Wonderful!  That’s great stuff, Pop.  I do love the Simpsons - far-and-away the most ‘family values’ oriented show on television.

Les, your policy of presenting selected guest submissions is hereby completely vindicated.

What then happens when the facts start becoming problematic for one’s definition of religion?

Don’t look through the telescope, call for a review of the studies, appoint someone else, withold funding, quote out of context, . . .  The list is very long.

Last night during the first segment of Now, Bill Moyers played some cuts from recent interviews with Robertson, Fallewll, Dobson and DeLay. I fear, very much, that they intend to drive us here.

The French thinker Blaise Pascal wrote, “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious convictions.�

British theologian H.A. Williams observed, “Religion is what many people do with their lunacy.�

These were pulled from this enlightening document:

When Religion Makes You Sick
The October issue of The Atlantic Monthly ran a political cartoon that is both slightly funny and deeply disturbing. A husband and wife are watching the news on television. The announcer says:
“New violence between Protestant and Catholics threatens Belfast’s fragile peace accords.�
“Increased attendance at Russian Orthodox churches in Ukraine is blamed for an outbreak of vandalism directed against Jews.�
“Two Mosques in Algeria were bombed today. Rival fundamentalist sects are suspected.�
“Another suicide bombing has triggered another retaliatory air strike from Israel.�
“Conflict between Muslims and Hindus has resulted in more than a hundred deaths in India.�
Finally, the announcer says, “President Bush met with prominent church leaders in the White House today… where he told the gathering that only religion holds the key to world peace.�
At that, the husband starts to pour a scotch, and the wife on the couch calls out to him, “Better make mine a double.� (1)
What is it about religion that it can bring out the worst in us instead of the best? Why does so much religion breed violence, terrorism and war? Why are religious people some of the most caring and compassionate but also some of the most bigoted and intolerant? I’m not just thinking about Islamic fundamentalists that crash airplanes into buildings with the intent of killing thousands of innocent people for the purpose of terrorizing an entire population. No, I’m thinking about any kind of religion – Christianity included. “Religion is full of blood,� observes UC Santa Barbara sociologist Mark Juergensmeyer.
History is marred by religious violence. The Crusades. The Inquisition. The Thirty Years War. The Holocaust. Genocide in Rwanda, in Sudan, in Armenia. Assassinations of Mahatma Ghandi and Yitzhak Rabin. The KKK and the IRA. Jonestown. Branch Davidians. Heaven’s Gate. Salem witch trials. The bombings of American embassies in Kenya and in Tanzania. The recent attack on tourists in Bali. And September 11, 2001. A lot of things happen in the name of faith. There is a dark side to religion, a mean streak that can be very destructive in the time it takes to say a prayer. Nobel prize winner Steven Weinberg laid out the case against religion when he said, “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil. But for good people to do evil – that takes religion.� (2)
The French thinker Blaise Pascal wrote, “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious convictions.� British theologian H.A. Williams observed, “Religion is what many people do with their lunacy.� My old philosophy professor Dr. William Marra used to say, “Religion breeds madness.� For the truth is, some religion can be very bad for your health. William James made the distinction between healthy minded religion that promotes our well-being and unhealthy-minded religion that does people harm. Yes, not all religion is good for you. We have this fact on no less an authority than Jesus himself, who lived in an even more religious environment than ours. Jesus regularly lambasted the sickness and prejudices of the religion around him – just as he does in today’s Gospel.
Wayne Oates, the famous counselor, wrote a book called When Religion Gets Sick. It was about how neurotic and psychotic people can take perfectly good religion and distort it into something sick and evil to serve their own purposes, which is usually to control and manipulate other people. Think of the suicide bombers or “martyrsâ€? as the Muslim fundamentalists prefer to call them.  Why would people agree to suicide missions? Well, it’s because somebody has convinced them to believe that if they perform this act, they will receive instant immortality and all manner of rewards in paradise. Quite simply, it is the use of religion to manipulate people for political purposes to get them to do what they instinctively would not want to do.
This practice, by the way, is not limited to Muslim fundamentalists. Its roots go back to the First Crusade when Pope Urban came up with the idea of holy war – defined as a “sacrificial surrender of self as an expression of love for God.� The Crusades pitted Christians against Muslims in one holy war after another in which both sides believed that to die in battle against the infidel was immediately to receive salvation. In other words, killing became divinely anointed, with the result that the distinction between martyrs and murderers was completely blurred.
When you think about it, religion does indeed get sick. It can even become part of the evil, demonic structure of the world, as it did in the Israel of Jesus’ day. It wasn’t the secular world that demanded the crucifixion of the Savior; it was the religious world!
What can any person do to avoid being victimized by the wrong kind of religion? Are there any simple tests for determining if a particular religion is healthy or unhealthy? I believe there are four such tests and they must be applied together. That is, one alone is not sufficient to answer the question, “Is my religion good for my health?� If your religion is truly good, it should pass all four tests. The tests are very simple. They are in the form of questions that could be answered yes or no.
