October Surprise

I’d like to start this entry out with a little note of interest, well at least of interest to me.  I write to two blog right now with any regularity, this one and another of apparently much less controversy and concern to some.  I make that statement because of an interesting stat that has emerged from my blog statistic logs.  I use Facebook as a method to communicate new blog entries to those of my friends there that might be interested.  Whenever I post on Facebook that a new article is available on one of my blogs, I can see an almost immediate corresponding Facebook hit in my blog logs.  Okay, that does make sense, in this area of almost rampant IP (intellectual properties) violations which occur via the web, it seems appropriate that Facebook would want to check to make sure that these violation are not happening or being supported via its services.  However, over the last few months, Facebook has a “bot” trolling this blog on a regular (every couple of days) basis, regardless of when there was a last post, or a link posted to my Facebook profile.  Since I have had some experience with Facebook’s policies and method for shutting down content which they or a few of their users consider “unfriendly”, I am left to wonder if they or some users are seeking something that posted to this blog which they use to shut down my account on their site.  Time will tell, but, if I disappear from Facebook, you’ll be able to figure why.  ;)  Dear Facebook, hope you don’t find this too offensive.

Now on to the October Surprise…

While you can find prior examples, the term October Surprise began its political life during the 1972 Presidential election between Richard Nixon(R i) and George McGovern (D) as a result of the announcement from President Nixon’s administration of a possible end to hostilities in Vietnam in October 1972.  Since that time, there have been several events occurring in the last couple of months of the Presidential election cycle which held stay on the election.  I do not subscribe to the idea that there are many conspiracy theories that hold any real validity.  First, a secret know by more than one person is not a secret.  Second, the number of people required to pull off most covert agendas is so large, that keeping it quiet is almost impossible.  Individuals can and do successfully take covert actions singularly, but, a conspiracy by definition is a covert agenda conducted by a group of people.  And third and finally, it has been my experience that most people who have secrets want to share it with someone close, or at very least divulge that they possess a secret because of the imagined power and prestige that can come from knowing a secret, and sometimes it is simply a crisis of conscience that will cause someone to reveal his or her secrets.   I think history has demonstration quite well that in the realm of covert actions, if there was a conspiracy effort it will eventually be exposed.

So do we have an October surprise happening in this election cycle, or more accurately a September surprise?  Let’s look at what is happening around the world right now, with the recent outbreak of violent protest from the Muslim community over a film not just providing visual representations of the Prophet Mohammed (against the precept of Islamic doctrine), but doing so in a rather negative manner.  While I say Muslim community, one should not assume that I think it is the entire Muslim community involved, but rather that small radical or extremist element of that community.  This protest was ignited by video, produced here in the United States by a Coptic Christian Egyptian-American, called the “Innocence of Muslims.”  Not wanting to pass judgment based solely on the opinions of others, I watched the trailer for this video, and would not even be interested in seeing a full length feature.  As an Agnostic, who has studied the theologies of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and a few others, I find the video – contrary to the opinions of several friends – to be extremely odious, and I understand how and why Muslims would find this production offensive as well.  Especially with the knowledge that the English language version post to YouTube in July was translated into Arabic and reposted to YouTube just a few weeks ago.  I neither condone nor support the violent protest that has occurred as a result, but, I do understand it.  I don’t think it unreasonable to assume that Mr. Bacile – one of 15 aliases for on Mr. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula – had any intend other than to deliberately inflame the Muslim community.  I support my assessment by the reaction of some Muslims to the printing of cartoons in Danish publications in the recent past.  I also think that Mr. Bacile is very aware of the strained relationship between the America and the Muslim community outside of the U.S., as one would have to have lived under a rock for the last decade not to know.

As these protests began to gain strength, the extremist element of the Muslim faith seized on the opportunity to exploit the situation with an attack on the Libyan consulate in Benghazi, which sadly resulting in the death of 4 Americans.  Then we have a GOP establish here in this country that see their opportunity to exploit.  Knowing that American over the last 30 years have generally held the misconception that the GOP was the stronger party when it comes to foreign policy and national defense, and that calling out Muslim terrorists as the main threat to our freedoms has been a mantra of the far right for more than a decade.  So it should be no surprise that the GOP, which really should be renamed the TPP, would jump on the issue to claim that this attack on the Libyan consulate is one more failing of President they want so desperately to replace in a few short weeks.  Bingo… You have an October/September surprise.  And it will probably extend into October, as we have others throwing additional fuel on the fire.

So is this surprise a conspiracy?  Not likely, other than being a conspiracy of coincidence or convenience.  Will it have the desired impact on our election?  Again, not likely, I think the die has been cast.  But, it will be interesting to see how the TPP tries to extend or expand these protested in their attempt to wrest control of the country from the current administration, as they have IMO reached a point of desperation, and may be on the verge of complete collapse.  My real fear is that we have extremists on both sides intend on starting a religious civil war.  That event would be a real tragedy.

