My American Paradox Is More than a Great Album Title

Here's a paradox for you: I love the United States of America. I love the topography. You know: purple mountains majesty, fruited plains and what have you. I love the system of government that was created for it. I love it's Constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights. I love America with much, if not all, of my heart. But I don't consider myself an American. Perhaps politically I am. If I were to go another country I would be considered an American due to my US citizenship but I don't identify myself specifically as an "American." To see why I'm on this topic take a listen to this news piece from NPR's "Morning Edition" for context: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121986877

Briefly, in this piece NPR speaks with Stanford professor Clifford Nass who suggests that due to the increased number of media outlets ranging from the hundreds of television channels available to the on-demand style entertainment available from the internet and pay services that America is losing the identifiers that help define our culture. Americans are becoming disconnected from each other because people are able to get media that is more specialized to their interests rather than sharing ubiquitous cultural reference points. For Nass this is especially problematic because it means that a fractured society is less capable of being mobilized. Although it is unclear whether this is Nass' sentiment or "Morning Edition's" this mobilization may include issues like health care reform and opposition to war. I suspect they wouldn't have an issue if this interfered with the mobilization of something conservatives advocate like the Tea Parties but who's counting?

So the question becomes, what does this have to do with Chuck not being an American? Everything. Everyone of us is gains a more global cultural perspective because of this access to media. I imagine that all of us have seen a movie or TV show from both Japan and England, if not dozens from each. Admittedly these countries are known for their overwhelming cultural output but the fact that we can all access the internet right now to obtain artifacts from these and many other countries shows us that national identity is slipping away because we are individually and societally dissolving these boundaries. Morally and socially I value my indviduality with higher degree than any group identity but if I must identify with a group it is as human of the planet Earth, not just a taxpayer of the United States.

Due to the great circumstances with which I live I may superficially have more in common with a woman from Texas than I do a man from Laos but when it comes to my concern for others "my people" are the inhabitants of Earth without regard to their nationality or ethnicity. What is most important to me are the things that I have in common with people everywhere: the love of my family and my friends, providing the best life I can for myself and those in my care, having sex, and, well, I guess having sex. Humans don't need to identify with their immediate neighbors to be mobilized to stop war. They simply need to realize that war is violent force being used on their long distance neighbors and that the politicians and governments that use war as a tool of tyranny rely on us embracing arbitrary distinctions between groups like nationality.

Here's a fun game you can share with your kids: the next time you hear a politician make reference to "American people" replace it with "American pawns" and see how the meaning changes. Is he or she talking about the individuals who are the citizens of the United States or a faceless, manipulated crowd being forced to follow the will of a power elite? For bonus points you can see if it works when other international "leaders" do the same thing!

Lust - The Absolute Bestest Deadly Sin of All!

If you took the time to read my introduction to my series on "My Favorite Deadly Sins" then you may recall that the only thing I see as being a violation of good moral behavior is causing another person harm. In other words the only thing that I see as being 'wrong' is hurting someone else. Breaking legs, stealing cars, shooting Granny or child molestation would fall into this category. Sex, on the other hand, falls no where in that category.

I take this pretty broad view that any sexual behavior by consenting adults is good. One person, a couple, a couple thousand people, it doesn't matter. Anything sexual that all the parties agree upon is alright by me. In fact, let me take it step further. It's not just 'OK' with me. Whatever it is that person or persons choose to do is awesome as far as I'm concerned. When it comes to sexual activity I think that anything anybody wants to do is totally rad. I love it. It doesn't matter to me whether I've engaged in it or not. It doesn't matter whether I may never participate in it. If it's consensual then I hold in the highest esteem.

See, when I was a religious man the church used to hammer home this idea that even though sexual thought was inevitable it was only appropriate amongst married people to engage in the activities and, even worse, to participate in 'lustful thoughts' was a moral aberration. I take full responsibility for believing their bullshit but at the time when I thought I deserved eternal damnation for masturbation the representatives of the church didn't try to dissuade this. As a matter of fact, they told me I should abandon my behaviors and pray for forgiveness. It's bad enough that they don't want teenagers to learn how to use condoms but when they are encouraging philosophies that cause kids to cry because of the mental anguish caused by masturbation guilt these people are harming young people and should feel ashamed.

Ultimately this lead to my entire disdain for any sort of thought crime mentality but especially when it came to sexuality. I don't usually use my blogs to tell people what to do but in this case I will: if you're a parent make sure that your religious doctrine doesn't encourage this sort of mentality. Mental health is important and sexuality identity is one of the key factors in adult self reliance and social behavior. And to my religious friends out there: if you're still a virgin and frustrated it's not because your god wants you to suffer. It's because your church is afraid of your autonomy and getting a grip (a nice, loose, lubricated grip) on your sexuality is a great first step.

But back to good stuff: fucking. I honestly think that all kinds of sex fucking rules. Men and women fucking each other. Men fucking other men. Women fucking other women. Men fucking men and women. Women fucking men and women. It's all great. I'm actually sort of a shy guy and like to keep my own sexual practices private but I'm more than happy to say that I think all of this shit is super hot. When it comes to sex I am pro-everything.

Not everything is exactly a turn on for me but I still think it's sexy. So far I've never been in a sexual situation where one person dressed up as Stalin, another as Churchill, and another wheeled in as Roosevelt but I still like to think that someone, somewhere is getting a boner by envisioning this scenario. If spanking midgets in over-sized cowboy hats make you wet then go forth knowing you have my blessing. To me an open-minded person would find the sex scenes in Brokeback Mountain to be as hot as anything else they've ever seen in a movie not necessarily because it contains specific actions they wish to replicate in their own personal life but simply because it's two people enjoying each other's sexual company.

Unfortunately there are individuals who aren't this open when it comes to sexuality. They can't allow others to find their own niche without feeling personally violated in some way. The most obvious and contemporary example of this is exhibited in many people's pure hatred of the idea of gay marriage. As backwards as Americans are in denying it legally we are actually much further ahead of most countries that wouldn't even allow the conversation. In the United States it disappoints me to no end to think that there are people out there who think the only exercise of individual liberty means lower taxes. They used the word freedom but they only mean it conditionally.

The entire concept of the 'sanctity of marriage' is actually repulsive to me. The word sanctity comes from the Latin word sanctitas meaning 'holy.' Holiness means being placed aside for religious or spiritual reasons. In other words when a person argues for the 'sanctity of marriage' they are in fact saying that marriage is a religous rite. This alone ought to throw up to several red flags. By there being laws prohibiting a person to participate in marriage as a religious ritual is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution which prohibits the state from interfering with the free exercise of religion. If a person volunteers to participate in a religion that refuses to conduct gay marriage that's their own stupid decision but it shouldn't be prohibited by laws.

The second red flag comes up with this whole idea of marriage being holy to begin with. Does that mean that as an atheist I should be prohibited from being married? In a modern, liberty-loving world we must be able to allow for any sort of contractual agreement to go forth, be it commercially, professionally, or socially oriented. If I want to make a contract with any other person and define terms that we both can agree on then that is my right as a human. If I want to make multiple contracts, as long as they don't violate a contract I've made with another person, I should be able to do that too. Personally I think that marriage would be far more sensible if people made renewable vows - create a contract with a time limit and if the people want to renegotiate or terminate the agreement they can do so without recourse.

Whether you're married or not I suggest you go out there and get some action. Whether you fuck one person a thousand times or a thousand people one time go find out what suits you best. Be honest and horny.

The Most Controversial Sin - Greed

There have been several words that have been applied to me over the years including 'liar,' 'satanic,' 'self righteous,' and my personal favorite string of words: 'dope-smoking hippie fag.' I won't even tell you what a stranger called me because I celebrated a Pistons victory over the Lakers. While I suppose all of these words have had some level of truth to them at one time or another in my life I find it quite unfortunate that the word 'greedy' has never been applied to me by anyone other than myself. I suppose one reason is that while those other terms have been used pejoratively 'greedy' is one that I wear with a tremendous level of pride.

