GOD DOESN'T HATE GAYS, CHRISTIANS DO

FINALLY! A blog post that lets me momentarily indulge my full on "man crush" on Dave Navarro, even if it is just to post a intentionally antagonistic photo. This past week, a political story has been brewing here in Washington State. No, it wasn't a reaction to South Carolina's Congressman Joe Wilson's shocking outburst during President Obama's Health Care speech, nor was it the controversy surrounding the President's speech to America's school children. Both pissed me off, though they don't even come close to the ire incurred by Washington State Referendum 71 initiated by a group calling themselves Protect Marriage Washington. Referendum 71 seeks to repeal Washington State's current domestic partner rights. Yet another hate based agenda, initiated by faith based organizations who have learned from the Mormon's mistakes in California with their blatant endorsement of Proposition 8. Making it extremely vague as to any affiliation with specific denominations so as to protect their beloved Tax Exempt Status which prohibits their direct endorsement of political initiatives or candidates. Yet the Protect Marriage website has legal advice for pastors and churches regarding what they can an cannot say and highlights "talking points" that are without question faith based. It's time that we stop indulging iron age social phobias based in folk tales and regard each human being as truly equal. Even the phrase "sanctity of marriage" often used by anti-gay marriage organizations (and our most recent former president) endorses a religious connotation.

SANCTITY - 1 : holiness of life and character : godliness 2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : inviolability b plural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights

Christian fundamentalist/evangelicals find themselves all too often losing the argument that there is necessarily something mentally/physically wrong with homosexuals, so they have begun fighting the movement on a different front. That the treatment of homosexuals as equal citizens, as an equal human being, is threatening their religious liberty. Is the preservation of "religious liberty" a justification for the treatment of a minority group, one that simply opposed their religious beliefs, like second class citizens?

Rick Duncan, a Welpton Professor of Law at the University of Nebraska College of Law writes:

If gay rights laws are enacted, religious persecution follows inexorably. Religious dissenters...are marginalized and stigmatized as “homophobes” and as outlaws... Public school curricula soon reflect the change in the law, and our children are made a captive audience for learning the new social understanding of marriage and family and of unlawful discrimination... In contemporary America, the greatest threat to religious liberty is the gay rights/gay marriage movement...

What if he had written:

If civil rights laws are enacted, religious persecution follows inexorably. Religious dissenters...are marginalized and stigmatized as “racists” and as outlaws... Public school curricula soon reflect the change in the law, and our children are made a captive audience for learning the new social understanding of desegregation and family and of unlawful discrimination... In contemporary America, the greatest threat to religious liberty is the civil rights/interracial marriage movement...

Is there any fundamental difference except for the minority group in question? The religious right loves to cite Biblical chapter and verse as examples of the classification of homosexuality as a sin. Leviticus 18:22 , 20:13 and I Corinthians 6:11 among the most popular. This is where they lose all credibility with me. If you are going to use the Bible as any sort of divinely inspired commandment from your God, don't you have to use it all? Why does it seem that Christianity consistently views the bible as a Vegas buffet. Taking only what they want, and leaving the rest to compost. Just as easily as you can find those verses against homosexual behavior, you can cite numerous examples of biblical endorsement of slavery in both Old and New Testament. Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:20-21, Luke 12:46-47, and 1 Timothy 6:1-2. Not to mention the limitations of woman's rights to speak/teach/preach in I Timothy 2:11-14. Embrace all of it, or none at all. This "ala carte" religion is WAY too convenient.

It's often asked why would two same sex people even feel the need to get married when most of the legal/financial benefits can be reached in other ways. Why is that question any different for gay and lesbian couples than it is for heterosexual couples? I know for myself that my wife and I are married for social validation of our relationship where our parents were concerned. It was a piece of paper and ceremony that in their eyes only endorsed what she and I had already felt. Why is it then perceived as such a danger for same sex partners to want the same social validation? I mean outside of the antiquated religious dogma that drives this discrimination. The idea that the homosexual lifestyle is rife with sexual deviants with multiple fetish behaviors is nothing more than scare tactic and religious propaganda. Heterosexuals have many of the same "deviant" desires and behaviors, thus rendering the concern that such behaviors will suddenly be taught to their children in schools moot. Again, nothing more than dogmatic propaganda. As much as they would love to convince you otherwise, homosexuality is real. It's not a demonic possession of an otherwise heterosexual person. Regardless of what Ted Haggard would like you to believe. The former leader of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) is fond of saying he was just a Christian heterosexual with issues. Sorry Ted. The devil didn't make you suck cock.

