he so chooses. How others view it, including how the law views it for the purposes of legal marriage contracts, does not have the power to force him to change his definition of the word at all.


To say otherwise would be like saying that the military practice of bringing back the remains of dead, non-Islamic soldiers in airplanes should not be allowed because it forces Islamic military people to redefine their definition of proper burial practices. No. It doesn't. Islamic people are still perfectly capable of maintaining their own burial practices, and my classmate is still perfectly capable of maintaining his view of marriage.


He then went on to tell me that even if he is able to maintain his definition of marriage, it is "offensive" to him because "the Christian view of marriage does not include gay marriage" and that it is therefore "stepping on his toes" and "forcing it on him" to allow gay people to enter into civil marriage contracts.


Really? How is allowing OTHER people who do NOT SHARE YOUR RELIGIOUS WORLD VIEW to enter into legally binding, civil marriage contacts, "forcing gay marriage" on anyone? No one is forcing you to get "gay married". They are simply not allowing you to control whether other people who are gay can enter into civil marriage contracts.


When these types of zealots realize that they've lost that debate, they then turn to insisting that gay couples should be relegated to having *their* civil marriage contracts be called "civil unions". The reason why that doesn't make sense is that the legally recognized form of marriage in the U.S. since the 1800's is already a civil union and has absolutely nothing to do with religion. (This is why getting married in a church does not make you legally married unless you have a civil marriage license from the courthouse. It is also why you can be legally married without a church wedding at all.)


Why should the same exact thing have two different names dependent on the sex of the parties to the contract? Should we start calling business partnerships that include gay people or same-sex business partners "civil business unions" instead of partnerships? It's absurd. It's neurotic. It's also un-American to single out a segment of the population to be treated differently under the law. Separating personal civil commitment contracts into two different names based on sexual orientation is no different than having separate schools or separate bathrooms for people of different races. If you wouldn't tolerate one, you shouldn't tolerate the other.


My classmate began to get extremely irritated with me as I continued to point out his logical fallacies, evening using "f-ing" at some point. (I'm always amused at how people think that leaving a few letters out makes a word any less profane, and really see no problem with profanity anyway when used as an exclamation point in a conversation, which is why it exists in the first place.)


I then pointed out to him that there are MANY CHRISTIAN SECTS that do NOT share his views and that they even perform marriages IN THEIR CHURCH. Why doesn't he have a problem with that? He can't force them to change, because their religion is protected under the law, just like the rights of gay people to enter into legally binding marriage contracts should be and increasingly is, as people evolve out of their bigotry and recognize that religion does not have the authority to dictate the civil rights of anyone.


He didn't have a response for that. Instead, he just kept on ranting about how offensive it was to him and "Christians" in general.


I pointed out that even the Episcopal church now recognizes gay married couples and even performs blessings on same-sex couples. They are Christians, too. I'm quite certain that they would be offended by any Southern Baptist's assertion that they should not be allowed to do that because Southern Baptist's find that "offensive".


My point is to demonstrate that anyone who attempts to restrict the freedoms of groups of people whom they do not view as obedient to their religion or even their version of any particular religion are, by nature, so self-centered that they actually believe THEIR rights are being infringed upon because they are not allowed to infringe upon the rights of OTHERS.


I have many Christian friends (including other former classmates) who are just as disgusted with this attitude from so many religionists as I am. It's disturbing that anyone could be so out of touch with American values of freedom (including religious freedom of those who do not agree with YOUR brand of religion) that they would resort to whining that their rights are lessened by allowing others to have the same rights that they enjoy.


I think what disturbed me most about learning of my former classmate's views was that I had always viewed him as an intelligent person capable of sound logical thinking skills.


However, as I remember back to our high school years, I recall a rather selfish move on his part that was very hurtful to me and which should have lessened my level of shock at his ability to let selfishness overrule decency and logic even as an adult.


You see, we dated for a short time one summer, and after school started back he informed me one day that he no longer wished to be involved with me. When I asked him why, he told me point blank that "I really like you, but I don't want the other kids to make fun of me for dating you."


I was not very popular back then. I was a nerd (still am) and kind of quiet (am not still quiet, at least not when confronted with something that needs a good dose of critical thinking skills and logic). I was very much an outcast. My mother was out of the picture at that time and, despite having a bi/gay dad, my fashion sense was awful and nobody was able to show me how to pull myself together. Many kids shunned me because I didn't know how to dress very well (still don't) and I was awkward, and then there were the bullies who gave me a hard time because Dad, whom they knew from having him as a music teacher, was gay. (Yep. Kids have a way of knowing things that adults either don't know or pretend not to know.)


Bigot is a word that many people who are accurately described by it find extremely offensive. They don't seem to understand that it applies to anyone who believes a segment of the population should be treated differently than them or have less freedom than they enjoy. It's not a nice word because it describes nasty behavior. I have no qualms about using the word when confronting people who have that attitude, because they need to understand that, while they have the right to have those attitudes, there are social consequences for holding on to them.


I can respect that people have different views than I do. I don't have to respect them for having those views, nor do I have to tolerate them attempting to restrict the freedoms of those with whom they disagree.


What's telling about the people who try to do those sorts of things, is that they pick only those things listed in their holy books as "abominations" that personally offend them, while ignoring other things that are listed as abominations that they themselves do on a regular basis (like wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, eating shrimp and lobster and other shellfish, and working on the sabbath, if they can even agree with one another on what day actually IS the sabbath). That is the perfect example of a hypocrite, and the word "bigotry" actually evolved from the French word "hypocrite".

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that someone who would break up with me to avoid being made fun of by other kids would have such a selfish attitude toward gay people and others who do not share his religious views as an adult, but I suppose the pollyanna in me had just assumed he'd grown out of it.

Clearly, some things never change.

A.

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.