On Swearing An Oath On A Bible

I was reading this article, which is basically about Newt Gingrich's response to President Obama no longer defending the Defense Of Marriage Act. For those of you who do not know, the Defense Of Marriage Act is a law enacted during Bush's presidency defining marriage federally as between a man and a woman. This is important for many reasons, which are neither here nor there, but basically it boils down to this. If you live in a state where gay marriage is legal, like Connecticut, you have the same spousal benefits as anyone else. In Connecticut. When it comes to those rights federally, you do not have them. You can't file taxes as a married couple, for instance. There are implications with estate taxes, too. While not what this post is about, it got me thinking.

At the end of the article there is this quote:

He is breaking his word to the American people. He swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody. The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act.

This isn't the obvious, normal argument over swearing on a Bible and separation of church and state. I don't really know how I feel about all that, and I don't think it really matters much in the scheme of things. What got me thinking is, what about atheists?

I know, we are never going to elect an atheist anytime soon here. They poll worse than gays and Muslims for public office. And while I have no problem with either gays or Muslims, a lot of Americans do. This is a very important point to consider. In the entire history of the Congress, only six have been openly gay--one woman, five men. Not one of those six comes courtesy of the Senate.

So while gay rights have come some ways, there's still a way to go in terms of electing them to high, public office, and to elect a gay president is, I think, at least a decade away.

Then there are Muslims. Only two have ever served in Congress, both converts, which is, again, important. When most Americans think of Islam, they think of September 11. They think of terrorists with beards, dark skin, and automatic weapons. They don't think of this:

Then there's atheists. Atheists receive a lot of scorn, which I really don't understand. Religious people seem to get bent out of shape over others' beliefs (in this case, non-beliefs). Maybe it's because I'm not overtly religious, but I think if I was, it wouldn't bother me that someone else did not believe in my God. Being raised a Catholic and going to Catholic schools, I certainly never thought the ancient Egyptians or any other religious group which many deities were somehow heathens. Who was I to question someone else's beliefs? If I were a devout Christian, I wouldn't be so worried about other people's souls, I'd want to make sure mine was in tact first.

For the record, there is one atheist in Congress, which is surprising, until you consider that it's in California, at which point it's no longer that surprising.

So, if we could somehow, as a country, form around an atheist president, what would he or she swear upon? Certainly a Bible makes no sense. Perhaps they would just swear. Perhaps they would just promise, because, for an atheist, being held accountable by a God they believe not to exist is like asking a thirty year old to swear on Santa Clause or the Bogeyman. Where is the harm in breaking that promise?

In a more everyday sense, I wonder what atheists do in courtrooms and the like, where this sort of event occurs more often.

Bill O'Reilly Teaches Kids About Science

I don't know if you heard, but Bill O'Reilly recently suggested that the tides are proof of God's existence. First of all, whether or not you believe in God is irrelevant in this case, so this isn't an anti-God type post. But really, saying that because the tide always goes in and always goes out is hardly proof of God, or anything else, really. One day, maybe it was. But just like wind currents, gravity, and countless other things, science figured out why there are indeed tides. And it's the Moon. All Bill had to do was check Wikipedia.

Afterwards, Bill pretty much got his ass handed to him by the media and academia because his argument was one that one might expect a child to make, not someone who gives news and commentary to millions of people every night. So he fired back.

Sure, maybe the tides are caused by the moon, he argued. But where, pray tell did the moon come from, smart asses. Well, I'm sure it was something like that. In list form, here were his arguments:

- Where did the Moon come from?
- Why doesn't Mars have a moon?
- Why doesn't Venus have a moon?

Naturally, the scientific community took this challenge and ran with it. They ran with it like a Kenyan racing against a crying little fat kid. In this case, the fat kid would be Bill, if you aren't following along.

The Moon did not actually come from God. The moon is the result of a random, but ancient event where a planet hit Earth (barely) and the dust that flew into space coalesced and formed what we today lovingly call "The Moon."

And his argument that Mars doesn't have a moon is kind of laughable considering it actually has two. Although, one might argue that technically he is correct, since Mars does not have one moon, it has two, but that's stretching it.

As for arguing that Venus doesn't have a moon, or that there's no life on other planets (that we know of) that's just silly. Considering a moon forming can be the result of a totally random event like ours, doesn't guarantee that there is a God any more than the sky not being purple or raining
gold bars does.

It's one thing to argue that something exists, we just don't know what it is or can't explain it as being proof of God's existence. But to use a planet's lack of life and satellite as proof that Earth has a God and Venus doesn't is moronic. Maybe dark matter is proof of God's existence, or any number of other phenomena that we cannot yet explain.

Finally, I don't think that God is something you can prove or disprove. Likewise, I don't think you can use the lack of understanding as proof of concept in regards to God. There have been many events attributed to God over the years Man has roamed the planet and many (most?) of them have been explained by science. Like the tides, for instance.

