The Inability to Discuss Controversies Rationally

We humans are an emotional bunch and tend to see the world outside ourselves within the limits of our memories. It is extremely hard to find an entire group that is able to dispassionately debate a “hot issue”. When we hear mention of items like the Holocaust, religion, gay marriage, socialism, taxation, etc most of us enter the discussion with a personal “tag” – an acquaintance ( “I know somebody who….etc”), memory or indoctrination that attaches itself to the subject like a parasite. The resulting discussions usually turn out to be shouting matches or emotional appeals for one side or the other – not searches for truth. It is the rationale behind “think tanks”, or groups of intellects chosen for their ability to study facts, detached from emotion, and come to an intelligent, actionable conclusion.  These groups are often hired because the people hiring them….

..either —

  • Do not have sufficient knowledge of the subject itself
  • And/or, are unable to detach from their own biases in order to arrive at a solution that is suitable to all

One common enemy of rational debate is failure to isolate and describe the item being discussed. For example, most people discussing gay marriage have not taken the time to define what marriage is. Nearly all opinions are based on emotion without analysis. For many, sex is regulated by religion, so gay marriage is an overt attack on all that is holy, rather than the logical issue of – what really is marriage and does a gay couple match an unbiased profile of  “marriageable”?

If a discussion of our involvement with Israel comes up, a picture of the Holocaust is produced and the discussion is over. Sometimes it is postulated that if you do not support our present position in Israel you are anti Semitic, when the real issue is foreign policy  – no religion, no Holocaust.  Our feeble efforts at foreign policy rarely take into account, not everyone in the world thinks like us.

Why do we have only two political parties in the USA? Because, by and large, Americans cannot handle more than two distinctly contrasting emotional choices. We are often confronted with a vastly radical leadership decision – either neo-socialism or Bible Belt conservatism. Is it any wonder some just give up on voting?

 In our courts you are either completely guilty, “as charged”, or you walk away unencumbered. “Deal, or No Deal?” We are trained in ‘trial by knee jerk’.

“Critical thinking is the discipline of taking time to examine the situation critically before taking action. A critical thinker uses observation and objectivity to come up with a response to something while a person prone to knee-jerk reactions tends to react emotionally and subjectively to a situation or problem. “

If we continually fail to give a moment over to cool observation of an issue before making a judgment call, we will be forever manipulated by those that do.

Our minds are loaded with propaganda that sets us up for backing the wrong ponies. Few of us know –

That’s just a drop in the bucket folks. Things are rarely what they seem – after you study them. Some are better, some are worse, but most of our cherished memories were painted with emotional input. Emotional judgments rarely stand up to scrutiny.

Advertisements

Blind Skepticism is as Bad as Blind Faith

How many times has someone told you what seemed like a fantastic tale and later on you saw it happen with your very own eyes? What age were you when when you stopped believing in Santa Claus? More importantly, what age were you when you stopped believing in Adam & Eve? These are extremes in both our desire to believe seemingly unbelievable things and our stolid refusal to consider other, more feasible, concepts.

On one side of this imaginary arena we have the “Yes People”, some clutching their Bible to their breasts and swearing the world is only six thousand years old. Others near them are pulling their tinfoil hats tightly over their brows to ensure the government can’t send invisible rays into their brains and make them vote Republican. On the other extreme are the “No People”. To them all must be rendered mundane. Even though we ourselves have been aliens landing on another world (notice I avoided the word planet for the Moon!), they cannot imagine someone else being way better at it and landing here from a far more distant place. I am not a UFO follower, but alien visitors here does seem more plausible than talking snakes in the Garden of Eden and Noah’s Ark. The “No People” are every bit as doggedly dogmatic as the blindly faithful – just in reverse.

EXAMPLE: you can neither prove, nor disprove the existence of God. As there is no material evidence for either side. No matter how strongly you personally feel, there is no tangible data to present another undecided human to unequivocally and empirically prove your point. The Bible is inadmissible –  you would first have to prove it was written by God himself. I personally believe God, as depicted in the Old Testament, is a scary fairy tale. I can, however, not prove my disbelief any more than a blushing parishioner can prove his belief.

