Not-So-Smart Discrimination

I am a smart-car owner. The smart brand is referred to as 'smart', lowercase by design, one-word, as you might say 'Honda' or 'Mini'. This is a great little car, and the only micro-sub compact sold on American shores. It's a one-liter, 70 horsepower, mid-engine car which is easy to park and gets 41 mph highway...that's the best MPG of any gas-using car in America, right behind the hybrids but at about 10K less to buy. Available in the U.S. since early 2008, the smart has been making inroads through Roger Penske's smart dealers into the American consciousness.

As a member of the Smart Car of America Forums (SCOA), I participate with other enthusiastic owners about all things smart.....the questions we're asked, aftermarket accessories, everything regarding dealers, maintenance, perks and quirks with the car, etc.

Who buys smarts? My answer to this question might have be: 'progressive, out-of-the-box thinkers with a penchant for embracing new ideas, with a tendency toward size-economy and the green movement'. It ain't necessarily so.

Sadly, this blog is about discrimination, which is something atheists face every day. See if you agree.

On the SCOA forum, I happened to be browsing the off-topic threads and saw that some smart-owners had started threads about who among them might be gay, with another thread asking who their fellow vegetarians/vegans were. Reading the threads myself, it seemed people were playing nicely and simply voicing another common interest among a receptive, progressive audience of other forum members clearly open to new ideas.

That was, until I started the 'Who here is an atheist smart-owner' thread. Here's what I wrote:

'Ok, I've seen the separate Gay and Vegan smart-owner threads, very interesting!

Here's my question: How many atheists drive smarts?

Is there any correlation between our maverick embrace of a new automotive paradigm and those who self-describe as atheists/agnostics/secularists/non-religious or non-believers of some sort?

The car itself represents a lot in my opinion: a willingness to be different, a witting/unwitting embrace of the green-movement and less oil-dependence, some-degree of environmental conscience, a willingness to favor economy of size over the 'bigger is better' mentality (even with threat of derision), and a more liberal/progressive political population (I realize there will be exceptions).

My hypothesis is that atheists would be over-represented by smart-car owners (per-capita).

This is by no means a scientific poll, but I am curious to see the responses.

Thanks in advance'.

Reasonable enough, wouldn't you say? Just like the gay and vegan threads, it's natural to ask who among other out-of-the-box thinkers might have left traditional ideas like religion, right?

Wrong. The thread was immediately closed by an admin with this comment.

'Forget it.“The following topics and links are prohibited on Smart Car of America Forums: Religion, Death Penalty, and Politics”

Ok, since when does identifying as an atheist necessarily constitute a religious argument or even religion? Atheism by definition is the *rejection* of religion as it literally means 'without theism' from the Greek form, 'theos'. A-theos is literally 'without god or belief in god'.

Ostensibly, the forum admins are trying to avoid controversy which might lead to pages of in-fighting (which people can choose to ignore), but what good is a forum moderator if they can't even be bothered to moderate potentially volatile threads? Again, this was in the 'off-topic' section which should mean smart-owners are free to discuss issues, as long as it doesn't devolve into pure name-calling and threats, and these threads can be moderated.

Instead, the powers-that-be at SCOA seem to feel more comfortable with outright censorship based on the 'rules', but I would think censorship is far more volatile than moderating a 'potentially' controversial thread. Those who find these threads offensive always have the choice of ignoring them.

My post was merely an informal poll, like the vegan and gay threads, and was specifically posed to see who among my fellow-smart drivers shared my lack of belief in god(s). This rule, as applied, would necessarily mean that nobody could ever identify as any religion on the forum, ever.

Look what another admin said when I complained about censorship. Quoted in relevant part:

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

Ok, so the identifying as an atheist clearly doesn't fall into these categories, yet the thread about which smart-owners might be gay certainly *does*. Talk about selective application of rules. The reader will note that she had nothing to say in her defense after she was called out on this. Of course not. There is a clear double-standard at work.

My friends, this is a clear case of censorship, even if it's in the 'rules'. Sometimes, rules are wrong or too-broadly applied. After all, there used to be little rules about minorities being segregated from the majority, or women not being allowed to vote.

In this day and age, it's shocking that this still happens, but sadly not surprising. What's even more distressing is the lack of visible protests from other members who might be atheists or know agnostics, or understand the injustice that's happening. There were a few on that forum in support, but mostly....silence and thus, a form of complicity.

Here's what the smug admin had to say when I complained about the thread closure in a private message:

Whatever flood of protests you are hoping for is going the other way (by PM) – it has been positive for the action taken. You are, so far, alone in this.If you are in need of the support of atheists owning smarts, you are free to participate in atheist sites elsewhere, and ask the same question. As a start you might try something at groups.yahoo or groups.google*

* Full URL omitted to avoid linking.

I see. So it's ok for a smart-owner to ask, in an off-topic section, about who in the forum might be gay or vegan (controversial for many), even though talking about 'sexually-oriented' content is in clear violation of the forum rules. Why is it not permissible to ask who might be atheist even though by itself it's not a religious argument? Add to that the smug way in which the admin tries to convince me I am 'alone in this' which is probably why he thought he could get away with such a thing. You see, fellow non-believers...this is exactly why some theists feel they can abuse non-believers.. We seek fair treatment, but we still get abuse and discrimination because some feel that we're such an insignificant or silent minority that we just don't matter. This is exactly why we need to be out of that 'other closet' en-masse as we've seen with the success of the gay-movement.

Tell someone they can't talk about being 'African' or 'Italian' and there would be hell to pay. Tell someone they can't mention that they are a Christian or Jew and you'd see a backlash. Why is the mere mention of identification with 'atheism' seen as a 'religious' statement? By this logic, mentioning that you're abstinent would be sexual harassment?

This may all seem trivial, but it's still discrimination, and it's a reflection of the 'majority rules' scenario which has historically trampled on the rights of the minority, simply because it was smugly thought that the majority could get away with it. As long as people are cowed into silence, we will never have a collective voice, and this is why it's so important for minorities, especially the most-hated minority (atheists) all over the world to speak out, be heard, be seen.

When people realize how populous this abused minority is, they might think twice about being so cavalier with discrimination, even in the small, annoying ways which happen every day.

Sure, most of us on the SCOA drive 'smart' cars, but by no means should anyone assume that all of us are logical, forward-thinking, progressive or even smart. It makes me very glad I didn't 'become a member' and give them my hard-earned money....but apparently they think atheists are such a tiny, insignificant minority that our opinions and support just don't matter. ...even in such a tiny-sub group known as 'Smart-Car Owners of America'.

This is more than just discrimination on an obscure forum. It's a reflection of the world we all still live in, and a small core-sample of daily abuses.

I recommend that all of you who identify with labels such as atheist, agnostic, freethinker, secularist, rationalist, non-theist, etc. make yourselves known. The sooner people realize that they can't get away with blatant discrimination and abuse, the sooner we'll get the fair-treatment we're asking for.


-dB-

Carpool Lanes and Lane Discipline.

One of the biggest problems plaguing U.S. drivers and traffic-flow lies with inefficient lane-usage due to poor driver-training, self-righteous drivers, too much focus on simple-minded myths such as 'speed kills' and over-enthusiastic enforcement of unrealistic speed laws. Throwing extra lanes or 'carpool' lanes at the problem doesn't noticeably improve traffic efficiency for the majority of drivers.

In Germany, drivers enjoy higher average speeds and fewer accidents per mile. The 'speed-kills' proponents should really consider and research this: they drive *faster* than us on average but have fewer accidents per mile. This is due in large part to better driver training but a social phenomenon which is heavily peer and police enforced, and that is lane discipline.

Lane discipline, simply put, is about being at the right speed for the lane, allowing faster traffic to pass and making effective passes yourself. Slower traffic on the right, passing on the left, no exceptions. This means, if you're not passing, you're not in the left (fast) lane. If you're going the same speed as the guy to your right, you're a rolling roadblock and should not be in that lane to begin with. If a faster car is approaching from behind....you don't become citizen-cop and block him, you move over *before* he gets to you so he can pass without losing momentum.