First, does my religion give me a greater sense of freedom and self-acceptance than I had before? It’s surprising how many churches don’t inspire people to regard themselves highly. On the contrary, they often arouse feelings of guilt and unworthiness that lead to despair and depression. Jesus accused the Pharisees of laying burdens of guilt on the common people. Martin Luther said in the sixteenth century that the whole medieval church had been structured to induce a sense of guilt and anxiety so that people would be willing to pay dearly for their salvation and make the church rich. Jonathan Edwards, the famous New England Puritan, caused mass hysteria in the audiences of his time by verbally dangling them over hell and telling them a single slip could send them plunging into eternal perdition. Ignorant, self-serving preachers still employ the technique. I remember once speaking with a member of a Pentecostal church, a woman who was in utter fear of going to hell because the church taught she must speak in tongues in order to be saved. Since she could not speak in tongues, she was sure she was damned.
For Jesus, forgiveness, not guilt, lay at the heart of healthy religion. He laid tender hands on the victims of guilt-religion and assured them of God’s forgiveness regardless of who they were or what they had done. True spirituality, he taught, is not tied to guilt and scruples but to grace and love. A healthy religion should fill you with feelings of self-worth and acceptance.
Second, does my religion fill me with a sense of love and relationship to the persons around me? Does it make me more open, more trusting, more eager to be involved with other people? A lot of religion feeds on hate, distrust and cynicism. It creates barriers between people instead of removing barriers. It incites a sense of paranoia, of everybody’s being “out to get us,� instead of a sense of togetherness. It becomes judgmental and divisive setting husbands against wives and parents against children and neighbors against neighbors. The world is filled with people whose religion has made them harsh and mean and non-accepting of others.
I always get uneasy when I see or hear people so ready to cast into hell those with whom they disagree, or to paint issues as black and white, with them always right and others always wrong. I worry about people with that kind of religion. They have no sense of love. Their religion becomes a way of sublimating the meanness of their personalities. Yes, you can even use meanness on behalf of God, which is precisely what the people who crucified Jesus did. They killed the Savior of the world under the pretext of doing God a favor.
How much better is the religion of Dom Christian de Cherge, prior of a Trappist monastery in Algeria where in 1996 he and six other monks were beheaded by Muslim fundamentalists. Dom Christian wrote a letter two years before his death, which was to be opened only in case of his murder. In the letter Dom Christian indicated that if he were killed, he didn’t want any reaction against Islam or a caricaturing of Islam. Committed as he was to inter-religious dialogue, he indicated he had remained in Algeria as a fraternal presence. He concluded the letter by saying that someday he and his murderer would both meet in Paradise before the God they both worshiped. (3)
There you have it. No judgment. No hatred. Love. That’s the way of true religion.
Third, does my religion make me more tolerant of the beliefs and backgrounds and lifestyles of others? Does it increase my sense of understanding, so that I have a greater appreciation of pluralism and differences in society? Does it make me more accepting of people of different races and ethnicities and cultural backgrounds, of atheists and fundamentalists, of Jews and Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus? If it doesn’t, then it’s very unhealthy religion. I don’t mean you have to believe everything these people believe, or live as they live. But I mean you have to see beyond the name, the label, and the epithet with which they have been branded and accept the fact that they may have some very bona fide reasons for being different from you. As the philosopher Sir Isaiah Berlin wrote: “Compromising with people with whom you don’t sympathize or altogether understand is indispensable to any decent society.�
A reporter asked a white teenaged girl in Philadelphia why she participated in a riot to run a black couple out of her neighborhood. “I wouldn’t want my kids to get to know the blacks,� she said. “Why?� the reporter asked. “Because they might get to like them!� she answered. That’s the danger, isn’t it? There is so much fear, unfounded fear, in our world today. We see it in the Balkans. We see it in Northern Ireland. We see it in the Middle East. We see it in our nice suburban enclaves right here in San Diego. Maybe we even see it in us.
The solution? Tolerance, respect for diversity, finding a way to hold firm to your own faith without dismissing the faith of others. In short, practicing something that human nature is not very good about: acceptance.
“To understand everything� said Voltaire, “is to forgive everything.� That’s true, isn’t it? Our problem is that we don’t understand everything. And unhealthy religion feeds on a lack of understanding. Healthy religion, by contrast, says, “Let’s wait. Let’s get more information. Let’s understand the person who is different before we begin to throw stones at him.� Who knows? When we understand everything, we may even learn to love.
And fourth, does my religion impel me to share my life and property with those who have less than I, and generally to become more involved in making a better world for everybody? This is where religion crosses the line from being personal and becomes a corporate matter, where my salvation becomes involved with yours and our salvation becomes involved with the salvation of everybody. Jesus never let religion stop at being a purely private matter. “You must love your neighbor as yourself,� he said. You have to care about the poor and the lonely and the broken and the despised of the world. If you don’t, you are simply not living out healthy religion.
The healthiest man who ever lived always turned toward others. In death itself, his arms reached out to embrace the world. And so it must be with us, if we are to be truly healthy. The only spiritual life – the only true spiritual life – is a shared life. It’s as basic as that.
Four tests of healthy religion: Do I feel freer and more worthy? Am I filled with love? Am I more tolerant? Do I want to be involved? I don’t know about you, but tests get my adrenaline going. If I fail one today, I want to pass it tomorrow. I don’t want my religion to make me sick. I want it to make me well. How about you?
Dr. Gary Nicolosi
October 27, 2002
Text – Matthew 23:1-12
Proper 26, A
1.“Viewing With Alarm� by Edward Sorel in The Atlantic Monthly, October 2002, p. 33
2.Sandi Dolbee, “In God’s Name� in the San Diego Union-Tribune, November 9, 2001, p. E1, 4.
3.The Christian Century, July 3-10, 2002, p. 7