Here is a video from cracked which is kind of a combination of two things I love. Snarky kids are hilarious, especially since they're still untainted by the real world. And Bill O'Reilly saying something dumb.

And I feel bad for him. It's unfortunate that he's wrong and adamant about everything. Truth be told, if he wasn't such a pompous asshole to people, I'd probably give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, how many people really know anything about the tides and astronomy? Of course astronomers and astrophysicists do; it's their job. That combined with his incessant assertions that Fox News is the best in news because they are the most watched is really why I think he deserves getting called out. If you are the most watched news organization, you'd better be damned sure you've got your facts straight.

What's The Deal With Believers Hating On Atheists?

Holier than thou comes to mind.


Hate is a very anti-Godly sentiment. I'm not sure of any passages in the Bible that suggest Christians hate anything, or anyone. There is something about loving one another though. Actually, that's in there a whole lot.

Believers are Good because God requires it. Evil, or bad people go to hell, so believers are sort of scared into doing good deeds and being good. And apparently condemning those less good than they, ironic, no?

Atheists are good, not as an afterlife styled reward, but for a moral reward, for being fair and good to their fellow man, regardless of their creed.

Why do believers assume that atheists are bitter about death and not having a heaven? I would think not having a Heaven would lead atheists to lead fuller, happier, more meaningful lives. Believers don't believe their soul ends at death, the more meaningful life for them, therefore, is in the afterlife, in eternity. Human life, as we know it, is merely a waiting period to see if one is worthy of that afterlife. For non believers, though, this Earthly life bears much more consequence, and they are forced to live a good life. Not necessarily a better life mind you. Believers and non believers are no better than one another. just different in their opinions.

Believers find hope, joy, and meaning in God, in the Bible (His Words), and in His message. A message filled with wisdom such as "Be good to one another," "Don't hate," "Be honest, loving people," and so on. Nonbelievers find meaning in similar sentiments, they just aren't based on any type of theologic doctrine of any belief in a God or gods. Being good for goodness' sake, comes to mind.

Rewards aren't always the best catalyst for good deeds. Doing so likens us to animals-- getting treats for behaving and punished for disobeying. But we are more than just animals, wouldn't you think? We ought to think better of ourselves. Sometimes being good is it's own reward. If I'm passing by an accident and stop to help, should I be doing so to gain favor from God, or because those people really might need the help? (Of course, sometimes helping just gets in the way of firefighters, and other emergency responders, so do keep that in mind!)

Atheists don't even generally hate on religions or God as a whole. Yes, some do, and they're morons. I don't think your average nonbeliever looks at religious people with disdain or pity. I think that they generally accept religious people's belief system as one that gives them meaning and joy. Atheists don't snicker or belittle them, they just don't get anything gratifying from praying to a God they don't believe exists. I would think believers would appreciate that nonbelievers don't pray to a God they don't believe in. To me, that would be more offensive.

Pretending is far worse than not participating. I'm not a religious person, so I don't attend church or anything like that. But if my presence is requested at a church for a wedding or a baptism, I'm not going to say no. My presence there means more to those who invited me than my unease about being in a church. And that trepidation isn't that I'm scared of not having an afterlife or anything, it's because I don't intend any disrespect to those who fervently believe in that religion's teachings and beliefs. But I am respectful, always. I've grown up going to private, Catholic schools, so I know the traditions. I don't pretend to adhere to them when I'm at a baptism or wedding, instead I participate. In the event I'm invited to, not the religious aspects of it. If I were asked to be a Godparent to someone, I'd inform them of my beliefs, and make sure they understood that my being a Godparent, would not be religious, but physical. I'd be whatever was required of me.

Nonbelievers don't attack religious people, or believers in God (in general). They don't even attack God. I think the most angry, and vocal voices tend to be against how believers treat other believers. Atheists tend to argue against the establishment when the establishment acts, shall we say, less than humane. Often, this is a voice of support to those who might not get much, and it's probably from the last place expected. Televangelists who take advantage of their constituents, Muslim women who are mistreated and beaten, Catholic priests who get transferred after being accused of molesting children. These are all events that tend to incite the more fervent anger from atheists, not the fact that some people believe in a God atheists don't believe in.

We should all just be good people. Treat others well and with respect, and it will be returned. We don't need any of that holier than thou crap; it gets us nowhere.

What Does Global Warming Mean For Santa Claus?

One day, children will ask where Santa comes from, and "The North Pole" will no longer suffice.

Maybe. But let's hope not.

There are a myriad of reasons why global warming is bad. Sea levels will rise, endangered animals will lose their habitat and become extinct, climates will shift, et cetera. But I think Santa Claus is one of the points that people often overlook.

Yes, Santa Claus is everywhere, and maybe he isn't really a jolly old fat man with rosy cheeks, a dozen reindeer, and countless elfin helpers. But what will we tell our children, or our children's children if, tragically, the North Pole was gone. I know that if that happened, there would be far greater problems (like, say, the millions of people dying) but the magic of Christmas would be gone.

