Jim Wilson explores the question about American exceptionalism.

In the Charlton Heston’s 1959 film Ben-Hur there is a scene where a Roman citizen, Messala is encouraging his Jewish friend to be more accepting and less resistant to the Roman empire’s control of his homeland. He put it bluntly:
“It’s no accident that one small village on the Tiber was chosen to rule the world…It wasn’t just our legions…No, it was fate that chose us to civilize the world – and we have. Our roads and our ships connect every corner of the earth: Roman law, architecture, literature are the glory of the human race.”

This is a summary of how all too many Americans view their own count—as a nation destined for a divinely sanctioned, continuous reign of benevolent world dominance. This sort of nationalistic exceptionalism has appeared in nearly every culture, especially those that have come to dominate in the civilized world. The desire to think that the place one is from or the culture one grew up in is special is widespread. There is an innate desire to believe that one’s homeland is God’s gift to humanity.

Apparently, such a belief is seen as a badge of honor by much of the electorate in this country. The issue of the U.S. president’s belief (or lack thereof) in American exceptionalism received quite a bit of media attention when his opponent decided to question him it. Apparently, believing your country is anything less than God’s ordained means of advancing humanity is politically suspect.

For many, the term American exceptionalism entails the belief that our political system and economic system is an effective one. It is conducive to human development. They believe that the country’s founders were in a unique position to put such a system into place providing a good example for the rest of the world. There is no problem with this position but the term carries other baggage.

Specifically, American exceptionalism is often leads to the following beliefs:
·         The U.S. and its people are simply better than the rest of the world.
·         This country can do no wrong and that none of our overseas adventures were in error or should ever be apologized for.
·         That our country and its government are the tools of a supernatural being.
·         That the US is some sort of “City on a Hill” that the rest of the world should hold in high regard and emulate in every way.
·         That Americans are special, wonderful, and destined to be number one!
·         That our government has every right to invade or intervene in any country for the purpose of promoting democracy, opening markets, or whatever.

A more mature view of the United States would include the recognition that our country is not infallible and that it has made mistakes and may make mistakes in the future. We should strive to make sure the U.S. is on the right side of history. The American Revolution and the development of the U.S. Constitution were undoubtedly monumental events in humanity’s endless battle against tyranny. The U.S. has been a model for the rest of the world. However, we must not gloss over the dark side of US history: slavery, the witch trials, the murder of the Native Americans, and the theft of their land, the internment of Japanese-American citizens, the support of murderous foreign dictatorships and death squads during the cold war, and a continued inability to balance the budget.

Furthermore, panglossian claims of “we’re number one!” are a little ridiculous considering how far behind the rest of the developed world we’ve slipped in so many areas. We have one of the world’s largest prison populations; we waste the most money on overpriced health care; we work longer hours, for less money, have lower job security; and we take fewer vacations than much of the developed world. We have fallen behind in social mobility, literacy, math and science skills, and educational attainment in general.

While I love this country, I recognize that there are areas in which it can improve. Acknowledging this is a good thing. Superstitious beliefs about one’s country having some magical property of specialness are an insult to our intelligence and extremely arrogant. Humans of all nationalities need to move beyond such thinking and see the places they live in realistic terms.

Phillip “Space Museum” Olson is the author for today’s blog entry. He is a fellow member of Tucson Atheists Meetup Group, Skeptics of Tucson Meetup Group, FreeThought Arizona and is a panel member of the Desert AIR Podcast.

I recently had a short conversation about Paul the octopus, who received a lot of media attention for apparently predicting the results of the 2010 World Cup. Paul accurately predicted 12 out of 14 games, which has a probability of 0.65%. Not bad, but I’m not really interested in talking about the statistics of the situation. I want to talk about octopuses. I always thought octopuses were pretty cool, but it wasn’t until I started reading more about them that I learned just how freaking weird they are. Finding an octopus who can seemingly predict the outcome of a small number of sporting events is nothing compared to the real weirdness of the octopus.

Octopuses are cephalopods and molluscs. Mollusc is the phylum, which is the same level of classification as Chordata which is where we fall so we really are quite distantly related. Like other molluscs such as clams or oysters, they have no internal or external skeleton but they differ in that they don’t make a shell for themselves and only very seldom will use discard shells or trash as shelter.

There are more than 300 species of octopus, all of which are venomous, which I didn’t realize. I knew that Blue-Ring octopuses were potentially deadly but I did not realize that all the others had venom, too. Outside of the Blue-Ring octopuses, the venom of the others are not considered dangerous to humans though the Blue-Rings venom contains among other things tetrodotoxin which is the same poison found in puffer fish and which is more than 10,000 times as potent as cyanide.

Octopuses in the wild have pretty short life expectancies ranging from six months to perhaps five years. After their mating period they seem to lose interest in feeding and die of starvation. It turns out, though, that if you remove their optic glands, this behavior changes and they eat normally and ultimately have much longer life times.

They have three hearts and pump copper-rich hemocyanin instead of iron-rich hemoglobin. Hemocyanin is less efficient at oxygen transport in warm waters but more efficient in cold water where many octopuses live. Like other cephalopods, octopuses can detect the polarization of light which our eyes cannot. They also have special sensors in the brain that help them detect the alignment of their body to horizontal. They have taste-bud like sensors on their suckers, so they taste whatever they’re touching, but they have a pretty poor proprioceptive sense.