Then today it was announced that a Federal judge has ordered the State of Washington to keep the names of the people who have signed the petitions to get the referendum on the November 3 ballot private, in fear of them being persecuted or harassed. Bullshit. Plain and simple this is an attempt to keep quiet those specific christian denominations behind the initiative in order to protect their Tax Exempt Status. Shouldn't those attempting to change state law, be open to public scrutiny? the late comedian George Carlin said it best:

"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But HE LOVES YOU! He loves you, and He needs MONEY! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!"

So if you live in Washington state, and are a registered voter, read the referendum carefully. It's worded backwards, so a vote to "approve" is a vote to preserve the rights of same sex couples and put a dent in the continuing cycle of religiously endorsed hate in this country.

JESUS KILLS

Let me start by saying that this is a difficult post to write. I am the son of a veteran of the conflict in Vietnam, my uncle was a chaplain in the military and I have relatives currently serving in the armed forces. I respect and thank them for their service and realize that to varying degrees, their faith played a part in their being able to endure that period in their lives. While there is some validity to the argument that it's their service that protects the constitutional freedoms that allow me to speak openly about my convictions the way that I do, there are just some things that I refuse to ignore.

It's 1967, and my Father has just recently returned from his stint serving the U.S. Marine Corps for eleven months building pontoon bridges in Vietnam. The Assemblies of God Church, the largest evangelical christian denomination in the world and the one I was raised in, takes notice of the social struggle internationally as well as domestically that the conflict is causing and changes it's longstanding position of pacifism and embraces the worldly support of war and the US military as a metaphor for their spiritual struggle. To that point in time, the religious life in the Military had been largely populated by moderate mainstream conservative denominations like the Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians. The evangelicals saw this as an opportunity to not only infiltrate this intended secular institution, but to turn it into a branch of their missionary work abroad. Flash forward to the 1980's and under Commander in Chief Ronald Reagan, The Pentagon began accrediting hundreds of Evangelical and Pentecostal Bible Colleges. This allowed graduates from these schools to dominate the ranks of the military chaplain positions. Schools that all too often preach that their faith is the one true way and all other faiths are nothing short of agents of Satan. (Ask a hardcore evangelical what he or she thinks of the Catholic or Mormon faith - odds are the word "cult" will be used more often then not). Today nearly eighty percent of the 2,900 chaplains in the US military are affiliated with Evangelical/Pentecostal denominations.

