Safe for the Little Ears?

In my hometown, there is a popular Christian radio station that uses the phrase “Safe for the little ears” on its bumper stickers and promotional material. The intent is to encourage the belief that, unlike other stations that carry, say, Howard Stern, a wannabe clone of his, or utilize DJs who read questionable material or play provocative songs during their broadcasts, this station is ‘safe’ for even children to listen to, anytime, since all their programming is Christian-oriented music and life-lessons taken from the bible. Their programming is not to my taste but I do listen on occasion just to see how they try to spin bible verses and bible stories to fit their ‘god-is-good-and-the-bible-won’t-offend-anyone’ approach. Apparently, they haven’t read enough of the bible to know it is anything but ‘safe for the little ears’.

They often read or paraphrase biblical quotes between the songs, but I notice they always play it safe by cherry-picking the verses they use (just like most Christians cherry-pick the parts of Christianity they ascribe to). I wonder how many parents would approve of their ‘little ones’ hearing these straight from the bible:

Genesis 19:30-36: And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the firstborn said unto the younger, our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. 

Deuteronomy 22:28-29: If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (This sounds reasonable and fair, doesn’t it? When this is explained to a child, they’d fully agree, wouldn’t they?)

Numbers 15:32-35: And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Ezekiel 23:20 For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.(This must have been really important, to include it in the bible. How would you explain this to your kids, mom and dad?)

Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women…

Numbers 31:17-18 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man.

Judges 4:21 But Jael, Heber's wife, picked up a tent peg and a hammer and went quietly to him while he lay fast asleep, exhausted. She drove the peg through his temple into the ground, and he died.

2 Kings18:27 But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

2 Kings2:23-24 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. 

Psalms 137:9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

Or Judges 19:22-30 Where a Levite gives his concubine to a mob, she is raped all night, dies, he then takes her body home, cuts it up into 12 pieces and sends it all around Israel…. Judges 11:30-40 where Jephthah kills his daughter after promising to sacrifice the first thing that comes out of his house.

And every child has probably heard, or seen the Hollywood version on TV, of Moses going up Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments. Moses then comes down with the stone tablets, one of which we’re told states “Thou shalt not kill”, but he discovers that the Israelites have fashioned a golden calf statue. To punish the people, Moses gathers a group of men and takes the following action, according to Exodus 32:27 "Then he said to them, "This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' “The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. “

So... one minute we have God carving into stone, "Thou shalt not kill." Then the next minute we have God telling each man to strap a sword to his side and lay waste to thousands, not even giving any clue how to tell the guilty from the innocent, just kill at random. Wouldn't you expect the almighty ruler of the universe to be slightly more consistent than this? 3,000 dead people is a lot of commandment breaking. But god is okay with ‘do as I say, even if it breaks a commandment I just gave you, but you can never do this on your own.’

And in case the kids get the idea that God’s son Jesus was simply meek and mild, let them hear how he thought discipline should be meted out regarding slaves: Luke 12:47-48 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. (Yes, lash, whip, and inflict considerable pain on those you own, even if they had no idea they had done something wrong.)

Those are just a few of the more ‘popular' vicious stories in the bible, but they are by no means all. The bible is filled with violence, immoral teachings, and harmful passages that demand revenge and death. How would Christian parents explain them to their children if the “Safe for the little ears” radio announcers read those verses? Would those parents understand what morals they were teaching? Because promoting Christianity is nothing more than a socially acceptable form of preaching hate, bigotry, ignorance, superstition and intolerance. What child needs to learn those lessons?

If the bible is considered ‘safe for the little ears’, I’d just as soon read to my children Fifty Shades of Grey.

The Big Difference

                What does the future hold? How does one's vision of the future impact the way they live their life? Beliefs influence how one reacts and how they interact with others. Belief systems seem to boil down to one of two types of world views.

                One system sees a better tomorrow with true human harmony being a reachable goal, even though it may still be distant today. It will be a time when people can, and will, work with each other and find a just, lasting, and symbiotic way to make life better for all who exist here. If we can cooperate in space, at the far reaches of the planet, in technology, health care, finances, and communication; then we can equally cooperate in human progress and in human understanding. We all have more in common than we have that differentiates us. There isn’t a short term solution. It will require a long term commitment on our part. However, we have proven that we have the capability, the reasoning, and the desire to make things better, for ourselves and for those around us. Wouldn’t it be nice if it turned out we’re all only separated by something like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon?