 

Your comments or questions are always welcome, and I have added an email address for those not wishing to comment openly in this forum.  Emails can be sent to recoveringcathcon@gmail.com. However, please know that if this account is used to flood me with trash and hate mail, I will shut it down.

Free Speech and Tolerance, and Gay Marriage

Yet another stream of consciousness essay, inspired by current events and some frustration.  As humans we have come so far, and yet… we still have so far to go.

One of my wife’s Grandmother’s favorite idioms was, “They can’t shoot you for what you are thinking.”  Think about it for a moment, what the moral of that statement is telling us.

By now, everyone has heard about the angst, arguments, and diatribes brewing over the comment made by the CEO of Chick fil A – David Cathy – regard is his views of gay marriage.  I have even participated in a few discussions online, and it is very telling in my opinion.

Depending on whose feed you are reading, we have anything from a complete and total intolerance of Christian beliefs, to a constitutional violation of Mr. Cathy’s freedom of religious or speech rights, to an unconstitutional restraint of trade violation.

Before I start express my views, I’d like to relate a couple of stories:

When my own attitudes toward homosexuality began to moderate years ago, I was finally able to begin social relationships with members of the gay community.  Sitting with a gay acquaintance one day, I asked him why he chose to be gay?  His response was, “why do you choose to be heterosexual?” His reply stumped me, and began a period of personal introspection.  At the time, all I could say is that because I am, to which he replied, “Exactly!”

Seems in the time since this conversation I have learn, at least from the gay people that I know, and contrary to most Christian claims, homosexuality is no more a choice, than choosing to be heterosexual, male or female, or any of the other biological components that make us who we are, and in fact there is mounting evidence that homosexuality is biological.

The second story is much less pleasant.  A decade ago I developed a friendship with a gay couple, through one of my charitable endeavors.  This couple had been in a committed monogamous relationship for almost 20 years, even going so far as to have a palimony agreement drawn up.  At the age of 48, Bob suffered a massive stroke, and was hospitalized.  Before Frank was notified and could get to the hospital, Bob’s family left instructions that no one but family was to be allow in to visit.  This exiled Frank to the hallway outside of Bob’s room and the waiting room, unable to see his friend and partner of almost two decades.  Sitting in that hospital waiting every possible minute, hoping beyond hope that he might be allowed in, he told me that he only saw family members at the hospital twice.  About two weeks after suffering the stroke, Bob passed away, never allow to have the love of his life with him.  And… to throw salt in an already deep wound, Frank was banned by the family from attending Bob’s memorial services and funeral.  Frank could even visit the grave site until after the family had left.

That would have never been permitted, if, like heterosexuals, Bob and Frank had the legal protection of a marriage contract.

Okay, now let’s get to some of the issues being argued as a result of this most recent Chick fil A event:

First there are the claims of tolerance and intolerance by both sides, and they are both right.  How is that possible you ask?  There seems that the mere definition of tolerance is a dichotomy in today’s society.

tol·er·ance

1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.

3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

4. the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.

And since that first definition brings into view the term bigotry, let’s look and that definition as well, since it has bearing on this essay:

big·ot·ry

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

It would appear at first blush, based on these definitions at their face value, that both sides of this argument are being intolerant and bigoted toward the other side’s position.  But, like so many things in life, if you put things in context, the view changes.  The Christian right, and I use Christian right because I have many friend who are Christian who are moderate and don’t feel this way, would like you to believe that the media, et al, are being intolerant because they are speaking out against Mr. Cathy’s professed and publicly acknowledged religious views and beliefs, and calling for boycotts of products provided by his company.  Yet, they refuse to acknowledge that Mr. Cathy’s religious views and beliefs (and in many cases, their own) are intolerant and bigoted.  And they are so, not because they are religious, but because they are support denying rights and legal protection to gay citizens, guaranteed to all citizens, simply because of their religious beliefs.  They want to and are actively pursuing civil laws that will require everyone to live according to their religious belief.  From the gay marriage support side, no one that I know is trying to legislate that Christian fundamentalists must associate with, or provide services to gay individuals, allow them to be married in their institutions, or requiring these fundamentalists to change their belief.  So, from my point of view, I believe it is clear who is being bigoted and intolerant, and I don’t expect those individuals to agree with me.  I just hope that if you are one of those on the fence, you’ll take a moment to truly think about which side you want to jump too.  And remember it was just under fifty years ago, that the federal government had to step in, one hundreds after we fought one to worst wars in our history to resolve the issue,  and acknowledge through legislation that Black Citizens of this country were not 3/4s of a citizen and or equal but separate.