The makeup of an atom is mostly empty space and we and all we see and feel is mostly made of nothing. Add to that, it is believed now that matter is played on a a grand “harp” of vibrating strings, ergo, the whole of existence is more like a magic symphony than something you could knock down with a wrecking ball. Just about everything your parents, your teachers and your preachers taught you all your life is wrong. In fact, with all the disinformation we are fed, most people barely know what is going on in their own lives.

Confusin’, ain’t it! Everything you blindly accepted all your life is shit – and the most unbelievable, “out-there shit” now is “THE shit!”

Shit demystified

 

Having an open mind is very helpful – if it isn’t too open. Balance is the answer, and knowledge is better than faith. The word faith is based on commitment and you should not commit to anything you don’t know “biblically”. That goes both ways – if you can’t prove it’s wrong, don’t commit to denying it. “The lack of evidence for unicorns and leprechauns does not constitute evidence against them.”

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”…..Albert Einstein

Conspiracy Theories Abound!

  • CONSPIRACY: a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act.

In all conspiracies deception and unethical behavior are common, however not always illegal in a strict sense. So, if you go by a dictionary definition many “conspirators” can rightly defend themselves.

It is both logical and common knowledge that everywhere there is a concentration of money and power there are multiple conspiracies going on. Many to acquire, keep or expand their own power and many others, by outsiders or enemies, to infiltrate and topple them.

 
Some Old World conspiracies are hard to describe to others, as they require background knowledge in history as well as economics.

These two links give great historical timelines for how corrupt “money changers” enslaved the world.

http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/History-of-Bankers.htm

http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htm

 
 

 

Analytic Hierarchy Process

For some complex conspiracies to be understood, you first have to break them into their components, then arrange the components into a hierarchy of more easily comprehended sub-issues. Once you have analyzed each issue independently, reassembly yields an elegant level of understanding few enjoy. A prime example – deconstructing the Rothschild empire is a career for some. Anywhere there is an abundance of money, there’s always an abundance of conspiracies.

The believability problem lies in the degrees of knowledge of a concept the teller has above the person he is describing the situation to. The more background knowledge the listener needs to understand the end result of a conspiracy, the more like a nut the explainer sounds. Imagine showing the actual working schematic of a gas powered lawn mower to someone in the middle ages. What reaction would you expect?

The expression “far fetched” is the perfect analogy. If each level of knowledge needed to understand a concept were represented by the throwing of a stick and the subsequent fetching by a dog – the dog would tire of the game and never amass enough sticks to be in the know. The big boys are confident that the masses will tire of the chase before unraveling the scheme. You could never get the point across with one long toss. That would be too far to fetch!

Those that appear to have put it all together may sound like tin foil hat paranoids to info-primates. There are only two intelligent choices: actually learn about what it is you are skeptical of, or have an open mind.

Let’s Put Prison Inmates To Work Like The Rest Of US!

Why are convicted felons allowed to just sit around and watch TV? Many unmotivated people worldwide would love to do the same. Yes, the ones doing it at home can leave, go to Seven Eleven and buy a six pack. The main difference is they either have to pay the rent and cable bill themselves or be smart enough to scam welfare to afford it.

“According to the U.S. Justice Department, each prisoner is costing tax payers on average, between $22,000 and $25,000 a year.” Also, non-violent offenders awaiting trial, with bails set as low as low as $50, are estimated to cost taxpayers $9 billion this year alone.

It can cost more to house one inmate than it costs to send your child to college!

Why are criminals in prison in the first place? Most times the answer is they just don’t want to work for a living, it’s easier to stand on the corner and deal crack, etc. The main thing they escape, both on the street and in prison, is honest work.

Prison is only a deterrent for productive citizens.

A prison term for a productive citizen could lose him his job, his home and his wife and family. What does a street person have to lose? To the contrary, they may be actually gaining a place to sleep and three meals a day! It is also common knowledge that many career criminals “rotate” in and out of prison to get free medical and dental work – this is a fact.

Eighty percent of American prison inmates are in on drug related charges.
We spend billions every year on a war against drugs that can not be won.

