Category Archives: Religion

Religion, separation of church and state, Jesus camps, religious fanaticism, Islam, Christianity, Pastafarianism, hatred, and bigotry. Throw in a little atheism and you have to just say Why.

Where Do You Get Your Morals?

Where Do You Get Your Morals?
by
Paul Johnson

Let’s start by considering two people who we would agree are moral and two who we wouldn’t consider moral and see what shakes out.

Mike and Marv are two moral people. Mike goes to church regularly, and has been brought up getting his morals from the church. It’s the Golden Rule and the 10 Commandments that he lives by.

Marv goes to church regularly and feels that his morals mesh well with the church-taught morals, but feels that it’s important for him to know “why” some things are moral and others are not.  He says that understanding “why” helps him better decide the morally correct decision in areas not so well defined by the Bible.

Mike says that his Bible tells him what he needs in order to make decisions, and if he can’t find it, he can always seek guidance from elders in his church. He would never consider deciding on his own without considering his religion.

Now let’s consider Billy and Bobby. Billy is devoutly religious and knows that he’s doing the wrong thing but just “can’t help” it when he’s doing immoral things. He knows that being gay is wrong but he can’t help his homosexual inclinations, though he suppresses them as best he can. He also knows that the man is the king of his domain and his wife better just succumb to his demands or he has the support of God in his brutality.

Bobby was raised in a religious family but feels that his church is persecuting him and his friends for being gay. He says if God made them gay, then the church has no right to condemn him.  He wishes he wasn’t gay but he feels he is who he is and is healthier for accepting the facts.

Which of these people would be better able to make moral decisions and which would have difficulty?

Obviously, Mike admits that he is unable to “make” moral decisions on his own and must rely on moral decisions defined thousands of years ago and rewritten countless times. Mike has never exercised his moral decision making process. What kinds of decisions does he make on a daily basis? Basing his morals on his book, how often does he apply the wrong moral to a situation? Of all the Mikes I’ve known, there aren’t any that I would trust to make a moral decision on their own.

Marv would certainly do better at making moral decisions as he has demonstrated a desire to understand the issues and has a demonstrated experience at making moral decisions.

How about Billy the wife beater? He can justify every awful evil thing he does by following the letter of the religious laws while not understanding or caring about the intent. How would you feel about having someone like Billy on a jury?

How about Bobby? Does his religious upbringing make him better at moral decisions? Since he has abandoned them, I’m inclined to say no.

How about if we take someone who is really awful and who confesses to not having a religious moral compass? Stalin comes to mind. He was responsible for millions of deaths and murders. We certainly wouldn’t want him making moral decisions for us. We know who he is.

Mike, on the other hand, frequently makes moral decisions involving people around him. Mike may even be a president of some third world county. Then again, so may Billy. Their religious decision making process is not only broken but outright destructive. We would be less inclined to accept Stalin but could be worse off still with either Mike or Billy.

The defining difference between someone good at making moral decisions and someone bad is the obvious criteria, knowledge and experience.  Dogmatically following a religion’s moral decisions makes us really lousy at making moral decisions. Only when we understand the premise of the morality we find in our religions or elsewhere, can we be good moral people.

In other words, you don’t become more moral by going to church, but you certainly could be less moral.

Capital Punishment and Justice

Capital Punishment and Justice
by
Paul Johnson

So, it’s just a coincidence that the Bush Administration has decided to wait until now to prosecute bad guys #1, #2, and #3, all responsible for 9/11. (By the way, I thought Bush was responsible for failing to protect us from 9/11, but that’s another story.) So, if we ignore the unreliable nature of tortured confessions, and ignore the totally unethical and deceptive Bush Administration, and ignore all the questions about how Saddam (oops, I mean Osama) has gotten EVERYTHING he demanded from the US, ignoring all these things, if we find the bad guys guilty and everyone really believes it, how do we punish them?

On another note, there has been new evidence discovered around the finding of the latest dead victim of the Nevada UNR serial rapist. The charity fund to help find the poor missing girl is now redirecting their efforts from finding the girl to exacting “justice”.

