The Saddest Thing is...

...when a person (a parent in this case) uses religion as a shield against having relationships (in this case, with a child).

Two important details for context:
Religion is an interesting concept BUT no logical, thinking person should put stock, beyond interest, in any philosophy that is so fundamentally flawed and provably amalgamated from so many other, MUCH older philosophies.

As a sub detail specific to christianity, one cannot have any kind of "personal" relationship with a dead person. In the christian tradition, when people die, they go to 'heaven' and have no further contact with living humans. To say otherwise is to dabble in the occult and that freaks the christians out totally. Don't think so? Refer to any number of religious fanatics trying to ban the Harry Potter series because of it's so-called occult overtones.

Additionally, the probability that the person with whom christians are having the 'personal' relationship ever existed is questionable AT BEST! To believe otherwise is to simply be deluded in order to be part of a larger group of delusionals. Other than the christian bible, which is a strung-together collection of bad poetry, social control and politicial PR, there is no other historical, archival or archaeological evidence that the person in question ever existed. NONE. One cannot attempt to prove the truth of any philosophy by using the philosophy as the research document. That's called circular reasoning.

In the christian religion, the main character is certainly made up, as nearly identical characters appear in any number of other philosophies, many predating christianity by thousands of years. Same goes for Islam, which has as a central character, a person who may or may not have existed but who, if he did, was certainly afflicted with some disease, likely epilepsy.

In the case of 'virgin' birth, this is, first of all, a biological impossibility. Secondly, and this is where christians try to have it both ways, if one's 'father' is 'god', then one cannot have human ancestors on their male line. Therefore, "descended of the House of David," indicates that either this is a made up story (probably) or that 'virgin' in this case refers to 'first.' If Mary and Joseph trucked off to Bethlehem to pay taxes in the city of their ancestors (his ancestors, actually) then who's the ancestor? Pretty much sure 'god' isn't on the hook for taxes....

Second important point for context: as much as religion is mass idiocy and voluntary delusion, I defend absolutely the rights of people to have, or to have not, said delusion . You are welcome to your beliefs, views, philosophies, as am I to mine. I am not interested in bringing you over to my views and am staunchly opposed to anyone attempting to force their philosophy on me.

To the point of this post, entering into conditional relationships - unless I believe what you believe, we cannot be friends - proves two things:

• the 'believer' is essentially insecure about their beliefs;
• the 'believer' disrespects totally the rights of others.

In our case, a family member has come up against an immense, seemingly impassable wall of religion that is firmly between them and their parent. Despite almost two years of conversation between the two, the parent consciously refuses to countenance the damage being done to the relationship, nor do they allow themselves to see the ever-widening chasm into which the relationship presently teeters . This parent's "personal relationship" with a certainly dead and probably non-existent character is firmly and solidly in the way of a REAL personal relationship with a child.

To make matters worse, there is also a new spouse in the picture. Said spouse is also fanatically tied to a religion in addition to being, from all accounts, insecure and untrusting in the relationship. All this makes for a soon-to-explode keg of super volatile dependence on made up crap and fabricated 'togetherness' and 'sharing' in place of real, intimate and connected relationships.

The key element here - that somehow religion is supposed to make life nice and lovely - turns out to be far from the case; why are religious people still struggling, sad, 'sinning' (whatever that means) and incapable of acknowledging their pasts, let alone dealing with those pasts in a healthy and permanent way if religion is not their cure-all?

Seriously folks, if your deity is such a great and powerful 'guy,' what the heck is he/she/waiting for? Hmmm? It strikes me as really masochistic that this 'deity' needs such constant, world-wide adulation and that the penalty for failing (and the rules about what makes for failure being so unclear) is an eternity burning in some pit? That's just weird.

Religion was a great form of social control that worked really well way back in the day when science was in its infancy and almost nobody was able to read and when the 'religiopoliticals' were developing ways of controlling populations - necessary for economic development and profit - and we're back to the religiopoliticals and their gold-lined pockets. Modern equivalent is the modern 'church.'