A quick Google search to define greed returns with "[the] excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves." That sounds exactly like me. I want more wealth than I need. I want more property than I need, more food than I need, more DVDs, lovers, and hair cuts than I need. In fact, if need is based solely on daily survival I am super greedy. I may not have developed all the tools required to get more than I need but I sure as hell want them and even take steps to get more than I will ever need to live. The last time I checked I don't need a single book to maintain life, much less hundreds of them, but to some of my friends and colleagues my library is somewhat admirable. I want things that I won't even get to use before I die. If I had the means to do it I would have a heated castle with servants, an indoor pool, and a harem. And cable! Can't forget cable. Castle or not I do not plan on facing death with nothing but zeros in my bank account and I feel like I'm possibly making some errors in judgment if I don't end the year with more money than I started with. I see it as a measurable way to show that I'm contributing to my own well-being.

Being such a big fan of greed you can imagine that I'm often a supporter of those also motivated by greed. Chances are that if you are a semi-rational person you yourself are a pretty greedy person too. Take this into consideration: according to the World Bank there are currently about 1.4 billion people living under the conditions of extreme poverty. They define this as someone living on less than $1.25 a day. That's less than late fees at a video store. That's half the price of a box of Pop Tarts on sale. Two songs on iTunes would cost more than that. In Liberia that constitutes over 4/5 of the population. In the United States the number is so small it isn't even a statistic. You may not realize it, but you are rich. You may not be as wealthy as people who are doing something as important as marrying Demi Moore and playing a TV prankster but the standard of living which you have exceeds not only most of the people alive but almost every single person who has ever walked the planet Earth.

Me being the self-righteous bastard that I am let me make one aside about politics and namely the hot button topic of the day: healthcare. Speaker of the House Pelosi likes to defame those in the health industry, and particularly insurance companies as being greedy. According to an Associated Press article by Calvin Woodward health insurance providers "barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure." I know they make billions but it also costs billions to run these companies. Maybe they are greedy and they just aren't very good at actualizing themselves.

I'm not going to claim to be an expert in economics nor am I going to say that I know how to make the cost of health care decline but since Nancy Pelosi has chosen to target health insurance companies and reprimand them for their alleged 'greed' then I think she may need reconsider her position. Alcohol manufacturers have huge profit margins and it is one of the leading causes of health and family issues but I haven't seen Nancy call them out (or give back their campaign contributions or prohibit their sales in her restaurants).

This isn't to say that I'm one of those individuals who thinks that a so-called public option is gift from Satan bent on destroying Western civilization. I don't even believe in Satan. But what I will say is that in a country where we can use our Kroger Plus Card to get discounts on antiseptics, bandages, pain killers, antibiotics, dozens of different kinds of cold medicines, and literally hundreds of other items brought to us by 20th and 21st century science that to hear people complain about the high cost of MRIs gives me a kind of sickness that even modern health care cannot cure. In America we call modern technology which costs thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars life-saving while in other countries the same term is used for clean water and vitamins. If you've ever taken an Ibuprofen you should be overcome with gratitude. I know I take it for granted.

To tell you the truth I don't know what to make of the proposals for health care reform before Congress. I would think any smart person would look at any proposals government or free market based with a degree of skepticism. Maybe what Congress wants to do will help. I certainly hope that it doesn't drastically increase inflation because people without a lot of money sure as heck don't need what little cash they have to become worthless. As usual I have my doubts about the best intentions of politicians. I mean this with all seriousness: if nearly one trillion dollars are going to be spent on improving health care I would much rather that money be used to help out places like Rwanda or Tanzania where well over half the population live under extreme poverty. I think their need is far greater than America's uninsured.

I'm advocate for greed. Whether it's healthcare or an iPhone I want as much as I can get. So when it comes to pointing the finger at the greedy you don't to have select the companies that build their wealth by providing a much-needed product for millions. Nancy and anyone else like her can single out this self-righteous, ex-dope smoking hippie fag right here.

My Favorite Deadly Sins - An Introduction

I take morality and ethics pretty seriously. I have a very simple moral code in which I try to use as my basis for what I think correct behavior is. It works as follows:

DO
First off take care of yourself and act in your own best interests. Following that you should provide help and assistance to those closest to you, namely your family and friends.

DO NOT
Using force to fulfill your goals and harming another person is wrong.

I think morality is pretty intuitive but a while back some religious meatheads decided to try to tell everyone else how to live by coming up with an arbitrary list of 'deadly sins.' Since America's political environment is so volatile right now and because morality often dictates a person's ideas on public policy I thought I would blog for a few days about my favorite deadly sins and tie them into some contemporary social issues. As usual I'll probably yammer on too long but I'll try to make it entertaining.

Compassion is For Losers

When listening to a recent interview on "Fresh Air from WHYY" with Karen Armstrong, author of THE CASE FOR GOD, I took note of the reasons she offered for pursuing a religious life. She characterizes mainstream religion as primitive and the atheism of Richard Dawkins to be heartless. Armstrong feels that rather than a faith based on dogma and ritual that a 'transcendent' religious experience awards an increased awareness and capacity for compassion.

I'm sure that there are some non-believers who may claim that materialism may offer a greater cause for being compassionate. Maybe they have some socio-ecological understanding of the interconnection of living and non-living things and thus have a deeper understanding of human life. It must then follow that since they are concerned solely on the physical needs and existence of another that they are more capable of offering substantive help. Okay, so maybe there is something to be said about materialism providing a more effective avenue for being compassion but that doesn't necessarily speak on the people themselves. Maybe secular humanists have the most cleverly deceitful name since PETA.

A few weekends ago I made an offer to play disc golf with a couple of left-leaning buddies. I guess Republicans play real golf and liberals play disc golf. Either way it's one of those sports where you can focus for about 45 seconds at a time and then spend the rest of the time conversing about undignified things like social policy. As the lone non-Democrat I appreciated the candor and honesty in which my co-horts offered while they attempted to trample my ideals. But in this conversation, just like in Karen Armstrong's interview, it was the statements regarding compassion which stuck with me.

It was explained to me that under no uncertain terms that the reason liberals hold on to their political values is because they are more compassionate than conservatives. I was told that with few exceptions Republicans care less about their fellow human being than Democrats. They argue that all conservatives care about is money, greed, more money and more greed and will stop at nothing to grind poor people into the dust. In my mind right now I can think of a handful of my liberal associates who would agree with this whole-heartedly and are patting themselves on the back right now. By this man's evaluation liberals are compassionate because they voted for Obama.

Although I am not religious now I do remember when I went to church that I knew several seemingly compassionate conservatives. And I don't mean a couple of good ones in the bunch but I mean literally dozens of people who gave up lives in the private sector to make little money because they wanted to dedicate themselves to a life of religious and social service. They truly felt that by committing themselves to helping others materially and spiritually that they were making a better world a better place to live. When you take into account the fact that conservatives give far more generously to charities than liberals ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html ) it might even lead me to think that maybe liberals are actually LESS compassionate. But I don't think that for one second.

See, I don't think anyone 'owns' compassion. We may individually come up with different takes on how to best exhibit our compassion and we may prefer the thinking behind one or more ideologies but that is almost just an aesthetic quality. Personally I prefer my compassion to come without the attached strings of organized religion or the ineffective red tape of government. Compassion guarded with rational self interest usually amounts to a pretty rewarding life, I understand.

I don't consider myself to be an extraordinarily compassionate person. I don't think I care more about my fellow human than, say, you. But since I am such a highly evolved primate I was born with a pre-existing condition which has allowed our species to thrive called "empathy." Just about every single one of us care about ourselves, our loved ones and others. In my case I care about 'others' to a much smaller degree than I do myself or my friends and family. I haven't met most of them so I couldn't really comment on them individually but, all in all, they seem like a pretty good species.

I like to give to children's healthcare and literacy charity groups. Literacy may be a wash because poor kids don't give a fuck about books when they're starving but if it helps out any child succeed and realize their dreams then it was worth it. And since the only reason I can walk now is because of the fine folks at Egleston Children's Hospital (and because I don't think Congress is going to fix shit) I think children's healthcare causes are worthwhile. You can decide for yourself if I'm doing it to help or because I think that chicks dig compassion.