In yet another news story, there have been hundreds of deaths every year caused by greed in the medical industry. Back when our country was young, and for thousands of years before that, when someone killed or crippled a friend or neighbor or customer through greed or stupidity, we felt obligated to ensure that the victim and his family were taken care of.

So, what is justice? I should remind you that justice is not, in any way, the same as revenge. Revenge is a lousy moral trait. No amount of killing or suffering will ever bring back someone’s ability to walk or live and breath.

What is capital punishment? It’s nothing more than revenge, plain and simple.

Electrocuting someone to death doesn’t bring back loved ones, it only causes more pain, suffering, and death, and not just for the hopefully correctly convicted convict, but for his friends and family as well. And why should we care? Because we’re better people than that.

The Death Penalty does not exact justice, but only revenge.

Pay attention to the number of people on death row and in lifetimes of incarceration who have recently been  found innocent. Imagine how many have already been put to death who were also innocent. In these cases, the “justice” in the form of revenge, has become murder, cold blooded murder on our parts. That’s not something we want to be a part of.

So, what is the purpose of our penal system if not for revenge? I suppose everyone can answer that. Our penal system is supposed to serve two purposes, first, it acts to discourage wrong-doing through fear of the consequences, and the second is to protect society from the bad apples.

In the first case, the term penal system is incorrect. What we really need to call it is a re-education system. The best way to ensure that convicts, innocent and guilty alike, turn to crime when they leave the penal system is to fail in our efforts to rehabilitate or re-educate them.

In the second case, the penal system isn’t intended to reform or re-educate criminals, but to prevent them from doing further harm to society.

In neither of these cases is “Penal System” the correct solution. No wonder it doesn’t work.

So, we seem to have a pretty good handle on what “Justice” is not. But what, exactly, is it? How, exactly do we reform our penal system into a correctional system?

Looking at the three examples in the beginning of this essay, we have three overlapping solutions to three very different crimes, and yes, malpractice is a crime.

#1. Will fear of death prevent religious zealots from trying to infect the rest of society? I guess that’s pretty obvious, but needs to be stated. Punishment, especially the death penalty, does not discourage the mentally unstable. This is true not just of religious fanatics, but applies equally well to any crimes done out of emotion. In other words, the only crime that punishment will discourage is crimes done by high-society aristocratic spoiled kids getting their kicks. This will not discourage emotionally driven people, and will obviously not discourage desperate people.

Putting to death religious zealots will only breed more religious zealots.

#2. What is justice for the doctor who is performing so many operations that he can’t keep them straight and ends up cutting off the wrong limb? Just as in the past, this greedy doctor should be responsible for the victim and his dependents for life.  What about cases where the perpretator has no means of supporting the victim and family? Then a life of servitude is in order. Serve that family in any way you can, and if that means going door to door begging for food for the victims, then get to it.

Will a million dollar punitive damage settlement be fair justice? Perhaps, if that’s what will make the victim feel fairly compensated for the loss of his sight, or hearing, and if the family will feel fairly compensated for the loss of a loved one and the loss of decades of care, help, and income. But, really, would you trade your eyesight for a million dollars? How do you put a price on something like that?

Keep in mind, that this corrupt industry is trying their best to limit their need and inclination to provide restitution to those they’ve harmed. This is immoral in so many ways. Yes, we need to reform our medical industry.

#3. The serial rapist currently preying on the girls and young women of Reno’s UNR campus is not discouraged by fear of death. He is encouraged by his belief that he will not be caught. I guess if we had the cops that are currently busting people for smoking pot, or watching adult movies, or prostitution out there on the streets dealing with real crime, then the criminal would be much less inclined to rape and kill, but he would still yearn for it and would eventually succumb to his weakness.

When caught and convicted, will the correction system be able to rehabilitate him? Was Willie Horton on the path to rehabilitation? I’m not a psychologist, but I know that some people are not able or willing to rehabilitate. Can a jury decide this? I suppose not. Since I’m not a psychologist, I couldn’t decide, and nor could all but a very few jurors. However, many jurors are driven by emotions, especially in cases like this. Decisions based on emotion, are what got us in this mess, it’s obviously not the solution.