Now for the funniest, ironic not haha, conversation I’ve had on this issue, the constitutionality of the activities being taken against Mr. Cathy and his beliefs.  I had on individual who at first claimed that Mr. Cathy’s constitutional rights were being violated, and then claimed they were about to be violated.  She claim a thorough knowledge of the Constitution, and her contention was that because the mayors of Boston and Chicago have stated that they would do anything in their power to prevent Chick fil A from opening stores in their cities, they are or would be violating the constitution because they weren’t adhering to their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.  REALLY?!?  I asked a simple question in response to this claim – twice, “please cite constitutional amendment and or clause being, or about to be, violated?”  At first I was told that I should do the research, which would lead me to the conclusion that she was correct.  And finally, that she was ending the discussion because I was twisting her words and it wasn’t a true and honest discussion.  The real truth of the matter, which I couldn’t say at the time because it was another friend’s thread, is that this person couldn’t find her ass with both hands and road map.  Even with the conservative leaning of our U.S. Supreme court, they wouldn’t bite on that one.  I believe these mayors have push the edge of reasonable government intervention with their comments, but, just for enlightenment, let’s look at this possible constitutional issue.

I did a quick online search of the online Constitution and can only find two references to commerce, neither of which have applications to municipalities where Chick fil A might be concerned, and no references to free trade, so unless someone would like to point me elsewhere, not violation there.  Now, I know I making assumptions here, but, the only area I can think of that this person might have been try to elude to as a constitutional violation would be the 1^st Amendment, and for clarity sake I have copied and pasted that amendment direct for the online source:

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.

In my discussions over the years, but specifically more recently, there appears to be an interpretation of this amendment to mean that you are free to practice your religion or speak your mind without repercussion.  That is not true, and it never has been the case.  Just for a few of references; you cannot exercise your right to free speech, by running into a crowded room (a theater being the most common description) and yell FIRE!!! without warrant.  You will quite possibly face legal issues for doing so.  There are other cases where free speech right may face limited.  Most everyone is aware that righteous and pious members of Westboro Baptist Church have for sometime protested the funerals of our fallen warriors because of their views on homosexuality.  Since the Supreme Court agreed that this activity is protected under the 1^st Amendment, Congress recently passed legislation limiting the time these protests can occur.   It will be interesting to see what the Court does with this legislation, but, I’d bet it get upheld.  On passing laws restricting the free exercise of religion, have we forgotten the laws against polygamy?  A practice observed by early Mormons, and still practiced by some renegade sects, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses have lost about as many Supreme Court case as they have won regarding their free exercise.  And the Supreme has continually maintain that free exercise of religion is not absolute.  So, again, I can see nothing that either of the mayors of Boston or Chicago have done or intend to do with regards to Chick fil A business being prevented from conducting business in their cities as having any constitutional issue.

It would seem to me that, like religion, many find easier to believe and accept without challenge what we have been taught or told, without actually checking for themselves.

And finally…

While the concept of marriage may have some of its roots in religious concepts, it is long since removed for its simple theological base.  I know there are probably some renegade sects who will marry a couple without a license, in America you can be married without a religiously based service, but, you will not be considered legally married without obtain a license from your local city or county clerk.  So in your society today, at least here in America, a marriage is more so a legal contract between two citizens, regardless of race, color, or religion…  Only thing missing there is sex.  While those fundamentalist Christian may want to erroneously claim that Mr. Cathy’s constitutional rights are being infringed, I think it is quite clear and evident, at least by my reading, that the gay community’s 14^th Amendment right of “equal protection of the law” is most definitely being violated.  Read it for yourself:

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. 

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Interestingly, regardless of the coverage on T.V. that might seem to indicate differently, most public survey today point to a majority of citizens (even a growing number in the Christian communities) in this country who believe, as I do, that the legal social contract that is marriage in this country should be extended to all citizens of legal age.  And, as far as I can determine, no one I know believes that anyone should be punished for believing that gay marriage is wrong, it can be wrong for them.  But, making what they believe is wrong for them illegal for everyone is wrong for everyone.  To do otherwise and we are simply dressing up the antiquated view and beliefs in new clothes, and using them to oppress a class of people with whom we disagree.

I’ll close with this:  I opened with Grandma’s idiom, “They can’t shoot you for what you are thinking,” and asked you to think about the moral in it.  Well have you?

Your comments or questions are always welcome, and I have added an email address for those not wishing to comment openly in this forum.  Emails can be sent to recoveringcathcon@gmail.com. However, please know that if this account is used to flood me with trash and hate mail, I will shut it down.