And then there’s the mimicry. Octopuses are pretty much unparalleled when it comes to defensive mimicry. Able to change colors, body shape and size, texture and behavior, octopuses, especially the Mimic octopus, Thaumoctopus mimicus, can have you believing they’re a bit of sea weed, another bit of coral, a flounder skimming the bottom of the ocean, a lion fish or a sea snake. There is no way I’ll be able to describe how incredible these things are, but thankfully YouTube will come to my rescue. Do yourself a favor, and look up YouTube videos of the mimic octopus or the wonderpus octopus.

Jim Wilson once again explores the frontiers of nontraditional relationships:

“She is susceptible, he is impossible. They have their cross to share. Three of a perfect pair”
-king Crimson, Three of a perfect Pair

Jenny and Greg are in a couple that has been together for a long time and have recently become engaged. Rebecca and Alex are in a couple that has been married for several years. The members of both couples are within the same age range of about five years and they now reside under the same roof. All four have known each other for years and quite close friends. So close, in fact, that Jenny is both romantically and sexually involved with Greg and Alex as is Rebecca. Everyone involved has full knowledge of this and all have agreed to this arrangement. Apparently, it suits their needs well. Together this gang of four forms what is known as a quad in polyamorous circles.

Polyamory is the form of ethical non-monogamy in which people are in ongoing substantive relationships with two or partners at a time. This is can be contrasted with swinging or partner swapping which is a form of consensual non-monogamy based on short-lived sporadic sexual encounters. Polyamorous individuals like the ones described above are into more long-term, ongoing, intimate relationships with multiple partners.

It has been brought to my attention that the label Polyamory has a problem. It comes from the Greek for “many” and the Latin for “love” meaning “many loves”. While there is nothing wrong with the concepts of multiple lovers, one should not mix Greek and Latin roots. It has been suggested that Multiamory or Polyphila would be more linguistically consistent not that I picture either of these being catching on.

Jenny, Greg, Rebecca, and Alex see their relationship as similar to those of any monogamous couple except for the multiple partners. It is a consensual love triangle or square, of sorts. While, their group is committed to each other there was a phase where the members of their group were open to dating other people. As such, they have strict rules. For example, group members may see other people, but any new-comer has to show paperwork proving they have been tested and cleared for STD’s.

Other non-monogamous people have different sorts of arrangements and have different strategies for coping with the challenges of their lifestyle. In addition to quads, there are triads, pentads, hexads, and countless forms of networks, group marriages, and tribes. Some individuals have primary relationships with one individual and have rules to keep other relationships secondary. I knew a few married couples where the wife was bisexual and the husband agreed that she could have relationships with women but not other men. I have seen the reverse of this as well.

For many people, non-monogamous relationships are a sensible alternative to compulsory monogamy though it is clearly not for everyone. I am in a monogamous relationship and have no desire to direct my romantic attention away from my partner. It simply would not work for me. I have seen non-monogamy work in practice and have seen it fail as well. People who have difficulty making monogamous relationships work will have even more difficulty trying to balance the needs of multiple partners. Do not think adding additional people can help a failing relationship; it will likely make things worse! You’re dealing with human emotions. Our decisions can have huge unintended consequences. Violations of trust in relationships with multiple partners can end up hurting a lot of people!

Communication is a key to any good relationship as is the ability to deal with jealousy. For people with multiple partners, challenges associated with these can likely be stretched to their limits. There may be the difficulties of raising children in a non-monogamous setting. On the other hand, I have been told that being able to get past jealousy and possessiveness can be greatly rewarding and having multiple trusted adults around can be great resource for kids. I have also been told that developing the level of trust needed to make a polyamorist relationship work is very liberating. Of course, violations of trust can and do happen in polyamorous and open relationships and can be quite painful.

Whatever works for you! If you can make polyamory or some other form of non-monogamy work and such a thing appeals to you, then by all means go for it! If you are interested in only having one partner or not having any long term partners that is also fine. I am all for free exchanges of ideas and free love but remember to treat everyone with care and respect, and never hurt or trivialize the feelings of others.

A Belgian filmmaker, Sylvia Broeckx, wants to make a documentary showing the normal day-to-day lives of American Atheists going about their business.

In her trailer she exposes a society that calls Atheists: parasites, hypocrites, stupid, people that you should walk away from, people that loath the baby Jesus, and accused of unspecified crimes. Pat Robertson claims you can’t have a relationship with an Atheist because they will be serving the Devil. Glenn Beck shows a couple of children fighting and claims that’s what happens when an Atheist gets violent. Cecil Bothwell, a duly elected City Council member in North Carolina has his eligibility questioned because he’s an Atheist. Newt Gringrich claims Atheists lack judgment and can’t be trusted because they don’t pray. The trailer is jam packed with Christian apologists and notable personalities like: Bill O’Reilly, Dinesh D’Souza, Steve Harvey, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, and others. Jessica Ahlquist, the courageous16 year old Atheist activist who received death threats, is also featured.

Sylvia is using indiegogo to get seed money for her documentary and so far she’s received about a third of what see needs to get started. I hope she gets it done.

