Resolve to ignore Billy Graham

Looking through my local newspaper, I came across another Q & A column by Billy Graham. It wasn't surprising to see it was long on judgement and short on sense. Here's the text from the article:

With Christ, you can keep your New Year's resolutions
By BILLY GRAHAM

DEAR BILLY GRAHAM: I made a whole list of New Year’s resolutions this year, and I’ve hardly kept any of them, although the year has barely started. I really want to be a better person, but something keeps holding me back. Why am I such a miserable failure? — N.K.


A: I suspect that if a poll were taken of all the people who made a list of New Year’s resolutions this year, the majority would probably say what you’ve said. Jesus’ words apply to us all: “The spirit is willing, but the body is weak” (Mark 14:38).

Why can’t we keep our resolutions to become better people? Sometimes, of course, it’s because our resolutions haven’t really been resolutions but only vague wishes. Other resolutions may have been sincere, but they were unrealistic or the person who made them had no practical plan to reach their goal. I might resolve to lose 30 pounds, for example, but if I have no realistic plan to do so, I probably won’t get it done.

But the real problem is inside of us, within our own hearts and minds. Although we may hate to admit it, we are morally and spiritually crippled, unable to do everything that’s right and turn away from everything wrong. The reason, the Bible says, is because we all have a spiritual “disease,” the “disease” of sin.

This is why we need Christ, for only he can forgive our past and give us the strength we need to do what is right. Don’t despair, but repent of your sins and by faith ask Christ to come into your life. Then ask him to help you become the person he wants you to be — and he will, as his Spirit works within you. The Bible says, “I can do everything through him who gives me strength” (Philippians 4:13).

So according to Mr. Graham, the reason people don't keep their resolutions is because they just need more Jesus. Seriously? This is a rather odd claim for him to make when you consider that the most recent survey of religiosity in America showed 78.4% of Americans to be Christians. Meanwhile, about 60% of Americans say that they make New Year's resolutions. Assuming resolution trends are equal by religious group, that would mean that 78.4% of resolutionaries are Christians, 4.7% belong to other religions, and 16.1% were 'unaffiliated/no religion' (0.8% didn't answer). Meanwhile, 72% of people who made resolutions end up breaking them.

As you can see, even if every non-Christian failed to keep their resolutions, the vast majority of those that failed at their resolutions were still Christians. But I'm sure we all know that it's expected that Christians and non-Christians alike would have similar success rates with their resolutions. This brings the failure rate of Christian resolutions even higher. So Mr. Graham, considering the fact that most who break their resolutions are Christian, how is it that they failed? After all, you were the one posting that one can keep resolutions once they've welcomed Christ into their lives. If these stats actually suggest anything, it's that Christianity actually has an adverse effect on one's ability to keep resolutions. Also, what about the non-Christians who do keep their resolutions? They don't have the Christ that you are deeming necessary for success. It should be fairly obvious now that your advice is no more than meaningless tripe.

But then there's the personal factor. The questioner asks why she is such a miserable failure, and Graham goes on to give Jesus credit for strength and success. It's rather sad that 'loving' Christian's like Graham have no problem with the concept that all humans are born terrible, defective and powerless. Such is a horrible picture to paint of humanity. NK, considers themselves a miserable failure. But are they? In Graham's eyes, anyone who doesn't worship his good 24/7 is. But in mine, I'm not going to consider someone a 'miserable failure' just for not keeping some silly resolutions.

I don't even make any, but I know that people tend to make them with good intentions. Sometimes admitting to yourself  that you need to eat better, lose a few pounds, or even spend less money is half the battle. Where I would tell you that there is no substitute for determination, Graham would tell you that you are powerless without his god. This is a terrible disservice to humanity and a slight to the personal capability of one and all. This attitude can leave those that believe this feeling defeated before they even begin. You are not powerless, you do not need some supernatural guide to accomplish even the simplest goals. The power is withing you, it's within me, it's in all of us. We are all capable of more than Graham would give us credit for. So when you want to accomplish something, work hard and stay mentally strong. And when you succeed, don't thank some invisible force. Rather give yourself a well deserved pat on the back, because you were doing all the work all along.

-BH


Please share subscribe and comment.

Japan: Two years later

This entry is going to be a bit different from what I typically write about. Today's post is more of a paying of respect, that the usual critique and response I engage in. But I'll be back to that before you know it...

Two years ago, the eastern coast of Japan was struck with a terrible tragedy. On March 11, 2011 a 9.0 earthquake at 2:46PM (JST). While the earthquake off the coast did do damage, it was but a prelude to the true path of destruction that was rushing toward shore. This devastating blow came in the form of an incredibly powerful and devastating tsunami. The footage of the destructive water was shocking and almost hard to believe. Once the waters receded, that path of destruction was shockingly severe. The nuclear power plant in Fukushima was badly damaged and left crippled. $235 billion of  physical damage was done. But the real toll were the many lives that were lost. The final toll was 15,881 dead, 6,142 injuries, and 2,668 still missing.