In cases where the bad apples must be separated from society, rehabilitation should still be a regular part of the incarceration, but keeping the bad apples out of society has to be the primary focus in these cases. For those who we are unable to keep out of society should then be considered candidates for a more permanent solution. Is that solution Capital Punishment? I don’t think so.

In conclusion, what do we do with the people responsible for 9/11? I suggest we start with impeachment. If we fail to impeach, will that encourage criminal behavior by future presidents? Maybe in some cases, but it’s not a solution in itself, either.

What do we do with the three 9/11 suspects delivered by Bush? Maybe we could start by apologizing for being so un-American and torturing them and refusing them legal council. Then, if they truly are guilty, we could rehabilitate them and use them as poster children on anti-terrorist propaganda to broadcast to religiously fanatical groups here and abroad.

Who Do I Support for President?

by Paul Johnson

OK, so who will I vote for? What are my reasons?

Let me start by saying a few things. 1) Refusing to or failing to support a candidate just because they’re not “viable” is a mistake, 2) Past deeds and votes are a better indication than campaign promises, 3) Those who donate the most to a candidate get the most representation, so donate today, 4) If we don’t like the premises upon which the US was founded, we have the right to fix and improve the constitution.

Unfortunately, each of these issues could take up an entire post, but each is important. So, I’ll try to address each of these issues in future posts. Maybe some of my fellow authors would like to expand upon one or more of these issues.

I’m going to start with #4 in this post.

Is Separation of Church and State Good for America?:
If you’re inclined to blindly interpret the Bible without taking into consideration common sense or logical reasoning, you’re still required to approach this issue as Jesus did here:

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.

There is no more obvious and undeniable conclusion in the Bible than to honor the separation of church and state. It’s as plain as the nose on your face.

Adding a bit of common sense and some logic to the decision making process leads one to consider both history and current events (facts). Looking at today’s world, it is easy to conclude that the most religious governments in the world govern the most violent, ruthless, immoral, and ignorant societies. It’s not just a coincidence.

Look back over time at the most bleak and hopeless times in mankind’s history and you’ll find times when the iron fist of the church was making the decisions. This isn’t opinion, it’s fact. Is it just a coincidence? Of course not.

The obvious conclusion is if you love your country, or your neighbors or your Bible, you’ll vote for the candidate who is most likely to restore our separation of church and state.

I guess this simple litmus test disqualifies every single Republican candidate except Ron Paul. However, Ron Paul’s unchristian attitude towards abandoning our neighbors rather than helping, disqualifies him, as well.

I refuse to vote for candidates based on party affiliation. The past 10 years have shown us that political parties are bad for a democracy. Any time a politician makes a decision based on party you can guarantee that it’s a decision that is bad for America. Too bad I can’t find a single Republican candidate to add to my list of hopefuls.

So, who on the Indy or Democratic side passes the Separation of Church and State litmus test? Hillary is the least viable, followed by Obama. Both these candidates speak endlessly of their religion and neither has made any stand against our slide into a church state. Edwards has made a few comments but is too afraid of the church-state to actually speak up against them. Looking at track record, I’m not too excited about Edwards, either.

Wow, this drops way down to the bottom of the popularity pool. Why? Why is it so unpopular to support separation of Church and State? I suggest that it’s not unpopular to support separation of church and state, but rather unpopular to voice opposition to too many things. This information is valuable for us voters but is risky for politicians.

Unpopular as he may be, I like Dennis Kucinich for his courage to express his opinion on things that he knows need attention, at the risk of angering big businesses, including our Church State.

The bottom line, though, is any non-Bush (non-Republican) candidate would be a vote for a better America. Any vote for a religious candidate is a vote against America.

Remember, only through separation of church and state can we keep both good.