Here is a test of your reading comprehension skills: did I at any point in this blog tell you to be compassionate? Did I define it or tell you what I think is the best way for YOU to be compassionate? Of course not. I don't know what the best way is and if I did chances are it would only be applicable to me. Unless you're Dexter chances are you feel emotion and empathy. If you want to use those to drive you to exhibit concern for others then that's great. If you choose not to I don't have a problem with that either.

The Great Doughnut Debate

It's pretty darn obvious that the world moves a lot quicker than my modest mind allows so I probably don't need to tell you all a story that showcases that trait. But since it leads me to an opportunity for some moral grandstanding there was no way I could help myself.

A couple of months ago I immersed myself in a total doughnut experience at a pastry-inspired art show at Sublime Doughnuts. As it was a Sunday I reveled in the opportunity to trade the loud, abbreviated soundbites of weekday radio for the well-spoken, full-length, but often equally insipid interviews that the weekend provides. I heard a few minutes of an interview with liberal firebrand James Carville. He used his appearance time to argue that, without question, the Democratic Party would "rule" government for the next 40 years. He offered this following his argument that economies were most prosperous under the administrations of liberal presidents. That is a potentially accurate claim presuming sufficient evidence is presented that could verify the required components and meanings of that claim. But rather than supplying sufficient evidence Carville compared the argument to the evolution vs creation argument and stated that the economic superiority of liberals was just like evolution and they are both [and here is where my memory is sorta, basically, almost exactly accurate] "not open to debate" and that "there is no debate."

What does he mean by "no debate"? Just because we have literally millions of astronomical and fossil artifacts to verify the age of both the planet and the life on it and just because DNA offers us the physical and chemical diagrams of the history of evolution and the development of species that does not mean that the debate does not exist. There are some people who offer factually unsubstantiated explanations of the origins of the universe but that doesn't mean they aren't invited to the debate. Personally, I think those are the first people you invite to a debate because they offer the people with correct explanations to learn the thinking patterns of those who disagree. I want them there because critical thinkers may hear things that either challenge or fortify their own premises but mostly because I love seeing religious dumbasses get served.

So if evolution is open to debate why wouldn't Carville's claims about liberal presidents and periods of liberal "rule" also be open to debate. And if their claims regarding both the future and past are contestable then so are his claims regarding policy and society. And who knows, he may be right. But if he wants me to believe me he can't hit with me with the same authoritarian tone that a gospel drooling preacher he's going to have to back it up with facts. Debate is absolutely necessary when it comes to addressing issues. The absence of debate is completely oppositional to the free market of ideas that was held in such esteem by men like Jefferson and Adams (it's still 4th of July month so I get to milk their names). The beauty of life is that no person is always right all the time and thus no one dogma can be right all of the time either. If you stake an emotional claim into something even the most critical of minds might allow a few laundered facts. As for me, I err to the side of personal liberty. And especially the liberty to eat doughnuts.
...and so I used that liberty to go to Sublime Doughnuts and eat awesome doughnuts. I'm standing firm on this, by the way, if anyone, and I mean ANYONE, campaigns on an anti-doughnut platform they can kiss my vote goodbye.

(Just to further illustrate the point that my mind's clock isn't operating with the rest of the world get this: I opened a couple of tabs in Firefox to research the events of my story. Apparently the doughnut show was May 17th and the interview with Carville was the 7th, a full 10 days apart. So clearly I'm a liar, a cheat and a scoundrel who will bend the truth for a good story.)

The unanmous Declaration of the thirteen... WHAT ARE THIRTEEN THINGS YOU LOVE ABOUT THE UNITED STATES?

from Facebook
originally posted Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 9:07am

To celebrate Independence Day share with everyone 13 things you love about the United States. We all have opinions on how to make this country a better place and, thanks to a well-placed Amendment in The Constitution we are allowed to express these opinions in both private and public forums. Take a few minutes to copy the body of this Note and come up with a list of your own and post it as a Note. Then, tag a bunch of your friends and we can all learn a more about our fellow inhabitants of these United States.

A List of 13 Things I Love About the United States

i Pam Grier
ii The Batmobile
iii Carl Sagan
iii KING KONG
iv Evel Knieval
v The Ramones
vi Russ Meyer
vii Tammy Wynette
viii "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
ix Frederick Douglas
x Tortillas (on Ponce)
xi Jim Henson
xii glow-in-the-dark sex toys (which may not be made here but just seems as American as Elvis Presley)
xiii Ray Harryhausen

I am a Hypocrite

from Facebook
originally posted Wednesday, June 10, 2009 at 9:03am | Edit Note | Delete
Check out this news piece entitled "OBAMA INVOKES JESUS MORE THAN BUSH"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090609/pl_politico/23510;_ylt=Aj6oWEFDjOXdqJFmgeS.5WCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJsbm5uNWc0BGFzc2V0Ay9wb2xpdGljby8yMDA5MDYwOS9wbF9wb2xpdGljby8yMzUxMARwb3MDNQRzZWMDeW5fbW9zdF9wb3B1bGFyBHNsawNvYmFtYWludm9rZXM-

Since I've been obsessed with President Obama's religiosity for a while now I'm not really surprised about this. Admittedly President Bush did take things a little further by saying that God spoke to him but I bet that question hasn't been directly posed to Obama. The nighttime talk radio host on AM1390 said that the "hand of God is on Obama" so I presume at least others believe God speaks to him whether he claims it himself.

First off, I hate Christianity. You hate stuff too, I bet, so please don't treat me like an intolerant fool. You probably hate National Socialism because we're all taught to hate it and with several good reasons why. Between hate speech, anti-individualism, witch burnings, crusades, and Oral Roberts I'd say that Christianity has had more than it's fair share of evil attributed to it's cause. The big difference between Christianity and Nazism in the public eye grows from the fact that people love to hate Hitler but still adore that guy named Jesus.

Let's clear something up quickly. Lots of guys named Jesus existed at the turn of the millennium and it is most likely that there existed a fella who made a name for himself by criticizing politics and religion. Or rather, Paul made a name of him. The Gospels were written decades after Jesus died and the reason that anyone knows his name is because one very vocal, powerful, and literate man fell in love with the guy and wrote letters about him to others. Paul's the asshole who we should all be pissed at. In other words, I could be Jesus but I don't have a PR guy like Paul. Of course, since I am literate and I do write my opinions you know more about me than anyone will ever know about who Jesus was.

My hate doesn't end with Christianity, though. I hate Ghandi too just for this quote alone:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Christians, just like we evil, depraved atheists, are just normal people which means just like you and I they are concerned, compassionate people. Maybe not as compassionate as you, of course, because who is? But really, no matter how stupid the bullshit is that people believe they generally care about other people anywhere from somewhat to a lot. Jeffrey Dahmer was a Christian who ate people and Stalin was an atheist who committed genocide so maybe a person's theology is not the most important thing when evaluating them as an individual.

I agree that a lot of good did come from Ghandi, even though he was clearly an elitist and he was an extreme racist. But I say I hate him because of what he stands for in people's eyes. He is treated as an enlightened, spiritual, holy person. Some people are more intelligent and some people are more benevolent than myself but I don't think that any of them are holy.

This means the Pope, a yogi, the Dalia Lama, televangelists, psychics, Ayatollahs, and more all suck in my eyes because they have been granted undo power because they claim to have supernatural powers that normal humans don't. Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em sideways. Fuck 'em in their holiest of holes. I don't need to mention any names but that guy who claims to be the 14th something or other says he "prays for peace" which means he's a delusional non-intellectual who doesn't seem to care what the rest of the world goes through.

Which brings me to my hypocrisy. I love Carl Sagan, Harry Houdini, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin, Thomas Paine, Penn & Teller, and many more. I hang on their words almost like they are religious truths. Their words inform my decisions and I feel enriched by learning about their lives. But what separates these men from the aforementioned holy men is that none of them claim to be divine or even divinely sparked. They use their profoundly gifted minds and, at times, bodies to demonstrate the power that a human can achieve. And, perhaps most importantly, because they claim no divine knowledge or guidance they leave wide open a door that those who use religion cannot: fallibility.