Most policymakers in the Netherlands believe that if a problem has proved to be unsolvable, it is better to try controlling it and reducing harm instead of continuing to enforce laws with mixed results.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands

I by no means am advocating a return to the dark days of notorious Angola Prison . I rather advocate a policy of prisoners being put to work paying their own room and board. If their misbehavior puts them in solitary confinement – they can’t work, and they subsequently fall behind in their rent. This would have the effect of lengthening their sentence to catch up on their bills. If prisons were not just “three squares and a place to flop” they would simulate the real world – except no freedoms. This would be an incentive. Just being sentenced to hanging out with fellow felons and shootin’ the shit is not a deterrant.

Non skilled jobs would be designed for the marketability of the goods produced. Prisoners that have acquired more valuable skill sets would get easier jobs. This would demonstrate once more that prison will mirror the real world, just minus all personal freedoms. We need to teach them that they will have to work to survive.

What about the most violent and unmanageable criminals? Cut their food rations. They will either shape up or starve – just like in third world countries that don’t have welfare. If they are in for murder, etc and they starve themselves – it was their choice and no one’s loss.

Consider these factors:

  • Prisoners put to work have less free time to get in fights, foment escape plans and/or makes plans for future crimes when released
  • When they are returned to their cells, they are tired (like the rest of us after work) and less motivated to negative activities
  • Cable TV is optional. You must put in extra hours to pay for it.
  • They will realize there is no escape from working like everybody else. This would be a beautiful irony for Wall Street criminals
  • This system would save tax payers countless billions of dollars

The US has, by far, the highest rate of inmates per capita of any industrialized nation.

It is time to reform this mess and cut our unbelievable national debt.

Gay Marriage – An Unbiased View

There is no law in any U.S. state that prohibits anyone from getting married because they are gay!!

The institution of marriage, as old as civilization itself, states there there be one each of the two sexes needed for reproduction. Any gay man can marry any gay woman in any state. They are not discriminated against for being gay. What the gay activists want is not the right to marry (which they already have), but the complete restructuring of the intuition itself.

I couldn’t’t care less what anybody does in bed. I also am as disinterested in the impact of a gay rights parade as I would be in a heterosexual rights parade if gays became the majority. I am thoroughly disinterested in where anybody “sticks it” and to whom they stick it to!

What is marriage anyway? It’s origins are tribal, ancient and older than Christianity or Islam. As it is natural for all creatures to pair off, we humans do likewise. At the dawn of awareness of morality, and I am not referring to sexual morality, it became apparent that not all people behave with regard to others.

As male and female paired off, children were born. Sometimes the male partner got tired of the added responsibility and took a hike. This left the woman saddled with children and no means of support. The abandoned wife and children then became the responsibility of the community. Marriage was born of the particular situational need to stabilize the community. The origins of swearing vows of commitment before witnesses are apparent. What benefits one, benefits all.

Though marriage has undergone various twists of purpose over the ages, there have always been efforts to retain the original meaning of the institution. Half of all marriages end in divorce now because of it’s apparent devaluation. I am truly lucky to have grown up in a non-divorce family.

Before the Abrahamic Religions we recognize today, marriages were a largely non-religious community event and enforcement of family obligations was a community responsibility. If a man abandoned his family he risked being banished from his community. In the tough times of the middle ages, this was literally a matter of life and death for all involved.

In Pre-Roman Celtic culture, marriage was called Handfasting, wherein a couple’s wrists were ceremonially bound together, words were spoken, and they jumped over a broomstick. They were then bound for a year and a day. If no children were conceived in that time frame they could walk away with no further obligation. It was about children, half of which never made it to their first birthday.

Marriage was never intended as a license for sex. As pre-marital sex could easily result in unwanted pregnancy back then, it was often avoided for practical reasons alone. Despite practicality, it’s safe to say that the outcomes of many unions had already been established by the time they jumped over the broomstick!

Childbirth was an absolute matter of life and death back then. A small tribe or community could cease to exist if the birth rate dropped. A union between two child-bearing people was heralded as hope for the future of the community.

A blood line resulting from marriage was also a way to determine inheritance of property and royal succession. The Judeo-Christian obsession with virginity has its roots in more practical matters. If the bride was not a virgin how could he be sure the first-born was his? Who’s kid would get his stuff when he died? My question is, after the first born and virginity now out-of-the-way, how could he be sure about the rest? This is the origin of all the importance given the first born in the Bible. Bottom line is, marriage throughout history has not been about whether or not you were “living in sin”. It has always been about creating a family – children being born and raised and who inherits your shit.