 Reuters/Mainichi Shimbun

Though the death toll was great, there were also encouraging signs that caused my respect for the Japanese people to swell. Here in the United States, the raindrops had barely stopped falling from hurricane Katrina, and looting quickly became widespread. In stark contrast I didn't hear of any looting after the Japanese tsunami. Perhaps it's due to their disciplined culture. Maybe the magnitude of the disaster made it clear that they needed to come together. But one thing is pretty clear to me... That is not how it would have happened here. In the US, I feel that the usual cycle of looting would have been the norm, rather than a rarity as it was in Japan.

Then there were the lines for food. Immediately following, markets were rationing food to the effected citizens. The set up was an open table/cart and everyone was told what they were allowed to take. In such a panic situation, you would think that these food limits would be ignored, and that people would just storm the table, grab what they could, and fight over the scraps. But that's not what happened. People actually queued to wait their turn in line, and then took only what was permitted in a very orderly pattern.

The situation at Fukushima still isn't solved, but there were workers who were willing to risk it all to try and solve the situation. Two hundred pensioners actually volunteered to go into the radioactive conditions and do any work that was needed to try and bring the situation under control. Their argument was that if anyone is going to go in and expose themselves to that radiation and the risks involved, it should be them. They were over sixty years of age, and have less life to live, thus less time for the effects of the radiation to manifest. Willing to lay down their lives, or at least cut them short so that the younger generation need not face that danger. Talk about amazingly selfless! I fear that if that happened here, the priority would be on who to blame, and many going in would be more concerned with lawsuits than a selfless desire to help.

Okay, so these people lost a lot. So what do you think the reaction would be when someone who lost everything finds a safe full of money washed up in the debris? Most people would probably keep it. But what did the Japanese do? They gave it back! In total, the peoples finding money returned $78 million in lost cash. Most was in wallets and purses, but safes were found as well. One safe containing $1 million was found! Those finding the money reasoned that if a safe was washed up, that means a house was destroyed. These people lost everything and could certainly use this money they also likely considered lost. So even though those finding the money were also in need, they held the return to it's rightful owner (in need), over benefiting from another's tragedy, even though they themselves were in need as well. Amazing!

Then there is the recovery. Above is a picture of a road that was badly damaged by the earthquake. How long do you think this repair took? Weeks? Months? Try six days on for size! Yes, this amazing repair only took six days. I don't know about the road crews where you live. But my local crews take weeks just to get out and fix a pothole. I don't even want to try and estimate how long this repair would take!

Then there's the following pictures that show the state of some of the badly effected areas from hurricane Katrina here in the US. These photo were taken five years after the storm hit.

Julie Dermansky

Now let me tell you that the cost of hurricane Katrina was $81 billion. As we stated earlier, the 3-11 Japanese earthquake/tsunami caused $235 billion of damage. So after two years, how do you think the sites look today? Well, scroll down and look at the before and after images to see for yourself...

Getty Images

The transitions are astonishing! The masses of debris have been removed. Almost all of the heavily damaged structures have been demolished. Less damaged structures have or are being repaired. Some areas have not been rebuilt and instead are now considered to be flood plains and too risky to build up to their former state again. A lot of credit has to go out to them for cleaning up as well as they did, and as quickly as they have. The forsight to forfeit some plots of land is also a smart one. Yet it makes me sad to see that Katrina was much less devastating (in comparison), and more time was available to clean up, yet the state of those hard hit places in New Orleans simply looks like they left it as-is and didn't even bother to try and clean up. In one way that makes me sad of the response, but may also be a good thing if it means that this land that is bellow sea level will remain uninhabited for saftey's sake.

But one thing is clear... Either in comparison or in it's own, the Japanese recovery is an amazing and inspirational one. Then consider how the Japanese people reacted in the face of this disaster, and I can't help but tip my hat to them in heartfelt respect an admiration.

-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Where are the honest atheists? Here's one!

Yesterday (March 8, 2013), Damon Linker published an article entitled "Where are the honest atheists?" His opinion piece was that many of the atheist books out there are just more of the same repeated over and over, but that if godlessness is true, that it is also terrible and that we are unwilling to even consider that thought. Is that true? I don't think so. I for one have considered the possibilities and favorability if 'religion A' were true, if 'religion B' were true, if 'religion C were true' and if atheism were true. But the important thing is that none of that matters to what is true. Would I find it to be awesome if it was true that I'd be reincarnated after my death? Absolutely I would! But me liking the idea holds no bearing on if it is the truth or not. The simple fact is that as far as we know thus far, all signs point to death being it for us. Do not pass go, don't collect $100. But even then, I don't think that spells out the terrible world that Linker thinks it would.

His story goes on to say this:

It's quite another to claim, as these authors also invariably do, that godlessness is not only true but also unambiguously good for human beings. It quite obviously is not.

If atheism is true, it is far from being good news. Learning that we're alone in the universe, that no one hears or answers our prayers, that humanity is entirely the product of random events, that we have no more intrinsic dignity than non-human and even non-animate clumps of matter, that we face certain annihilation in death, that our sufferings are ultimately pointless, that our lives and loves do not at all matter in a larger sense, that those who commit horrific evils and elude human punishment get away with their crimes scot free — all of this (and much more) is utterly tragic.

I must say that I quite disagree with Linker's assertion that us being alone in the universe or not being the center of everything diminishes life to a lowly pointless and worthless state. Actually, I think it makes life all the more grand! Am I being dishonest with myself as Damon would argue? I don't think so.