Sadly, American drivers get the giant fail-horn when it comes to these simple acts of courtesy, and it's no wonder our freeways are a snarled mess of rolling roadblocks with drivers heads firmly planted up their posteriors, self-appointed officer Stouts who think it's their duty to slow-down faster traffic, and slowpokes who think they have a right to any lane they happen to find themselves in.

Of course, we can't totally blame American drivers, because political pressure and police enforcement and has centered so much around myths such as 'speed kills' and the former, '55 saves lives'.

For those who've driven on a California freeway recently in free-flowing conditions, the average speed is around 75-80. Going 65 in the 'fast' lanes would simply slow down the freeway and create a slalom course that faster drivers are forced to navigate. Some of those faster drivers are going to be very pissed off about a rolling roadblock, which results in a faster, potentially-angry driver who is now taking more risks among additional lane-changes. Naturally, this is going to lead to more accidents, and the culprit here is not outright speed as is often-blamed but the lack of lane-discipline resulting in roadrage. If the slowpokes stayed to the right and allowed faster traffic to go through, there would be fewer people forced to break momentum and happier drivers all-around.

Here's a quick quiz for the safetycrats who bleat, 'speed kills':

Which is the correct answer to this DMV permit-test question:

When merging onto a freeway, you should be driving

a. At or near the same speed as the freeway traffic
b. At the legal freeway speed limit
c. Slower than the freeway traffic

The correct answer is a., 'At or near the same speed as the freeway traffic'.

So, if the freeway is going about 75, and the speed limit is 65, there's a mixed message here, especially since most drivers have gotten tickets for 75-80 in their lifetimes. On one hand you have a speed limit with a severe financial penalty for being 'caught' driving with the flow of traffic, but logic indicates that less speed difference or disparity is safer than being much slower or faster than surrounding traffic.

It's also safer for people to make fewer lane-changes, but a lack of lane-discipline forces not only more lane-changes, but potentially-angry lane-changes. Those who are terrorized by 'maniac drivers' all the time are probably making the mistake of driving too slowly for their lane-choice and thus, they tend to be on the receiving end of more than their fair-share of road rage.

Here is how surface-street (non-freeway) speed-limits are established:

A traffic engineer sits out there with an unmarked car and surveys the speed of at least 50 cars on a given stretch of road in free-flowing conditions. The road should not be within 150 feet of a traffic control device such as a stop sign or traffic light, and not on a curve. The engineer measures the 85th percentile speed and this is what the prima-facie limit is based on, barring extenuating conditions. The 85th percentile is considered to be the amount of people who drive at speeds 'safe for conditions' based on the road, traffic, weather, etc.

However, the freeway completely ignores this methodology, and in fact, the freeway limits in CA used to be 55, hence the outdated phrase, '55 saves lives'. The 55 mph limit was prompted by the gas crunch of the 70's, and had little to do with saving any lives. When this low-limit was lifted, accident rates *went down*. The 65 mph limit on CA freeways actually improved things and evened out traffic flow...especially considering the modernization of vehicles over the years which can easily handle the higher-speeds.

The MUTCD is the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This is the federal manual which all states must be in majority compliance with regarding speed limits, roadsigns and markings, etc. This manual also warns against speed limits which are artificially low for the same reason....artificially low speed limits may make citizens feel safer and generate lots of revenue for the city, but will invariably result in more accidents.

When drivers take an artificially-low speed limit seriously (prompted by enthusiastic ticket-writing), citizens slow down and the 85th percentile driving at speeds safe for conditions will encounter those slow drivers, resulting in more lane changes and you guessed it, more accidents.

Higher limits tend to 'even' out the traffic flow, as long as the higher limits relate to the 85th percentile of measured drivers, since the slowpokes won't be encouraged to drive even slower, and the faster drivers aren't going to be blocked as much by slowpokes. Overall, it means less speed disparity and thus, fewer accidents.

So if the 85th percentile speed works for surface streets, why isn't this logic applied to freeways? I am sure any measurement in free-flowing conditions would show an 85th percentile of 70+, and the 65 mph limit is encouraging slower traffic to think their slow speed is ok in even the fastest lanes of a freeway going 75-80, though smarter slowpokes will avoid these faster lanes for self-preservation.

The artificially low-speed limit on freeways is tantamount to a speed-trap, as the 65 mph limit in most places ignores the 85th percentile speed. This is a cause of greater speed disparity, increased lane-changes and more accidents than if the speed limits were more realistic and realistically-enforced with more emphasis on lane-discipline.

Carpool lanes are an ineffective band-aid. If drivers practiced effective lane-discipline, there would be far more efficient-use of the lanes...even on a two-lane road. It's almost comical to be on a 5 lane freeway and then sure enough, some arse-tard is in the number 1 (fast) lane, driving the exact same speed as the guy to his right. If the person didn't have his head squarely up his bum he would be in the lane to the right, going the same speed as his road-block buddy but in front or behind him without being the source of road-rage.

In addition, the carpool lane is a farce when drivers can qualify for this lane by carrying a child. Last I checked, children cannot drive, at least not very well. Why on Earth does a soccer mom get to bring her gigantic land-barge into the carpool lane just because 2-year-old Timmy is in the child-carrier? How does this take any driver off the road or benefit anyone? What next, do we start at conception and let the preggers mom go into the carpool lane? After all, she's driving for two, right? It's re-god-damn-diculous. If more than one person qualifies you for the carpool lane, that other driver should be at least 15 with a valid driver's license, otherwise we're not taking any cars off the road, and the carpool lane is tantamount to a breeder-lane. I'd say that's a little-bit retarded.

Motorcycles qualify for the carpool lane, but they take hardly any space, are gas-efficient, take hardly any room for parking and it's good to encourage riders not to drive bigger cages. As a motorcycle-rider myself, I benefit from the carpool lane directly, but I'd be all for removing all carpool lanes. They just don't work for the majority.

Another issue is hybrids. Hybrid-cars in CA are allowed in the carpool lanes with a solo-occupant, but only if they have the special state-issued tags. They've stopped handing out these tags though, probably due to the sheer number of hybrids on the road and the obvious tactic of buying a hybrid simply for use in the carpool lane when commuting.

The search for alternative fuels presses on, and saying 'hybrid' in 5-10 years will be like saying 'vehicle' today. The majority of cars will be some kind of alternative-fuel or electric vehicle and the lower-carbon footprint reward of the carpool-lane will be moot. Of course, my smart (car) doesn't qualify me for the carpool lane even though it's the best MPG gas-powered car in the U.S. right behind the hybrids, takes up way less space to park, doesn't have a bunch of batteries to dispose of later and costs 10k less. ;) There are other gas-powered cars which are very 'green' but are disallowed from the carpool lane with a solo driver. The hybrid-carpool benefit simply won't work in a day and age where every auto-manufacturer is 'going green' and moving into hybrid technology.

All it takes is one slow-ass vehicle to clog the carpool lane and the lane becomes much less effective, and this goes for giant buses too. Ok sure, they are definitely carpooling, but isn't a bus too big for a carpool lane? Why are we encouraging a giant-arse bus to go ALLLLLLL the way across all the lanes to the carpool lane, and then go alllll the way back to exit the freeway? That's completely stupid. Buses and other multi-axle vehicles should not be allowed in the carpool lane and should stay to the right where they belong with the trucks and other slow, multi-axle traffic. After all, we don't see tractor-trailers in the carpool lane just because there's a toddler in the front-cab, do we?

So yeah, carpool lanes aren't fixing anything, but are a boon to a slim minority with specially-tagged hybrids, those who ride motorcycles and people carrying other adults or non-driving kids.

If we simply emphasize lane-discipline over speed-myths, remove carpool lanes and improve driver-training (including proper cell-phone use and no god-damn texting while-driving), I think we'd be better off.

