According to people who think they know me better than I know myself...

... I am
Self-righteous
Self-absorbed
A 'feral heathen'
A liar
A bitch
Arrogant
A racist
A radical
Angry Atheist

These labels and insults have been thrown at me, in public, by 'friends' of the "flesh and blood" type.
Why?

• Because I question anything that doesn't come with a reasonable amount of logic and proof;
• because I think that professionals, who have spent years becoming educated, who do their jobs because they like their work and are committed to their clients and patients, should not be insulted with the implication that they can't or won't do their jobs without the go-ahead from an invisible man;
• because I am proud to be Canadian and because I think Canadians should not only understand their country's constitution and Bill of Rights but they should whole-heartedly support them - and each other;
• because the colour of a person's body organs - no matter what that colour is - should never, ever be used as a weapon or a defence against reasonable, rational questions;
• because I am willing to cause an uproar rather than be false or to placate;
• because if one makes a statement, they must be willing and able to back up that statement, provide support for the statement and be prepared to defend the statement; and they must be willing to add to their knowledge, change their opinion and abandon their 'beliefs' when they are shown to be untrue: resorting to insults rather than understanding, supporting and defending statements is an abdication first and and admission the person slinging insults does not have any grip on their subject matter.

Because she was a much more intelligent person than people ever gave her credit for being and because this quantifies me too, I quote Marilyn Monroe:

"I'm selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best."

I add this too: "Well-behaved women never make history."

I don't presume to make history and I won't be "well-behaved," which really amounts to not saying things and  to compromising myself in order that people who choose not to understand things outside their own paradigms are not moved to discomfort. I refuse to be false and fake in order to assuage the sensitivities of people who presume to know me and tell me who I am and what I believe.

So, in response to the insults lobbed at me:

Yes, I am occasionally self-righteous; I come to that as a result of being a voracious reader, from having an insatiable curiosity, to owing a large, large dose of skepticism and from being endlessly amazed by human behaviour; and to a confidence in my own intelligence.

Yes, I am, like all humans, occasionally self-absorbed. If there is one among you who is, in this area, 'sinless' let ye cast the first stone. Self-absorption is the basis of insecurity.

Yes, I am a feral heathen. I have returned to a wild, undomesticated state where it concerns fantastical beliefs because I question everything - myself included - on a daily basis. I am proud of my flexible mind and I defend my - and everyone's - right to question. I encourage you to click and read the definition of "feral." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/feral

Yes, I occasionally lie - as does everyone. This is true of all of us and more true of some of us - see 'religious leaders' and politicians for reference. Also remember the last time you lied to someone because telling the truth would have ripped out their heart....

Yes, I can be a bitch. I am particularly bitchy when people call me names and tell me I'm a lesser human because I don't think or believe as they do. I am bitchy when people tell me I have beliefs but won't define what they mean by that; I am bitchy when people diminish the commitment and skill of those around them; I'm bitchy when I'm too hot or too cold; and bitchy when I'm hungry and tired. I know those things make me completely different than all other humans....

I, like all humans, have my moments of arrogance. I, also like most humans, temper those moments with many more moments of insecurity.

I am not a racist. There is no such thing as 'race.' This would take me 20 pages to explain so I shall direct you to anything written or spoken by Nina Jablonsky, who is an expert in this field and who is a passionate defender of HUMANS, regardless of biological adaptations (Click link for Jablonsky's TED talk).

I will agree there is 'racism' which is the name humans give to the practice of hating and killing each other based on the colour of a large body organ.  I do not care if a person is sixty ways from rainbow on the outside; I do care very much about the shades of their character. (added) Apparently, Morgan Freeman agrees with me.

Yes, I am a radical, which is the apt and correct term for anyone who does not immediately accept everything fed to them and who will challenge things that don't make sense or are outright fabrications; and it is an apt term for people - female people - who don't always behave as some people think they should. Dr. Martin Luther King was a radical; John A. MacDonald was a radical; Marie Currie was a radical; Joan of Arc was a radical; Queen Elisabeth I was a radical; Rosa Parks was a radical; Mandela is a radical; my grade 11 English teacher, Mrs. McLean, who was the only university-educated person in her Irish Catholic family, was a radical; Einstein was a radical; Copernicus and Socrates were radicals. Dr. Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and St Augustine are radicals (were, in the last case). Here are definitions of radical: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/radical.

I am an atheist. That state does not make me angry. Being reminded every day of my young life that I was a sinner made me angry; people 'praying' while their children die makes me angry; people hating other people for what goes on in their private lives makes me angry; people shooting/bombing/kidnapping other people because of fantastical beliefs makes me angry; the refusal of so many to scrutinize what they think they believe; to put their belief system to the test; to consider other possibilities and people who lack the ability to say "yes, I was wrong," make me angry.(CLICK THAT LINK!)

Yes, I am angered when people do not know what they're talking about, don't know what they believe, don't understand where their beliefs come from and won't make any move to put their beliefs to the test, opting instead for calling me angry, self-absorbed, arrogant, a bitch. I can hear those insults reverberating off the walls that make the corners into which those who insult me - rather than really understanding what they believe - have backed themselves into....

In addition to all these things, I am a compassionate person. I love my children, am proud of them and fascinated by the wonderful humans they are, by their endless abilities to form friendships, by their love and by their humour.

I am a curious and interested person.

I love my friends regardless of their foibles and their failings but for their humanity and their love. I am unsatisfied but that is my motivation and inspiration to learn.

I will end a relationship when it is a appropriate. I will be sad about doing so but I will not regret it.

I am loving and kind and flawed.

I am human.

I am me.

Human: suposed to be smarter than dogs... but not....

Photo: Leah Hennel for the Calgary Herald

Last week, a Didsbury couple was viciously attacked by a couple of akita dogs. This headline provoked howls of "put them down" (the dogs) and all sorts of knee-jerk freak-outs.

Not to downplay the seriousness of the attack - because it was very serious and two people are very seriously hurt - but the humans in this scenario fall just short of deserving what happened. Had they any sense, they would have known and they would have acted prior.

Here's the article - and there are loads of similar reports. However, not one of those reports expands on certain key details of what happened. The Herald(amazingly) quoted the director of this city's animal and bylaw:

"Keeping the parent dogs together after a litter was born isn’t recommended ...," said Bill Bruce, director of Calgary animal and bylaw services.

“It’s likely (the mother) is going to be highly alert and not trusting [the breeding male],” Bruce said.
"Bringing the beagle into the situation possibly aggravated things further," said Bruce.(ABSOLUTELY aggravated!)

What the media fails to report and what the humans in question utterly ignored is this: the female dog was protecting four-day old pups; a "threat" - the couple and their beagle - entered the garage, which amounts to her den for the bitch; the couple put themselves and their own dog at risk by invading (in the dog's understanding) the nursery. If the 'threat' was on the ground, meaning the beagle was loose or even on a leash, one could - and should - expect that the bitch would see that as a danger to her puppies and that she would react to protect them.

If, in addition to invading the den, the couple that was attacked came near the puppies at all but certainly let their beagle near them, an attack is exactly what one might expect to occur, particularly considering the proximity of the mating male.


The dogs' owners obviously had not enough breed knowledge but also didn't have basic dog knowledge or they would have know that the breeding male of any breed should never be anywhere near the pups or bitch. Had they had breed knowledge, they would have known this applies particularly to akitas. They would have also known to provide a safe, sheltered, away-from-traffic location for bitch and pups. The garage, through which the attacked couple had to pass every day to get to their accommodations, was not a safe place for the dogs, the puppies or the humans.

If one understands how aggravating it is for dogs that letter carriers come every day, make a bit of noise and leave, it isn't much more of a stretch to understand how a new mommy dog, who is already protecting her brood from a male that would just as soon eat the pups, could react to the annoying comings and goings of humans and yet another dog.

This is a horrendous situation for all involved but the events were predictable. Dogs, despite being domesticated, are instinctual and their instincts will override their training and their attachment to humans in certain situations - new puppies being an obvious case.

