I want to make one thing clear. I do not hate religious people nor am I interested in oppressing their right to exerecise their religion. I have issues with some of their fundamental beliefs and the way they can affect (harm) other people. I will not tolerate those who assert their religious freedom is being oppressed when it violates the separation of church and state a la abortion, same-sex marriage, and contraceptive rights.  As with racism, sexism-- there are always apologists that claim "Not all people..."

But in reality, many of them do and just because you are not the oppressive, shove-it-down-your-throat type doesn't mean you aren't complicit in a society that allows a subset of people to control the mainstream way of thinking. Because let's face it-- any totalitarian way of thinking has never fared well in human society.

I hate how people scream about atheists taking away their religious freedom, "pushing it down our throats," when atheists are not the group that walks around with a symbol of their beliefs around their neck and the support of 44 consecutive presidencies behind them. The word "atheist" is spoken with malice, as if it's a curse word. Even I feel uncomfortable saying it due to its connotation, as if I don't want people to perceive me as the devil and someone who sets babies on fire (which I totally do, but the generalization is offensive). Atheists just don't tell most people they are atheists, I've noticed, unless they, too, are atheists. You can't just tell someone and have them accept it; a deluge of questions follow, or worse, an awkward silence.

I just can't accept the idea that atheists are the oppressive people. It's ridiculous.

Pascal's Wager

What a hunk.

"Pascal's Wager" is an argument in favor of God's existence, trumped by Christian philosopher Blaise Pascal in the 17th century. He argues that no matter if a person believes there to be a god or not, one should believe in it anyway because if there happens to be a god then it would be better to be a believer when it comes time to "meet your (so-called) maker"-- as a sort of safety precaution. It's better to believe because it's a win-win! If there's no god, no harm no foul. If there is, you're gonna have some 'splainin to do at the pearly gates.

If I recall correctly, Richard Dawkins, a noted evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist, makes a pretty good argument for how inane this "wager" is in his book, The God Delusion. He says something along the lines of, "Would a god rather you pretended to believe in him to gain his favor or lived your life virtuously so that a god could be proud of his creation? But then again, what if you choose the wrong god? Then you come into all sorts of issues." In the end, it's a ridiculous justification for religious belief.

Fortunately, this is not a common justification many people use today for religious belief. (Well, actually, I was friends with this kid who used this as a reason for his religious belief which kind of stunned me, but it was obvious he hadn't thought too much about it. Not that kids should have to, but you know.) But if this was the best they had going for them in the 1600s, the old times were not the best times.

This Just In: Women Shouldn't Have Rights To Their Body!

Debates over women's contraception "privileges" dominated news last year as old white men argued over women's rights to their body. While the issue is mostly to do with privacy rights, the massive opposition is deeply rooted in the religious sentiment that contraception is a method by which humans subvert God's plans, considering the Bible says that the matter of copulation is only to produce offspring. Why would any women need birth control if she's having sex to produce children? In fact, most Americans actually support birth control so how is it that this minority is so vocal?

This conflict of interests arose when the new health care mandate kicked in and religious organizations questioned whether they were forced to provide contraception to their female workers. Two SCOTUS cases addressed this issue--Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius-- but have not been decided on yet.

For the moment I am not even going to address the fact that women who work for religious organizations are not necessarily of that religion nor should they have to be... wait, actually I am. Even Joe Biden can recognize the difference between personal beliefs and public law. Contraception is not used so women can whore around-- in many cases, the possibility of pregnancy can be dangerous for them or the artificial hormones keep their own hormones in check.  Even if a woman does want to "whore around," no one should actually care nor tell a woman what to do with her body.

It's frustrating that personal convictions such as religious beliefs can hold weight in a court of law and people can lose a right due to a majority's opinion. I'm gonna come out and say it right now that most of the men voting against these laws have probably used a condom at least once in their life. (It's almost as if there's some connection between what men think they should be entitled to and the inflated sense of authority to decide what others are entitled to!)

Maybe one day people will be able to separate their beliefs from what is law but for now, we get arguments like this. Sigh.

If Atheists Ruled the World

"If Atheists Ruled the World" is a YouTube video released by user sliptivity which has garnered over 2.5 million views. The video is a satire of sorts, for the speakers are repeating comments on Christian fundamentalist forums online. The creators are making fun of these commenters by delivering the lines in a deadpan way. The last part is probably my favorite clip of all time.