A Question for my Christian Friends

I been trying to decide which way I want to go with this blog?   I think I’ve been pretty clear about my opinions on religion and how I came to them, so I don’t see much more need to explain my views.  Just as a recap, I am an agnostic, not an atheist…  Well most Christian would call atheist, because I don’t believe in their god, but then I don’t believe in any of the other manmade gods either, but, I won’t argue the concept of a God, that is, based on our current level of comprehension, an unknowable and improvable point for either side.  But, that is not the purpose of this post…

I have a question for my Christian friends who stand with the desire to band any marriage, but that between a man and a woman.  With President Obama just recently announcing his support for same-sex marriage, and North Carolina going a completely different direction…  banning just about any civil union, other than a traditional marriage, I am left with some curiosity on the Christians’ true position on marriage.  Seems to me, from the arguments I have heard there are just a couple of keep points in the arguments:

1.      Somehow the concept of a marriage is, and always has been, the traditional view of a single union between and man and a woman.

2.      That somehow same-sex marriages will destroy the sanctity of marriage.

Seems on the first point, that the traditional view of marriage is only traditional to primarily Christians and Jews, and even in their views, some discrepancy in their interpretations, the Mormons claim to be Christians, yet believe in polygamy (even if most do practice it today).  That’s just one point…  In the Middle East, a man having multiple wives is also not uncommon.  I have also heard that the general view that for Christians the Bible specifically forbids relationships between members of the same sex.  Yet, I heard a very compelling argument by a young gay Christian that would seem to indication there are some interpretational discrepancies in Biblical claim of forbidding homosexual relations.  Additionally confusing the matter is the combining of Hebrew law and doctrine along with newer Christian law and doctrine within the canonization of the Christian Bible.  Now I have checked, but there now come the questions of traditional marriage in all the other theological views in the world?  I don’t know for sure, but, I have heard different things for some of other friends of differing religious views.  Finally, it was all that long ago that a traditional of marriage excluded interracial unions.  So the question here is:  Is your traditional view of marriage actually traditional?

But it is the second point that I find the most curious.  It would seem to me that the religious views of the sanctity of the holy bonds of matrimony were long ago damaged beyond repair.  First, if marriage is a holy sacrament, why then did the churches not lobby the government to stay out of the marriage business by preventing it from issuing ‘marriage’ licenses, and disallowing a justice of the peace to perform a marriage ceremonies.  It would seem that this would have been the time to differentiate between marriages as defined by religious institutions and civil unions as defined for legal purposes.  Interestingly, at least here in this country, you can have a marriage performed by a civil authority that isn’t recognized by any church.  However, I don’t know of many churches that will marry you without that civil license, and even if they do, it isn’t recognized as a legal union.  So, it would seem that churches have accepted that the legal definition takes precedence over the sacred.  Additionally there is a practice today that over half of all marriages go through that I would think is far more detrimental to the sacred view of marriage…  That would be divorce, and yet I can find any real lobbying effort to legally ban divorce in our society.  Why is that, and so to why is same-sex marriage any more detrimental to the sanctity of marriage than divorce?  I have been happily married for 27 years next month.  Never in all those years has the increasing rate of divorce had any negative impact on the sanctity of my marriage, nor has that of my homosexual friends’ relationships.  I see no reason to believe that allowing these friends to enter into the loving committed bond of matrimony would likewise have a negative impact

So, bottom line, my question is, as with most religious morals questions, why are Christians so intent on enforcing their moral views on everyone, even outside the Christian faith?  It seems to me no one is demanding, or even requesting, that you do something with which you have a moral problem…  And, no one is demanding that the (our choice here) church must perform these same-sex marriages. 

So what is the real issue with same-sex marriage???

Your comments or questions are always welcome, and I have added an email address for those not wishing to comment openly in this forum.  Emails can be sent to recoveringcathcon@gmail.com. However, please know that if this account is used to flood me with trash and hate mail, I will shut it down.

Another Stop the PRESSES!!! Moment

As I was writing my last essay, the Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke controversy began to blow up in the press.

After Sandra Fluke, a 3^rd year law student at Georgetown University, was prevented from testifying at Rep. Darrel Issa’s Capitol Hill Hearing faith-based hearing, she was finally allowed to testify at a Democratic hearing arranged by Rep. Nancy Pelosi. While Rep. Issa’s hearing was held under the guise of discussing religious freedoms, the Rep. Pelosi hearing appears to have been convened as a more open discussion on Democratic Policy.   If you are so inclined, ABCNews’ online article is here, and you can find the text of Ms. Fluke’s testimony at this Democratic hearing linked in the article or here.

Enter the conservative attack machine.  You can find a pretty good timeline article on the events following Ms. Fluke’s testimony, on the “The Week” website.  I have yet to find a reliable transcript of Limbaugh’s comment on his radio show, but, it appear he was piling on from articles published at CNS News and Hot Air with incendiary titles such as; "Sex-crazed co-eds going broke buying birth control, student tells Pelosi hearing touting freebie mandate" and "Georgetown co-ed: Please pay for us to have sex... We're going broke buying birth control." Good Ole big mouth Rush jumps on in radio broadcast with comment like, claiming that she is asking the government to subsidize her sex life. "What does that make her?" he asks. "It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex” and "If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is: We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."

