So on Christmas eve 2015, I had a bit of a discussion/debate with a good friend of ours who is a believer ... she genuinely desires and needs a form of Christianity/Spirituality in her life to give it foundation. Fair enough.
In this country (USA) we're afforded that freedom as a basis of our constitution - Freedom of (from) religion. It was clear from our discussion that she cherry picks the hell out of the scriptures - and that's fine too - "par for the course" I think I'd say.Thankfully she does this cherry picking because we certainly could not be friends, much less, acquaintances, were she to be a strict adherent to scripture.
This person, is intelligent, kind and an all around good, caring human being. She has a history/background in some pretty extreme sects of Xianity (JW, for one) which I gleaned from our conversation so I guess it should be no surprise that such a compassionate human would:
A. Cherry pick the scripture
B. Rationally segregate scientific reality from Spiritual beliefs
I think it safe to say that this person fully understands and rationally accepts all proven scientific facts and evidence but she simply infers a Supreme Deity at the point where the evidence hasn't gone yet (a pseudo God of the Gaps) and it's THIS that she calls Christianity ... but more importantly for her, she uses the Bible/Xianity (cherry picked to pieces) to give her life "meaning" and direction.
Fair enough again - we all have that right here in the USA.
Mulling our conversation this Christmas morning, I had a thought and wished I had expressed it last night:
"If your personalized version of religion/spirituality gives you inspiration to be compassionate, motivation to be a better more giving. loving, sharing, caring human being - that's AWESOME. And that's a version of "religion" I can at least respect in that it is truly an internal engine and personal inspiration and guide ... but the nanosecond that you use that same scripture as foundation for judgment of others and to proclaim a divinely bestowed sense of destiny/entitlement over this world and ALL beings in it - then I wholeheartedly REJECT your "religion" and will be forced to debate you at every turn"
As it was ... we parted ways after a fun filled night of holiday cheer with a better understanding of each of our positions on the question of religion - there were no ill words or fisticuffs ... and the world spins on into that silent night as if there is no god directing it - just as you'd expect based on the available evidence.
Merry Christmas to all
Friday, December 25, 2015
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Capital Punishment - the Death sentence and how to fix/apply it
Much debate has been made regarding the death sentence - whether to have it, how to apply it, why isn't there more/less of it. Some positions and arguments are better than others. I think one of the biggest issues - beyond whether it's right or wrong to us in the judicial system - is how do you implement/apply it and avoid punishing innocent people? And, quite frankly, if you can't be 100% right, 100% of the time ... it really should not be used at ALL because it's reallyreallyreally hard (read: impossible) to justify exactly what percentage of mistakes are "acceptable" to justify the correct applications of the death penalty.
Now some people will say there is a certain level of "mistakes" that are theoretically acceptable - and I truly believe that it's not out of their lust for death/killing which, it has the outward appearance of - but more out of their frustration with and need for "meaningful" justice. In increasingly violent times, people are frustrated and sick and tired of long drawn out judicial processes that take decades - at law-abiding taxpayer expense - for many violent criminals that project, not only an inability for rehabilitation but also project a desire and lust for mayhem and death. Who wants to feed and care for such criminals (I was going to say "animals - but that would be an insult to animals) for decades when all they want to do is harm law-abiding citizens AND are rock stars and professors in the prisons they're housed. I mean, these criminals literally "teach" potentially rehabilitatable prisoners how to be WORSE.
BUT ... there is a solution. But it requires us to approach this issue from a completely objective and dispassionate position. And that REALLY hard for a lot of people to do because of all the influences they've had throughout their lives. It will require them to shelve their faith and current morals (to an extent) and approach this without emotion.
The solution is two parts:
1. Change the standard for implementation of the death penalty to this: For the death penalty to apply, there MUST be positive evidence of guilt BEYOND ALL DOUBT. Currently we use the criteria of "beyond reasonable doubt",but I propose to change it to "there is NO doubt possible" as to the guilt of the accused ... now that could mean a detailed and accurate confession and/or DNA evidence along with video and other evidence that leaves no possibility for the crime to have been committed by any one OTHER than the accused.