For over four years there has been a “Hug an Atheist Day.” I’ll bet that’s news to most. It was covered on http://www.examiner.com/article/hug-an-atheist-day-1. The rules are simple:

Participating in the occasion is a breeze – all you need to do is find “an atheist, agnostic, ignostic, nontheist, antitheist, antireligionist, apatheist, secular humanist, skeptic, misotheist, dystheist, structuralist, freethinker, naturalistic pantheist, absurdist, deist, therevada buddhist, zen buddhist, nihiilst, marxist, pastafarian, spagnostic, gropaga, existentialist, or anyone else who doubts the existence of a god,” and give him or her a great big hug!

Well…there’s always next year. Mark it on June 1^st on your 2013 calendar. Tucson has quite a few Atheists in the community and they aren’t going anywhere.

I’m sure this one from Jim Wilson will spark some controversy. In fact, I’ll start it off right after he finishes:

“I think of all the education that I’ve missed
But then my homework was never quite like this!”

-Van Halen, Hot for Teacher

In Kennedale, Texas a high school English teacher and athletics coach was recently sentenced by a judge to 5 years in prison for an inappropriate student-teacher relationship. Apparently this is considered a second degree felony punishable with two to twenty years in prison per count. The teacher, Brittni Colleps, was caught on video engaged in group sex with four of her male students and it came to light that she was involved with a fifth student not in the video.

All the individuals she was sexually involved with were 18 years old so she could not be charged with statutory rape. Indeed some of these individuals spoke on her behalf stating that they were not victimized and that they did not believe that she should be imprisoned.

I agree with them. I see no reason why consenting adults of legal age should not be free under the law to engage in whatever sexual activities they like. It would be appropriate for the school district to forbid this type of breach of professionalism and I see no reason why it should not be a fire-able offense. After all, the fact that she allowed herself to be filmed while breaking the law and engaging in a huge breach professionalism and ethics does not reflect well on her as an educator. But imprisoning someone for having consensual sex with other legal adults is just wrong–especially imprisoning them for several years. I figure such a sentence should be reserved for things like theft or violent crime. Criminalized consensual sex is by definition is a victimless crime. After all, the students involved acted voluntarily according to their own free will and were probably thrilled to do so.

The real victims here are her husband and children who are apparently too young to understand why their mother is being imprisoned for five years. Though she and her husband have engaged in group sex with other adults in the past, he is upset by this breach of trust. He is working to forgive her and help her through this. In his testimony he stated:

“I’m asking you to give her probation. It’s not my fault or her children’s and taking her away from us is punishing us. Brittni saved my life before I met her. I was doing bad things and when I met Brittni she gave me someone to love and care about.”

The Texas law Colleps is being imprisoned under came into existence in 2003 and received little attention until former Miss Texas contestant Amy McElhenney was arrested for having sex with one of her 18 year old students. The Texas Representative who originally wrote the law, Helen Gidding, has come out against its application. Apparently, it only applied to students 17 years-old or younger when she wrote it. Other representatives added the amendment which makes it a felony to have sex with students, regardless of whether they are consenting, legally competent adults or not.

While most people dislike the idea of their offspring engaging in group sex with their academic superiors, the rules governing this should be set and enforced by that school or district. In any other context, inappropriate consensual relationships with co-workers or subordinates are penalized with loss of one’s job rather than the loss of one’s basic liberty. People of legal age should never have their basic freedoms taken away for engaging in mutually voluntary sex with other people of legal age.

Not so fast, Jim! Sexual abuse of authority is wrong, regardless of the age of the victims.

The name of this blog is “FreeThought” and we all have different points of view. While I ran this article from Jim Wilson, I do NOT agree with him. A teacher had sex with her students and offered them extra credit toward school work. She knew sexual contact between students and teachers was illegal. While it isn’t rape, it is against the Texas law and she was found guilty and sentenced accordingly. The conviction was swift and the sentence was according to the guidelines. It was in fact on the lower end of the guidelines.

These laws are not religiously motivated and there are good reasons to have such laws. A teacher is placed in the position of authority over his or her students. The laws are made to prevent teachers from taking advantage of that authority.

On or about 1980, the United States Air Force had a scandal at Keesler AFB, the training base near Biloxi, Mississippi. Young female enlisted airmen were recruited from their technical training to stay on as instructors. An investigation discovered that they were part of a “key club” (brothel) activity operating on the base that involved officers and high ranking enlisted members. The women involved were over 18 and consenting to the arrangement.

Earlier this year another Air Force sex scandal broke involving at least three instructors, this time at Lackland AFB in Texas.

I realize that the two examples I’m using are both from the military but there are many other cases that do not involve the military or teachers and students. Should a police man or woman trade sex for issuing a warning ticket instead of a citation? Sexual abuse of authority should not be tolerated. In this case, the 18 year old boys would have probably consented without the “extra credit” incentive but had the gender of the teacher and “victims” been reversed, the decision to jail the teacher would not have been as controversial. Perhaps the boys in this case should be charged for prostitution. After all, they were exchanging sex for “extra credit” in their schoolwork.

Consensual sex between instructor and student regardless of the fact that the “victim” is of the age of consent or enjoyed the encounter is unethical and in this case illegal.

In this part of Dr Stephen Uhl’s story, he explains how religion can make you mentally lazy. 

 You can learn more about Dr. Uhl’s book HERE or you can find the audio version for free on iTunes or HERE.

