Right Wing World's Response to Paris Attack: Impeach Obama!

Whenever something awful happens (except for the wide berth given the Bush Administration following September 11), things inevitably get political. And each side declares that the other is "politicizing" the tragedy, usually while simultaneously politicizing it themselves. Sadly, such is the case with Friday's terrorist attacks in Paris.

And right after this left-right thing (which frankly comes with far more volume and crassness from the right*), comes the inevitable blame game. Regardless of how they get there, it's a) the fault of Democrats in general, b) the fault of President Obama, c) the fault of John Kerry, or d) the fault of Hillary Clinton. They're also apt to pick any or all of the above, and the funny thing is, it doesn't have to make sense or have any basis in reality. It's the "Thanks, Obama" punchline, except they're for some reason, serious. And then, inevitably comes the calls for impeachment. The charge? No idea, outside of "presidentin' while black."

Here's a post from Right Wing World Ground Zero, FreeRepublic.com, and not just from the page, but from site creator Rim Job Jim Rob himself.

[Excerpted entirely due to short length]

Jim Robinson of Free Republic with succubus alien being demon seed
Ann Coulter, from source.

Impeach Obama NOW!! Before the Islamofascists attack US again!!

Posted on 11/13/2015, 10:04:58 PM by Jim Robinson

Obama's wanton lawlessness, criminal incompetence, willful neglect, refusal to enforce the law, refusal to secure the borders, refusal to even recognize the obvious enemy, refusal to take Islamic terrorism seriously, etc, leaves us wide open to terrorist attack. Our borders and nation must be secured! All Islamics here on temporary visas must be rounded up and deported now! Recent Islamic immigrants should be suspect. Obama's treasonous policies are inviting ISIS to attack us!!

Don't let it happen again.


And here are just a couple of responses, just to give you some flavor.


"This is just another reason of many for Obama to be impeached."

"I agree completely except it is too late. The radical left has taken over the country and are now consolidating their power.We will never give up and maybe we can take our country back but the only way I can see that happening is an act of God."

"I believe 45 percent of the country would support a democrat even if they were brain dead on a ventilator. We MUST win the presidency with either Trump/Cruz or both."


So much for hoping that a serious event might shake loose some sense on the right.

* If you don't believe me, check Michelle Malkin's or Ann Coulter's recent Twitter feeds.

ISIS Claims Credit for French Attacks

As an atheist, coming up with a response to religious extremism can be difficult. On one hand, I'm all for religious freedom (which entails freedom FROM religion), so I'm not about to come out assailing everyone of a particular religion. On the other hand, I find all religions to be at best a waste of time, and at worst (and provably) downright dangerous. So, I am simultaneously not Islamaphobic, but also pretty much anti-theistic.

Image from source, Huffington Post

That's not to say I don't condemn--across the board--violence in the name of religion. I'm against violence in general, actually. But in the name of religion, it is particularly vexing. If your religion calls you to violence, backs up your actions, and rewards you for it? It's clearly a fucking dangerous religion. Presently, Islam has more vocal and active adherents who wish do harm to random, innocent people (not that specific, less innocent people would be better), and as such, "Islamophobia" is an inevitable result in people who would not ordinarily harbor it.

Whenever Islamic extremists create mayhem somewhere in the world, many will decry "moderate Muslims" for not speaking up, and condemning the actions. This is somewhat unfair, as it isn't difficult to find prominent Muslims doing exactly that. But I'm ready to say that it isn't enough. However badly some Muslims feel--and I do feel for your average, ordinary Muslim who is now eyed suspiciously--there isn't enough outcry. I think they need a pope-like figure, or coalition of religious and state Islamic leaders, prominently decrying at top volume, and for a sustained period of time, any violence in the name of their religion. They need to forcefully excommunicate groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, denounce them as heretics, shame them from the faith entirely. Divorce "radical Islam" from anything approaching the actual religion.