The War on Christmas

by Paul Johnson

The Conservatives are out in full force disgracing Christmas. However, from listening from the O-Reily liar, one would think that the problem was that we Christians are showing tolerance for other religions. Gosh, tolerance, what an un-Christian thing to exhibit.

Lying to the American people about the war and then accusing everyone else of disgracing the military and then voting to strip the rights and benefits from the military is just oh, so un-Christian.  The Conservatives like all of O-Reily’s brain-dead followers, think the war on Christmas is about Christians’ mistake of being understanding, compassionate, and tolerant (all the things Jesus encouraged). That’s not the real war on Christmas. The O-Reily war on Christmas is the Conservative war on all things that Jesus taught.

Next time you hear “War on Christmas”, stop and think about what it really means. The Conservatives are destroying everything Christian in America. If they have their way, we’ll be just be like another Islamic republic.  That’s the real war on Christmas.

In Disgust we Trust

by Paul Johnson

We all know that a major part of the American revolution from England was about the need for religious tolerance. The “Church of England” or “The King’s Church” wasn’t to be imposed on America.

There are many references to this in the country’s founding documents, including the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

So why do we exclude certain religious beliefs on every single piece of money printed by our government? Why do we denigrate so many of our fellow citizens who don’t view religions as we do? Why do we point out our intolerance of them every day in our Pledge of Allegiance?

Isn’t this exactly what our forefathers were trying to get away from?

You even hear some saying that America is a Christian Nation. Oh, come on, now. Get real! Nobody really believes that trash. Thirty seconds reading the Constitution or the Bill of Rights would convince even the the most thick skulled amongst us.

“In God We Trust” is saying “Anyone believing in another god is not part of WE THE PEOPLE. Yes, that’s exactly the opposite of what our forefathers wanted.

“One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all” means if you don’t pray to OUR GOD, you’re not Indivisible and aren’t part of Liberty and Justice.

Does anyone really believe that this is what our forefathers wanted? I’m all for holding my religious beliefs and don’t like others thinking they have liberty to try to convert me relentlessly. But, it’s immoral for me to force these views upon others just as much as if enough got together and passed laws to change our pledge to say, “One Nation, Devoid of God…” or having all our money changed to say “We Trust in No God”. It sounds silly, but that’s exactly what we’re doing to others.

It’s not right. Let’s take a breath and try the golden rule. Would we like others doing to us what we’re doing to others who don’t think like we do? We’d scream bloody murder, and so should they. And — we should be sensitive enough to know it’s wrong.

Heritage Foundation Suffers Corrupt Foundations

by Paul Johnson

In keeping with our goal to avoid broad brush-strokes, I’ll refrain from classifying all Conservatives as morally bankrupt. But, Heritage Foundation, the lighthouse of the Conservative movement, demonstrates some serious moral deficiencies.

The World Health Organization along with the Guttmacher Institute have done a study and found that women do not have fewer abortions in countries where they are outlawed. In other words, social, religious, and political pressure does not reduce the need for or frequency of abortions. Of course, where they are illegal, abortions are considerably less safe and cause a considerably greater health risk to the patient.

Googling this brought up, as my second link, the “Abortion Facts” website. Hmmm, “facts”, maybe a good place to get “facts” on the effects of abortion restrictions. What a joke.  What a scam. What a lie. What a disgrace.

Oh Just-Say-Why you’ve seen countless articles of Conservative Corruption. This is just one more example. I’m not saying all Conservatives organizations are Corrupt. When I find one, though, I’ll be sure to let you know.

So, what’s so corrupt about “Abortion Facts” website? The moral corruption comes at many levels. Let’s look at the first two obvious levels.

Corruption One – Lying Liars:
Anyone who has ever read the Bible knows that God hates liars much more than queers. There are only a few references to homosexuality in the Bible but countless references to the moral crimes of deceipt. The Bible also says absolutely nothing about abortion. Nothing!

“Abortion Facts” website, owned and sponsored by the Conservative media outlet, Heritage Foundation, is deceiving thousands of unsuspecting women daily, into thinking they deliver something other than anti-abortion and anti-choice ramblings. The only “facts” about that website  is that they are trying to advance a political agenda.