The owners are to blame to the extent they did not provide a secure, protected area for the bitch and her brood, where the other couple would not have to pass by, regardless of previous interaction. The attacked couple might also have informed themselves about what behaviour to expect. These dogs did exactly what an informed owner would expect them to do in this situation.

One can never, ever assume anything with any dog no matter how domesticated, docile or 'known' the dog is. Dogs are still animals and they will, when they perceive a threat, protect themselves and, as in this case, their young. Common sense. Any dog behaviour book will make this clear.

I can speak to this personally: when my eight-year-old dog was injured and in terrible pain, he did exactly what I expected and tried to fend off anything that might have been the cause of that pain. He didn't know what had happened; he didn't know if he was being attacked; he knew that he was in great pain, on the ground and unable to retreat so he made to bite me. I dropped a towel into his mouth, which allowed him to bite down but also to focus on me long enough to know I wasn't going to hurt him more.

What SHOULD happen in this "attack" (which is more aptly described as a protective attack) situation is that the couple that was attacked sue the owners for putting them and the dogs in a very dangerous situation; and the owners should be banned from ever owning dogs. What will probably happen is two healthy dogs, who acted on instinct - exactly how a knowledgeable owner would expect - will be euthanized to pay for the stupidity of their owners.

I theorize often that most humans WISH they were as smart as dogs but, given Dunning-Kruger ("...occurs when incompetent people not only fail to realise their incompetence, but consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. Basically - they're too stupid to know that they're stupid. they're actually not smart enough to realise it."),situations like this will occur again. For sure. Guaranteed.

In the age of the Internet, why dog owners don't access the endless free information out there is beyond me.

Just because you don't agree doesn't mean I'm wrong: it might mean you're wrong and you're defensive

God is a creation of HUMANS

Earlier this week, a long-time friend posted pleas for prayer for her brother, who, as a result of a genetic issue, is prone to all sorts of stuff cropping up. He's 52 this year, which is amazing in itself given his syndrome - Down Syndrome: generally, people who have DS don't live to be middle-aged.

Over his relatively long life, he has always had teams of expert medical professionals caring for him and, again given his age, they've done an amazing job. He is very healthy, generally, funny as hell, smart and a really pleasant guy with a crazy memory for names and faces.

My friend has cared for her brother most of her life and particularly now, as her parents are both deceased - her mother within the last 18 months. She also has three adopted children who each have profound disabilities; one, a young adult, is severely disabled due to their birth-mother's alcohol abuse (Even knowing what I know about FAS and FASD, I am amazed at the extent of this person's disabilities; she is blind and has profound CP); another who is profoundly damaged due to having been shaken as an infant and who will be three months old for the rest of their life; and a third who also has Down Syndrome.

Suffice to say, my friend, who is an excellent caregiver and endlessly compassionate mum, has had a lifetime of involvement with medical professionals who are integral to the well-being of her children.


Although I appreciate that prayer - calls for it - seems to make people feel better in some situations, in this case, I thought it offensive; such calls imply that the professionals who have always provided excellent care for the children in this family cannot function - and their education, skill and experience cannot be activated - without entreaties to the invisible man, who, if one is willing to make the next logical (in terms of religion) step, is responsible for these children's afflictions in the first place.

I'm terrible at biting my tongue and, as my friend's message was in public on FaceBook, I replied that perhaps taking action and relying on proven medical people was much more beneficial than sitting around talking into the air (ok, I say 'prayer.' But I meant "talking into the air.")

The distinction I make in this case is this: my friend, who said her "God is greater than any doctor," implied that the more-than 50 years of medical support her family has had depends entirely on entreaties to this invisible, malignant spectre, who, one might easily assume, lies waiting to visit horrendous afflictions on the beings it is alleged to have created and can only be stopped by these beings constantly supplicating it. Such a presumption is disgusting and insulting to those who, regardless of entreaties, care for the wounded and afflicted.

She countered by saying "Respect my beliefs and I'll respect yours," which is stupid on all counts: does she believe in her proven medical team - a team that has proven its worth for ages - or does she really believe that unless she rounds up the troops and has them speak into the air, those medical professionals will not have access to their experience and skill?

She didn't answer my counter - that I don't have 'beliefs' but I do have confidence in doctors generally - and that she should specifically, given her family's history. I also asked her to define my 'beliefs' for me, which she didn't: she just removed all my comments.

I appreciate that some people are very, very uneducated and have never had any involvement with doctors on the level my friend has; in those cases, I appreciate their belief that prayer works on some level. But for my friend to so reduce the skill of the support team she has and make that skill dependent on the whims of an invisible man - it was simply offensive. That she deleted my comments indicates she was in a corner: either she had to respond and deny her belief in prayer or disengage. Either way, face was lost.

Prayer is a waste of time. Period. There is no evidence at all of an invisible spectre and equally none for the idea that talking out loud into the air is anything but just that.

When intelligent people who should know better and who owe a huge debt of respect to a group of doctors that has literally kept their children and sibling alive all these years, devolve to talking into the air, it is offensive.

One of my favourite myth-busting websites is God Is Imaginary. It puts forth 50 proofs that 'god' is a creation of humans (all gods, for the record) and not t'other way round.

The first two sections of the site deal with and explode the myth of prayer with research and refutations of the inane apologetics of the religious, who, it seems, would rather make up all sorts of defences for their perfect being than simply say "this is utter crap" and get on with their lives.

In respect to people removing 'offensive' comments, it is a sure admission that one knows they're wrong and they're in a corner. Removing comments (particularly those that request evidence for claims) serves nothing more that as a confirmation that, no matter how much they protest, rail, scream and carry on, the religious know that what they say the believe is baseless, stupid bullshit.

On Honour and Sacrifice

We're staying in a great hotel in the city we're visiting. The staff here is great - really, really great; we have a view and we have a dog with us, thanks to the pet-friendly nature of this main-drag hotel. Pretty perfect. None of what follows here has anything to do with the staff, except the resolution, which was fast and effective.

This morning, at about 2:15, seven very drunk young men decided to continue their party in the room facing ours.

Two interventions and an equal number of threats from Woody (who owns that name, being inflexible in his expectations that they either shut the fuck up or leave) did nothing to quiet them down, so it wasn't long until my temper got the better of me and my palm hit their door, loudly, a couple times.

I tried to get my 'mommy' out on them but, beyond their surprise at an older women up in their respective grills, none of them was man enough to say sorry. Not even my boiling and mostly undressed spouse looming above them (he's 6' 4" tall) convinced them they had seriously crossed the line. Assholes, all.

A real man NEVER forgets himself; he never imposes himself on others and he never, ever forgets that he is not alone on the planet; he never forgets that his behaviour and the things he says are a reflection of his character.

Suffice to say, seven young men seriously compromised their honour this morning and that sacrifice not only caused them to be evicted from this facility a mere seven hours after their arrival, it cost them their room charges AND ours.

What are these? These are HUMANS of the ONE human race. 

The detail that rankles me the most, the detail that will sit with me and the thing that tore my soul, however, was not so much their sacrificed honour as it was one young man's final, desperate attempt to regain control - but an attempt that cost him, his friends and me everything. Everything.

He refused to acknowledge that none of what ensued would have, had he and his pals heeded the doorman's advice to be quie; simply be quiet and go to bed. It was 2:30 a.m. after all....

He said we were pressing on him because he is brown. He said a brown man cannot get a fair shake and that we were attacking him because we were racists.

Several weeks ago, I had a serious falling out with someone who had been my friend for more than 20 years. This person also alleged racism in my direction. My comments to him - which he has not had the decency to respond to - and to this young man are these:

1. "Race" is a political construct; there is one human race, which comes in many, many colours:
2. "Race" has been institutionalised as a weapon by which people avoid responsibility, much in the manner the young man from this altercation used it.

The young man in question knew he was wrong; he knew he would be evicted and so he invoked the most hurtful, false and damaging thing he could. He alleged that he was innocent and that I was attacking him for no other reason than the colour of a body organ.

What this young man - and my was-friend, who is also black - did not realise is the immense damage he did to himself, me and his group of friends, all of whom have, save for one man, deeper skin tones than I.