Regardless of the fact that nowhere in her testimony before congress can you find any reference to Ms. Fluke sexual activities or frequency, CNS News, Hot Air, and Rush Limbaugh (I’m showing great restrain to avoid name calling here, though find some of my Facebook posts to find them) chose to enflamed their readers and listeners with of the most vile, vitriolic, and inaccurate accounts of her testimony.  I don’t think, as Sanda Fluke has declared, this attack was design to silence her specific, but rather to discredit her and discourage others from speaking out.  These are clear examples of Conservative movement and current GOP’s attack bullies, no different than schoolyard bullies around the nation and which we are trying to combat today.  I include the GOP in this essay because, the current Speaker of House had to “encouraged” to disavow Limbaugh’s comments, and when the current group of GOP Presidential candidates were given a chance to comment, they either soft-pedaled a response or choice to deflect and use the chance to instead make negative comments about our current President.

Yes, Rush did apologize…  But, like the schoolyard bully, not until he was hauled into the Principal’s office and made to apologize with his head held low and toe stabbing and the floor, did Rush offer his apology, and with the same sincerity of the schoolyard bully.  I have long held that an apology – sincerely given – is more for the benefit of the person giving it, a chance to express and acknowledge true regret.  And… In my experience, once said, words can never be unsaid.  You can apologize forever, but you can never take it back.  Whether Ms. Fluke accepts his apology is of little consequence, as long as she allows herself to forgive.  For you see, forgiveness is, like an apology, more beneficial to the giver.  But, there is one thing about forgiveness, just because you forgive someone, it doesn’t mean you need to forget what has been done or said, nor accept the transgression prompting the forgiveness.  It only mean that you bear no malice to the individual it is given too.   

Now, what about the right to ‘Free Speech’?  Yes, it is Rush’s right to say whatever it is that he deems appropriate, however, he also has the right (or responsibility) to accept every consequence for his speech.  While the Constitution grants him the right to free speech, it only exempts him from government sanctions for that speech, not the wrath or rebuke of a society repulsed by it.    While I am not generally given to violence, if Rush Limbaugh had made such comments about one of my daughters of the same nature as Ms. Fluke and I met him on the street, I’d be inclined to punch his limits out, and then…  Gladly accept the consequences for my actions.  I have heard a few right leaning commentators that this is uproar is a double standard, and that when left leaning ‘pundits’, like Bill Maher (who I don’t watch because I find his rhetoric largely distasteful), make comments like those of Rush’s, it is largely ignored.  I monitor a broad spectrum of news sources, and I haven’t seen any material like this one.  Point me to them I and will read them and respond, as I believe anyone spewing the vitriolic tripe that Limbaugh unleashed on the airwaves.  I am not against anyone speaking out about their view, opinions, and convictions, but, this Limbaugh diatribe was a blatant personal attack on a young woman given the opportunity to express her views.  And… It is obviously to me that he did so with malicious intent.  He either did not read, or didn’t care about the content of the opinion she expressed, he chose to attack her character simple because it suited his purposes, and because that is what his supports expect.  So, ask you;  Who is the real slut and or whore here?

As with any right or freedom, they all come with certain explicit expectations that they be exercised responsibility.  I have known about Rush Limbaugh for many years, he really started out as a comedian with a bent for political commentary years ago.  He has mistakenly started to believe his own press that he a now a powerful GOP pundit and leader, and forgotten that what is accepted from the comedian, is not appreciated or accepted from our leaders, real or perceived.  I have similar issues with Bill Maher, though he doesn’t seem to be garnering the press coverage of Rush Limbaugh and the ultra-conservative media.  Yes… I know it all the fault of that nasty liberal media machine.

And finally, a recommendation for Rush Limbaugh...  Where Sanda Fluke is concerned, thread lightly, you WAY out of your league!

My next piece will be the essay I was working on before this entire media firestorm made itself known.  It will be expanding on some of my thoughts expressed in this essay.

Your comments or questions are always welcome, and I have added an email address for those not wishing to comment openly in this forum.  Emails can be sent to recoveringcathcon@gmail.com. However, please know that if this account is used to flood me with trash and hate mail, I will shut it down.

Stop the PRESSES!!!

I was right in the middle of writing another article, and this came across my news feed:

Wilmington City Council Passes Resolution Urging 'Personhood' Rights For Sperm

Quoted from the article:

The council for Delaware's largest city passed a resolution by an 8-4 vote Thursday calling on the Delaware legislature, other state legislatures and the U.S. Congress to pass laws granting "personhood" rights to eggs and sperm. The resolution was authored by councilwoman Loretta Walsh as a protest in the current battle over women's health care access.