Copyright © 1998-2002 St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church

Sorry for the previous ‘Eggman’ post it was meant for Neodromos N.H. Couple post. I should never do this after doing that. Maybe Les can move it.

Although it is still sort of on topic.

A brilliant entry Pop Tarts, I’ve always enjoyed reverand Lovejoys cynical attitude towards his own religion.

Reverend Lovejoy’s cynical attitude is the result of Ned Flanders. I distinctly remember an episode in which Lovejoy leaves his ministry because of it. He recalls how his faith in the church and god had never been stronger before he came to Springfield, but slowly waned with Ned’s constant need for relgious guidance on absolutely everything.

On a completely different note, however, I’ve personally subscribed to the theory that religion is the product of a primal need for purpose and is the result of a fear of death. The argument stands, the human mind is truly incapable of comprehending death because it has never endured a period without consciousness. Personal experience of few who tried and few who remained atheists. Personally, the aspect of death terrifies me, but rather than run to religion for comfort, I try and face it. As for a need for purpose, men justify their actions and the quality of their lives often times by believing they are destined for something. Without any afterlife or existence beyond death, life becomes pointless. Fundamentalists are those that cling to religion out of fear and when attacked in principle see any attack as an attack on themselves, not just their religious beliefs. Thus, violence between fundamentalist groups is inevitable.

To me the definition of fundamentalism boils down to this: when given a choice between love or compassion and adherence to doctrine, uniformity is more important than love.

In answer to Eggman’s post of 11/13 @ 12:58PM (posted here in error?): The strongest human motivation is fantasy. That, together with the herd instinct for survival or survival of the fitest and you can find the reasons for so many wierd things done in the name of “religion”. (Re: Gen 22:1-19) The next step is to understand that anytime you make anything more sacred than a human being, you devalue human life and can use that to manipulate others. Of course, it requires that others agree to be manupilated to some extent. There are some philosophies out there that have the goal to elevate human beings to their highest potential, but once the philosophy becomes an organization, politics rears its ugly head. What a conundrum! Keep looking.

PopTarts- I’m beginning to suspect that Matt Groening isn’t even a Christian…

Eggman- Amen.  We need more of this kind of belief.  Religion, as you say, can bring out the best in us or the worst in us.  It can give life or kill.

Now I’m going to be presumptious, since I’m an atheist, and my idea of “truth” is perhaps different from that of a believer. I agree that the ideal of selfless love, embodied in most religions, many believers, and even some atheists, is the best and most worthy ideal we can pursue, and something the world desparately needs.

That doesn’t mean to me, however, that love is the “truest” part of religion. Religions are, like any cultural belief, evolved systems, and successful ones are successful not only, or necessarily, because of their truth, but because they compete well against the competition.  Just as organisms evolve in the biosphere, memes (some call big systems such as religions “memeplexes") evolve in the ideosphere.  The utility to a religion of saying “kill the heathens” is pretty obvious.

Luckily, many people see the long-term problems with this attitude, but unfortunately not everyone does, and some who don’t have guns and bombs.

This memetic problem with religion is parallel to, and indeed to some extent an outgrowth of, the genetic problem of tribal identity- mistrusting the stranger.  These systems helped us to form societies and get us this far, but are increasingly dangerous to us all in today’s global- and well armed- village.

Interesting discussion… I’d like to throw out a thought on PopTarts initial post. The beginning of the post is definitely designed to throw the “Intelligent Design” theory under the bus...but at the same time, shows weakness in the argument for unguided-Darwinian-evolution.