                The other belief dictates that mankind is naturally evil and sinful. In this country, the predominant belief system is christianity, but it could just as easily apply to islam or judaism. Those who follow the christian belief hope, pray, and work for the biblical Armageddon to happen in their lifetime. They believe Jesus will then come tearing out of the sky to save some of the remaining human beings who will live for a thousand years with Jesus in control of Earth. Finally, for reasons not very clear, the devil (a supernatural being who was thrown into a pit when Jesus came back) will be let loose to destroy things on Earth again. And then, everyone who ever lived on this planet will be tried by God where a vast majority of them will be judged unworthy of anything but damnation, and thrown in a lake of fire for all eternity.

                Does this sound like the design of an intelligent supernatural being that transcends time and space?  Yet, this is the love and mercy of the Christian god, according to their bible, and it is the core of the Christian belief. Defenders of Christianity will try to explain that god doesn’t send people to hell (or the lake of fire); they send themselves to hell (or the lake of fire). Really? Is it any different than this scenario?

The Robber says                                                                               God says

“Give me your money, or I’ll shoot you!”                                   “Worship me, or burn in hell forever!”

People have free will.                                                                    People have free will.                   

They can choose to obey the robber's                                       They can choose to obey God's
commands, or not.                                                                        commands, or not.

So Robbers do not kill people.                                                  So God does not send people to hell.

People choose to die by                                                               People send themselves there, by         
choosing to disobey the robber.                                                choosing to disobey god.
               

Would you excuse and pardon the robber for murdering his victim in this case?

            But the ultimate problem is this; the Christian sees a bleak future that requires a supernatural event to change it, but they don’t explain how or why it will happen as they claim, except to repeat passages from their bible, as if that clarifies everything. You just have to believe, you just have to have faith, you just have to worship their god and trust that he will make everything right.

                The offer to worship the Christian god is not a choice, it is an ultimatum. The whole idea is based on a threat. That’s what terrorists do. That’s what the recent christmas holiday represents; not the birth of a child, but the birth of a method to threaten you with unimaginable horror. In its most concise form, it is ‘Worship me or go to hell forever’ which is no different than pointing a loaded gun at your head and saying “Do as I say, or I’ll pull this trigger.”

                I choose to believe in a very different future for the human race. I do not, for example, believe we’re on auto-pilot destined for total destruction, nor do I believe a supernatural event will occur that will resolve, temporarily, the apparently ghastly conditions we humans have created on Earth. I am certain that humans, with all their flaws and faults, will continue to progress and build toward a better future. There will be set backs and miscues, but we are aiming in the right direction. As long as we don't get sidetracked by allowing religion, ANY religion, to divert our course, we will continue to lay down the building blocks that will lead to a much grander and more equitable future for us and our descendants.

  It’s time for the human race to rise above these two thousand year old superstitions, and throw off the fear, the belief in a forsaken future, and faith in an unseen, unknowable supernatural force. We no longer need to be scared of the 'monster under the bed', because it was never there to begin with; nor do we need magical, invisible friends whom we converse one-sidely with (in prayer). The bible was written as a means of controlling people. In it, we’re condemned as being inherently sinful by the very being that, it is claimed, authored the bible, and we owe that being our lives in perpetuity. Of course, the message of the bible is then touted as the only salvation available, again according to that supernatural being that supposedly authored it. When other religions try to use the same argument with their own holy book, do you believe their claims are true?

The future is far too important to leave to interpretations that are no different from reading Tarot cards, tea leaves, or the entrails of a slaughtered sheep. I choose the vision that does not treat human beings as unworthy and must ultimately be saved by an undefinable supernatural source. We are superior to that and our eventual growth away from religion will only make our lives and our future that much better. The day when humankind’s belief in the supernatural is just a quaint memory, and a footnote in a history book, can’t come soon enough.

The dead elephant in the room

It is rather fitting that the Republicans were prevented from winning much on Election Day since they ignored a majority of the American voters throughout the campaigns. Though I am exactly in their target demo: older white male, professional job, college degree, fiscally conservative, and from a very conservative family, there is no way I can support most of the Republican Party’s platform. (Don’t mistake that to think I vote Democratic; I don’t. I usually vote Libertarian but it depends on the issue and the candidate.)

                Listening to certain radio ilk the past month made one think Romney was a shoo-in. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved and other mouthpieces of the far right fringe have been citing poll after poll showing that Romney had not only caught up with Obama, he had surpassed him in various demographics and was on a roll that would take him into the White House. It is a perfect example of the old adage ‘If you believe a lie long enough, it will become the truth to you.’ It has now been exposed that many of the pollsters didn't have a clue as to what was happening. They asked the wrong questions of those polled, and in a good number of cases because the questions were ‘loaded’, they got the result they wanted to hear. When polling is based on what you want to hear, you’ll get a skewed result.