St. Paul wrote that faith is the foundation of things hoped for, the explanation of things unseen. And the poet Robert Browning wrote “Ah, that man’s reach exceeds his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?” This basic and commonly felt desire for more than man can actually achieve creates a wish-fulfilling heaven for many. On the other hand, it energizes curious, rational, scientific minds ever further in their pursuit of knowledge of the real facts of life. The former see a lot of supernatural mysteries and miracles with God solving human problems; the latter work hard building better microscopes, spectroscopes, and computers to expand human knowledge and dissolve the mysteries of ignorance.

Recall that the original sin against God in Moses’ Garden of Eden, as described in his biblical story in the Book of Genesis, was man’s desire for knowledge. Adam and Eve (more correctly, “Man and Woman” or “Male and Female”) were given totally free access to all the delights of the Garden of Eden with one very important exception: they were not allowed to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. Well, you probably know the rest of the story, how Satan (Snake) tempted Eve, Eve tempted Adam, and they both ate of “the Tree of Knowledge.” Having eaten of this specially forbidden tree, having committed The Original Sin, they discovered they were naked, became ashamed of their good bodies, and were kicked out of the beautiful Garden of Eden.

And what was God’s specific punishment for Adam and Eve and all their descendants for this curious seeking of knowledge? “In the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread.” Ah, ha; now man has to work in order to eat. What a shame! And the very natural and reasonable tenet that man has to work in order to eat is a hard reality for the lazy. It is surely not nearly as hard as the reality for the little fish swimming his tail off trying not to get eaten by the big fish. Did you ever wonder what that little fish’s original sin was? Why does he have to work so hard to stay alive or else suffer and die so that the big fish might live?

It is so much easier for some to “believe and be saved” from such harsh natural reality—all things are possible for him who believes; the Bible tells me so. Therefore, just believe and you’ll be saved; ask the ignorant poor in a soup line waiting for a free handout. Their faith assures them that God will provide! But some sweaty human being first has to kill an innocent turkey.

The oldest Catholic order of monks, the Benedictines, have a central tenet: Ora et labora, pray and work. When I belonged to that order of monks, yet another of the thousands of divisions within the Christian Churches, we were taught to pray as if all depended on God, but work as if all depended on us. Is that a can’t-lose or a can’t-win arrangement?

Jim Wilson takes a FreeThought lap around the idea of Holy Communion.

“Is this really the blood of Christ? …Holy crap, that guy must’ve been wasted 24 hours a day.

-Peter Griffin

I’ve admittedly moved around a lot and live in many places around the country. In each of the places I have made once-in-a-lifetime friends many of whom I have only occasionally been able to spend time with since moving. I’ve been thinking the next time I move to some place new I should do something special to show my friends that they will be in my thoughts and give them something to remember me by.

Maybe, a sensible thing to do would be to take them out for nice dinner somewhere with great food and a little wine. I could then explain to them that their food simply is me. I’ll say that I am giving myself to them in the form of edible goodness that the food is in fact my body. I am giving my body to them in the form veal parmigiana and breaded tilapia. As they eat it, it will become different parts of my body. I’ll then explain to them that these delicacies can become me anytime they like and that they should eat my flesh in this way, from time to time, to remember what a good friend I am. Perhaps they can ritualistically turn their food into me at their restaurant of choice or hold Jim Wilson cookouts and see who can make my flesh the most delicious. What could be a better way to expressing your affection and solidarity with a person than to eat them?

Of course, when I take them out I’ll mention that the wine they are drinking is my blood and they can also take vampiric delight in drinking my blood anytime too. I will have to ensure them that I have no blood-borne illnesses but that my blood alcohol content will be high enough that someone else will have to drive me home. Of course after a few swigs I will never have tasted better.

Maybe this could be the start of a new trend. Friends all over the country could turn themselves into each other’s food in order to remember them. “Are you guys gonna talk to Bob on skype?” “Better, were gonna eat him over at Joe’s.” “Awesome, I’ll bring his blood for us to drink!” In all this cannibalistic fun though, be careful. Friends don’t let friends eat strangers. After all, who wants to be stuck in the gut of some big oaf they don’t even know between last night’s Jello pudding and this morning’s granola? I’ll have to tell my friends to eat me as much as they like but, goodness knows, don’t feed me to your kids or pets.

Perhaps ritualistic eating of the flesh of old friends isn’t for everyone. Some might say it sounds really bizarre or tribal or even pagan but what do they know? All I know is that it was good enough for Jesus! The world’s largest organization of his followers insists that they are literally eating their savior when they perform communion. When I took Communion the bread and wine certainly did not taste human unless Jesus was a guy of unique taste and tasted exactly like stale bread and cheap wine. At the same time, I was always concerned about which of Jesus’s body parts I was getting. None of them seemed to have crucifixion wounds, so I’ll assume I got mostly elbows and stomach parts. Why not? Hopefully, none of those crucifixion nails put me or the countless other blood drinkers at risk of tetanus.

The real origins of the ritual are mysterious. Though Matthew’s gospel follows Mark’s pretty closely, Luke’s differs enough that some scholars question whether it came from the same source. Though John’s gospel’s presentation of the last supper includes a nice foot bath scene and some teachings, it neglects to mention Jesus claiming to be food or requesting that people eat him. Some scholars have noted that this ritual violates a Jewish prohibition against eating blood and have suggested it may be Pagan in origins. As such comparisons of communion and various rituals in Hellenistic mystery religions have been made. Some suggest the Cult of Dioceses influenced the development of this ritual while other scholars argue that it is at least in part related the Jewish Seder.