I am disgusted by drunks. I am disgusted by people who will sacrifice their dignity and their honour to impress their friends; but nothing - NOTHING - can ever disgust me more than a man who is willing to use the colour of his largest body organ as a weapon by which to avoid responsibility for acts that he, himself, is responsible for.

The damage this young man and my ex-friend did by their allegations is immeasurable, not to mention that they both perpetuated a lie; and by doing so allowed that lie a continued strangle-hold on WE.

We humans.

We who share this planet and have no means or options for not sharing this planet.

Using the colour of skin as a weapon is abhorrent in any context and for any reason. It is skin. It's colour is nothing more than an adaptive feature that references a person's genetic history. Beyond that, the colour of a body organ has NO bearing on anything. Those who attempt to falsify a bearing  are thieves, rogues and are morally bereft. This goes for unknown young men, advertising executives and presidents.

If you seek to avoid responsibility or you seek to silence others by means of invoking something that is NOT REAL (race), you are bereft of honour in a profound way.

Thou shalt NOT attempt to escape thy responsibilities by invoking a false paradigm that injures EVERYONE. Doing so makes one a scourge upon all humans.

And also....

Not immoral!

WHY is it that some lies can be told and retold and repackaged and reformatted endlessly but the second someone says 'HEY, you have to show evidence for the foundation of your argument,' all hell breaks loose?

This week, writer Catherine Ford, who is not known for sugar-coating anything, wrote an argument for prostitution.

Suffice to say, humans being the idiots they are, saw the words 'prostitution' and instantly got their ridiculous moral swords out - on the women and men who work in the trade. As usual, people completely forget that it takes two (or more, occasionally) and that most purchasers are men, regardless of the sex of the vendor.

Needless to say, the religious idiots come out in full force when sex is the subject, and they make all sorts of stupid, wrong and discriminatory statements about what forms of sex are allowed, when, by who and for what consideration. And they base all this on two things: a presumption there is an invisible man and that the book 'written' by the invisible man is true and infallible.

Where I got into trouble - where I ALWAYS get into trouble is when I said "First, prove, or at least show some viable evidence that your invisible man exists."

This is the lie: that an invisible man exists and he creates all things, decides on who shall benefit from all the things he creates and that he will kill/maim anyone who contravenes the rules, which shift depending on interpretation of said rules. Despite that the idea of an invisible man directing traffic is fantastical in the extreme, it was requested that I accept a proffered 'olive branch' after one of the commentors tore into me, utterly misquoted me, refused to provide any support for his claim that the invisible man created sex and then gets to decide everything about how people do sex. And THEN, he said (I paraphrase here) 'well, I was actually just commenting on the original column.

Here's the deal people. Believe in whatever you wish to believe but do NOT expect me or require me to  believe what you believe or revile me when I ask you for some evidence that your claims have any basis in reality. Asking for evidence, support, proof is NOT derogatory nor is it an attack on you. If you make a claim for something, you better be bloody prepared to support your claim - and your religious notions do NOT fall outside of that requirement.  

Religion, despite its two-century hold on the idiot masses, is NOT exempt from questioning nor is it exempt from having to substantiate its claims. You may call me every name you can think of and you may pronounce any manner of future destruction on me but if you cannot support any of your claims, I can and WILL ignore everything you say.

About sex: Humans, eat, breath, evacuate (that means pee and poo) and they screw. All humans do it unless the are physically incapable and that includes priests, nuns, ministers, the homeless, the rich, the poor, your next-door neighbour, your parents and your children and probably your grandmother too. Unmarried old people in nursing homes OFTEN play musical beds.

The idea that only two differently-sexed people married to each other are the only people "allowed" to have sex is TOTAL bullshit and the idea that here is some invisible man who gets to say when it's ok and for whom to have sex is also super, super bullshitty. See EXTREMELY lucrative porn industry for reference and also see "high percentage of repressed religious people use a lot of porn and hookers."

(As an aside, I just heard a hilarious story by a hotel worker about what happened to the hotel's internal movie system when the Baptist Convention came to town; suffice to say, the switchboard was burning up and overloaded by the requests for porn made by the good Baptists staying in every room of the hotel.)

So, for your reading pleasure, excerpts from the conversation with the offending party, who was a known journalist for a major Canadian daily but who now mitigates their narrow viewpoint with the disclaimer, "I haven't been a journalist for a long time."  I don't know about this person but once a journalist, always a journalist - and that applies to journalistic standards of integrity, honesty and balance....

NB: For the record, I am very offended by the original writer, Catherine Ford's comment implying that sex-trade workers (and the writer - a woman - specified women and girls, despite that many working in the sex trade are male) do not "walk the higher moral ground." There is NOTHING immoral about sex or selling it. There is, however, something terribly immoral in men preying on women, girls and males who work in that industry, and it is unethical and immoral to presume to impose one's values on others, particularly when one cites the desires of an invisible, improbable, murderous, stupid 'man;' if said invisible man can't figure out that light and dark (day two in genesis) must FOLLOW creating of sun, moon and stars (day four), I'm pretty sure said invisible man is fake or, if not, really, really stupid.
(for the other 400+ contradictions in the bible, click HERE)

For the record, I have removed irrelevant-to-this conversation comments: the conversation occurred on FaceBook and so several contributors stuck to the more general issue and need not be identified.

"

Whores and hookers – deserving workers | Calgary Beacon

www.calgarybeacon.com

(Name removed for privacy):  Wow, I hope I never have to have her advocate anything for me!

(Name removed for privacy) I think I'll pass on reading this woman's column today. I'd like to keep my beautiful Sunday mood!

(Name removed for privacy): Luke 6:36-38 (NIV)36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. 37 “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. (unless you're the wrathful god who gets to create people and rules and then change the rules, deny knowledge and kill the people 'he' created)....

PM;  Ah, Catherine. Only she can so efficiently claim the moral high ground to critique those who do the same while in the same breath agreeing with their perception of the behaviour (this from a 'christian' who believes in an utterly immoral, invisible 'man'). Still, if her view holds the day this should open up a new stream of previoously (SIC) untaxed revenue . . . .

(irrelevant post removed)

ME: Here's the thing: prostitution IS A FACT and it will be a fact, as it has always been a fact, for as long as there are men who buy sex (and even in the case of male prostitutes, it is usually men doing the buying).

Secondly, the FACT is that a high percentage of men who buy sex are married and affiliated with a religion AND, often, with a fundamentalist religion.

Sex is not immoral. Sex with multiple partners is not immoral - even with multiple partners at a time. However, repressed, controlling people who seek and have sought for centuries to control other people have deemed a natural, necessary, healthy body function immoral. (some of that control stems simply from the need/desire to see land transferred to 'legitimate heirs' rather than the concubine's children....)

Women DO have the right to be safe at work and for some women (and men), being at work means providing sex to men (and occasionally women) who buy it.

Prostitution, in terms of the act itself, poses no danger to society any more than your neighbours sex life affect s you. However, the job IS dangerous to the women and men who work in the trade because although YOU can say no to buying sex, they cannot say no to clients who abuse them and occasionally kill them.

Otherwise, it is critical to consider the preparation one usually has before entering into this profession; most prostitutes have been brutally used and abused at the hands of their family members - often males (fathers, uncles, their mothers' boyfriends).

Those who are inclined to talk about the immorality aspect of this issue would do well to start with how religion really screws with people's normal urges (and why so many religious men are buying sex...), and the outcomes of abused children, child porn and men (usually) who prey on little kids.

PM: Well, now that we've established that religion is the cause of prostitution I am looking forward to the study that shows that as religion has declined so has the demand that drives the sex trade. Fewer married fundamentalists = a decline in the prostitution industry. And here I was thinking all these years that there was a connection to people's need to feed their drug addictions . . . (p.s. prostitution as an act in itself has never been illegal in Canada). Solicitation for the purpose of and living of the avails of/pimping, is, or was, or whatever. (also for the record, the drug addiction and the prostitution are not necessarily cause/effect, despite they often occur together; there is much more research to show that the foundations for an eventual drug addiction and the impetus for choosing prostitution have their bases in the family - and the abuse most - some 96% - of sex-trade workers experience at home)

ME: QUOTE ME if that's what you claim I said.