First of all, atheism does not tell us we're alone in the universe. Atheism does opine that there is no ever-present deity watching over us, but as for life in the universe, there's no 'party line' stance on that subject. Actually, I'd say that the major religions are the ones that would say we are alone in the universe, save their favored invisible book keep and guidance counselor. Christianity places the Earth and humanity at the center of creation and leaves it assumed the we are it. Atheism on the other hand, wouldn't denounce the idea that there could be other life far out in the cosmos. Actually, I'd be one of those that thinks that it's pretty likely that we are not the only life among the stars. Do I think that extra-terrestrials ever visited Earth or abducted anyone? No, no I don't. But given the vast numbers of galaxies, starts and planets out there, I find it hard to believe that life would only happen once. Actually, if there is other life out there, I bet they are also asking the question of if they are alone in the universe.

Next, lets look at the statement that atheism means that no one listens to or answers prayers... Well, you got us on this one. But no one is answering you prayers anyway, so why fight reality? Plus, if you are Christian and opine that your god is omniscient, then prayer is pointless anyway. But would it be a good thing if prayers were answered? Well... that depends. Perhaps you pray for good things for others, and get what you want. Okay, that's fine. But what of people praying for selfish things, or even ill will on others? If these people got their way, how could you sat that was a good thing? I don't think that prayer actually working would be all that great. But since we know that prayer does not work, lets look at the fact that the concept diminishes the hard work and effort of real people. So you pray for that promotion, but then work hard and get it. Then you give all the credit to your prayers being answered and your god. The sad fact being is that you are selling yourself short, since it was your effort that got you the promotion, and not murmuring to your bedroom ceiling at night. Your god is not great, you are simple capable of so much more than you give yourself credit for. And in my opinion, that is far more sad than the prospect of prayer being pointless.

Linker also states that 'humanity is entirely the product of random events'... Sounds like someone missed the class on evolution back in his school days. At least, I'm assuming he's referring to the old apologist canard that evolution reduces humanity to a product of random chance, and thus reduces the meaning of humanity. The trouble is that evolution is not random chance. Sure, mutations may be random, but natural selection is certainly NOT random. Evolution by natural selection selects for traits that are best fitted for the environment that these individuals find themselves in. These slightly better fitted individuals are more likely to survive and reproduce. This passes on their genes with greater success than those that are less fitted, and don't survive or reproduce at as great a pace. Over time, there is a shifting in the population as the available gene pool becomes more and more concentrated with the more favorable genes. Then consider that this process never stops and you can easily see that the path that eventually led to humanity is very possible, and far from the result of just some random chance.Furthermore, the fact that we evolved as far as we have and weren't 'created' in no way takes any grandeur away from life. I see it as a spectacular gift that didn't have to happen, rather than the whim of some deity.

Next is his statement that this means that 'we have no more intrinsic dignity than non-human and even non-animate clumps of matter'. Really?! I mean, seriously now? How does not being a 'special creation' mean that we are the same as a rock or a rat? Does the path to humanity really in any way change the value of humanity? I certainly don't think so. Being human has value through what we can do and have done. Through what we've accomplished and will accomplish. Though we were not purposely created,  being human still means so much! In the eyes of the universe, we may hold as much importance as pond algae. But from a local perspective, that conclusion does not match with an Earthly view. We may not be THE reason all is here, but we can certainly have quite more of an impact than that aforementioned algae. We can care for others. We can have a profound impact on the environment. We can reach for the stars, and can build our knowledge for the benefit of following generations. Sure, there is no grand purpose for our being, but to suggest that this equates us to a chunk of quartz is a horribly narrow minded view of what life without a creator means.

Then there's the grand-daddy statement that 'we face certain annihilation in death, that our sufferings are ultimately pointless, that our lives and loves do not at all matter in a larger sense'. This is certainly a statement that I couldn't disagree with much more. Yes, we face annihilation in death. But is that so terrible? To me, eternity would be far more maddening (as I have covered in this earlier post). The only favorable version of afterlife to me would be reincarnation. But is death being the end so bad? If what I think about death is true, than death will be just like before I was ever born. Did my non-existence cause me any troubles twenty years before I was ever conceived? No, of course not! So why should my non-existence after I die be any different than that? Sure, the idea of no longer being may be saddening or unsettling to a degree, but does that make it a terrible fate? I'd argue that it doesn't.

Part of my reason for this has to do with why I disagree with his assertion that our lives and sufferings are pointless and our lives without meaning if what I believe is correct. Problem is, I am far too full of gratitude to entertain the thought of being dealt a bad hand simply because I will one day die. This is because I am alive and have been living the gift of life! When we look at the number of people in the world and the complexities of genetics, the number of 'potential people' is staggering. Had the genes been different there could have been someone smarter than Einstein, a playwright more brilliant than Shakespeare, or even an Olympian that could have shattered all records with ease. But instead of those possibilities, it is I that won what Richard Dawkins has referred to as the 'lottery of life'.

I could just as easily not been born as well. Had my parents not met as they did and when they did, had their parents not met as they did... back, generation after generation, I simply wouldn't be here. Or I would be a different 'me' than the 'me' that I am today. I am too preoccupied with the overwhelming gratitude of my own existence to feel that I'm facing a disservice to on day die and simply be no more. One day I will die, but before that day, I get to live. I get to live love and experience this life to the fullest while there are those other 'potential people' who were never even conceived, let alone get the chance to experience life. As I see it, death is the price I will eventually have to pay for living this amazing and fulfilling gift we call life. If you ask me, that's a small price to pay, and far from what Linker calls a 'terrible reality'.