-dB-

New Dawkins Book (and Other Thoughts).

Richard Dawkins's new book entitled, 'The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution' is being officially released today in the United States. I definitely plan to pick up a copy in case I run into one of the 40% of U.S. citizens Dawkins mentions who don't accept the fact of evolution (education time). It's also just a fascinating subject in general, and I am looking forward to the coverage of artifical selection relating to the domestication and breeding of our canine friends. Book review coming later!

I understand that evolution is out of the perview of atheism, but many who reject evolution do so because of conflicting ideas from their religion. That doesn't stop progressive theists from accepting evolution as they would accept the law of gravitation or atomic theory. And really, there doesn't need to be a conflict between theism and evolution. A liberal theist could just assume their 'god' started it all but that evolution was allowed to happen on its own. Not a logical argument for god, but it allows the theist the luxury to avoid the faith-arguments but still accept obvious scientific fact. There is a choice to be made here though, as most religions offer a creation myth that is expected to be taken seriously...because it's not like ministers, pastors and priests the world over are saying 'this part of the Bible is ok to reject but you must accept this part or burn in eternal hellfire forever'. Although, progressive-theism must do exactly that, reject large chunks of their holy books or be mired in medieval fundamentalism.

Incidentally, I am going to give Borders my business until the more conveniently-located Barnes and Noble has an atheist section where you'd find some of Dawkins's other books (such as 'The God Delusion'). We're too numerous as a minority group to be forced to buy our books alongside bibles, and atheism is most certainly not a 'religion' even though the term does deal with the rejection of theism. With the popularity of these books, and considering that they're probably going to get a lot more popular in the coming years, atheism deserves its own section in any bookstore. Hell at one time I could barely find any atheist books in stores and yet the religion section was huge. It's probably why I stopped going to bookstores altogether (though it's high-comedy to place the odd Bible in the science-fiction section). ;)

It's not like fundies are going to rush to buy books from the new-atheists, but the people they're trying to convince are quickly getting much better educated at taking down Bronze-age superstition, and the popularity of these books is telling. Fewer people are buying the whole religion thing, and more of them are actively resisting these crazy ideas.

With the Intertubes, good ideas spread fast and bad ideas are knocked down from every angle, not the least of which is Snopes helping to kill email chains with silly, repeated rumors and myths. I am surprised anyone could stay a Fundy very long if they feel compelled to talk about it at a young age because they'd be beleaguered by those willing to show them how they're wrong....in email, on blogs, YouTube, etc. The days of religious claims going unchallenged for years are over forever....even if parents try to shelter their kids in private-schools, the Internet is going to pounce all over silly beliefs and it doesn't generally have a delicate touch.

Usually I read new Kindle books on my iPhone with a wonderful little (free) app called, and you may have guessed, 'Kindle for iPhone'.

That's right, it's a port of the Kindle software you've read about for the Amazon Kindle, only Kindle for iPhone lets you read Kindle books with a backlight, which the real Kindle doesn't have (and sorely needs as an option you can toggle). You can read any Kindle book with 'Kindle for iPhone' so it's easy to buy new books with the 1-click feature at Amazon.com, just as you would with Kindle. I love it.

The variety of books on Kindle blows away any other e-reader, and being able to sneak into bed with the girlfriend and not wake her up while reading 'Infidel' by Ayaan Hirsi Ali or 'Stolen Innocence' by Elissa Wall was fantastic. Both of these books are escape-from-fundamentalist religion stories of sorts and are highly-recommended.

'Infidel' depicts the oppression of being an Ethioian Muslim and the horrific rituals and practices associated with that before Ayaan makes her escape, but not before she suffers the horrors of female castration and other indignities.

Wall's 'Stolen Innocence' delves into her experiences as a female in the Mormon Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS), where girls are 'placed' with their grooms at 14 (or younger) and whole communities live under the control of their 'prophet'. Wall was married off young, against her will to a boy she didn't even like...it's amazing people still live like this, and uplifting that some escape before lasting damage is done.

Whether you opt for hardback or a new Kindle book, there's a lot of resources to become educated enough to take on Fundies or apologists of any religion.

Evolution has nothing to do with atheism, but it seems fundies everywhere are attacking evolution as if somehow that leaves their crazy Creation-myth as the 'only' alternative. No doubt, Richard Dawkins's latest book will further arm your logical minds to combat some of the anti-evolution propaganda you'll encounter at some point, especially if you're an outspoken atheist.

America is (Not) a Christian Nation.

There are some who will go to any length to convince you of their brand of religion, including revising U.S. History. This is either an honestly mistaken belief due to an amazing historical ignorance or a lie perpetrated to convince others to embrace Christianity. Either way it's an anti-intellectual affront and needs to be confronted whenever it's repeated.

Our forefathers had the tremendous foresight to collectively forge the first-ever secular Constitution on the planet. The Constitution, our founding document, is godless. There is no mention of following any commandments, no religious decrees, no deference to commandments or Bibles. It's a secular governmental document, by the people and for the people, not by god(s) or for any god(s). Our founding fathers understood that unless we are free *from* religion we cannot enjoy religious freedom at all.

If you lived in pre-1776 England, you would not have had the choice of which religion you followed in the English church-state. In fact, the European witch-hunts were in full-swing at the time...admitting any kind of non-orthodoxy was still a life-risking proposition, let alone the deism of Thomas Jefferson or the atheism of James Madison.

The 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution says it plainly;

'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free-exercise thereof'.

This means, in matters of religion, government is neutral. Religion nor atheism should be endorsed by any government-entity. Likewise, the government legal process should not include any kind of religious test, including swearing on a Koran, the Vedas, Talmud or Bible.

How would it feel to have an entire-courtroom see you refuse to swear on a Bible before your testimony even begins? This could affect the outcome of the trial if the jury or judge is very religious, and it's tantamount to an unconstitutional religious-test and is in clear-violation of the 1st-amendment. Yet, this happens every-day in America.

The removal of religious-oppression by government-entities such as courtrooms, public schools, presidential inaugurations, public monuments, etc. is *not* tantamount to atheism, as some might propose. It's simply neutrality. There should not be any government endorsement of religion or active rejection thereof as stated clearly in the 1st amendment.

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli explicitly states in Article 11 that America is not a Christian Nation.

'Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries'.

Some would claim that our money is 'evidence' that this is a 'Christian Nation' by virtue of the fact that it's been infected with the religious slogan; 'In God We Trust'. Similarly, our pledge also has 'Under God' in it, which some believe is further evidence that this nation was intended to be god-fearing.

It might surprise some to know that the religious-language on our money and in our pledge are recent developments, and were originally secular.

Our pledge was written in 1892 by a Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, and did not originally include 'Under God'. The divisive 'Under God' was added in 1954 by President Eisenhower at the behest of Christian special-interest groups such as the Knights of Columbus. Here's the unblemished pledge before it was altered:

'I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America,
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible
with liberty and justice for all'.

One might note that the original pledge is all-inclusive. The addition of 'Under God' instantly forces everyone reciting the pledge to be 'under' something, subserviant to an unseen 'diety' which has dominion over all, and makes all non-Christians and non-believers second-class citizens. It's amazingly divisive and is a clear violation of the intentions of the forefathers and the 1st-amendment.

Our money has 'In God We Trust' on it, but this wasn't added until 1957 on paper money, though it was on coins earlier. Most likely, the 'In God We Trust' motto was a reaction to McCarthyism and the 'Red Scare' associated with communism and atheism. However, it's possible to be a communist without being an atheist and most atheists are decidedly not communists.