Short of that, it seems to me we should pull up stakes. Get the heck out of dodge. Can't we do that?

[Excerpt]

Islamic State Claims Responsibility For Deadly Paris Attacks

Islamic State claimed responsibility on Saturday for attacks that killed 127 people in Paris, saying it sent militants strapped with suicide bombing belts and carrying machine guns to various locations in the heart of the capital. The attacks, described by France's president as an act of war, were designed to show the country would remain in danger as long as it continued its current policies, Islamic State said in a statement. . .

Read more at: The World Post

American Taliban?

There is a temptation on my part to let this imagery speak for itself, paste a link, and then leave it at that. But I don't want it to seem that I'm saying this is a 100% direct equivalence. The components of the images are pretty much identical: a weapon, a flag, and a holy book being held by a woman who looks pleased with herself.

I've already seen some commentary on Facebook that virtually shrieks that the woman on the right would be either a) beheaded or otherwise murdered were she to go against her faith, or b) outright behead or murder us. Graphic, right? People have some vivid imaginations. They also seem to see wholesomeness with the girl on the left, and danger in the girl on the right. And most of all, they'll complain that Christianity and Islam are not equivalent, in that Islam is inherently dangerous, and Christianity is not.

I'm not sure this holds up historically. I think atrocities have been committed by religious people in general. I think radicals in any religion are dangerous. It may be true that there are more organized, potentially violent religious extremists on the Islamic side of the aisle at the moment. But let's not pretend that the Bible hasn't been used to justify murder and mayhem, nor that the lady on the left looks any more sane than the lady on the right.

Source: Free Thought Blogs

Even Pat Robertson Calls Young Earth Creationism "Nonsense"

Methuselah Pat Robertson, image from source, Raw Story

As an atheist, it is unlikely I'm ever going to reach complete understanding with the devoutly religious. But it is interesting that there are levels of devoutness. See, I would have pegged Pat Robertson as a "Young Earth Creationist." But he isn't, and that's kind of interesting.

Young Earth Creationists believe in the literal creation story told in the Bible, complete with all of Genesis and all of the begets. Counting each day of creation as a literal day, believing that man was created in the first literal week of existence, and adding up all of the generations listed, YECs have calculated that the Earth (and also the universe) is only 6,000-or-so years old. This--to most rational people--is preposterous. There are things on earth (beer, trees) that are older than that. There are stars whose light couldn't possibly have reached us in that short a time. There are geological formations that couldn't possibly have formed so quickly. And on and on, and that's not even picking apart the very pick-apartable Genesis.

Well, ol' Pat surely does believe in talking snakes, the firmament and Noah's Ark. But he's having none of this young Earth nonsense. Even a nutcase like Robertson gets one right once in a while!

[Excerpt]
 
Pat Robertson implores creationist Ken Ham to shut up: ‘Let’s not make a joke of ourselves’

Pat Robertson responded to the recent debate between Young Earth creationist Ken Ham and Bill Nye, a.k.a. “The Science Guy,” by reiterating his disagreement with Ham’s form of creationism.

“Let’s face it,” Robertson said, “there was a Bishop [Ussher] who added up the dates listed in Genesis and he came up with the world had been around for 6,000 years. . .”

Read more at: Raw Story 

Can Religious Fundamentalism be "Cured?"

This lady is going to be taking some heat for this!
Image from source, Raw Story.

The atheist in me reads a headline like that and thinks, "hells yeah!" But the gay in me says, "hey, wait a minute." I know the parallels aren't perfect, but gay people would immediately get offended, and tell you they don't have a mental illness, and don't need to be cured. Which is accurate. But a religious fundamentalist would feel the same way, even though it may not be accurate. I don't know. It's an interesting, but very, very incendiary topic.