Then there is his thought that our lives and sufferings do not matter because we don't have some grand predestined purpose for our lives. Such a self centric view of reality is quite arrogant. So what if we aren't the center of everything? So what if there's not some grand plan that you're here for? In what way does 'it all' not being about you take away from the meaning of life. True, there's no predetermined meaning, but a finite godless life can still have plenty of meaning. I get to live my life. I get to love my wife. Our cats will make us laugh, and also upset when they break something. There may be bumps in the road of life that we have to get past, but ultimately make the good time feel all the better. How does this life have no meaning when I wake up every morning, look in my wife's eyes, tell her that I love her, and have her say that she loves me back. How can you argue that a creator-less life makes this experience meaningless? Sure, one day we will both be dead and gone. In the vast expanse of history we may be forgotten. But so what if we aren't remembered. Here and now, we are living a wonderful and meaningful life. To me, now is what matter, and exemplifies that this non-theistic life truly is a meaningful one.

Now, one thing that I will give him is that he says that if there is no afterlife, than if someone breaks the law and is never caught, they will get away with it and never be punished. For the sake of argument, we are going to assume that the offender is not faced with crushing guilt. So he would be right that the 'bad guy' would end up going unpunished, since he would just die like everyone else, and wouldn't find himself in Hell. But then again, there is no Hell anyway, so it's a moot point really... The simple fact is that though he is right, that's the truth of the matter. Life isn't always fair, and justice isn't always done. But this certainly doesn't mean that we should just give up and make up a story to make us feel better about the problem. Rather, we should work to improve our justice system so that fewer and fewer offenders go unpunished.

I must find it odd that those that follow the Abrahamic tradition will argue that the nonbeliever's view on life is the 'sad' or 'tragic' one. Yet Christianity teaches that everyone is born a disgusting, dirty, sinful creatures that are deserving of eternal fiery torrent. Meanwhile, I try to to see the best in everyone. Sure, it is tougher with some people. But I'm not condemning all to eternity in Hell for the 'crime' of simply being born. So you tell me, who really thinks less of life? Also, the more I think about it, I can't even grant Linker his conclusion that a godless universe is less just. With his previous proposal of someone committing a crime and getting away with it, he claims that justice is not done if there is no afterlife. He makes the mistake of simply assuming that this person would end up in Hell to pay for his deed(s). But it's not so cut and dry. Christianity teaches the sins can be forgiven. So, if this criminal goes uncaught and later on is genuinely repentant, then Jesus is supposedly able to forgive this person of their sins and end up in Heaven. So under this theistic worldview, the criminal could conceivably be rewarded, rather than punished. Where is the justice in that?

Somehow Mr. Linker goes as far to call this godless view of life 'utterly tragic'. As I hope I have illustrated above, this bleak view of a non-theistic life is far from justified. He says that the 'honest atheist' will admit that this kind of existence is a sad, cold, pitiful one. However, I feel as though I am being honest and painting a far more positive picture that the one Linker was painting. Sure, this life isn't the picture perfect fantasy we may want it to be. But this doesn't make any other view of life 'tragic'. I'd wager that this life rooted in reality is an amazingly magical and positive one, despite the sad conclusions of our poorly reasoned columnist. So I say, embrace the reality of life and death, and seize the gift of life while you still can.

-BH


Please remember to share, subscribe, and comment.

You are what you (artificially) eat

We all eat. We like some things better than others, and sometimes we try to change our diet to lose weight, health reasons, our of favor, or just the will to eat better. But last year, there was a story that stated that a study had showed that organic produce and non-organic produce contain the same nutrition information. The instant reaction by some was to call organic products a scam.They laughed that they knew it was all bunk, and that you just pay extra for the same thing. Do you though?

The main problem with calling organic products a scam because of that study is that the purpose of organic produce wasn't because it was more nutritious. When someone says that organic is better for you (and the environment), it's because of other factors. Conventional produce is fed with chemical fertilizers and are sprayed with chemical insecticides and herbicides. Non-organic products may also come from livestock fed artificial growth hormones and antibiotics. Many conventional products will contain plenty of preservatives and artificial sweeteners as well.

Conversely, organic produce is fertilized naturally and use natural methods of controlling insects and damaging weeds. Organic milk will come from cows that aren't fed growth hormones. Also, no artificial sweeteners or loads of preservatives. Granted, the pesticides used on conventionally grown crops is below the recommended levels for consumption, but I still like the idea of limiting my exposure further. Another consideration is that not using chemical pesticides and fertilizers means that there is no worry of pollution from run-off.  In my opinion, the true selling point of organics is freshness, environmental responsibility, and to limit additional exposure to chemical agents. Hell, I think organic produce tastes better as well. This is probably due to the freshness, and would explain what why what I grow in our little garden always tastes so much better than what's at the store. So no, I don't agree that organics are a scam. Rather, I think those making that claim need to learn the actual goal of organic foods actually is before scoffing and downing some chili-mac.

