Circumcision: Making the Decision Based on Facts Not Hatred

Circumcision will always be a sore subject. There has been no surgical procedure that has caused as much controversy as the little snip, and the arguments against it tend to get really convoluted. The reason is simple enough: Although there are some definite medical benefits, it has become associated with religion making it it understandably unpalatable for those that dislike religion. However, there are some concerns that need to be addressed.

First off, there are some legitimate, if minor, medical benefits. Although its effects on most STD's is debatable, circumcision has been proven to be very effective when it comes to preventing the spread of HIV (there is a decrease of 36% to 66% in the number of cases in various areas). The World Health Organization has suggested that circumcision should be encouraged in areas where there are HIV epidemics, such as most of Africa. It also helps prevent penile cancer (penile cancer is virtually unknown in those who received neonatal circumcision) as well as some infections, such as those suffered by some 10% of those who are not cut before puberty. There is also the advantage that the complications due to the surgery are usually minor, with actual damage to the penis limited to just over a hundred patients a year in the United States. In short, there is an advantage to being circumcised with minimal chance of damage to the penis itself.

However, these benefits are minor enough that most major medical organizations do not recommend circumcision, and most insurance carriers worldwide do not cover the operation. Even the American Pediatrics Association tends to cycle through periods where they alternate between recommending the procedure and arguing that it has negligible effects. Even the argument that it enhances male sexual pleasure tends to fall in and out of favor, not to mention its aesthetic appeal. As such parents should be willing to go either way when it comes to the surgery.

[It needs to be noted that this is a process that needs to be decided on by the parents. Because it is seen as a body modification, some parents want to leave the decision with the boy himself. The problem is that most of the benefits of the surgery are felt during the fifteen years of life, and by then the boy is unlikely to want to make any changes to his penis. Straight up: If you feel like it's just cosmetic surgery, then don't sweat it. Period. It's worth pointing out that parents tend to make a lot of decisions for their kids that the kids don't like ranging from forcing them to eat vegetable to disciplining them to music lessons, so this is definitely a decision that is in their purview; if you have no problem with braces, which cost thousands of dollars, open up the kid to ridicule, and has little actual effect, you should have no problem with circumcision. However, if you want to leave it up to the kid, that's your decision and cool. Don't sweat it.]

There also appears to be some confusion between male and female circumcision. Female circumcision is an abhoration that should be abolished from the world. It is almost guaranteed to cause pain, create medical problems, and is done for some really stupid aesthetic reasons. While the medical benefits of male circumcision can be at least debated, female circumcision has none, and can actually cause sterility. As such no sane individual should be encouraging any kind of female circumcision.

 So, what is the bottom line? Easy: If you live in an area with a lot of HIV, you are likely doing your son a favor by circumcising him. If you decide to go forward, the likelihood of a complication resulting in mutilation or sterility is extremely low, as it is usually handled by a surgeon (even rabbis that do the procedure must be thoroughly trained, and not all rabbis receive that training). If you decide otherwise, don't sweat it; just remember to clean out the foreskin and to teach the boy how to do it and you should be fine. Just remember that it is a decision that needs to be made by the parents either way, and as early as possible, and you should be fine. Just don't make a decision based on the grounds of religion, either because you are for or against; the decision should be based on the medical facts and not the emotion.

How to Donate Foods For the Holidays

Tis the season for food drives, and no doubt most people will want to help out. There are always some considerations that would-be donors should keep in mind when they donate to food drives, as there are some important issues that need to be debated. The major consideration is that you need to think beyond the stereotype; a food bank is something that benefits everyone directly or otherwise. Given that it is a great mercy, it can only help to put some thought into what foods are donated. Here are some suggestions.

1) Know what to give. Try to keep in mind the needs of those looking for food, as not everyone has the same needs. Although most foods are great, you should also debate ethnic foods, especially in areas where there are high concentrations of immigrants; those foods may help someone feel a little more special around this time of year. You should also debate foods specifically for children as well as feeding mothers. For the kids, this means peanut butter, jellies and jams, juice boxes, macaroni and cheese, and pretty much anything for lunches and breakfasts are great. Cannisters and boxes of powdered formula are always welcome. You should also consider: canned meats (such as chicken and tuna), powdered milk, saltine crackers, soups, juices, bags of noodles and rice, spaghetti sauce in almost any form, canned vegetables, and pork and beans.

[Cans are preferred as they are easy to store and don't require refrigeration, something that helps the normally cash-strapped organizations to save a lot of money. They are also easy to check for tampering. If you are debating raw fruits and vegetables inquire first.]

2) Know what not to donate. Obviously frozen and refrigerated foods are off the list. Breads are another item to seriously debate as food pantries have to turn a lot of donated bread away, and they get a lot of bread from grocery stores anyway. Kidney and garbanzo beans should be seriously debated; food pantries get a lot of them because people get a lot of them for food pantries and they can get annoying, especially as not everyone knows how to prepare them. High-end foods should not be donated; not everyone knows what to do with them and staples are more appreciated. Alcohol should not even be considered.

3) When in doubt, cash is always welcome. Food pantries get a lot of bang for their buck when it comes to shopping, and it gives them the ability to adapt to the needs of the community. It is also to easier to write-off when it comes to tax time. Nonetheless, try to keep to foodstuffs as it simplifies the situation, and it keeps everyone trustworthy.

4) Keep in mind local regulations. This applies especially to prepared foods, as most health and safety regulations have issues with any number of different foods. The best example of this is cooked foods: They need to be kept at certain temperatures once they have been prepared or they become unhealthy and susceptible to bacterial growth. This is why such foods have an extremely short shelf life, usually in hours, and are strictly regulated by local law.

Keep this mind when you are donating food and the season should be a happy one indeed for all involved. 

When Science Kills

My least favorite meme right now has to one that states, "Science will admit when it's wrong. Religion will kill to prove it's right." While I'm not really going to touch the last half of that, as it's pretty much empty rhetoric given what some of the popes have said over the last fifty or so years, it's the first half that sort of worries me. There have been numerous examples of Science killing to prove itself right, especially over the last century. It's that people tend to forget that there have been serious lapses in judgment that we need to remember that Science is hardly the lily-white innocent wen it comes to dealing death some think it is.

You only need to go as far back as World War II in order to see some of the death that scientists have used to prove their private theories. The obvious example for the Western World involves the death camps of Nazi Germany, where doctors took advantage of the human chattel in order to perform some of the most heinous experiments on the human body ever recorded by Man. Some of those experiments were innocuous, such as seeing if they could change the color of a child's hair and eye color, but there were serious explorations of human anatomy using living people. Nanking is just as infamous, with its infamous explorations into such areas as how long people could survive in the cold, among others.

Those experiments were not limited to the labs of evil foreign scientists. Consider how the lives of the Tuskegee airmen were affected because someone was curious about how black soldiers were affected by syphillis. Whereas the logic is understandable (black physiological systems respond differently to a wide variety of diseases, most notable the relationship between malaria and sickle-cell anemia), the experiments were nonetheless barbaric. That of course discounts the wholesale experimentation when it came to figuring out the effects of nuclear bombs on the human body, where soldiers were asked to lay down as nuclear warheads were exploded near them in order to determine the effects on their bodies.

More recently is the unfortunately successful work of Andrew Wakefield. Wakefield published a report on how the MMR vaccine was the cause of autism. Although the report has been thoroughly discredited and you'll please note that there was no "Doctor" before Wakefield's name as he has been stripped of that particular honor, the damage has been done; diseases that were on the run have been seen in increased numbers and those diseases have been causing deaths. Although there had been deaths due to vaccinations, they were far fewer than the near-epidemics among those that have not been vaccinated. Wakefield has not recanted his position by any stretch, making his personal theory responsible for thousands of deaths as the anti-vaxers take up his cause.

This is not to say that Science should be cast aside by any stretch, as it is obviously a major force for good in our modern civilization. However, we do need to realize that few things come without cost, and that occasionally people screw up in disastrous ways. We just need to stop letting memes think for us and pay attention; The Bible says that there will be those that attempt to lead people astray, and memes are as good a tool to do so. So enjoy the memes, but remember that you do have your own judgment that should be used every so often...

Using The Bible To See You Through The Holidays

This is the time of year when we need to realize when our thoughts should be charitable, and our deeds for the good of mankind. Otherwise we are unlikely to survive the coming months, for our families will utterly destroy us.

Tensions run high this time of year and we need to make sure that we do our best to temper those tensions rather than increase them. It's understandable how that we would feel a little more stress around this time of year; for a social species we really don't like dealing with our fellow man more than absolutely necessary. This means that when we are forced to deal with others we tend to get a bit more stressful than needed. It doesn't help that some of these people we haven't seen for almost a year, and so we are worried about what they think of us, especially if we didn't get along with that person.