If you have this, you can streamline the process and stop wasting money and time to reach a resolution to justice.
2. There MUST be a completely humane method that is universally acceptable to everyone. Far too often, what stands in the way of the death penalty is this idea that it must cause some "suffering" to make up for the pain and suffering to the victims - honestly, this is a revolting thought to me. If there must be a penalty of death then it should be as efficient as possible ... the "death" penalty is not the "pain, suffering and death" penalty ... we need to stop treating it as if it is.
There is a perfectly acceptable and painlessly quick/efficient way to kill criminals - hypoxia - the same thing that kills people in a depressurized plane at 25,000 feet of elevation - lack of oxygen. NOTE: this is NOT suffocation! Hypoxia - the lack of oxygen but NOT the overabundance of carbon dioxide, which is the gas that gives people the "panic/dread" feeling - lack of oxygen causes a brief euphoria and disorientation before the subject blacks out then ultimately dies. - no muss not fuss and no elaborate or ghastly equipment and procedures - just a room with low/reducible oxygen levels and a a way to disburse/dilute carbon dioxide and you're done.
As an aside - you could implement a program that would allow long serving of life time sentenced criminals to choose this method after x time served to further reduce the prison population of habitual, long term criminals.
Feel free to discuss the potential "downsides" please. I think this is a very pragmatic and efficient solution to a difficult problem that offers a type of middle ground between the pro and anti death penalty factions.
Now some people will say there is a certain level of "mistakes" that are theoretically acceptable - and I truly believe that it's not out of their lust for death/killing which, it has the outward appearance of - but more out of their frustration with and need for "meaningful" justice. In increasingly violent times, people are frustrated and sick and tired of long drawn out judicial processes that take decades - at law-abiding taxpayer expense - for many violent criminals that project, not only an inability for rehabilitation but also project a desire and lust for mayhem and death. Who wants to feed and care for such criminals (I was going to say "animals - but that would be an insult to animals) for decades when all they want to do is harm law-abiding citizens AND are rock stars and professors in the prisons they're housed. I mean, these criminals literally "teach" potentially rehabilitatable prisoners how to be WORSE.
BUT ... there is a solution. But it requires us to approach this issue from a completely objective and dispassionate position. And that REALLY hard for a lot of people to do because of all the influences they've had throughout their lives. It will require them to shelve their faith and current morals (to an extent) and approach this without emotion.
The solution is two parts:
1. Change the standard for implementation of the death penalty to this: For the death penalty to apply, there MUST be positive evidence of guilt BEYOND ALL DOUBT. Currently we use the criteria of "beyond reasonable doubt",but I propose to change it to "there is NO doubt possible" as to the guilt of the accused ... now that could mean a detailed and accurate confession and/or DNA evidence along with video and other evidence that leaves no possibility for the crime to have been committed by any one OTHER than the accused.
If you have this, you can streamline the process and stop wasting money and time to reach a resolution to justice.
2. There MUST be a completely humane method that is universally acceptable to everyone. Far too often, what stands in the way of the death penalty is this idea that it must cause some "suffering" to make up for the pain and suffering to the victims - honestly, this is a revolting thought to me. If there must be a penalty of death then it should be as efficient as possible ... the "death" penalty is not the "pain, suffering and death" penalty ... we need to stop treating it as if it is.
There is a perfectly acceptable and painlessly quick/efficient way to kill criminals - hypoxia - the same thing that kills people in a depressurized plane at 25,000 feet of elevation - lack of oxygen. NOTE: this is NOT suffocation! Hypoxia - the lack of oxygen but NOT the overabundance of carbon dioxide, which is the gas that gives people the "panic/dread" feeling - lack of oxygen causes a brief euphoria and disorientation before the subject blacks out then ultimately dies. - no muss not fuss and no elaborate or ghastly equipment and procedures - just a room with low/reducible oxygen levels and a a way to disburse/dilute carbon dioxide and you're done.