The initial, and enduring, purpose of marriage is the ritualizing, and in some cultures creating, of a love bond between two potentially child-bearing humans for the purpose of binding them together long enough to raise the next generation of the community.

The purpose of a wedding ceremony was, and still is, the public acknowledgement (with witnesses) of this union to prevent any future claims by either party (usually the male) that they are not responsible for the welfare of the children of this union.

The historical purpose of a marriage license was a record of legitimacy for claims of bloodline. Property rights for the wife came later in English Common Law. (history)

In a purely logical fashion, without any prejudice or Judeo-Christian morality issues – plus liberal latitude for growth, where does a gay relationship fit into this institution?

Keeping track of births, marriages and deaths is a old as civilization. It is our way of tracking genealogy and the rights of beneficiaries. Here’s the cycle:

  1. Birth Certificate – a child is born and the marriage certificate of the parents (or lack of) is cited in the birth certificate. It tracks the parents of the child, the parents of the parents, etc, etc.
  2. Marriage Certificate (License) – It only became a license in medieval Europe when you had to have the local Lord’s permission to marry. Historically it was midway point in the genealogical record of birth, marriage & death.
  3. Death Certificate – Last stop on the ride. It states that you no longer produce offspring and, if there are birth certificates, there will be claims on your estate. The marriage certificates and birth certificates are needed here to settle up fairly.

Certificates one through three are an endless cycle. You can start anywhere in the cycle and go forward or backwards in time. To be mundane, all three are records of the predictable lives we all lead. As far as marriage license being thought of as license for sex, this is a misconception shared by many heterosexuals as well as gays. In the dark ages sex was denigrated as sinful, even in marriage, except for the purpose of procreation. So, the two being so locked together, it was logical to presume –

  • Sex is only for procreation – not recreation
  • You can’t have children out of wedlock
  • Ergo – you can’t have sex out of wedlock

This prudism lingered on into the Victorian era and right up to the 60’s, where more people lived together unmarried than married. If you marry someone merely for love or lust, they now have legal claim to your property. If you father a child out of wedlock, she still has claim to your property. Either way marriage is, rightly, about the children.

Does anyone really deserve being called “gay basher” or “hater” just because he or she doesn’t agree that two men or two women qualify as a marriageable couple? Many Americans who have already accepted the gay’s “right to be” still rationally dispute their classification as a marriageable couple. Their case is not aided by parodies of other “straight” customs such as the gay débutante ball, Gay Miss America, Gay Olympics – ad infinitum. The first two are gender based. I added the sports for the simple reason – does anyone know of a rule disallowing gays in the Olympics?

Gay Débutante Balls, Gay Miss America and the like could understandably lead many to believe that gay marriage is just one more parody of “the straight world”. I am also quite sure that very few reading this will consider it unbiased, just as surely as I believe no Bible Belt Christian could ever rationally discuss religion with a devout Muslim.

I think for many gay couples it is not just about “playing house” but about real commitment and we should all respect that. Showing respect for traditional marriage would gain them many “points” in the struggle for equality. For many other gay couples the real issue is about receiving the same tax and employee benefits as those that bear the unrelenting responsibility of raising children all the way to adulthood. For others it is a plea for acceptance.

In the case of a plea for acceptance, gay lobbies and attorneys are creating angst where there once was none. To many, especially the religious (I am not), marriage is considered “a sacred institution” and envision using the courts to force “a denigration of it” upon them is a call to arms. This is a tactic that has failed historically in a country born of rebellion against unpopular laws. You cannot legislate public opinion, you can only force a resentful populace to abide with the court’s decision.

I predict that if a major trend of states adopting gay marriages occurs, the religious right will subsequently “arm itself for battle”, take new actions against the gay community and further polarize the nation. In the ensuing frenzy, more moderate people, forced to pick a side by their more motivated peers, will align with the right-wing.

Herein, you have a most ugly alchemy – sex, politics and religion ground together in a crucible, yielding an explosive element that is hard to tame once unleashed. Similar situations have peppered history. It is the kind of stuff this blog is trying to address rationally – if that is even remotely possible.