"[E]ach 'egg person' and each 'sperm person' should be deemed equal in the eyes of the government and be subject to the same laws and regulations as any other dependent minor and be protected against abuse, neglect or abandonment by the parent or guardian," says the resolution. "[L]aws should be enacted by all legislative bodies in the United States to promote equal representation, and should potentially include laws in defense of 'personhood,' forbidding every man from destroying his semen."

Are you F*%()*&!!! Kidding me?  I use think that no one could surprise me with the potential stupidity that the human beast is capable of producing.  COLOR ME Surprised!!!  Now I know that this is only a city council resolution, and has no real chance of producing and real legislation, except possibly with the city limits of Wilmington, Delaware.  But, let’s expose some of the absolute absurdity should this resolution, or others like it, actually become law.

First on the personhood of sperm side of the argument:  A man choosing to pleasure (cleaned up term) himself would be subject criminal charges, probably for abuse, neglect, AND abandonment.  To further demonstrate the silliness of this position, I’d posit that every man on this planet has experienced a phenomenon known as a “wet dream.”  This would now become a criminal activity, prosecutable by the state.  Don’t think so; ever hear of prosecution for involuntary manslaughter?  A law giving, essentially, the right of a living human being to these sperm persons would criminalize many other activities between consenting adults for which the state was no business or right to interfere.  You have now made a criminal out of every male in the United State over the age of 13.  Additionally, with the exception of diplomatically immune persons, you have subjected every foreign male, entering this country, to criminal prosecution.  Ridiculous?  If you hesitated for a moment to think about that, you are probably not a person with whom I want to associate.

Let us move on to rights of the ‘egg persons’.  While the resolution caring avoids suggesting creating laws related to the destruction on egg persons, which is explicit in the verbiage of resolution, and the express guarantees of equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.  So, a woman who chooses to avoid sexual activities while ovulating would be guilty of, and subject to prosecution for, at minimum – abandonment.  To make matters even more ludicrous, this view would criminalize the young girl entering puberty, having started her menstrual  cycle which can start as early as age 9 (trust me, I KNOW.)  So, we are going to decriminalize pedophilia, at least, where menstruating young girls are concerned?  Now, I don’t know about any other father, but being the Dad to two exceptional young women, there is absolutely no length to which I would not go, to have protected my daughters, at the age of puberty, from participation in procreative activities, PERIOD!!!

Now, I know that enacting any laws regarding the personhood of human eggs or sperm would be struck down as unconstitutional, and the possibility of amending our Constitution, to allow such laws to be enacted, is near zero.  But, I am concerned that any public leader who subject such bizarre public policy is given any responsibility to guide his or her community on any level, and I am alarmed that this resolution passed by an 8 to 4 vote.  If I was to apply the same warp logic that I believe is used to statically justify religion – at least what I see from many Christians – this vote (where the city council should be representative of the community they lead) would indicate that 2 to every 3 citizens of Wilmington, Delaware is a religious zealot.  And, is the strongest argument for “Separation of Church and State.”

This concept of an ‘egg person’ and ‘sperm person’ pushes pass even the concept of life starting at conception, both of which are religiously motivated, and the scientific support behind them questionable at best.  In my religion, if that is what you wish to called it – I don’t, my believe is that human life begins when that life is capable of maintaining itself, with the caveat that some assistance may be need.  A human infant is capable of maintain itself with the assistance of its parents, and a human embryo is capable of maintaining its life, at some point, outside the womb with medical assistance.  Prior to that, I hold that it is not a life; it is a parasites organism of human origin.  In a country the touts religious freedom as a tenet of its foundation, why should I be forces to live my life, through legislation, under the belief system of someone else.  I do not purpose forcing anyone to accept my views, nor am I advocating passing legislation which would force anyone to take actions which I consider moral.  Anyone who advocating legislation, such as proposed by resolutions such the spark for this essay, is in fact advocating a violation of the United State Constitution’s express prohibition to the contrary.  These are arguments and decisions that should be discussed in temples, churches, and synagogues among their congregants to their needs.  They do not belong in our city, county, state, or federal legislative bodies.

But, I am still flabbergasted that I have experience a situation in today’s society that would prompt this essay.  I have recently had several discussions with a friend about the appropriate way to approach religious debate, to which there is a comment which should be reserved for only the most extreme cases.  This is in my opinion just such a case.  So to the eight members of the Wilmington, Delaware city council who voted for this resolutions;

 “^*%) you, YOU’RE STUPID!”

Your comments or questions are always welcome, and I have added an email address for those not wishing to comment openly in this forum.  Emails can be sent to recoveringcathcon@gmail.com. However, please know that if this account is used to flood me with trash and hate mail, I will shut it down.