Many believers take Communion for granted or don’t give it a second look. I find it a strangely interesting idea even if it makes my fellow non-believers question the sanity of this Jesus character or the veracity of biblical accounts. Needless to say, next time I move, my last supper will be hard to beat.

FreeThought Arizona just adopted a new slogan, “Freedom depends on FreeThought.” Think about it. Are we really free if we are bound to dogmatic beliefs? Skepticism, Atheism, and Humanism all require people to have the ability to question things and they must think for themselves. Skeptics are people who question and are not likely to have blind faith in anything. In fact, most Atheists start out being Skeptics. I was raised Catholic. My parents converted to Catholicism when I was five years old. Talking to the priest after the baptism is one of my earliest memories. However, it wasn’t long before I was asking questions. When I started school my parents immediately enrolled me in the CCD (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine) classes held on Sunday after church. At the Air Force Academy, nuns were shipped in from Colorado Springs. They brought with them a pile of mimeographed pages of the Baltimore Catechism (children’s edition.) CCD was not a place for critical thinking. It was a place for rote memorization. After all, the nuns had their work ahead of them. They had to prepare us for that all important “First Communion.” There was no time to explain anything. They had to drill us on the right questions and the corresponding answers. We couldn’t ask questions not on the purple pages and if the answers didn’t make sense, it didn’t matter. We still had to say them word for word just as they were on the page in all their blurry, chemical smelling glory. They DID have an interesting smell though…Now I suppose the pages would be on normal printer paper.

This next section should be familiar to most Catholics, at least Catholics nearing the age of 60. There could have been changes that I’m not aware of. I started attending CCD in 1959 and quit in 1968.

Here is the first lesson:

LESSON FIRST ON THE END OF MAN

1. Q. Who made the world?A. God made the world.

2. Q. Who is God? A. God is the Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things.

3. Q. What is man? A. Man is a creature composed of body and soul, and made to the image and likeness of God.

6. Q. Why did God make you? A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.

9. Q. What must we do to save our souls? A. To save our souls, we must worship God by faith, hope, and charity; that is, we must believe in Him, hope in Him, and love Him with all our heart.

10. Q. How shall we know the things which we are to believe? A. We shall know the things which we are to believe from the Catholic Church, through which God speaks to us.

11. Q. Where shall we find the chief truths which the Church teaches? A. We shall find the chief truths which the Church teaches in the Apostles’ Creed.

12. Q. Say the Apostles’ Creed. A. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified; died, and was buried. He descended into hell: the third day He arose again from the dead: He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

Nunzilla is no longer around to keep us from asking, “How do we know that?”

Please notice that there was nothing to back up the assertions made in the lesson and some of them didn’t make logical sense. We were told to accept the answers on faith, in other words, “because the nun said so!” The questions and the answers were repeated over and over again until we had them down cold and there were drills and quizzes. My parents got a report card from CCD like the one that I got from school. If I was asking too many questions according to the nuns, my parents knew about it. Aside from the report cards, there was always the threat of violence from the nuns. My parents knew about it and often laughed about how I’d better not cross the nuns or I’d be sorry. At age of six, I was being programmed to be a good Catholic. CCD was the opposite of critical thinking

Children are not receiving critical thinking training in school. In fact, there was a story recently that the Texas GOP party was opposed to teaching critical thinking in school. At least back then, we were taught critical thinking, grammar, and the scientific method. I only wish that I wasn’t being programmed by religious zealots on the weekend.  Overcoming religious indoctrination is not easy and many of us still carry residual effects but de-conversions are still happening daily. We have freedom to question our beliefs and not follow the religious teachings of others but religious training tries to take that away. Why is that?

These are just my experiences and others have different backgrounds but consider this: Do we truly have freedom if we’re not allowed to ask questions?

Gregory Chmara has noticed that hell has been in the news lately:

Hell seems to get a lot of space and recognition in the media of late from a high school girls being refused graduation because she used the word in her valedictorian speech instead of the scripted “heck,” to colorful descriptions of Tucson’s weather.

Hell, not Hades, is a relatively new construct in human belief. The two imaginary places actually are not interchangeable. Hell, hellfire and the like with demonic possession, exorcism, and the casting out of demons by fasting, prayer, and laying on of hands is seemingly re-surging in Christian religions.

I do not include Hades as an equal to hell, because as a place it is an ancient concept, from pre-Christian Egyptian, Greek, and Roman religions. Hades was most simply a place where the spirits of the dead went and did not return. Little was known about living conditions in the Hades construct, other than the Egyptian belief that you could take it with you, especially if you were a pharaoh and had it buried with you. Greeks and Romans would include coins in burial sites (usually on the corpse’s eyes) to pay Charon, the boatman who took you over the river Styx to Hades. Little is known of those who did not pay the fare but some were rumored to have returned as ghosts.

Hell has been clearly described by Dante as a place of cold, fire, suffering, pain, anguish, torture, and unpleasantness beyond description. He curiously walks his living characters through degrees and circles of hell which, unlike our modern prison system, segregated the sinners so those who have committed the same sins were all kept in one place.

Since modern prisons put pedophile priests, rapists, addicts, embezzling accountants, and errant politicians together in the same cellblocks, it would be wrong to call our modern prisons “hell.” Dante carefully segregated the sinners locations by the severity of the sin committed.

Of course, Dante’s hell faced no budget constraints like our modern prison system. It is also interesting to note that Dante included clergy, including Popes, in his hell.