And on that discrepancy of freshness... Just how fresh is the 'fresh produce' at your local grocery store? Apples, look nice don't they? Too bad they are shiny due to a coat of wax. Then there's the fact that these conventionally grown apples may be 6-12 months old! Potatoes? 2-12 months. Carrots? 1-9 months. Luckily there are some items like bananas and lettuce that have a short life no matter what, so they have to be relatively fresh when you get them at the store. But I'll take the organically grown carrots from my garden that will be at most two weeks old before we must discard then, than thirty-six week old carrots. Better yet, when the farmer's market opens up again, the freshest of the fresh will be available, and taste all the better.

A new troubling development comes from the milk industry... The national milk industry is actually lobbying the FDA to change the definition of milk. Yeah, you read that right; change the definition of milk! I hope I'm not the only one that thinks that sounds crazy. What they want to do is define milk in such a way that they can include artificial sweeteners in any milk or milk based products without a need to state as such on the label or even list it in the ingredients. Personally, if you want to put an artificial sweetener in my milk, you better tell me clearly! I do not want milk with aspartame in it! Milk is supposed to be a drink that is good for you, so why put sweeteners very well may not be good for you?

The claimed reason is kids. They say that if they add artificial sweeteners, it will make the milk more appealing to kids. Kids in turn will drink more and then drink regular milk. I disagree. As a former child, I can tell you that if I am drinking this sweet milk, and like it because it is sweet, standard milk just isn't going to cut the mustard. What it will do is build a taste for sweet food items. If they like the sweet milk, they will build a taste for sweet items. Rather than transitioning to a healthy habit of drinking milk-milk, they will travel from sugar high to sugar high. Quite the opposite of the healthy lifestyle influence they are arguing for. In my opinion, it's the make money, plain and simple. Same with an apple product that I've seen sold at my local grocery store. It's an apple sealed in a plastic bag. But it's been soaked with preservative and artificial sweeteners and also artificially flavored. Who's for a super sweet bubblegum flavored apple? Not this guy! But again, they claim that this is also to get kids to eat apples. No! If you make an apple taste like candy, it will give the kids a taste for candy, not apples.


Now, I realize that organic products can be comparatively expensive. That's part of why I have to pick and choose what I buy organic or otherwise. When it comes to produce, we buy organic when we can. We purchase hormone-free milk, and cage-free eggs. If we need to sweeten a drink, it's honey or Stevia for my wife and I. I used to drink soda all the time, but now it's a rarity and I couldn't be happier with that choice. And that's what I think it's all about. Little choices here and there, that add up to happier and healthier life.

-BH

Please share, subscribe and comment.
 

This land is your land, not McFarland's

Alex McFarland is a Christian Apologist that is organizing Project 2026. Project 2026 is described as "A nationwide initiate to see Christianity's place in society restored to maximum strength by America's 250th birthday." Basically,  they blame anything they deem as 'bad' about America is the fault of Christian faith being everywhere and involved in everything. Odd that he would complain that there isn't enough Christianity around when at least 78.4%of Americans are Christians. But I have a feeling he would claim that many aren't true believers or worshiping enough after taking a look at his propaganda site.

In an interview, the ill informed Mr. McFarland had this to say:

Alex, you’ve got Project 2026, I want you to talk a little bit about Project 2026 because in this project you’re not just talking about what’s going on in 2013, you’re looking ahead, a forward view. 2026 is going to be the 250th anniversary of our founding, what is Project 2026 all about?

McFarland: It’s a response, it’s a fifteen year program and we are beginning to get a lot of momentum, it’s a fifteen year program to re-remind our culture about some things that are core that I believe without the rediscovery and reaffirmation of these things we’re going to lose democracy: God; life; morality; family; freedom of religion; American exclusivism, not that we’re better or deserve better but we are unique on the stage of human history. The thing that prompted me Bryan is the four groups that are actively working to secularize and destroy America: humanists; atheists; militant homosexuals; and Muslims. All four of these groups got major momentum beginning in the ’60s and ’70s but they dug in their heels and they said: ‘we’re going to work forty years and we’re going to mainstream atheism; we’re going to mainstream militant homosexuality; dare we say it we’re going to see gay marriage legitimized.’ Why can’t God’s people dig in their heels and say: ‘we’re in it for the duration and America will not die on our watch.’

Pardon me Alex, but you've just revealed that you are clueless about the founding of our country. McFarland speaks ill of Secularism,  yet America was the great experiment in secularism. America isn't under threat from secularism, but has always been a secular nation. Secularism is quite simply the principle of keeping heads of religious institutions and heads of government separate. We quite plainly see the secular framework in the first amendment of the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As you see here, freedom of religion is guaranteed, but an establishment of religion is disallowed.  Thomas Jefferson described this construct as a "Wall of separation between church and state." And that, my friend, is the very definition of Secularism. Despite what you would have your blind and horribly misinformed followers believe, Secularism is NOT inherently irreligious. Quite the contrary. Just look at the secular first amendment. It does work to keep and church separate, but also grants the freedom to worship the religion of ones choosing. What's anti-religious about that. All secularism is really concerned with is keeping religion from corrupting the government, and from the government corrupting religion. The is not a threat to democracy, but a proud moment and product of democracy.