The Officer's Christian Fellowship (OCF) was an organization formed during World War II that once was a benign ministry group supporting a soldier's personal faith, but in recent years it has become much more Militant. It's the most organized fundamentalist group within the Military with 15,000 active members and a strong presence on over 80 percent of US Military bases worldwide. Their Executive Director Retired Air Force Lt. General Bruce L Fister, Calls the Global war on terror "a spiritual battle of the highest magnitude." Approximately 22% of the current US Military identifies themselves as evangelical. The Officer's Christian Fellowship calls them “ambassadors for Christ in uniform,” and the Campus Crusade Military Ministry called them “government paid missionaries". a book called "Under Orders: A Spiritual Handbook for Military Personnel", by Air Force Lieutenant Colonel William McCoy has been promoted with the following: “Under the rubric of free speech and the twisted idea of separation of church and state,” and endorsed publicly by General David Petraeus (the senior US Commander in Iraq, until September when he was promoted to the top spot in the US Central Command, running operations from Egypt to Pakistan) saying "Under Orders should be in every rucksack for those moments when Soldiers need spiritual energy". When asked to retract his endorsement by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, Petraeus claimed it wasn't meant to be a public endorsement. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is a group that has fought countless acts of religious intolerance. It's President, Michael Weinstein and his family have been the target of countless threats and acts of vandalism stemming from his investigation of the evangelical fundamentalist's actions. At a service at Fort Bragg promoting his book, Never Surrender: A Soldier’s Journey to the Crossroads of Faith and Freedom, retired three-star general William Boykin said of Weinstein's "attack' on Petreaus' comments. “Here comes a guy named Mikey Weinstein trashing Petraeus, because he endorsed a book that’s just trying to help soldiers. And this makes clear what [Weinstein’s] real agenda is, which is not to help this country win a war on terror.” “It’s satanic,” called out a member of the audience. “Yes,” agreed Boykin. “It’s demonic.” Then there's the Christian Embassy. Founded by Dr. Bill Bright who was was also a co-signatory of the Land Letter of 2002 which outlined a Just War rationale for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, providing a theological underpinning for the invasion being planned by President George W. Bush. The Christian Embassy is a group dedicated to the ministry of US leaders both political and military. They filmed a promotional video, in the Pentagon, using at least 4 uniformed officers, which is a direct violation of military protocol which prohibits the Military from endorsing any specific religion / faith. The Military repremanded all of the uniformed officers, but all were later promoted. Author Jeff Sharlet, wrote a piece in the May issue of Harper's Magazine titled "Jesus Killed Mohammed: The Crusade for a Christian Military". In it he details many examples of these actions that directly violate the current General Order Number One which specifically forbids "proselytizing of any faith, religion, or practice". An Easter morning in Iraq where after watching the widely considered anti-Semitic movie, "The Passion of the Christ" soldiers from the 1/26 Infantry of the 1st Infantry Division have an Iraqi interpreter spray paint the words "Jesus Killed Mohammed" in large red Arabic letters on a bradley armored fighting vehicle. This vehicle then did a "Run and Gun" mission through the city of Samarra to draw insurgent fire away from the camp. All while the same painting interpreter was commissioned with the task of chanting the same antagonistic message to the city via bullhorn. Assuming that all of the weapons fire trained on them was hostile insurgent action and not religiously offended Muslims, the bradley lays waste to the neighborhood. Later the driver of the bradley, lieutenant, John D. DeGiulio tells Sharlet that he had taken the movie earlier that day as a sign he would survive, and that "each time I go into combat, I get closer to God." Aljazeera television recently ran a story which showed footage of a meeting led by a chaplain in which they were discussing how best to distribute bibles translated into local languages. Stating that presenting them as "gifts" was a good way to circumvent the General Order number 1 prohibiting open proselytizing. Video from a Trinity Broadcasting network show showed two US christian missionaries being escorted and protected by Military personnel distributing bibles. Then there's the daily intelligence briefings that them Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, or The christian evangelists speaking at the Air Force Academy that preached that the only way to end terrorism is to "Kill Islam."

I could cite countless other examples of religious intolerance, bigotry, and complete disregard of our constitution. The radical evangelical movement within the military, concentrated in the officer ranks, is bent on spreading their special brand of religious nearsightedness around the world. As another Chaplain states in that Aljazeera video that while the special forces hunt men, they are "hunting souls." Driven by what they call the "Great Commission". Matthew 28: 19, 20 (19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. They are blind to the fact that these actions do nothing but support Al-qaeda and other anti-US groups contention that the United States is on a religious crusade. Giving them the greatest of recruitment tools. That these actions do nothing to separate us from the religious extremists that flew those planes into the World Trade Center Towers. The Oath of Enlistment states, "I, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." It says nothing about hunting souls, spray painting crosses on mosques, or getting into an argument over who's god can beat up who's. I was against the military actions to begin with. but now, when someone asks me to support the troops, there is no way I can respond positively. I'm not trying to deny a soldier the right to believe the way he wants. In fact, If a soldier's faith is what helps him or her get through the daily horrors of war, then that's great and within their constitutional rights but keep it to yourself. Nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to join the Military. If 80 percent of enlisted soldiers and officers consider themselves Christian, then they can rely on their god for support. But when the Military goes away from protecting my Constitution, and begins spreading ideologies and revisionist US History in some Christian Jihad wielding weaponized faith, then that's where my support ends.