I DID NOT SAY THAT and don't misquote me. IF you're going to argue this issue, then argue it rationally and honestly and STOP bringing your BIAS into it.( all of which are entirely counter to base journalistic standards)

I don't know what your educational background is but mine is VERY varied and INCLUDES a year's study of street crime with a focus on prostitution in the company of two experts who KNOW what they're talking about.

I said a high percentage of religious men buy sex and I said - and I will quote myself - "... repressed, controlling people who seek and have sought for centuries to control other people have deemed a natural, necessary, healthy body function immoral."

If YOU say those are religious people then OK but I did NOT say that. Do NOT twist my words like that. Seriously. It is shameful.

PM: Well, my apologies. I really didn't wish to debate the issue (really? Not evident from your inflammatory comments above, my journalist friend) My fascination was really with Catherine's rhetorical skill. I suppose there are still relgions (SIC) that deem sex to be immoral - even though such a stance appears to have little chance of, if practised, producing a second generation. But I cannot think of one that is widely subscribed to that holds such a view. That was my only point. I agree with what I think is your major point.

ME: It does not become you to be disingenuous. MOST religions vilify all but the most proscribed sex. In particular, the Alliance churches (which stem from Southern Baptist); in Canada, CBM; Mormonism, certainly Catholicism and definitely Islam.

If you're suggesting your own church, which may be more liberal, is representative of all other churches, then I say, my friend, that you are obviously retired and living in a cave. Muhammed, is that you?

FYI: This link is not directly related to this feed; however, it illustrates fundamentalist attitudes towards sex the point being that all religions (ok, christianity, judaism and islam, all having the same origin) are based on.

http://nolongerquivering.com/what-is-quiverfull/

(irrelevant post removed)

(irrelevant post removed)

PM: It is true that most relgions (SIC) offer ('offer' nothing! I have attended several different churches of different denominations and there's no 'offer' or 'suggestion' about it; there is an expectation on all adherents as to how they will behave sexually) the view that sex should be enjoyed in a monogamous fashion. 

None that I am aware of currently suggest it should not be enjoyed. Yes, there have and are "puritan" traditions that have been widely misinterpreted, particularly by those unfamiliar with the theological complexities of these discussions but the fundamental view is not at all consistent with your perception. There are various cultural interpretations but they are more cultural than religous (SIC). Better to just leave religion out of it (what a stellar idea, although an interesting suggestion from a writer who not five paragraphs previously misquotes me to blame religion).

Following up on Julie's note I checked an Alliance website and this is what it has to say about sex: "God invented sex, and it is one of his masterpieces of creation. It is something good to be enjoyed. However, sex was designed for a specific purpose - for the exclusive, lifelong union between a man and a woman, which we call marriage (this is entirely NOT biblical, for the record). Sex creates a special bond between two people, and God intended this to strengthen marriages and fulfill the God-given sexual desire of the husband and wife. It is not wrong for someone to enjoy sex. That is a lie." (just a note here: the writer has misplaced the quotation marks, I'm sure, as I am also sure the Alliance literature does not include "That is a lie."

ME: ... as soon as you or any religious person can prove - or even offer decent evidence of - the existence of this invisible man who manages to create sex but cannot figure out that light and dark (day 2) comes from sun and the movement of sun around the earth (day 4) I might conform to such edicts.

Secondly, I am VERY surprised by the comment "none that I'm aware" from someone who is a journalist... you are, I'm sure, familiar with the practice of female 'circumcision?' It's purpose is grounded in religion, which presumes to make women seducers (as does Christianity). Such mutilation is performed on girls aged 2 years and up in order to remove their desire, their ability to enjoy sex and hence to prevent them from seducing men.

Religions place full 'blame' for seduction on women, which brings this discussion right back to prostitution: men are remarkably not required to be responsible for themselves - they get to blame all 'untoward' sexual desire on women. This leads to all manner of horrific acts including the stoning of a women who was observed swimming in her own pool in her private courtyard by a man on the balcony of his apartment in another building - She was killed for having excited him. Islam, by the way.

As for only husbands and wives enjoying sex together, that is not the simple case, never has been and never will be, which, by the way, is another indictment against this very fallible invisible man, who creates humans in his image, sexual desires (outside of marriage) proclivities and all....

Also to note - and with a nod to the excellent writing of Andrew Nikiforuk (and his book, The Fourth Horseman.  Also HERE for the biblical description - which is a story probably from a dream had by someone who was stoned on Kat ) - until modern times - and I mean very modern; perhaps the last 150 years or fewer - lifelong probably meant 10 years at best. Before modern hygiene, one could reasonably expect to marry a few times and to have a couple spouses die or to die oneself and leave one's spouse free to marry again. As such, the modern expectation of people marrying at 22 or 25 or 30 and then staying with the same person forever more - another what? 50 to 60 years? is ridiculous in the extreme, as it flies in the face of biology and the biological imperative. (Yes, life-long marriages happen but far more rarely than marriage breakup - and that has nothing to do with anything moral and much to do with the biological imperative).

Sex does create a bond between two people. But you ignore the fact of sexual abuse, sexual assault (including within marriage) and rape. These are all sex acts and all cause a bond, as dreadful as it might be.

The fallible invisible man you claim invented sex has no place in the story because it/he/she is also usually the very thing blamed (when a woman is accused of seducing) or entreated-to by those who do what humans do and screw around (and are caught out: see Ted Haggad, Jimmy whashisname, Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton, etc, etc. Too bad Jerry Falwell was so well-protected by his entourage because he's definitely on the list of users/abusers).

PM: OK. I'll let it go and just go back to my first point. I just wanted to praise Catherine for her rhetorical triumphs and just wanted to present an alternative point of view on some of your statements of fact (As I noted above, misquoting people and putting words in their 'mouths' does not amount to praising anyone, particularly when the person misquoting is a journalist).

The differences between culture, core beliefs etc are not easily given to this forum. I'n sure you are a good person. I haven't been a journalist for a long time but I still like balancing viewpoints whether I share them or not. Peace. (This writer says they like balancing viewpoints but, when the question of 'god' arises, the writer does NOT).

The wages of female anger...

Image courtesy www.simtropolis.com

Since I wrote the previous post, I have been speaking with a friend, a fellow writer, whose experience of his own mother (step mother actually) is in a word, horrific. As a result of what was a damaging and life-altering experience with her, he has engaged in substantial research into women and violence and the statistical occurrence of violence by women toward spouses and offspring. And, by the sounds of it, he has also spent most of his adult lifetime trying to recover from really appalling mental abuse.

He admits readily to having a deep-seated distrust of women, which I absolutely understand, as I have struggled my entire life with the same mistrust. Only in the last five years (I am nearly 50) have I had female friends who I trust and they are very, very few even now.

For many reasons, we labour under the misguided belief that women are compassionate and gentle and that they always love their children and seek to help and nurture. That is the mythology. The reality is that some 51% of women and acted out against their loved ones - spouses and very often children. This must not be confused with discipline, where it relates to children, or as normal disagreements, where it relates to spouses.

As he put it (and I do not want in any way to diminish the experience of women who are battered), a man may slap a woman out of anger; she, however (says my friend) may react by stabbing him with a hidden paring knife. She may, under the guise of correcting and disciplining her children, engage in pounding them, hitting them with objects, verbally abusing them, ignoring them, abandoning them, or killing them.

His experience and mine of our respective mothers have some disturbing similarities - many, similarities - all boiling down to two angry women who are neither aware of or attached to their anger but who inflicted it on their children - and in my case, on a spouse. The myth is that such women are rare. The reality is that possibly 50% of mothers are angry and abusive.

Men may at times be brutal and there is no excuse for brutality towards spouses and children, but women have a far more insidious means of abusing that combines the physical (because spanking never hurt anyone, right?) and the psychological (.... words will never hurt me....) that leaves deep, deep scars.

Some brief research here

The wages of manipulation is you end up with no real friends....