With effective civil alternatives to conventional marriage available, legal victories allowing what many may rightly perceive as the unraveling of a timeless tradition will only incite populist ire, and that cannot be regulated. We need to look beyond our bias and self interest and analyze the situation for it’s potentially destructive end result, both for the traditionalists and the gays.

Winning the fight will produce a very shallow victory, because it will newly alienate the gay community at a time of historically high acceptance. I have lived most of my life in the alternate lifestyle of a musician; no credit, no unemployment checks, nowhere to turn if you are unfairly treated in the workplace. It was a small price to pay for the freedoms I enjoyed. We must all learn to gracefully play the hand we were dealt – the world does not owe anyone a special break!

Legislating sex has never produced an acceptable outcome.

The Myth Of “Satanism”

First of all let me say, there is very scarce occurrence of any actual
theistic worship of Satan. Conversely, Satanism, throughout the ages has clearly
been no more than ritualized disdain for the Catholic Church. It is a thumbing
of the nose at the tyrany of Catholicism, and to a lesser degree, to Christianity
as a whole. Ever since Emperor Constantine adopted Christianity (The Roman
Catholic Church) as the state religion it has terrorized the entire populace
of Europe, parts of Asia Minor and even America for nearly two thousand years. The Romans invented a god of evil, in the form of Satan, and used it as a scare tactic ever since.

So just who is this Satan?  Christians don’t know.  The term “satan” (root word “s’tn“) appears in Hebrew Scriptures prior to 300 BCE – note that it is not capitalized here, its just a regular old noun. The word is derived from the original Hebrew verb “satan“.  A satan opposes, accuses or is an actual enemy. 

For example, in 1 Samuel 29:4:, the Philistines were distrustful of David, fearing that he would be a satan. Translated – an adversary or “someone who will turn against us.” Again,  you notice its not capitalized here, just a regular old local satan – not “the Satan!” 

According to the Old Testament, during his initial stay in heaven, Lucifer (his name
means bearer of light or enlightenment) was an errand boy or “prosecutor”  for God. In view of the murderous errands he supposedly carried out, his relationship to God was like that of Frank Nitti to Al Capone – an “enforcer”. 

When the ruling elite of the Roman Empire, which extended as far west
as Britain, become proficient in convincing people to relinquish reason and
follow blindly, they had thus created an army more than willing to die for
someone else’s glory. It was quite obvious that when a centralized government
is founded on a herding religion, it has half its battles won before they begin. Conquer the nation with your army, then send in the priests – the next generation will belong to you body and soul.

Once burned alive for being a “Christian”, you subsequently could be burned alive for not being one. Hatred of the”Holy Roman Empire” is the primary reason for the existence of so called “Satanism” at any given time, not a deep reverence for a deity who would trick you into an eternity of torture. Especially in that most publicized group led by Anton LaVey, there is no belief in Satan at all in this “carney” style stage act.

Founding father Benjamin Franklin attended at least one “black mass” with the Hellfire Club – assuredly in the mode of  most irreverant rebellion, and a lot of American corn whiskey. They had prostitutes dress up as nuns!

So what really is a Satanist?  Most importantly they are almost always
atheists, believing neither in God, Devil or any other supreme being.  Black
masses were never worship of any perceived deity at all, but rather the ultimate
insult to the smothering despotism of the Catholic Church. Fornication in the dark ages carried a charge of adultery for the female, as she was considered the “bride of Christ”, and Christ the damaged party. Severe sexual repression lead to sexual rebellion, hence the inclusion of sexual acts in the Black Mass. Goofy, misguided teens and Marilyn Manson fans do not even merit any discussion at all.

Logically, to be a “Satanist” you must actually be a Christian or Muslim who switched primary deities, as it was Christianity that invented Satan and Islam who perpetuated the myth. Outside these religions there is no “Satan” as we know him. The two icons of “Satanism” are the inverted pentagram (an early Christian icon) and the inverted crucifix. It is not the pentagram itself, but the inversion of it that denotes this display of shift in loyalty. The same goes for the inverted cross, which by the way is also known as the Cross of St Peter.

A main Satanist principle is their disdain of Christianity’s power to
attract the enthusiastically submissive, and its pursuant capacity to control
and harvest its “flock”.  Christianity has over millennia been a very effective tool for government conquest and conscription of those willing to die for someone else’s cause.