Prior to religious-prayer now on our currency the Latin motto was 'E Pluribus Unem', which literally translates to 'From Many, One'. This phrase is all-inclusive regardless of religious-association or lack thereof. 'In God We Trust' is divisive, simply because people worship different gods and some don't submit to any gods. Again, this religious-notion violates the intention of the founding fathers and the 1st-amendment, and forces non-Christians and the non-religious to be party to theist-oppression. Our secular democratic republic is not merely majority rule, but serves to protect the minority from the majority. Otherwise, Jim Crow laws would still be in force, and women would still be disallowed from the voting booth. In the same manner, it's not Constitutionally right to oppress non-Christians and non-religious Americans with conflicting religious whims of a Christian majority.

Removing the oppressive religious language unconstitutionally-inserted into our pledge, money, court-rooms, schools, public parks or any governmental agency is a return to government neutrality and secularism as the founding fathers rightly intended. This neutrality still allows freedom of religion. The difference is that government should not endorse any one religion over another, or endorse religion over irrelegion.

Our forefathers and early patriots sought to escape the church-state of England, and many died establishing and defending the new colonies and the first-ever secular Constitution. We as free Americans should uphold church-state separation and the 1st amendment, because if there's no freedom *from* religion then there is truly no freedom of religion. If we slip into a theocractic church-state again we'll be right back where started in 1775 England.

As is often said, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." -Thomas Jefferson

-dB-

What's That Funny Noise?

When you hear sirens, pull over to the right, park and wait for the emergency vehicles to pass (in case there is more than one). It does not mean 'FREEZE WHERE YOU ARE'.

All too often when I hear sirens I see people in cars STOP right where they are in the road. When did they stop teaching the proper response to sirens in driving-school and how does stopping in place help anything? Should the firetruck, ambulance or police car now have to go around everyone who stopped in place? If enough people do this, there simply won't be a path for the emergent vehicle.

People need to think about why the siren is on in the first place. It's there to alert other motorists to the emergency vehicle, but also because the siren-blaring e-vehicle might need to run a light or go the wrong way on a given road...but the important thing is that they have a clear-path...imagine it's a cop responding to attempted murder, an ambulance with a cardiac patient or a firetruck racing toward a brush-fire. There's no time to be sloppy and distracted.

When enough people stop in place you have people effectively blocking the the siren-vehicle's path of travel or at least creating a slalom course, and stopping in place is just a giant roadblock when there's heavy traffic. Thankfully, some people still move over and actually clear-up road to make up for the numbnuts who stop in place.

If everyone makes an attempt to move to the right, the emergency vehicle would understand the maneuver and would take the clear path to your left...that is, until he runs into the next fucktard who's stopped in place.

The other day, I saw someone in a car with a cop behind her....full sirens and lights...what did she do? She STOPPED right in front of the cop. The cop, with nowhere else to go (and I watched the whole thing from the sidewalk) had to sit there until the lady eventually figured out her error and moved out of the way. Why is it that people pull to the right (or the left on occasion) when pulled over for a ticket, but some people have this crazy idea that it's good to just stop in place when hearing a siren meant for someone else? Sure, it can be startling or confusing, but if you pull to the right it will satisfy any emergency vehicle trying to get through and if it's a cop after you, it's going to be better than stopping in the middle of a busy road. No need to think too much about it, just clear a path.

The downside to stopping in place means the emergency vehicle has to go around you still, but if someone in other lanes pulled the same bonehead maneuver of stopping in place eventually the emergency vehicle will be trapped again. Other drivers, distracted by the emergency vehicle, might rear-end the stopped-driver. Nobody expects someone to be STOPPED in the middle of the road, but the distraction of the commotion combined with jackwipe being stopped in the lane sets that person up for a rear-ender. Congrats, if there's a rear-end collision there are now two emergencies.

When you hear sirens...pull over to the right, wait for the emergency vehicle to pass, and then you're on your way. You'll demonstrate proper behaviour during the commotion and you won't be blocking an emergency vehicle from its timely-arrival. Even just pulling into the right lane is better than stopping in place since it's a temporary path you're helping to clear.

After all, if the emergency was for our families we'd want others to clear a path ASAP, right? Right.

Spread the word.

-dB-

Faith is Not a Choice (And How I Lost Mine).

First, let me state that people don't necessarily 'choose' their beliefs. Instead, they choose how critically (or not) they review new ideas and challenges to their existing beliefs. Atheists don't just 'choose' to dismiss their beliefs, so much as their logical mind eventually defeats their dogma, and a dismissal of the old-belief is inevitable. However, if you can convince someone of an idea before their logical minds are even formed, you're probably going to get the idea to sink-in, unfettered by opposition.

Sadly, children are convinced at a young age to believe in a 'god', and they lack the mental faculties and logical-prowess to protest in any effective manner, not to mention that they rely on their parents for everything. Imagine a six-year old who laughs off a parent's earnest description of god as 'nonsense', what kind of life would this kid have? As a matter of self-preservation, it's probably good that kinds don't protest too much early-on, for the same reason the child needs to listen when the parent warns against touching hot stoves or running into traffic. It's unfortunate that most kids taught religion at a young age are infected for life, and continue to hold ridiculous beliefs they pass on to their kids...so much so that when faced with a devastating logical challenge they will often react completely irrationally.

There's no reason at such a young age to think your parents are lying, deluded or downright bloody stupid. Kids just don't know any better. I knew one kid in school who thought he was an elf, simply because this is something his mom believed as well. He gave an oral report about it....and as funny as it was at the time, I find it kind of depressing now (but he did kinda look like an elf).

A child can see the clear problems with the very definition of things that contradict....like a square circle, or a big-small thing or something that is hot and cold...or other contradictory definitions. However, if you get them young enough, you can pretty much convince them of anything...you're an elf, there's an invisible space-spook watching your every move, and Santa delivers presents on Christmas eve to every kid in the world in one night. Sure, kids outgrow the notion of Santa Claus simply because adults don't really believe it, nor do older kids....but 'god' is a fairy tale most adults DO believe. When a child cries after discovering there's no Santa Claus...this is what some grown-people do when they discover there's no god....except it's all-too often preceded by anger and hostility toward the messenger. Adults seem to be much less resilient than children in this regard.

It's going to be confusing to a child when he/she is told that a god knows everything, is all-powerful and perfect and all-good and loving, but will let mommy's new baby die inside her tummy while the Duggars can pop out 19 of them without issue.

Why?

A kid's 'why' response oftens gets beaten-down early by those who find tough questions to be uncomfortable or threatening. A true-believer won't often call god evil or stupid or cruel as he should...instead people tend to make excuses for this evil space pixie. 'He's testing me. He's asking me to wait. Now is not the right time, I can't question him or his plan'.

Faith is not a choice, it's something you've been convinced of, usually at such a young age that it's out of the scope of your review process. It's internalized and often defended with territorial ferocity and irrational fervor. People routinely die or let others die merely because they're convinced of some fundamental deception about how the Universe works, and because being wrong can be so uncomfortable...moreso with a longer investment in an erroneous idea.

It behooves people to unravel their assumptions when reviewing ideas...including their own. How one responds to a challenge to one's beliefs is a test of courage, integrity and intellectual honesty.

Some people, when challenged on their belief in god, simply try to paint ruses and confuse or distract you, especially right before you trap them in unassailable logic (they can see it coming usually). Some will talk over you, or try to pressure you into shutting up, or threaten violence or change the subject or pretend to be distracted, or pretend 'evolution' or 'Darwinism' is on equal-footing with their god-belief in order to make it seem as if you're both in the same boat of religion. Nobody likes to feel stupid, but nothing makes people feel stupid faster than defending a barbaric, irrational religion with someone who can reason better than a child.

The courageous and intellectually honest-theist hears about the logical contradiction of how a loving god lets babies suffer and die and says, 'You're right, that's pretty crazy, I wouldn't let babies die if I were god'. This is an honest and no-nonsense response. This is how a *reasonable* person responds to the logical contradiction when pointed out. The reasonable theist, after being faced with this devastating argument from evil, should step back a bit and re-examine his faith on the spot and not make excuses for their killer god anymore than someone would be tolerated making excuses for Hitler or Stalin.