Christmas was never really a Catholic holiday. Some people say there's a war on Christmas, and that we (liberals) are "taking the Christ out of Christmas" but the fact is, Christ never was in Christmas-- we put him there. Like everything else in the Catholic religion, it was stolen annexed. Jesus wasn't born in December, it was more likely April. But when you are conquering people, it helps if you leave them the one thing they have left: traditions.

Christmas is about Santa, not Jesus. So what will parents tell children when his home no longer exists? Or, what will they think if they know we are slowly melting away his home while he and his elves work hard year round to bring us toys not made in China?

If for nothing else, we should take care of the environment for Santa; our progeny depends on us.

Merry Christmas.

Why Are Some People Such Bastards? Part One: Holier Than Thou

I'm a firm believer in a little philosophy I call being human. I'm not perfect, nor do I expect others to be. I have my views, and likewise you have yours. I respect that. If we have some things in common, great, if not that's okay. Maybe we completely disagree, that too is okay.

But there are some things that are just not okay. And I'm going to talk about some of them in a continuing series named "Why are some people such bastards?"

It takes a lot to make me angry or upset me. I'm a really low key person. I don't excite easily and I dislike confrontation. Well, the kind of confrontation that isn't civil, anyway. But sometimes things happen that really disturb me, and one of them happened today.

I have a deep respect for religions and churches. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I respect them all, mostly. One such "church" is the Westboro Baptist Church  In case you didn't click on that link, their web address is GodHatesFags.com. Yes, the way they decide to represent themselves, their storefront on the world wide web is to proclaim that God, apparently, hates homosexuals.

I'm a big proponent of the freedom of speech. I don't think anyone should be censored, or made unable to speak. But, I think that people, before speaking, need to be a human being. I don't often remember many quotes from famous people, but one I often think about is by Evelyn Beatrice Hall:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it

Most people assume Voltaire said it (I seem to recall being told it was Voltaire in school, actually). But it was actually Evelyn Beatrice Hall (writing under a pseudonym) about how she felt Voltaire felt. And I like it. I think the moment we restrict people's speech is the moment a people fail, so what I'm going to say, I say with much trepidation.

Maybe some people just shouldn't speak. It's the only way I can reconcile my beliefs. I can't and won't tell people what to say, or censor what they say so no one sees it. So maybe they just should say nothing. Maybe they should keep quiet. Maybe things like this should stay hidden away and never see the light of day:

Now, I'm no expert, and I don't know if there is a hell, but I think if there is a heaven, Ms. Edwards will likely make the cut. I don't know much about her, but what little I know is rather admirable. To condemn her for having children after one passed is just stupid. And to be so joyous over a woman's death is just cold. If you aren't familiar with this group, they've made a habit of picketing funerals, particularly those of dead soldiers, students, church leaders, plane crash victims, celebrities, and now Elizabeth Edwards, among others.

I may be wrong, but I don't think the God I've learned about my whole life in Catholic schools would approve of signs reading: "Thank God For Breast Cancer." Even if she were Adolf Hitler, to thank God for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of good, honest people to rid the world of one horrible one is not an even trade. But of course, Elizabeth Edwards wasn't anywhere near that; she was a good woman.  For all I know she was a good mother, and a good wife. I cant imagine how she could have been a more patient wife.

Perhaps (at least to my knowledge), her biggest fight was healthcare and the fact that no one should be without it (I agree). She argued that not everyone could afford good, high-quality healthcare like she could, but that everyone ought to be entitled to it, and I agree. Health care is exorbitantly expensive; operations shouldn't cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and especially not if you have insurance.

I didn't know her, or anything much about her really. Though, I do approve of her sentiment on gay marriage:

I don't know why someone else’s marriage has anything to do with me. I'm completely comfortable with gay marriage.

but I do know that I was sad to hear of her death. I'm always sad to hear of death though. I don't like it, especially when people die before they should.

So are these the kinds of people God wants representing him? Maybe God really is against murder, homosexuality, adultery, and lying; but I'm fairly certain he's never been for hate. The Golden Rule is oft quoted, but I believe any God would approve of my statement to be a human. Treat people the way you want to be treated? Sure. Treat people fairly. What is worse, anguish and the reaction over a God taking your sixteen year old son or the anguish people cause to the family by picketing that funeral.

What does it accomplish even? They can hate Elizabeth Edwards and people like her, but their protests aren't going to stop people from having more children after losing one. They can do everything in their power to protest that there are, in fact, gay people; but it's not going to change anything. They can spread all the hate they want, and the only place it's going to get them is, I'm afraid, the same place they condemn all their enemies to.

In the end, it won't matter, anyway. No one cares now about the day-to-day of people hundreds or thousands of years ago. And years from now what these people do won't matter either. But what does matter to us is today and for our sake we should all just be human; not for history's sake, but for our own. Just be fair, it's the least we could do.