It can help if apply certain biblical rules to the situation. The biggie is to not covet. Period. Jealousy is going to be a major issue this season, especially in any gift-giving situation; you may see the gifts others receive and feel somehow slighted if you don't feel your gift measures up to someone else's. Even if you feel that you got the "guest gift", that present kept in reserve for someone that happens to show up, enjoy anything you receive and don't be jealous of other's gifts; you can be envious a little, but enjoy the gift along with them rather than hate them for it.

Honor your father and mother, especially if you don't get along with them. Even if it's your house, you'll find it will go a lot easier if you give them the run of the place. Obviously if you can rent them a room in a nearby hotel it would work out a lot better, but remember to be nice to them at least. This is not to say that you need to be a welcome mat and let them walk all over you, but do be respectful. With any luck you won't have to deal with them for more than a day or two, so be nice as long as you are able.

Avoid gossip. It's going to be hard, but one of the problems with gossip is that it tends to come back on you. Try to be as non-committal as possible, and only discuss family problems as little as absolutely possible. Work with only what you know are the facts, and only offer suggestions, not actual statements. This is when it can only help to stay out of politics, especially family politics.

Remember humility. This is the time of year when you want to let others see you but keep your head low. Compete as much as much as you want, but don't be prideful about it. Nobody likes a sore winner, and no one as memory like your family.You need to walk that line between being proud of your accomplishments and still being humble. Keep in mind that a little humility will help if you need to get advice on something. Play nice and you should do well this time of year. Heck, you may even survive to see next year!

Own Who You Are

You should never be ashamed of who you are. In too many areas people feel that they are forced to hide who they are because they are worried about others finding out about their beliefs. You need to put a little faith in who you are, and own your identity. It is who you are and no one should be ashamed of who he or she is.

If you have spent any time on this plane then you have earned the right to be who you are. You have just as much right to exist as anyone and if someone disagrees with that they are the ones that have something to prove. If someone uses slurs, snarky remarks, or threats in order to silence you, that person has issues and you should either ignore or report them. You have put a lot of work into deciding who you are and others should honor that decision; they weren't there every step of the way and shouldn't judge you simply because of who you have decided to be. They may not have decided who they are, or have decided that being an idiot is the best thing ever, but that is their problem, and not yours.

Too many people are willing to discount what others say in order to win an argument. If the only way someone can win an argument is by pointing out the sex, race, or even belief system of another person then that person is the one that has lost the argument. While there is some validity to this (a person with no engineering background should not be in an engineering meeting, for example, without a really good reason), sometimes it is too easy to discount someone because we don't see how that person's experiences and knowledge apply. Sometimes we need to allow that someone with a different perspective based on his life is likely to have a different perspective that is necessary for us to see things a bit more clearly. Rather than discounting that perspective out of hand we should explore that perspective a bit to make sure that it should be discounted and not do so out of hand.

This is not to say that some life choices should not be persecuted, such as pedophile or mass murderer. However, other than that no one should be forced to hide who they are. You should be proud of who you are and what you have done. Everyone makes mistakes, but they should be seen as lessons learned and badges earned, and not something that you should hide from the rest of the world. I know it's a cliche, but those flaws make you as a diamond shine, and you should not be afraid to shine. Just remember to let others shine as well...

Build A House YOU Are Proud of

Matthew 12:43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.

44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.

45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

Having a strong belief in something should not be seen as a bad thing, as long as that thing is not harmful to others. By the same token an inquisitive mind is fine, as long as you are aware that sometimes it may lead you into areas that may be a little on the dangerous side. In either case, you may want to make sure that your head and heart are a little on the dirty side.

The verses listed refer to a person who is ready and willing to believe in anything, and is thus dangerously open to new ideas. This can be either a naive person who believes anything that they are told, or someone who is in seriously need of a change in his life The naive person will learn quickly that he needs to grow some skin quickly, and that not everyone has his best interest at heart. If he continues to approach every situation the same, with the assumption that he will survive the situation based on the innate goodness of humanity.

Although the person is trying to lead a life without baggage, and while that is commendable it is also a problem. It means that you need to constantly evaluate situations and not take advantage of any past experience; this person is not likely to adapt quickly to problems, and is likely to give the wrong person too many chances. This person needs allow some baggage into their life so he doesn't make the same mistakes over and over; a dirty house is a good thing in this case as that baggage all over the place means that at least incoming visitors have something to trip over on the way in and give the person a chance to make better decisions.

Conversely, someone who is looking for a major change in his life is likely to try a path precisely because it appears to be the right one initially. It can look like exactly what the person needed at the time, but can actually be the worst mistake they can make at the time. This can be anything from a religion whose leader is more interested in power and money to a new diet that causes more harm than it cures. The person has cleared some space in his house so that he can welcome something new and instead he opens himself up to some serious potential for harm. He just needs to do some serious research before heading down a new path from which there may no return so at least he is fully informed regarding that decision.

The bottom line is simply that there are advantages to having something that you believe in. You need to have something that fills in your cracks or else it's likely that something bad will slip in. More to the point, you need a house that you are comfortable with to act as a base; you will continue to let new ideas in if you are never comfortable with who you are, and some of those ideas may be downright dangerous.

This is not to say you should not change things up every so often, exploring a new idea or expanding an old one; you should always be willing to change how a room looks or add a new painting, just to shake things up a bit. People being people it is always a danger that you will get locked into a bad decision, especially when you have some sort of personal investment in the decision. This is as much a matter of personal pride, of not willing to admit to making a mistake, and that's just human nature. You need to be willing to do some redecorating every so often, if for no other reason than to make sure that your decisions are solid.

You should never go into a situation completely clear, and if you are required to then you should be on your toes. You will need to deal with the mess after all, and it sucks to have to clean up someone else's mess in your own home. So treat your mind and heart as you would a home and only let in what you feel works for you and will allow you to prosper. Decorate how you want to, and let no one else tell you how it should be; remember that you can always ignore the advice of the best interior decorator. Make it a place you are proud of, regardless of what anyone else may think; you are the one that will be living there, after all, and no one else. 

The Importance of a Sound Skeptcism

Something that will always amuse me is how many people accept the facts that they are given without questioning them. No matter how strange or nonsensical the facts, all you need is to mention some sort of academic , preferably a doctor but not necessary, and a celebrity and you can count on a lot of people believing you. What's even weirder is that sites that go after hoaxes get a lot of flack precisely because they go after hoaxes. It wouldn't be as amusing except that the people who believe the hoaxes usually consider themselves to be above such things.

You should always approach a new news source with some with some degree of skepticism, especially if it agrees with your perspective.The articles that seem to come up the most as having the most problems with them are the ones that are slanted to an audience. That's the big problem with Cop Block: A lot of people hate cops right now, especially after Ferguson, so they are looking for all of the wrongs that cops try to get away with. Fox News is the obvious problem child as it seems to pride itself on making things up for its right-wing audience. As such be especially watchful if the article agrees with your personal beliefs.

You need to make sure that the source isn't a joke site as too many sites that look good end up being some sort of attempt of humor, while others have a joke section. This is the difference between The Onion and Raw Story; The Onion makes no bones about its humor, while Raw Story tries to look real. Making it worse is that Raw Story has a lot of actual stories but doesn't really differentiate between the two.

There also needs to be some fact-checking. Snopes and Wikipedia are arguably the two best sites for looking things up. While Snopes takes some flack because of its owners' political beliefs, its references are usually pretty good They also tend to track down hoaxes; they are usually on top of the game when it comes to settling whether or not something is a hoax. Wikipedia gets a lot of flack because anyone can edit it, but the necessity for rferences before an article can be published as well as other safeguards such as warning signs that the page has problems as well as the ability to lock down articles that have been edited too much make it a great source.

Lastly, consider the source. If you see that the celebrity is quoted just a bit too much, and even more so than the academic, then run. If the celebrity is supporting the topic with some sort of sob story, put it down and go elsewhere immediately. When Jenny McCarthy used the story of her son to show her dislike of vaccines, it should have been a red flag for everyone; suffice to say that the "vaccines cause autism" concept died a pretty horrible death. Celebrities should not be the major endorsement of the story; the facts should speak for themselves.

I would like to see a little more skepticism for a lot of news stories. I'm obviously not saying that you will be taken in by a story (it happens to me more often than I'd care to admit), but do try to be careful. It sucks to base your reputation on a story that sounds too good to be true, especially they usually are. 

Pesecution and Personal Perspective

I think I'm getting really tired of the phrase "If you're not X you just wouldn't understand." There's part of me that understands the reasoning behind it; not all experiences translate from one person to another. You really do need to sometimes be there in order to fully understand the situation, and without that personal experience it is hard to really understand the situation. In a lot of ways it is an unassailable argument.

However, as ego-based beings we tend to forget that we may not have all of the facts, and that some details may be missing from the mix. We only have access to our experience and the knowledge that we have gathered. We forget that we don't have access to the full picture, and sometimes we need to remember that. There are any number of different aspects of which we may not be aware of that if we were it would make a vast difference in how we see the situation.