NOTE: There is no connection between witchcraft and Satanism. “Witches” were never in league with the Devil. The “old religion” of Britania had no such figure – ergo, the whole idea is a very deadly fantasy that cost thousands of innocent lives – mostly women.

So what’s all the Brouhaha about? It is in fact the detractors of Christianity getting a good laugh at the expense of superstitious Christians. Who really wins in the end? The Christians! Not only do the “Satanists” help  perpetuate the myth of their evil prince, they also own all the time and money spent in staging this elaborate ritual of disobedience. The “Satanists” have not escaped the surly bonds of organized religion, they are consumed by it. As for myself, I just get a big kick out of the Bible bangers protesting Harry Potter!

SUMMARY: “Satanists” are just disgruntled Christians!

The real global superpowers are Sex, Politics and Religion.

If we can, for a moment, forget national boundaries we can begin to see
the real global superpowers, sex politics and religion. In a balanced world
where all intended ideals were actualized, removing these three forces would
create this scenario:

  • Removing sex would eliminate humanity in a relatively short time frame
  • Removing religion would create total moral decay and murder would merely
    be a means of solving ones largest problems
  • Removing any governance (instituted by politics) would unleash anarchy
    and total breakdown of society.

 You can be controlled, subjugated or even killed by any of the three forces of sex, politics and religion.  Sex is the least efficient of the three for dominance, usually exerted as one person manipulating one other person. In a worst case scenario (contracting aids) it can kill you faster.

The problem is, we do not live in a balanced world. Most intended ideals
were either never actualized or they were corrupted as soon as money got
involved. Sex has been perverted by religion and is no longer just one of
the seven deadly sins, but now clearly deadly on it’s own merits. Religion
in the western hemisphere, the handmaiden of war and conquest, was always
corrupt. It was corrupt as soon as tribal shaman realized they had power
over other people’s will. Religion has killed more people than nuclear weapons has
so far, so it is more dangerous. If nuclear weapons are loosed on a major
scale, it will begin in the middle east and have religion as a leading component.

Our great American democratic experiment is now failing for the same reason
any other form of government in history as failed – the biggest apple attracts
the biggest worms. Our government is entangled in, and infiltrated by, big
money interests that in reality relegate all standing presidents, of either
party, to mere stooges of the monied interests. This goes double for the
Pope and the Vatican. At one time, the Pope was the emperor of the known
world. What psychopath wouldn’t want that power?

A study of all historical regimes shows a consistent,
outrageous pattern of corruption and outright theft from the suffering populace.

Money is politics, politics is money – period. Have ever heard
another country referred to as a “foreign economy”. Why would any
rational person go through the hassle of campaigning year after year and
the resultant publicizing of his personal affairs once he finally attains
the power to run the lives of others? No rational person would – it doesn’t
pay well enough. Well, I mean it doesn’t pay enough on the top side. Just
below the surface, at the bottom of the deck, the real money is made. If
a politician is not in it just for the money – god help us all!

A second look at the the world without sex politics and religion:

  • Removing sex: Well we can’t get rid of sex but we could
    get rid of guilt and sex based neuroses by getting of religion. I don’t mean
    becoming atheists,  I
    merely just flushing all the Bronze Age dogma down the privy of history.
    Gee, we killed two birds with one stone.
  • Removing religion: A myriad of problems would be solved here. The middle East would be at peace, no JIm Jones or Branch Dravidians, no televangelists scamming the blinded masses, no partition of India, no crusades, no inquisition, no sexual guilt, no tithing, etc, etc, etc. There would be no Israel, but neither would there have been a Holocaust.
  • Removing Politics: Sorry, but you can’t get rid of governance – unless you buy your own island. In which case, knowing humanity, you would set yourself up as dictator for life. Governance, like religious rules, is for the other guy. In one way or another, you are either governing or being governed at any particular time in your life. How about just removing the corruption?  Nope sorry, can’t do that either. If there weren’t something to steal nobody would inconvenience themselves to be leader. Ninety percent of the people want a leader – the remaining ten percent of the people run  the other ninety percent. We are in a leadership crisis now, where corrupt, fictitious
    villains like Gordon Gekko are Wall St. folk heroes.
    We accept it. We
    have become “comfortably numb”.