That's right, few of us would let babies suffer and die if we were god, because we're nicer and more logical than god. An all-powerful being, who knows everything and is *good* would simply not let this happen. Furthermore, god can't 'let' anything happen because he *makes* it happen...yes, if he's truly all-knowing, he knows everything for infinity past and future, meaning everything that happens is exactly to his plan: every miscarriage, holy war, epidemic, the rise of Hitler and venereal warts. All exactly to god's plan, and nothing that an all-powerful being wants can be denied, right?

Growing up, I was a devout Catholic, though in high-school my new circle of friends and experiences at various churches and youth-groups had me gravitating toward a more 'born again' Christianity. I prayed before meals and at night, read the Bible, made religious artwork (some of which I still have), communicated with God on a daily basis...asking him for stuff, thanking him, giving him credit or asking for guidance. I would acknowledge the cross in my room, and I distinctly remember playing guitar at a Christian youth-group I would attend on Tuesday nights...talking about God and religion and the Bible and such. The 'no true Scotsman' fallacy does not apply here (since some annoyed theists would simply deny that I was a 'real' Christian).

My family was Catholic (Irish-Italian) and my religion-primed brain readily accepted other hokum that my family believed: telekinesis, psychics, ghosts, Satanic lyrics embedded into backward-played records and other phenomenae. I actually destroyed my AC/DC album 'Back in Black' because I thought I heard 'Oh Lord Satan' in the lyrics when played backward. My mom was upset that we were Dungeons and Dragons fans, thinking it was somehow Satanic, and I remember my Dad being upset with certain art my brother made thinking it was Devilish or evil in some way. They weren't fanatics, but my family was definitely infected with religion, and they went back to be re-infected at our local Catholic church on a regular basis.

In 1989 at age 20, I was working with a somewhat zany yet brilliant software engineer at a new company making Nintendo games. He was my boss but our relationship was more like workmates/friends. We discussed everything under the sun while we worked into the wee hours making games...everything from Transcendental Meditation to the wonders of Indian food to how many fairies could dance on the head of a pin, and religion. He was a funny guy...not forceful in his atheism or high-pressure or anything, but questioned my logic when it came to my defense of a god-belief in his characteristically witty manner. I had never heard Christian apologetics, but I made plenty of apologist arguments and fallacies such as the argument from numbers (a lot of people believe it), Pascal's Wager (safe bet to believe rather than end up in Hell), and other unwitting apologist claptrap or outright fallacies.

This issue with Pascal's Wager is that it doesn't consider the fact that you lose a lot of time and resources praying to the wrong god if you end up in say, Islamic Hell or praying to a god which isn't even there. Argument from numbers doesn't work because the majority of people have been on the wrong side of a lot of issues (astronomy, slavery and civil rights, women's rights, etc.).

What happened was, his arguments made sense to me, but it internally embarrassed and infuriated me to be bested logically. I felt like a lawyer defending my client 'God'.

I knew that something was wrong. Either my client was a murderous and wantonly evil tyrant as he was saying it was depicted in the Bible, my client didn't exist as claimed or I needed to do more Bible-research and find explanations for this stuff.

Spurred by what I felt were logical defeats and seeking to defeat his arguments, I did some research. I looked up the Bible phrases he mentioned depicting god's killing sprees or when god's name is invoked by those on killing sprees. I checked out the babies being dashed on rocks, the hatred and recommended stoning of homosexuals, the condoning of slavery and instructions for keeping them, etc. Everything he generally mentioned about the Bible was shocking because I thought I knew my Bible, but more shocking when I verified the atrocities within the Bible! Suddenly, it was seeming like a whole different book. How come I didn't hear about this stuff in church? Why did we believe this whole book, but the priest only talked about the nicer stuff before the collection plates went out?

Then, it dawned on me. I was simply lied to, or those who were talking about the virtues of the Bible were either seriously omitting the bad parts, or were just as clueless about the bad parts as I was. It seemed that none of the atrocities of the Bible (aside from the snake-framing, the flood and Hell) were discussed, and since those who sit passively in church listening can't really stop a sermon to ask questions, nobody ever learned anything but what the priest felt like talking about unless they delved deep into their Bibles themselves (with a critical mind). No wonder the Catholic church banned reading the Bible for yourself in most of its history.

Within a month, I had rejected the Bible, and fired my client 'God'. I realized he didn't exist, and couldn't exist with all the evil in the world.

Isaiah 45:7 reads:

'I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.'

Well, of course. Either god made *everything* as claimed or he didn't. If he didn't, then he's just a co-god, where another god is making other stuff. This would mean he's not the 'only' god and certainly not all-powerful if he cannot stop evil or stop creating it. If god is *good* then he'd want to stop suffering. But, Isaiah 45:7 clearly states that God 'created evil' and thus he IS evil. If God is everything, he is as evil as he is good. He is the hangnail, the stillbirth, the AIDS epidemic, and the kid-diddling Catholic priest. Be relieved there's no god, because if he does exist he's an evil bastard.

Either way, within a month of meeting and discussing real issues with the first atheist I met, I rejected my belief. It took some courage (willing to face objections head-on without ruses or game-playing), integrity (willing to follow logic where it lead me) and intellectual honesty (willing to admit being wrong).

20 years of inculcation unraveled in a month. It was disturbing and difficult though. One does not release a lifelong faith without some kind of trauma...because I felt even reviewing the evidence put me in very bad stead with God, which I still believed in until I didn't. But, it's like going against a cult-leader. The more you resist, the angrier he is and the more you lose your support in the cult. Once you're out, you can see it was the best thing you ever did, but it gets harder (and scarier) before it gets better.

Giving up the idea of gods was a huge weight off of my mind and conscience. No more did I think a space-pixie was watching my every move. I had true privacy and I could finally sleep-in on Sunday without guilt. No longer did I accept any other crazy ideas which were predicated on god, or spirits, the devil, an afterlife, etc. I also released the crazy idea that Jewish people killed Jesus, as I no longer believed in Jesus as a diety who 'died for my sins'. Women were no more responsible for the downfall of mankind simply because they failed the talking snake apple-test framed by God. I was free to delve into the scientific wonders and explanations of the world such as evolution and astronomy, since I didn't have to experience a battle in my mind between Creation as explained in Genesis vs. the findings of science. I no longer had to lament how many times God ignored my desperate prayers, or answered insignificant ones, allowed gluttony for some while others starved or let some die while others thrive.

The injustice in the world is expected in a world without a god (and worse with god), but it's humans who can make things better. My mind was finally free of the crazy myths of Bronze-age desert nomads and I was free to take the world on its own terms, for better or worse. I had to rely on myself and my fellow humans without wasting energy appealing to some murderous space-pixie.

It was the most liberating experience I've ever had in my 41 years.

No matter how old you are, or how uncomfortable it is....always follow logic where it goes. Resisting, mental-trickery, ruses, semantic-games, all of those distract from the pursuit of truth and retard our collective progress. It will also make those who see through the ruses lose a lot of respect for the person's courage, integrity and intellectual honesty. If one avoids logic simply because it's uncomfortable, it's like the drug-addict or alcoholic who can't get clean because he wants to avoid withdrawl symptoms.

The beauty of being a good critical-thinker is that there's no truth with a capital 'T'. You're free to adjust as needed, honing your knowledge as new data comes in. In fact, the human enterprise relies on this process as we discover more about the Universe we live in...and we all benefit. Yes, even the young-Earth wack-a-doo Creationist who argues over the Internet about the dangers of EVILution probably doesn't comprehend the irony.

Sometimes, the truth hurts, but it's well worth it.

-dB-

19 Kids and Counting. Somebody Stop This Crazy Thing!

The Duggars are expecting their 19th kid. That's re-god-damn-diculous.