A Man I Will Never Forgive and why KNOWING sucks

from Facebook
originally postedThursday, April 2, 2009 at 8:52am

There is no afterlife. There certainly is no proof of it. Near death experiences have scientific explanations; there is no evidence for ghosts; there is nothing that can empirically prove that you have a soul much less something happens to it when you die. Now some of you may be quick to retort that just because the afterlife can't be proven does not falsify it's existence it just means we don't or can't know about it until we die. But That is proof enough to me that it is of absolutely no consequence to our lives. The only thing that should matter to us and our lives is the material world which we can observe, manipulate, and try to understand. People kill and are killed for something that may not, and probably does not, exist so I'm justified in my contempt for a belief in the afterlife.

You see, after I spoke at my father's funeral the eulogy was given by Sherwood Tidman, retired Captain in the Salvation Army. Besides being long-winded enough to earn an audible 'I'm bored' from my nephew this asshole used my father's memorial as a platform to preach his childish story of sin and salvation for what seemed like an hour. Maybe it was half that time but no less painful and even his wife was caught tapping her feet. My last opportunity to pay my last respects to my dad's body and to celebrate his life with family and friends and this guy tells us that we are "in danger" of losing our souls and glorifying a fantasy world while neglecting the most important thing in the world: our lives. Now before you admonish me for taking this personal let this sink in: when Sherwood arrived at the chapel and hugged me he whispered in my ear "now I'm going to step on your toes a little bit." Sherwood, thanks for forever staining an already painful day with your self-righteous idiocy and making me glad that I left your stupid, pitiful religion. I hope that your few remaining days are as worthless as your words. Your empty, non-existent god my forgive you but I never will.

Which brings me to KNOWING. This movie sucks and I trust that you will not see it. Here's the plot: alien/angels have warned an Earthling about these impending disasters, people get wiped out, and two dark-haired white children are brought to another planet presumably to repopulate the human species. And Nicolas Cage plays a sorry excuse for an MIT professor who finds his faith again before it's all over. Now that I actually have a sense for what life and mortality is I get pissed when I see something that treats the death of a living, breathing human being as an inconsequential event. Using things like 9/11 as a plot point to suggest that this is all a part of some holy, pre-ordained plan is revolting. Death is not the beginning of a new stage, a new journey when, as far as we know, it is the end.

Nothing is more important than your life and what you do with it. Value it. Treat everyday, even the shitty ones, as a treasure. Nothing or no one will give it meaning but you.

I Relent - 25 Things About a 21st Century Man

from Facebook
originally posted Saturday, January 31, 2009 at 12:16pm

Once you have been tagged, you are supposed to write a note with 25 random things, facts, habits, or goals about you. At the end choose 25 people to be tagged. You have to tag the person who tagged you. If I tagged you, it's because I want to know more about you.

(To do this, go to "notes" under tabs on your profile page, paste these instructions in the body of the note, type your 25 random things, tag 25 people, then click publish.)


1) I am named after my father, Charles Barrett Porterfield, who went by Barry and Charlie. Chuck is the nickname that they address me by.

2) I was a member of the Salvation Army for 10 and half years and was a preacher, Sunday school teacher, and a missionary.

3) #2 is why I am now an atheist and an advocate for secularism and skepticism.

4) I went to a professional wrestling school.

5) Of all my tattoos I have two portraits: famed escapologist and psychic debunker Harry Houdini and the little girl from NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.

6) The first movie that I threaded by myself in a projection booth was IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE (in 3-D!) at Cinfest Film Theatre.

7) No candidate that I have ever voted for in a Presidential election since 2000 has garnered more than 5% of the popular vote, much less won.

8) I go back and forth on the Brenda Lee/Patsy Cline issue.

9) I've swam in the actual Black Lagoon with The (underwater) Creature himself.

10) So you think you were a nerd in high school? I got knocked out playing kick ball.

11) Since I'm literate and have been to a post-Soviet nation I can tell you this: communism is fucking awful.

12) I lost my virginity a few years ago in a cemetary on the 4th of July.

13) My favorite holidays are Halloween (costumes and candy), Xmas (presents and family), Thanksgiving (food), and Independence Day (patriotism and #12).

14) Although I'm no Jack Lalane, I used to weigh 260+ pounds and the heaviest thing I lifted was the Bible, so I may be in the best shape of my life.

15) I am an avid reader of books primarily of scientific, social, political and autobiographical nature. I'd highly recommend David Lee Roth's CRAZY FROM THE HEAT.

16) I didn't have alcohol until I was 23 and drugs until a year later. I recently stopped using said materials. I waited a month before telling my mom.

17) I now perform non-religious wedding ceremonies and have spoken at funerals. Which means if you're an atheist or agnostic and need somebody I can marry ya and bury ya!

18) I watched all three LORD OF THE RINGS movies in a row in a movie theater in Columbus, GA with Shane, Richard, Calu, and Creepy Kenny.

19) While hosting NITRATE 88 on WRAS I had the opportunity to interview Herschell Gordon Lewis, Jack Hill, Kevin Smith, Ted Raimi, Jeffery Combs and Fred Olen Ray.

20) Businesses come and go but I still miss the hummus from TORTILLAS and the mashed potatoes at THE CABBAGETOWN GRILL.

21) Last year I fulfilled my lifelong dream of seeing Penn & Teller perform The Bullet Catch live (and I can't wait to do it again.)

22) In college I double majored in Film & Video and Religious Studies which probably means that I should be a pornographer.

23) I was recently diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome which is great because A) it's such a nebulous diagnosis who knows if it's correct? and B) I get a condition that starts with 'ass.'

24) I plan on taking my mom to the Liberace Museum in Las Vegas in the next year or two.

25) I have the death sentence in 12 systems.

The Greatest American Hero

For months I have held off on writing anything explicitly related to the death of my father. For one thing, no one in their right mind should want to express such deeply emotional experiences to the impersonal void that is the internet. But beyond that, his death affected my views on people and society in such a profound way that I felt like referencing it might come off as, and in fact may be, a cheap way of exploiting his demise in order to bolster the emotional context of my writing rather than appealing to rational argumentation. But in fact, it is that same drive to protect both reason and his memory that motivated me to write this blog.

I became an atheist and left the pulpit it because I came to understand that the material universe in which we live is all that there is. Our existence is not a preamble to something more awesome upon death. This is it - this is our chance to live, our chance to shine. Nothing else is relevant. Some may still cling to escapist fantasies because they are disatisfied with life but that doesn't change the fact the material universe is all that there is, all that ever has been, and all that ever will be. It may change shape and density but no supernatural force guides it.

When my dad, Charles Barrett Porterfield, died he didn't go to wait for me in some mystical dugout while I stepped up to bat - he simply died. The man that didn't get my jokes, the man that thought I was "crazy as hell" at times, the man that loved my mother, the man that sold his Jag so he could feed me and my brother, the man who loved the Braves, the man who was drafted to fight in Vietnam, the man who took me to see a battle royal at a skating rink, the man that thanked me for reaching out to him and looking after my mother didn't go to heaven, he didn't enter paradise, he simply died. If ever a man walking this planet deserved to be considered holy it was the man that put up with my shit growing up. But my father wasn't holy - he was simply an honest, hard-working man who used the same finite capabilities that humans possess to take care of his family. He contributed time and money to charites to help out other poor. He gave 100 mile rides to people with broken down cars. He would trim elderly people's hedges when his body still had the strength to do so. While some individuals claim to be experts on human dignity and compassion because followers call them "His Holiness" my father showed me what compassion was by the way he lived his life. He didn't offer prayers, he didn't read 'scripture' to people, and he never told anyone how to live their lives. My dad was a quiet man whose let the actions of his life teach me this lesson: if I want a better life, if I want a better world then I am the one responsible for making it happen. He was one of those crazy people, like myself, that believed that individuals matter and that the United States of America is the greatest place on Earth.