One of the talk show hosts tried mightily to show that the evangelicals were going to come out in record numbers and vote for a Mormon for president; not because of his conservatism, but because he was a ‘man of faith’. Supposedly, they should be able to relate to that even though the evangelicals’ own ‘holy book’ denounced anyone who didn't think like them. I know from dealing with many 'born-again christians' that they DO NOT believe a Mormon is even close to being a christian. I can’t wait to read how the talk show host will interpret Romney’s loss, if he bothers trying. My bet is on him claiming that it became evident that god could not allow a Mormon to become president. (Then why the call to support him? Didn't he check with god first?)

                Not helping the Republican cause were the various incidents of ‘hoof-in-mouth’ disease that made some of the candidates look like air-headed lemmings and became well-deserved targets of scorn and ridicule. Voters remember that kind of buffoonery when it comes time to cast their ballot. If the Republicans hope to win in the future, they’d be advised not to take the advice talk show annoyance Dennis Prager. Just days after the election, he was telling callers on his show that the Republican Party didn't abandon the voters, they abandoned the party, and encouraged his listeners to go out and ‘re-sell’ Republicanism to everyone they know. They should pitch all the things that reflected Republican Party values, and convince people that those values are what make good candidates, and a party worth following. He didn't advise them to take a look at how many Republicans interpreted planks in their party's platform. Maybe they should. 

        Because just how do you sell to anyone that ‘rape is a blessing from god’, gays who simply want the right to marry just like heterosexuals, can’t, an attitude of ‘I don’t want the federal government taking away my freedoms, just the freedoms of any woman who wants an abortion’, that you should be fiscally conservative, except when it comes to the Drug War and funding every military weapon system that can be conjured up, and regardless of the Establishment Clause, insisting that the Republicans are the only faith-based party and that god only supports right-wing (Republican) decisions?

       Good luck with that.

Religious provocation - seriously?

    Some amateurs put a video on YouTube and it has upset a certain segment of Muslims, enough so that, in their perceived offense, they attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Libya, killing four American’s, and have also launched violent protests in Cairo, Egypt, in Yemen, and in other Middle Eastern countries. How does killing someone salve a purported insult from a movie? People have been poisoned by the words in a book.

                It leads one to believe that certain Muslims are so weak in their faith that a simplistic movie is somehow a risk to that faith. Or is it that they believe Allah, or his messenger Mohammed, are so shallow and easily offended that lowly human-produced movies are a threat to them? It is a sad reflection on certain believer's interpretation of Islam that the only way to react to a video that simply makes fun of it is by rampaging against and killing people who had nothing to do with it. American embassy personnel didn’t produce the movie, nor can they prevent those movies from being uploaded to YouTube.

                In Washington DC, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the crudely made film posted on the internet was "disgusting and reprehensible", although it’s almost a sure bet she hasn’t actually seen it but simply read a brief summary of the video. The short film entitled the "Innocence of Muslims,"  portrays Mohammad as a womanizer, a homosexual and a child abuser. But so what? Why is that reason to riot and kill? All this protesting will make the video a big hit, which it never would have been had they not rioted. Here's an idea, why not make a movie that shows just how wrong the producers of 'Innocence of Muslims' are?

  Protests spread further yesterday with US embassies the targets of anger among certain Muslims questioning why the United States has failed to take action against the makers of the film. But by the same reasoning, why not lash out at the internet, or computers, or films in general?

In Yemen’s capital Sanaa, hundreds broke through the main gate of the heavily fortified US embassy shouting "We sacrifice ourselves for you, Messenger of God." They smashed windows of security offices outside the embassy and burned cars. A security source said at least 15 people were wounded, some by gunfire, before government troops surrounded the area.

In the end, how did broken windows and scorched cars appease Mohammed or Allah? What sacrifice was made? Can the protesters answer that without just making something up?

Around 200 demonstrators gathered outside the U.S. embassy in Kuwait shouting slogans such as "God is great" and hoisting banners, one in English which read "USA stop the bullshit. Respect us."

Yes, everyone knows that respect is earned by taking offense over a video and rioting.