Quote from PopTarts

“The main thrust of this ‘intelligent design’ argument is that life is so complex it cannot just appear by itself and that there must be some guiding force. But then the question is, if life which is so complicated needs a guiding force (God), who created that guiding force?

Who created God?

If the answer is God is always there, then if one can accept that God which is presumably more complicated than mortal life can always be there and God was not created by some guiding force, then what is so difficult about accepting that life arises without such guiding force.”

Therein lies the weakness. In essence, you’re saying, “I have no idea how this whole thing began, but if you can’t tell me where God came from, then I won’t tell you where evolution began either.” By making this comparison, you’ve just reduced the entire scientific theory to a faith-based system.

So, in essence, you do have faith - it’s just not in a religion, or a god, it’s in...??? Nothingness? That somehow at some point life spontaneously came from . Regardless of what theory you subscribe to (the most popular current theory seems to be random energy becoming mass due to e=mc2...), it’s still a theory. IMO, it seems to take less faith to believe in intelligent design than complete randomness forming everything we see today…

I’ll wrap it up with this…you said, “if one can accept that God which is presumably more complicated than mortal life can always be there and God was not created by some guiding force, then what is so difficult about accepting that life arises without such guiding force.� …is it really that hard to accept? That a God who could design all that we see is bigger than our “created mind� could comprehend? I would find it MUCH more difficult to believe in a god that I COULD fully comprehend. Why would he be called “God� if he were no more complex than me?

Pop Tarts what a great post, I’m the guy who misquoted Lord Acton, I was a Catholic, but being educated in the Catholic school system I was taught to think for myself and follow the teaching of Christ. And as my reasoning ability grew my faith in Religion as a proper noun diminished and instead I became convinced that organised religion was based on the premise of fear of God, not that God loved us and was willing to die for us. I watch the televangilist on TV listen (sometimes) to the radio!
And have reached the conclusion that whoever they are reaching out for must have some kind of damaged intellectual capacities to follow their inaine logic. In another blog a fine well brought up woman defends her vapid demonising of progressives by stating that her beliefs are all that she has so don’t destroy them thank you very much. With logic like that how do you rebut?
I was reading some of the Chick cartoons today by way of The Dark Window and did not find them a bit amusing. That these kind of things are allowed to be handed out to kids and young adults is frightening. Faith without intellect, is like intellegence without humanity, empty of all meaning.
PAX

UM.....

e=mc2 is a fact, observable and testable, not a theory.

I’m getting really sick and tired of the “it’s just a theory” mantra spouted by creationists, fundamentalists and ID proponents. Why is it so difficult to comprehend the scientific definition of a theory? Do these people never fly in an aeroplane because aerodynamics is “just a theory”? Do they think God makes the bathwater spill because displacement is “just a theory”?

I’ve seen the correct definition of a scientify theory posted here several times by Les and by others, and yet these people still don’t get it. I despair.

In response to Jeremy, your post can be rebutted and I have already provided the rebuttal for it briefly, in the following paragraph (Perfection by Definition) from the one you quoted. But let me expand.

Let us first define evolution. Sometimes when the word evolution is used people mean different things.
1) Evolution as changes over time: This is not disputed and is if I am not wrong part of the intelligent design.
2) Evolution as part of common ancestor: This is part of evolution but is not the entire theory and to a large extent there is sufficient evidence for this.
3) Evolution relating to ‘genesis’: This relates to how life begins and generally this is not really considered as part of the theory of evolution but is sometimes used in conjunction with it.

From your post it would seem that your focus relates to genesis rather than evolution itself. I am not too sure how much you believe in evolution minus the genesis portion but a simple search of the web or this site can provide you with answer if you do not subscribe to evolution. I would instead focus on some logical inconsistencies in your argument.

There are three points I want to make. 1) Choice of faith 2) Evolution-Genesis Misconception 3) Certainty.

1) Choice of Faith
According to my reading of your post you believe that evolution-genesis is a faith based system. Now attacking evolution-genesis as a faith based system is logically problematic for a religious person because if having faith in a system means one should discount it, then why are you not discounting religion, which is a faith based system. If you wish to reject evolution-genesis as faith based, then you too will have to reject religion since it too is faith based.

2) Evolution Genesis Misconception
Now answer the point as to why evolution-genesis is not a faith based system. The simple reason is that there is STRONGER and MORE PROBABLE evidence for evolution-genesis than for creationism. When you refer to evolution-genesis as a theory, you are right but you should know that a theory is not any simple attempt at explanation. A theory is a reliable and logical explanation of a series of facts and observation. Creationism on the other hand is not even a theory, it may be an attempt at ‘explanation’ BUT it is not based on facts. It seemingly provides the answer only by redefining the issue (painter example). One example is your explanation of God being complex and how one cannot understand it. Basically what you are doing is redefining the situation in an attempt to provide an answer.