 

Well, it looks like the only dispensable item in the list is religion. Could society carry on without organized religion. You bet! If you must cling to your Bible, rip out the pages with undesirable items (like mass murder by God). That’s what the founders did at the Council of  Nicea. You can make your own version too! How does “The Holy Bible – King Jones Version” sound?

Was America really founded as a “Christian Nation”?

Our minds are carefully cultivated by our society to believe this is true. We are taught  this country was founded on a principle of religious freedom. We also hear the religious right swear America was founded as a “Christian nation”. That is a false assumption! It is true that America was settled by many different sects of Christians, each desiring to carve out a piece of the world where their belief system would reign supreme. It is a fact that each was so intolerant of the other that New England was literally divided into states based on sectarian religion, as well as many other states – including Pannsylvania and, of course, Utah. 

Inquisition

Thousands of Europeans fled the tyranny of state religions to come here to establish their own sectarian tyranny.  Religion, by it’s very nature, is not given to tolerance. The more details in a church’s dogma, the more room for disagreement. Since dogma is unyeilding, some break away, and in the old country they were labeled heretics. Fleeing to the new world was a life saving, as well as life changing event for many.

 

But lo and behold, people were tortured and executed here as well, for crimes of belief – by governance so comingled with the church as to be indistinguishable from one another.
The only effective way to stop the fight over which religion will control this country is to firmly establish that no religion will rule this country. Separation of church and state was a hard earned victory that is still being challenged by fundamentalist fanatics today.

The  truth is, regardless of the religions of the populace, the founding fathers of this country were not “textbook Christians” at all. Most were deists, believing in the existence of a God on purely rational grounds. Deism has no dogma, ergo, no platform for sectarian rivalry.

Despite many good intentions, Christian sectarian fanaticism stowed away on the ships leaving England, and like rats carrying the plague, scurried ashore here and set about infecting the populace. In those days, bot being a devout Christian could cost you your life.  Ironically, they were re-establishing the very thing they fled from in Europe.

Our founders were keenly aware of this and fought and died for a nation where there would never be another inquisition – or Salem witch trial. They fought to keep religion out of the government, guaranteeing that you could never be put on trial for your beliefs. This all leads me leads me to believe this country must have started out divided into two groups –

  1. Flocks of bleating sheep with no minds of their own, numbed by religious and political tyranny
  2. A small group of fearless intellectuals dedicated to freeing those poor sheep from that tyranny

Anyone who grew up in the 50’s was parented by a generation barely out of the stifling Victorian Era. That, singularly, was the cause of the rebellious “60’s”. It was a generation that wanted to live like the founding fathers, not it’s own fathers.

After 236+ years of separation from European religious fanaticism, there is a new fanatic Christian group  that is fighting to end the less than perfect state of  “separation of church and state” we now enjoy.

They love to quote the founding fathers –

The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”….John Adams from the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797).
“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity.  What has been the effect of coercion?  To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.  To support roguery and error all over the earth.”….Thomas Jefferson

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”….Thomas Jefferson

“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of….Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and of my own part, I disbelieve them all.”….Tomas Paine

“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise….”James Madison

“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”….Ethan AllenThe founders of this nation came over from Europe at a time when the wrong opinion could make you a head shorter! They were seeking freedom from religion, wherein religion had total domain over one’s life and even his thoughts.

One thing you will find, if you were to ever muster up the guts to speak out on the shallowness and falsities of franchise religion you would get various reactions –

  • In private, most would agree – trust me.
  • In a typical group, they would all look around, see no one elas dared, and remain mute
  • In a flock with one ram, they will look to him and do what he does

Do you dare to speak your mind, if it is not in accord with Christian beliefs? If not, where do you think we failed? It can’t cost you your life anymore. To the contrary, if you cite Jonestown as an example, NOT dissenting could cost you your life! That, of course, is organized religion at it’s worst – but it speaks of something much more dangerous. It speaks of what extreme religious conditioning coupled with heavy peer pressure can do to the weak willed.

So, in reality, our forefathers were fleeing from organized religion – both, that still lording over the old world, and that residue stuck to the indoctrinated hearts and souls of those in the new world.