Even if the Koran said any depiction of the Prophet is blasphemous, why is that a reason to kill? (Don’t the words themselves ‘depict’ Mohammed?) Does blasphemy itself kill Muslims? Do they die by the dozens, hundreds, or thousands anytime someone produces a characterization of the Prophet? When the Danish published a series of cartoons depicting Mohammed in September 2005, how many Muslims died as a result of the printing?

Zero.

But when they rioted several weeks and months later, how many died?
Over one hundred. 
Over one hundred fewer Muslims alive because people took offense to a series of drawings. Demonstrators claim it was religious provocation. How so? What is so provocative that other people need to die for it?

The thing to remember is, these demonstrations were not by a majority of the people in each of those countries, but only a small violent minority. Of the millions in those countries, only a few thousand decided Mohammed needed to be defended by destroying property and threatening lives. A few thousand people that looked for anything to offend them or needed an excuse to launch a military-style raid.  And as long as this minority believes death is the answer to words, drawings, and films that simply hurt their feelings, it won’t be the last time this happens. It’s a good example of how religion poisons people.
If your religion is worth killing for, start by killing yourself!

In memory of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the three Americans killed in Libyan riots on 9-11-12

Religion - the original sin.

Religion is the original sin. It is the sin of willful ignorance and credulity. Just as the fairy tale of the Garden of Eden relates, religion, as practiced across most of the United States, and in many countries around the world, makes a virtue of believing the ridiculous, and a sin of enjoying life.

Belief is the path of least resistant. Disbelief requires a much more concerted effort. It is easier to believe than to question and doubt. Believing means you just accept and follow. American historian James Harvey Robinson wisely wrote ‘Few of us take the pains to study the origins of our convictions; indeed, we have a natural repugnance to so doing. We like to continue to believe what we have been accustomed to accept as true, and the resentment aroused when doubt is cast upon any of our assumptions leads us to seek every manner of excuse for clinging to them. The result is that most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already have.’ And as the great Carl Sagan noted ‘You cannot convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe.'

Why do people have a need to believe something without evidence? Most beliefs were instilled when they were toddlers and were too young to question. As the Jesuits are fond of saying ‘Give me the child for seven years and I will give you the man.’ What they mean is, it is accepted that a person’s belief system evolves within a child’s infancy and that a Jesuit upbringing would make the adult a confirmed holy zealot. Not to put too fine a point on it but that is religious indoctrination. If religion were true, it would not need to indoctrinate. Its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences. If something is true and correct, why would it need to be hammered into the brains of defenseless children? Many who do this claim this is what god wants.

Believing in god is not a choice; it’s an ultimatum. You must believe in him or burn in hell forever. This is totalitarianism in its purest form. It’s using fear as its recruiting tool. Reaching your goals through fear is called terrorism.

Some ask ‘what is the harm in religion?’ Simple enough. It is because your belief guides your actions, and that’s what makes religion so dangerous. Faith or belief in an after-life is the single greatest cause of suffering and stupidity inflicted upon humans, by humans, for several reasons.

First, it allows religious leaders to control people by offering hope in the next life, promising rewards, threatening punishment, even sentencing eternal damnation. When a non-believer expresses their views, they are endorsing a position that there is no evidence for belief in any gods. But when a christian or a muslim expresses their view, they are endorsing a belief dictating that people who do not believe as they do deserve to spend an eternity being tortured with fire. Yet non-belief is the position that is considered 'offensive.' Why is it a sin not to believe without evidence when the greater sin is the credulity generated by religion itself? And please don't insist that 'it's not about religion, it's about a relationship with god'...that's the same as saying it's not about sex, it's about putting a penis in a vagina.

Secondly, it negates the immediacy and value of human life right here and now. Believing in life-after-death makes the assumption that people don't really die; they just go on to a spiritual life. This subconsciously legitimizes capital punishment and the death penalty, territorial wars, religious wars, turf wars, gang wars, terrorist attacks, ethnic cleansing, murder, suicide cults, political assassination. People aren't really dying; they're just continuing on in another stage of existence.

Third, it allows people to postpone action in this life (whether humane or humanitarian) in favor of the life yet to come, allowing for political and religious boundaries, derision and division, separatism and succession. Hence, we still have global hunger, border skirmishes, illiteracy, disease, poverty and pestilence, all because the problems of this world are ultimately deemed unimportant when measured against the life yet to come.

Fourth, it offers people hope for a solution to their problems at some future date and enables them to not make a conscious effort to make the necessary changes, or do the necessary work now. It allows them to postpone taking responsibility for their own lives or education (since god will enlighten them and fix everything once they get to heaven). It permits them to sit on their hands in ignorance and inertia while life passes them by.