The opposite of hell is supposed to be heaven, with very little in between. If you are Catholic there is a mini-hell called purgatory where minor sins can be burned or frozen away until you graduate to heaven among God’s chosen. Only grave sin (mortal sins) that have not been forgiven by a priest, those who have not accepted Christ, or have been excommunicated by the Catholic Church can go to hell. The church used to have a special place (Limbo) for unbaptized infants or those who died at birth but the place was discontinued in the last few years, and I have heard nothing that reassigns the souls of the unbaptized to other than hell.

Some Protestant theology indicates you completely avoid hell if you accept Jesus Christ (usually their brand of Christ) into your heart and profess it openly, if not loudly. Others believe that not only must you accept Christ, but must repent of your sins with actions that run from confession and restitution, to public verbal self flagellation. Yet others believe all are saved by grace, not action. It seems that to get to hell you have to avoid a Chinese menu of options and really work at it or completely ignore it as a place you might go.

Mormons do not believe in a literal Dantesque hell, but they do believe in Perdition, a complete removal from God’s presence and or grace. Outer darkness is another name. The good news is that this is reserved only for those who deny the Mormon Faith and the powers of its priesthood (all male members are now eligible if worthy) after having a sure knowledge of its pure truth. This is the same decision Lucifer and the fallen made when denying and refusing to accept the plan of Jesus Christ before the earth was formed.

The LDS church also divides “heaven” into three glorious kingdoms, the highest being in the presence of God the Father and Jesus Christ to learn and progress on your own path to your own godhood (if you are male.)

Since it is only the highest degree of glory that can progress, the other two kingdoms are glorious and wonder filled as are considered a kind of hell to Mormons, because the residents of the lower kingdoms have knowledge they could have been so much better in life. They retain the knowledge and sorrow of not making the cut for the top kingdom. They may also be servants of the kingdom above them. A mental hell, if you will.

Some Hindu and Buddhists state that they believe hell is here on earth or at very least is a test of adversity and our attitudes to adversity in accepting our Karma in this life, so as to affect our karma in the next life. Being reborn in a lowly station might be considered a hellacious karma and not being reborn but attaining a state of “nothingness” in Nirvana is considered a heavenly goal. Where being reborn into another faith which uses the paradigm of heaven and hell for life after death fits into these schemes leaves me scratching my head in wonder.

Islam translates as submission and has a hell filled with people who refused to submit and be slaves to doctrine and dogma. They are consigned to the flames of Jahannam. Here, according to Wikipedia they will be in the company of:

…disbelievers, hypocrites, polytheists, the People of the Book who reject the truth arrogant rejectors of truth, sinners and criminals, tyrants, the unjust, transgressors, concealers of God’s revelations, persecutors of believers, people who commit suicide and murderers …the arrogant, the proud and the haughty.”

I am surprised that the Koran and Hadith in their far reaching condemnations did not include the American politician, the Corporate Wealthy, a few bankers and all those who bend religious belief to their own benefit or political purpose.

And the Atheists? Since we believe there is no heaven, there is no hell. Most Atheists I know feel too much human potential, thought, and humane action has been wasted on this imaginary construct we call hell. To a primitive, uneducated and unused mind the concept of hell remains an almost useless tool as a construct of control though fear.

To the educated, thoughtful, and humanely disposed, it is a construct where we often wish intolerant, deliberately ignorant and blindly believing people would take up residency. But since hell is an imaginary construct this latter wish is in vain and a time waster.

The first part of this blog was published on the 16^th, a couple of days ago. Here is the fourth part of This is a Christian Nation: What That Statement Really Means by Gregory W. Chmara.

 In part I, Gregg listed four statements:

1. “The United States was founded on Christian values and all are troubles are because we have drifted away from those.”
2.  “Christian values are founded on the rock solid principles of the Ten Commandments and they should be on display in public buildings and courts to remind us.”
3.  “All Christians believe the same things – those taught by Jesus Christ.”
4.  “I am a Christian and that settles the argument.” (Whatever the argument is.)

FOURTH STATEMENT:

“I am a Christian and that settles the argument! (Whatever the argument might be.)”

As Dana Carvey’s Church Lady might have said, “Well, isn’t that special?”

Well not really.  There are in excess of 15,000 various Christian sects for the billion professing Christians. I might add that one billion professing is a number greater than actual practicing Christians.  Each sect has its own interpretation of what Christianity is, who gains the rewards of recognizing Jesus Christ as a savior in their own special way, and what range of issues they wish to control.

A person who stops conversations with the phrase, “I’m a Christian, and Christians believe…” is avoiding any real discussion or study of a particular problem. Those problems could range from whether Mary was a virgin (totally unimportant), world hunger (important), the proper role of clergy in politics (very important), and acceptance of science and technology in solving problems of health and well being (exceptionally important). Using “my mind is made up by Christ” statement above indicates blind, willful ignorance.  It exposes the individual’s limited capacity to approach the real world in a thoughtful and understanding way.

The Amish Community openly rejects modern technology beyond that of a horse and buggy. Christians with a similar rejection of the discoveries of science should not be allowed to politically sway the rest of society. It is antithetical to everything I believe.