THE UNFORGIVABLE SIN

But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin. - MARK 3:29

Back in the Winter of 2006 the Atheist site The Rational Response Squad issued a challenge to atheists everywhere to come out of the closet so to speak, and make a public affirmation of their beliefs by denouncing the "holy spirit" and thus committing the only unforgivable sin mentioned in the Bible. It was called "The Blasphemy Challenge" and soon after they threw down the proverbial gauntlet, You Tube was overwhelmed with video after video of people stating for all the interweb world to see that they denied the holy spirit. It even became national news on shows like Nightline and CNN. Videos are still being added to You Tube this day, as are the opposing Christian responses.

While I'd tell people I was an atheist if they asked, I had never made a point to tell anyone, especially those in my family that are still outspoken practicing evangelical christians. I never felt it was that big of a deal. I mean I've always enjoyed pushing boundaries and offending them to some degree. A Jesse Jackson for President T-shirt worn to a family reunion comes to mind. I'm not sure one of my Uncles ever got over that one. For the most part, these are very good people who I enjoy spending time with. It was the primary reason I had ignored the Facebook friend requests of an Aunt and Uncle. The very uncle that married my wife and I. I told myself it was because I didn't want them to be offended by anything I might say, and to some degree I suppose that it true. Then two days ago I was talking to my mother on the phone. My mother, to whom I've never said "I'm an atheist". Our conversation covered many things, but ultimately found it's way to a couple religious topics. There I found myself mentioning things like the Boy Scouts policy against atheists and my reading a book by noted Atheist Sam Harris, and I'll be dammed if I wasn't all of a sudden on the verge of a panic attack quickly changing the subject. What the fuck was that about? For all my rants on Facebook with old friends and my blog posts here I suddenly found myself feeling like that quiet boy that didn't ask questions and just followed her to church. I think at that moment it might have been easier to admit to her that I was gay.

I am an Atheist. I Believe there is no god. I no more believe in the Judeo-Christian god than I do Allah, Ra, Apollo, Quetzalcoatl, Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, or Midi-Chlorians. I believe that faith is a intellectual cop out. I believe that it's a waste of my time to deal with people that say "Faith is all I have, and nothing you say will change my mind". That's fundamentalist for "shut up and go away". I believe that being an atheist frees me to share ideas with everyone rather than arrogantly dismissing everyone else's viewpoints because they don't match your own. I believe that being an atheist frees me to focus on those that I love rather than be afraid of some supreme being and his punishment/or reward of an afterlife. This is the one and only shot we get, so we need to make the most of it. I need to do a better job of doing that and stop being worried about what someone might think of me and my beliefs, Family or not.

Oh, and about that Blasphemy Challenge...



And if I'm wrong...In the Immortal words of Han Solo in the Empire Strikes Back "Then I'll see you in hell"

In ? we Trust - or - One Nation Under Dog

"I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all." - The original Pledge of Allegiance, 1892

Statement:
We need to get back to the Christian ideals that this country was founded upon.

That statement, or a variation of it, is used countless times by the fundamentalist Christian right in this country. It's become a catch all cure of sorts for everything they consider wrong with society today. Abortion, the Gay Rights movement, the secularization of our public schools, and if you ask Oklahoma state senator Sally Kern, the economic state of this country. Quite possibly the most offensive example of this attitude occurred on the September 13th, 2001 episode of the Christian television show, The 700 Club. Pat Robertson, Founder of CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) and the Christian Coalition, interviewing Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, where both men agreed that the attacks on 9/11 might have been allowed by god due to moral decay in this country.

