DangerousTalk

In the early twentieth century, America was being held hostage by large corporations, monopolies, and trusts. The Governor of New York at the time made it his business to fight back against those monopolies and trusts which had control over both political parties. These industries were so afraid of the Governor’s ability to fight against them, that they debated among themselves to find a way to neutralize the Governor. Their solution was to ask him to run for Vice-President.

America’s first Vice-President, John Adams, made it clear that the position of Vice-President was, “the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.”  So the idea of promoting this trouble making Governor to an insignificant office seemed like a good idea… until the President died. Then Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt had the means and the will to stop the monopolies, trusts, and corporate greed which he believer was a direct attack on American Democracy and on the American people. Teddy Roosevelt did not become President because he was popular, but rather because he was unpopular and yet today we consider him to be one of the greatest Presidents America has ever had.

Fast forward 100 years and that corporate greed has reasserted itself. The health insurance industry is said to be the sixth largest aspect of the American economy according to our current President who claimed on Wednesday that it was too big to overhaul “from scratch.” In other words, it is too big to scrap and too big to fail. Roosevelt understood that a business which is too big to fail is too big to exist. The Government should not be run by large corporations, but should instead be run by and for the People.

I don’t think we need to start “from scratch” as the President claimed, but I do think we need to dramatically overhaul this system. It shouldn’t be the 6th largest aspect of our economy. It shouldn’t have that much control over our government. These corporations shouldn’t be spending millions a day to buy off Congress and the Senate.

President Obama is no Teddy Roosevelt. He seems more concerned with trying to get the Republicans to like him than trying to do what is right for the American people. A fellow internet blogger, Anne Lamont put it best when she wrote last week, “Mr. President, stop trying to woo the Republicans. They are just not that into you, sir.”

The sad fact is that the Republican Party is playing politics with the American people. When America was attacked on 9/11, Democrats stopped playing politics and united behind our Republican President. They did not want our President to fail even when they disagreed with him. However, Republicans do want our current Democratic President to fail and they don’t care if the American people suffer because of it. They will not vote for any bill President Obama tries to push forward even one which gives them everything they want and nothing that progressive Democrats have been asking for. The President might as well stop playing paddy-cake with these people and start actually working to bust up the health care monopolies and trusts.

Filed under: healthcare, Obama, Politics | 3 Comments »

Blogger’s Note: I know that today is Patriot Day/The Anniversery of the 9/11/2001 attacks, and yes, it is even my birthday (feel free to donate a few bucks as a birthday present if you are so inclined). The 9/11 attacks are in the past and today I still need to discuss issues in the present so that we can build a better future. Next week sometime I will post on 9/11 or keep checking the Examiner page.

———————————————————

Lately I have been very annoyed that President Obama has caved in to the massive power of the Republican minority on Health Insurance Reform. Many of my fellow Democrats are not as fired up and pissed off as I am. Many tell me that we need to take “baby steps” or that I need to learn how to “compromise.” Some even say that the President can’t just push through real meaningful health insurance reform.

Well, I voted for a “Yes We Can” President, not a “No We Can’t” President. The fact of the matter is that former President George W. Bush was able to push through a war in Iraq and the US PATRIOT Act without 60 Republican Senators. Why can’t Obama get his agenda done with 60 Democratic Senators? Former Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Van Jones, answered this question best in a recent town hall event, “Because Republicans are assholes.” Jones “resigned” in part because of that remark.

Now I am all for “baby steps” when we need to take them, but let us not forget that we have 60 Democratic Senators, control over the House, and the Presidency. We don’t need to take baby steps. We can take big boy steps now. If we have to be assholes to assholes in order to get real meaningful reform done, than I am all for it.

As for compromise, I am supporter of compromise. I am willing to compromise on the Medicare4All idea which I think is by far the strongest and best health insurance reform plan in favor of the weaker but more capitalistically oriented Public Option which would compete with the private insurance company monopoly to force lower prices and higher quality of service. But to compromise on the compromise is just one compromise too many. The plan that the President outlined on Wednesday is basically a Republican plan with a few Democratic ideas thrown in. That is no longer compromise that is giving up almost completely. When you do everything that the other side wants and almost nothing that your side wants, you have lost. That is not a compromise, it is surrender.

Why is Obama caving in here? The Democrats have a filibuster proof Senate majority, control of the House, the Presidency, and… and all the political capital Obama earned during the campaign. If Bush had this must going for him, he would have probably taken us to war with Canada and then England (those Communists with their universal healthcare systems are a threat to Democracy).

Now, I know some Democrats will whine about how not all the Senators are supporting a strong health insurance reform. But let’s face the facts, we don’t need them. We only need 51 Senators to pass this thing as long as the other nine don’t join a Republican filibuster, we don’t have a problem. Can you imagine if they did join a Republican filibuster against a popular Democratic President? They would be out of a job at the next election cycle. Yeah, that’s right; the President is popular and has a lot of political capital from the election. Political capital he will surely lose if he cannot get meaningful health insurance reform passed. He can go up to any of the Democratic Senators who have been bought by the big health insurance monopoly and say, “If you don’t support me, I will find some other Democrat in your district to replace you.” He can go and campaign for some young upstart challenger who will play ball. This is called strong-arming and if a Senator believes that the President as the means and the balls to do it, they will play ball. President Obama certainly has the means, but alas no balls.

So with all this going for the President, how did he become the “No I Can’t” President? Is he really that ineffective that even with everything going for him he still can’t get anything meaningfully done? I mean come on. Even Jimmy Carter could have gotten something done with all this backing him up. Don’t get me wrong, I love Carter but let’s face reality, he wasn’t all that effectual.

Let me put it this way. What would Obama need to be able to really get something meaningful done here? 60 Senators, the House, and strong political capital aren’t enough, what would he need? If there were 100 Democratic Senators in the Senate and 435 Democratic Congress people in the House could Obama get something meaningful done? I don’t think he could. The sad fact is that President Obama doesn’t want real health insurance reform. If he did, he would do it now. Because the fact is that he is in the strongest political position one needs to be in short of an all out dictatorship.

Instead, Obama talks a great game about how “this is the season for action,” and how “we did not come to fear the future, but to shape it,” etc. But when the time comes to put up or shut up, Obama has nothing meaningful to say. All I hear is, “No we can’t.”

Filed under: Current Events, healthcare, Obama, Politics | 4 Comments »

So I watched the President’s big speech last night and some of the reactions that followed. The President complimented the Republicans and even took many of their ideas and put them in his plan. He scaled back the Public Option so that it is only an option for those who can’t afford to pay for health insurance from the health insurance companies. The President estimates that to be less than 5%. He also took the Republicans “suggestion” that health insurance be mandatory so that every American will need to buy health insurance from the large health insurance monopoly.

While the President claimed this is similar to car insurance, it is not. People who don’t want to drive a car don’t have to pay car insurance. Many Americans opt out of the car insurance racket by taking the public option of public transportation. Some Americans even opt out of car insurance by taking some form of private transportation like trains, planes, taxis, etc.

In any case, the Republicans got a lot of the things they wanted. So how did they thank the President for rolling over and lining the pockets of the big insurance companies? You guessed it. Congressman Wilson from South Carolina heckled him during his speech by yelling, “You liar!” This wasn’t some townhall event nor was the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina some country bumpkin fooled by watching hours of FoxNews and Glen Beck… oh wait, never mind. In any case, I doubt very much that Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and what ever other ass-clown the Republicans put on TV or Radio are going to think Obama did them this great favor. I bet the farm that they will attack this speech and the President even though he caved in on almost every demand they made.

So what did the progressive movement get from the President? We are after all the reason he is in office. Let’s not forget that Obama was able to fool a lot of progressives into thinking he was the next Robert Kennedy. Obama even fooled Robert’s little brother Teddy into thinking that Obama was a progressive and was really going to reform healthcare. This is what Obama said to the progressive movement, “There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada’s, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everybody.” He continues, “Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.”