Because we tend to see our experiences as the important ones, we only count as important those that have had the same experiences. We sometimes forget that others have had some sort of analogous experience, and that those experiences are just as valid, just as important, as ours. However, because they dealt with situation at the heart of the experiences differently than we did it is easy to discount those experiences as irrelevant to ours, especially when their solution was far different from ours.

You usually see this in regards to those that feel persecuted. Not everyone is persecuted in the same way, and we need to remember that not all forms of persecution are obvious. But we need to stop and realize that there is ore than enough persecution to go around, and that we all subject to some form of persecution. It's easy to point out women being treated as second-class citizens or blacks being singled out for police harassment, but it's harder to see nerds being punished by their peers for good grades or even athletes being ignored for their mental skills. It's easy to forget that we've all been persecuted for something at some time, and that creates a common bond. We should draw on that similar background in order to do something about persecution rather than finding a way to keep us divided. We just need to realize that our experiences should pull us together rather than split us apart, and until we do that we are effectively persecuting ourselves.

Take A Little Vacation Through Prayer

One thing that I think that atheists miss out on is prayer. I'm not talking about supplicating a supreme being for some special prayer, but the ability to simply give a problem to someone else for a little bit. There is a certain comfort in being able to share a problem, to give up worrying about it for at least a little bit.

I know that semantically there are a lot of flaws in that argument, don't get me wrong. There are obviously some problems that you can't give up, such as medical issues or economic issues. Obviously if I'm in constant pain it is going to be hard to give it up for a little bit, and if I'm poor it's going to be hard to be rich all of a sudden. I also know that scientifically prayer is as successful as any other placebo. This is all fine; this is not what I'm referring to.

Prayer used well gives a person a chance to regroup, to step back from a problem, and to look at it from a different perspective. It can also allow the person to take a much needed vacation of sorts from the problem; if all you do is worry about a problem you will burn yourself out so taking a break from it is necessary every so often. You can only concentrate on a problem before it gets to you and it defeats you; you need to take at least a mental break from it every so often.

All it takes is a moment of silence. Sometimes a bowed head helps, or even kneeling; these gestures are important not for some demonstration of humility but to take you out of the moment, to literally put you in a different place. As a hyperkinetic I find a deep breath and standing absolutely still puts me into that moment; it's a different state than my normal get-to-the-finish-line state. I then concentrate on the silence between beats, a different perception between my usual awareness of what is going on around me. In that moment I give, however momentarily, my problem up to God and let him deal with it a moment.

And then I make the mistake of taking it back. With a little bit of luck I get a little epiphany on how to solve the problem, or at least deal with it for a little more. Admittedly sometimes a small insight has been attached, either that the problem is entirely in my head or that the situation has a certain irony to it. I so hate deities with a sense of humor.

I think that atheists miss out on this little moment. And I think that it is a shame. 

The War on Halloween

Halloween is a contentious holiday. There has been a movement to ban its celebration in favor of a more generic harvest festival. Strangely, the people backing this movement are the religious rather than atheists.

It makes a certain degree of sense. If you are serious about your beliefs, then you should stand up for them. In this case there is a serious concern about the glamourization of witchcraft and spirits, as there are a lot of attention paid to the supernatural elements of the universe during this holiday. For a group that sees itself as defending the world from supernatural evil, it makes sense that a holiday that puts them in a favorable light would be a bad thing. Given that children's movies have taken a more monster friendly approach towards monsters, the fear that monsters have stopped being something to fear and started being something to be, this is somewhat understandable. As the holiday has been adopted by pagans as well as wannabe satanists, it has not exactly grown in popularity.

They've found some allies in the child safety crowd. Not only is this a holiday where scaring people is encouraged, but so are pranks. Where some see children going up to doors to ask for candy, they see children going up to doors of potentially dangerous strangers. Throw in the usual problems of crossing the street, costumes that have obvious safety issues, and that candy itself is not an acceptable snack, and you have a holiday that those fanatically interested in the safety of their children would not mind seeing eliminated.

While I can see the point, especially when it comes to child safety, I think Halloween has gotten far away enough from its original roots that people should just enjoy it. Although some cultures do celebrate Halloween the way it was meant to be celebrated, a celebration of death, while a number of others see it as just another reason to celebrate period. Sure, there is role-playing involved, and that is what makes the holiday special as people are able to drop their facades for one that is closer to the truth, but Halloween has long stopped being the holiday of witches and ghosts. Halloween no longer has the fangs it once had, and has been divorced from its pagan beginnings in the eyes of the world.

Halloween is no longer a holiday where we celebrate the harvest of souls for a lot of people. We celebrate who we want to be by choosing the face we present to the world. This is a holiday that has evolved, and I think it's a shame that we should fear its history, a history that no longer applies. Someone needs to relax, and let the holiday continue to evolve. It may prove interesting to see where it goes...

Fanaticism is Always A Bad Idea

"Fanatics can justify practically any atrocity to themselves. The more untenable their position becomes, the harder they hold to it, and the worse the things they are willing to do to support it.”
― Mercedes Lackey, Changes

One of those things that people forget is that The Bible itself is against fanaticism. Although zeal is okay, in that the person should be on fire for God, this is different from blind fanaticism. Fanatics bring down the entire group, and force it to deal with the fanatic before they can deal with anything else. Worse, should they become the public face of the organization, they can embarrass that organization. As such, all organizations should be on the lookout for fanatics and deal with them appropriately.

It should be noted that there is a difference between "zeal" and "fanaticism". "Zeal" is fine; being on fire for whatever the person does is almost a requirement in some cases; if you don't have a certain love for what you do you may as well be doing something else. However, fanaticism is something that can obstruct you; it is more than just being gung ho, but being willing to do anything in support of the idea he support. That is not always a behavior that should be encouraged, and should actually be discouraged.

A true fanatic is blind to all but his narrow interpretation of the religion. To him anyone that does not follow that limited interpretation is an infidel and cheapens the religion; that person is actually setting the religion back and should be stopped. In more extreme cases he is willing to sacrifice his life to the cause, regardless of whether or not it furthers the cause. His belief is that you go all the way or not at all, and he is unwilling to debate deviating from the course. That obstinance makes him a threat to the cause, as it makes him a juggernaut that cannot be stopped.

Ironically this makes him a follower of a religion of his belief rather than of the beliefs of the religion. In its own way this is idolatry, as the person follows a religion that is different from the religion he is supposed to follow. He is in many ways betraying the tenets of his religion by creating his own, whether or no he realizes it, and is likely compounding the problem by being proud of his beliefs, creating an even worse problem as the person can justify the non-standard beliefs and actually look down on any that follow the actual tenets of the religion. That stance gets even worse for non-believers.

Keep in mind that does not apply merely to believers. It can apply just as much to pagans and atheists as it does the staunchest Muslim. Anyone with a specific belief system can fall prey to fanaticism. ANYONE. And if you associate with a crowd of like-minded people, it gets even worse. This means that you need to associate with people you don't necessarily agree with every so often and actually discuss philosophy.You should not take the position that you are opposed to the person's beliefs, but that you have something in common and try to seek the common ground even as you explore the differences.

If you find yourself looking down on someone else's beliefs, you need to take a step back and decide which one of you is the fanatic. It's sometimes okay to recognize that you are the fanatic, as it helps you actually explore your own beliefs. On the other hand, if the other person is the fanatic, you may just have to avoid that person. And Heaven help you two if you are both fanatics; you may want to discuss working on finding some common ground. It might surprise you to learn just how much common ground there is when it comes down to it, and taking the edge of your fanaticism can be worth it.

Ancient Aliens and Bad Beliefs

It seems as if those that don't have a religious belief are always seeking something to believe in. This makes sense, as all humans seek patterns in the universe around them. This can lead to some interesting beliefs that are viewed just as uncritically as some religious views.

I have been forced to watched "Ancient Aliens" and was all sorts of amused. Obviously I've been watching all of the wrong shows as I can see a lot of options that have not been explored, as well as some facts that are just all sorts of wrong. Most of the facts I can pretty much ignore as a lot of them are up to debate anyway; there are enough details that we are unsure about when it comes to ancient history that I'm not going to stress over a couple of decades here and there.

However, what amuses me is the extent to which they seem to wish to deny what humans can do with the right motivation. I'm not denying that we haven't been visited aliens or that may have had some influence in our growth; it would sort of egotistical to assume we are the only ones in the universe and ridiculous to assume that they would stick to any kind of prime directive, even if they had one. However, to assume that all of our bigger accomplishments is solely because of alien, or even a good percentage, is patently ludicrous; that denies the fun of being human and discovering things on our own.