It's a sentiment that annoys me like nothing else. I hear it repeatedly from christian friends, read it in research, see it on TV and in the newspapers spewed by conservatives religious and political alike. A prime example of Christian dogma and revisionist history. While I will concede that the majority of this country is of the Christian faith, that simple majority should, in no way, dictate the kind of change and blatant disregard for the Constitution that that has been allowed to happen. Again the arrogance of the western judeo-christian faith rears it's ugly head. It seems too many of them fall prey to that old axiom that if you repeat a lie enough times, people are bound to begin to believe it.

FACT: Nowhere in the Constitution are the words God, Jesus, Christ, Christian or Bible found. Not even in the Amendments.

Don't you think if the intention was to establish this country as a "Christian" nation that one or two of those might have been thrown in there? This was intentional. If you define Christianity as one who believes in the divine works of Jesus Christ, then one could say that some of the more prominent founding fathers were not Christians at all. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were outspoken Deists, believing in a "supreme being" who doesn't concern itself with the daily lives of humans or communicate with humans in any way. Nor did they believe in any of the supernatural events (miracles or revelations) described in the Bible and lived without a need for faith or organized religion. George Washington and James Madison were also Deists, though both went out of their way to avoid religion in most matters. Thomas Paine was also described as a Deist, though became much more of an atheist in his later years. John Adams was a liberal Unitarian, though in much of his writings seems to share many of the themes of Deism. Jefferson even went as far as re-writing the Gospels without any of Jesus' superpowers called "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth". He was once quoted as saying "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Unfortunately, that has not yet come to pass.

FACT; The 1797 U.S.A. treaty with Tripoli George Washington writes that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion". This treaty was presented to and ratified unanimously by the US Senate and signed under the presidency of John Adams.

FACT: The Constitution of the United States declares that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) ensuring that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had.

FACT: The Very amendment to the Constitution that allows us all freedom of speech addresses this as well. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Thus preventing there from being government sponsored religious practices or activities. The Basis for the principles of Separation of Church and State. In his letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptists Association shortly after his election, Thomas Jefferson reiterates "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

FACT: Our Nation was founded in 1776 but "In God We Trust" doesn't appear on U.S. coins until 1908, and paper money not until 1957 in an act of religious and political propaganda to counter the threat of those godless communists. Thank you Joseph McCarthy . The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 and was just fine "God" free until 62 years later in 1954, when ‘under God’ was added at the behest of the Knights of Columbus (A Catholic fraternal organization) who felt it wasn't right that it was left without reference to a deity like other countries in Europe.

FACT: Supreme Court Decision Engel vs. Vitale (1962) found that Any kind of prayer, in public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion on the basis of the First Amendment.

When reviewing all that, remind me again why Christians still believe their repeated rhetoric? I understand that they contend that their faith is based on the "one true god". Don't you Christian's understand that we are both atheists, I just happen to believe in one less god than you do? Your arrogance and sense of entitlement aside, does it mean anything to you that the fact remains that that this country was based in a spirit of freedom from religious oppression with guidelines meant to strictly maintain those boundaries, while still allowing you the right to believe and worship any god you chose in any way you chose so long as those boundaries are respected? Obviously not or we still wouldn't have to worry about fighting the attempts at public displays of prayer in schools. Read Matthew 6:5-6. In it Jesus states “Whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, because they love to pray while standing in synagogues and on street corners so that people can see them. Truly I say ... Read Moreto you, they have their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you”. Obviously not or my children wouldn't have to say the phrase "under God" every morning in school. Obviously not or I wouldn't have to see the phrase "In God We Trust" on ever piece of money I touch. In a sense, we agree on one thing...that this country needs to return to the basic fundamentals on which it was formed. Only problem is that my desire is based in historical fact, backed by the Constitution of these United States of America. While yours is based in the same fairy tale make believe land inhabited by your god.

SEARCHING FOR GOODNESS IN A GODLESS WORLD...

No, not That Goodness. Though that does remind me that I need to add some Goodness and Hammerbox to my Seattle bands music collection. Love me some Carrie Akre, but I digress...

Goodness, by definition is the state or quality of being good; moral excellence; virtue; or a euphemism for God: "thank goodness". A reoccurring theme in my reading and research this week has been repeated examples of discrimination against atheists or agnostics or at the very least questioning the ability of a "godless" person to possibly be a good person.