Surprise, it's all because religious nutters Jim-Bob and Michelle have this funny idea that a 'God' is 'blessing' them with kids. No, I would say your ignorant lack of birth-control is saddling you with kids. Poor Michelle's gonna keep popping them out until she collapses or gets a restraining order against Jim-Bob

Ok, I am all for personal freedoms, really. But where does it end? Clearly these people never plan to use birth-control as long as they have a genuine belief in a baby-blessing 'god', and it seems their friends the 'Bates' are trying to catch up, working on #17.

Incidentally, the Bates recently got help remodeling their home from the Duggars. During the tour, yes, Mrs. Bates called the master bedroom the 'Master Bates Room'. True Story. I live for these precious moments, almost too funny to handle....and I love the delicious fact that some cackling editor left that bit of pure evil in the show! TLC, you certainly are darker than you let on, and I love you for it.

What's sad is that due to persistent religious indoctrination via home 'schooling', the eldest Duggar Josh is probably gonna bang out kid after kid with his Christer-addled wife in exactly the same fashion with a spin-off TV show to cover it all. I am just wondering which Duggar will be the first gay-person or atheist and send the whole Leave it to Christer-Beaver illusion whirling out of control. ;)

The exponential potential here is just staggering, assuming each of the 19 kids (and counting) reproduce as vigorously as their parents. If each of the 19 kids has 19 kids, that's 361 more moronic creationists precious lives on the planet who actually think Ken Ham's Creation museum is 'science'. Call me a cynic, but I find it all depressing (though it's shocking and a bit of dark comedy to watch their show).

Sure, the Duggars make cute kids, and they all feign niceties with regard to the crazy things we unsaved outsiders do...like 'dancing' or as they might call it, 'writhing with Satanic lust'. I love their favorite curse-word too, 'interesting'. Ask them about anything they have an unwavering hatred for, and you can bet the saccharine-sweet Duggars will say, 'interesting' which is Duggar-code for 'OMFG WTF I HATE THAT SHIZZLE!'. The Duggars found Ethiopian cuisine quite 'interesting', as well as revealing wedding dresses....very, very interesting. I find those interesting too, but for different reasons. De-frauder™! A De-Frauder is Duggar Christer-speak for someone who promises sex but doesn't deliver. Sounds like a few girls I dated! If you cut a Duggar off on the freeway, do they say, 'Sir, you are VERY interesting!'? No, YOU'RE super interesting!!

Ok, maybe I dance and the Duggars don't, sure, but I don't have enough brothers and sisters to pack a nightclub, now do I? It's cute how their TV program shows the kids in chronological order, with the youngest one in a child-seat at the end. To the right of the youngest should be an animation of hundreds of sperm...because that's what's coming next (smarmy pun intended). What I am really wondering here (like Jon and Kate Plus 8) is how it will end. Will they show Michelle Duggar at age 50 popping out blessing number 28, or will we start seeing defects as her eggs get older and older? I for one am morbidly curious. Soon, they're gonna be like AOL with all the J-names....Jackson00213, Jessa40310, etc.

It's really too bad they're all being raised as home-schooled Creationists though, just the kind of view which stymies progress. Some of them might break through that little world of lies and inculcation someday, I know I did, but I didn't have 18 brainwashed siblings to contend with if I spoke up in dissent.

Now the Duggars might ask themselves, why would their crazy 'God' think it's a good idea to have 19-fucking kids, but creates barren would-be mothers or makes some babies stillborn or lets them starve to death?

I am sure a god would understand if the Duggars or anyone else decided to close the baby factory...after all, what the fuck is god gonna do, come down and open it back up? That's right, god won't do jack-diddly-squat coz god doesn't exist. If a 'god did exist you'd think it would heal amputees or let some women (many who believe in their same god) have *one* single child successfully where they're otherwise plagued by infertility or miscarriages.

Now, someone please educate these people. A Chick-style tract dropped in the mail about birth-control might be a message they'd understand....as long as they think it's from their friend Jesus (hey there's another 'J' name for #19, why beat around the bush?).

No matter what you think of the Duggars, they're really, really, really interesting! ;)

-dB-

Marriage: Who Needs It?

I hope you're settled in with a cool drink or hot cuppa joe, coz this is a long one! This could probably be a book, because there's a lot to say.

The premise is simple and direct: Nobody needs to be married in this day and age, and the legal downsides of divorce are tremendous.

I decided a long time ago that I don't need to be married *ever*, and this was back in 1989 or so when I de-converted from Catholicism. While some of us in our society are deprived of the right I also boycott in protest. As an atheist, I don't want to feed-into the 'married' couple ideal set up by ancient religions which I don't believe in, and any religious prescription to get married is irrelevant to me.

The concept of marriage comes from an institution where women were seen as chattel property. They didn't always have the right to vote and were told to 'honor and obey' their masters husbands....and all of this was after the understanding that there was no sex before marriage. Talk about motivation.

Pledging lifelong allegiance to a person based on the transient-insanity of sexual desire at a young age (or any age) is not the wisest choice, especially considering the change humans go through and the penalties for 'failure'.

Divorce has historically been shunned or could get one excommunicated from one's social networking group (church) and what many believe is the path to 'salvation'. Worse, divorce in modern times often means huge lawyer fees, alimony payments to maintain the lifestyle of an ex-spouse (usually the female) for a lifestyle she couldn't maintain without the partner in the first-place. On top of all this is community property law in relevant states and ball-busting judges with agendas who basically can decide your fate with the bang of a gavel...but if you're not married (assuming no common-law marriage) then you don't have to worry about the legal entanglements of divorce.

Without marriage, you're free to leave if it suits you and it keeps partners on better behaviour, and there won't be divorce lawyers banging on your door (and your bank account) with all the legal recourse in the world to make you miserable.

Child-support is often alimony in disguise and rarely relates directly to what a child actually needs as additional income (look at what celebrities pay in child-support). Since child-support follows the child, marriage doesn't relate to children at all except in some traditional religious sense, but religion has no effect on those immune from its dictates.

Sure, some of you are screaming at the monitor, 'Get a pre-nup doofus!'. Now, ask yourselves, why do you need a contract to *undo* the horrible contract that comes with a marriage certificate? Talk about a red-flag. It's like going to a car dealer with a lawyer-drafted contract to counter-act the bad contract you're getting into at the dealership. The simple thing to do is avoid the bad-contract in the first place.

Simply put, divorce can be insanely expensive, and confers too much power to the female (usually) and a legal system which has no business in the affairs (literally) of consenting adults.

It's disconcerting to think that the government 'stamps approval' on some relationships, but other taxpaying, consenting adults cannot marry at all because they share the same gender. Likewise, if four women want to marry one guy, what business is it of the government's? Guys with tremendous resources (or a convenient harem-religion) always attract multiple partners (same with powerful women). If they're all consenting adults, it's none of our business.

Oddly, straight couples under the age of 62 cannot even become domestic partners in California, where I live, though they *used* to be able to before politicians removed that law and just left us the 'all or nothing' marriage option.

Sure, companies can *elect* to honor heterosexual domestic-partners with regard to health-coverage, but there is no state-mandate. If you're straight and under 62 in California, it's marriage or nothing. If you're gay, it's domestic partnership or nothing. The logical thing would be to allow both straight and gay couples to enter into marriage or a domestic partnership if they so choose.

It's all a big hot flaming and discriminatory mess and I want no part of it.

Societal conditioning prepares young girls for marriage at an early age, though that trend is probably changing in 2009. There is a reason newsstands are plastered in 'Bride' magazines, but rarely will you find a 'Groom' magazine. There is a reason women want marriage in the U.S. more than men...they have everything to gain, generally speaking, and little to lose, whereas men stand to lose a lot in the event of divorce.

As an atheist, I am not bound by the dictates of the church. I am free to ignore its prescriptions for celibacy before marriage and ignore the very idea of marriage itself. After all, who invented this idea? It's out-dated and simply unnecessary in a modern age.