As an aside - you could implement a program that would allow long serving of life time sentenced criminals to choose this method after x time served to further reduce the prison population of habitual, long term criminals.
Feel free to discuss the potential "downsides" please. I think this is a very pragmatic and efficient solution to a difficult problem that offers a type of middle ground between the pro and anti death penalty factions.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship
From the text of the 14th amendment:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
This is the first sentence and I've always been under the impression that those born within the borders of the United States or in the jurisdiction of one of it's possession/protectorates always automatically granted US citizenship automatically. And as far as I can tell, that IS how it's done
... except ...
this little tidbit leaped to my attention in the recent Republican primary debat when it was recited ...
" ... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ... "
Now... I have to rethink what I've always thought to be true. Does this really mean ANYONE born in the US ... or can an argument be made that an illegal immigrant ... being here illegally and not through an official process ... having never accepted or agreed to accept to be SUBJECT to the JURISDICTION ... cannot enjoy the birthright clause of the 14th amendment?
I honestly don't know the answer and I haven't researched it yet ... but it would SEEM that a damn good case can be made that anyone who has not subjected themselves OFFICIALLY to the jurisdiction of the US cannot invoke a right offered that REQUIRES them to do so either through the citizenship of the parents or the child born or through a legal immigration/visa/tourist/travel process that AT MINIMUM they MUST at least make some affirmation to respect the laws of this country.
If a woman arrives here illegally, how can she accept and acknowledge being SUBJECT to the JURISDICTION of our country? Now, this throws out the argument made by JEB Bush and others that Asians "abuse the birthright clause because even though they come here as "tourists" for the sole intent on having their child in the US, they DO need to acknowledge and accept the jurisdiction of the country they visit - the US. So their kids WOULD enjoy that right since the mother became SUBJECT to the jurisdiction as a condition of the tourist visa ... as I recall from my travels (limited as it was) to other countries - one must affirm that they will respect and abide by the laws governing the host country in order to gain access. Thus becoming "subject to the jurisdiction" of the host country.
But illegal immigrant never do this ... so ... because it's late ... and I'm feeling lazy, does anyone have some insight as to any legal case that applies to the "subject to jurisdiction" clause ... because, despite my normal uber liberal leanings ... I gotta say ... perhaps the conservatives have a leg to stand on with this argument. That said, I gotta assume that somewhere along the line this was argued in the courts and defined to mean ANYONE born within the borders - by geographic location - implicitly accepts that they are "subject to the jurisdiction" by mere presence.
Educate me please :)
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
This is the first sentence and I've always been under the impression that those born within the borders of the United States or in the jurisdiction of one of it's possession/protectorates always automatically granted US citizenship automatically. And as far as I can tell, that IS how it's done
... except ...
this little tidbit leaped to my attention in the recent Republican primary debat when it was recited ...
" ... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ... "
Now... I have to rethink what I've always thought to be true. Does this really mean ANYONE born in the US ... or can an argument be made that an illegal immigrant ... being here illegally and not through an official process ... having never accepted or agreed to accept to be SUBJECT to the JURISDICTION ... cannot enjoy the birthright clause of the 14th amendment?
I honestly don't know the answer and I haven't researched it yet ... but it would SEEM that a damn good case can be made that anyone who has not subjected themselves OFFICIALLY to the jurisdiction of the US cannot invoke a right offered that REQUIRES them to do so either through the citizenship of the parents or the child born or through a legal immigration/visa/tourist/travel process that AT MINIMUM they MUST at least make some affirmation to respect the laws of this country.
If a woman arrives here illegally, how can she accept and acknowledge being SUBJECT to the JURISDICTION of our country? Now, this throws out the argument made by JEB Bush and others that Asians "abuse the birthright clause because even though they come here as "tourists" for the sole intent on having their child in the US, they DO need to acknowledge and accept the jurisdiction of the country they visit - the US. So their kids WOULD enjoy that right since the mother became SUBJECT to the jurisdiction as a condition of the tourist visa ... as I recall from my travels (limited as it was) to other countries - one must affirm that they will respect and abide by the laws governing the host country in order to gain access. Thus becoming "subject to the jurisdiction" of the host country.