A side note on the ‘randomness’ misconception. Actually, the moment a person talks about “random” evolution it shows that there is a lack of understanding at a certain level. Evolution is NOT about random and in fact is about selection based on one’s environment. In short molecules arrange themsleves according to their properties and they react to their environment and surroundings. Basically, you can search this site or the web or someone could provide a greater explanation but I will limit myself to the logics of your arguments.

Now the lack of absolute and complete proof does not mean that adopting that system is based on faith. It means that based on the available evidence and proof one concludes that evolution provides the best explanation at this moment. An analogy: Two persons apply for a job and that there are 10 tests that they must take. Person X passes 8 and Person Y fails all the tests. Hiring Person X is the best solution based on available data rather than based on faith. But what if Person Z comes in and passes all 10 tests, then one would reject Person X and hire Person Z. Similarly, the argument goes for evolution and creationism. Evolution is like Person X, passing many tests but not all, Creationism is like Person Y, passing no tests.

Ah, so evolution might turn out to be false. Of course, and that is a fundamental principle of science, the quest for knowledge. BUT BUT BUT despite evolution not being 100% proven, it still offers a better solution to creationism. Evolution makes no claim that it is perfect at this moment while creationism do make such a claim and that leads us to the next part.

3) Certainty
The mere fact that something is not absolute (good vs evil / with us or against us) or 100% certain is not a failure but rather it shows an ability to adapt, to improve and to understand. And that is one criticism of some people who adopt a literal interpretation of religion and their holy books. They look into the past and believe it provides all answers for the future.

Do not fear uncertainty, Do not fear being faced with questions where one do not know the answer, instead we should embrace for innovation and the ability to inquire is what makes human unique and the cornerstone to progress in society.

A final point just to ponder about. If you have difficulty comprehending God, lack evidence for God and rely on faith instead, then could not your lack of comprehension result in a misinterpretation of the word of God? How do you know that God (assuming exists) wants you to worship him? Perhaps he want you to use your free will and lead a life where you discover good by yourself, rather than accepting other human’s interpretation of God.

---
Larkinsjapn
Religion need not be an opiate for the dumb. In fact I know a number of smart deeply religious people. I know of someone who went to Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard who is very religious. And she is a very strong proponent of human rights and civil liberties. That is why in my initial post I talked about how given the diverse interpretation of religion from champion of freedom to enslaver of mankind, I wonder whether is religion ultimately a tool that aids a person rather than actually providing guidance in itself.

Of course that blog from the girl raise a real interesting concept of religion. That is religion was created to give people hope. Living a crummy life will seem more fulfilling and more livable if one belief that this life is merely a transit to a better place and that light is at the end of the tunnel. Religion could be the first tool used by shamens (ancestor of the psychiatrist) to prevent the tribe from falling into mental depression.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/

In case Les did not see my submission in time, you should try to catch the CNN Presents: The Fight Over Faith at 8pmET, 14 Nov (additional timing check out the link)

I have taken a peak at it and it is quite interesting to say the least. It presents the conservative evangelical and the liberal evangelical. And the most “interesting” part is where a little girl (8 year old?) say she is a born again Christian and was saved at aged 3.

Where’s Spocko when you need him?  Maybe a picture will help since written descriptions of scientific theory have all but failed.

There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be falsifiable. This means that there must be some experiment that could prove the theory untrue.

The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced; one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. [Jose Wudka 1998]

BTW: Great post PT.

Jeremy- Pop Tart and Deadscot have provided effective rebuttals to your position, but if you want another, here goes:

If it’s an explanation for the origin of life we’re seeking, what we have to explain is how order can arise from disorder. OK so far?  Now, it’s a demonstrable fact, and intuitively obvious, that the designer of a system (I mean a top-down designer, like an engineer or, say, a god) must be more complex than the system he, she, or it designs.  Agreed?  If this is true, positing a God only postpones the problem of explaining order- it’s no explanation at all.  Pop Tarts said as much, and you haven’t addressed it.

And your claim that evolution theory not being able to explain the beginning of life is tantamount to faith in the theory is just absurd.  But this highlights a difference between science and dogma, gone over many times in this forum: being able to admit not knowing something, or having made a mistake, is perhaps the greatest strength of science not a weakness.  Dogma cannot afford to admit to mistakes, lest faith waver.

Evolution provides the only non-question-begging explanation of order, bottom-up, by the accumulation of change that works, a little at a time, through random mutation and natural selection.  Creation “science” and its kin “intelligent design” are rather simple belief systems, fully inadequate to explain the complex world.  To even partially understand current evolution theory, a huge body of knowledge, requires hard work, but once undertaken, makes any other view of creation like a fairy tale.  Try it.

Well now that I have involved myself in this thread with a comment meant for another post I have to say I have enjoyed reading all of this.