We aren’t talking “Little White Lies” or “they’re just Lies to help the greater good” kinds of lies. We’re talking about lies to further a perspective that is not in anyone’s best interests and does not represent the opinions of the Bible or of God. Liars, plain and simple.

Would a person with any morals ever do such a thing? Would you, personally, try to deceive thousands of women daily to help furthure your personal pet projects? Of course not. Perhaps that’s what separates the Conservatives from the Human Race.

Getting back to the World Health Organization’s study, we see that the lies advanced by the Heritage Foundation regarding abortion do not represent God (but they do represent many organized religions) and they don’t improve the lives of unwanted children or the lives and safety of women. In fact, these lies make it more likely that thousands of women will be forced into the shadows for unsafe abortions, and many more will die or suffer life long injuries.

Stop and think about that. Compare the amount of “good” and who benefits by the Heritage Foundation’s “Abortion Lies” website. Now consider who is harmed. Would anyone with a single ounce of morals do such things? Of course not. They are morally corrupt.

Corruption Two – Purposeful Harm:
For many years, experts have been saying that outlawing abortions doesn’t reduce the need or reliance on the practice. Today we have actual numbers to review to prove the facts. But, will Heritage Foundation admit the error of their ways? Will they stop the immoral condemnation of women who need abortions? Will they apologize for the harm they have already done? Of course not. Would you expect a Conservative organization like Heritage Foundation to ever admit to the facts?

If they won’t change their opinions based on the facts, then it’s not the facts that dictate their position, but something else. What could affect someone’s judgment that is unrelated to facts? How about society? We are all molded by societal pressures every day. Every day we make decisions based on whether we would be accepted or banished for our actions (and thoughts).

This is even worse when it comes to religious condemnation. This seems to indicate that there is a tie between the unthinking fear of condemnation by an unthinking religion and the unthinking refusal to change opinions in the face of facts to the contrary. These pressures from the Conservative community and religion has created a Heritage Foundation that us unable to represent intelligent positions, and “Abortion Facts” is just more proof.

I love living in a free country where lunatics are allowed to spew their ignorance, where society is intelligent enough to discount and ignore their ramblings. Unfortunately, though, far too many people are beginning to actually believe the lies coming from Conservative “Facts”.

To be a Republican you need to believe

by Dave Speck

To be a Republican you need to believe:

1. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton

2. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s Daddy made war on him , a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a “we can’t find Bin Laden” diversion.

3. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Viet Nam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

4. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

5. A woman can’t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational drug corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay.

7. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won’t have sex.

8. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

9. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMO’s and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

10. Global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

11. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

12. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet .

13. The public has a right to know about Hillary’s cattle trades, but George Bush’s driving record is none of our business.

14. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

15. Supporting “Executive Privilege” for every Republican ever born, who will be born or who might be born (in perpetuity.)

16. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960’s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the ’80’s is irrelevant.

17. Support for hunters who shoot their friends and blame them for wearing orange vests similar to those worn by the quail.

If you don’t send this to at least 10 other people, we’re likely to be stuck with more Republicans ’08.

Friends don’t let friends vote Republican

Pope demands respect for Sundays

by Paul Johnson

From the BBC:

Pope Benedict XVI has appealed for renewed respect for Sundays

When the world’s churches come clean, then and only then can they start asking that those of us with morals change our behavior. That’s right, the pope and his church has the morals of barbarians from 3,000 years ago. In fact, that’s where their rules and morals have come from.

That’s right. read the bible, rape your wife, your slaves, your children, even kill your children, just like the bible tells us, and then tell the rest of the world that we need to show respect. Do people with functioning brains really listen to these immoral cult leaders?

Hey Benedict, how about showing respect for the living by donating some of your millions of dollars to stem cell research? How about selling your multi-million dollar churches and help the poor, the unfortunate, the uneducated, the sick. How many people would be saved by closing just one church, Benedict?