But illegal immigrant never do this ... so ... because it's late ... and I'm feeling lazy, does anyone have some insight as to any legal case that applies to the "subject to jurisdiction" clause ... because, despite my normal uber liberal leanings ... I gotta say ... perhaps the conservatives have a leg to stand on with this argument. That said, I gotta assume that somewhere along the line this was argued in the courts and defined to mean ANYONE born within the borders - by geographic location - implicitly accepts that they are "subject to the jurisdiction" by mere presence.
Educate me please :)
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
2 things ... Thanking God/Sending Prayers ... and Evolution of Religion(s)
Yesterday, I read on the Advocatus Atheist Blog, some information regarding a hypothesis of how religions came to be through a type of evolution ... now in fairness, I only scanned the blog post linked here, but I hit on the evolution/development concept and it got my mind to wondering off on a tangent. Now, while most people just kind of roll with the idea that religion/god has just "always been there" - since they just take their medicine on demand (like I did once upon a time) and accept what they've been told and taught. I started trying to think how the first supernatural rites and rituals first came into being.
What occurred to me ... and I wouldn't mind input on the idea ... is that something unexplained or undesirable happened and early humans wanted a different outcome. ... like say ... rain or lack of rain ... So they tried "stuff" ... like sacrificing something - dancing, chanting etc. to "help" arrive at the desired outcome. When, whatever kookie idea/ritual coincided with the desired result became the new ritual for every time a similar event occurred.
Fast forward to modern times ... and what NOT religious event/activity do millions of people concoct all manner of rites, rituals, totems and dejinxers to try to sway an outcome in their favor ... ?
Sports!
How many people do you know that do all manner of zany rituals to ensure their favorite team wins the game? Rally Caps, Flags, towels waved to the right or left x number of times, turn lights on/off, wear a certain shirt/jersey, prepare a certain meal/snack, drink only a certain beverage.
I have to wonder, given enough time, if all these rituals could become religions in their own rite. Take Hockey, for instance, when a team reaches the play-offs, most players and many fans, coaches and employees of the team organization, stop shaving to grow a "Playoff Beard". I'm not sure how/why this superstition came to be - but now it's common place AND think for a moment the similarities it has with the story of Sampson (a story I am only vaguely familiar with as of this writing) ... as I recall, Sampson's hair was somehow his link to god and provided him his strength ... when his hair was cut, he no longer had the power that men feared ... hockey players see the shaving of beards as a jinx that will make them lose.
The point that I'm trying to make is that when we want something to work a certain way and we have no earthly idea how to achieve it - we'll try anything to gain the desired result. And when we actually DO gain that result, whatever ritual or action we did gets adopted for the next similar situation. Now imagine all the horrible things that happened to pre-scientific humanity and all the kookie things they would have tried to gain the desired results ... from rain dances and prayers/chants to animal and human sacrifices in the most horrifically terrifying manners. The things that worked became common practice and because they "worked", no one revisited these issues to understand how/why they "worked" ... they just kept doing them.
The consequences of NOT doing these bizarre and/or horrific rituals could be earthquakes, lightning strikes or all manner of things - so it became paramount to enforce these ritual strictly and make them "happen" even if people didn't want to participate ... hence ... religion - an enforcement mechanism. Now these things are so integrated with societies that trying to undo them is nearly impossible. I just wonder if - as we see with all the different superstitious rites and rituals surrounding sports and stuff, if a couple hundred years from now those rituals/rites could evolve into something like a religion in it's own right especially with the conflicts and controversies regarding the old and established religions.
Anyway - the discussion/thought experiment is to think of how a simple random wishful gesture that conveniently coincides with a positive result could evolve into an established religion/custom.