In other words, the President didn’t even address the idea of expanding Medicare for every American either gradually or all at once. This wouldn’t be an entirely new system from scratch, but would be taking the Medicare system which millions of Americans over the age of 65 enjoy and expanding it to cover everyone. Instead, he just said that the health care industry is too big to fail, so let’s make it even bigger by making health insurance mandatory and not providing a valid public option to compete with it and help to drive costs down and improve service.

No competition! That is what Obama basically said in his speech. The thing is that he started off by saying, “I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.” Really? I don’t believe that is true. We will have to continue this fight with a stronger leader in the future. Personally, I am tired of these retarded “Blue Dog Democrats” who have sold America out to the big health insurance monopoly. I think it is time that the “Steel Balls Democrats” to start kicking some ass.

Now keep in mind that this plan will go into effect (if passed) in 2012. Just in time for a Presidential election! What a coincidence. Do you think President Obama realized that? OF COURSE!!!

Now on to the Republican rebuttal. Louisiana Congressman Charles Boustany decided to write his rebuttal before reading the President’s speech apparently. He couldn’t even read the teleprompter well. Don’t get me wrong, he probably did better than I would, but I am not giving the rebuttal to the President of the United States on national… no global television and internet.

Boustany kept calling for a bipartisan plan, but had he actually read the President’s speech or listened to it before he offered his rebuttal, he would have seen that the President did offer a bipartisan plan… sort of. He offered a Republican plan with a few Democratic concessions thrown in. Then this ass-clown says that he wanted Obama to tell Pelosi and Reid (two moderate Democrats) to fuck off. Really? Caving in and giving the Republicans almost everything they want wasn’t enough, he actually wanted the President to bitch-slap his fellow Democrats… oh wait, Obama did pretty much bitch-slap his fellow Democrats. Boustany also repeated the lie that the President’s plan would add billions to the debt. Obama made it clear that he would not sign any plan that would increase the debt more than a dime.

It should be noted that the Republicans picked Boustany because he is also a Doctor. However, the Republicans must have had the John McCain vetting team, because this guy is crazy! Not only does he think Obama isn’t a US Citizen, but he also was sued three times for malpractice as a physician.

As for the President, he said it himself, “Now is the season for action,” “Now’s the time to deliver on health care.” So Mr. President, are you going to take action and deliver on real health care or are you going to be a big pussy and the bitch of the health insurance monopoly?

Filed under: Current Events, healthcare, Obama, Politics | 16 Comments »

While intelligence is no guarantee that someone knows what they are talking about, the fact is that statistics show that the more educated someone is the less likely they are to 1. Vote Republican and 2. Believe in a personified deity. Conversely, the less educated someone is the more likely they are to vote Republican and to believe fundamentally in the Christian God.

Absolutely there are very smart and well educated people who both vote Republican and believe fundamentally in Christianity. However, these statistics alone should at least give well educated Christian Republicans pause.

Let’s think about this for a minute. Statistically speaking the more someone knows the less likely they are to vote Republican and the more someone knows the less likely they are to believe in a personified deity. Sure it is possible that a educated Christian Republican is both smarter and wiser than the majority of educated people, but if you look around at the sea of Christian Republicans are uneducated and in many cases not all that bright, you should consider the possibility that maybe you just might be on the wrong side of these issues.

Who is the stupidest Democrat? When we hear a question like this, what is the first name that jumps into your mind? I can’t think of an obvious answer. Maybe a Republican can. Maybe a Republican will just pick the Democratic flavor of the month without any real reasoning to back it up. That is not what I am talking about. If someone were to ask me who the stupidest Republican is, there would be a multitude of names that jump right out at me. Not to be insulting or anything, but let’s face facts, George W. Bush was not the smartest knife in the draw. Sarah Palin is clearly an idiot. I doubt very much most Republicans would claim that she is some sort of intellect. Michelle Bachman is rapidly moving up the stupidity chart and Bobby Jindal is not far behind. If I took at least a minute or two to think about it, I could probably rattle off some more names, but the point was to see what names jumped out at you.

So while I am not saying that the majority of educated hold a particular view must be correct, I do think it is something to think about and ponder. Why is it that the more people know the less likely they are to be fundamentalist Christians and the less likely they are to be Republicans? Could this be why fundamentalist Christians and Republicans in general oppose better education for the masses?

Filed under: anti-intellectualism, education, palin, Politics, Religion | 12 Comments »

While the world has already had the healthcare debate and almost every western nation on the planet has realized that some sort of Universalized Healthcare is best way to go, America still seems to be on the slow side. The plan that most progressive Americans favor is the Medicare4All system which basically is the system that already exists and works so well that even Republicans know it would be political suicide to vote against it for those over 65 years of age.

In July, New York Congressman Anthony Weiner introduced an amendment to HR 3200 which called for the end of Medicare. He then went on the floor of the House and dared Republicans to vote for his amendment.

During the 2008 Presidential primary campaign people told me that Barack Obama was a progressive candidate. One man even compared him to Robert Kennedy. No matter how much I tried to tell people that Obama was not a progressive and was in fact a moderate who believed that he would just sit down and sing kumbaya with the Republicans, no one listened. The fact is that Obama got elected largely because he was able to trick the majority of Democrats that he was a progressive candidate.

When President Obama started the healthcare debate, the very first thing he did was to take the progressive option of Medicare4All off the table in favor of a compromise he called the Public Option. The fact is that now we have 60 Senators in the Senate and we don’t need to compromise America to appease the Republicans. We don’t even need all the Democrats as long as none of the Democrats attempt to filibuster. Obama could just tell the Democrats to vote for whatever plan he wants and if they don’t he won’t campaign for them. He could even threaten to campaign for some other Democrat in a primary if the current Democratic Senator doesn’t play ball.

But no, Obama is not a progressive. He is a kumbaya kind of guy. So he still pushed for his Public Option in the hopes of getting some Republicans to sign on. Well, now no Republicans have signed on and the Health Insurance Industry has bought some of the Democrats. Tomorrow Obama is going to address the full Congress in primetime. He is expected to be giving up on the Public Option in favor of making Health Insurance mandatory for all Americans for the increased profits of the Health Insurance Industry. In other words, he is expected to make the Health Insurance Monopoly/Trust stronger!

Maybe the President will surprise everyone and come into this speech fighting. But that is really unlikely. The fact is that America voted for Obama because they thought he was a progressive. The time has come to draw a line in the sand. If Obama guts the Public Option, we need to gut him politically. We need to send a clear message that if the Public Option goes and America is left with no real reform, we need to put up a real progressive against Obama in the 2012 primary. Personally, I think the best choice politically would be for Howard Dean to run against Obama should Obama abandon the Public Option. While I like Kucinich better, the sad fact is that most Americans will not vote for him. Dean still has a lot of credibility and is progressive enough to make it work.

Filed under: healthcare, Politics | 19 Comments »

I find it funny that almost every time I get into a conversation with a Republican about Health Insurance Reform, they call me a Communist. Sometimes they will do it outright and sometimes they will just imply it by putting “Comrade” in front of my name.

Why would they label me a Communist? Well for starters, I am supporting the Medicare4All plan for health insurance. This would be a government take over of the health insurance industry. So I can see where they may have some justification for this label. However, the government has taken over a few other industries in the past and no one claims that we are a Communist nation as a result. For example, the post office is already government run. So that would mean that anyone who gets mail is supporting Communism, right? Anyone who likes getting mail must be a Communist. What about the police? If you like the police, then you must be a Communist because the government pays their bills too. And then there is the military. Apparently, during the Cold War we had Communists fighting Communism.