And, ummm yeah Jeremy, E=mc2 a theory? ... Ask the survivors of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki about that one. Sorry for the sarcasm but I see this grasping at straws way too often and get the same teeth grinding response to it as I do to big pickup truck commercials.

Unquestioning (blind) belief naturally requires intolerance of things deemed as threatening to the most powerful organized religions that want to retain their power in the form of control over people which includes relieving their aptly named flock of some spare change and part of their brains. I always think about the comedian who asked; “What happened to all those poor condemned catholic people who ate meat on Friday, now that the pope says it is okay to eat meat on Friday now?� It’s hard work to maintain this garbage; you think it is easy issuing all of those fatwahs, and chasing down immoral people who want to listen to music and dance?

There is some goodness and some good people involved in the religion industry but like the workers at Enron were not, they are not privy to the evil machinations at the top. Or the evil origins of what they today “worship� and try to spread.

I apologize if this seems trite or obvious but it seems to me IMHO that basic common sense (the Golden Rule) is all we need to decide how to be good human beings. All the human created, politically motivated (control of the masses), don’t step on a crack hokum gets in the way of the very simple logic that should govern how you ought to live “your life� in “your way� as “you see fit�, without worrying about worshipping (one of my favorite concepts) anything or breaking arbitrary rules that are meant for keeping the proletariats so busy being pious, and not endangering our souls, that we have little time for dangerous thinking.

Religion’s message is do what we, well not really us, but the boss upstairs, we the prophets or priesthood speak for Him, say. The message is basically become our (sorry, His) servant and we promise you are great reward, later of course, and not in your lifetime. And by the way if you don’t do as we say we have a little concept called eternal damnation and believe me you want no part of that.  Oh and by the way, we will relieve you of the hard work of having to think for yourself because we’ll do the thinking around here. THIS IS BONDAGE! We all know how powerful and effective this can be especially if you indoctrinate the young and provide an obsessive alternative to people with problems coping with the real world and who don’t like the consequences of being, drug addicts, drunks, pedophiles, inconsequential people, etc. anymore.

Common sense tells us that if we want to be free to have as fulfilling an experience in this life we need to let others be free to have own their fulfilling life experience. This means no killing, harming, stealing, or otherwise fucking with another human being or his pursuit of fulfillment with the sole purpose of improving your life experience. I don’t need a pope, ayatollah, minister, or any other grand poobah instructing me on how to do this by avoiding stepping on those cracks. I can think for myself and decide to be a ‘good person’ by not harming others, or a ‘not so good person’ and run the risk of being caught in society’s bad person net. THIS IS FREEDOM!

The whole existence of “[insert deity here]� and his “divine� rules (authored by men with some obvious and not so obvious agendas) question has taken us so far away from what is really important; how to live a good life and how to live every day as if that day is your last. Human beings are divided into races, religions, states, countries, ethnicities, or as I like to call them “teams�. There is a single universal truth; we are all different and we all deserve a chance to enjoy life without becoming a predator’s victim. The whole “team� thing is obviously not working as each “team� wants to be the dominant one. BE A HUMAN BEING FIRST. Anything else is secondary to your role as a human being. As one example; how can a person who was born homosexual be regarded as sub-human, not deserving the same rights as “decent� god fearing people? This defies logic and is anti-human being thinking. And my friends, is just plain wrong.

Sorry for the rant, I only wanted to comment that I have a neighbor across the street who home schools, won’t allow her brood to mix with the other children in the neighborhood, no Halloween etc. and I like to refer to them as the “Flanders�. This was a long way to go to get back to the original topic tile. Thanks for reading. Comments and/or criticism are welcome.

Eggman, that rant was absolutely first class.  I’m looking forward to your next one.

I especially liked your expanded version of the golden rule:

… if we want to be free to have as fulfilling an experience in this life we need to let others be free to have own their fulfilling life experience. This means no killing, harming, stealing, or otherwise fucking with another human being or his pursuit of fulfillment with the sole purpose of improving your life experience.

If I had that carved in granite and displayed it in a courthouse, do you suppose it would get me in trouble?

Hell yeah! WOOT! Excellent!

“I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together”

Also an interesting thing which I just discovered as a result of Target preventing the Salvation Army from soliciting on its property. Apparently the Salvation Army adopts an anti-gay position and in 2001 tried to exempt itself from laws barring discrimination. So if you are about to donate to the Salvation Army, and you believe in non-discrimination, I suggest you donate the money to another organisation or send the money to a local shelter directly.

Don’t forget to boycott them simply because they only give help accompanied by proselytization. They have wreacked havoc upon the indigenous societies of other countries.  Indonesia, for example.  Assholes.

[Insert Name of Religion Here] Fundamentalist claims that woman is the reason for downfall of society.