Follow Jesus, ban the churches. Read the bible and you will see that Jesus opposed organized religion. Ever wonder why? Follow Jesus, ban the churches, or — follow the Pope and show some more respect for Sundays.

Krattenmaker’s Moral Deception

This issue has been beaten up enough on the blogs, as of late, that I hate to be just another post, but there’s one issue that I feel has been tragically missed.

In the August 20th USA Today, Tom Krattenmaker’s article was down on the secularists for being, well, so much like the overboard theists — close minded. But, his rant started from a comment he had made that garnered a not-so-open minded reply, in his mind.

Tom says, “… religion should leave scientific research to the scientists and devote itself, along with the fields of ethics and philosophy, to the mighty issues of the human condition: good and evil, the meaning of life, the nature of love and so forth.”

The handbook for the Christian religions, the Holy Bible, is thick with unethical and immoral recipes for living our lives. There are dozens of recommendations to own and rape our slaves, and our women’s slaves, to rape our daughters until they’re pregnant, to sexually abuse young men, to rape, pillage, plunder, and destroy entire races.

Yes, Tom, these are the people who should be spending their time on such wieighty issues as the meaning of life, love, and so forth. No point in expecting to see any morals from someone who doesn’t pattern their lives after the Good Book, now is there?

For a quick run-down on the true nature of the Holy Bible, read it yourself, or spend 5 minutes on the Internet looking it up. Here’s a good place to start — The Annotated Bible. Check out the categories on the right hand side of the page, for example of the things condoned by the Bible.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Don’t pretend that I’m saying all religious people are sickos. I’m not. I am a spiritual person, myself. However, we need to pay attention to what we’re being fed. Religion does not teach us morals. If we don’t get them from within, the Bible will only corrupt us.

Light Posting

Hi All,

In case you’re wondering why the postings have been so light this week — I’m out of the area until Friday. But, oh, there’s so much to cover. Al beat me to a response to a Krattenmaker about the bad old securlarists.

14 more of our soldiers have died today, in Iraq. “IT’S NOT A QUAGMIRE!” My heart goes out to the families and friends.

The Moral Beliefs of Atheists

Balkinization has an interesting read regarding the possible religious foundation of morals. It was eerie to follow the link and read the review of Michael Perry’s Toward a Theory of Human Rights.

Balkinization’s Brian Tamanaha does a good first stab at analyzing the view, but seems to be approaching Perry’s fallacy with kid gloves. Perry’s perspective is that all morals come from religion and a lack or loss of religion would spell a break-down of our rights, laws, and courts.

Now, let me state that I haven’t read Perry’s works, here, and am only going on the review and on Brian’s blog, but both seem so obviously lacking. The most obvious destruction of Perry’s religious morals perspective are the facts in our every day news. Look at how much more religious our government and especially our courts have become in the past few years. It is not a coincidence that this is one of the most immoral governments that we have seen. Again, this is not a coincidence. Any time over the history of mankind that has been controlled by religion has been a time of immorality.

How could these two arguments be so devoid of this knowledge? Of course, the naive excuse would be to say that all the examples are just coincidences.

Is there really any reason to spend more time listening to biased authors explain how their world view is fact, regardless of all the facts to the contrary.

Time magazine published a survey showing that 59% of American voters would vote against an atheist because of his religious view. Where does this 59% get this twisted notion? Who has been feeding them lies?

Like the religious fanatics, it’s easy to believe that homosexuality is a choice, in the absence of any facts. However, anyone who has really known a gay person knows that this is a stupidly ignorant perspective. It is not a choice.

If you’re interested in knowing if religious people are really less moral than atheists, get to know some atheists and use that knowledge to decide who is immoral and who is improving the human race. You’ll be pleasantly surprised to know that there are a group of people out there doing a much better job than those church-goers you and I know from church.

What Morals Do YOU Get From Church?

Perhaps it’s my imagination, but it seems there are a very large proportion of SUV drivers that attend my church.