Republicans seem to think that Canada and Great Britain are both Communist countries. After all they have “evil” socialized medicine. When you think about it, Republicans must also think that every American over 65 years of age are Communists too. They are all on Medicare and seem to love it. They love it so much so that one retarded Republican yelled to his Senator during a townhall meeting that Medicare was great and that the government better stay out of it. So why is it that if I think everyone should be able to go on Medicare, I must be a Communist?

I don’t actually think Republicans know what Communism really is. They just like to throw that word around. Didn’t we go through that period in American history? I thought that the Red Scare was over. Communism isn’t the government take over of one industry. It is the complete take over of all economic and social activity under a one party totalitarian government. The fact is that the Medicare4All plan is not Communism. But that aside, President Obama’s plan wasn’t for Medicare4All. His plan was a compromise plan calling for a Public Option. In other words, Obama wants to introduce new competition into the market.

Currently, the level of competition within the Health Insurance Industry is very low. This is in part because most Americans don’t choose their health insurance company, their employers do. For many larger companies, the cost of switching back and forth between health insurance companies is more costly than the savings that the company would get from switching. In any case, the Public Option would be a new competitor in the marketplace.

While it is true that this would be an unfair competitor in that the Public Option would be much cheaper since it doesn’t have the large overhead of the major insurance companies, Republicans should trust that the market will adjust. For example, one common criticism I hear from Republicans is that government programs are inefficient and just horrible. That being the case, if the Public Option is really that bad, no one will choose it. People would pay more money to get the better product, right? Isn’t that how Capitalism works?

People would be able to choose (that is freedom, right?) to either go with the private health insurance company that their employer has enrolled them into or they can opt out of that in favor of the Public Option. If they switch to the Public Option and it sucks, than they can switch back. While it is true that the private insurance companies will probably have to lower their prices and profit margins a little bit to compete, that is what Capitalism is all about. They will also probably have to be a better service if they want to keep customers. But again that is the nature of Capitalism.

When you boil down the ideas of Capitalism and Communism, you see that it is really all about competition. The reason why Capitalism is great is because competition forces companies to continue to better their product or service in order to compete with rival companies in the same industry. The problem with Communism is that without competition, there is no incentive to improve products or services.

Republicans seem to not want competition within the health insurance industry. Why is that? Well, most Republican politicians and even a fair number of Democratic politicians have been bought by the insurance industry. The insurance industry doesn’t want competition. They certainly don’t want real competition. As it is, they are the only game in town. With the Public Option, they will have to actually compete.

The sad fact is that the Health Insurance Industry has no one to blame but themselves for this. If they made sure that their customers were happy and that everyone loved their coverage and low prices, no one would want to reform the system. But instead, they became greedy and decided to raise prices ridiculously and lower their quality of service. People’s medical bills weren’t being covered because of loopholes in their policies designed specifically to find reasons why the Industry shouldn’t pay claims. People who would have higher medical bills due to “preexisting conditions” would have premiums that they couldn’t pay or were just kicked out of the system altogether. The Health Insurance Industry has a poor and expensive service and there is no real competition forcing them to improve.

Filed under: Current Events, healthcare, Politics | 12 Comments »

The other day, I got a bill from the doctor because my health insurance company decided that it wasn’t going to pay the full bill. I don’t know why this is yet, but at the time I was really pissed off. This is the second time (and second health insurance company) that screwed us. In any case, I posted a comment about this situation on my facebook account.

When I made my personal frustration into my political opinion that the health insurance system in this country needs to be reformed, a Republican friend commented that it is now a personal issue for me, but that now isn’t the time to make it a political issue. While my wife explained to me that he was just showing his personal support for me without having to get into the argument, I still think it speaks about how people view politics.

It is easy for politicians in Washington or in state capitals to lose sight of the fact that all politics is personal. Those in the media and the various political pundits also forget. But the fact is political issues effect people personally. Whether we have an option for insurance without the big insurance companies affects people’s lives. Millions of lives are being affected every day because of politics. Many of the people who get involved in politics do so to serve those in their community.

I find that Republicans tend to loose sight of this fact much more than Democrats do. Once a politician (Democrat or Republican) is in Washington for a long time, they too loose sight of this fact. While this is not always the case, it is certainly a trend.

Americans have to remind our elected representatives that their decisions affect people’s lives and that they don’t work for the big corporations. They work for us. They serve at our discretion.

Republicans like to rail against “The Government” but the fact is that “We the people” are the government. We have no one to blame but ourselves. Americans can call or e-mail our representatives, institute or take part in local letter writing campaigns, and we can show up at our representative’s events. The most effective way to get our representatives to pay attention is to make an appointment and meet with them personally. It helps to have a self-made hand out to give them at the end of the conversation with key points.

The government only has the power that we the people give to them. Today, with the internet it is becoming easier and easier for constituents to organize and let their representatives know that we might sit home or vote for the opposition if we are not taken seriously. Of course, the opposition (the Republicans) are getting crazier and crazier. So that is a concern. But we can let incumbent Democrats know that we will support any primary challenger if they don’t take our interests into account.

Filed under: healthcare, Political Activism, Politics | 7 Comments »

This seems to come up a lot and in many different forms. Often times, Christians or some other believer in the Abrahamic God will accuse atheists of being the very thing that they themselves are. For example, it is not uncommon for a Christian to claim that the atheist position (that no credible evidence has been presented for the existence of God) is an arrogant position to take. So Christians even claim that atheists are, “know it alls.”

The irony is that atheists aren’t making any claims. We are simply saying that Christians haven’t proven their claim. That is some how considered arrogant. Christians often claim not only that their deity absolutely without a doubt exists based on no credible evidence, but they are also claiming that their god is the only god that exists. Isn’t that the more arrogant position?

I also sometimes here that atheism is dogmatic. Or that we indoctrinate children. Those two claims are just laughable at how ridiculous there are. Do Christians look in the mirror and see what traits they see that are negative and then call atheists those traits? Is that how it is done?

I could go on, there are many instances in which some Christian or another will attempt to project their role onto non-believers. I can’t tell you how many times I hear that it takes more faith to be an atheist or that atheists are proselytizing. Some Christian even called me and evangelical atheist. Really? Those things just seems completely ridiculous to me.

The really funny part is that when these Christians say these things, they think they are being insulting. But if they truly think all these traits are bad traits, than maybe they should realize that these are all religious traits and stop projecting them onto atheists.

Filed under: atheism, Atheism NOT Religion, faith, Projection, Religion | 16 Comments »

Recently I watched a video on YouTube where a girl was talking about how she was involved in a “service” project aimed at helping missionaries give food, water, and medical supplies to a third world country. I have to say that this type of thing makes me sick to my stomach. While I am all for sending food, water, and medical supplies to third world countries, I think they need to leave Jesus at home.

It isn’t a “service” to use people’s hunger and poverty as a tool to convert more followers. A real service would be if one gave them those things without the missionaries. To me, this type of “service” does harm in two main ways. First, if uses people’s hunger and poverty as a recruiting tool and second, Churches use this type of thing as a public relations stunt to get more recruits here in America.

While I don’t think most missionaries are as diabolical as Saint Teresa who would literally bribe people with food. She wanted people to denounce their native religion and pray to Jesus in order to get food and if they don’t, than they can starve until they do. Still, even if most missionaries aren’t in that category and are being much less in-your-face about their proselytizing, the fact is that is their “mission,” hence the term “missionary.” Saint Teresa was just more honest about it.

Some people will tell me that these poor people are getting what they need and does it really matter that they are being taken advantage of by these predators as long as they are getting fed and aren’t starving to death? I think it does matter. For one thing, the ends don’t justify the means. So while I am happy that starving people are getting food and that these people are getting the medical supplies that they need, that still doesn’t justify the intentions of the missionary groups.