Image from Wordprss Burbflies

It never ceases to amazing me how stupidly mean people can be but more than that, how they make a life-long habit out of meanness and a perpetual game of finding ridiculous ways to 'punish' people but have no idea at all what it costs them.

I found out this week that a family friend - a woman who lived a few doors away from us - had been very ill and was hospitalized and since died. ...Two weeks ago.

I happened to find this out through a family member who had also found out after both facts. It should be noted that the non-informative person was my mother and the woman someone my mother claims was her friend for I think about 30 years.

I rarely see my mother, a point that despite being a reality is still raw almost five years on. I did have reason to see her early this week, face to face. She made no mention of the passing of this friend.

The next day, however, I got an email with the detailed story of another friend's daughter having been kicked by a horse and having had her leg broken in three places. Pretty nasty break to be sure and as interesting as that all is, beyond having met her perhaps five times in my life - when I was about nine years old - I don't know the person in question.

I replied to my mother's email with 'thanks for the information,' and added that I was confused why she would related the trials of a near stranger but neglect entirely to tell me of the illness and death of our friend.

She replied with another confusing email about a magazine that is soliciting photographs from amateurs and that I had some nice pictures I should submit (I am a working professional photographer and don't submit work for free).

Below the four lines about the solicitation, she added that she doesn't engage in what she called email wars and that if I had a problem with not being informed about our family friend's demise, I should bring it up with my sister, with whom I speak, every two days or so - according to my mother. I am always amazed but never surprised when my mother neglects to even acknowledge a glaring oversight and manages to blame someone else entirely.

My mother fascinates me in much the same way as serial killers fascinate me. She exhibits the same utter detachment from her actions and the same propensity for blaming anything or anyone else.

It fascinates me too that she pursues opportunities to punish people - in this case by not informing her children of the departure of our family friend - but does not comprehend that the distance and disconnection she has with two of her three natural children and the complete separation from both of her step-children is of her own making. She does not understand, "If I were kind, I would have all the love I seek and more."

Yesterday I had a conversation with another friend who also grew up with an angry, punishing and distant mother; a woman of my mother's age. There are many similarities in our stories including that our mothers both attacked us with knives: he suffered a four-inch gash; the knife did not make contact in my case but having my mother break a door in and hold me at bay in our second-floor bathroom was scary and left its own brand of scar. His mother, weirdly, ran him over with her car when he frantically tried to get into it so that she could not abandon him at a train station - at the age of six.

WHAT happened to the women of our mothers' generation? What happened to make so many of a generation of women so angry and hateful and punishing - there are so many, many women in their 70s and early 80s who seem to survive on fountains of anger and who are alienated from their children.

Of the many unanswerable questions that plague my need-to-know mind, why and how my mother comes to have such a profound pathology is near the top of the pile.

The possibility that such anger and resentment will be hallmarks of my later years is utterly terrifying so I counter it with probably a too-ready "sorry" and by always (I hope always) acknowledging when I react and am mean and by telling those to whom I am occasionally mean (because I am, as are all humans, fallible) that they are in no way to blame for my mood or what is going on with me at a given moment.

I don't believe my mother has ever apologized to anyone with any grain of truth or humility. She has made stabs at apologies on occasion sometimes because she was caught out and in those cases apologized but with obvious resentment; she has apologized but with a subtext of "I am apologizing in order to humiliate you," because she very mistakenly believes doing so in front of people she believes to be her friends will bring them or keep them on her side.

Sadly, she has few friends and is largely surrounded by people who see through her but let it slide because it affects them not and they know they can change nothing about her or how she relates to her family - what's left of it.

I write this simply for catharsis, as I understand those who might read it cannot help her nor can they answer the question "How and why is she like that."

If I leave nothing at all behind for my children except the absolute, cemented-in knowledge that I love them and admire them and respect them, I will have left everything important. I know this because this knowledge I do not have for myself.

May 21st: According to Family Radio, this is the end of the world...

I can hardly wait for the howls of ridicule to begin. May 22nd will be a day of reckoning all right - the day all those who emptied their bank accounts and gave money to support a charlatan's fantasy understand the extent of their stupidity.

Rumor has it said charlatan has already attempted to leave the US and make for the Canadian border. However, in the absence of the correct papers, he was not allowed to cross.

Why is he making for Canada?

One wonders.

Here's the charlatan's website. www.familyradio.com.

No answers but lots of hate - from the loving christians...

This is a reprint of a conversation that happened on FaceBook several weeks back. I am highly annoyed by the faithful who will not provide any proof for what they think the believe. Highly.

I didn't make up these myths, so I don't have to provide proof for them; the religious, however, who do make up these myths, CAN'T provide any proof of or for them and so they resort to mud-slinging and platitudes instead of providing links to resources of any kind. 

Some of my resources are these:

www.richarddawkins.net

www.evilbible.com

www.exchristian.net

www.dailyhitchens.com

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula

http://howgoodisthat.wordpress.com/
www.zeitgeistmovie.com (the first 30 minutes deals specifically with christianity)

I encourage you to go find your own - there are hundreds and hundreds. 

The key feature of the religious' arguments is their unbending unwillingness to challenge their paradigm. In the words of one idiot, who is employed as a pastor (he's not actually an idiot; I'm just really annoyed by him), I know it is all true because of my life experiences. Seriously?

Anyway, here you go.... it's long. Really, Really long. My comments, added later, are in bold/italics.

LS And I, being Catholic, was entirely educated in the public system, for the simple reason that that was where the bus took me ;)

09 March at 08:49 ·

ME Nothing makes an atheist faster than a good read of the bible....

09 March at 09:12 ·

WOLF Julie, most Atheists will disagree with you.

09 March at 09:16 ·

(My point, which this person missed but which is a commonly-held opinion, is that a thorough reading of the bible will make an atheist out of the reader because the bible readily disproves itself)

ME Really Joshua? Most atheists disagree that a full reading of the bible is the best way to become a non-believer? Seriously, back your statement up. The bible is an utterly human, fallible, terroristic work of social control that advocates for rape, blood sacrifice, infanticide, slavery and war.

09 March at 09:18

ME Religious schools have no place in a secular society first of all and, more importantly, adults have NO right to brainwash children with fear-based, coercive stories.

09 March at 09:19

WOLF Most atheists rely fully on the laws of science and nature and established their beliefs based upon that (Partially true: atheists do rely on the laws of science and nature; however, "belief" doesn't apply here because "belief" exists in the absence of facts, as is quite fully proven by the following discourse) . You're suggesting that the bible creates atheism. You probably find nobility in Islamic literature though, am I right?

09 March at 09:20 ·

ME

You make several assumptions here, which is deadly to argument; these comments also indicate you have done little research into your argument prior to making it.

Why would you make the presumption I would find nobility in Islamic literature...?

 09 March at 09:21 · (The writer did not reply to this)

WOLF Come on Julie, be a good atheist and pick on all religions, not just the ones who won't bomb your house.

09 March at 09:21 ·

WOLF Julie, you are correct. I'm not shuffling through wikipedia to find justification in what I'm saying to you. I'm making assumptions (assumptions are not observations, nor are they researched)  based on my countless hours of observing an elementary level of atheistic rage (whatever this means is unclear) that manifests in its selective application of scrutiny.

09 March at 09:23 ·

ME

‎@Wolfgang: please point out in my comments here where I was picking on a specific religion; and, because it seems unclear to you, I am wholly opposed to any religion and particularly opposed to brainwashing children with fear-based stories that have political and social control as a basis for their existence.

You used the word "assumptions." What do you mean by "selective level of scrutiny?"

Might I also point out that you are also an atheist: I take it you believe in one god, but you DON'T believe in hundreds of others, for which, in many cases, there is much 'historical' and other 'documentation.' Until you understand why you do not believe in all those other gods, you cannot understand why we believe in none at all.

09 March at 09:36 ·

LW I wouldn't personally attack you, Julie--would love to chat sometime.