Some will fall under the misconception (usually promoted by wannabe brides) that marriage=commitment. Wrong. Divorce rates speak for themselves. Over half of marriages end in divorce, even with couples who claim to be religious (since they are the majority in the first place). In fact, unmarried households now outnumber traditional, married households as reported by U.S. Today in 2006. This shows that the trend is going away from marriage simply because it just doesn't work, statistically-speaking, and there's a lot to lose if you're in the more than 50% who end up getting divorced.

Speaking of commitment, some women will use this buzzword to try and get a guy to marry them, and I guess some men might do that, but you'll most often hear this from women on talk-shows, in books, articles, etc. The idea is that if the man doesn't 'commit', then the woman should find someone else to 'commit' and marry her. What is the idea here, to find a spouse or find the *right* person who you want to spend time with? Why do people feel they need a label, a legal paper and an expensive ceremony to feel 'committed' to someone, all the while being willing to let a good person go if they won't sign a legal document? Sounds like extortion to me. Imagine pressuring your friends....'Hey man, be my friend for life or find another friend!'. The logic just doesn't make any kind of sense.

If a woman is willing to leave you, a man she wants to be with forever simply because you won't sign a contract to marry, then she doesn't really want to be with you forever. It's simple. You're easily replaced, and she is telling you that unless you sign this contract, you're going to be replaced by someone else she wants to be with 'forever'...someone who WILL sign on the dotted line.

Commitment is not on a legal document. It's in the mind and displayed in your behavior. Unless I am missing something, people don't go to the altar with the intent to get divorced in the forseeable future (except gold-diggers who nobody should unwittingly marry in the first place). Ostensibly, those who get married take their vows seriously enough, and would prefer to stay married. But, life isn't a fairytale. Some people cheat, they grow bored, they change (sometimes wildly so), they disagree about fundamental issues such as religion, kids, money, in-laws, or what kind of wedding cake to get.

Humans are dynamic creatures, and evolution didn't shape us (notably, males) for long-term monogamy. Women drop an egg a month, men generate billions of sperm a day. If monogamy happens, great, and those who enter into relationships should honor the physical well-being of their partners and not spread diseases they might catch in a tryst. The moment one cheats, it behooves that person to tell his/her partner and abstain from sex until then. It's one thing to change your mind, but it's another to expose an innocent party by way of undisclosed dalliances.

That said, humans change...it's guaranteed. Whether you will change together or not cannot be known and it's another reason not to try and put a 'forever' label on marriage.

Let's pretend for a second that 'marriage' is just the first of two-stages of arbitrary 'commitment' labels. What if there was another level called 'Flarriage'? Would the partner then be comparing and contrasting with her friends, annoyed that the hubs will marry her but not 'Flarry' her? It could get ridiculous. One of the reasons I think that women get annoyed when they're not married is that they see it as some sort of personal failure, as if they weren't 'good enough' to 'get' a guy to marry them. But, there's no competition. What matters is whether you enjoy spending time with the person and whether you want to mutually continue.

The analogy just demonstrates that the label 'marriage' is arbitrary, even if it's widely thought to be something more. With regard to real commitment, it's in your brain and your 'heart' so to speak, not on a legal document. In fact, the false-security of marriage might cause some people to cheat, simply because they feel more trapped than they otherwise would....and they feel trapped because in a very real legal sense, they are.

The reason people get cold feet, most notably men, is because they are about to sign a paper which assumes they'll be together forever in the eyes of the law and their church for those who are religious, but with a huge penalty for failure (divorce) leading to a serious financial hit which can last a lifetime. In California, an alimony award (usually to the female) will cost the male *for life* if the couple were married over 10 years. Yeah, cold-feet isn't just a worry about the open-bar tab after the reception. Imagine deciding you'd rather have a Mini-Cooper than a paid-off Honda, but you still have to pay for the Honda even when someone else is driving it!

Some marriage proponents (or those seeking company in their misery) will note the perks that come with the legal rat's-nest of matrimony. Yes, there are rights conferred to married people that are withheld from gay or unmarried straight couples, but this is discrimination and should be treated accordingly...even by people who are allowed to get married.

Take hospital visitation, for instance. The law allows family and spouses visitation rights whereas it's disallowed for unmarried partners. Domestic partners who are government-recognized have these and next-of-kin rights in some states, but straight-couples under 62 cannot even get domestic partnership status if they wanted to!

It's not up to the hospital to decide who should visit you. If you're conscious, you should have a list of people who are allowed to see you, and those who are blocked at the nurse's station. Some people may have a dear friend they'd love to see and family they never want to see. Simply because someone is a spouse or family-member has nothing to do with visitation, but those who aren't having government approved sexual relations suffer the abuse of discrimination, simply because they are not married or straight. This will change, but it's been an issue.

With regard to death benefits...anyone can set up a will or other legal means to protect the partner in the event of death and through life-insurance. You certainly don't need marriage for this.

In the old days, you could not get a hotel room with your girlfriend/boyfriend without being married. Those days are over. Common law marriage was an awful Draconian practice where the government would 'marry you anyway' if you lived with someone for 7-10 years, depending on your state. Thankfully, this ridiculous law is off the books in most states (including my home state of California).

The downsides of unmarried relationships are minimal nowadays, but the downsides of divorce remain colossal. If you're unmarried, you're there because you want to be...like your parents, your brother or sister, your dog or cat, and your job. In California, businesses generally hire you 'at will', meaning they can fire you anytime for any reason, and you can leave when you want. This is ideal, since the employer is not saddled with a sub-par employee and the employee can always pursue a better deal.

Relationships are no different. There are always options, and no legal paper will disguise that. A woman can find a better-looking, richer guy who cuddles more and is better in bed. A guy can find a hotter, younger woman who is a nympho and part-time chef and gets season passes to baseball games. Staying with someone 'at-will' is far more noble and freeing than being married, without the ever-looming threat of messy, expensive divorce. You're there because both of you find it mutually beneficial.

Here's another example. Think of anyone you ever broke up with. Things started well, right? But, when things went sour, you were glad you didn't marry them. Since over-half of marriages end in divorce, everyone who gets divorced probably wishes they were never married either...though that doesn't mean they wouldn't still have had a relationship. You never know if you 'should have gotten married' until it's too late, but if you never marry in the first place you won't set a legal bear-trap for yourself just because things changed in a manner you didn't predict.

Nobody needs marriage. It's unecessary in a modern time, and the downside of divorce is tremendous and could lead to financial ruin for some. What we're seeing is the slow dissolution of the marriage idea before our eyes, changing incrementally by generation. First, gay couples can't get married, then they can, then it's voted down, but we all know that eventually, gay-marriage will be common, unremarkable and available to any gay couple.

Social progress is slow and the religious conservatives continue to do their level best to oppress others through legislated social-retardation, but in the end social-progress wins....the religious could not keep slavery, they couldn't keep women from voting, they couldn't keep Jim Crow laws and segregation, they can't suppress evolution, astronomy or science at large, and they certainly won't be able to 'save' marriage or even religion itself once people realize they don't have to allow the church to think for them. As religion dies its slow death, marriage will die along with it.

I predict that in 10 years, maybe less....marriage will be seen as the old-fashioned, quaint yet hopelessly naive, outdated and unnecessary institution it is. Unmarried households already outnumber married households in the U.S.. The shift has already started.

Finally, here's the unassailable logic in its simplest form: If you're gonna get divorced you shouldn't have gotten married and if you're gonna stay together, you don't need marriage.

-Happily unmarried for 12 years.

-dB-

What is an atheist/agnostic?

The word 'a-theist' literally defines itself. The prefix 'a' means 'without', such as the word 'a-symptomatic' which explains a lack of symptoms.

Likewise, an 'a-theist' is without theism (from the Greek word, 'theos' or 'god'). Therefore, one who lacks god-belief or a belief in gods is an atheist, quite literally. This tells us nothing about what views the person holds, whether he or she enjoys long-walks on the beach, prefers fuschia over mauve or is an omnivore or vegetarian. When you discover an atheist, all you know by definition is that person has told you they lack a belief in a god or gods.