[Excerpt]

Leading neuroscientist: Religious fundamentalism may be a ‘mental illness’ that can be ‘cured’

A leading neurologist at the University of Oxford said this week that recent developments meant that science may one day be able to identify religious fundamentalism as a “mental illness” and a cure it.   . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Captain Obvious: Dictionary.com Doesn't "Get" Atheism

In my previous post, I acknowledged my difficulty with all of the talk of "prayer" and God whenever we have a natural disaster like the tornadoes of the last couple of days. I even got some fairly large readership out of it on Tuesday, for some reason. And a bit of back-and-forth with readers here on the blog, on Twitter and on The Huffington Post. It struck me--since religious people often do not take atheists' word for their lack of belief--that I ought to look up the dictionary definition of "atheism."

I was disappointed, to put it mildly. My understanding of the word is "without religon," or perhaps "without god(s)." The second version is problematic because there are religions that don't have gods, per se. To me, what my atheism means is: I don't have a religion. That's it. I don't have a doctrine, don't have holy books, a place of worship, a congregation, the belief in a higher power, "spirituality," or even a vague notion that there is an entity or entities with magic powers who oversee the universe and/or my sex life. I have no portion of my life devoted to any sort of religion, beyond whatever arguing I do about it in forums like this.

Fig. A - Dictionary.com's first set of definitions.

But, back to the dictionary. Dictionary.com is, of course, the easiest to remember site to go to online to look up the definition of a word, unless you just Google it. Maybe Google would have been the way to go though, because--as you can see in Fig. A--the definition offered up first by Dictionary.com is not good.

First, check out the two ads. Kind of goofy, at least from my perspective. Then, there is the first definition, "1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God." What's wrong with that? Well, there is no doctrine, for one. You can be an atheist without ever having heard of God, gods or even atheism itself, for that matter. And secondly, as I said before, it's a lack of belief in religion as well as any particular god, which covers more than "God." Second definition: "2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings." This one is closer, though it doesn't adequately cover all religions. I'd also substitute "lack of belief," rather than "disbelief," because the latter sounds a bit too active for me, as though it takes effort.

So, I scrolled down to see if somewhere in there was something that I recognized as atheism. Fig. B shows what I found next. The Word Origin and History's "1580s, from Fr. Atheisme (16c.), from Gk. atheos 'without god,'" may reflect how the word came to be, but it still is narrowly focused on apparently the Christian God (though it is not capitalized). Moving down to the World English Dictionary, it gets worse, "Rejection of belief in God or gods." This one is really bad, because "rejection" denotes a strong action, as though one is belligerently casting aside a known truth or something. See, this is something many staunchly religious people believe about atheists, that they are really believers who have rejected God/Jesus. Not true. We simply don't believe. And then, the Cultural Dictionary's "Denial that there is a God." is a mixture of all of the above, focusing on a solitary God, with a strong action of denial.

Fig. B - More not quite right stuff.

So, let me make simple what the dictionary can't seem to do. Atheists merely lack belief in religion in all its forms. That includes God, gods, angels, saints, all doctrines and edicts, spirituality, and anything supernatural. There are "strong" atheists who won't much mind the "rejection/denial" type language, and they'll vehemently state plainly: "THERE IS NO GOD!" There are agnostics and agnostic atheists who simply don't know and/or care if there are gods or true religions. And there are people like me who find all that I've heard on the subject to be preposterous and vanishingly unlikely. Nearly all of us simply lack religion in our lives. It's not there at all. And yet, people will still insist that we have a "religion." It can be frustrating. . .

I'll put a button on this by saying that we're all born atheists. Nobody has religion downloaded into their brains on day one, it has to be learned. And almost everybody is an atheist as it pertains to ALL other religions but their own.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer Embarrassed On Camera by Atheist

Image from source, Raw Story

As an atheist, I can get tripped up on language, so I shouldn't be too hard on Wolf Blitzer. I had to train myself to say gesundheit when somebody sneezes, rather than "god bless you." But not all nearly automatic religious phrases are so easy to extract from the vocabulary. There are so many, most people probably don't even realize they come from the Bible. "Oh, god," and "Jesus Christ" are just the most obvious ones. But then, I'm not a high-paid journalist on CNN, I'm a hobbyist blogger.