Furthermore, your 'four groups' are, lets say... interesting. You claim that they are working to 'secularize and destroy America'. As I've already shown, America always has been a secular nation, so that claim is patently false. Second of all, as an atheist, I find the accusation that we are trying to destroy America as an insult and an outrage. If anything, the work to promote secularism is work to save and protect America, not destroy it.

You also claim that these groups are fighting to mainstream atheism... Well, lets look at your two claims and each group separately...

Humanists: I'm going to assume that you are referring specifically to Secular Humanists. In that case, the secularism is right there in the name. So check on the promotion of secularism. But promoting the mainstream adoption of atheism? Every Humanist I know simply wants equal treatment, not to have Humanism (or atheism) be the new de facto religion. Wanting to destroy America? You can't be serious!

Atheists: One thing is true, and that most atheists do support the constitutional separation of church and state. If that causes us to be labeled as 'secularists', so be it. I for one will wear it as a badge of honor. Wanting to 'mainstream atheism'? Don't get me wrong, the idea of more people looking at the world rationally is an appealing one. But I would rather they reach that beautiful insight on their own, rather than force it down their throat at 7:30am on a Saturday. My main concerns are getting atheists the equal treatment we deserve, right unjust perceptions, and protect the first amendment. As for destroying America... not on the agenda. But I'll tell you what is. Returning America to the ideals it was founded on. Justice and freedom for one and all.

Militant homosexuals: Was the militant really needed here? I mean, seriously... all it does is make you come across as a bigot. Oh how militant of them to fight for rights that have been unfairly kept from them. Lets class them together with those militant African-Americans who wanted equal rights, those militant woman who wanted to vote, and those militant colonists who wanted representation to go with their taxation. When you get right down to it, there's nothing inherently secular about homosexuality. However, secularists tend to be the ones in favor of granting 'gays' their unjustly denied rights, so the homosexual groups tend to stay in league with secular groups. Homosexuals wanting to may atheism mainstream? How does that work, when a great many homosexuals are themselves religious. You can be Christian and gay at the same time, despite what Alex would probably tell you. As for them wanting to destroy America... Again, a ridiculous conclusion that does more to highlight his narrow-minded picture of what he wants American to be, rather than reflecting reality.

Muslims: Lets face it. the only group the Christian extremists hate as much as atheists is Muslims. They usually like to paint a picture of Muslim extremism as the norm. Muslims that are either secret terrorists or want to institute Sharia Law as the law of the land. Since this narrow-minded view that ignores the peaceful non-confrontational Muslims is that one that they tend to carry, that's the one I'll examine here. Do these Muslims wish to mainstream atheism? Absolutely not! In fact, the penalty of apostasy in Islam in no less than death! But what about the claim that these Muslims are working toward a secular cause? Again, absolutely ridiculous! You can't claim that Muslims wish to enact Sharia Law and also claim them to be secular. The simple fact is that McFarland and those like him, hate Muslims for wanting to do in the name of Islam, what they want to do in the name of Christianity.

They scream that the Muslims want to set up a Muslim nation, with Muslim laws. Likewise, they wish to have a Christian nation, with Christian laws. Pot, meet kettle. Why is it so horrible for the Muslims to want to do, what he want's to do? How does he even begin to pant this blatant want for a theocracy as patriotic, when it' in defiance of our secular roots? I repeat the 'American' idea that he is trying to sell is a Theocracy. This is far from what America is and is closer to an attack on democracy that anything he mentioned.

McFarland and his sad 2026 event are simply grabbing at the ignorance of those that think like him, and is working to deceive and work toward his personal wants and benefits... History be damned. So I think it's time for us to meet him and his lies head on and give him the battle of wits where he will be severely outgunned.

-BH

Please comment, share and subscribe.

Birth of delusion

Wow....just, wow... I think I just read the ultimate doozy of unbelievable facebook bullshit. Please allow me to share and then examine just what we were presented with.

Warning: What you are about to read may adversely effect your intelligence or hang your head in sheer disbelief. I myself hope for the well-being of those involved that the following facebook story is fabricated. It is requested that anyone believing this story to be factual as claimed please seek professional help.