At least 8 states' (TX, AR, MA, MD, NC, PA, SC and TN) Bill of Rights or state constitutions still contain exclusionary language that would deny an Atheist, Agnostic, or Non-theist from holding any elected or appointed state office and in some cases not allow them to even take the stand as a witness or serve as a juror in a court case. All because they would have denied the existence of a "supreme being" and in some cases even using the phrase "Judeo-Christian Deity". Thankfully the Supreme Court had a moment of clarity and declared these blatant forms of religious bigotry unconstitutional on the basis of the 14th amendment which requires individual states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions, however the clauses were never removed. The arrogance that the absence of belief and or faith would somehow make one less reliable of a witness, or have thrown out their abilities to serve in public office along with their Bibles and the proverbial bathwater is staggering. A 2006 Study by the American Sociological Review found that 40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that did not "at all agree with my vision of American Society". And that 48% of them would not want their child to marry an atheist. Both percentages portraying a disapproval of atheists above that of Muslims and Homosexuals. that was in 2006 after 9/11! WTF??? You do realize that what happened on 9/11 was done in the name of a deity right? That brings us to my personal favorite target this week. The beloved Boy Scouts of America. Yes, I just said the Boy Scouts of America. Can he really be that much of a prick you ask? Yes, Yes I can. Most of us are all aware of the public denial of membership by this organization to homosexual boys or scout leaders / volunteers, but are you aware that they also deny membership to anyone that refuses to "do my best to my duty to my God and my country...The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgement of his favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizen and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members." That as an atheist or even the son of an admitted atheist a young boy would not be allowed membership. An organization that on more than once occasion has been documented referring to their discrimination as the "Three G's" Gays, godless, and Girls. The three largest financial sponsors of Boy Scout Troops in the United States are the Mormon Church (controlling as much as 40% of the organization), the United Methodist Church, followed by the Catholic Church. As a privately funded, not for profit organization they certainly have the right to discriminate any way they see fit, though that doesn't make them any less of a bigoted hate group (Hitler's Youth anyone???). They had just better stick to their 2005 agreement to remove themselves from any government funded facility or support, and that includes the public schools I help pay for.

The underlying arrogance in all of this is faith based. In his book "Letter to a Christian nation" noted author Sam Harris says, "One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be appreciated in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while condemning scientists and other non-believers for their intellectual arrogance. there is, in fact, no worldview more reprehensible in it's arrogance than that of a religious believer: The creator of the universe takes an interest in me, loves me, and will reward me after death; my current beliefs, drawn from scripture, will remain the best statement of truth until the end of the world; everyone who disagrees with me will spend eternity in hell..." The belief in a supreme creator, going to church three times a week, believing a collected work of mythology is the literal voice of said creator, or wearing your super powered spiritual underwear, has no measurable bearing on goodness. The fear that society would descend into the depths of "hell" if left in the hands of non believers is asinine. What are they afraid of? Oh right, all the things I think would make this a much more plesant place to live in. Gay marriage, Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, A woman's right to chose, true equal rights for all citizens regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation, diplomacy without a religious agenda, legalization of pot, or wild sex parties on the white house lawn? hmmm...did I go too far there? Ok, maybe not the sex parties in the Rose Garden...maybe ;) I don't need 10 rules etched in stone by some invisible man on a mountain in order to have some kind of moral compass. Don't we just need one? DON"T HURT ANYONE! And if that was the case, we all break that one from time to time, believer or non-believer alike. Sure I am a contradictive hypocrite, opinionated, moody, and confrontational at times...but I love and adore my wife and children, and I think they along with my close friends would characterize me as a good person albeit with flaws. I don't mind being ridiculed for my beliefs, as long as I'm not prevented from expressing them.

FACEBOOK "FRIENDS"

It's a frequently heard dilemma among Facebook users. Is it rude to ignore a friend request? Or the ever popular feeling of "Friend remorse". You know you didn't like them in high school, or know them for that matter, so why on earth did you accept their friend request, or even worse, send them one! Just scan through your friends list...you know there are people there that incite these thoughts. Hell, I'm sure I'm that guy for some of you.