I'm an atheist liberterian and offer no apologies about this. I do not talk to an imaginary friend for guidance on my life or on how to make the decisions that will most benefit me and the world in which I live. Look at the actions of yourself and those around you and you will see that by and large people are overwhelmingly good. Despite the cries of religious propagandists people don't need to believe in fairy tales to know that murder and rape are wrong and that exhibiting concern for yourself and others is right. It is literally built into our genes and brains. Religious dogma may make you feel bad about fucking your wife while she's on her period but the reality is that most of us are benevolent and it's time that we recognize that. We all take steps to improve things in our lives and few of us go out of our way to harm others around us.

Despite this reality religion thrives on perpetuating myths and ideas that we are broken, mishapen, evil creatures that must defer to something "greater" or at least different than ourselves in order to fix this overstated malady. It has been historically demonstrated - from the god-emperors of Japan to the the Divine Right of European kings to the God of Freedom in the Bush administration - that you can convince large populations to follow you if you but claim supernatural blessings to your cause. You don't need proof or statistics or data - you only need statements of mystic guidance and you can take a position of leadership. And all of it is predicated on lies.

Throughout Barack Obama's campaign I heard him quoting from the Sermon on the Mount, discussing his faith in God, beseeching us to faithfully buy into an illusory thing he called "hope". T-shirts sold at corner gas stations were brazened with his quote, "I'm asking you to believe." During yesterday's Inaugaration how many goddamned prayers were offered by people described as "controversial" because of their ideology and not because they can pretend to speak to magical, fantasy characters while keeping a straight face? Barack is just a man, a famous man who looks great in a bathing suit, true, but still just a man. I'm glad that my niece and nephews, who are themselves African-American, will be able to see a black individual in the news who isn't a preacher, entertainer, or sports star and that this may help break down many of the devisive walls that we separate ourselves with. But believe me, President Obama is no gift from heaven or a prophet of god. He's ambitious, intelligent and talented but he's just a plain old Homo sapien like all of us.

Which brings me back to my father. A lot of people have found a new hero to 'believe' in. I had a hero and he is no longer alive. As sad as that may be, I remain optimistic about my own life and the rest of the world. Nothing is promised to us so we must be grateful for every day and every moment we have in life. The internet (and the birth city of my father and myself) is filled with a lot of smug assholes who think that because they support the politics of a new president rather than an outgoing president that they have demonstrated moral fortitude. My father voted for Reagan and both Bushes. Had he lived he would have voted for McCain. He and I disagreed on many social and political issues but I always maintained my respect for him because, even when he was wrong, he was a man who loved his family, his country, and his friends. I am humbled by his memory for he was the greatest man I have ever known.

And now, Mr. President and supporters, I let you have your celebration. Consider yourselves on notice.;)

A Stupid Book Making a Stupider World

Please don't waste your time reading THE HIDDEN MESSAGES IN WATER by Masaru Emoto. I have a friend that likes to take acid for Jesus who leant me this book. He thinks that I trust science too much and that I am close-minded to the mysteries of the universe. That may be but that doesn't explain how I'm supposed to take statements from HIDDEN MESSAGES like the following seriously:

"Water is not simply H2O. No matter how natural or pure the water you drink, without a pure soul it will not taste good." (p. 83)

"Perhaps it is possible that the miracle water of Lourdes in France, which is said to have healing powers, is filled with the feelings of appreciation of the Mother Mary." (p. 74)

"Love and gratitude are fundamental principles of nature." (p. 134)

Regarding the unfair treatment of the 'research' into homeopathy by Jacques Benveniste: "A year after he submitted his results to the British scientific journal Nature, they were finally published, along with the comment that the results of the experiment were doubtful and without physical proof." (p. xx)
'Without physical proof'?! What good is fucking science if you don't actually have data to back up your conclusion?

If you want to read about the nonsense that is homeopathy check out: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html
http://skepdic.com/homeo.html

If you want to follow Emoto's advice, however:
"Whenever you sit in front of water and send out messages of love and gratitude, somewhere in the world, someone is being filled with love and gratitude. You don't need to go anywhere." (p. 99)

Is it any wonder that this book also has information on how to buy shit from Masaru Emoto's water company?

****Originally posted October 30, 2008****

Parking Lots Replace the Salon for Social Discourse

I ran into one of my old Relgious Studies professors in the Home Depot parking lot and he told me that because of my libertarian attitudes that I am actually accelerating the Marxist Revolution. I like this because this means whenever I'm backed into a corner in an argument I can just say that I'm doing it for the proletariat.

And am I the only one that thinks it's funny that a professor still believes in God and Marxism? He might as well add 8-Track supremacy and the War on Terror to his list of great ideas.

****Originally posted September 26, 2008****

What Would Jack Chick Do?

If you or someone you love has been affected by child abuse consult an organization like The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute for help:
http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/hero.html

And for the sake of satire check out this link to find out why Jack Chick is a misguided pervert speaking on behalf of a senseless, horrific religion:
http://www.disinfo.com/content/story.php?title=Darkest-Jack-Chick-Tract-Ever

If you have a real life problem, please seek a real life solution. Supernatural or mystical powers do not address physical and mental disorders. Blessings do not remove the pain of emotional scarring. Seeking help from a professional, learning to reclaim your own life and taking responsibilites for your own actions will take you far closer to health and joy than prayer ever will.

****Originally posted June 24, 2008****

See that dead horse? Would you mind taking this club to it for me?

Before my blog I would like to point out that there are blog categories for ’Dreams and the Supernatural’ AND ’Religion and Philosophy’ but nothing for ’Science.’ When will I learn?

Cliched, unnecessary The Godfather Part III quote:
"Just when I thought I was out they pull me back in."

We were having a delightful conversation about the how science and technology has and will continue to impact human development when this question came up - [Chuck], when is your birthday? - automatic red flag. If anyone other than a liquor retailer asks this it usually only means one thing: Astrology. We’re discussing the future of humanity and out of nowhere astronomy’s irrational, self-proclaimed cousin cuts into our dance. And believe it or not, I just kept my mouth shut.

You see, I’ve been on a positivity kick the last couple of weeks and I’m trying not to get so riled up about trivial things. I’ve been trying to squelch my hostility towards relgion and my general malaise towards superstition. Clearly that stuff isn’t for me. For the most part I don’t think that believing in this stuff helps out the world but that, it seems, is irrelevant. I can rant about this stuff until I’m blue in the face but let’s be realistic here - monotheism is not going to be crushed under my foot, mediums will continue to rip off grieving families and people are still going to pray for peace while at the same time re-electing ’born again’ war mongers. I can say my piece, but when it is all said an done my skepticism will be maligned as ’close-mindedness.’ I thought was making up for some of the damage I may have caused while evangelizing Christianity but now I kind of feel like I’m just doing the same thing for another team.

For example, I’d just rather discuss how beautiful the theory of evolution actually is than lambast creationists for their utter disregard for science. None of us have all of this thing called life figured out so I decided to just take the ’what’s right for me may not be right for you’ approach. Maybe this comes from living in the US but this stuff gets shoved in your face whether want it to or not. Take my recent, non-confronational encounter for instance. To the best of my memory here’s how the exchange went:

Companion: "Chuck’s a pretty rational guy."

Inquistors: "What day were you born?"

Me: (as I look to [Companion] to see if she knows where this is going) "December 22nd."

Inquistors: "So that makes you. . ."

-I remain silent-

Companion: "Chuck doesn’t believe in astrology."

Inquistors: "That’s okay. Astrology believes in you."

Did you see that? It jumps from rational to astrological in one freaking question. They may have been kidding about the ’believes in you’ part but I didn’t even ask. In fact, I didn’t even say anything and I still get roped into a conversation about the supernatural.