09 March at 09:40 · Like (This person never returned to the conversation)

WOLF YOU ASSUME I BELIEVE IN ONE GOD. I ASSUME YOU BELIEVE IN SCIENCE AS YOUR GOD (Not sure why this person resorted to digital yelling and very interested in the sly insult);

THE BRINGER OF LIGHT AND KNOWLEDGE. I AM POINTING OUT YOUR HYPOCRISY. What say you of that, feral heathen? (Behold, the source of my new T-shirt slogan. Also not at all sure where this person pointed out my hypocracy. Science, which is observable, replicateable and most importantly falsifiable cannot be confused with 'god' for which there is no evidence, proof, replicateable anything or means of disproof. In fact, believers go to astounding lengths to remove any means of disproof, usually with the trite "god is unknowable.")

09 March at 09:41 ·

ME

And, because it seems this is the direction you're attempting to lead me in, I am not an apologist for any religion; I do, however, have a very good knowledge of christianity for several reasons: 10 generations of my family have ministers -

If you wish to challenge me on ANY point, I suggest you quickly arm yourself with research rather than opinion and assumptions because I guarantee you I will poke holes in anything you postulate in terms of religion being anything other than the most destructive force on the planet followed by only millimetres by love-of-money and pursuit-of-power - although those are both significant characteristics of religions....

09 March at 09:41 ·

PM  A) It's a 20-minute bus ride for those folks to the nearest secular school, about the same distance they currently are from the Catholic School.

B) Julie, the Supreme Court ruled quite convincinngly (sic) some years ago that religion is a part of a secular society because a secular society is by definition inclusive of all segments of society. That is, unless you are promoting a secular society that excludes people on the basis of their most deeply-held beliefs. (This is a very interesting point and it is also a convolution of the truth: The Canadian Constitution protects people from discrimination on the basis of what they believe and that INCLUDES those of us who have no beliefs; secondly, the Canadian Constitution firmly establishes a separation between church and state. Finally, at no point does the Canadian constitution protect religious organisations from being questioned. This writer seems unaware that, in this country, we do not live in a theocracy.)

C) the writing of the Bible is of course human and fallible but as for advocating for slavery, rape, etc.: you are just making that up. (Ah, no, I am decidedly not. This person has not read their bible or they would know that the old testament absolutely does advocate for slavery, rape, child murder, infanticide and human sacrifice and the new testament - the figure of christ in particular - confirms that the old law remain in place and shall not be altered one iota -in Matthew).

09 March at 09:43 ·

WOLF

The existence of ministers in your family tree doesn't build your ethos with me. I know more atheists that came out of religious households than didn't (thereby confirming my statement that religion fosters atheism).. They attributed their beliefs to the science and its irrefutable evidence. Not one of them claimed that they were driven to it by the bible. (perhaps not but the obviously didn't find the answers to their logical questions in the bible so sought elsewhere).

You're not pointing anything out to anyone here that isn't already well known. I'm sorry, but again, your rudimentary grasp of atheist logic (insults will get you nowhere...) isn't in question here, it's how all of you seem to play it safe by picking on people who won't blow your house up.

You can lie to me all you want, but we both know you and your colleagues (my colleagues???) do so often :)

09 March at 09:45 ·

WOLF Nothing angers a devout atheist more than when you respond to their wall of text within seconds. (not sure what 'devout' has to do with atheism: devotion generally applies to things spiritual, which atheists have nothing to do with. I'm not sure one can have a devout belief in nothing....)

09 March at 09:47 ·

ME

‎@Peter: I am absolutely NOT making that up. Please have a very good read of this site: www.evilbible.com. This is just one of many and I hope, Peter, as a good newspaperman, you will do appropriate research. I do take offence to your "making that up" comment in light of my family culture and my six or so years of specific study....

I do appreciate the constitutional structure of this country....See more

09 March at 09:48 ·

WOLF BUT YOU DIDN'T SEE MY CRITICAL THINKING!!!

09 March at 09:48 ·

WOLF ‎..and then they use a credible and objectionable source called "evilbible". (on cannot object to sources based on their name; that is essentially judging the book by its cover. That said, there are hundreds of print and on line resources around for anyone who wishes to do some study).

09 March at 09:48 ·

WOLF Hey, now that morals and behavioural standards have been well rooted and established, we don't need to give credit where it's due.

09 March at 09:49 ·

ME

‎@Wolfgang; What is your goal here and please take advantage of my requests that you back up your arguments here. Also, please define "devout atheist."

Until you back up your statements with research and until you are able to define your terms - and you stop making personal attacks, you are flailing, not arguing.

09 March at 09:49 ·

PM You are cherry picking the way all fundamentalists do.

09 March at 09:50 ·  · ...

ME Peter, who are you directing that comment at?

09 March at 09:51 ·

WOLF

You spent six years studying what exactly? The best you can come up with is a link to a website called evilbible? I made my argument, and you came back at me without addressing any of the points I made. This is textbook juvenile debate. It ...might sound mean, but you're presenting nothing that is worth of analysis here. I can find everything you're saying on an internet forum.

Again, where did you study, and what did you study?

09 March at 09:52 ·

WOLF ‎*worthy

09 March at 09:52 ·

WOLF

Point backed up #1: Most atheists rely fully on the laws of science and nature and established their beliefs (not beliefs; understanding) based upon that. You're suggesting that the bible creates atheism. (I fail to see how this point backs up anything).

Point backed up #2: They attributed their beliefs to the science... and its irrefutable evidence. Not one of them claimed that they were driven to it by the bible. (ok, so this guy has read absolutely nothing but suggest he knows all atheists. Cool.)

So... like a toddler, I'll keep providing you with sound and logical rebuttals, and you'll keep telling me I'm not backing my point up. You sound like a bit of an dunce, truthfully (and he's back to attacking me personally)

09 March at 09:55 ·

LW Wolfgang--I'm with you, but you can't lead an athiest (sic) to evidence and make them think. Best site for athiests (sic) to view is www.creationontheweb.com (this site, for the record, is insanely debunkable).

09 March at 10:00 ·

WOLF Thanks Lyndon, I should add, no one sees some of the illogical human elements of religious scripture more than me. I'm just not a fan of bandwagonry (sic).

09 March at 10:01 ·

JG Julie, do you sincerely believe that the evilbible website is a reliable and impartial site on which to base objective opinion? Just asking. ( At NO point did I say, suggest, intimate that www.evilbible.com is the one and only reliable source; however, most believers will wage a to-the-death war that the bible is the one and only reliable source).

09 March at 10:04 ·

Fred Causer And so contless (sic) young men and women are lying slained (sic) on the battlefields of religion. Who cares what one man thinks over another as to how life came about on this planet and who has the highest accendancy (sic) it is far more likely that we are an Alien hybred (sic) and our "Gods" are actually from another World. Wars are fought on the grounds of religion why cant we all just respect each other and live in peace? (why indeed. Probably has something to do with appalling spelling/grammar)

09 March at 10:09

JG Sounds good, Fred

09 March at 10:12 ·

MH I'm with Fred. I'm an atheist who has no interest in arguing with believers. Let's just agree to disagree on that subject and concentrate on those things we do agree on.

09 March at 10:16 ·

Sid Helischauer No town needs two school boards

09 March at 10:26 ·

RD I think between Government and Religion, it has and will forever be a war on mans concepts for lost Soul seeking to find their way.

09 March at 10:41 ·

ME

‎@John, do you seriously believe that a book based on war, torture, rape, infanticide, subjugation and slavery and an invisible man is impartial and bears enough proof on which to base an objective opinion?

Please quote my comment that states I think that site (www.evilbible.com) is unbiased and reliable.....

Have you read anything on that or any other site?

Have you read all of Sam Harris: Letter to a Christian Nation; Richard Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker, the Selfish Gene, the God Delusion; Christopher Hitchens: God is Not Great?

Do you subscribe to www.exchristian.net or ANY other blog of similar goal?

Do you come from ten generations of church-building, fire-breathing evangelicals?

Have you spend literally six years reading everything you can get your hands on related to your religious tradition?

Do you participate in any forums, conversations, groups on a daily basis?

Do you appreciate that a book that people defend as the infallible word of 'god' has more than 400 contradictions (http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf) - and if you do appreciate that, please explain why this omniscient being makes so many mistakes.