Once again, I can pull out the old Staks Test of Church/State Separation and see what is really going on. Let’s say that Tom Cruise decided to lead a team of Scientologists to Ethiopia. They brought with them lots of food, water, and medical supplies for thousands of people. Plus, out of the kindness of their hearts, they decided to give everyone a free personality test and discounted auditing session. What do you think most Americans would think about Tom Cruise’s generosity? What would most Christians think? “Well, at least the Scientologists are feeding all those starving people.” Or would they think, “Those despicable Scientologists are taking advantage of those poor people.”

The only difference here is that instead of free personality tests with every meal, these people get free Bibles with every meal. I hardly call this a service. It is despicable and those who attempt to take advantage of these poor people by using their poverty and hunger against them should be ashamed of themselves. I am all for feeding the hungry and sending medical supplies to those in need, but keep your Jesus out of it.

There are many secular organizations people can support which go into third world countries with food, water, and medical supplies. These organizations are not there to win converts. They are there to help people: DoctorsWithoutBorders.org, UNICEF.org, S.H.A.R.E, The Fred Hollows Foundation, and The Foundation for AIDS Research.

Filed under: Evils of Christianity, missionaries, Religion, Religious Manipulation | 31 Comments »

Over the weekend, United States Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy was laid to rest next to the graves of his two legendary brothers. While I admit that I didn’t watch much of the news coverage I heard that a great many Democrats and even a few Republicans gave speeches about how great Ted Kennedy was both as a United States Senator and as a compassionate human being.

One of the speeches that I did hear was from one of Teddy’s relatives (I think it was his nephew Joe) who told a story about how often times people would come up to him and praise “Uncle Teddy” and talk about how he saved their lives by paying their healthcare bills. For 40 years, Ted Kennedy has fought in the Senate for Universal Healthcare. He wrote, “Every American should be able to get the same treatment that U.S. senators are entitled to. This is the cause of my life.”

Ted Kennedy died in the midst of our nation’s greatest Healthcare debate. The fact is that the American people lost this debate before we even got to the podium. From day one, Medicare for all, Universal Healthcare was taken off the table in favor of a compromise with the Health Insurance Industry called “The Public Option.” Now due to the poor efforts of the President and the rest of the Democratic Party, even this Public Option is now at risk. The rest of the various Health Reform bills have been gutted by gutless politicians afraid of the massive power of the powerless Republican Party.

I think it is time to take the “Public Option” off the table and in honor of the Lion of the Senate we need to put Medicare for all back on the table. Let Kennedy’s death be a rallying cry for the “cause of his life,” Medicare for all. It is time to forget about compromising with Republicans who don’t even know the meaning of the word. It is time for the President to put his foot down and start to put some real pressure on Democrats who have been bought by the insurance companies. It is time for President Obama to use his political capital while he still has political capital to use.

Any Democrat or friend of Senator Kennedy who doesn’t support Medicare for all is just pissing on his grave. It is easy to make pretty speeches about how great Kennedy was, but it is much harder to adopt his cause and help to pass it in his name. Ted Kennedy died and the “cause of his life” is about to die with him. If any Democrat really cares about Kennedy, they will fight to make his dream a reality. To do otherwise is an insult to the man who fought right up to his last days “that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American…will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not just a privilege.”

Filed under: Current Events, healthcare, Politics | 17 Comments »

A recent conversation I had reminded me of one of my favorite YouTube videos by God Is Imaginary. But before I post that video, I want to talk about these bubbles a little bit. I find that most Christians think that they have the only correct answer to the religion question. Not only do most Christians believe that Christianity alone is the only valid path to Heaven, they also tend to believe that their view of Christianity is the only true interpretation of Christianity.

Any Christian who believes differently is for some reason not a “true” or “real” Christian. The analogy I often hear from Christians is that just because something is in a garage, that doesn’t make it a car. This is a pretty weak analogy, but they use it all the time to justify why they are the real Christians and other people who call themselves Christians are not. But the really funny thing is that those other Christians are saying the same thing about them.

Every Christian has a rationalization for why their view of Christianity is the correct view and that those other Christians have the incorrect view and are misusing the label of Christian. Every Christian has Bible verses that they can depend on to re-enforce their rationalization. Every Christian is living in a bubble of self-delusion when it comes to their particular view of Christianity. And every Christian is living in a bubble of self-delusion when it comes to their religious views in relation to other religion’s religious views. In fact, every religious person is living in the same bubble of self-delusion.

Filed under: delusion, Real Christians, Religion | 11 Comments »

Recently I have gotten into conversations with multiple Christians who claim to be liberal and progressive. These are the Christians who mistakenly think that Jesus was this peace and love hippy. These are the Christian who are always telling me that the fundamentalists are not real Christians, but are “misusing” the Bible (despite no solid Biblical evidence for that claim).

Whenever I point out the specific verses in the New Testament in which Jesus says something crazy, hateful, or violent, many of these more liberal Christians don’t even attempt to dispute it. Instead, they start to level personal attacks against me and scream intolerance. Rather than continue that road, I try to stick to the evidence. But no matter how hard I try to keep the discussion civil and to keep it on point and present facts showing that the character of Jesus as portrayed in the Bible was not a nice guy, a surprisingly high number of these more liberal Christians continue with personal attacks and slander. These are the same Christians who are constantly quoting only one verse from Jesus over and over again and that verse is ironically enough the “Turn the other cheek” verse.

This is the essence of the culture war. While many claim that the culture war is between secularists (those who favor a secular society, atheist or not) and the fundamentalists, I don’t think that is really true. I think that the real culture war is between those who believe that all ideas (including religious ones) should be open to honest criticism and those who do not.

It seems that even many of those liberal Christians who claim to know the “true” meaning of Jesus, become just as dogmatic and just as hostile as the fundamentalist Christians they try so desperately to separate themselves from. When we are talking about how religion gets infused with politics, most of these liberal Christians are right there at our side fighting to reinforce the Jeffersonian Wall of separation between church and state, but the moment their own dogmatic beliefs are questioned or honestly criticized, many seem to stop constructive dialog and begin to wage personal attacks.

When I criticize people’s political views, no one has a problem. Those people who hold the political views I criticize will attempt to defend their political views through discussing and debate. Sometimes it gets heated, but it usually stays civil. Everyone acknowledged that political views have every right to be criticized. But when religious views are criticized, all of a sudden everything changes. Most religious people regardless of whether they are fundamentalists or more liberal minded still seem to believe that to even question those religious beliefs is a form of intolerance. Why isn’t political criticism intolerant?

Personally, I think that political views are defensible. People can use logic and reason to argue for or against a political idea or ideology. But religious views are indefensible. No amount of logic or reason will prove a religious idea. It all rests squarely on “faith.” Sure some religious people might offer up arguments one way or the other, but when all is said and done, the argument always ends up on the doorstep of faith. Because religion cannot be defended through reason, logic, or evidence, it’s only real defense comes from an attack on culture. Only by controlling culture to the point in which it has become intolerant to criticize or question religious beliefs can religious believers rest assured that their religious opinions will never change.

Filed under: conversation, culture war, discussion, Religion | 13 Comments »

Last night, the Lion of the Senate Ted Kennedy died. This was all over the news and he was in poor health for the last few months. Ted was the last of the 3 great Kennedy brothers. Being in the Senate for over 40 years, Kennedy had a hand in many of the great progressive advances this Nation has made. He was instrumental in the passage of the Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, The Family and Medical Leave Act, and Title IX of the Education Amendments… among many others.

Ted Kennedy was a progressive titan and his absence in the Senate will be missed especially in our current political atmosphere. While I am glad that Obama is our President, I noted long ago that he was not the progressive that many Democrats thought he was. Despite what Fox News kept repeating, Barack Obama has always been a moderate. He has always been more concerned with bringing people together than with doing what was right. People like Ted Kennedy are needed to push this President in a more progressive direction and to balance out the voices of the religious Republicans.

Ted Kennedy is gone now. Who will be that progressive voice? Who will rise up to be the next Lion of the Senate and to hold Obama accountable for the change that he promised?