In our time, however, belief in such fantasies is anachronistic.

On the micro level specific to this post, I truly cannot fathom how a parent's faith in falsehoods can so overwhelmingly blind them to reality that their flesh and blood relationships are in danger of ending.

The bottom line is this: a person has a right to believe whatever they wish; but with that right comes the responsibility to respect other's rights to believe or not; and the responsibility to UNCONDITIONALLY CHERISH real, flesh and blood human relationships above all else.

In Honour of the Writers Strike

In honour of the ongoing writers strike and in respect of reruns, I'm posting links to my favourite blogs - mine; those I wrote - from recently and from ages ago.
Oldest to newest

What's Up With Women and Shopping? Hang that up!

Untruths in Fundraising: a note about this; about 6 weeks ago, MacLean's Magazine ran a great article about breast cancer and where it is most prevalent in the world. No surprise, but in the 'civilised world' (read: Canada, US (ok, I'm including them out of pity), UK and Europe), the rates of breast cancer are astoundingly high when compared to disadvantaged countries. Interestingly, people in those 'disadvantaged' countries have limited access to processed foods and are not subject to Big Pharma, which medicalises anything that might for one second ail a person. It isn't difficult to see the link between processed everything and high rates of cancer. But hey, let's fundraise. At least we'll feel less guilty....

Bike Paths: NOT for dogs...

A Short, True Story: Ok. This story is true, but it isn't short. It's never ending I hope. It's here for Maria, who is dying for me to tell her what happened next....

Why Don't People Read: why exactly are people bothered by who sleeps with whom. And why exactly are you so bloody interested in what other people are doing in their own bedrooms? Shouldn't you be busy in your own???

Why Women's Libidos Decrease: well, they don't. But if your partner is a man who is a crappy lover and doesn't care to do anything about that, or if your partner uses your head as a means to stabilise his thrusting, then yeah, it'll reduce your y'know, involvement. Replace said idiot with a gorgeous, sexual, loves-it-all hunk? yeah. No problems. Screw Big Parma. Get a cabana boy.

Things One Remembers Whilst Brushing Teeth: 'kay, well this one's a downer but I needed to get it off my chest when I wrote it. If ever I were to meet up with this person again, I'm sure she'd do the same thing and I'm sure I'd still keep my mouth shut - but for different reasons now: she wouldn't be worth my bother. I can't fix her past.

The Falacy of Race: Just read it.

Damned Christmas Holidays

What's the New Pope Up To? I love it when an institution that pretty much makes things up and hates everyone ends up with one of its most hated at its helm. Pretty funny. Come out, come out, wherever you are.....

Fatties and How They Get That Way: Yes, I have a bias, but I think I might be on to something here....

Lies, Video Tape and Yes, Sex

Flying: Oh man, if I had the opportunity to educate the flying public.... Oh wait! This is it! Pass this on to anyone you know who flies or thinks about flying, especially if there's any possibility they're going to be on MY flight.... better they hear it from you than me. I'm sure you'll be much nicer about it.

AuntiAuntie: Yeah, and there's also a HUGE difference between a contract and a commitment. Some people get both, but usually, it's one or the other. Frankly, I can't imagine why people - women in particular - still take part in a ceremony that effectively transferred a chattle from one owner to another. Yes, that's right; until the early part of the 20th century, a woman was, by law, a chattle of her father until the marriage contract was signed, whence she became the chattle of her spouse. Go for commitment. Forget about the contract.

Sins and Sinning: Yah, this is for anyone who actually believes they know what perfection is....

Things That Get Top Billing as Stupid: Someone made a really great point the other day about the subject of this blog - hijab and adults imposing their stupid religion on kids. Muslim girls - but also girls affiliated with other religions where the women are required to follow a very distinct dress style, are being used as the poster girls for such religions. The reasons this pisses me off are myriad, but here's one of them: this week, a dad strangled his 16 year old daughter because she would not adhere to the dress trappings of HIS religion. This type of crap happens all the time - and before anyone says "Oh those Muslims," just don't: all religions have instances - many instances - of men presuming on women. Religion is a scourge. Especially for women, who are, at best, cast as dirty, shameful, manipulative and responsible for leading men astray.