The other thing - is this whole "Thanking God/Sending Prayers" business. I think it is really a reflexive reaction coming from most people anymore simply because they need to say SOMETHING when Joe is stricken with an illness or Sue was in a car accident (NOTE: these are arbitrary fictitious events). I think many people, who probably haven't seen the inside of a church in decades or cracked open a bible in a longer time (if at all), have been conditioned through early indoctrination and social standards/media to respond with these cliche saying. They don't actually "pray" or bow and give thanks to god ... they just absentmindedly say these things - they are cavernously hollow platitudes.
Since becoming aware of what religion and god is and is not (in other words, since becoming atheist) I have become keenly aware of when people say these things ... when I use to say these things. But why is this a problem, you ask? Well, because so many people have spent their lives devoted to honing skill because they want to really and practically save lives and help people - and all their time and effort spent learning, practicing and perfecting these skills to be able to expertly administer the correct remedy to save life and limb and summarily dismissed with "Oh thank god you are well/safe/better"
It's actually disgusting at how may real people with real skills and intentions are completely dismissed with these statements.
Additionally, a recent situation leaves me in a weird position. A "candle light prayer vigil" has been arranged and scheduled for a friend who is in a hospital. Now granted, in all practicality, I cannot attend - time/distance etc. but if I could ... could I attend? Well sure ... but to do what? Pretend? Lie? Fake? I know my attendance would show support for my hospitalized friend - an outpouring of love and support is always encouraging ... but praying? It's useless, in my experience, and there are scientific studies that show it to be an empty gesture at best. So my attendance would only be to demonstrate to other friends and family that I was committed to my hospitalized friend's speedy recovery ... and to bolster the bottom line for some candle makers.
So, these seemingly "simple" statements of "Thank god" and "prayers sent" along with seemingly hopeful gestures like prayer circles and candle light prayer vigils ... these things ostracize and dismiss the positive acts and thoughts of MANY people. UGH!
Ok ... end of rant ... if you have thoughts, experiences and/or solutions - please comment - lets discuss :)
What occurred to me ... and I wouldn't mind input on the idea ... is that something unexplained or undesirable happened and early humans wanted a different outcome. ... like say ... rain or lack of rain ... So they tried "stuff" ... like sacrificing something - dancing, chanting etc. to "help" arrive at the desired outcome. When, whatever kookie idea/ritual coincided with the desired result became the new ritual for every time a similar event occurred.
Fast forward to modern times ... and what NOT religious event/activity do millions of people concoct all manner of rites, rituals, totems and dejinxers to try to sway an outcome in their favor ... ?
Sports!
How many people do you know that do all manner of zany rituals to ensure their favorite team wins the game? Rally Caps, Flags, towels waved to the right or left x number of times, turn lights on/off, wear a certain shirt/jersey, prepare a certain meal/snack, drink only a certain beverage.
I have to wonder, given enough time, if all these rituals could become religions in their own rite. Take Hockey, for instance, when a team reaches the play-offs, most players and many fans, coaches and employees of the team organization, stop shaving to grow a "Playoff Beard". I'm not sure how/why this superstition came to be - but now it's common place AND think for a moment the similarities it has with the story of Sampson (a story I am only vaguely familiar with as of this writing) ... as I recall, Sampson's hair was somehow his link to god and provided him his strength ... when his hair was cut, he no longer had the power that men feared ... hockey players see the shaving of beards as a jinx that will make them lose.
The point that I'm trying to make is that when we want something to work a certain way and we have no earthly idea how to achieve it - we'll try anything to gain the desired result. And when we actually DO gain that result, whatever ritual or action we did gets adopted for the next similar situation. Now imagine all the horrible things that happened to pre-scientific humanity and all the kookie things they would have tried to gain the desired results ... from rain dances and prayers/chants to animal and human sacrifices in the most horrifically terrifying manners. The things that worked became common practice and because they "worked", no one revisited these issues to understand how/why they "worked" ... they just kept doing them.