The healthcare fight is going on right now and people like Ted Kennedy are needed to help fight for Medicare for All. The healthcare compromise of the “public option” is not in dangerous of being compromised out of existence and into more money for the healthcare industry at the expense of people’s lives. Had Ted Kennedy not being fighting off brain cancer, he would have surely been a strong voice for a Medicare for All type of plan.

Who in the Senate will rise up to take the mantel that Kennedy has left behind? I am not talking about some other progressive like Berne Sanders taking that spot, because that would leave us without a Berne Sanders. I am asking the cowardly Democratic Senators, which one of you will step up and become a Ted Kennedy?

Filed under: Current Events, death, Politics | 1 Comment »

I was having a discussion yesterday with a gay Christian. He assured me that he was a liberal, progressive, person and that he too opposes the “misuse” of Christianity by politicians. The problem is that politicians aren’t “misusing” Christianity any more than he is.

Here again we have liberal Christians who claim the monopoly on the one true interpretation of the divinely inspired Bible. Unfortunately for these liberal Christians, the fundamentalist Christians still have the biblical high ground and even they interpret the Bible rather liberally. People forget that the Bible says that people shouldn’t work on Saturdays, should stone disobedient children, stone adulterers, non-Christians, Blasphemers, and gays. There is a lot of stoning. Jesus wants people to give away all their possessions, hate their family, and pluck their eyes out to avoid the sin of Lust. And those are just some of the highlights.

It makes no sense to me how any gay person can be a Christian when the Bible not only calls homosexuality an abomination, but then says that gays should be killed. Being a gay Christian seems a lot like being a Jewish Nazi or a Black member of the KKK to me. It just seems so insane. Now granted, being any kind of Christian is pretty insane, but to believe in a God and a Holy Book which endorses one’s own murder, it just over the top.

Now I know not all Christians believe that homosexuality is an “abomination,” but they do have to acknowledge that the source of their knowledge about the divine, claims that it is. If you reject that part of the “good book” why would you accept the parts of that same book which claim that there is an all-powerful deity? And let’s say one could “reason” an all-powerful deity without the Bible, there is no way one could “reason” the whole Jesus scheme without the Bible as one’s source.

Filed under: Gay Issues, Real Christians, Religion, the bible | 19 Comments »

I was talking with an atheist friend of mine last week and he asked a fantasy question. What I mean by a fantasy question is that the questioner is reasonably certain that the question will never come up in reality. It is like asking who you would pick for your all star football team or if you could cast the new movie coming out who would you pick. In reality, you would never be in a position to make those decisions and in some cases, a fantasy question might even allow for you to pick people living or dead.

In any case, the question my friend asked is what if we are wrong and there really is a god and it happened to be the God of the Bible. What would you say to God? While some people would take that opportunity to beg to get into the perfect paradise of Heaven and avoid the eternal torture of Hell, I am not one of those people. Socrates said to Crito that it is always better to receive an injustice than to do an injustice and I support that reasoning.

At first I thought it would be best to just tell God to go to Hell (ironically enough). Maybe even give God a lecture on morality or demand some sort of explanation from him for why he fucked the Humanity so much and why he is such an asshole. All those things would be fun, but to really answer this fantasy question in a series manner, I would have to take my cue from Babylon 5.

God is often called God the Father and we are often called the Children of God in the Bible. So with that said, I would tell God that his children have grown up and we don’t need him any more (besides, he was a lousy parent anyway). It is time for God to get the Hell out of our lives. I would demand that God make one last appearance on Earth and not as some dude either. I want got to make the announcement that he is leaving us to our own lives to every human being on Earth at the same time. We would all hear God’s voice in our heads at the same time and know with certainty that it is “I Am.”

He would tell us that he was a bad parent and that we are adults now anyway. We don’t need him any more and are now free to forge our own destiny. No more Heaven. No more Hell. God is leaving the building.

Fantasy question time, “What would you tell God?”

Filed under: atheism, conversation, discussion, god, god the father, Religion | 24 Comments »

The other day, a Christian sent me a two part video series that he made about how his 4 month study of Cosmology proves that God exists. Like most fundamentalist Christians and many mainstream religious believers, he starts off with his dogmatic conclusion that God exists and then works his way into finding evidence to support this already determined conclusion. This quite honestly is not how science works.

In any case, he proceeded to reassert the First Cause Argument by dressing it up with scientific terminology. He even quoted Dr. Stephen Hawking at one point so that he could “prove” that God exists.

The basic question that religious people tend to exploit is that of the First Cause. When scientific observation discovered the Big Bang Theory, many religious people where quite beside themselves. Still today, there are many fundamentalist Christians who can’t accept the Big Bang Theory as being an accurate model for the beginning of the Universe. On the other hand, many do accept the overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang, but then ask the next logical question, what came before the Big Bang. This was the central question in that two part video that was sent to me.

Interestingly enough, in 2007, Dr. Stephen Hawking gave the Berkeley Physics Oppenheimer Lecture which addresses this very question. In that lecture, Hawking starts the lecture with an ancient Creation myth. While he didn’t use the one in the Bible, he could have easily swapped creation myths.

Fairly early in the lecture, Hawking states, “it made no sense to talk of a time before the universe began. It would be like asking for a point south of the South Pole. It is not defined.” Hawking clarifies this statement later in the lecture, “Suppose the beginning of the universe, was like the south pole of the Earth, with degrees of latitude, playing the role of time. The universe would start as a point at the South Pole. As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe, would expand. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe, would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole.”

So what is before the Universe? Incase you could not follow what Hawking is saying from my limited excerpts, if space and time are linked (See Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity) than before the Universe, there was no time. Since the word “before” denotes time, that basically means that there was no before the Universe as we understand time.

But that is not an answer that sits well with the god crowd. Hawking tries to then explain his own theory which is currently the best scientific model for how our Universe began.

“The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe, would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand, but would collapse again while still of microscopic size. They are possible alternative universes, but they are not of much interest since they do not last long enough to develop galaxies and stars, let alone intelligent life. A few of the little bubbles, however, will grow to a certain size at which they are safe from recollapse. They will continue to expand at an ever increasing rate, and will form the bubbles we see. They will correspond to universes that would start off expanding at an ever increasing rate.”

Hawking jokingly concludes that, “We are the product of quantum fluctuations in the very early universe. God really does play dice.” This of course is a play on the famous Einstein quote and not an endorsement of the concept of god as religious people understand the term.

Filed under: First Cause Argument, god of the gaps, Religion, science | 21 Comments »

Why is it that so many Christians assume incorrectly that Christianity has the monopoly on family values? We live in a pluralistic society, and as such, people’s values will clash. Fundamental Christianity in particular has to learn that they cannot censor someone else’s values or culture because those values offend the rigid fundamentalist Christian value system and sensibilities.

I have observed two views with regard to parenting in America. The first view is the predominantly fundamentalist Christian view which over the last 30 years has trickled into the mainstream. That view is that a parent’s job is to protect a child from the evil and sinful world. In this view, all undesirable thoughts, images, sounds, and ideas must be censored or hidden from view because they may corrupt children and “warp their fragile little minds.”

This is now the dominant view of parenting in America and it preaches censorship. This view creates a worldview dominated by fear. It leads to mass censorship and paranoia. The common refrain of those who subscribe to this view is, “What if a child saw that?” My response is usually something like this: “He or she would probably be bored.” Or my more satirical response, “Their eyes would pop out of their sockets of course.”

The problem with any kind of censorship is always the same, who then becomes the arbiter of what is safe? Who determines if something is family-value friendly or what is culturally immoral? Right now it is fundamentalists Christians who are attempting to set those standards for all of us.

On the other hand, there is another view on parenting. It is the view held by many atheists and people of reason in which the job of parents is to guide their children through the world and teach them the critical thinking skills needed to decide for themselves what is appropriate and why. In this view, even undesirable cultural trends are viewed as learning experiences used to help shape a child’s view of right and wrong. Those things are conversation starters, and even children as young as three or four years of age are encouraged to think about the world they live in and to engage their minds.