I want to ask you all something. WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR YOU TO BELIEVE IN MIRACLES? Twenty three years ago, my husband Xgay Greg had a vasectomy. So technically we shouldn't be expecting but God is having His way because we said he could do whatever he wants with us. Then in early April of last year God told us we were "expecting" and Greg and I both said to him, "Great!" I didn't pee on a prego test for at least 1 month because the Lord asked me to believe Him at his word. So, I waited until he gave us the green light...and the pregnancy test showed a (+) result. Then around 16 weeks we felt a little pressured and took a trip to the Carolina Pregnancy Center, (a faith based center that does NOT do abortions); they just give help to expecting parents. A woman took me into a back room to administer a pregnancy test and as we were waiting, she interviewed me. When she was done with her questions she looked at me and said, "Mrs. xxxxx, according to this, you aren't pregnant." I got up from the chair and said, "Hmm, thank you for your time." I went out to the lobby and said, "Honey, let's go." When we got outside the Lord spoke to me and said, "Are you going to believe that test or are you going to believe the report of the Lord? Who's report are you going to believe?" I told Greg what happened and I told him what the Lord was saying to me. We stood resolute about what God had said, continuing to live by faith. FAITH IS NEVER CONVENIENT. Onlookers and family have continued to see my belly grow...some giving into fear, others excited, and even more just growing more curious. That’s not all. A couple of weeks after that, I saw blood in the toilet. I immediately said, “Lord, you know what’s going on and I trust you.” He put a calm over me and his presence comforted me. By his Holy Spirit I knew he was saying to me to get Greg and show him what I saw, so I did. When Greg looked in the toilet I told him what the Lord was saying to me, “Are you going to believe what you see or are you going to believe the report of the Lord?” We stood there for just a moment and then flushed the toilet saying, “We’re going to believe the report of the Lord.” Now before becoming pregnant, my periods were irregular. From week 18 on until even now, I have been having monthly periods. I could tell that my faith was growing because I would see the blood and say, “Oh, you’re no big deal for God”. I said to the Lord, “How am I supposed to know when I’m due?” and he said from the time I told you. So from that our projected due date was around the first of the year. The 1st day of January had come and my wonderful mother-in-law thought for sure that we were going to have a Christmas baby. But then the idea of a Christmas baby turned to a new year’s baby, then turned to a valentines baby and here we are on the 18th of February still waiting by faith that our miracle will come. I want to remind you all that Greg and I live with my inlaws and so my mother in law inspects me daily to see the “growing progress”. There have been a couple of times that I thought “this might be it” and then the contractions would discontinue. Even though it might seem our miracle has been delayed, it really hasn’t. People think that our estimated time for the delivery MUST have been incorrect but they are mistaken. The Lord has prolonged this pregnancy to get people’s attention. See it would be easy to think that if a woman gives birth even though she had her uterus removed that it’s definitely a miracle. But to say that a delay in a pregnancy is a miracle is much harder to believe because people think that if something is late, then there must be something wrong. There is nothing wrong…well, except for the fact that God has to do something unusual to get your attention. He is not satisfied with where your faith is. Faith doesn’t grow on trees, it grows as you go through valleys keeping your heart and mind fixed on Him. For Sarah in the Bible her faith had to grow just to believe that she could become pregnant at such an elderly age! One of the reasons God wanted her to be pregnant as an old woman was so he could get HIS PEOPLE’S ATTENTION! That’s what God has asked me to do today…get your attention. If you have been stagnant in your faith in Jesus Christ, let this be your clarion call. It’s true that you only need faith the size of a mustard seed to see things happen, but that’s not where your faith is supposed to stay! It’s supposed to grow! So I say again, what does it take for you to believe in miracles? God is still a miracle working God but your faith limits the miracles he can produce in you. Do you want to know for yourself that I Am is the God of supernatural occurrences? Then get rid of your doubt and start believing that with Him, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE! Our miracle hasn't arrived yet and we're pleased to announce that we still have peace, and I still have a growing belly. We will give a HUGE announcement when the arrival has come. Blessings to you all

First of all, if reading that left you feeling lightheaded and dismayed that someone could actually be that out there, that it 100% understandable. But I said we were going to take a look at this insanity, so let's do that...

Okay, I'll skip over the anti-gay and anti-choice bits in this review so as to stay on topic. First off, her husband had a vasectomy, yet she thinks she is pregnant. Now it is not unheard of for a vasectomy to not go 100% correctly and still leave the male with the ability to pass sperm to the female through sexual intercourse. I'll give her that much. But the other snap reaction is the Greg (if she was pregnant) is not the father.

Next there is the matter of the home pregnancy test. It says right on the tin that results are not guaranteed to be 100% accurate. A false negative reading is more common that a false positive, but they do happen. However, in the event of such an unlikely pregnancy, you test and test again. Or better yet, you go to a doctor or clinic to get a professional test done. On to that next...

Finally, after 16 weeks she goes to a clinic to confirm the pregnancy. Far to late if you ask me, but better late than never I suppose. But then the kicker... They tell her that she is NOT pregnant. But rather than listen to them or look into it further, she simply decides that her belief that she is pregnant is more valid than a professional opinion. 

More months down the line she finds blood in the toilet after using it. That far down the line, this is typically indicative of a miscarriage if she really was pregnant. But then they do the inexplicable and decide that it's nothing and that their god has it all under control. Seriously? You just ignore a possibly terrible sign if you are pregnant? No responsible parent to be would do such a thing. But she continued to ignore a newly regular menstrual cycle month after month. Sorry, but if you are having a regular period, you are not pregnant!

The 'pregnancy' has now progressed for eleven months and she still believes that she is pregnant... Newsflash, you aren't! At first it looked as if she could have been pregnant and had a miscarriage. However, with her claims of a continuously growing stomach I have to worry something worse is growing. Namely, a tumor. All signs point toward her not being pregnant. So that leaves the possibilities as a mass growing within her, or she has produced a psychosomatic response so strong that she has tricked her own body into thinking she is pregnant. But the far more likely explanation is the far more deadly one. For her her own sake, I hope that she has this looked into rather than simply ignoring it and claiming that god will take care of it.