The consequences of NOT doing these bizarre and/or horrific rituals could be earthquakes, lightning strikes or all manner of things - so it became paramount to enforce these ritual strictly and make them "happen" even if people didn't want to participate ... hence ... religion - an enforcement mechanism. Now these things are so integrated with societies that trying to undo them is nearly impossible. I just wonder if - as we see with all the different superstitious rites and rituals surrounding sports and stuff, if a couple hundred years from now those rituals/rites could evolve into something like a religion in it's own right especially with the conflicts and controversies regarding the old and established religions.
Anyway - the discussion/thought experiment is to think of how a simple random wishful gesture that conveniently coincides with a positive result could evolve into an established religion/custom.
The other thing - is this whole "Thanking God/Sending Prayers" business. I think it is really a reflexive reaction coming from most people anymore simply because they need to say SOMETHING when Joe is stricken with an illness or Sue was in a car accident (NOTE: these are arbitrary fictitious events). I think many people, who probably haven't seen the inside of a church in decades or cracked open a bible in a longer time (if at all), have been conditioned through early indoctrination and social standards/media to respond with these cliche saying. They don't actually "pray" or bow and give thanks to god ... they just absentmindedly say these things - they are cavernously hollow platitudes.
Since becoming aware of what religion and god is and is not (in other words, since becoming atheist) I have become keenly aware of when people say these things ... when I use to say these things. But why is this a problem, you ask? Well, because so many people have spent their lives devoted to honing skill because they want to really and practically save lives and help people - and all their time and effort spent learning, practicing and perfecting these skills to be able to expertly administer the correct remedy to save life and limb and summarily dismissed with "Oh thank god you are well/safe/better"
It's actually disgusting at how may real people with real skills and intentions are completely dismissed with these statements.
Additionally, a recent situation leaves me in a weird position. A "candle light prayer vigil" has been arranged and scheduled for a friend who is in a hospital. Now granted, in all practicality, I cannot attend - time/distance etc. but if I could ... could I attend? Well sure ... but to do what? Pretend? Lie? Fake? I know my attendance would show support for my hospitalized friend - an outpouring of love and support is always encouraging ... but praying? It's useless, in my experience, and there are scientific studies that show it to be an empty gesture at best. So my attendance would only be to demonstrate to other friends and family that I was committed to my hospitalized friend's speedy recovery ... and to bolster the bottom line for some candle makers.
So, these seemingly "simple" statements of "Thank god" and "prayers sent" along with seemingly hopeful gestures like prayer circles and candle light prayer vigils ... these things ostracize and dismiss the positive acts and thoughts of MANY people. UGH!
Ok ... end of rant ... if you have thoughts, experiences and/or solutions - please comment - lets discuss :)
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Defenders of the Faith
One thing that has always stood out to me as long as I can remember is:
Why do fallible humans ALWAYS have to enforce God's laws and will?
The Bible says, God will do this; the Quran says, Allah will do that; The Torah says God will do the Other; ... if you think or act out certain behaviors ... they are ALL specific that GOD will do these thing and that God will hold judgement and mete out "punishment(s)".
Yet ... we never seem to see an instance of God doing the meting or judging - it's ALWAYS the humans!
If someone takes the lord's name in vane or says something derogatory against the church or religion, faithful HUMANS feel compelled to lash out and "defend" their god/religion. Going back to when I was a young child, this ALWAYS struck me as strange - Why would humans need to risk life, limb and liberty to fight or defend the biggest baddest most capable-est deity/entity in the universe?!? I could never wrap my mind around how the logic plays. God could strike down anyone who angered him (or so the bible tells) yet I am supposed to punch little Johnny in the mouth for saying Jesus was a putz?!? Even as a believing child, when faced with such conundrums, I'd merely say something to the effect of "God will get you for that" but even as a very young believer I never felt compelled to take an action other than to pass on the rule of god and "maybe" stop interacting with someone of differing beliefs.
Of course today I realize, there is no god(s) and know that insulting any deity will not be met with a supernatural sanction (or lightning bolt) ... nor will there be any final judgement AFTER death - unless it's at the eulogy of the deceased offender.