For those wondering December 22nd means that I was born on the first day of Capricorn, on the cusp with Sagitarrius whatever that means. Supposedly Capricorns are smart, down-to-earth, and stubborn. At times I may be all of those. At others none of those correctly describe me. So what is it? Do the stars only affect who I am sometimes or only when it suits astrologists? And why does it seem that celestial bodies tend to provide positive or useful traits and grant us opportunities to succeed rather than suffer? What about those crossed stars that lead a man to abuse his wife and children? Is Mars’ approach causing him supernatural rage? Frankly, I personally find the suggestion that ’the heavens’ care for some people more than others as ludicrous and distasteful as a god that simultaneously claims to be all-loving and a proponent of war, slavery, and suffering.

Presumably astrology must affect every single organic creature that has ever lived but I’ve never heard of a snail astrologer. Or fern or protozoan for that matter. Presumably it took humans that claim inherint insight into the mystical to discover it. For the remainder of human existence scientists will be working on learning about the breadth and scope of our cosmos and will most likely never fully learn about even the largest bodies in our universe but astrologers have got it all figured out. Never mind the fact that as astronomical information has grown and changed astrology has had to augment it’s supposed workings to adjust to these findings. Science has the good grace to admit that it is a human endevour and open to correction. That, by the way, is one of my problems with most religious thought: it won’t admit that humans are involved in it’s inception. Science is different because it looks toward existing data and postulates answers and then has the audacity to actually test them to see if they make sense. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t but at least they aim for consistency. Astrology is so vague that consistency is elusive.

The point is that I, Chuck Porterfield, after a few years of arm chair research and reading a number of books on magic and astrology (not to mention a degree in Religious Studies but who’s counting?) determined that this stuff has no value for me. Fine. Maybe it does for you, but not this guy here. And I’m not going to tell you to give up on it. Hell, maybe I’m missing the forest for the trees and using these glaring inconsistencies to blind my third eye or something. The truth is, I kind of find this sort of silly and childish and I’d rather just move past it. There are real world problems out their that require real world solutions and excuse me if I’d rather hear what the prospects of the future are rather than the unfilled promises of the past. My life has never moved in a more positive, productive direction and I think I’ll do what I can to stay on this course.

Thanks.


****Originally posted March 21, 2008****

Keep your fucking knife away from my genitals. Thanks.

I tried to think of something funny to say but the seriousness of this topic allows little space for comedy. Check this article out entitled "Man Faces Child Abuse Charges After Home Circumcision": http://www.wxii12.com/news/15251643/detail.html

There should be no debate as to whether this man's alleged actions are child abuse but we as civilized humans need to further understand this: ALL circumcision is child abuse. No child for any reason should have harm inflicted upon his penis or her clitoris. Science has found no medically positive reason for cutting or removing a male's foreskin. Don't give me any bullshit about it being cleaner: teach your child to wash his penis and you can give up millenniums of archaic, torturous practices. Lives are only harmed by this practice. It teaches that physical suffering is better to experience than sexuality. America and the world will not be able to healthily and justly deal with issues like sexual abuse as long as genital mutilation is thought of as safe and normal.
If your traditional religious dogma has required circumcisions of infants or children I challenge you to take a stand against the thousands of years of physical and psychological torture that those before you have accepted. You are in a position to be a positive force of change and to unbind some of your religion's primitive chains.
If you are a parent who has had your child circumcised it is never to late to apologize to them, especially if you were unaware that what you were doing was harmful. My physical scarring may never pass but one of the first steps towards my psychological healing was educating and forgiving my parents for doing what society had taught them was normal. Tell your kid that you are sorry and that you will never do it to anyone else. I have to believe that if we work together as a people that we can permanently end the practice of circumcision altogether by the 22nd century.

****Originally posted February 8, 2008****

Would Someone Explain to MySpace what ’Demographics’ Are

I'm sure by now, oh MySpace users, that you've noticed that this dear site analyzes your various entries searching for keywords for marketing purposes. For instance, if you have entered 'superheroes' in one of your interest fields (as I have in the past) you will get adds for comic book sellers on your MySpace homepage. Thanks to our good friends at News Corp. and their directed advertising practices if you select 'Atheist' as your 'Religion,' you can expect ads from companies that offer 'God's Promise in His Word' and debate 'Evolution vs. Creation.' Atheist, people. I do not believe in God. Get it? I used to, now I don't. Pretty simple. Perhaps Christian webmasters have never actually met an atheist, but most of us don't want to subscribe to your daily devotional newsletter. Unless we can win an XBOX360.

++UPDATE++
I now have 'Sponsored Links' that ask if I am 'Struggling with Lust,' 'Believe in Evolution?' and am 'Puzzled by Christianity.' Is this Christianity saying 'fuck you,'? Well, grow up, Christianity. We're getting tired of your nonsense. You're like a child who wants to keep telling us the details of an unfunny joke.

++And now 'Cool Jesus Christ T Shirt.' Really? Nothing makes a fashion statement like '100% Human 100% Divine Color Black, Long Sleeve'

+++This shit is ridiculous: "Want to Share Your Faith?", "Puzzled by Christianity", etc. It has actually gotten so bad, in my opinion, that I have written MySpace to complain. And I guess I will have to again

****Originally posted October 3, 2006****

Best of the Rest

Although my full name is Charles Barrett Porterfield, II I have become colloquially recognized as 'Chuck.' Chuck is not a particularly uncommon appellation, but just as some people feel a connection with their ethnic or cultural identity, I embrace my own form of Chuck Pride. As I suspect that my inbox would be filled with queries about my opinions on other notable Chucks, I present to you:

Chuck's Top 5 Other Guys Named Chuck

5) Chuck Yeager - Anyone can break a world record, but only one man can be the first to break the sound barrier.
4) Chuck Berry - All this talk about rock and roll being the devil's music is all well and good, but it takes a true pervert to make it happen.
3) Chuck Liddell - Ice, man.
2) Chuck Norris - I seriously doubt that anyone who embraces internet irony will ever be called "fighter of the year" by BLACK BELT MAGAZINE.
-and, without question-
1) Chuck Jones - If "Duck Amuck" and "Duck Dodgers in the 24th and Half Century" were the only cartoons left after the apocalypse, civilization could still rebuild itself.

****Originally posted May 2y, 2007****

An Easy Way to Make a Million Dollars

If you are frequent reader of my blog then you may remember me mentioning one of my heroes, James 'The Amazing' Randi ("Oh, Me, of Little Faith"). Alongside his accomplishments prevously mentioned he also is the founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) which promotes scientific skepticism and serves as "an educational resource on the paranormal, the pseudoscientific, and the paranormal."

Now, I know a lot of you out there already think I'm some kind of a nut for not buying into things like aliens in the White House or faith healers but you gotta love the people who do (unless you have something against the swindlers who maliciously profit off of the ignorance and suffering of others. I do, but that's another blog). But there are some individuals who earnestly believe in their own psychic or paranormal powers enough to open themselves to scrutiny. This is where the JREF comes in.

Whether you believe in the mystical or not, chances are that at some point you were exposed to the premise of the scientific method at some point. Basically, you have a hypothesis and then test it to see if it holds water. Using this approach to scientific inquiry JREF has found a way to let the faithful test their claims: Money!

JREF sponsers the "Million Dollar Challenge", a program that allows anyone who can successfully demonstrate a paranormal claim in strict testing conditions will receive $1 million. Both parties must agree on the best way to create an objective testing environment and what constitutes success. From psychically making hands grow to proving the extrasensory abilities of an unfertilized chicken egg to creating super-magnetic fields with one's mind just about everything that people can come up with has been submitted. Of course, when most of these people learn the rigors of scientific testing (like someone else being there to observe it is a frequent stumbling block) it usually never gets past the discussion stage. Suprisingly enough, no one has been able to demonstrate any form of psychic, paranormal or supernatural phenomenon. Fortunately for us, though, JREF is kind enough to include the coorespondence with applicants on their website:

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43

Trust me; this is good fun.

For more information on 'The Amazing' Randi and the James Randi Educational Foundation goto www.randi.org or visit your local library.