There are greater and much further reaching problem at play here. First, the reliance solely on faith in important medical situations. This woman believes she his pregnant and chooses not to undergo any prenatal care. This is dangerous because this care is extremely important for the heath of the mother and the child. Should anything go amis, this care could catch any problems in time for lifesaving care to be implemented. Is she truly cared about this pregnancy that she believed she was having, she would have had an ultrasound, she would have had regular visits to update her on her progress. But she did none of these things. She just stood there are and pigheadedly decided that she was pregnant and that was good enough for her. This is a careless and extremely dangerous attitude for someone to have. But this attitude isn't isolated to just this story. Far too often you read of stories where a child dies because the family simply decided to pray rather than seek medical care. Quite frankly, in those cases, I feel that the parents should be liable for criminal charges.

The second issue at hand is that she seems to be claiming to regularly hearing voices that she claims to be the voice of a deity. This a seriously troubling thought as well, and one that makes me think that she is in need of mental health assistance, or straight out institutionalized. If she is hearing voices, and they are giving her advice, that sounds more like Schizophrenia than divine correspondence.

As you can see, there are some serious issues at play in this ridiculous story that I can only hope is fabricated facebook spam, attempting to make a feeble and sad attempt at propagating illogical and dangerous religious ideals.

-BH

Please share, subscribe and comment.

One nation, indivisible...

Ah, what do we have here in my inbox? Why it's another delightful ill informed chain email! Shall I just shake our head and delete the email, or should I respond? I think you know the answer to that question by now. Cue the reply!


Okay, I must admit that I got this email and was deliberating on whether to simply delete it or reply. Well, I figure why not voice my thoughts. I did not send this on and here’s why:

Original email:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God.
Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such
A mess about having "In God We Trust" on our money and having
God in the Pledge of Allegiance.

If you agree send this on. If not simply delete it.

It amazes me how little people seem to know about the orgins/design of their very own contry and government.

First there is the mater of the flawed statistics in this email. The stat about how many Americans believe in God actually originates from an NBC pole that asked if “In God we Trust” should be removed from the pledge and currancy. The results: 86% said no. As you can see the poll didn’t ask, “Do you believe in God?” so these numbers are not an accurate representation of religiosity in America. Actually, the most recent Pew survey shows 78.4% of Americans as being Christians. Another 4.7% are classed as 'other religions'. That leaves only those that classed themselves as unaffiliated or refused the question left. So that means that only 80.7% believe in the Abrahamic god referenced in the Pledge of Allegiance(Christian/Jewish/Muslim), and a maximum of 83.1% that we can say with absolute certainty are Theists. Granted, some of the unaffiliated may be believers as well, but just how many can't be said for sure.

But there are multiple reasons for the result of the NBC poll. Obviously the relgious would be in favor of keeping it as is. Some have the “A’int broke, non’t fix it mentality”. Others still, think that’s the way it’s been and think changing them now would be historicly ‘wrong’.

Me? I would support their removal, and here’s why:

• First Amendment to The Constitution. Seperation of church and Sate. It is very obvious that ‘Under God’ is very much in violation of this. If the government is positing the god of Abraham is the god America 'trusts', it is in direct violation on the establishment clause.

• The United States of America was not based on Christianity. Many state that we are a country founded on Christianity. Yet this is not true. One needs only to look at the Treaty of Tripoli to see that the Judeo-Christian myth of America's founding is just that... A myth! Article 11 states: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”. Also the Constitution is a thoroughly Secular document through and through. It only mentions religion when it grants freedom of religion and introduces Jefferson's separation of church and state. Simply reading the writings of several of the founders will show that this omission is certainly no mistake.

• History. “Under God” was not originally our motto, on currency or in the pledge. The original wording of the Pledge of Allegiance was, "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." The pledge was not revised to incorporate ‘under god’ until 1954.

Then there is the matter of “In God We Trust” on currency and as the national motto. You see it didn’t replace "E Pluribus Unum” until 1956. And this very same phrase did not find its way to all US currency until 1957. As you can see the inclusion of 'God' into the Pledge of Allegiance, to the national motto, or our currency and oaths are quite recent additions. Personally I don’t think our founding fathers would be very happy with how their intentions have been simply tossed aside in favor of a 'feel good' PR campaign during the 'Red Scare'. And in my opinion, "E Pluribus Unum” is a far more fitting motto for the USA. It is a Latin phrase meaning "Out of many, one." A beautiful and inspirational motto for the melting pot that is America!

Preserving the intended foundation of this country is one very good reason to put things back as they were. The problem is that people ofen put their personal feeling and beliefs before all else. We should focus on what made this country great and return to the ideals and vision as set by our forefathers. Making the USA a ‘Christian Sate’, will not lead us down that intended path. Rather, it would lead to more religious separatism, and international angst. We have the freedom to practice whatever religion we choose, so let’s not alienate those that are non-christian by continuing down this foggy path.

Furthermore, I find it odd that so many devout Christians are so adamant with leaving the Pledge as it is. After all it says: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America".

But then, the Ten Commandments say: "You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image of anything in the heavens or on the earth or in the sea. You must not bow down to them."

So let me get this straight... Your Bible tells you not to bow down to an idol of any kind, yet you want to fight to pledge allegiance to the US flag on an equal footing with your god? Talk about not following your own 'rules'! Personally, I feel that a true Christian should forgo the Pledge all together, rather than demand that God continue to be shoehorned into it.

Now that is one message I would send on!

-BH


Please share, subscribe and comment.