What Blitzer does in this clip is make the assumption that if you are from Oklahoma, you must be a Christian. And while it is kind of the default there, and in much of America, it's not something you should assume. It's like assuming that the person you are talking to is heterosexual, it's not always the case, and could be embarrassing, depending upon the question. Anyway, part of Blitzer's mindset may have been that so many people when commenting upon a tragedy automatically resort to "prayer."

Whether it's a sincere belief that it will somehow do some good, or it's just a reflexive thing to say, "I'm sending my prayers" and similar phrases just filled Facebook and Twitter, not to mention the news channels*. Most people probably mean well, and surely some are in the same situation as I am, with a religion-saturated mental English phrase book. It has something to do with why I haven't blogged about the Oklahoma tornadoes until now. What can I add to this discussion?

Sure, I'm sorry, and it's heartbreaking to see and hear the details of what's going on. I can say "my heart goes out to the survivors," of course, which is exactly as helpful as prayer, which is to say, not much. So, I donated to the Red Cross. And I'm asking you to do it too. It's not even difficult.

Just get out your cell phone, start a new text to 90999 (where you'd ordinarily put a phone number), with the message:  REDCROSS   That will automatically donate $10 to the American Red Cross, and will be added to your phone bill. It literally couldn't be easier.

[Excerpt]

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer tells atheist tornado survivor: ‘You gotta thank the Lord’

With the number of atheists continuing to rise, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday afternoon learned the danger of assuming on live television that his interviewee is a Christian.

“I guess, you gotta thank the Lord, right?” he told the survivor of a deadly tornado that ripped through Oklahoma. “Do you thank the Lord?. . .”

Read more at: Raw Story

*As an aside, I've got to say that I find the notion of prayer in these situations to be hard to fathom. To me, prayer is basically wishing, hoping, begging to get what you want, with the intensity going up according to the direness of the wish. When something good comes to pass (survival, good health, good fortune), "God answered our prayers." When something bad happens, you have to get down on your knees and pray some more. And have people pray for you, even if who you're praying for is already dead, or missing. For the missing, prayer is really perplexing. It's almost like a Schrödinger's cat exercise. Since we don't know whether the missing person is alive or dead, offering up a prayer essentially makes them that cat in the box, and our prayer can decide its fate. When in reality, that person is either really alive or dead. The prayer isn't going to change that. And you're offering these prayers to a deity that is responsible for the natural disaster in the first place! Further, what are the implications of being saved by a prayer, when there is death and devastation all around you? They didn't pray (or have loved ones who prayed for them) hard enough? They weren't worthy? 

So, now maybe you understand why I have such difficulty expressing myself and dealing with others' expressions after tragedies like this. When you are a person who puts "God" (as a concept and a being) on more or less equal footing with Superman and Yosemite Sam, it is difficult  to hear this imaginary being invoked repeatedly as though it does any good. Besides making the person who expresses the sentiment feel better, of course.

New Pope (And You Still Get Pope Classic!)

Not as funny looking as the last guy. Image from WaPo.

Yeah, so there's a new Pope, and he hails from Argentina. And while there is a new guy wearing the funny hat, frock and slippers, the old Pope will be living on property too. And you know what? I don't care the littlest, tiniest bit. And I wonder why other big religions (Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Scientology) don't merit this kind of coverage. But I'm thrilled that they don't.

[Excerpt]

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, known for simplicity and conservatism

The man who will move into the 10-room papal residence inside the vaulted gates of the Holy See lives in a simple, austere apartment across from the Cathedral of Buenos Aires. In a city with a taste for luxury and status, he frequently prepares his own meals and abandoned the limousine of his high office to hop on “el micro” — Argentine slang for the bus. . .