That a certain number of images seem to repeat should not be a major surprise. Snakes seem to be a favorite image on the show; that they should be represented across the globe is hardly a surprise given how common they are. There are just so many concepts that were around back then, so it makes sense that they were copied across the world. It doesn't help that they have looked for similar images, even comparing Zeus and Odin pointing out that they were both white males in charge of their respective pantheons so they had to be the same despite that they have little else in common.

But it's the megalithic structures that really amuse. Don't get me wrong; alien help would have been appreciated. Personally I think that a lot of them could be easily explained by sheer boredom; you know that way too many of them began with some variation of:

"Dude, we're out of beer. What should we do now?"
"Idunno. Move that pile of rocks from there to there?"
"Sure. Why not?"

If you have ever been a teenage boy you recognize this as pretty much part of the process before something stupid happened and it's unlikely THAT much has changed. At some point they simply decided to start getting fancy, and piles became ziggurats and they in turn became pyramids. Then they started building cities, and somewhere in there Stonehenge and the Moai happened. Seriously: Give enough guys too much time and miracles start popping up.

[Sure, I'm over-simplifying here, especially as it was mostly slave labor. However, keep in mind that being a slave didn't have the same connotation as it does in later eras, and that it would ensure that the person's family was taken care of as well; some slaves were even paid wages and given important responsibilities. Also keep in mind that it gave them a chance to escape the farms, which almost all of the population was required to work in order to make sure there was food for everyone else. From the perspective of those in charge, it meant fewer people roving the countryside doing bad things, of which there were a lot. There were a lot of parallels between pyramid-building and America's Public Works Projects in the 1930s...]

And I'm not ignoring the time issue. Some of these took hundreds of years, sure, but look how long some castles and cathedrals took to build; some of those took decades, others just under a century and a half. It's not that hard to see a large group of people taking the same amount of time for something as important.

So I see "Ancient Aliens" and it's ilk as pretty much entertainment. It's fun to watch, especially for some for great ideas for that next science fiction novel. But what sort of scares me is that there are some people that take this seriously. I guess if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....

But Let Them Watch The Witches!

If you want to see some interesting logic bring up the subject of what shows can be watched by a good Christian kid, specifically when it comes to any kind of magic. Different parents have different limitations on which cartoons they allow, but it's even more interesting which cartoons get the axe.

The reasoning is pretty simple. The Old Testament has admonitions against witchcraft and its related arts. The basic issue was that witches could divine the future, speak to the dead, and cast curses, all of which were forbidden activities. As mankind has advanced so have the powers of witches, adding enchantments, illusions, and even shape-shifting. As such, they have become targets of pretty much everyone, religious and otherwise.

With the return to prominence of the pagan religions, witchcraft has been given a more positive spin, and Hollywood has glommed onto the "good witch" as its "great new concept". The concept allows studios to have powerful female protagonists, making it a fun concept when they do it right. Interestingly, the liberated version, especially in terms of sex, has become popular in adult programming while the purity and female power aspects make it popular for girls.

However, none of this counts when it comes to religious right. All that matters is that the characters use magic, and magic is forbidden. As such these shows are placed on the restricted list, but the listing is arbitrary. A number of different beings make the list as well, from the obvious such as demons and sorcerers, but not others that use magic, such as fairies, unicorns, and even werewolves. The irony is that most of these creatures come from the Catholic Church's archives, from when they compiled various stories from around the globe.

However, the list of forbidden entertainments is hardly consistent. Although the general goal is to eliminate those programs that make the supernatural look good, there are a lot of shows that still make the cut. Interestingly, those shows that make the cut have supernatural powers as intrinsic to the critter, such as fairies, unicorns, and even talking animals, even though individual family may include them.

Basically, while I understand the reasons for not desiring to expose their children to the supernatural, especially a glamorized version of it, I just find it interesting that there are a number of exceptions to the rule. I find this encouraging, as it means that there is some thought going into the decision. I just wish it were more consistent, and more all or nothing.

Can We Please Elect More Atheists?

I think we need another atheist in more offices. It's been a while since atheists have held a majority of posts in Washington.

I think it would be great if politicians wouldn't feel compelled to adopt a religion as a way to bolster their ratings. I get that atheists aren't exactly popular right now, but by the same token I think it would be a refreshing change of pace to see a politician state his real religion rather than one he decided on in order to make his potential constituents happy. Although the person may lose some potential votes from outing himself this way, I think that he would actually gain a few votes; more Americans are accepting of atheism as a legitimate philosophical leaning every election year (this is not to say an atheist should feel he needs public legitimitization, I just thought it was nice to see that it was more accepted).

I just think that we need more diversity of beliefs in Washington, and that it would send a strong message to the rest of the world that we really are accepting of different faiths. I also think it would be an interesting counterpoint to religious right in the halls of power already. It would also be interesting to see what those same religious right would do, especially as they are busy trying to tear the president down. With atheists in both houses it could get interesting as they would have to necessarily split their efforts; they would need to go into attack mode in order to prove that the atheists are invading Capitol Hill. It would make for some interesting battles...especially when they claimed that the Founding Fathers would not have approved of atheists as political leaders.

And that would make things interesting. You see, a good percentage of the Founding Fathers were Deists. This means that although they followed the Christian belief system, they treated it as a philosophy rather than a religion; for the God was either dead or had left the universe to its own means. This means that, by extension, a number of the original senators and representatives were also Deists, and therefore atheists.

Like I said: It would be interesting to see more atheists elected. It's been a while since there any real numbers of atheists on The Hill. 

Religion and Politics, Oil and Water

Way too many of the current crop of politicians sort of scare me. I think I've sort of hit the point where I'm hoping that there is some sort of deep joke of which way too many people are unaware, sort of some really bad hipster joke. I mean, they can't be that insane, can they?

On the other hand, I can sort of see why these people are being elected. When it comes to times of great change, some people tend to cling to anything familiar. Others look for signs of a coming apocalypse, hoping that will clear away the changes. The rise of the conservative and doom prepping is probably the best indicator that there have been a lot of changes; between the various Springs in the Arab world, the return of mass protests, the serious repudiation of corporations, and even the acceptance of gay marriage can be seen as a reason to hope for an apocalypse for some people.

Suffice to say that some politicians have always looked for some sort of drama in order to propel themselves forwards. It's easy to ignore the politicians that have been doing actual work as they are pretty hidden from view; it's hard for the public to really get a feeling for what you do when most of it happens through e-mails and voice calls. This means that the politicians who don't really do much have a chance to steal the spotlight. This is sort of why you hear less about politicians like Dorothy Matsui of California, and more of Sarah Palin and her ilk

And hear from them you do. Especially with the voting season coming up, you are bound to here from all of those seeking re-election. I guess I could do some sort of biting sarcasm, but that would be too easy. It doesn't help that I'm feeling hopeful this year, as it seems like a lot of bad politicians have been nice enough to out themselves by voicing opinions that don't pass any kind of muster, such as those challenging Obamacare or climate change. Some have been saying things that simply don't pass any kind of fact check, while others are saying stuff that leaves others totally dumbfounded. It has made it far easier to compile a list of politicians that voters are ready for a change.

Yeah, I know it's likely to be politics as usual when all is said and done. Nonetheless, I think that the voters are just about angry enough so that there are some likely changes in the air. This November I'm sort of hoping that things will change, and I'm optimistic. Just remember to vote, and that while one vote may not mean much, a lot of them do. A single leaf isn's scary, but a lot of them are. Be a leaf in the winds of change this November.

Running From the Cross in Business

You know when you should run from a business? When the owner wears his religion on his sleeve.

Although I still hold reservations about how far the Hobby Lobby decision is going to affect American business, there are still some issues that should make you nervous about dealing with a business where the owner lets his religion decide what his policies are. It's hard to really come down on the owner for doing so; it's his business, and so he is within his rights to run it as he will. Sure, there are some limits, but as long as he is reasonably fair he can get away with a lot.

If you are worried about doing business based your morals you should do some basic research before you deal with that business. This applies whether you are just buying something from them, looking for some sort of partnership, or even potentially working for them. You need to know what kind of business you are dealing with, and that research will let you know what you can expect. This applies doubly if you are debating working for them; it can help you formulate some great questions for the person interviewing you.

Once you have done that research, remember to not make any assumptions. Not all religious owners run their businesses by a strict interpretation of their religious texts. Some owners even run their businesses well by implementing their beliefs across the board. You do need to watch out for anyone that implements any kind of belief to the detriment of the business; this can extreme political correctness to fundamentalist beliefs. I have actually seen someone that actually had an anti-religious policy, albeit an unofficial one. Extreme beliefs of any kind can be horrible for business.

It's important to make sure that any business is run by the right principals. These can be religious provided they allow for business rather than a business that has to allow for the religious principals. It's fine for any business to be run by religious principals, as long as its something that doesn't handcuff it.