Also please explain to me why this all powerful, loving 'god' allows millions to starve and please explain to me why, if this being will grant any prayer why he/she/it will NOT answer the prayers of amputees, who surely pray for their limbs to grow back; or the prayers of parents of sick children - parents who will pray and let their children die rather than access medical help; or why thousands are .... oh fuck.. useless.

If you wish to engage me, please come armed. I support this country's constitution and its protection of religious freedoms - which by the way also protect freedom FROM religion; however, those of you who put a biblical story up as reality - and particularly those of you who are journalists - must subject your story to the basic principles of good journalism: eye witnesses, corroboration, replication, proof. In my most basic journalism classes, THREE real, live I-was-there sources are required. If not, your story has no more truth and weight as anything written by Jayson Blair (I hope you know who this is) or any other journalist of like standards.

If you won't apply basic journalistic standards to what is the most significant story relating to humans - all humans and all life on this planet - it throws into question to what extent you apply those principles on much lesser stories.

Those of you who call atheists "fundamentalists" and allege atheists have beliefs will please support that allegation with FACTS and EVIDENCE of those beliefs. Give me my so-called 'code of conduct.'

And please do not ask me to provide proof for the MYTH you hold up. If you say it is true then give me the FACTS and the EVIDENCE and the EYE-WITNESSES to corroborate that which YOU say is true. Otherwise, my allegation that there are pink unicorns running the world is equally viable because I have an equal amount of verifiable, replicate-able proof and FAR less proof to the contrary. See more

09 March at 10:41 ·

RD This is a logical thinking format searching for answers without ever finding a solution to actually fix anything. The sheep shall follow---who in the hell is the leader?

09 March at 10:44 ·

PM

This is not the best format for a discussion requiring depth. I think we can agree that any Holy Book, whether it is the Bible or Dawkins (Dawkins holds two honours PhDs in biology and I think philosophy and seeks constantly to better his understanding of the world - quite different from the religious standpoint of "don't dispel my mythology), is available to be interpreted in fashions that affirm the subjectivity that we bring to it. (another journalist rule broken; use plain language)

The slavery accusation is popular but utter nonsense. If such was the case, how could that same Bible have been the very vehicle used for the emancipation movement, led by evangelical William Wilberforce, who began a tradition that continued to inspire Martin Luther King? (I could write an essay here on both of these men. This writer seems not to realise that the southern states absolutely used the slavery verses in the bible to support the continuation of that abominable time).

And, yes, many crimes and wars have taken place "in the name of" religion. More no doubt will follow. But many wars and crimes have also been committed in the name of other things - economics, trade, property, power and other ideological offsprings (sic).

Even love (Helen of Troy) has inspired war. But that does not make trade, or economics, or love inherently evil (many would dispute this idea; but again, all these are verifiable things, replicatable and having witnesses to them. The bible, not so) any more than it makes religion evil.

Our behaviours and ideas, even our beliefs, can be used for good and they can be used for evil. (pretty sure there are no atheists killing people for no belief). They are in some sense merely tools and, yes, the OT has some pretty grim stuff in it. But the OT is only the historical foundation of Christianity; it is the NT that carries the over-riding message of love, mercy, forgiveness, and the imperative to love one another. (yes, and the NT ALSO has many references to the OT - that NONE OF THE old laws shall be altered in any way until the return - assuming you believe the christ person existed at all - of the messiah).

 That can be said of humanism, theistic and atheistic, but few if any other non-faith based philosophies. Moderation, tolerance and the ability to empathize and not demonize, are the keys to a healthy and truly rich secular society and all of those find their foundations in the Judeo-Christian tradition. (That is bullshit. Humans are innately moral and that has been tested and tested and tested. Religion is inversely related to morality. Case in point: In the US, where states report the level of religiosity, the higher the number of religious, the higher the crime. Yes, I have several sites to reference for this) And that's all I have to say about that. 09 March at 12:20 ·  · ...

ME

Peter, would you accept unsubstantiated, non-verified speculation for print?

If not, please apply the same journalistic standards to information that people claim affects the entire human race. I will consider ANY proof of the veracity or '...holiness' of these text that you wish to provide. Until then, however, it is mythology that deserves no more or less respect that the stories written about Thor, Zeus or Harry Potter.

09 March at 13:06 ·

ME

Also, please confirm that you are indeed saying

1.The old testament has no relevance
2. You believe the OT does not carry over into the NT.

...If you confirm this, I am going to instantly prove you wrong.

09 March at 13:08 ·

ME May I also point out here that not one of you has risen to any of my entreaties to support your arguments, substantiate your claims, tell me what my 'beliefs' are to put teeth in any statement you've made.

09 March at 13:10 ·

PM Julie. That is not at all what I said. I very clearly referred to the OT as a foundation (see above). And I offered (also above) some support for my arguments. (actually, the writer offered opinions, which, considering the writer is a known journalist, totally chaps me. Also said journalist did not respond to my question at 09 March at 13:08) As also noted, this sort of forum is not well-suited to this type of debate and there are no end of points upon which rational people may in good faith (pardon the pun) disagree. I have my beliefs, you have yours. (I do not have beliefs, as I've said several times here)

 I have no wish to deny you yours. If you wish to deny mine to me, you are free to do so and I shall just turn the other cheek. Slap away.

09 March at 13:45 ·

ME

Re your suggestion (erroneous) that the OT is merely a foundation, please refer to Matthew 5:18-19 RSV, where the Christian central character makes a very firm remark on what passed previously and its application presently.

If one says the ...bible is divinely inspired word of god and therefore infallible, one must than accept the point of Matthew 5:18-19 RSV.

Therefore the instructions on slavery are still in place. http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm
(I use this site as it is succinct - but there are MANY other references to this material)

As to your suggestion that I am denying anyone's beliefs, that is not at all the case. Two points: as I have said and will say again, I absolutely support this country's constitutional right to religion (or no religion, as the case may be); secondly, since when does giving the religious every opportunity to provide support for their statements constitute "denying?" I am not denying anyone's believe. I am asking for a good, solid, verifiable reason - with corroboration - to believe.

Explain to me what you mean when you suggest I have a religion/beliefs that you have no wish to deny, and what you think those beliefs are. Atheism, for the record, is an absence of belief.

Finally, please show me where and how I wish to deny you your religion and why you suggest that this conversation is in any way related to slapping.

In this conversation, I have been accused of
Having atheistic rage (with no reference or quote to back this up or any suggestion as to what atheistic rage is)
Of believing in science as god (with no clarification as to what that could possibly mean)
Of being a hypocrite
Of having a belief system (which the writer refuses to define)
Of having a rudimentary grasp of atheism
Of lying
Of playing it safe (?!)
Of being angry
Of having dubious moral and behavioural standards
Of denying people their religion (by asking them to support their postulations).

I think I have turned cheek several times here.

09 March at 14:47 ·

PM

Relax. Of course slavery is referenced in the Bible. (to note, this writer previously said I was making this up)

 So is being turned into a pillar of salt (how can an adult belief such a ridiculous story!?) and, like I said, all kinds of other nasty stuff. It is a book of its time. It is a book of stories of its time speaking to people in the language... (thanks to the writer for this one moment of honesty: the bible is just that; a book of stories of its time, speaking to people in the language of their time - 2000+ years ago) and the culture of its time and, honestly, how realistic was it for a dozen guys from Palestine to take on the entire cultural and political order and still get their message - one which they believed transcending the cruelties of this earth - across?

Anyway, the writing of Wilberforce and King and the emancipation movement are better qualified to expand on the expansive meaning of the Word rather than phrases cherry picked to support a particular worldview. Chill.

09 March at 14:57 ·

ME OK. Chilled. Still explain to me how any of it applies now.

09 March at 15:20 ·

ME The thing is Peter, that large groups and organisations STILL cherry pick - and in the current sphere I note the ridiculous Tea Party and its cherry-picking of all sorts of juicy bits to support their racist-ness and homophobic-ness. But they're christians all right....

09 March at 15:22 ·

PM Agreed. Cherry picking is bad in all its forms. And homo- or atheo- or christo- or islamo- phobias are bad too. We are all human beings and are all, by nature, flawed or broken. We all find redemption in our own way. Peace.