The day religion recognises women as the goddesses they are and the day that religion tells men that they are fully and solely responsible for their thoughts and actions, I might consider returning. Probably not though. There's that suspension of reality thing that's tough to swallow.

Can You Become Ex-Gay? In a word, no. Read on.

Ok. That's enough self adulation for now. More in the archives.

The Pope Says (completely simplifying reality for the consumption of the sheep-like masses)

The pope says that atheism has caused the worst atrocities and crises in history... Yeah....

I remember all those history lessons we had in school on the great atheist wars....um, yeah... NOT.

Specifically, what wars, conflicts or upheaval have atheists been responsible for, assuming one is logical enough not to confuse atheism with political regimes like communism and does not confuse healthy leaders with psychopathic megalomaniacs.....

Every war happening NOW is due to people fighting over interpretations of religion - especially when religion is allowed to mix with politics - and every war ever fought has a religious base in some sense. See G. W. Bush for current reference.

As a modern society, we MUST stop believing in, running our lives through, and basing our politics on fantasy. There is no old white guy running the planet from a seat on a cloud somewhere in the sky. Such beliefs are demonstrably ridiculous and are little different in substance from belief in Santa Claus or the Easter bunny - except we usually divest our children of those beliefs before the children are scarred for life.

Healthy, logical, intelligent people spend their time learning. They do not rely on old fashioned writings done by people who had little practical understanding of the physical world and specific political agendas to attend to. Nor do they bow down to anyone, regardless of title, without a thorough prior examination of said person's credentials. The pope is case in point. Check this out by the way... if you're concered about hypocracy, you might be interested in the possible back story here....

Now. A great post from ABC New Forums. Many people are commenting today on the pope's 'insights.' The following was contributed by Louis R. Phx and includes a couple of excellent quotes from Robert Heinlein, a popular and controversial author of 'hard' science fiction.

"The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history. "

"A long and wicked life followed by five minutes of perfect grace gets you into Heaven. An equally long life of decent living and good works followed by one outburst of taking the name of the Lord in vain - then have a heart attack at that moment and be damned for eternity. Is that the system?"

"It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so...".

"When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, 'This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives."

"History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it. "

Robert Heinlein

In my opinion, the Pope has become quite full of himself. A claim to be able to speak for any deity, automatically puts [his] words under suspicion.... How exactly is he different from the Mullahs that say, 'if you are not with us you are against us'? How long before this Pope begins to preach, 'join us or be destroyed'?

Louis R. Phx

For the record, the pope is on record with such comments, which he made not three months ago.
Put "'No Salvation' Outside Catholic 'Church" into a Google search and man, will you get a does of how self-serving and egotistical the Catholic church is. Astounding!

Anyway, the pope said (and I paraphrase a lot), that anyone/any church that is outside the Roman Catholic fold does not belong to 'true Christianity.' Catholic organisations are expert ot reinterpreting those old scrambled-together writings that constitute the 'word of god' to support their postulation that they're it. They hav it all figured out and they're they only group with the 'keys' to heaven - wherever that is....

There's a reason there are so many people and organisations that fit the 'outside' description; perhaps the majority has seen the light, so to speak, and realises that religion is not only fantasy, it is destructive, false and without any provable merit.

More on this subject:
Anything by Richard Dawkins
"God is not Great," by Christopher Hitchens.

Sanity or something like it....

The most incredibly frustrating thing in the world is to stand by and watch a perfectly normal, intelligent, educated person do the same thing over and over, getting the same results again and again, all the while absolutely ignoring the obvious: If you do A and B happens and B really, really sucks, do not repeat A. Contantly repeating A will not get you better B results because B is determined by A.

There is only one worse thing than B, but B will eventually lead to that worse thing. It isn't a matter of maybe. It is a matter of WHEN.