Revelations

I’ve been away for awhile.  Not for a lack of material, but rather for its abundance, and try to figure out what to write.  I’ve got several essays in the works, but, I find it so much more enjoyable to write on other interests. Those who know me… know that passion as well.  However, some recent conversations and reading have led me down some interest thought paths, and as I have learned from a recent read (you can watch my other blog for a review on that book), I have been in preparation mode.
First, I will state for the record, once more…  I am not an atheist.  Traditionally, atheists profess a belief that there are no deities. Though I have had very interesting discussions where it is professed that atheism is not a belief system, because the atheist is not required to proof of his or her belief because it is not a believe but rather a denial of someone else’s belief, so there is nothing to prove.  It is an interesting concept, but, I don’t find it to be much help in advancing a very difficult discussion.  Theists, according to their particular theology believe in one or more deities representing their belief system.  I neither believe in, nor disbelieve, accept as true, nor deny as false, the existence of any deity.  I believe it is the arrogance of the human ego to profess definitively the existence or non-extensive of one “God” or more.  In a recent conversation, it was pointed out that I would probably be considered an agnostic, and I admitted that would be the best description available, but, that I had avoided such classification because of the still religious connotations of the term.  Until I found this:

Thomas Henry Huxley defined the term:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable

So…  I’ll accept the label as an Agnostic, and state that, as yet to me, the existence or non-existence on any deity is indemonstrable.  If you wish to believe otherwise, that is the great thing about America, you are free to do so.  However, no one free to force their beliefs on others, while many still try.

Throughout the recorded history of the human race, mankind has used myth, legend, and theology to explain that which yet still defies explanation.  Lightning, for centuries, was a phenomenon defying explanation for primitive man.  You can go to just about any modern mythology literature and find godly rationalization for the event.  Even early Christianity held the view that lightning and thunder was evidence of the evils among.  In Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas stated, "Rain and winds, and whatsoever occurs by local impulse alone, can be caused by demons. It is a dogma of faith that the demons can produce winds, storms, and rain of fire from heaven."  These beliefs existed well into the 18^th century where the Catholic and Protestant churches opposed Benjamin Franklin’s lightning rod.  Today, we know scientifically that lightning is, in reality, the atmospheric discharge of static-electricity.

In the 1600’s Galileo Galilei postulated a theory that contrary to accept theological beliefs, the Sun, and not the Earth, was the center our solar system, and that the Sun was the center of the universe.  According to accepted Biblical interpretations, it was our Earth which existed at the center of the universe.

Biblical references Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" etc.^[51]

Galileo was tried by the Church for heresy, including threats of torture by the “Inquisition” if he did not recant, and while formally sentence to imprisonment, did spent the remainder of his life under house arrest.  We have now known for decades, again scientifically, that the Earth is not the center of the universe, or even the center of our little piece of the universe – our solar system.  Yet, the Catholic Church did not officially acknowledge its mistakes until late into the 20^th century.

Even more recently, conspiracy theorists (which I include in the realm of legend) have made claims of a magic bullet in the JFK assassination.  By their accounts, it would be first impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to fired 3 round at the motorcade in the time it was in range, and that the bullet that killed Kennedy could not have been the same one that hit Governor Connally.  Their claim is that there had to be more than one shooter.  However, in 2004, Discovery Channel ran the “Unsolved History: JFK – Beyond the Magic Bullet” special.  In this special it was clearly demonstrated that indeed Oswald could have fired three shots at the motorcade in the time allotted, and that the magic bullet needed no magic.  Now, I know this special is not proof of what actually happened, but, it sure puts the conspiracy theorist in a bind, since absolutely no one has produced anything in the way or real evidence that there was anyone but Oswald involve in this horrific event.  These are only a few examples, of myth, religion, or legend inaccuracies being used to explain – what at the time – seemed unexplainable.  I am sure an encyclopedia could easily be filled with example, but that not the point of this essay.  The main point is to follow

First a few numbers, of the approximately 7 billion people current inhabiting this planet, about 2.1 billion whom are Christians, and with that, at about half, 1.1 billion Catholics (the original Christian faith, at least after about 325 A.D.)  There are about 1.5 billion Muslims in that world population and I include the Islamic faith because it spawned from or at least acknowledge Jesus (as a prophet) and the Virgin Mary.  So it is my opinion that Islam is a branch of the Judaic/Christian traditions.  The reason I have done this will hopefully become more evident as we move on.  Now, what do you think the next largest group of planetary inhabits might be?  Nope, it’s not Hinduism (900 million), or the Oriental theologies (800 million +/-), even though India and China account for over 2.5 billion of the planet inhabitants.  It isn’t even Judaism is only 12^th on the list, with 14 million adherents, and even if the atrocities of last century had not occurred, it would have only moved up to number 10.  No, the third largest group on that list is the Secular/Nonreligious planetary citizens, at about 1.1 billion.