09 March at 15:36 ·

Charley VanderGriendt ‎'Father, forgive them for they know not what they do'/say

10 March at 09:42 ·

MH Wow, this discussion is still on going...I'm with Peter. As the kids say these days, Peace Out. (I've always wanted to do that...my children will be sooooo grossed out).

10 March at 09:48 ·

ME

I suppose this video might light this all up again but it makes a great point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVuw1wEuaAQ

To the -phobias, I will stick to my guns here and ask again why ANY mythology that has no basis in fact, cannot be proven, bears on stories that are not verifiable and have no eye-witnesses, should be given respect, let alone tax breaks.

SOMEONE please tell me why they don't believe in Thor or Zeus. EVERYONE is an atheist. Many of us just take that one logical step further.

Signed, Feral Heathen (with thanks to the false-named WJ...)

10 March at 20:14 ·

MH It occurs to me that this is how wars start....

10 March at 20:45 ·

FC Exactly Markham unfortunatley (sic) most of them dont (sic) stand shoulder to shoulder with us soldiers on the fields of battle. Remember too no matter what or even if their religion is there are no atheists on a battle field when lying in a fox hole being shelled.

11 March at 07:38 ·

ME

Fred, I personally know many soldiers who are absolutely atheist and who have, to a man, seen at least two tours in Afghanistan. I also know personally many veterans, people I see at least weekly, who have seen battle - several times in many cases and one who was POW for four years - who are also atheists.

Your "no atheists in fox-holes" is an oft-repeated but colloquial (meaning unverified) statement.

11 March at 08:59 ·

PM

Hey, I'm talking peace and I'm not the atheist in the conversation. Look, if there was scientific "proof," people wouldn't call if faith. (exactly!)

I can't prove God exists anymore than Julie can prove God doesn't exist.(also exactly, except I am not claiming such a thing exists; therefore the burden of proof is not on me!)

 I'm not trying to save anyone's soul here or even change anyone's mind, just bringing some reason to some of the things that are said. The reason religions such as Islam, Judaism, Christianity and others still survive is that unlike Julie's "mythical figures" the central characters were real people who walked, talked, ate, lived, loved and died. (proveitproveitproveitproveit!!)

King David, Solomon, Moses, Jesus of Nazarath (sic), Pilate, all of the apostles, Mohammad, etc. are all people who walked this earth and who are part of its history. (THAT IS AN ASTOUNDING STATEMENT! there is NO proof of any of those people.)

To suggest, as Julie does, that no basis in fact exists is not only absurd, it is irrational. You can debate the sufficiency of the facts, their sanity; you can debate their divinty (sic) but you can't debate that Mohammad changed his world or that 11 previously unimportant guys from Palestine and Paul, a later convert, travelled the world as they knew it and passionately spread the message of their leader. (these are unsubstantiated stories and to say they are categorically true is a stretch. There is LITTLE proof for the existence of any of these people, Mohammed incuded - and if he lived, he was a crazy hermit living in a cave.)

 They were imprisoned, executed and in some cases tortured to death. There is no documentation (nope, you're right there) from their oppressors indicating any one of them broke. We are all entitiled (sic) to our own opinions and are free to debate the meaning of facts. But some facts, inconvenient as they are, are facts. Peace.

11 March at 14:30 ·

ME

There is every reason to question the existence of Mohammed and Jesus. Particularly in the case of Jesus, who's life story is nearly identical to Horus and for who there is NO first century corroboration, (from any of the 35 or so historians of the time) one cannot say with any certainty such a person existed. There is much, much research to say he did not.

Also importantly, the four biblical gospels, upon which christianity is based were ALL written at least 60 years after the central figure had died (if he lived at all), so the writers themselves had no first-hand or even near knowledge of the person they were promoting. Even the origins of said gospels is unknown. As such, the existence of this character is NOT a fact. Presumed to be a fact is not a viable detail.

In the case of Mohamed, if he did exist, he was certainly mentally ill, similarly to Joseph Smith. I find it difficult to swallow that educated people believe that a man who spent seven years as cave-dwelling hermit rode to 'heaven' on a flying horse and then came back. Seriously Peter, that sounds rational to you?

It is no more rational to believe a man who is his own father was tortured to death but then revived whilst being ensconced for three days in a cave and that this abused person recovered at all but recovered enough to push away a stone the size of which is indicated in the bible. It defies reason. Especially the part where said person then simply rises up into the sky and disappears. That is as ridiculous as a talking snake or a man-eating fish - or a flying horse.

To your comment about peace, Peter, all religions are based on death: the key element of christianty is death and then life after, all based on a set of constantly shifting, immensely interpret-able 'rules' and threats. "You're fine just how you are" is NOT a feature of christianity or any other religion, frankly, as any behaviour that can be unappreciated is quickly termed a sin, including with christians, the fact of being born - christianity makes babies sinners because they are the result of a purely natural, biological act. That, my friend, is not peace.

11 March at 14:56 ·

PM

Like I said, you can question the facts as you are doing now but my point was that you can't go off saying "there's no basis in fact" for any of these things. The depth of your faith (MY emphasis; not one offer of "please explain my 'faith'" was accepted) is such that I can't imagine there is anything that could... be put in front of you that could possibly change your mind.

There was, is and ever shall be enormous debate within and without the church. Suffice to say the NT, given the references to Herod and the census, put Jesus birth somewhere between 4 and 6 A.D. Pilate ruled between 26 and 36 AD and Paul's letters to the Corinthians are dated at, say 55 AD, give or take. (Why are there NO references to 'christ' by ANY first-century historian/scholar? UNANSWERED by this writer)

The Gospels are certainly dated later and many scholars argue whether most of them were cribbed from John (the youngest of the bunch). Has the story been altered or perverted over the years? Absolutely. Does it have "no basis in fact?" No. (Writer, notably does not provide links to any such 'facts').

You can believe if you wish that he didn't exist, but that's an article of faith. (Exactly. Faith, not proof/evidence: but I'm not alleging he did exist, so it is not my 'burden' to prove).

What's the alternative? That a bunch of guys sat around drinking too much wine and decided "hey, I know how we can really piss off the Romans! Why don't we make up this story that won't make us rich or powerful but will keep us poor and persecuted and will end with us all getting (sic) tortured and executed. You guys in?"

Seriously, while certain facts are certainly in dispute, it seems to me it takes a lot more "faith" to believe the whole thing is a running scam that has run for 2,000 years than it does to go to church. (well, yes, but then indoctrination in our time and fear of being burnt at the stake, or killed by any number of methods for heresy in other times does help with the coercive part of religion. Y'know and the irrational fear of burning for ever).

As I said, you are firm in your faith. (the religious love to tell us faithless people - what they call us most of the time - that we have faith... but in nothing...). The reason I and most of the other people at my church seem to show up is that Christianity is primarily about Love (sic) and how each of us is equal in the eyes of God, (really? well, women aren't equal, or are slaves)...  how the meek will inherit in the earth and how the peacemakers are blessed. (of for shite's sake... )

We are taught that no matter the state of our lives, no matter how lonely we are or how much we hurt sometimes we are always loved. If it was otherwise (and there is no doubt that it has been taught otherwise by some) it would never have succeeded.

You obviously have a different experience and, yes, there have been times when human beings have terribly distorted these things and done awful things. On your last note, the church I go to which I expect you would assume is a haven of insanity teaches young people that sex is a great part of life. Peace.

11 March at 15:40 ·

ME Peter, you assume too much about me.

I am ever curious about this 'faith' you say I have. PLEASE define it for me.

11 March at 18:20 · (I have asked this question several times but have had no answer ever, from any participant here or elsewhere in the digital world).

PM This is not the medium for such a lengthy discussion. Lets just call it one of the mysteries of faith, agree that beauty will save the world and enjoy the weekend!

11 March at 18:31 ·

MH Are you two still at it?

11 March at 18:47 ·

ME ‎@MH, yes: I don't go in for "I don't understand it all and don't need any verification, therefore God,' whereas Peter is much less in need of proof.

11 March at 18:56 ·