These parents aren’t failing to make moral judgments on cultural values as fundamentalist Christians like to assert, they are teaching their children how to make moral judgments and cultural values privately. They aren’t presuming to have the monopoly on good taste or high-minded culture either.

Instead of telling children that they are not allowed to see a movie, these freethinking parents are instructing their children to make that determination for themselves. Many Christians can’t imagine a child telling their friends that they don’t wanted to see a particular movie because they think it might not be appropriate for them. This would be a different kind of pride than a parent might have if the child told their friends that they weren’t allowed to see a particular movie. In this case, the child would probably end up seeing the forbidden movie anyway because it was forbidden.

It really does say something about a child’s character when they are allowed to see an inappropriate movie but choose not to see that movie because of their own value judgments. This is the type of parenting that people of reason employ. It involves independent thinking and reasoning on the part of the child, not dogmatic commandments about what is permitted and what is sinful and forbidden.

Filed under: atheism, discussion, education, morality, Parenting, People of Reason, Religion | 48 Comments »

Are religious believers stupid? I get this question all the time ironically enough I get it the most from religious believers. My answer to this question is almost always the same. “Smart people can believe stupid things.” There is no doubt that the belief in the all-powerful god as described in the Torah/Bible/Koran based off of no valid evidence is stupid. It would be like me telling people that the Lorax or Voltemort are real based off of my reading of The Lorax and the Harry Potter books.

It is important to note that all of humankind’s technical advances were made off the shoulders of those who came before us. Charles Babbage couldn’t have invented the computer is Thomas Edison had not created the light bulb. But progress isn’t the only thing that advances of the shoulders of giants. Religious persuasion does too. Just as no person is smarter than the collective wisdom of humankind, no person is smarter than the collective system of religious manipulation.

Christianity is over 2000 years old and Judaism is almost three times as old. Over that time, these religious systems have been developed. They have evolved in such a way that they have become masters of indoctrination and manipulation. These systems start working on people almost immediately after they are born and they pervade our entire society and culture. It is very hard to reach the age of two without already believing in the unbelievable. Some people will surely slip throw the cracks and other will just not focus on that belief or not hold that belief in god strongly. But by the time a child is five years old, whether they believe in an imaginary god or not, they are at the very least aware that other smarter people than they do believe these things. Walk through any town in the country and you will find more churches than schools or libraries. Any curious child walking through town would surely ask what those fancy buildings are for.

Even after childhood, religious systems are not content with just indoctrination. No, these systems have evolved to deal with the possibility that people can slip through the cracks of indoctrination and so other systems of manipulation developed. The religious system has learned to attack people when they are most vulnerable. When emotions run high and people aren’t thinking rationally for a moment or two, religion takes advantage of the situation. Funerals, weddings, when people are down on their luck, after a devastating event or when someone narrowly escapes death, religion is right there ready to manipulate. The religious people who do the manipulations aren’t doing it out of malice either. They too have usually been manipulated into thinking that manipulating others is a good thing. They usually don’t even realize what they are doing and when they do, they see it as part of a greater good.

We are all human and we all are subject to these same systems of manipulation. Even smart people are not smarter than the collective system of manipulation of religious belief. It is only when we are faced with significant questions which religion can’t answer and when we start to focus on the holes in the religious system that we start to question. Sometimes, we start to see those holes on our own. Sometimes, we debate or discuss religion with non-believers and something they say quietly triggers us to think critically. But one thing is certain, how smart someone is has little to do with religious belief.

However, people who focus their time in the fields of science and philosophy tend to see the holes in religion much more because those holes are right in front of them. Those people are also trained to think critically and to question everything. Generally speaking, those in the fields of science and philosophy also tend to be academic minded and intelligent people. But it isn’t that we out-smart the system of religious manipulation, it is that these people and others embrace the system of critical thinking which often times makes short work of the system of religious manipulation.

Filed under: atheism, de-conversion, god of the gaps, Religion, Religious Manipulation | 28 Comments »

After failing to be allowed to teach Creationism in public classrooms across America, Creationists moved to the idea of Intelligent Design. Now that watered down version of Creationism has also been thrown out of public schools for being a ridiculously poor attempt to indoctrinate children about Creationism. But Creationists aren’t giving up. They have now moved to the tactic of calling for schools to “teach the controversy” in relation to evolutionary theory. In other words, since they can’t teach Creationism, they want to make up a fake controversy around evolution. Yet the only people in the scientific community who consider evolutionary theory to be controversial are the fundamentalist Christian Creationists.

With that said, now I am calling for educators to “teach the controversy.” However, I am not talking about evolution. I am talking about the Bible. Texas has passed a law which requires schools to teach the Bible. I talk about this in more detail in this Examiner Article.

There are provisions in the bill which allow for atheists to teach the mandatory Bible class. That being the case, I think that secular educators in Texas should offer to teach this class and they should teach the controversy. It has often been said that the best book for de-converting people from Christianity to atheism is the Bible. So let’s use it since the Texas legislators insist. If you live in Texas and are in the public school system in some capacity (student, teacher, administrator, parent of student, etc.) please let me know what you observe as this new school year begins.

While Texas has a reputation for being a very religious state, I see a lot of Dangerous Talkers living in Texas too. There are a lot of atheistic people there and I want to hear your stories and reports on how these schools implement this bill.

Filed under: anti-intellectualism, church/state, Current Events, education, Politics, Religion | 12 Comments »

When we hear about Islamic suicide bombers, the first thing we generally think of is the promise of 72 virgins. While most Americans laugh at this and think to themselves about how ridiculous it is that some people believe that God will give them 72 virgins if they die correctly, I look at this and see the selfishness of the religion. But Islam isn’t the only selfish religion which dangles the carrot and the stick in front of believers.

I always saw religion as a very selfish system of belief. Believers are always taking or avoiding action in hope or fear of their personal afterlife. While some believers claim to do good deeds to please God, we really have to ask, why please God? No matter what way you slice it the answer is almost always Heaven or Hell.

Even when believers are out there trying to convert people, because they love them so much that they don’t want them to spend all eternity being tortured in Hell, there is still the underlining selfish attitude that they are going to Heaven while you are going to Hell. There is a smugness of righteousness which believers try to hide with false modesty.

So why religious people often claim to be take actions to glorify God, it seems to me that they are really only interested in glorifying themselves. Here is a little test; let’s say that God decided that no one goes to Heaven and no one goes to Hell, would a believer still try to “glorify God?” If we take away the carrot and the stick, will theists still pretend to be righteous and holier-than-thou? I bet they would be pretty pissed off at their God if the promise of Heaven and the fear of Hell disappeared. Most would probably become atheists shortly there after.

There would be little need to glorify God if people knew that God had no intention of glorifying them in return. Atheists on the other hand don’t believe in Heaven or Hell, so most of us act selfishly in our lives without the need for false modesty. But we also act compassionately towards other in a more altruistic way too. We do this partially for the selfish reason that it makes us feel good to help others and partially because we identify with that person in some way and feel empathy for them.

While religious people almost certainly act for the same reasons subconsciously, it is their belief in a Heaven and Hell which often times gets in the way of that empathy. Helping others sometimes just becomes a means to helping themselves get their eternal reward and avoiding eternal punishment.

Filed under: death, morality, Religion | 7 Comments »

Religious people often claim to be the servants, slaves, pawns, etc. of God and make claims such as “God is my co-pilot.” What they mean by co-pilot isn’t that God helps them drive through life, but that God does the driving while they just sit in the passenger seat with a glazed look on their faces. The point that I am trying to make is that many religious people believe that God is in complete control over their lives and they are just puppets in his divine plan.