SUVs and church

Why do people prefer SUVs over more reasonable transportation — like cars that get twice as much gas mileage, cars that don’t support the terrorists as much, cars that are easier to drive, park, clean…

SUVs and church

Why? It’s easy, there are two main reasons, and each is as immoral as one can imagine. 1. It’s safer for me and my kids, at the expense of the safety of all those around me every single day, and 2. It makes me feel more powerful so I can bully my way into traffic.

SUVs and church

Of course, there are the stupid lies they tell themselves about how they need the SUV to get the kids to soccer practice, or maybe we’ll have to transport a king sized bed sometime in our lives, or, well, you name it. The real reasons are one of the first two.

Now, who would steal the safety and lives of those drivers around them just so they can feel safer or more powerful? Who would risk killing someone unnecessarily, by driving a big tank, just so they feel safer?

Certainly, not someone who has A SINGLE THREAD OF MORALS!

SUVs and church

However, these are all the people we see at church every week.

So, is it the chicken or the egg? Does church make you immoral or does it attract the slime of our society?

Either way, shouldn’t it be fixed some day? Today? Are you giving money to churches that support and encourage this immorality?

SUVs and church

Does your church discourage this needless killing, or condone it?

Lesser Known Religious Murderers

We all think of Religious Murderers as the fanatics who flew planes into our buildings trying to kill as many innocent people as possible. Sick, real sick. That one act took 3,000 lives.

That is horrific, but, that is peanuts in comparison!

Religious zealots are knowingly killing many times more than that every year, right here in America. But, we seldom hear about it.

Let’s take a simple example. 73,000 Americans died of Diabetes in 2005, and the number is skyrocketing. Many of these are children who have done nothing wrong, but being born.

What if we could flip a switch and save all these 73,000. It would be pretty immoral to just let them die. It would also be considered murder, and rightfully so.

Stem Cell research may have already cured this disease if we were allowed and encouraged to research it. The vast majority of Americans want us to aggressively pursue this research. However, a small number of religious fanatics in our government have hijacked our country and our tax dollars and are refusing to flip the switch.

No matter how you look at it, 73,000 Americans die each year because blindly-religious zealots are preventing us from doing the research we want to do.

Are these people murderers?

Are we complicit by letting them do it?

Speak up. Say NO to America’s zealots.

Those Islamic Extremists

There was a time, not more than 10 years ago, when we would look at the occasional kook, standing on a street corner with a banner saying, “The End Is Near! Repent!” and feel honest pity. We would often want to give him $5 so he would be able to find some place to stay the night and have a hot meal.

Today, we share our churches with these extremists.  They’re all around us, in our churches, in our grocery stores, in our government, teaching our kids. Even our church’s sermons are sprinkled much more liberally with Hellfire and Brimstone. No wonder people are getting the impression this is okay, or acceptable. The $700 Club is sick with it.

When the Islamic radicals see us and want us dead, do you really think they’re any different than the extremists on our side? If you honestly think there’s a difference, you’re sadly mistaken.  Religious extremism is religious extremism. Period. The only difference is the way we pronounce god.

Don’t think for a moment that Christian radicals don’t cause hate, despair,  and death. Hisory if full of endless examples.

Churches, like governments, are good when kept in control. Religion, like government become harmful when run by radicals.

By the way, have you read the Bible lately? If so, then you know that Jesus opposed organized religion. He opposed the very people who have kidnapped his teachings. The very people you’re paying with your contributions. How much of your contribution goes to shield the sexual abusers? The rapers? The sodomizers?  That’s what happens when religion gets strong. That’s why Jesus opposed it.

The Crimes of Home Schooling

Has anyone done any research to see who are all those parents that are doing home schooling? Of the few home schoolers that I know, all have elected to do this to save their children from the evils of a “Progressive School System”, that teaches such evil topics as biology and evolution.

Shouldn’t this be an imprisonable offense? Isn’t this causing irreparable harm to the youth, soon to be new voters, of our country? Shouldn’t these parents be relieved of their parental duties like a parent who refuses medical treatment for their kids for religious reasons?

We have a growing problem that needs to see the light of day.