And fifth, it legitimizes the use of persecution and torture in the name of saving souls for the after-life. This was the justification for the Inquisition. A 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: "for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit." The evils they would commit...means the inquisitors projected into the future what they thought would happen and tortured accordingly. This allowed them to make up whatever they wanted. In other words, the only purpose was to scare people into submission to the church and its teachings. It still is. Believe or be damned. Or more simply 'Turn or burn'!

Religion is the belief in ideas that are, by definition, unproven and without evidence. That is why it is called faith…and faith does not give you answers, it just stops your from asking questions. Faith is the firm belief in something for which no proof exists - you simply want it to be true. It is wishful thinking. The ability to perceive the existence of God does not infer the existence of God. Belief in something is not proof that it is real, it does not equal fact. Nothing is true or false just because we wish or desire it to be so. Most people understand this when confronting other religions and cults, just not their own.

The most disturbing thing about religion is that it is nothing more than a socially acceptable form of preaching hate, bigotry, ignorance, superstition and intolerance. Just witness the outcry against homosexuality. Certain people need to stop using Jesus and god as an excuse for being narrow-minded, bigoted jerks!

Personally, I choose to live by these words: Above all things, truth…Not belief, not faith, not religion, not god nor gods, not patriotism, not ideology, not hopes, not dreams, not reward, not comfort, but truth….for better or for worse, truth.

This post is a compilation of some of the best arguments against theism and religion I have come across. I have simply assembled them into what I think is a fitting tribute to their wisdom.

                                                                        Blinded by religion

A hell of a thing for graduation...forays into stupidity by Oklahoma school officials

When I first read it, I thought ‘they’ve got to be joking’! Because the word ‘hell’ was used in a graduation speech last May, an Oklahoma high school valedictorian has had her diploma held for ransom.

Kaitlin Nootbaar (above at her graduation),  who maintained a 4.0 GPA at Prague High School was told by school officials that because she used the word ‘hell’ in her speech, she would not receive the diploma until she wrote an apology. Who this was supposed to assuage, they didn’t say. Nor does it appear anyone was offended by her remark. So whose feathers got ruffled and how will this make amends?

In her remarks to the assembly, which had been inspired by a comparable speech from "Eclipse: The Twilight Saga", Ms. Nootbaar described how annoying it was to be constantly asked what she wants to do after graduation. She then responded "How the hell do I know? I've changed my mind so many times."

In the version she submitted to the school for approval, "hell" was "heck." But at graduation, "hell" was the word that came out. And now, the school valedictorian is being chastised by school officials for simply stating how she felt.

What the hell?

Why was it so offensive, especially in the context with which she used it? Did she offend God by simply stating she didn’t know what ‘the hell’ she would do after graduation? Is saying hell considered blasphemous? Did a large segment of the audience gasp and walk out, or try to shout her down? Do you, the reader, feel offended, distressed and, maybe a little less faithful because she used a common word to indicate being a teen who is perplexed due to no clear picture of her future? How can people in the 21^st century be so narrow-minded, easily offended, and ignorant?

Naturally the school declined to comment on the matter, Prague schools Superintendent Rick Martin stating it was “confidential and we cannot publicly say anything about it,"  in a release to TV station KFOR.

For Rick Martin, I have this to ask, ‘Who the hell do you think you are?’

Pussy Riot are victims of the ghosts of the KGB

        I know very little about the Russian punk band Pussy Riot, but I know when they are being railroaded in a court. Hooliganism is one of those archaic terms the former KGB members across Russia still like to use to round up anyone who does something that displeases them, and it doesn't even have annoy them greatly. Pussy Riot lampooned the Russian Orthodox Church and juxtaposed political jibes at Vladimir Putin in the mix. While nothing was destroyed and services were conducted only minutes later. Pussy Riot is now facing possible several month long sentences for simply speaking their minds in a church about Putin.
      In the U.S. and Britain, bands have called for acts of violence against the 'man', 'the pigs', 'the establishment', 'the powers that be' and the military repeatedly, In Japan, Italy, and German...rock and even traditional native music bands have pushed the envelop to see how much influence their songs and words can have on the government and the secret police units that constantly watch them. But they are not being incarcerated over it.
      Pussy Riot shouldn't be either.Unless inciting violence, they should be given every right to perform their music...even if only a few like it. Caveat Emptor. Will they go free? I'll believe it when I see it.