****Originally posted May 3, 2007>>>>

I'm Voting for Thor in the Next Election

I love Vikings. In this day and age when people have their 'ninjas vs. pirates' debates I call upon the name of Odin and strike them down with my mighty hammer of war. If you are going to embrace the paths of warriors of old, I say go with the most barbaric you can. Frankly, the lives of scurvy-ridden criminals that participated in the slave trade is hardly the life I want. Nor do I feel that a life of feudal espinoage is for me. Perhaps then the life of a Nordic raider, filled with its constantly jovial good times would suit me. Of course, I haven't been conditioned to think that rape and murder are idealistic dreams leading to a glorious afterlife, so maybe that's not right for me either. Come to think of it, even the romanticized version of The Vikings with Kirk Douglas (which is a totally bad ass film) seems like a life wrought with an unglamorous peril. So what is it I like about Vikings? For one thing, as I will most likely never have to engage in hand-armed combat for myself and loved ones (thankfully), I can vicariously live the life of Dark Ages adventure through them; for they truly were war masters of land and sea. But what really gets me is their mythology and stories. Derived from pre-Germanic 'pagan' belief systems, the Vikings seemed to have developed a unique way to unite their mythology to their adherence to monarchy by having their kings be the descendants of gods.

But in reality, it isn't that unique of a strategy at all, is it? Leaders love touting divine authority.

We all remember from our middle school elementary class about how the pharaohs of Egypt were gods incarnate. Japanese and Roman emperors alike were divine. The Bible is filled with stories of individuals heavenly blessed to killed and slaughter tribes and children. The Bible throws an interesting curve though, rather than giving people superhuman powers to be gods, they exist narratively to perpetuate the import of religious and political hegemony. After all, in these tales, man is created in the image of the Jewish god. The whole 'Jewish god' thing will be dealt with at a later time, but it still demonstrates the perpetuation of homo sapien superiority through myth. All of these myth systems have purposefully distorted and changed their histories to tales of fantasy for the purpose of, well, misleading masses into battles and servitude.

I have received some criticism for being too hard on religion, both from this blog and my personal comments. I am accused of supplanting the human-created religion for human-researched science. Admittedly, both are subject to human foibles (although thorough scientific study is supposed include areas of potential error in its published research - I've yet to see scripture with such inclusions) particularly when it comes to areas of ideology. Religion is used to form and preserve ideology while ideology drives science. For example, space initiatives seemed far more dazzling to Americans when we discovered that satellites can both spy on us and beam home entertainment. Space travel has been commodified and become has since become just another rich person's dream. As an aside, I think astronomy and space exploration are pretty much the coolest human endeavors ever and I'm glad that the dream is still alive. I want to be wealthy just so I can buy a ticket into space!

As you can see, there is a huge difference between these two human approaches to understanding the world. If you think a scientific statement is invalid or incorrect you have very practical ways of challenging them. But when people have conflicts with a religious group or idea they use rhetoric and illusions that historically lead to schisms, wars, and crusades. If you have read my previous blogs then you know that I have trouble digesting statements about the world and what is in it without some sort of justification or proof. Praying to the East; fasting for days; if it helps you out, great. It is your act of devotion and I have no place or reason to admonish you for doing it. However, when you use your religion to dictate my life and the lives of others, I have a real problem.

This one is priceless - let's look at homosexuality. I spent some time today reading some anti-Disney statements made by various Christian sects and one of the most repeated comments about the fact that, apparently, Disney doesn't hate homosexuality or homosexuals. In fact, they have the gall to suggest that homosexuals are normal people and, thus, homosexuality is something normal people engage in. While I may be fine with this, many within the monotheistic community are downright appalled by it. It would seem that they are obliged to by incensed because their texts say so. Or are they?

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination."

- Levitical law are rules that Jews live by. In fact, they are rules that they live by to show that they are separate from the world and godly. Jews follow these laws because they love their god and feel that it is a display of faith and trust in him, not because they are absolute truths.

I Corintihians 6: 9, 10 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." - Followers of the Christian god are likewise admonished for the act of homosexuality. Mind you, these individuals are practicing a religion that grew from Judaism and still embrace its exclusionary nature.

It is certainly within your rights as a practitioner of any religion to follow its tenants and live a life befitting a person of whatever faith. But to then say that everyone has to live the same way you do? Indefensible. I was a Christian for years and part of my commitment was to abstain from drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and eventually meat. Maybe those are potentially harmful substances and a good idea to avoid but just because I didn't use them mean that I thought legislation should exist to ban them (and you can sure as hell bet that I left vegetarianism behind with the church). Besides, it's not like religious people are concerned with consistency. Where would North Carolina be without Baptists and Big Tobacco?

You can keep your divine right of kings. Perhaps George W. Bush is right when he declared "Good speaks through me" (Lancester New Era, July 16, 2004). Personally I'd rather see a performance by Willie Tyler & Lester if I wanted to hear a dummy speak.


****Originally posted February 28, 2007****

Sorry, Folks - More About Faith

Neurologically speaking, I tend to be what one would call a concrete thinker. I definitely have the ability to utilize abstract thought but my inclination is to see things through a very literal, grounded world view. I would not suggest that this makes me a 'better person' but it does mean that you have to provide something tangible to appeal my cognitive abilities. Passionate pleas hold less value for me than well-documented arguments. This is a double-edged sword, for sure. On one hand, things have to make sense to me. They have to be reasonable and have equally reasonable explanations. On the other hand, this rarely leaves room for the immaterial in my ideology. I don't consider it to be close-mindedness on my part but a case of utility.

Before it gets too far, let me address a point of religious intolerance. An individual that meets me at this point in my life may be unaware that I have even walked a spiritual path. They may see my blogs and presume that I am yet another religion-basher that thinks he knows better than everyone else. I am not without my religious experiences. Over a decade in the Salvation Army. After that I spent almost half that time exposing myself to ideas of the world's religions, mysticism, Eastern thought, and the occult (somehow without owning a single book by Crowley!). I am not unfamiliar with the religious journey, nor am I unfamiliar with some of the wants and needs that religion attempts to satisfy. It just so happens that as I became more knowledgeable and experienced in the world that I decided that matters of faith and belief were as deserving of critical scrutiny as all other aspects of life. When I was a Christian, I boldly argued that "God gave us brains with the ability to use reason so it is must be within His Will to think about things and have them make logical sense" - this was interpreted by others as "testing the Lord" and thus a sin. A sin. Come on, people. Is your God so frickin' small that inquiries of a decidely finite homo sapien cannot answer for himself. Don't give me that "God doesn't need to explain himself" nonsense either. The same people who make that claim then use the supposed Word to explain God and thus demonstrate the necessity for some sort of rationalization for their faith.

Many people will immediately dispute this next statement but I'm not sure why: all things have a rational explanation. I agree that we do not and proabably will not ever have explanations for everything but as we continue to do more scientific research the things of the 'unexplained' will become more clear. As you can imagine, this mode of thinking compliments my concrete thinking so one could probably argue that I, like everyone, is trying to find answers to life that appeal to the way we already think. Fair enough. But consider this: if I can point to very real, physical justifications for my belief systems then the grounding I stand on is, I feel, pretty solid. I am not asking anyone to buy into something without giving reasonable proof to support it.

The whole point of this for me is utility. If the rational explanations that science and reason present me satisfy me more than faith in God then that is what I will use. When I wrote about presuppositions it was correctly linked by my commentators with faith. For instance: Heaven and Hell. I have absolutely no evidence to suggest that there is an afterlife; much less an afterlife that lasts an eternity. If I don't have evidence for that, I certainly cannot prove that there is some sort of destination to go to afterwards and certainly not to the point of being so definite that there are only 2 options (3 if you count Purgatory). Sure, ancient peoples may have had an idea of the afterlife that has been passed down colloquially, but they may have also been buried with their personal belongings to take with them only to find themselves robbed and dead. This doesn't mean there really is an afterlife.