Of course, the commenters could have been, as the internet savvy say, "trolls"but I have a deep sinking feeling that they are not. Enjoy!

A few years ago, Bill Maher, host of Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, wrote and starred in a documentary called "Religulous," which centers on religion as it stands today in America by interviewing outspoken and fervent Christians, visiting a creationist museum, and contemplating the origins of the Christian religion and God. He even interviews Ken Ham! (Yep, the one that debated Bill Nye.)



While it is super easy to cut Maher's interviews to make him seem like the winner and the most articulate-- there's always that bias to pick and choose (obviously Maher has an agenda within its context) -- there are several good points that are brought up.

While it does not appear in this video, the most chilling aspect of the documentary was the Jesus camps that parents send their children to teach them Scripture and indoctrinate them into religion.

Pope Francis's Crusade Against Capitalism

Pope Francis's Crusade Against Capitalism: Stephen Colbert addresses the pope's ongoing critique of capitalism raises concerns that he might be a socialist. First, Bill O'Reilly claims the far left is skewing Pope Francis's words to fit their agenda. Then, news outlets break the news that the pope is calling for the redistribution of wealth.

What a guy.

This week on "I can't believe we're still having this debate," we're still having this debate. I don't even know if most fundamentalist Christians know this, but Jesus was a socialist. Read the Beatitudes, for Christ's sake (pun intended). "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven... Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth," Jesus says in Matthew 5. Honestly, I don't know how that can be warped to fit the needs of the free market capitalism running rampant in the United States, a predominately Christian/religious nation.

I've never understood that people who preach "building yourself from scratch like all other successful white men," condemn "welfare queens" who are lazy and do nothing for the world except absorb government dollars, then trump the cause of their religion, centered around a selfless person interested in a revolution of the masses. This contradiction is astounding, yet no one questions it.

Some people are treating this pope as a radical and ultra-liberal by preaching that poverty is the main issue of the Church yet he is only following the words of his holy book which people love to quote when it's convenient-- not so much when it's not. Honestly, I'm happy that the alleged "facilitator" between God and man is using his seat wisely, for no Catholic disputes the pope. I don't think too many corporations will be happy about this newfound direction but I guess that's the point.

The Power of Myth

By recommendation from my freshmen year English teacher, I read The Power of Myth, a series of video interviews between Bill Moyers and Joseph Campbell that were transcribed into book format regarding mythology around the world. According to his Wikipedia description, Campbell is credited as an American mythologist who focuses on comparative mythology and religion.

The main idea of the book is the reoccurrence of the "monomyth," a common thread that runs through all human cultures throughout history. The monomyth is the idea that the mythology within each culture carries a variant of the same story. It is the "hero's journey" and it is the story of the hero's quest of overcoming great struggles to reach enlightenment, allowing them to save themselves and their people. Regardless of origin civilization and time of creation, mythologies all seem to share this thread, albeit with different masks.

Campbell compares the creation stories of several religions (because religions are based in mythologies, by definition of the word) which is particularly interesting to me.

Campbell argues mythology is an integral part of human life and should not be lost to the ever decreasing of spirituality. "They're stories about the wisdom of life... Mythology teaches you what's behind literature and the arts, it teaches you about your own life," said Campbell. Mythologies create a culture and each civilization would be nothing without it's rich history and that involves myths.

MOYERS: Genesis 1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

CAMPBELL: This is from "The Song of the World," a legend of the Pima Indians of Arizona: "In the beginning there was only darkness everywhere-- darkness and water. And the darkness gathered thick in places, crowding together and then separating, crowding and separating..."

MOYERS: Genesis 1: "And the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light."

CAMPBELL: And this is from the Hindu Upanishads, from about the eighth century B.C.: "In the beginning, there was only the great self reflected in the form of a person. Reflecting, it found nothing but itself. Then its first word was, 'This am I.'" 

The two continue in this fashion, Campbell citing the Bassari people of West Africa and again the Pima Indians and the Upanishads. It is really quite fascinating how on the face the common perception of cultures around the world are vastly different, yet these civilizations, which thrived completely independent of each other, all share the same story. I think many people with entrenched beliefs have the propensity to focus on their microcosm of the world yet refuse to see the general picture of this shared human consciousness. I think we forget that we are, for the most part, the same but cite irrelevant aspects of culture like dress and skin color and region as a reason to be blind to the rest of the world. Campbell humbles us, and that's a good thing.

Since it would be too long, there are some fascinating ruminations Campbell has about the US dollar found here on page 33!