Read more at: Washington Post

Pope Goes the Ratzinger

My usual policy on blogworthy postings is that they interest me. The story or item need not be necessarily funny, sexy, newsworthy, kinky, scary, or ironic. . .it just has to appeal to me in some way. The reign of Pope Benedict XIV--or that of any Pope--is, generally speaking, completely out of my realm of interest. I'm an atheist, and have been one (or at least agnostic) since I was 14. I find the trappings of religion, the time wasted, the pointless genuflection and spectacle to be mind-numbingly boring, and on par with excessive sports fandom.

But it is newsworthy and noteworthy in a historical perspective. And I think it is getting increasingly anachronistic, and notably so. This Pope was no where near as popular as the last one, and looked like a cross between a Batman villain (60s TV version) and Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars. He was once a Nazi Youth (whether he had a choice or not), and figures in the Catholic Church pedophilia coverup scandal. The further we are removed from the overly religious trappings of 20th, 19th, 18th and earlier centuries, the more ridiculous the pomp an circumstance of the Vatican and the Papacy seems.

The recent HBO documentary, Mea Maxima Culpa--a deconstruction of the complicity of the Catholic Church with pedophilia coverups--just may have something to do with Ratzinger's almost unprecedented resignation. And that, friends, interests me.

[Excerpt]

Pope Benedict Sex Abuse Cover-Up? Papal Resignation Prompts Speculation

With Pope Benedict XVI's shocking announcement that he will resign from his office Feb. 28, making him the first pontiff to do so in almost six centuries, speculations and rumors are swirling as to why the pope has chosen to step down. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Captain Obvious: On Gays and Atheists (Or GAYtheists)

I wasn't sure if this should be under the banner of Captain Obvious, or one of my other loosely structured banners. What the whole post is about, is the extremely odd place I hold in today's America, that of the gay atheist. Or Gay-theist if you will. Which is awkward, because it reads like a theist who is gay. But I'm an atheist who is gay. Which makes me ready to call myself a gatheist, which isn't right either. I therefore coin the phrase, GAYtheist, and hope that people can suss out the meaning, without a literal Latin interpretation, mmmkay? Mmmkay.

My understanding of my personal sexuality (Kinsey-six gay) and my personal religion (none: strong agnostic/atheist) was on a parallel track, and has its. . .I want to say Genesis, but really I think crux is better. . .at about 14 years of age. I knew I was different at a very, very early age. I knew that the term "sissy" was bad, and had the internal realization that it simultaneously applied to me, and that I needed to do all I could to hide that fact. This is at four to five years old, you understand. No frills, no lace, no ruffles, no dollies. And truth be told--other than the Easy Bake Oven and other such gadgets--I was cool with that. I liked trucks and Tinker Toys and Lincoln Logs and Erector Sets.

Jimminy Cricket seems oddly appropriate here.

But, I also wanted a boyfriend in kindergarten. I was strangely intrigued by a kid named Jay, who in kindergarten, got confused about propriety, and came out of the in-classroom restroom with his butt showing. I wanted my one-year younger brother's classmate Rhett to notice me (in second grade!). When playing with my brother and my same-aged friend as a threesome, I was the "housewife." While I didn't identify or want to be a female, I was different. This shit dates back to the beginning.

Complicating matters for me, was the fact that I and my siblings had an interloper in our midst, a family member who inappropriately insinuated their self. One of the things that is problematic about sexual molestation for the survivors is that people lay a whole psychological profile upon them. For future reference, lay off of them. The fact that a person has been molested is not a reflection upon their identity.

What do I mean by that? Only that my siblings are heterosexual. I'm homosexual, no ifs-ands-or-buts. and it has zero, and I mean zero to do with what happened back at the 12-14 age range. In fact, that shit made it tougher to come out, because I knew that once I was public, some people would draw those conclusions. My realization at fourteen that I was gay was a culmination of facts in evidence from my earliest recollections. The unwanted attentions of a relative were a confirmation of that, not the instigator of it.