Why does this come to mind now? Because recently I've become aware of the most vile threats that the religious folks (usually the most ardent - not so much the casual) throw at ANYone who even utters the most mundane contradiction to their religion. The slightest things cause the fervently religious to have a scorched earth policy on anything that "might" even be remotely viewed as contrary to their god/religion. Example: ISIS blowing up archaeological sites ... because, you know, old bricks and pottery shards could ... excuse me ... what can they do to your god again? Exactly how weak and fragile is your god that looking at old bricks will cause your god irreparable harm?
I was always taught that god, creator of the heavens and Earth, father of all humanity, was beyond reproach and untouchable when it came to the puny, feeble antics of non-believing humans. And I am equally sure that god didn't "tell" you to act on his behalf because he really has no time or energy to worry about who called his son a putz and/or anything else of this earth - I mean, for fuck's sake - he has a LAKE OF FIRE to roast people for eternity in when he judges them, right?!? Not good enough for his human minions though, evidently. Nope, THEY (the humans) feel a NEED to act on god's behalf and exact worldly retribution ... and the reason is clear ... even THEY don't trust god to do it ... because they REALLY know he is not there ... now or ever :P
Why do fallible humans ALWAYS have to enforce God's laws and will?
The Bible says, God will do this; the Quran says, Allah will do that; The Torah says God will do the Other; ... if you think or act out certain behaviors ... they are ALL specific that GOD will do these thing and that God will hold judgement and mete out "punishment(s)".
Yet ... we never seem to see an instance of God doing the meting or judging - it's ALWAYS the humans!
If someone takes the lord's name in vane or says something derogatory against the church or religion, faithful HUMANS feel compelled to lash out and "defend" their god/religion. Going back to when I was a young child, this ALWAYS struck me as strange - Why would humans need to risk life, limb and liberty to fight or defend the biggest baddest most capable-est deity/entity in the universe?!? I could never wrap my mind around how the logic plays. God could strike down anyone who angered him (or so the bible tells) yet I am supposed to punch little Johnny in the mouth for saying Jesus was a putz?!? Even as a believing child, when faced with such conundrums, I'd merely say something to the effect of "God will get you for that" but even as a very young believer I never felt compelled to take an action other than to pass on the rule of god and "maybe" stop interacting with someone of differing beliefs.
Of course today I realize, there is no god(s) and know that insulting any deity will not be met with a supernatural sanction (or lightning bolt) ... nor will there be any final judgement AFTER death - unless it's at the eulogy of the deceased offender.
Why does this come to mind now? Because recently I've become aware of the most vile threats that the religious folks (usually the most ardent - not so much the casual) throw at ANYone who even utters the most mundane contradiction to their religion. The slightest things cause the fervently religious to have a scorched earth policy on anything that "might" even be remotely viewed as contrary to their god/religion. Example: ISIS blowing up archaeological sites ... because, you know, old bricks and pottery shards could ... excuse me ... what can they do to your god again? Exactly how weak and fragile is your god that looking at old bricks will cause your god irreparable harm?
I was always taught that god, creator of the heavens and Earth, father of all humanity, was beyond reproach and untouchable when it came to the puny, feeble antics of non-believing humans. And I am equally sure that god didn't "tell" you to act on his behalf because he really has no time or energy to worry about who called his son a putz and/or anything else of this earth - I mean, for fuck's sake - he has a LAKE OF FIRE to roast people for eternity in when he judges them, right?!? Not good enough for his human minions though, evidently. Nope, THEY (the humans) feel a NEED to act on god's behalf and exact worldly retribution ... and the reason is clear ... even THEY don't trust god to do it ... because they REALLY know he is not there ... now or ever :P
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Lessons in "Marriage"
mar·riage
ˈmerij/
noun
- the legally or formally recognized union of adult human partners in a relationship
- a combination or mixture of two or more elements
Ok ... so there's your working definition of what "marriage is - it's a union, mixture or combination of things - pretty easy concept to grasp.