Halloween and Swordless Conversions

With the Halloween season upon us I know I'm going to see a lot of "Did you know that Halloween was originally a pagan holiday?" in the week or two leading up to the holiday. I'm going to do a lot of facepalming, because it's just silly; it's sort of like an atheist rite of passage to post something about Halloween and its pagan roots. Instead, let's look at it from a different perspective: It's one of the best examples of a swordless conversion in a time when a lot of conversions were by the sword.

Bear in mind that I'm not saying that there were no conversions by the sword. It wasn't until Pope Pius XXII that forced conversions were banned by the Catholic Church, stating that such conversions were of debatable worth; a convert had to do so willingly or the possibility of sliding back into his prior state was too high. From a more practical point, such a convert was likely to resent his forced state and would possibly betray those who converted him at a later date. And before I hear about the moral outrage of how the religious have been doing forced conversions, I'd quickly point out that China and Russia are infamous for their forced conversions to atheism, especially right after their respective revolutions.

However, while there were forced conversions in Europe, there are some situations where the Catholic Church went an entirely different route. By and large a lot of the conversions in Europe were by example, where the Church decided to show what they could do and what they could bring to the table compared to the pagan gods. As a rule these peaceful conversions were actually pretty successful; from the perspective of the local population this usually ended up being a winning situation as it made them part of something bigger and therefore better able to defend itself from outside threats. It also provided an alternative in some cases to the local method of justice as there was a gradual conversion from trial by combat to other methods. Even the tithe was a welcome change from the local tribute for some locations. Overall, for small villages tried of dealing with barbarian, pirate, and viking invasions, conversion was welcomed.

This does not mean that the situation went solely one direction. Like any other interaction, things tend to go both ways at some point. Besides picking up some arcane medical knowledge here and there, as well adding to the historical record, there were some other interesting trades as well. There was some cultural shifts as well; some of those local populations were able to infect the Church with the idea that celebrating the dead was a good idea. With a little persuasion, the Church was able to convert the locals to go for a hybrid holiday celebrating the Christian saints and, in some cases, a lot less human sacrifice. Again, a win-win; Catholics gained a great new holiday, and the locals were able to keep most of their holiday plans.

Admittedly there was some coercion, but overall this was more of a peaceful take-over. More to the point there was some flow both ways, making it one of the more interesting compromises in history.....

Witches, WItchcraft, and Interpretation

Harry Potter, despite my own feelings, is not demonic. A lot of Christians have a problem with magic in pop culture, and how its portrayal seems to encourage its use; apparently children that see spells being used in movies and in books start doing it themselves. Like almost any silly notion there are a number of issues that give this one some credence.

Let's start with "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". Witches in the Ancient World were a real thing; there were used primarily for cures, curses, and divination. Although the cures were okay, the other were two were a major problem, as only God was supposed to know the future and curses were a serious no-no by any stretch. As such it made a certain sense to dispose of witches whenever they were found, especially those that had no problems using their curses.

Let's go forward all the way to the New Testament, Matthew 5:22-24. Basically, although they are talking about lust, the idea is that whatever you feel is real essentially is real. When it comes to lust the correlation is pretty obvious, as if you feel attracted to another person and are willing to act on it you may as well be committing the sin of adultery; this is where the idea of "committing adultery in your heart" came from. This has been generalized so that it applies to any sin and it has been generalized a bit; in essence, if you even think about committing a sin, you may as well have committed it. Going back to the magic issue, this means that even thinking about about casting a spell makes you a witch, and....well. Yeah.

The problem here is that one group of verses has been applied a bit too generally. The original intent was for there to be an actual intent; you needed to want to follow through with the sin in question. This doesn't refer to mere fantasizing or acting as if you wanted to do it, but an actual desire to do it; there has to be an actual desire to follow through with the idea and see what happens. This is why it applies so well to lust; it's okay to fantasize a little, but once you start thinking about it seriously it can lead to problems. On a relationship level it means that the person may fall out of love, leading to its own complications, while on a personal level it can become a harmful distraction, and get in the way of other pursuits, such as work.

When it comes to popularizing the use of magic, however, it just ain't happening. While they use magic, it's usually not of the usually proscribed kind, specifically divination and curses, and in fact curses are usually forbidden even in fiction while divination is rarely used. At the same time the lack of intent to use actual magic from those watching it makes it hardly the recruiting tool it is suspected of being. Nonetheless, it could be argued that the veneration of Harry Potter could be construed as worshipping a graven image, so there is that at least....

Gaming Karma

Something I love about the less-than-religious is the concept of karma. These people honestly think that merely doing a good deed once in a while is good enough to balance some sort of cosmic scales against the bad things that they do. Suffice to say that it doesn't quite work that way.

As expressed in a number of beliefs, karma is the belief that what you put out will come back to you. A good way of looking at it is an old-school victory garden. A "victory garden" was a British way of dealing with dealing with rationing in WWII; you could ease some of the problems by raising some of your own food in your backyard. It may not seem like much, but you would be surprised how much food even a half-acre grows, especially when you have a whole neighborhood working together. Victory gardens can only grow what is put into them, and they require some maintenance to keep going; if you maintain your garden poorly you'll starve, but if you maintain well you'll feast.

Karma is like that victory garden. If you just go out and water it every so often it's probably not going to grow so well; you seriously need to get it watered for it to prosper. Sure, you can throw some serious manure at it, but if you want something besides mushrooms you need to expose it to the sunshine every so often. You also need to have some fun with it; if it's just a chore it's not going to do as well as if you really went for it. Suffice to say that you also need to weed it every so often as well. Of course, you also need to make sure that you are using the right seeds and giving hem the best chance to grow. Do that, and your victory garden will do well; otherwise, you'll have a dead patch of weeds.

In practical terms, this means that you need to seriously pursue good karma in order to actually obtain it. You need to perform basic maintenance, such as doing the good deeds, forgiving others, and even backing down on occasion. You can have some dark spots as long as you balance it with some humor; I'm not saying you have to be Mister Sunshine all the time but do try to avoid being the dark cloud at all times. Take a look at your life every so often and remove anything that may be toxic. Above all, get into it; you can be a jerk as long as overall you contribute more to the situation and enable those around you to grow as well.

Karma is a lot more than just doing the every-so-often good deed. You need to put some time and effort into it for it to work. If you just put a little effort into every-so-often it's not going to be something that you will be proud of. If you want the advantages coming in from karma you need to put some work into it. Like everything else you get back whatever you put in; put a lot in, and trust me you will get a lot back. 

Does Reality Know It's Objective?

"If your belief system is not founded in an objective reality, you should not be making decisions that affect other people." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Can someone please send Neil DeGrasse Tyson back to the lab? While I respect all that he has done for the field of physics, the guy needs to step away from the realms of philosophy. I'm sort of in a weird position here: I love that he has done a lot to bring an interest in physics, but at the same time I'm not sure that a science background makes one an expert in religious matters. I'm not trying to say that he should have no opinion, it's just that when he starts discussing religion it seems he tends to be a rabid atheist, and one that tries to discredit religion through logic. Sometimes he tends to go a little far.

Recently, he pointed out those only those whose belief system is based an objective reality should make decisions for other people. This eliminates pretty much everyone. Ignoring the philosophical issues (covered by Kant pretty well), the problem is that there is no objective reality. I know that has to sound weird, but it's because reality is neither objective or subjective; it just is. More to the point, most scientists got away from the idea of an objective universe decades ago.

The problem is that an objective reality implies that there is only correct description of reality, and that it is independent of the perception of any sentient being; in short, there is one truth and that truth exists regardless of what we think of it. While this sounds like it would be common sense, the problem is that there are a few cracks in the concept.

The first problem is that we're not likely to ever really figure out that truth. While I get that Tyson is most likely attempting to point out that we should look at things objectively, the reality is that no human ever looks at things completely objectively. Two people can look at the same thing and have two different opinions of it. While it can be argued that as long as they arrived at the different conclusions through logical thought then they should be considered roughly equal, the reality is that they can't; one opinion has to be right, or at least the best solution.

However, this is complicated by the very nature of modern physics. While in most sciences we can put our theories to an actual test, the same doesn't really apply to physics. Physics, and especially astronomy, is virtually a realm of pure logic, where out ability to deduce how the universe works is arguably at its finest. However, that also means that it is just as likely to involve all else of what we are, which includes our emotions. Given how hard it is to prove which theory is the right one and that it gets really fun when you start figuring out how one theory plays off against another one. Arguments between physicists can get heated; just look at how often you've seen nerd rage over something as insignificant as Power Girl's lack of a symbol, and then realize that it's something done for free. Some of these arguments involve millions of dollars of grants and corporate sponsorships, so it's easy to see why some of them get really heated.

And that assumes that the universe itself is an objective entity. We know nothing really of the universe at the macro-level; he have maps, sure, and we know how much it weighs, but we have no real idea how everything interacts together. We're just beginning to realize that a minor effect in one area can have a major effect elsewhere; there is the proverbial butterfly that creates hurricanes on the other side of the globe. It gets worse when we start looking at the really big events, such as the Fukijima Incident, and their effects on the planet. And things only scale up; why shouldn't an event in the far flung corners of the universe really mess things up for someone else in the center of the universe?