Now, we come to the controversy over Creation vs. Evolution, and my revelations

I think it should be acknowledged, by any reasonable person, that the modern Judaic/Christian/Islam religions have succumbed to the same theory they wish to combat – evolution.  Any serious examination of human history will show that theologies have evolved over time.  A fairly simple analysis will demonstrate a multitude of very violent events committed in the name of these religions over time, yet we are told today, they are and always have been peaceful, tolerant theologies.  While they try to excise these violent events from the public psyche, there remains dialogue in their sacred texts encourage these activities.  Many wars have been fought and millions of lives ended in an attempt to gain control of human psyche to accept a single theologies.  We have even seen in recent news, an item acknowledging an Islamic country’s pronouncement that it has issued a death sentence on a former Islamic adherent – turned Christian cleric, simply because he turned away from Islam.  Even the Catholic Church has finally, some 400 years after the fact, evolved its position on Galileo.  We see or hear examples of everything from viruses to human beings mutating, or adapting (evolving) to changes in the environment.  Even our planet has evolved over its 4 billion +/- year existence.  So, even though I am not a subject expert on evolution, I think there is overwhelming (and growing) evidence that the process of evolution undoubtedly exists.

So now we move on to the Creation theory.  The entire foundation of three world religions is built on The Book of Genesis, and this book has discrepancies so severe as to cause me to seriously doubt EVERYTHING that comes after it.  I discovered these issues, for myself, as a result of challenges to my doubts about God and religion.  I grew up in an era where missionaries had no problem banging on any door to proselytize their religion, and they were very steadfast in not leaving until they had said their peace, especially if you were to admit that you didn’t agree with them.  I found myself often resorting to being rude to dislodge them from my presence.  But, it got me to thinking, and I found myself reading the Bible looking for material to shut these provocateurs up or chase them off.  About 15 years ago I discovered the ultimate shut down.  I am of the mind that geological and archeological research has sufficiently demonstrated that age of this planet is around 4 billion years, and that presence of Homo-sapiens is dated to around 250 thousand years.  This research has undergone sufficient peer review that I accept it and will continue until someone produce the same peer reviewed contra-research.  So what is the problem with Genesis?  It starts with the very beginning.  The Earth and the entire universe were created in 7 days.  Okay, I am willing to accept that thru centuries of translation, that this could have been miss interpreted, but the text we have today is pretty clear that God divided time into day and night, and then goes on describe the creation activity by day.  I’ve had people (some who I have great respect for) tell their view or acceptance is that this description is an allegory.  Okay, I’ll give in to that until for the moment…  But, upon further reading of Genesis (possible translation issues aside), I discovered that I can actually date Adam’s appearance, which I believe was on the 6^th day.  Genesis, while a bit convoluted, fairly clearly dates back from Abram, or Abraham, all the way back to Adam through the begats.  While I once, years ago, had a spreadsheet detailing these begats, it has since been lost and I’m not of a mind to recreate it now, but this process reveals that Adam’s appearance on Earth can be dated to approximately 7,500 years ago.  Couple this with all the geological and archeological data missing from Genesis that has been discovered over the last few centuries, and I can easily support the theory that Genesis is nothing more than one man’s story about the beginning of his people, not some great truth about the beginnings of the universe.  I am of the opinion that man created god in his image, not the reverse, into to explain what was unexplainable that the time.  It is the ultimate urban legend.

Knowledge is a dangerous thing to religious dogma.  With today’s internet, you can find a plethora of data, and I have discovered information giving me the understanding that there is a great effort among creation theorist to establish geological and archeological research in support of creation.  They desperately search for anything on which to hang their claims of creation because even they know that anything built on such a weak foundation cannot and will not stand for long.  To date and to my knowledge nothing has been produces which could be considered conclusive.  The Ark of the Covenant goes missing, the Noah’s Ark or its landing place… unfound.  For that matter, evidence of a great world flood less than 7,500 years ago remains elusive, most because, in my opinion, it doesn’t exist.  So until such time as the foundation of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic faiths can be proven to be anything but straw, I will choose to belief that which is built upon it to be just as unreliable.  And, I believe today it is nothing more than a business which gets some really favorable tax treatment, and which I refuse to support.

So, during this election cycle I think we should remember…  I, and a billion others like me, don’t want to force any believer to practice our principles by passing laws.  You should see it as right, in my opinion, to do the same.  Think about it.

Now, finally for the revelation…

We are all immortal!!!  Don’t believe me, study a little bit of physics.

It is a wonderful and amazing universe out there, if you’ll just open your eyes and experience it.  J

Your comments or questions are always welcome.