And yet, these religious people are constantly trying to manipulate God’s divine plan. The paradox is that while religious people claim the false modesty of being powerless, they are the ones who are constantly exerting their power in an attempt to manipulate their deity into treating them with favor. If they follow these crazy rules or live their life in this way or that, God will love them more than he loves others and make them special. God will be on their side. When the end comes, they will be part of the chosen people who will inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Interestingly enough, God’s entire divine plan rests on whether or not these religious people are able to convince God to treat them with favor by following the divine code. If someone doesn’t live their life the way God wants them to, than God may not bless them and his entire divine plan would be ruined. It seems to me that God’s divine plan is at the mercy of these religious people and how well they can follow the crazy directions laid out in their Holy Book. So who is really driving the car of life?

Filed under: image of god, Religion | 11 Comments »

Recently the internet and media have been abuzz because yet another young hot Hollywood celebrity had naked photos leaked on the internets. Ashley Greene is best know for playing vampire Alice Cullen in the film Twilight and is set to reprise the role for the rest of the film franchise. While Miss Greene seems to have been able to get most if not all of the photos removed from the internet, removing the media uproar will be a much harder feet.

This scandal seems different than the Paris Hilton type scandals because the author of the Twilight series is a Mormon. Author Stephanie Meyer has not issued a public statement on this matter, but I do wonder if that may have had something to do with the swiftness of the Greene camp’s effort to get these photos removed from the internet. These photos were clearly posed photos and Greene at least seemed to know that they were being taken. Does that mean that Greene wanted them out in the public? Probably not and I doubt very much that this was a staged publicity attempt by the actress as many on in the media have speculated. Due to Meyer’s religious beliefs, something like this could hurt Greene’s career instead of enhancing it like it has Hilton and others.

Vanessa Hudgens from High School Musical fame on the other hand probably did have some hand in the leaking of her naked photos and I have no problem with that. The problem I have here is with Christian comedian Dane Cook who attempted to embarrass the teen star at the Teen Choice Awards with his comment, “Girl, you gots to keep your clothes!” For starters, Dane “gots to speak correct English.” Second, he too has “gots to keep his shirt on.” I remember watching some of his early standup and he rarely wasted time with jokes before taking his shirt off for his female fans.

Dane Cook was never my cup of tea and I couldn’t care less if he had his shirt on or off. I couldn’t even care less if he took his pants off, it doesn’t make his jokes any funnier. But to publicly embarrass someone else for doing something similar is just hypocritical.

Filed under: Religion, sex | 9 Comments »

Jonathan Swift famously stated that, “You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.” Many of my fellow freethinkers would agree with Mr. Swift on this.

People get into religion for many reasons and yet almost none of which has to do with reason. I think it is fair to say that people in general don’t usually think their way into religion. Most of the time people are indoctrinated into religion. Sometimes however, people are just saturated with religion and then made to focus on that saturation due to some calamity or emotional breakdown. Rarely if ever do people think about religion and reason with their full mental capacity that these ancient stories full of magic and written by bronze aged people with characters such as a deity, his son, and spirit plus angle, demons and a devil must be true.

That being the case, the question remains, was Swift correct?  Can we reason people out of something in which they did not use reason to get into in the first place. Many atheists say no, and yet they themselves are usually evidence to the contrary.

I hold that we can indeed reason people out of religion despite the fact that reason was probably not used to get them to be religious in the first place. That is why I continue in my efforts to educate religious people about religion and to encourage them to reason, think, and analyze their beliefs. Socrates is quoted as saying that “the unexamined life in not worth living.” With that is mind, we should all examine our lives, beliefs, and opinions. Reason may not have gotten a person into the position of religious belief, but reason is most assuredly the way out.

Filed under: atheism, conversation, de-conversion, Religion | 22 Comments »

Often times when I am discussing religion with “people of faith,” they take a few seconds to make multiple assertions about the implications or consequences of non-belief in the same breath. Each assertion of course takes more time to address than the believer takes to assert.

For example, it is not unusual to hear an argument that without God there can be no morality or purpose in life and that Stalin and Hitler were both atheists. And how can an atheist explain how the universe was formed, the perfect design of the Earth, and the laws of nature?

Wow, that is quite a mouthful to answer and while there are answers that atheists can give for each of those points, those answers would take much more time and energy to answer than the time it took for those assertions to be made. What is the best way or even a good way to approach a Christian who makes statements like this? While there is no one answer to this issue, one way that I have found is to write out the answers to these frequently asked questions ahead of time and either direct the person to those answers or come up with a short answer response for each one.

Coming up with short pithy responses to these issues is difficult and I of course welcome ideas and suggestions. In an online discussion, I prefer to just refer people to my already written responses or to just copy and paste those responses. But in an in person discussion, I think we need to come up with the quick pithy response.

I do think that while many people of faith are just ignorant of any criticism of their positions and simply lack the knowledge of how a non-believer would respond, there are some out there who simply see this as a strategy to “run the clock.” For example, you will see this type of tactic used often when conservative talk shows interview atheists. Of course in those cases, the show host usually also throws in a personal attack at the end so that the atheist has to waste his or her time dealing with the personal attack instead of just one of the assertions made.

Filed under: atheism, discussion, People of Reason, Religion | 6 Comments »

Let me start off by defining what exactly I mean by prayer and what I do not mean. Some people use prayer as sort of a “good luck” sentiment to others that the care about. I don’t have an issue with knowing that you can’t help someone, but wishing them good luck or wishing them the best. If that is what someone means by prayer, that have fun.

On the other hand, if you see prayer as a twitter to God and expect that the Creator of the Universe is going to change to conditions here on Earth and help your friend (against his divine plan), than I have a problem. People who engage in this type of prayer actually think they are doing something to help others when they are in fact not.

Instead of actually trying to help others in some Earthy, tangible, and real way, they are pretending to help someone in a “spiritual” make believe way. They then feel like they did their part and are done. What happens next is in the hands of God. If things get better for their friend due to the hard work and efforts of others, they quickly claim credit for the success with claims that their prayers were answered. But if nothing improves or gets worse, they shrug their shoulders and declare that it must have been God’s will or that God has a “better” plan in mind.

Personally, I just wish that these types of Christians who really do believe that an all-powerful deity has their back would just get off their back and help others themselves instead of just praying and calling it a day. On second thought, I will just pray to Zeus, King of the Gods, that Christians stop this type of praying and start helping their fellow human beings themselves.

Filed under: prayer, Religion | 25 Comments »

A long time ago in my studies of Hebrew (which I really can’t read any more), I remembered hearing that the term “neighbor” in Bible didn’t mean the universal neighbor we think of as all humanity as most people interpret it today. The context that it is used by most Christians and Jews today is that in numerous places in the Bible, Yahweh tells Moses to tell his people (the Jews) how to treat their neighbors. For example, in Leviticus 19:18 Yahweh tells Moses to tell the Jews to treat their neighbors as they wish to be treated. Most people see this as the Golden Rule.

As it turns out though, the Golden Rule in the Bible isn’t so golden. You have to suspect something is up when you see that such a statement is in Leviticus. For those who haven’t picked up their Bible’s lately, Leviticus is the same book which claims that people should kill homosexuals and disrespectful children.

In any case, while I remembered hearing that the word “neighbor” wasn’t a reference to the universal neighbor of all humanity, I couldn’t remember the specific justification nor did I recall the source that I originally heard this from. So I couldn’t go and talk about it in any kind of serious manner because I wouldn’t have been able to back it up with facts, evidence, or solid reasoning. While many religious people simply rely on faith, as an atheist I have to rely on facts, evidence, and solid reasoning. So I didn’t bring up that issue in any kind of public setting.

Now however, someone has directed me to an article on this very issue. Here is a quote from that article, “Hebrew word reyacha explicitly means ‘your fellow Jew.’ It does not refer to anyone outside the Jewish faith. ‘Neighbor’ is not an accurate translation for the word reyacha. The Hebrew word for ‘neighbor’ is shachen.”