I personally know three people who were the victims of people who believed they were so FUCKING SMART that they could engage in A and beat the odds.

They didn't beat the odds. They KILLED people.

My cousin's boyfriend, who was killed in a head on crash, with my cousin sitting right beside him, caused by an IDIOT who engaged in A, got B a LOT of times and finally killed someone.

Another person who engaged in A and then killed their own spouse because B lead to them hitting the back of a parked car - while doing 80 on a city street.

My daughter's great friend Connor, who was killed by a person who engaged in A as often as possible, getting increasingly bad B results, being prosecuted SEVEN TIMES, finally ending up, killing Connor.

Oh yeah... said FUCKING A engager also permanently maimed my daughter's other friend - including permanently preventing this friend from laughing or crying ever again.

It is the definition of INSANITY to do the same stupid, avoidable thing over and over and expect different results. If A = a shitty, life altering B result, then just STOP.

• I hearby have no sympathy


• I hearby lay to rest my respect


• I hearby lay out a broken heart and a damaged spirit


• I hearby decree that trust is fragile, easily damaged and irreparable when sacrificed

Of all the CRAP that passes for news!

OK. I am SERIOUSLY amazed that the sexual orientation of a CHARACTER in CHILDREN'S book has passed for anything even remotely resembling news but more so because this fluffy, stupid filler has had airplay for more than one second.

The US is on the verge of invading Iran and Syria and we're listening to now FIVE DAYS of 'reporting' on the sexual orientation of a made up character in a kids' book?

WE ARE FUCKED.

THIS is how the U.S. manages to lie to it's own population so badly that they believe a CONTROLLED demolition of a national icon was a terrorist attack.

THIS is how the U.S. manages to totally ruin and discredit a man who was actually a pretty darn good politician (Tony Blair).

THIS is how a barely literate, stumbling drunkard manages to 'run' a country.

Because YOU, Joe Public, suck up when ridiculous, absolutely unimportant NON news into the little, squishy brains you are obviously not using.

This madness must stop!

The lie that is Race

Some months ago, I posted two pieces on "race" as a social construct and how that construct has been very useful in the hands of those who wish to cause dissent, weaken the social fabric, cause wars and generally divide and conquer.

Yesterday, a very brilliant an educated man made a valid comment, which those who wish to maintain social control via the stupid and false definition of "race", have taken well out of context. They have, for the time being, muzzled this man.

The Nobel Prize-winning DNA pioneer James Watson has been suspended by his research institution in the US.

Both the London Science Museum and the Bristol Festival of Ideas have cancelled lectures by this brilliant man based on their complete misunderstanding of his comments. They demonstrate our ridiculous societal fear of skin colour and the propensity to instantly scream racism when there's no such thing!

"Dr Watson was a joint winner in 1962 of the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA, the molecule that lies at the heart of heredity in living organisms.

When, some 40 years later, scientists were finally able to read all of the DNA in our cells they were able to show that there was no scientific basis for the concept of race.

People from different racial groups can be more genetically similar than individuals within the same group. Genetic studies show that there is more variability in the gene pool in Africa, than outside."

The discovery of DNA and subsequent research into human DNA coding and genetics has utterly proved there is no genetic support for the concept of "race." "Dr Watson was a joint winner in 1962 of the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA, the molecule that lies at the heart of heredity in living organisms.

Dr. Watson's comments, have been purposely misunderstood.

Most people will acknowledge that certain groups of people have propensities toward certain skills and abilities. On can argue that India is a country full of engineers and China is a country of arithmeticians and musicians. This does not mean that all those who come from India will ultimately become engineers nor that those who come from Spain will never become engineers. The observation only notes an inclination. More importantly, those observations have nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with society, education, environment, genetics and heredity.

Dr. Watson's comments were to do with human intelligence and how it expresses itself, varies vastly and is dependent on hundreds of details: environment, food, social structure, education (or lack thereof), family structure, war, religion, etc. However, intelligence has NOTHING to do with skin colour. Despite how the media and the uneducated, fearful people who've censored Dr. Watson want to spin it, that is neither what Dr. Watson said nor meant.

