Dare to Speak Up

The One That Got Away

She is one of the most beautiful girls that I have ever met. Not just on the outside, but through her entire soul, if you believe in that sort of thing. She was caring, kind and understood me, even though I didn’t see it at the time. I threw her away, multiple times. I didn’t see what I had. I know this now because I’ve seen what other girls are like. There’s no one I know that comes even close to her. Sure, there are girls that share my beliefs better and there are some who make life exciting for a little while. But, none who seem to complete me like she did. Unfortunately, I know that I will never, ever get her back. I was an awful person. I don’t know why, but she didn’t seem good enough for me anymore. Maybe it was because we had been dating so long. Maybe it was my own selfish desires for some one else who I thought was better than she really was. It was a fantasy I had created in my mind that became an excuse to get away. That’s precisely what it was though, a fantasy. I wish there was a way to go back. A way to go back and tell her that I was wrong. That she was right. That I really didn’t know what I was doing. Even though I assured her that I did. To tell her that I wasn’t lying when I told her that, just another stereotypical dazed and confused guy. I still have a Christmas present from her on my nightstand. I can’t bear to put it away. I look at pictures of us every day with some far away, longing hope that we will one day be together again. I miss her so much, I can hardly stand it. We shared some of our best times together. She made me a better person than I could’ve ever hoped to be without her. I miss you. I miss us. I miss our times. Most of all, I hate myself for what I did. For what I said. For what I thought. The worst part is, I can’t take any of it back. I can’t change the past, it’s just a mistake that I will have to live with, as hard as that will be. I loved you. I still love you. I always will too. I hope we can be friend again one day. You really are the one that got away. 

Selectivity

New York has become the sixth and most populous state to legalize gay marriage on June 24, 2011. This has caused an outcry by members of the Christian Right, who despise marriage equality and wish to selectively deny marriage rights to members of this country. Typically, they will quote one of several bible passages. For this post, I have chosen three of them:

1. Leviticus 18:22 - Do not lie with a man as you lie with a woman; that is detestable.
2. Romans 1:26-27 - Because of this reason, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
3. 1 Corinthians 6:9 - Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral not idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 

These passages illustrate the complaints of those who oppose love equality. They show that the Bible frowns upon homosexual acts and in turn gay marriage. They claim their opposition stems from an understanding of the Bible and the opinion that they should follow all instructions laid out within it. I have taken great pleasure in finding three passages in the Bible which Christians don’t follow. they are as follows:

1. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
2. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 - To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
3. 1 Timothy 2:12 - I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

These are obviously not followed, as if someone had their son stoned to death, they would be convicted of murder. I am aware of people of all faiths who have divorced and then remarried after. Do these people mean to tell me that they will burn in Hell? Also, I am fairly certain that most of the teachers that taught these opponents to gay marriage were women. Is this to say that the women who are educators or are in high profile positions, therefore having authority over men, are going to burn in Hell? Certainly not. The common response is that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally in those spots. My response is “How do you know?”. How do they know what parts of the bible are meant to be taken literally, as the ones about homosexuality are, and which parts need to be “interpreted”? 

Religion doesn’t have a monopoly on marriage. If there was a law stating that only Christians are not allowed to marry, there would be an outcry. The same would apply if that law replaced Christians with Muslims, Jews, Democrats, Republicans or any one of the country’s numerous minorities. Why is it then, do people believe that it is okay to discriminate against the LGBT community and not African-Americans? Or Latinos? Or women? It is not okay to discriminate against any person for reasons of ethnicity, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation or national origin. We are all members of the one human race.

In conclusion, anyone who does not support gay marriage is in gross violation of a basic human right and a perpetuator of a disgusting discriminatory act. The most powerful reason I have for legalizing gay marriage is my conscience, but if that doesn’t do it for you, I leave you this, a quote from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

National Day of Prayer

Tomorrow (May 5, 2011) is the “National Day of Prayer”. The law that formalized the “National Day of Prayer”, cited in 36 U.S.C. § 119 : US Code - Section 119 reads: The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals. The lawwas formally  enacted in 1952 on April 17, 1952 by President Harry S. Truman (it had been unofficial since 1775*). It states that each incoming president shall designate an appropriate day for the observance of the holiday. I’m not against an outside, non-governmental body organizing a “day of prayer”. That group is free to believe what they want and celebrate it how they wish to celebrate it. That is guaranteed under the Free Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states: 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. This is generally interpreted to mean that Congress does not have the power to establish a national religion and also cannot prefer one religion over another. In Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter concluded in the majority opinion that ”government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion” (Justice Souter is an Episcopalian). The enactment of a “National Day of Prayer” violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This clearly shows a government bias to religion in the United States and is not only unfair to those of us who don’t believe, but those who think that church and state should be completely separated.