Anyway, all of this came to light at almost the exact same time that I was sussing out my opinions on religion. We'd been raised nominally Christian, with Easter, Christmas and the rest, but only lightly. There was a little church, Mom read to us from Golden Book-style kid's bibles. But it wasn't drilled into us. The emphasis on God and Jesus was about the same as Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. When the latter three were revealed to be frauds, God and Jesus were left defenseless. They were never disavowed, but the writing was on the wall.

Due to an afore-mentioned best friend/not-so-secret crush, I was attending confirmation classes in a teenaged Sunday school at a local Lutheran church. The church was warm and welcoming, the fellowship strong and the donuts yummy. But ultimately, I had to back out. I was learning Freshman Earth Science simultaneously, and it quite simply cancelled out the church stuff I was learning. At the age of 15, I was internally a gay atheist. It would be many, many years before I shared that fact with anybody.

So, the point of this post is to point out some obvious facts about The Gay Thing and The Religion Thing as it pertains to atheists. And in no particular order, they are:

- Don't trust Christians to tell you what an atheist is, or believes.
- Don't trust a homophobe to tell you what a gay person is, or believes.
- Gay people do not "recruit." Heterosexual parents make plenty of gay people unassisted. There  is no need to "recruit."
- Molestation doesn't "make" a person gay, though it can complicate the process of discovery. The simple fact is, far too many kids are molested. The outcome is never pretty, but it doesn't cause "conversion."
- Atheists do not belligerently reject a god they believe in. They quite simply don't believe in the first place.
-  Similarly, atheists don't "hate" God or religion. They simply don't believe in it.
- Gays and atheists do not--broadly speaking--have monolitic beliefs. They're individuals. They're like people, that way.
 - There is no unified "gay agenda." In fact, the super-right-wing's idea of a gay agenda is far more developed than any real gay agenda.
- The "gay lifestyle" is a term with its roots in 1970s personal ads in "legitimate" newspapers. they needed a euphemism,  and that is what we've been saddled with.
- "Ex-gay" people were either never gay to begin with, are bisexuals suppressing their "gay" sides, or gay people in denial. Period. I've met too many "ex-ex-gays" to believe otherwise.  

I don't claim to have all the answers. But I can say--as a gay atheist--that I'm not unhappy with my life or my decisions. I believe this is the life you get, and there are no others. I believe there is no "higher authority," or "higher purpose." I think we're on this plane, and we're in this world. We must live life to its fullest, because it's the only life we've got. And we should live life respecting all others' lives and rights and freedoms as we respect our own.

That's pretty simple. It doesn't require God. It doesn't require anything but reason and logic. And this post is terribly inadequate to its task. As a gay atheist I will cop to the fact that I can't speak for all of us, and implore the reader to understand that no one can. No single individual should be allowed to speak for an entire group.

The Phony Baloney "War on Religion"

A certain segment of the American populace loves to pretend that they're put apon, marginalized and under attack. It isn't all religious people. It isn't even all Christians. It's the usual suspects: ultra-conservative, (usually) white, (outwardly) straight, (often) male evangelical Christians. There are others that ebb and flow in and out of this beleaguered lot, from Mormons to Catholics, but it's mostly those that I mentioned. They act as though they're outraged, but they're not really. They're thrilled to act the part of victim.

It's gotten so bad that Christians can't even pray in public.

This is obvious if you frequent right-wing blogs, right-wing talk radio, or FOX "News." The reactions are so over the top, the stories so tailored to the victimhood narrative. In the most recent case, with President Obama's plan for insurance contraception plans, the obviousness is glaring. Even after the Catholic Church itself was removed from any direct funding for contraception, right-wing world is still wobbly on its axis. But as one of my favorite writers, Eugene Robinson points out below, Christians are not under any sort of attack, or in any kind of danger that they're going to lose the right to practice their religion. It's preposterous. Don't believe me? Pay attention to your fellow humans between now and Easter. Any changes? Anything different? Didn't think so.