It has been shown over and over that standard IQ tests are only valid to a very small point and only within the society/culture where they were created: a person coming from Spain would not necessarily be familiar with or exposed to common social mores and structures found in Russian society, so would likely do very poorly on a Russian IQ test (yes, given in Spanish for those of you who will argue the language point), regardless of that person's true intelligence.

This is part of what Dr. Watson was getting at with his comments.

In comments published in The Independent newspaper on Friday, Dr Watson tries to clarify his position.

"We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things," he is quoted as saying. "The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity.

"It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough.

This is not science. To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers."

To eliminate the false and nefarious concept of "race" from the arsenal of divisive practises used by the power elite is to greatly diminish their power to coral humans as if we are stupid cattle.

As such, those who seek to control humans globally have jumped at the opportunity to silence a voice that over the last 40 years had told the true, scientific story: the colour of an external organ has nothing to do with humanity or intelligence.

Dr. Watson's comments are sound and based in endless science. We must stand against censorship of Dr. Watson and people like him.

Words by my Brilliant Friend, Batman

Subject: "The whole world's wild at heart and weird on top..." Lula Fortune in "Wild at Heart"

I hate the nuts on BOTH sides. I’m a firm skeptic when it comes to Conspiracists with an agenda who are as intractable in their self-righteous clinging to an imagined truth as any Republican (I wanna vomit when I encounter people who think they know it ALL). But I’m also a firm believer in the EVIL of the military industrial complex—and the fat old white men “behind the curtain”. Did u see Lynn Cheney with Jon Stewart last night? Man, she is one scary woman. I guess proximity to evil does that. She actually thinks her husband is charming and funny and chock full of honesty and integrity. That’s the worst part. She BELIEVES they’re righteous and good... “One may smile, and smile, and be a villain”. There is NO end to human ignorance.

Not to mention the vast, sluglike, dim-witted, UN-consciousness of the masses—who indeed have ceded control of their minds, bodies and spirits over to the Master Controllers and the slobbering, mindless, selfish greed of their own primitive desires. They keep me in business. Oops. Would that be all of US? Uh oh.

“Zeitgeist” is dead-on in recognizing that WE’RE the ones demanding this shit. Because we’re the ones who’ve let ourselves become placated, medicated, mediated, manipulated, mesmerized and brain-dead. And it would be a kinda cool idea to re-frame our reality—and get with the power we have in nature and our own dark selves... Otherwise, we can continue to live as Baudrillard, one of the modern French philosophers believes, in the artificial existence that our modern, media-saturated lives have become. He called it “Simulacra and Simulation”... and postulated that human experience has been degraded (by all the symbols and signals that tell us how to think, what to feel, and what to do) to a simulation of reality instead of reality itself.

Maybe because I got into manipulating this artificial reality at an early age I’ve always seen it for what it is—while still living in it as we all do. I always felt Rene Magritte brilliantly prognosticated the power of art and media to devalue our connection to reality when he painted “The Treachery Of Images (La trahison des images), which shows a pipe that looks as though it is a model for a tobacco store advertisement. Magritte painted below the pipe, This is not a pipe (Ceci n'est pas une pipe), which seems a contradiction, but is actually true: the painting is not a pipe, it is an image of a pipe!. (In his book, This Is Not a Pipe, French critic Michel Foucault discusses the painting and its paradox.)” In fact, the Surrealists were always my favourite artists in art school. Hmmmm... I wonder what they would have thought about “911”?

British High Court says "An Inconvenient Truth" contains Nine Inconvnenient UN-truths!

As you know, I'm entirely, unmovably sceptical of Mr. Gore and his marketing machine. His film is very interesting but only as a study on moral suasion and manipulation of the uneducated public's very unrefined sentiments. It has little value in terms of it's goal because it is flawed, skewed and agenda-ridden.