On October 3, 2008, the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the “National Day of Prayer”. On April 15, 2010, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb “ruled that the statute establishing the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional as it is “an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function”. Judge Crabb also stated in her opinion, “If the government were interested only in acknowledging the role of religion in America, it could have designated a ‘National Day of Religious Freedom’ rather than promote a particular religious practice.” However, Crabb stayed her ruling pending the completion of appeals. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a notice to appeal the ruling on April 22, 2010, and on April 14, 2011 a panel at the 7th District Court of Appeals unanimously overruled Crabb’s decision, stating that “a feeling of alienation cannot suffice as injury.” They further stated that the President is free to make appeals to the public based on many kinds of grounds, including political and religious, and that such requests do not obligate citizens to comply and do not encroach on citizens’ rights. The same day, the Freedom From Religion Foundation announced that it would seek an en banc review of the ruling by the full Seventh Circuit court” (National Day of Prayer - Wikipedia). It is my dire hope and concern that this case will eventually reach the US Supreme Court and that 36 U.S.C. § 119 will be ruled unconstitutional.

*The Honorable the Congress having recommended it to the United States to set apart Thursday the 6th of May next to be observed as a day of fasting, humiliation and prayer, to acknowledge the gracious interpositions of Providence; to deprecate [to pray or intreat that a present evil may be removed] deserved punishment for our Sins and Ingratitiude, to unitedly implore the Protection of Heaven; Success to our Arms and the Arms of our Ally: The Commander in Chief enjoins a religious observance of said day and directs the Chaplains to prepare discourses proper for the occasion; strictly forbidding all recreations and unnecessary labor.” - George Washington

Sources:

1. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/36/I/A/1/119

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Establishment_of_religion

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Prayer

4. http://supreme.justia.com/us/512/687/case.html

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

You’ll find that most of my sources are from Wikipedia. I used Wikipedia only for information that is easily verified by other, more widely acceptable sources and that is common knowledge.

The Usefulness of Religion

NOTE: While the intent of this post is NOT to “bash” religion or offend those who are religious, I understand that some people will inevitably take it in that way. If you think that you will be somehow offended based on the title of the post, don’t read it.

While aimlessly scrolling the internet, I came across a conversation on TED.com (Technology Entertainment and Design) entitled “Has religion outlived its usefulness?” The conversation, the link of which is located at the end of this post, got me thinking about that question. Has it? Is the idea of an omniscient creator needed to explain the origins of the universe, our own blue planet and the life that it contains in an age dominated by science and technology? I and a plethora of people who know a whole lot more about science than I do would argue not. In prehistoric times, I would venture to say that a creator would serve a useful purpose. With no knowledge of science or the world around them, and indeed no way to obtain that knowledge, the idea would most definitely be a satisfying one. What else would provide such a sure explanation of how the sun rises and sets and how the tide comes in and goes out? With the advent of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the world gained three new faiths, two of which have stirred up some of the biggest controversies of our time. The Abrahamic religions attempt to provide an explanation for the origin of the universe, provide a way to govern the life of followers and provide the promise of life after death. Atrocities that seem to only be justifiable by faith. From the Crusades to the prosecution of Galileo to the rise of Islamism*, religion has committed numerous atrocities throughout history. All of them seem to be justified solely by one’s own faith, if that is truly justification at all. 

I do not believe that there was, is or ever will be a god. It has been shown in this age of science and technology that there is not a need for a creator. As to not turn this post into a rant about science and god, I encourage the reading of several books and websites that can further explain the reason for living life religion free.

Books: The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow; The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins; Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris

Websites: www.ted.com; www.richarddawkins.net; www.atheistnexus.org

“Has religion outlived its usefulness?” was originally found at: http://www.ted.com/conversations/339/has_religion_outlived_it_s_use.html

*Islamism: “Political Islam”. Different from mainstream “Islam”.

I feel that this post should be closed with the quote that opened the discussion from TED, here it is.

“Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where’s the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let’s now stop being so damned respectful!” - Richard Dawkins

Offensive?

Why does atheism offend believers? As Ricky says in the video, “I’m not offended when someone thanks god”. Good point, now why are you offended when I say I don’t?

http://richarddawkins.net/videos/582353-ricky-gervais-says-atheism-shouldn-t-offend

Santa and God

http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/god-is-santa-for-adults

End of Days?

Marie Exley seems like your average, everyday American.  She’s a 32-year-old Christian and Army veteran from the town of Colorado Springs, CO.  The similarities end there.  Exley left her job to work with “Family Radio Worldwide”, a Christian ministry based in Oakland, California whose leader, Harold Camping, claims to have predicted both the dates for “Judgement Day” and the end of the world, May 21, 2011 and October 21, 2011, respectively.  If the name Harold Camping sounds familiar to you, you’re right.  Camping is perhaps best known for his failed first prophecy detailing the second coming of Jesus in 1994 (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1994/october24/4tc084.html).

Now, as an atheist I don’t believe in any of what he says, or any other religious group for that matter.  I firmly believe that anything the man says is simply an attempt at getting his “15 minutes of fame” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_minutes_of_fame).  I also think that any self respecting Christian will also denounce the beliefs of Camping.  When Christians state that they do believe him, it’s not only an insult to themselves, but to their faith as a whole, for they only need to look to scripture for evidence to the contrary.  In Matthew 24:36-39 it states: “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.  As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.  For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away.  That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.”  If that doesn’t scream “YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN SO SHUT UP AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE!”, I frankly have no idea what does.  Camping should stop talking, admit that he has no idea what he is talking about and stop with the psycho babble bullshit.

Thank you.