Now, lets look at the players (as pertains to the United States) in the same sex marriage debate and what their roles and limitations are:
Government (all) - the US government is governed by the constitution which forbids it from participating in or takings sides/positions regarding religion. Provides services and secular leadership to the citizenry it represents.
Religion (all) - spiritual guidance to their parishioners/flocks and provide services in as it pertains to the word of their specific god. Cannot participate directly in government matters - i.e. cannot make binding laws; cannot campaign for or endorse political candidates for government - at least not directly as the entity known as "the church" (supplement synagogue or mosque or whatever religious jargon - for simplicity the word "church will be used throughout to represent all religious organizations) .
So we have two VERY different bodies (church and state) that perform to VERY different services but use the EXACT same word to describe that service:
Marriage
And it applies as defined appropriately very well.
Now - here's where people make the mistake - they cannot separate the two very different services provided but these very different groups in their minds because both services are usually COMBINED and executed at the same general time.
But they ARE separate actions!
Make no mistake - a "marriage" as a religious act is NOT legally binding withing the government context. Conversely, a "marriage" in the civil/government context is NOT sanctioned or binding in the eyes of god or the church.
Just TRY to go to your local church and have the pastor marry you in the eyes of god and not file the applications/paperwork for the government version of "marriage". See if you can exercise the legal rights that are granted by the government's"marriage" (spoiler: you won't be able to unless you lie through your teeth).
Now, you "may" be able to have your civil/government "marriage" recognized by a church that you chose to join after the actual government (or other church/denomination) marriage was executed but I suspect more often than not, a civilly married couple MUST have their union sanctioned by the church they choose to attend even if they have been married for decades - as an example I will quote from americancatholic.org
Catholics who exchange marriage vows in the presence of only ministers from other religious traditions or authorized civic officials are not considered validly married in the eyes of the Catholic Church.
(emphasis added - so much for "we all worship the same god" - if that were so, a sanction from one church would be recognized by all churches :P )
So to summarize what we've learned:
Marriage has TWO separate forms and functions:
Civil Marriage - legal and binding in the eyes of the government and generally accepted norm of society
Religious Marriage - spiritual and binding in the eyes god and church
Why is this important?
Because anyone who wants the legal protections and benefits of the legal institution known as "marriage" MUST have a civil union (marriage) applied for, accepted, approved and performed and filed with the government. But (and this is an important distinction) a civil government sanctioned and recognized as legal marriage is NOT - repeat NOT REQUIRED - or even expected to have any religious sanction or approval!
Now - the REAL crux of the issue facing American society today - same sex marriage.
Dun ... Dun ... DAAAAAAAAAH
(Cue the outraged homophobes)
"Awww HELL no!!! - can't let no QUEERS be all married and shit - it'd be the ruination of the 'mur'can way of life!!! That shit is just unnatural in the eyes of the one true almighty GAWD!!! My BuyBull TELLS me so!!! Ain't a gonna let no ..."
(cut away from outraged homophobes)
As distasteful as it is - religions have the RIGHT to define and execute and sanction RELIGIOUS marriage anyway their scriptures dictate they must.
HOWEVER (and THIS is MOST important):
The Government is NOT in the "religion" business, nor can it adopt any one religion or religious rites and or rituals. The government can and should now and always execute unbiased marriages that are "legally or formally recognized unions" to any and all persons who qualify as competent and who apply to execute this legal instrument known and defined as CIVIL (government) marriage.
I know that the two DIFFERENT forms of marriage are very often performed and executed at the same time but it's high time we put on our big boy/girl pants and recognize that one word can mean TWO different things:
 |
| No one questions that "crane" conjures two VERY different images |
For the record - I am neither gay nor religious (no viable evidence for supernatural beings - without this evidence, religions fail) but I am fair and empathetic so I believe all people should have the same rights and opportunities and it is no one's business or right to dictate love/commitment between consenting competent adult humans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)