The BBC today reports that "An Inconvenient Truth" contains nine significant errors (I'd say that's a typically British softening of the word "lies.") and that the film cannot be shown to British schoolchildren without being presented with an alternate, balancing view.

Here is a series of articles related to the man and his machine.
BBC News
Democratic Underground
Live Earth Flop
...and here are the NUMEROUS other articles that have appeared today

Enjoy and THINK! Just 'cause a big, fat, famous white guy says something is so does not make it so!

On another point - and thanks Dr. M. for pointing this out - do you know that the bible does not make any references, statements or rules about the number of spouses a person can have; nor does it state anything to do with extra marital sex. That stuff was all made up later by some other old fat why guy (or guys, likely) who had political agendas and land holdings they wanted passed on to the sons they had with the women they'd married to increase their land holdings.

Did you know, in the Book of Lists, there is a list of popes who died in the arms of their lovers - male and female?

Stuff that's dumb

Kay, this is just a thought: why, if a person can love their children - assuming they have more than one and considering that every one of their children has their own personalities, is it impossible for that same person to perhaps love more than one other adult?

It strikes me as untrue that a person meets their spouse or partner and their ability love - or even to be attracted to anyone else - ends.

It doesn't. That's dumb.

Some years ago, I read a really interesting book, The Fourth Horseman, by Andrew Nikiforuk, which, among other things, speaks about why divorce is a modern phenomenon that has more to do with health than morals or ethics. In short, when there was little way to protect oneself from disease and death, one's marriages were often very short. The possibility of a 40 year long marriage was nearly unheard of until early in the 20th century.

It strikes me as a lot of spin, the religious circles' postulation that society is ever more corrupt, whatever that means, and immoral due to the reality that most people are quite sick of their spouse after 15 years.

Regardless, even for those of use who can't imagine NOT being with our spouse/partner, even after 11 years, as in my case, the reality is that a solid marriage/partnership does not preclude or inoculate one against falling quite fully, headlong into love with someone else along the way.

I think we in so-called modern society get a lot of trouble from believing that if we're in love with someone else, then we necessarily aren't in love with our current spouse/partner and so we must disolve the current situaiton in order to pursue the new one. However, that scenario belittles the intimacy of a long relationship.

It would be far better for people to recognize there is a fundamental difference between "I'm in love with you," and "I love you."

One of those is a delicious, heady feeling that is jealous of the primary relationship; the other is a deep, fulfilling commitment that allows the other, knowing the other is significant but probably not enduring.

It would also be better in all ways for people to realise that, if they're able to fully love each of their unique children, they must also be able to love each unique adult they might attach to during a lifetime.

Marriage or similar commitment does not cause us to shut off various emotions - or it shouldn't -- because shutting off the ability to love others also shuts off the ability and necessity of loving a spouse/partner. Better that people understand that despite being in a committed relationship, they will love often during their lives and that they should simply allow it with no expectations,

Utterly Ridiculous.

Ok.

This is a test for all Christians (or any religious folk) who say that the bible (insert your 'holy book' here) is the true, unedited word of god and that good Christians (or whichever) must adhere to it in every way (girls, why are you cutting your hair and not covering your head then???).

I KNOW you people edit what you follow because if you didn't, you'd be killing people right left and centre because you SAY follow the bible to the T and the bible says you must slay those who blaspheme, cut their hair, eat pig, bla, bla, bla.....

I'm getting hot just reading my own stuff here...illogic in this area just totally sends me over the freaking edge.

If you're one of those who says that the bible is the undeniable, must follow it to the T, word of god, then here, click the link below. And then, I expect all you hardliners to step up and put some teeth in the "word of god" statement. I wanna see you people following EVERY 'word of god,' not cherry picking the stuff you like and ignoring the stuff that doesn't.

IF THIS INFORMATION is wrong, is it possible that a LOT of what's in that old mashup of info is also wrong? Hmm?

http://www.godhatesglobes.com/faq.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsvhPvK405Q

http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/