And it only gets weirder. There is a reason for things like the Gaia Theory, where some people believe that the planet has ways to defend itself and can even manipulate events should one area need something that another can provide; this is not just a mere anthropomorphism of the planet but something that a number of scientists are actually starting to debate. What if the some version exists at the universal level?

I'm not suggesting that the universe is watching us or that it even cares about the human race. I am, however, making an observation on just how little we know about the universe, and how it works and that we're depending on humans that are hardly objective to determine how it works. It just feels weird to make any kind of call on whether or not the universe is some kind of objective or subjective entity at this particular point in time. If it turns out the universe is essentially a cold and dead entity later on, I can live with that, as long as that point is at a much later date than right now. 

Do Religious Children Differentiate Between Reality and Fiction Later?

Recently a study was released that pointed out that children with a religious background had a problem recognizing fictional characters while those from a more secular background did not. Suffice to say that it has already been used in attacks against the religious. The problem is there are some interesting cognitive issues worth considering.

A major problem is that was not evidently addressed is that The Bible is a mix of fact of fiction. Unlike other fiction that children are likely to encounter where there is a definite line of fantasy; in biblical stories that line is harder to define. While there are any number of characters that are probably created out of whole cloth and others that are arguably amalgamations of actual people, there are also a lot of characters that can be looked up as real people. It needs to be noted that a lot of archaeologists have used The Bible as a starting point for their research, as have any number of other scientists.

That's something that needs to be considered here. From a six-year-old child's perspective it is easy to see any biblical character as a real person, especially as most of them were. This is not Greek mythology where the characters are obviously fictional; these may be fictionalized people, but they are still real people. (Note: I'm not saying that everyone in The Bible is a real person, and those people are not relevant here.] He is also no doubt used to family stories where exaggeration is the rule, not the exception. As such, it would be hard for a kid to recognize something like The Bible as fantasy.

Look at a from the perspective of the kid. You read about King David in The Bible, and then you read up on him in an encyclopedia that King David was an actual king, and that a lot of what is presented in The Bible actually happened. Scientists have actually argued that not only could Goliath have existed, but that David could have killed him with a sling exactly as described. The same applies to the crucifixion of Jesus; doctors have broken it down from a strictly medical perspective based on the biblical account. If there is that much fact then it has to be real right?

Obviously dealing with The Bible as a kid, where a lot of it really happened. It's easy to see why a kid would see a lot of it as fact. It doesn't help that one in four adults believe that The Bible is literally true, making it even harder to tell fact from fiction. As such, while on one hand I can see where the study makes sense, on the other I'm just not sure if telling whether or not any biblical character is fictional or not would be easy for any kid who has time to do the research rather than relying solely on what a researcher is asking. It may just be too complicated for a six-year-old kid to really differentiate between fact and fiction.

Dealing WIth Cop Abuse

I am really starting to get tired of Cop Block. I'm just really tired of fact-checking a stupid meme. I recognize that something needs to be done about police brutality, especially in light of the events of Ferguson. By the same token, however, this is a problem that needs to be approached as objectively as possible. There is a balance issue that needs to be debated: One one hand the police need to do a job no one else wants to deal with, but the rights of the arrested need to be allowed for as well. This is not going to be an easy debate.

There have definitely been too many mysterious suicides where the person was handcuffed in the back of a cop car. There has to be a better weeding out process for cops, especially during the training phase. Making sure that cameras are part of the basic equipment needs to be seriously looked at, and penalties for not having the camera on during an arrest need to created enforced. This is one time when "accidentally" leaving it off or turning it off during an arrest should not be considered an excuse. I would also suggest some sort of anger management session made mandatory for all cops in the field, but they should be paid for it; a little meditation would save any precinct a lot in potential court and training costs.

I think cities also need to debate some sort of citizen oversight board. This would allow citizens to investigate to investigate police abuses, and suggest solutions before problems escalate as well as after. They should have the power to fire police, or at least suggest it, as well as the ability to suggest that charges be brought. Although I'm sure that the COB would quickly sympathize with the police as they learn the nature of some of the complaints, there needs to be some community input.

I think that this a solvable problem, or at least one that can be solved well enough to work. Something does need to be done, and the sooner the better. And if it could start with someone slapping Cop Block, I would be much appreciative. 

The Fight For Equality Begins With Us

One of the nastiest things that you can do against evil is to show it why it is wrong, and sometimes that means showing why its goals will not work. In the fight to deal with racism, sexism, and homophobia, too many of those in the fight forget that those forces rely on the fight we have with The Other. Part of human nature is that we fear those that are different than us, that are obviously what we are not. Although it served our forebears well, we need to discard that part of our humanity

The fight against inequality has borne some ugly fruit and we need to cull it. Those that fight against racism tend to fight not as a coherent group but as gangs divided along racial lines. Native Americans point to their betrayal by the United States government as if they were the only ones ever betrayed by treaty. Blacks act as if they were the only ones to experience the lash of slavery. Some Jews forget that they are hardly the first nor last to experience genocide. And so on and so forth.

Feminists forget that the oppressed too often become the oppressors. This is apparent far too obviously when they hew to the image of woman as innocent. Women are just as capable of villainy as men, yet disclaim the rogues of the gender; if you can be a hero, you can also be the villain. Some feminists need to realize that if one person is oppressed then we all are, and that if we are to have any chance of dealing with oppression then we must fight together as equals, not as men and women but as persons. To exclude men from the fight for equality is to encourage the same inquality, just from another direction; by limiting the fight to just women, or even with men in a secondary role, is to admit that equality is impossible and the fight is already lost. I'd prefer it be won, personally.

And I'm not even going to get into the issues of the differently gendered and the atheist, as it just starts getting complicated. We just need to stop looking at differences as if they mattered and start celebrating that there are so many ways of looking at the world. I would much rather we fight as brothers and sisters, willing to defend our own views no matter but putting that aside when our siblings are attacked. We need to remember that when you fight monsters you must hold on to the most positive parts of your humanity lest you yourself become one of the monsters yourself. 

What Would Jesus Do About Religion?

[I blame Kurt Belcher for this...]

Here's an interesting question for you: Would Jesus dismantle all theistic religion if He were given a chance?

I know it's a possibly a heretical thought, but I think it's worth exploring. His actions certainly bring the question to mind. His attack on the temple merchants resulted in sacrifice being eliminated. He also brought into question all of the death sentences of the Old Testament; His attitude regarding casting the first stone is noteworthy. A careful look at the parable of the Good Samaritan shows that those that considered themselves as "religious" sometimes took themselves too seriously and that created some level of hypocrisy. There was reason to worry about being religious rather than spiritual, and Jesus never had a problem pointing that out.

He also questioned having two sets of laws for his followers. In essence, rather than looking at the proscriptions of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as a law unto themselves, He suggested that his followers worry more about the laws of the land in which they found themselves. When He discusses tithing versus taxes, He also mentions that higher priority should be given to the law of the land than holy law. This especially irked the Pharisees as they were dependent on the Jews following their rule rather than that of Rome. Again, He saw having those two sets of rules creating more pride, as the rules created exclusivity rather than inclusivity. There was a greater advantage to being part of the local crowd rather than being apart from it.

Jesus constantly pointed out that anything that prevented a person from reaching God should be ignored. By that time some groups, such as the Pharisees, were more worried about appearing to be holy rather than actually being holy; the irony is that the laws meant to bring God's people closer to him were actually driving them further away. Because of this, and Jesus' status as an iconoclast, I think it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Jesus had not been slated for sacrifice...

Writing About The Non-Existence of Jesus Christ

One of the fun articles that keeps coming up is that some new atheist book comes out on existence of Jesus Christ, or more accurately his non-existence. Usually, it tends to rely on the same lack of evidence, and so it tends to get a little tired. So, in an effort to help future writers, here are some considerations:

1) Stop looking for a paper trail. Too many researchers are looking for some of the same proof that a person would leave today, such as birth certificates, death certificates, or even identification papers. This is apparently based on the idea that since the Romans kept excellent records, those records should exist somewhere. And, hey, Jerusalem was the center of learning, so Jesus would have been mentioned in books, right? The reality is that Jerusalem was still a pre-literate society where an amazing 10% of the populace could read. Yeah: 10%. As such not a lot of records would have been kept. More to the point, if the records did ever exist they were likely destroyed at some point, either to keep paperwork down or simply due to age.

Another consideration is that we see value in keeping those records as they from part of the historical legacy from previous generations, but also help in the legal system. Back then it simply didn't matter. If a man was alive he was alive, but if he was declared dead it was up to him to prove he wasn't before his belongings were split up. Births were pretty obvious who the parents were so that didn't matter. As punishments were carried out almost as quickly as they were handed down, there was no real court of appeals so there was no need of paperwork for the potential appeals judge. As such, between the lack of need and sheer age, there is unlikely to be an actual paper trail.