I read a paper in Anth theory about how violence and cultural discrimination against women is almost always accompanied by some kind of duress, be it economical, war, lack of resources, whatever.  So this goes along with other comments that fundamentalism is an opportunistic disease.  It preys on societal turmoil, like we have in America right now and like that present in Iraq and other countries in that area.

Also, I read that women can have separate roles from men but still be equally powerful in the society.  It’s when the separate roles are accompanied by violence and true [expected] subservience (as opposed to things that appear to be subservience from the outsider’s POV) that women are oppressed.  So our (American) society is actually still pretty backwards in those terms.  Rape and spousal abuse happen far too often for us to declare that women are completely free.

Ok, I think today will be another multi-post day for me since I have 3 classes to teach and need to catch up on all these interesting comments!  Sorry in advance!

Thank you decrepitoldfool and Brock, I’m not the most articulate person or one of the better blog writers so I appreciate first, the recognition and then, the appreciation/understanding of what I was attempting to say.

So now that I am ego pumped to the level to fulfill my ultimate goal I now proclaim the religion of human beings (Eggmania) which was revealed to me by a beanstalk (or “The Beanstalk� as it is officially now known) which came down from the sky, as now open for business.

We will be called the Eggmen of course, after the emissary of The Beanstalk, The Grand Eggman (peace and the blessings of The Beanstalk be upon him) which is me of course, but don’t let on.

Our non-taxable organization will be known as the Holy Rite of Eggmen for Humanity or Eggmaniacs. And the new rules, it’s time for new rules my friends, for our religion will be revealed to us daily by The Grand Eggman (peace and the blessings of The Beanstalk be upon him) as provided to him by The Beanstalk.

Our creed will be; “We are all human beings first, we will respect each fellow human being as having the right to live unmolested as long we our self are not molested (or otherwise fucked with). “Do unto others as you would have done unto to you�

Now, The Beanstalk has issued the following “commandments� (really they are kind of plagiarized but now they make more sense), as I remember correctly they go something like this:

1."I am The Beanstalk who brought you out of the land of Babel (selfishness, nationalism, and those unbearable French).” - This commandment is to believe in the existence of The Beanstalk. Better believe bro’, ever see Little Shop of Horrors? Some scary shit.

2."You shall have no other beanstalks besides The Beanstalk (me)â€?...and BTW do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the Beanstalk land above; [which means me, I don’t give a rat’s ass about Eggman, make all the graven images you like of Him] â€?...”, this includes monuments in government public buildings with these commandments written on ten ton granite rocks, fool.

3."You shall not swear falsely by the name of The Beanstalk..” - This commandment was wrongly interpreted as; to not cuss as in; “holy tap dancing Eggmanâ€? or “Beanstalk damnâ€?: It really means never take the name of The Beanstalk in a vain or false oath. Which means never invoke something as true swearing it by The Beanstalk when it is known that it is false. Listen up all you casual courtroom perjurers; the jig is up, new sheriff!

4."Remember the “day when I want to be worshipped and do not forget to bring your wallets� day and keep it perpetually on your calendars.�

5.“Honor your father and your mother...”, this is just an afterthought add-on (it was originally Honor you father only because of the whole ‘woman as the root of sin and evil thing…’), be respectful to them only if they have earned it and deserve it as determined by adherence to these commandments and having not made you go on long family vacation trips by car, or humiliated you in front of your friends.

6."You shall not murder” - The Hebrew Bible and the Holy Eggmanian Texts make a similar distinction between murdering and killing, and explicitly notes that murder is always a heinous crime against humanity, while killing is in cases of defense of self and family is just in the eyes of The Beanstalk, any other killing is murder. The controversial translation which states “Thou shall not killâ€? has been in the past the justification for the pro-life anti-abortion and anti-death penalty zealots at the same time many of these same zealots support the murder of innocent brown-skinned non-believing barbarians in the name of The Grand Eggman , The Beanstalk, oil profits, and misguided revenge, this hypocritical shit needs to stop, now people. What do you take me for non-omniscient?

7."You shall absolutely observe the “honesty is the best policyâ€? maxim”, this replaces the old adultery thing, why do you think it is called cheating.

8."You shall not steal” (again reference #7 but, this bad boy deserves its own commandment). So keep your sorry assed hands of off other peoples possessions, money, and property. And not just this physically boost loophole, this means the whole enchilada, the corporate and government fraud, scam artists, religious charlatans (redundant), con artists (again with the redundancy) you get the idea people. And I am not fucking around with any of you on this one fuckers.

9."You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” This one is gone, see #6 again and probably #7.

10."You shall not covet your neighbor’s house...” This one gone as well as just precursor to theft and adultery, reference #6 and #7.

Well that’s it the start of Eggmania and the age of humanism and taking out the hypocritical trash of this world. I hope you all don’t mind but I had fun doing this. Thanks. 