This being the case, Leviticus 19:18 instructs Jews to love fellow Jews as they would love themselves. This of course changes the Ten Commandments a little bit too. Thou shall not bare false witness against a fellow Jew and thou shall not covet the goods of a fellow Jew. The implication is that Jews can do those things to non-Jews. In fact, non-Jews seem to be less important than Jews in the Bible. Sort of like how many Republicans think of Americans as being more important and better than non-Americans.

While Jews are still commanded to respect all life since God created all life, it is clear that there is a pecking order in how all life should be treated. This is really just tribalism which has grown into three very tribal and warring religions with thousands of warring and tribal sects within those religions.

Filed under: context, Neighbor, Religion, the bible | 7 Comments »

Apparently, the Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority (DART) has decided to pull ads from 20 buses, which were bought and paid for by an atheist group called, “Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers.” So how offensive were these evil atheist ads? See for yourself.

As it turns out, I actually agree with DART’s reasoning. People weren’t getting on the buses because they were offended by these ads. DART was losing money and this was a business decision. The fact that the ad wasn’t a negative ad and was as watered down as possible and was targeting atheists and not trying to de-convert people makes no difference. Now, that doesn’t mean that we have to like what happened and it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t fight to reverse what happened. In fact, I think we should all complain to DART and convince them that this will be a public relations nightmare for them if they don’t re-instate the bus ads.

It sucks that DART has to be put in this situation, but they allowed religious and political ads in the past and that opens them up to this type of thing. But the underlining problem isn’t DART, it is the people who are offended by such a non-offensive ad. I recently wrote an Examiner article about these Billboard and Bus ad Wars.

As more and more atheist groups are forming and organizing, we are starting to advertise more and more and we need to have a game plan for this type of thing. I am encouraging people to look further into this story and to contact DART and convince them that this type of hypocrisy and intolerance would not be good for their public image.  You can call them at 515-283-8111 or e-mail them at dart@ridedart.com.

Filed under: anti-intellectualism, atheism, Current Events, free speech, Religion | 16 Comments »

On occasion, some Christians will inform me that America is a Christian Nation. In the sense that the majority of Americans are Christian that maybe true, but in the sense that Christianity is the national religion, it is obviously false. These particular Christians who claim that America is a Christian Nation really mean to say that America was in some way founded on the Christian belief system. This too is false.

In an attempt to prove their position, they bring out the Declaration of Independence which contains the terms, “Creator” and “Divine Providence.” It is easy to point out that the Declaration of Independence was not America’s founding document (the Constitution is) and that those terms aren’t even Christian terms, but rather they are deist terms. I also point out that Jefferson originally didn’t even have them in the Declaration, but added them at the “request” of the southern colonies.

The Constitution for the record has just two mentions of religion. The first is to protect citizens who seek public office or positions of public rust from a religious test and the second is the First Amendment’s “Establishment Clause.” No mention of Jesus, God, or Christianity at all.

But that rarely sways a Christian who holds to this dogmatic belief that America is a Christian Nation. They then tell me that God presupposes the laws in this country and that he is the lawgiver. Unfortunately for them, the Constitution and even the Declaration are pretty clear about who the lawgiving in America is, and it isn’t God. America’s laws are from the consent of the governed, “we the people.”

Filed under: church/state, Politics, Religion | 30 Comments »

Many times when I am in a conversation with a Christian, they will end the conversation with the Biblical claim that “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.” –Psalms 14:1. The Christian concludes that if someone lacks the belief in a god therefore they must be a fool.

This is one of the many conversation stoppers that Christians use. In my opinion it is no better than sticking ones fingers in one’s ears and yelling, “lalalalala” over and over again. Aside from the fact that his is childish behavior, it also shows a remarkable insecurity in one’s beliefs. The Christians who use this conversation stopper clearly are afraid of actual conversation. The defense for the concept of a deity is so weak on its own and then when Christians start to argue for their particular deity, it just gets embarrassing.

I can’t really blame Christians too much for not wanting to actually have to present any evidence for their claims. Thinking about the claims that they make is not something that is conducive to blind belief. So while most Christians love talking about their beliefs and their faith, when they start to encounter thought provoking questions, it is no wonder that they resort to the old Psalm 14:1.

It is much easier to simply make claims and assert that they are “The Truth” without having to actually think about those claims or back them up with actual evidence. Could you imagine if everyone simply asserted ridiculous claims as Truth? What if scientists and doctors did that?

The real truth is that only fools claim truth without presenting evidence while at the same time trying to stop the conversation through name-calling. Only a fool would assert a ridiculous claim without any valid reasoning.

Filed under: anti-intellectualism, Psalm 14, Religion | 24 Comments »

Over the weekend, I attended my cousin’s wedding. My cousin describes himself as a, “Hardcore Insane Jew.” He belongs to some sort of Orthodox offshoot. In fact he and I had recently started conversing on the topic of religion and he expressed a strong interest in continually those discussions.

While there were many aspects of the wedding that were strange, odd, creepy, and fascinating to me, I don’t really think it is appropriate to talk about a lot of it at this time. But I did have one conversation that I think was particularly noteworthy. Toward the end of the reception, I noticed that there was a small service of some kind going in one corner of the reception hall. As someone who finds religion fascinating, took my prayer book from my table and walked over. I sat in the back next to my cousin’s brother (my other cousin who isn’t really all that religious).

After a chitchatting with my cousin for a few minutes, I asked a girl next to me where we were in the prayer book so I could follow along. She told me that she didn’t read Hebrew, so she wasn’t sure. I mentioned that I don’t remember how to read Hebrew any more, but I was interested in reading the English translation in the prayer book. This is where the real conversation started. She asked if I was Jewish to which I replied that I used to be. She was confused at first and so I clarified that I am no longer a believer. With a questioning look on her face she said, “You don’t believe in God at all?” I of course said no, but she was still confused and had to ask the question again. I told her that I gave up belief in God around the same time I gave up belief in Santa Claus.

The thing is that the whole time, I was keeping to conversation lighthearted. I wasn’t questioning her religious beliefs or even being critical of them. I was just answering her questions honestly and with a positive attitude. She asked if I had converted to atheism and I told her that I had de-converted to atheism. She was again confused, but let it go. She then asked me why I don’t believe. I could have taken that question and really ran with it. I could have talked about the history of the Biblical God (See Karen Armstrong’s book, “The History of God”), or how the God of the Torah seemed to be an evil tyrannical ass-clown, or just the ridiculousness of the Torah stories as a whole. But, I decided to play it cool and just tell her that I see no evidence to support the claim that a god exists.

This young woman told me that I should talk to my cousin (who’s wedding this was) and he would re-convert me. I gave a slight laugh and told her that we had started that conversation on facebook already and that she is free to check out his note to me and my note in response. To be honest, I was actually disappointed in his opening comments on religion. I informed her that I had studied many religions and found them all to be invalid so far. She was curious about my favorite of the religions that I had studied and so I told her that I really didn’t like any of them, but if I had to pick the one that was the best of the lot it would probably be some branches of Buddhism.

This is where the conversation took an interesting turn in my opinion. This girl who was part of some kind of Jewish Orthodox off-shoot said that she considered Buddhism to be a sin. To my knowledge, “sin” is a Christian thing, not a Jewish thing. So I wonder if some cult branches of Orthodox Judaism are starting to use the Christian cult playbook. It is something that I hope to explore in the future. The conversation went on for a bit longer as we discussed the wedding and the wedding couple, but I found that part of the conversation particularly noteworthy and thought I would share it. I particularly liked how I just answered her questions in a nonchalant fashion. It was clear that this girl had never really thought about someone not believing in God and that just by stating it in the way that I had, will surely cause her to think about her religion in a way she had never done before. The seeds of doubt have been sown.

Filed under: conversation, Orthodox Judaism, Religion | 8 Comments »