When my life was centered around matters of heavenly kingdoms I thought that if I were to spend my time and energy seeking to serve and please God then I would be able to reach some sort of personal peace. Maybe things didn't go the way I wanted them to when it came to things like women or self-esteem but I trusted that God would be able to offer me emotional solice above and beyond the workings of humans. Somehow, I still found the daily crying and self loathing associated with placing trust in God's hands didn't pan out for me. Everyday I asked God to help me with my depression in prayer. I talked to my pastor about these issues. Guess what? His answer was prayer and faith-these were our earthly tests in preparation for an eternity of peacefulness and easy living. A Master's in Christian counseling and he couldn't even offer "you might have a chemical imbalance" or even "when the Bible says turn the other cheek it doesn't mean to accept abuse from peers." Nope. Prayer and faith. All of my emotional pain and suffering were all a part of my service to God. Maybe I was broken but I will be glad to take a stand and say that God did not help me fix anything.

What has helped me? A conversation and time with me will prove that I am a pretty positive person. My blog may make it appear that I am a hater, but only of things that seek to subdue and control individuals and masses. In truth, I genuinely feel that I am the luckiest man on earth. I am a more appreciative, gracious person than when I was religious. I take less for granted because I have a materialist outlook on life. What has helped me? Sorry. You're just going to have wait for the uplifting messages later.

Forgive me for doing this, but I'm going to have to quote Ted Nugent: "You're born at point A, you die at point B. Kick maximum ass."

****Originally posted December 19, 2006 ****

Oh Me of Little Faith

Some call me sentimental, others call me fanatical. But either way, once I find an area of interest it usually sticks with me permanently; a thread (or several) that weave together into a fabric of interrelated interests. For instance, amongst its many other associations, Halloween became special to me because it was an opportunity to see illusionists and escape artists on television. TV capitalized on Harry Houdini's Halloween death and aired the annual seance to contact him exposing youngsters like myself both to the unlikelihood of ghosts and, more importantly, the art of escapology.

One of the great escapologists and illusionists that thrilled me was The Amazing Randi. Sure the Pendragons had flash and speed and Lance Burton was flawless in his execution but Randi's confidence and matter-of-factness seemed more driven than mystical. I mean, how many guys older than my dad get chained up and put in boxes, self-liberating themselves all while rocking a Santa beard? As it turns out, Randi was more than amazing.

Following in Houdini's footsteps, James Randi took his knowledge of prestidigitation and sought to expose individuals who prey on the naive and poor with the same techniques he used to entertain. He now runs JREF, the James Randi Educational Fund (www.randi.org) and has published several books related to skepticism. If you go to www.youtube.com and search for 'james randi' you will come across video of him exposing spoon-bender Uri Geller including his legendary "Tonight Show" endeavour (Randi's book on Geller has suffered from well-deserved criticism). Likewise, you will find footage of Randi exposing faith healer Peter Popoff.

This crusade for truth lead to him writing a book about his experiences called -wait for it- FAITH HEALERS. I won't go into too many specifics about the book or its themes but I will explain why I made read two paragraphs of non-religious themes in a religious blog (although if you have read my first blog then you know I am writing about my religion, at least). Obviously he must explain what he means by faith healing as compared to other healing so he must define faith for his readers. It is from Randi's book I derive my usage of the word 'faith.'

Randi offers two kinds of faith: a) believing in something without evidence or data to support the claim and b) believing in something despite the fact that the evidence or data would demonstrate otherwise. An example would be a) "I believe that Coca Cola is consumed by extra terrestrials" b) "I believe that the earth is 6,000 years old."

Critics may call this an over-simplification but I have yet to come up with any matter of faith that does not fall into one of these two categories. Obviously it is easier to employ these usages on material things. It cannot be proved that laying of hands has any efficacy on healing when you seek medical treatment but people have faith that it helps (although a recent article in "Skeptic" describes tests that show there is no increase in efficacy with prayer and other acts of faith). It can be proved, however, that getting necessary medical treatment is far more effective than ONLY laying of hands would prefer this route. The point from these examples is: getting medical treatment is the most effective way to deal with injury or illness. And actually, that is the whole point.

I do not want or need faith. I have no interest in counting on things when I have no reason to. With hope, you may not know for certain what will happen but at least you know what you want to happen. When faith is unwavering you expect a result - in your favor - whether it is even possible or not. If I maintain my car, keep it fueled, turn the key the right way I have enough data from previous experiences to expect it to operate. I don't need faith in my car. I have a pretty good idea of what I am capable of physically, emotionally, and socially. I know my skill set and what it lacks. I don't need faith in myself because I have proven track record that I can look at and either reconsider my actions or gain confidence from. I gather no personal benefit, nor does the world, by making decisions with insufficient evidence. Imagine how even more irresponsible and backwards our court systems would be without the basic requirement that you have to prove your case; if criminal justice were a faith-based initiative. It is a simple point, if you cannot prove in 'x' why would I want to invest anything, personal energy, time, anything, in 'x.' Would you put money in a business you know nothing about? Or worse, would you invest in a business you know to be a sure loser (stay away from video stores, people)? Sorry, Jesus, but once again you got it wrong: a house built on a foundation on faith is about to get washed away.

I can understand the personal value that faith may have for some people. Homo sapiens are pattern seeking animals and will make up answers whether they have proof or not. We want explanations and it just drives us crazy when we don't have them. This has its positive effects: it motivates science and inquiry. It also means that we have a neurological predisposition to making things up. But me, well, I'm tired of makin' stuff up! It has become far more satisfying to me to only believe in things when I have verification of their existence.

When I consider faith I begin to think of its usuage by Chrisitanity. Frankly, I think that faith is one of the Church's self-perpetuating myths that require its adherents to continue to return, submit, and give. The oft-repeated phrase I heard in church growing up was "Now, faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things unseen" (Hebrews 11:1)" Once again the Bible misguides its readers. Faith is far from substantial - it, in fact, relys on individuals accepting unsubstantiated claims. And unseen things rarely can provide evidence - sorry God.

So what's my problem with faith? Perhaps it seems that a person without faith should be able to just let others hold on to what is important to them and let it go. They aren't hurting anybody by having faith are they? Maybe that would be fine if we were just pushing some sort of MIRACLE ON 34th STREET you-just-gotta-believe-in-something message. But it isn't. Focus on the Family's Josh McDowell writes horribly errant and deceitful books regarding the proof of Christianity's claims about Jesus (I should know, I've personally put MORE THAN A CARPENTER in stockings). In an attempt to convert others McDowell distastefully pulls together his favorite, cobbled together Gospel narrative and distorts and inaccurately reports history. Ironically, he makes up a bunch of 'evidence' in order for us to have nothing but a rational response to Jesus' divinity. The reader is then expected to follow the rest of it on faith and repent and be born again and son and so forth. It seems McDowell would want to make Jesus' story as unlikely and improbable as possible to increase the need for faith in God to make it true.

But I'm not sure that he cares. He lies to other believers in such a way that, unless they are genuinely interested in reading about biblical history and scholarship, they have no other course of action but to go along with his version of Christian history. I don't know if he believes, but his scriptures he reads say "the truth will set you free" but he blurs the line between fact and faith to push his own agenda.

James Randi, like Harry Houdini before him, wanted to entertain audiences and educate people. The accomplishments of both of these men are very real and well-documented. I do not have faith in them nor do I worship them; but their forthrightness and desire to expand on the physical and intellectual abilities of being a human is quite inspirational. Maybe having faith can, and does, help individuals get out of bed and set the world on fire (as my mom might say). I just want to make sure that I'm not the one getting burnt.

***Originally posted Saturday, December 09, 2006 ***

Statement of Intent

Historically speaking I have always used MySpace as my primary tool for dispensing my oh so important opinions on the world, life, politics, religion, and people named Chuck. Given the limited accessibility of this site and the growing interest in other social networking sites like Facebook I have decided to relocate my blogging to a site devoted to it.

For those who have not had the benefit of reading my previous entries into the blogosphere I am going to migrate older writings to this blog. I'd like to think that there is some value in my commentaries and I would like to open them to a broader audience. Given our current social and political climate I have been formulating new ideas and I think that having these MySpace blogs available to new readers may offer some perspective on my upcoming writings.

For those unfamiliar with my blogs I hope that you will become a regular audience member and please know that I love an active discourse with my readers. Whether I inspire or infuriate you I appreciate all comments.