Eggman is my sheperd, I shall not want. Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me - oh, wait, that would be Brock, or are you bi?

NEWS FLASH:......

“6 months after the rules of Eggman were enacted, the court will hear several cases relating to the application of Rule 6, 7,and 8.”

“You shall not murder.”
It is stated explicitly that killing in situation of defence of self and family is not considered as murder but questions remain.

Questions relating to the definition of self defence, whether should the court adopt a subjective test whereby a person believes his life is threatened or an objective test whereby a reasonable person would act in such a manner. Issues relating to provocation, proportionality of response are also raised. Women rights group would fear that too strict an emphasis on immediate provocation may result in battered women being convicted of murder if their actions did not occur immediately following the battering.

Meanwhile, victims right and anti-death penalty groups clash on whether the death penalty is considered murder.

The nation’s attorney general also seek clarification on the use of military force in aid of a nation that was invaded and whether such actions is justified since their killing was not exactly for defense of self and family but in aid of an ally.

Lawyers also are attempting to seek a definition of family and self. Issues of should one adopt a literal interpretation or a more broad interpretation whereby family includes friends and for nations ally and friendly nations. The state also argues that “self” should be defined to also include the society’s interests thus allowing death penalty for people trying to overthrow the government or people who had murdered others. Also issues of whether a stranger who went up to help a person being attacked can avail themselves to the self-defense.

It has been argued that the comment of “pro-life anti abortion and anti-death penalty ... in support of murder of innocent brown skinned non-believing” statement is confusing and does not actually state that death penalty is not allowed. Rather the statement reflects murdering of barbarians. Questions arise as to whether if a zealot who is pro-choice and pro-death penalty may murder innocent brown skinned non-believers.

The court would also seek further clarification on killing that was not exactly intentional. From reckless actions (drunk driving) to negligent actions (badly perform operation) resulting in death the issue is whether should those actions be considered as murder. Also the relevance of the mental element or intention in murder is to be addressed. Issues relating to “egg shell” type situation also pose a problem, specifically whereby the action in question would not have killed a normal person but because of some special characteristics unknown to the accused, the actions caused the death. One Jehovah’s Witness organisation also seek a statement from the court in providing that the fact that a person refused treatment from a wound that would have easily prevented the death should not be a defense to the person who caused the wound.

A final point relating to rule 6 that clarification is sought is the definition of the color brown.

“You shall absolutely observe the “honesty is the best policyâ€? maximâ€?
The main question relates to how absolute is this rule. On one side some parties are focusing on the word “absolute” together with “shall” shows that the rule makes no exception. Parties on the other side instead choose to focus on the word “maxim” which is a general rule rather than an absolute and as it is a general rule there are exceptions. They claim that the “absolute” interpretation has to be viewed in like of the word “maxim.” Thus it actually means one must absolutely follow a rule AND its exceptions.

The state prosecutor is currently prosecuting a woman who killed her husband. The woman claimed that it was self defense for the husband has been VERBALLY attacking her for years and she finally could not take it anymore for the verbal attack was getting more and more serious. The prosecutors on the other hand claims that what the husband was merely following the honesty is the best policy rule while calling his wife fat, ugly, lazy, stupid etc.

Meanwhile another question that needs to be clarified is whether the honesty rule compels people simply not to lie OR whether is it more broad and that people have to provide answers and that there should be no secrets. In other words, is “no comment” a violation of the rule?

A fundamentalist conservative group is seeking to stop all movie and TV productions since these shows tell a story which is not true, unless it is a documentary or based on a true story.

“You shall not stealâ€?
Given that these rules were created in the era of intellectual property, it has been argued that online piracy is now not only stealing but also sinful activity. One clarification sought is that as intellectual regimes are based on each nation’s own laws what happens when a certain country provides for greater protection. Meanwhile drug companies claim that this rule means that government cannot set price ceilings for drugs and that it is morally wrong to make companies to lower its price of drugs just to save lives. Software, DVD makers also claim that this rule prevents people from creating technological measures to circumvent copy protection.

Meanwhile, personal property lawyers are seeking clarification of this rule as whether does it offer more protection to the sanctity of property or the protection for the smooth functioning of commercial transactions. In other words, if a thief sells a stolen product to an innocent person who purchases it to whom does this product now belong to?

Also the President has ordered his attorney general to start an action stating that this rule actually means that taxes should be completely removed and that congress has no power over rejection of tax cuts.

Meanwhile outside of the courts, various groups has gathered to support their various causes, including one that is condemning this entire process for they believe these activist judges are overstepping their authority.

...for the Eggman stateth:

“Ahmniscient, and ahmnipotent too

Ahmniscient and ahmnipotent too

Ah wooden mess around wid me if Ah was you”