2) Stop aging The Gospels. You can tell the agenda of the writer by when the writer says that The Gospels were written. This applies both ways: a believer will average about fifty years after the passing of Jesus, while an atheist will average about two hundred years. Most historians place the average closer to one hundred, and I emphasize "the average". The reality is that there is a lot of doubt, even though they were written between 50-150 years after Jesus.

It also needs to be noted that this was standard operating procedure back then. In order to make the records more objective the books were written well after the event, "after the passion had gone". It wasn't uncommon for a book to be written on an event twenty or more years after the event. Yeah, this has created issues with other historical events as well.

3) Take a more analytical approach to The Gospels. Here's the deal: Historians don't worry too much about the details of an event, only that it happened. They know that numbers are going to be increased or decreased in order to make the teller look better, that events will be "enhanced" or forgotten to make the teller look better, and that there will even be differences between tellers as they emphasize different details. As such, while The Gospels do contradict each other on details, they contradict themselves on details about the same events. For most historians, that works, and that also works in a court of law.

4) Take contemporary records with a grain of salt. You need to realize that Jerusalem was considered the armpit of the Ancient World. Although it was well-located port and there was a lot knowledge available, you did have to deal with a local population that was constantly revolting or threatening to, and part of the problem with knowledge is that you had to deal with those seeking it; Jerusalem was full of "wise men" that could make some of our modern conspiracy theorists look sane. If the Weekly World News had been around there would have been a lot of stories coming out of it. All told, Jerusalem was something for those whose careers had ended or were jut starting, but overall was not a place you wanted to be stationed.

This means that there would have been little focus on what was happening here, and it would have had to be major for anyone to care. Yet another wise man leading a revolt, even a peaceful one, would have been mentioned but that's about it. Historians do find these mentions but because of how limited they are, usually just a lone or two, they tend to get ignored and rightfully so. Yes: You have a Christian telling you to disregard some of the proof of Jesus Christ's existence. Darn honesty and all that.

So....when it comes down to it, when someone publishes yet another book about how Jesus Christ never existed, I'll make the bet that it ignores one of those four things, if not all of them. Just something to consider.

Where Exactly Did Cain Wander?

There a number of places within The Bible that show just what a mishmash of old stories it is, as well as just how old it is. The resolution to the story of Cain and Abel is one of the more obvious spots, as Cain is thrown into exile to travel among the other peoples of the Earth. However, an interesting point is that, if Adam and Eve are the first couple, and Cain and Abel are presumably the only two other people on the planet. Yet somehow he was able to find another group of people to hang with. An interesting issue, to be sure.

There are, of course, several interpretations of this. The first, and most obvious, is that he had married one of his sisters prior to his exile and was able to build up a family to the size of city by the time he died. Given the age people supposedly died at that period of time (a number of people were living almost a thouand years back then), he would have a lot of time to accomplish exactly that. Obviously incest was not an issue at the time (the exact law against it was not introduced until much later) and inbreeding was not yet a worry. This is the literal translation.

The second, and more boring, interpretation, is that the Jewish has the same problem a lot of tribes had. Specifically, a number of linguists have noted that a number of Native American tribes translates as roughly "The People" and they consider themselves humans while considering everyone else foreign. All this means is that Adam and Eve would be the first Jewish people, and that other races existed at the time with their own origin. As such, Cain would find it easy to find another group to hang out with and eventually marry into, and even found a city with their assistance.

However, there is also the metaphorical aspect of The Bible that comes into play. It is worth noting that the Land of Nod translates as "Land of the Wanderer", making it an apt location for one who had been exiled. More to the point, Cain's exile was a spiritual one, and that the land he was exiled to was more of mental exile than physical. His murder of Abel set him apart from God and His chosen people, and so far apart from that he was unable to return and had to stay in exile. He had to accept an entirely new mindset, which would have marked him as different, in order to adapt to his new situation. In essence, he was split from his people and marked as something entirely different.

If you also allow that a number of stories in The Bible were warnings (the tale of King Solomon and the two mothers was a political warning), then it obviously warns that if you commit a sin against God, He will punish you. No matter how well you hide it from others, you cannot hide it from God. Given how much Genesis tends towards punishment and warnings it seems to be common theme.

So it is an interesting story, and says a lot about those that wrote it. I just wish they had been a happier people.

Hobby Lobby and How Little People Know The Law

The Hobby Lobby decision has a lot of people spooked, and for good reason. The short and nasty version is that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the company's ability to use ObamaCare as their insurance, but they were able to get an exemption: They did not need to pay for four means of contraception. Although the ruling should have a narrow effect, that is it only effects a very specific situation, a lot of people are worried it can have a broader effect. The good news is that a lot of the worry is for naught.

There are three interesting points that people seem to bring up a lot that show just how little they paid attention in civics. The first is that people feel that the Supreme Court needs to worry about popular opinion. That's part of the reason that they are hired for life; that gives them the freedom to know that no matter how unpopular their decision is there can be no political ramifications. This allows them to make those unpopular decisions as they are required, and especially when someone else would have to worry about the political ramifications for making that decision. It's a hard job, but that ability to ignore politics is a major advantage.

The other is that the belief that the concept of corporations as "people" is a recent one. It is a legal fiction that has been around since the 14th Century and serves a number of important functions, not the least of which is to provide a continuity of contracts; if not for that fiction then contracts would get really weird. The problem is that when corporations get in trouble they can't be sent to jail, but they can be fined; sending a corporation to jail sounds like a great idea, but that would mean sentencing the people on the line as well as the executives, so it sort of sucks.

The last is that legal definitions can be different than medical definitions. The basic reason is politicians are not medical doctors; as such they tend to go for a more general definition than a physician would. The best example of this is how the RU238 pill works in regard to an abortion. From a medical perspective it does not qualify as an abortion as it stops a pregnancy before it really becomes a pregnancy; from a legal perspective, however, it is an abortion as it stops a fertilized egg from becoming a viable child. For a group that can get truly pedantic, these issues crop up all too often.

That said, the decision itself is not only only narrow, but can be fixed with the proper legislation. The decision was based on a loophole put in place by Republican conservatives to allow privately-owned companies to opt out of contraceptives that they saw as causing abortion. Although it has been mentioned that companies could therefore ignore policies that go against the religious beliefs of its owners, such as blood transfusions, the reality is that is an unlikely scenario at best; most of those scenarios have been dealt with at the local level and are unlikely to need to be dealt with again.

In short, a woman still has control over her body, she just may have to pay for some of the contraceptives. Roe v. Wade has not been overturned, by any stretch of the imagination, but at the same time, for now, the religious rights of company owners have been respected. Other insurance carriers can insure the contraceptives, and publically-held companies are required to insure them as well, so this is not necessarily a step backwards for equal rights so much as it a stagger. However, a minor change in the legislation can easily fix the issue, and that actually be seen sometime in the next year or so.

Jesus and Open Carry

Here's one of those things I'll never get: Why is it that whenever there's a crisis involving personal weapons it involves a Christian organization? The latest problem child is the Open Carry Movement, where otherwise sane people think that they should be able to carry weapons everywhere.

The logic is pretty basic: Although violent crime over all has decreased over the last decade specific incidents have increased in number and fatality. The poster child has been the school shootings, which seemed to have increased in not just frequency but also the number of people killed and wounded. In order to combat this a number of otherwise regular people have responded by carrying weapons in plain sight so that potential shooters will think twice about using their own weapons.

Three factors are largely at work here. The first is the concept of deterrence; if a shooter sees someone willing to shoot back he is unlikely to take the first shot. Statistics back this one as the states where people carry firearms also tend to have the lowest number of murders and other violent crimes. The second is that a number of states have Stand Your Ground laws that allow someone to shoot first if he believes his life to be in danger. These laws have become a major headache in recent years. The third is that local ordinances prevent the carrying of pistols, but not rifles, thus somewhat encouraging the size of weapons to be largest available; after all, if you're going to carry something visible, you may as well make it as visible as possible.

The problem is that from a Christian perspective this makes for some interesting discussions. First off, let's be clear about one thing: This does not fall under the purview of the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment; The Bible makes a difference between murder and taking life as a means of punishment, military purposes, and that of self-defense. Although one can argue his personal beliefs, The Bible itself allows for the possibility of killing. However, some other issues do come to mind.

In and of itself, carrying a weapon is not an issue. Even The Bible allows for casual weapon carrying; as per Luke 22:35-38, Jesus even makes sure that his party has a means of defending itself (two swords apparently being enough) so obviously God has no problem with people arming themselves for self-defense. But Jesus also later rebukes Peter for using his sword against the soldiers sent to capture him (going back to the message that Christians need to obey the law of the land, of which Jesus was in violation of by His very nature (He was making some revolutionary changes, after all)). So you can defend yourself, just make sure that you are in the right.