[Excerpt]

Drumming up a phony war on religion

At ease, Christian soldiers. There is no “war on religion,” no assault on the Catholic Church. A faith that has endured for thousands of years will survive even Nicki Minaj.

It never occurred to me to evaluate the Grammy Awards show on theological rectitude, but apparently we’re supposed to be outraged at the over-the-top “exorcism” Minaj performed Sunday night. The hip-hop diva, who writhed and cavorted amid a riot of religious iconography, is accused of anti-Catholic bigotry — and seen as an enemy combatant in an escalating “war on religion” being waged by “secular elites,” which seems to be used as a synonym for Democrats. . .

Read more at: Washington Post

Newt Gingrich: Government Should Respect "Our Religion"

Image from WriteChick Press

In this country, the term "religious freedom" means different things to different people. To me, it means (partly) that I have the freedom not to practice a religion. For others (and also me), it means that people in this country are free to practice the religion of their choosing, or not. But to some--such as people who'd like the Constitution replaced with the Ten Commandments, but are fearful of "Sharia Law"--it means everyone should be free to practice a religion. Generally Christianity, but specifically whatever sect or denomination the speaker happens to believe in.

And here, "speaker" is most appropriate. One Newton Leroy Gingrich would seem to be one from the latter example. And, P.S.? There is no "war on religion" being waged by President Obama, or anyone else in government. That's B.S.

The Tim Tebow Skit from Saturday Night Live

When I watched this skit on Saturday Night, I thought it was cute. Kind of funny.  It wasn't riffing on religion or Christianity as much as it was riffing on excessive displays of religiosity. Saturday Night Live is  satire, and in satire, very little is off limits to my mind. Sure, SNL can sometimes be unfunny, and can veer off the rails all the way to offensive. But this wasn't offensive. Do you know how I know? Because Pat Freaking Robertson was offended. 'Nuff said. He doesn't matter.

Captain Obvious: Atheists Do Not Have a Faith

This is just a quick post, written after too many "faith" and "religion" posts that I've read recently. In America, we are not required to follow any particular--or any at all--religion, or "faith." Unfortunately for we "unfaithful," the faithful cannot comprehend our disbelief. Most religious people, particularly the devout kind, have an extremely difficult time putting their selves in our shoes. To them, unbelievers are belligerent people, denying the truth that they secretly believe to be true. No.

Again, NO. Atheists, atheistic agnostics and other irreligious people simply don't believe in god or gods, deity or deities. It isn't up to us to explain or discover the origin of the universe. We don't claim to know the secrets to all that is. We just simply state that we don't subscribe to the belief systems of the thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions of religions that have dominated the earth. We hold a neutral, non-supernatural "what is, is" philosophy. That is no more a faith than "bald" is a hair color.

I'm a Triple Minority!

How could I say such a thing as a white man in America? This is a little post about a small realization I just had. I'm gay. I'm an atheist (yeah, I'm finally going to own it). And I'm a non-sports fan! I'm a triple minority!

Big deal, you might say. And to the gay thing, I'd agree. The folks that have a problem with that are dying out, and it really isn't much of an issue in my day-to-day life. But that's just the thing.

Imagine your life as a pie chart. Most people have a "work life" wedge. Most have a "home life" wedge, and if you're lucky it is subdivided into "alone time" and "relationship" wedges. That wedge also includes "family obligations", if we still have parents, or adult children. But I'm missing two wedges: religion and sports fandom.

This is why people are wrong (even people I'm fond of, like Thom Hartmann) when they try to say that atheism is a religion in itself. No it's not. It is the absence of religon. There is no section of my life devoted to atheism, besides the odd post here on the blog, or arguments online or in real life. I don't spend time in deep thought about it, there is no list of commandments, no contemplation about "spirituality." It is simply deleted from my pie.