For example, science found that lives can be saved with blood transfusions.  However, refusal to receive whole blood is a settled issue for Jehovah’s Witnesses.  They are doctrinally enjoined from using whole blood to save their own life.  They cite ecclesiastical and Biblical references to support their views and go as far as to maintain their own health facilities (I refuse to call them hospitals) that do not offer transfusions.  I would hate to be in an accident with blood loss and be transported to a Jehovah’s Witnesses facility emergency room. It is OK for these ultra-religious people to accept that threat into their own life, if it’s a choice freely made but to push this anti-scientific faith-only doctrine as a law on everyone, or to force the belief on any other individual, including minor children or non-believing family members, is a crime against humanity. To deny that transfusions save lives more than prayer is a form of insanity — but it is a socially acceptable insanity under the U. S. Constitution, nonetheless.

This belief is similar to the no medical doctor or medicine beliefs promulgated by Christian Scientists. They, as Christians, believe that Jesus Christ was the great scientist healing with prayer, driving out spirits, demons, and defeating attitudes that caused ill health. A number of minor children with common but life threatening conditions have had to be removed from families who believed only prayer would save their disease ridden child. They imposed their irrational belief on the child often letting the child get close to death when a simple anti-biotic could quickly restore them to the state of health. (Prayer is not as effective as anti-biotics against infections.) Others have refused food to children in order to drive out demons. Recent court cases, luckily, have removed minors in danger from these fanatics and mandated life-saving treatment until the child is back to health.  Personal religious belief does not trump an individual’s right to live with the protections of our advanced secular society.

Consider the Terri Shiavo case. It is another example where the Christian dogmatic arguments conflicted with science while determining life and death. Hundreds of thousands of dollars had been expended keeping Terri’s body alive by machine. Her body had shrunk and science showed that recovery was not possible. Her parents went as far as Congress to stop her legal representative (her husband) from pulling the plug. The Christians in congress aligned with the Catholic Church to make “pulling the plug” look like murder instead of recognizing very real and very unpleasant medical facts.  Being Christian, the parents fomented a religious vote seeking congress to vote for the idea you fight for life regardless of truth, pain, medical evaluation, or cost.  They tried to create a law that would make it a Christian’s (with a capitol “C”) duty to protect life at all costs and give prayer the time to work a medical miracle. The courts finally ruled that the husband had the right to withdraw the treatments that were running her vital signs by machine. As expected by Skeptics, no miracle took place and Terri Schiavo died. Prayers of all the Christians and even Congress did not save the life of her brain dead body. Quietly, an autopsy report was issued. It showed there was no possibility for recovery. Her dysfunctional brain had shrunk to a totally non-functioning organ during the months on the machines which kept her body “alive” in its vegetative state.

These are just a couple of extreme cases but they demonstrate that the ignorant, very vocal, dogmatic Christians involved were effective in using their passion and religiosity to sway public opinion and thwart the benefits of scientific advances. They used their beliefs to suggest all good Christians must morally support their radical view or lose heaven, and maybe go to jail. While Terri Schiavo’s body lived under the type of artificial stimulation that makes a dead frog’s leg jump with a shock from a battery, the legislators wearing their Christianity on their sleeves used the moral bludgeon of guilt (we are all sinners, but we can prevent this one murderous death) to force their view into a political precedent, one that could affect everyone under law in the United States, believer or not.

This is the same technique used by the Roman Catholic church in its very political alliance with Evangelicals to outlaw abortion.  Consider this, the term “abortion” (not just for birth control) covers natural functions of a women’s body and now includes psychological guilt cast on women who suffer a natural miscarriage and may seek medical aid. Consider too, that the religious articles of faith advanced by each Christian group as to when a soul enters a human embryo or fetus to make it human are very different. The Catholic Church believes the soul’s potential begins with ejaculation and even condoms are a form of “abortion.” Conjecture, evidence, and evaluation standards other than those found in the 2,000 year old philosophies of the Bible need not apply. Evangelical doctrine agrees that abortion is a sin — but not necessarily with the Catholic prohibitions on condoms.

In Arizona the legislature, controlled by Republican religious conservatives, passed a law that makes abortion illegal past 20 weeks following the last intercourse before a woman misses her period. Where is the evidence that would support this law’s assertion? By what fiat do they make rules for all women based upon little or no medical efficacy?  Now it’s up to the courts to decide if this law is another religious travesty. What happened to the previous tacit and legal agreements that a fetus must be viable before the mother’s choice is limited by state intervention?

Then there is this: In the past few years the infallible Roman Catholic Pope declared that Limbo does not exist — but did not explain what happened to all those souls of fetuses that previously allegedly resided there — or if in-vitro baptism to save them would be restored.

It was not too long ago that the Catholic Church was sure that any aborted (or miscarried) fetus’s soul went to Limbo instead of Hell. Now, everyone (infants too) who is not baptized as a Catholic ( you know those who are supposed to hell anyway) has no way station to get to Heaven except Purgatory, a  place of punishment for sin until released to heaven, after burning to perfection.

This doctrinal change is in no way is a comfort to Catholic women who lose a fetus and have tremendous hormonally caused emotional problems of loss to deal with but most Christian’s believe “God’s ways are not man’s ways” as if that was an explanation or comfort.

Previously, not too long ago in history, the Catholic church in its wisdom required in-vitro (in the womb) baptism to save an unborn child or fetus in danger of dying before emerging from the woman’s body. This applied especially in cases of then inoperable and deadly breach birth and used enema like inserts. This would assure the unborn fetus a place in heaven, even if it risked the life of the mother and/or child.