I'll be the first to admit my addiction to the phenomenon that is Facebook. If you are my "friend" there this is no shock to you as I'm sure my frequent posts litter your home page. It's hard to resist all the familiar names you are bombarded by upon joining. Before you know it your friends list looks like a high school yearbook even though you've spent the past twenty years trying to forget high school. Don't get me wrong. There are many people that I am genuinely thrilled to have reconnected with via Facebook. Though much like high school, I've found myself too often caring that other people might be offended by something I say or do in the form of a post, be it a status update, link or note. At times even deciding not to post something because some of my "friends" might be put off by it. Even declining friend requests from an aunt and uncle because I knew I would offend them. Yes, that's right, what you might have seen of me on Facebook is me holding back to some degree! That is probably the biggest thing I've tried to overcome in the years since high school. I take a good bit of pride in the fact that other than my wife and kids, I don't really care what others think about me. I'm all too aware that I can be an opinionated ass with some pretty exaggerated views which have offended some. That was one of the reasons for this blog. I wanted another outlet for the things that I am passionate about without the text limitations of Facebook or even worse, Twitter. I don't have time to worry about offending anyone, or muddling through posts that I find offensive from people who I wasn't that close with (or only knew because of my Brother). If that's harsh, I don't know what to tell you. If it offends you, de-friend me. It won't hurt my feelings.

Now, Off to the park with the kids in search of something a bit lighter to discuss next time! Until then.

S

DENY YOUR MAKER...

I'm the man in the box Buried in my shit Wont you come and save me, save me
Feed my eyes, can you sew them shut? Jesus Christ, deny your maker
He who tries, will be wasted Feed my eyes now you've sewn them shut

-Alice in Chains- "Man in the Box"

Yep, just what the world needs. Another overly opinionated person thinking that his thoughts and feelings are important enough to post on the interweb for the world to read. I've been writing a lot in recent weeks and felt that I wanted another outlet. Some days it will be about family, while other days it will be my ramblings about things I find interesting, offensive or both. Regardless, I hope you find it worth the occasional read.

So why call it "Deny Your Maker"? Some of you have seen it before. I have this posted as a motto of sorts on my Facebook page alongside my declaration of religion as "atheist". Together these have raised more than one eyebrow among old friends that knew me as the bible thumping, Stryper t-shirt wearing "Jesus Freak" I once was. "Deny Your Maker" is a lyric from a song called "Man in the Box" by Seattle grunge legends, Alice in Chains. It's become rather symbolic for me of what you might call my spiritual journey in life.

For a long time I've held some resentment towards my mother for what I perceived as the unfair religious environment of my youth. I vaguely remember a time when we attended church as a family. Somewhere along the way, Dad stopped going, but I never felt like that was an option. Church was just a part of life. It's what we did every Wednesday night, Sunday morning and sometimes Sunday nights. I still remember the friends made there and the fun that we had with great affection. However, once I left for college and was able to look at it in a different light I began to ask questions and research many things that I'd just always been told were the definitive truth. I spent time with more than one campus ministry group and investigated many different christian denominations but always left them feeling like they didn't provide answers but instead only created more. All that compiled with the historical reading I was doing for classes led me to the eventual conclusion that I don't believe any of it. That the truths of my youth were nothing short of mythology or allegorical tales rather than the literal interpretation of the Bible or the basis for a religion. While I'll now admit that to resent my mother for feeling it was forced on me is probably unfair. That is the faith that she's chosen and if that's what makes her happy and brings some measure of peace to her life then great. I can respect that and be happy for her, it just isn't for me. There in lies the deeply layered meanings of "Deny Your Maker". It represents for me my denial that I have a maker in the spiritual sense, a denial of the truths that I was led to blindly believe by my physical maker in the form of my parents, as well as an emotional connection to the painful emotional lyrics of the Late Layne Staley so much so that they will probably be part of my next tattoo.

Until next time...

S