However, there is the issue that carrying a weapon encourages its use. It's hard to turn the other cheek when you are carrying a weapon; a lost temper can easily result in a lost life. When you realize how few people that are carrying lack training in their weapons, in terms of shooting, maintenance, or legal, it is just asking for a potential slaughter, especially if two such groups encounter each other and neither backs down. An untrained person is going to look at his weapon first before other means, and that makes this just a matter of time before something bad happens. Once it does, and I feel it will, the legislation that is passed is not going to make anyone happy; we may be reduced to carrying dueling pistols.

Bottom line: I'm all for people carrying firearms, but only if they have the proper training for them and if the local laws carry stiff penalties for their misuse. The Open Carry movement makes me nervous as neither of these qualifications are being met, especially when you have people looking for the biggest, but not necessarily most effective, weapon they can get their hands on, and in states with a Stand Your Ground law. I'm hoping someone steps in soon and does something or there will be some pretty sad consequences coming.

The Desire to Be Loved

Part of the feminist movement that makes the more religious nervous is that sexual freedom has always been linked to it. The problem is not necessarily the act of sex in and of itself, but that are additional ramifications that act that need to be debated.For the sake of this discussion abortion and birth control will be ignored, as well as inheritance issues. Those are really just distractions.

A major part of the issue is that women want sex just as much as men do, but have more restrictions. Those restrictions have actually gotten worse since the Black Plague, when chivalry really started. The European world got a nasty shock when over a fourth of its people died in three years and so they did what they could to survive, which meant protecting the women at all costs. In Asia everything was about how everyone should remain in their spot, so women were locked into a subservient role. In the Middle East men and women were locked into their roles by religion. In the more civilized world, women were locked into their subservient role.

The bad news is that it put men in control of the sex, even though women enjoyed a number of protections. Yeah, it really sucked for the women. The most they could do was resist sex, but it was a bad idea.

[Interestingly, in more tropical climes women enjoyed more sexual freedom even though they were still stuck in specific roles. It seems that as a group became more civilized gender roles seemed to solidify and men took on a more governing role. When actual cities came into being women took over the home and men took over everything else. Europe was actually hitting a new stage where women were starting to take on some of the governing roles (women were allowed to lead men into battle in certain situations and women were beginning to be taken seriously as intellectuals). If not for the Black Plague, some feminists have estimated Europe would have seen gender equality by the 1600s.]

Suffice to say, chivalry sucked even more. It took women almost six centuries for women to dig out of that hole. However, as feminism has taken hold women have accrued more sexual freedoms. It needs to be noted that rich women and women on the fringe have enjoyed more freedoms; rich men had a lot to lose if their wives weren't happy and so turning a blind eye was worth it, while women on the fringe could pretty much make the rules up as they went. As long as long as the women didn't push too hard. It was an interesting societal contract.

Suffice to say that sexual freedom was a major component of the feminism movement; women wanted the same sexual freedoms of men. Somewhere along the way things got...weird. After the lead-up of the 1960s followed by the charge of the 1970s, the 1980s forced a cool-down thanks to the AIDS crisis. People actually started thinking about sex and its ramifications. One of the weirdest was that everyone, male and female, were expected to sow their oats in high school and college, but were to start settling down by their late twenties. Men were still expected to bring home the bacon and women were still expected to cook it, but then it got weirder. Really weird.

The most interesting aspect of this is that people lost track of what's happening on both sides. To put this in some sort of perspective, it needs to be pointed out that America puts more porn, more gay and lesbian movies, and is one of the leaders in amateur porn, yet is still seen as a puritanical country. The only thing you can't do in America that you can do almost everywhere else is buy sex without risk of legal issues (you can in some areas, but that's the exception to the rule). I'd really love to understand how people reconcile that.

It gets weirder when you realize that America is one of the few countries where a women can go to convention hall in a bikini and not only has the right to get offended if she is harassed, but can expect help if she asks for it. But that is somehow ignored. Another interesting trend is that boys can't lie about having sex in locker rooms any more; a  boy will not only get called on it if other boys think he is lying, but faces severe punishment (i.e. a beating) if he lies about the wrong girl. Heck, a boy that has too many partners is going to be looked down, and that only gets worse as he gets older.

Yeah, you heard that right: Men are subject to slut-shaming just as much as women.

The other side is that a lot of women like how they were treated under chivalry. That is, they like that they were treated like queens. The problem is that they want Chivalry Lite; they want the Royal Treatment, but not the pedestal that goes with it. This confuses a lot of guys. Combined with a lot of miscommunication (women love romcoms but if a guy acted like a man in a romcom he would arrested as a sex offender), and it's really hard not to see why .

It's really hard to not understand why a lot of men want a return to traditional values; men knew where they stood and faced a lot less uncertainty. Making it worse is that you have a lot of women that say they want the same thing, but it's just more Chivalry Lite; they want the protections offered women, but not have to deal with a lot of the limitations. Suffice to say, a lot of guys are getting in a lot of trouble.

Sorry if it's a bit long-winded. Suffice to say that a lot of church leaders are facing some interesting issues. On one hand, if religion doesn't change with the worshippers it gets discarded, and legitimately as it is no longer relevant. On the other what people like about it is that it can be like the unchanging security blanket you can always hide under when things get scary. The problem is that people have figured out something else they can do under that blanket, and church leaders aren't really sure what to do about it...

Converts and Compromise

Too many people tend to focus on conversions by the sword, possibly because as kids it was easier to understand them. It's just easier to imagine oneself leading a charge against the heathen for the glory of God and saving their souls from a fiery death than it is to envision a more peaceful conversion over time.

The reality is of course that most religions tend to frown on conversions by threats of death. Ignoring the obvious issues that those converted thus are more likely to betray their converters, there is also the question of whether or not the believe with their heart and, more importantly, soul. In fact, most conversions happen by example and over time.

European pagans did not become Christians because of the vast armies sent forth to defeat them, especially when you realize that they were far better warriors than those sent to pacify them, and actually lived for battle. However, the riches present in the Christian cites gave them pause, and the healthier living made a lot of them question their own lifestyles. The Christian towns were also better defended than theirs and virtually invincible against their armies. It was just easier to be a Christian as the benefits easily outweighed the few disadvantages.

The Church welcomed these new recruits a little hesitantly, but some concessions were made. A number of holidays were added or modified to accept them. Christmas, for example, was combined with Saturnalia to form a combination of celebration of Christ's birthday as well as to celebrate the passing of the old year into the next. Samhain was changed into a celebration of saints in order to keep the idea that the dead should be honored. The cerebration of Christ's resurrection was combined with spring fertility celebrations to give us a holiday where rabbits hid eggs.

Of special note is the Thor's Hammer I wear as a cross. Just as the Vikings were turning from raiding to exploration they converted en masse to Christianity. A compromise was made taking advantage of the shape of the most popular Viking holy symbol and allowing it to be worn as a cross. The barbarians at the gate often became the petitioners in church, praying to a more peaceful god that ended up giving them greater health and prosperity, all because of followers that were willing to compromise in order to make things easier for their estranged brothers and sisters to join them.

Atheists in Fox Holes

Christians need to back off of atheists on a number of different areas, one of them being foxholes. The military needs to be a melting pot of different ideas if it is going to adapt and survive, and that includes religion as well. Atheists should not be looked down on because they approach things from a different direction than their Christian brethren, and that should not be happening.

Atheists approach death different from their religious brethren. While most of their religious brethren believe in some form of life after death, be it Heaven, reincarnation, or some mixture of the two, or even something different, an atheist tends to approach death nihilistically or head on. Some live their life as if any day could be their last, with the ideal that no one will forget them when they are gone. Others dread each day because it could be their last, but still wanting to ensure that their lives meant something. This means that while some charge straight in, others tend to be more cautious. Both approaches tend to be good for the military.

A gung-ho attitude properly leavened with caution is not necessarily a bad attitude. A soldier, especially the lower ranks, needs to be able to head into danger; sometimes the battle takes then into danger. You need to be able to charge when needed, and someone who is not worried about a higher power but instead his own morality is sometimes able to go where no one else can. Atheists tend to be passionate about what they do, and sometimes that passion is needed on the battlefield.

Even in the higher echelons that passion can be well-used, as it provides the necessary passion to focus on the job and to persevere no matter what. A leader should be passionate about what they do, as well as have clear-cut morals; an atheist who is willing to risk his life is scarier because he knows he only has one life to give, and he's going to make it count.

Of course, the more nihilistic need to be weeded out before they hit a leadership role just as the more fervorous religious do. They may be willing to sacrifice too much in order to get the job done, or even send good soldiers to die when there is no reason. However, just like all other types there are those that need to be weeded out as the majority serve and serve well.We need to value them just as much as their religious brethren in arms.