The same goes for sports. I can watch a game, and even enjoy it, as long as I know who I'm supposed to root for. But following sports? Having allegiences and rivalries, and "hated" teams? It literally makes zero sense to me. My brother has similar feelings, though far more militant (yes, he's a militant anti-sportsist). So that sports-fandom wedge is also absent from my pie.

Maybe that's why I simply can't figure out why coaches carry any allegiance from people. I'm from Ohio, and I couldn't understand the over-the-top love for Woody Hayes. I can't even name a subsequent coach. My sister--a diehard Buckeye, but also an atheist--probably just rolls her eyes at that one. But what can explain the people enraged by the firing of the Penn State coach, Joe Paterno (believe it or not, I had to just look up his name)? The sports wedge seems to be a whole lot like the religion wedge.

All of this is not a declaration that I'm better than you, or have life figured out. I just find it interesting that folks have entire dedicated parts of their life that I don't share. The human experience isn't the same for everybody. I just seem to find myself on the minority side of several of the experiences.

WAIT! I have no children! I'm a quadruple minority!!!

Concerns Over Religious Views of GOP Candidates

Image from source, Google News

And how-do-you-do, I'm not talking about Mitt Romney! In fact, as it regards the religious beliefs of the GOP contenders to the throne, I'd much rather see Mittens than most of the rest of them. Rick Santorum is religiously obsessed with gays and abortion. Herman Cain sings odes to Jebus and pizza. Ron Paul is certifiable, whatever his particular religion. But it's Michele Bachmann (now much less a threat) and Rick Perry (still a small one) that worry me (the afore mentioned Santorum is unelectable).

[Excerpt]

Election-year goals of Christian group questioned

. . .The Texas governor opened the door to the discussion with a prayer rally he hosted in August, a week before he announced his run for president. Organizers of the Houston event, such as Lou Engle, leader of The Call prayer marathons, and Mike Bickle, founder of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City, had for several years been under the watch of mostly liberal writers alarmed by the preachers' rhetoric. . .

Read more at: Google News

God Writes His Memoirs: The Last Testament

Image from source, Gawker

As an atheistic agnostic, I've always wondered why God supposedly talked and interacted with people in the Old Testament, but doesn't anymore. And yet God is "unchanging." And why does the accounting of God and his son, Jesus end two thousand years ago. God didn't have anything left to say? He didn't have an opinion on say, the Spanish Inquisition? It's a logical problem that has never adequately been explained to me.

But what if God came out with Book Three? 

[Excerpt]


God Really Did Create Adam and Steve

We've all heard members of the religious right rambling their silly, anti-gay slogan, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Well, on this National Coming Out Day, God is coming clean and admitting they're wrong: He did, in fact, create Adam and Steve.  . .


Read more at: Gawker

What Happens in Vegas: Local Priest Steals Over $.5 Million

The devil made him do it? Thanks to Stupid Monkey Planet for the link.


 [Excerpt]

Priest Pleads Guilty to Stealing Thousands of Dollars

. . .Kevin McAuliffe, 58, of Las Vegas worked as a priest and pastor at St. Elizabeth Ann Seaton Church in Summerlin. In the plea agreement, McAuliffe admitted he stole money from the church’s gift shop, votive candle collection, the missions and novenas fund, along with the general bank account. . .

Read more at: 8NewsNow

In the Closet: Congressional Atheists

Come out, come out wherever you are! If I can tell my Mom that I'm gay, you ridiculously overpaid Congress critters can come out as a non-believer to America. Seriously. It'll be a whole new you.

[Excerpt]

Secular group: 27 secret atheists in Congress

The president of a secular group says that there are 28 members of Congress who do not believe in God, but only one of them feels comfortable revealing his lack of faith. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Thanks to Stupid Monkey Planet for the link.

Be Careful What You Wish For. . .

Hahaha! Unapologetically swiped from VoenixRising.com!