Now, add to this the consideration that the Catholic Clergy’s mind is made-up in all matters of birth control. The Roman Catholic Church equates all birth control methods, except vaginal intercourse on the rhythm method, with abortion in the weighing sins that will get you to Hell.

If you look closely  you will discover that those particularly Catholic doctrinal views have now slowly been inveigled into state and national  health bills riding alongside arguments and legislation to remove a woman’s right to choose, (abortion) under the broad-brush that Christian views do not permit birth control.  This now influences not just abortion but all pre and post coital birth control measure in use — and if and when legislated, controls everyone of every faith or non-faith.

Many Christians who may feel that abortion is morally reprehensible and distasteful are less than thrilled with this shift in the anti-abortion movement’s goals.   They believe in family planning. These Christians do not want their newly won reproductive and sexual rights to contraception and birth control that is scientifically viable, safe and healthy, should not be broad-brushed into a Christian anti-abortion issue by those Catholics.

The dogma and doctrine of these Christians and the allied Roman Catholics hierarchy openly conflict in the real world when you move beyond the issue of abortion.

Clearly, these are secular issues, at best, based upon the health of a mother and potential child, and her mate. Religious discussion of fantasized and unsubstantiated claims of when a fetus is imbued with a soul belongs in a religious frame of the specific sect’s beliefs and rules do not belong in secular law.  They should not be imposed on those who do not subscribe to them.

And without a clear understanding of responsibilities for raising a child, when a fetus becomes viable, the potential costs to society of hundreds of thousands of dollars in care for the fetus and child, and the mental and physical health of the potential mother, legislation based upon religious dogma or doctrines should not be part of our secular government.

Now turn to this. There are some who believe that the theory of evolution is wrong-headed and un-Christian. It is supposedly capable of morally turning man into no more than an animal.  They would have us use a broad-brush to think this is a widely held Christian belief.

But the Catholic Church accepts evolution and believes the evidence for it is more than substantial, at least until it comes to the infusing of the soul of man into the human body. That infusion is the work of God.  Other sects believe that evolution and godliness ran concurrently, over unknown eons,

The broad-brush of fundamentalist, literalist, and anti-evolutionary theory Christians does not admit to the fact that science is always investigating, researching, and revising, based upon the latest information and advances, even contradictory evidence.

While us  humans do not know every last step of development from single cell creature billions of years ago to humanity, we can see and prove not only the blind alleys and pathways that nature has taken to develop life and human thought and curiosity, but we can use our brains to connect the dots. We can demonstrate a solid convoluted path to thinking humans even those using religious thought and blind belief to explain the creation of the world.

This should be clear to anyone who is rational, and more importantly in the future will be able to understand all the developments in medicine, physics, germ theory, and the sciences and technologies of human life and curiosity.

Let’s turn to global warming.  Note, more than 90 per cent of every living species that has ever been on earth is now extinct.  There is a Christian belief offered and promulgated on a broad-brush basis saying that the end of the world is near.  Broad-brush Christian preachers offer the idea that an apocalypse will occur in our lifetime, so we need not worry about the rapidity with which man (as a species) has changed (some would say spoiled)  the ecology of the planet.

Is it possible they do not understand the belief that Christ predicted that ‘the apocalypse” would happen before all the original apostles left the earth 2,000 years ago?  Then consider the Christian apocalypses of 1,000 CE, and Y2K, etc.

A change must be made in this broad-brush Christian belief.  It is too often applied to keep people in ignorance of our industrial destruction of the planet and changes that must be made, no matter how unpopular and difficult those changes may be. And changes must be made if we are to offer a living planet to future generations. These Christian people have a right to their apocalyptic opinions and speech. However I also have an opinion and a few rights under law and beliefs I feel are moral.  First, remember that law can be amended to account for modernity. I believe ignorance is not a benign state or a state of grace.  I believe that deliberately blind ignorance is at least a misdemeanor if not an intellectual crime against humanity. It is an excuse for not thinking, then not acting unless directed by a “Christian leader.” By the way,  I plead guilty of  inaction for too many years.

I firmly believe those who use the four arguments quoted at the start of this article have no right to avoid evidence, they have no right to promulgate falsehood (remember thou shalt not lie — as in bear false witness, etc.).  They have no right to force their unsubstantiated doctrinal beliefs into law or public policy to govern everyone.

No, we are not a Christian nation.  We are a human nation experimenting in self government. We do not subscribe to religious blind belief and adherence to mindless dogma or doctrine handed down from an unseen, improvable, invisible beings. We realize statements of doctrine come through men, whether they claim to be prophet, priest or king. Men, especially men in ecclesiastical power, have agendas that vary from advancing the full bloom, curiosity and development of mankind. These agendas may be couched in godly phrases, but most often do not bring liberty, thoughtfulness, and progress to all humans. Rather they benefit the select few in power or who subscribe to the dogma and doctrine advanced.

In closing, let me paraphrase the old Negro College Fund public service announcement used to raise funds during and after the Jim Crow era:

“A closed mind is a terrible thing – it is a waste of human potential.”

A nation that lets itself be run by religious totalitarianism, closed minds and willful ignorance, with laws based upon lies and misinformation that has been preached and repeated from pulpits and biased, unknowledgeable, and frightened news sources,  deserves everything it gets.  And that nation will probably, in the end, lose everything it really values as it deserves.   That’s my broad-brush statement.