Similarly, the word 'a-gnostic' defines itself too. This term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in the late 1800's regarding his personal views about god-claims. Huxley was one of Darwin's most vociferous supporters of evolution and referred to as 'Darwin's Bulldog'.

A-gnostic literally means 'without knowledge', as the word 'gnostic' comes from the Greek, 'gnosis' which is, 'knowledge'.

Some atheists make a distinction between what you can or cannot know empirically, and what you actually believe or disbelieve. Either way, claiming 'not to know' a god-claim logically results in atheism just as positive rejection of said claim would. Let me explain:

If you cannot empirically know a proposition because it doesn't deal in the natural world, then there's no reason to abstain from rejection of that claim. With god-claims, the claim is 'all there is'. Thus, if the claim fails due to internal logical inconsistency or incoherence, then it's safe to reject the claim on its face.

That said, once you've heard a particular claim, you are by definition no longer agnostic, for you know the claim (which is all there is). You can be empirically agnostic about a god hiding behind Venus when we look behind Mars, but that would entail accepting that there even *is* a god who could flit around the Universe at will.

For instance, if I present to you the properties for the Flying Spaghetti Monster...all knowing, all seeing, all noodly, ever-present, mostly good and tasty, you would be forced to deal with the claim on its own merits. You cannot escape into 'agnosticism' because you know the claim now. Ask where it is, and I might tell you it's invisible, undetectable. Ask for measurements, and I would claim it's incorporeal and again, undetectable, and furthermore, lives outside of the known Universe. Of course, how do I know this creature even exists if I admit he is outside the known Universe?

The claim for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as described is ridiculous, and thus can be rejected out of hand. There is no agnosticism, because the claim, which is 'all there is' is now known to you and subject to review.

Thus, 'agnostic' is not a third position as it applies to god-claims. An agnostic as self-described is necessarily 'without knowledge' of a given god-claim and thus cannot ascribe belief to that which he claims not to know. When one calls himself an agnostic, one necessarily embraces atheism by way of lack of knowledge.

Sometimes, the agnostic simply misrepresents his lack of knowledge (purposely or not) even though the ridiculous claims are there for review, and thus is not agnostic about a given claim. If the agnostic holds a belief *in spite* of admitting he 'doesn't know', then he's really a theist who doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'agnostic', which is quite common. This is often why agnostics as self-described are often hostile to atheists, or theists, or both!

A major reason people use this term lies with the demonization of the word 'atheist'. Some dictionaries list atheism as being 'wicked' in a third or fourth definition of the word. The word atheist is misunderstood, slandered and viewed with shocking disdain by the general public, and atheists are often referred to as 'the most hated minority group'. Sadly, this contributes to confusion surrounding this simple, self-defining word, causing some to discard it in an effort to use a 'friendlier' term.

An atheist is not a devil-worshipper, it's not a religion any more than abstinence is a form of sex, it's nothing other than a lack of god-belief. Some atheists, feeling pressure to avoid this term have resorted to 'agnosticism', but some of those think they are somehow agnostics without being either theists or atheists, but this is no different than the person who at once claims neither belief or nor disbelief in invisible pink unicorns...change the claim to something less culturally sensitive and the evasive semantics of self-proclaimed agnostics (who deny atheism) start to become clear.

Atheism or theism simply deals with a rejection or acceptance of god claims. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, but if you've heard the claim of god you're tasked with accepting or rejecting, you are by definition *not* agnostic about that particular god-claim.

If you reject all claims of god, even if you allow for evidence (which any reasonable person would), you're an 'atheist'. If you accept any kind of god idea, whether it's liberal pantheism or fundamentalist young-Earth creationism, you're a believer, a 'theist'.

Either way, the god-claimants have the burden of proof. Maligning the innocent skeptical non-believer doesn't prove any god or further the case of the believer, but thousands of years of oppression have bullied some into a state of silence.

The claims are there. Lean on them with the full weight of your intellect. If an idea has any merit, it will stand scrutiny and those who profess those ideas won't need to resort to slander.

Until then, if you call yourself an agnostic, you're also an atheist. If you have any kind of belief in any kind of god, you're by definition a 'theist'. Anything else is semantic trickery, evasive shell-games and simple ignorance.

-dB-

Prostitutes

When you go to work in the morning, your time ceases to be your own. Except for a small percent of you who work for yourselves and don't have to answer to anyone, you're basically offering a service (your presence, your brain and your skills) for a price. You even have to fight for space with all the other prostitutes on the freeway, and since companies all tend to keep similar hours, we get to sit in traffic. For those in retail, we're told 'The customer is always right' even if the person is being s slack-jawed, knuckle-dragging jackass asking why there aren't tablesaws in Housewares. 'Sorry sir, just policy sir, I don't make the rules sir'. Nom, nom, nom. You sir, are violating your own sensibilities for 9 goddamn 50 an hour. 'Come again sir'.

Yes, you are a prostitute. We're all prostitutes.

Whether we're gutter sluts working for minimum wage, or higher-priced escorts making a fat packet, we're offering ourselves for money, and we compete for the privilege. The 'service' might end in a seminal emission or a brain-lock but the fact is, service for pay is just commerce, and it's none of our fucking business or the government's business what consenting adults do with their time or money, as long as we're not hurting anyone.

Ok, so some of you will talk about prostitution in the more traditional sense, that is, selling sex for money, is BAD because there are body parts touching. Well, consider massage, physical therapy, chiropractic, etc. You pay someone to touch you. In fact if they don't touch you they can't do their jobs properly. Why is it legal to pay someone to massage you all over but not have sex with you? Why is it legal for porn-producers to pay people to have sex on camera which results in media which is sold legally, but it's not legal for some chick to charge 20 bucks for head? WTF is going on here?

George Carlin summed it up best: 'I don’t understand why prostitution is illegal. Selling is legal, fucking is legal. So, why isn’t it legal to sell fucking? Why should it be illegal to sell something that’s legal to give away? I can’t follow the logic. Of all the things you can to do a person, giving them an orgasm is hardly the worst. In the army they give you a medal for killing people; in civilian life you go to jail for giving them orgasms. Am I missing something?'

If you're a consenting adult, you should have every right to pay someone for sex as you would a massage. Sex is really just another type of massage if you think about it....especially considering that it's legal to have sex for free! It's the height of ridiculosity to think that you can pay for a massage, but not pay for sex. You can pay for chiropractic (hell insurance even covers it) but you can't pay anyone for some kanoodling.

What's the difference? Nothing!

The law would have you arrested in a sting operation, wasting taxpayer money on an army of police trying to 'catch' some guy paying for sex from an undercover cop saying all the right things. Ok, where's the crime? He almost had sex for money?

People spend all kinds of money and resources in trying to get sex or attract mates. Women compete in their own way to get someone's attention and this entails looking-good. There are whole industries surrounding this. Men do the same, and sometimes even fight over women....and fighting is not cheap when you're in the ER, jail or getting sued.

Yes, we all go through a lot of trouble, money and resources to pursue sex and mates, but you can't actually just whip out a Benjamin and pay for what you're after in the most direct sense. I suspect that some sex-crimes are the result of a suppressed sex-drive or inability to find sex.

This is one reason why we see so many 'holy men' involved in scandals. Suppress a natural sex-drive and strange things happen. Just take a look at Ted Haggard. He opposed gay-marriage from the pulpit, but is caught having paid-gay sex with his masseur, Mike Jones in 2006. Funny how that works...even Ted Haggard, who ostensibly opposes his own sexuality based on his religious beliefs, cannot seem to suppress his natural inclination or attraction to men. Simple illegality is not the answer, and despite Ted Haggard's tremendous hypocrisy, we should not be alarmed or shocked when people seek out sex with whatever resources they have with other consenting adults.

Sure, there are downsides to prostitution, but this has nothing to do with the *right* one should have to pursue it, regardless of whether we agree with their choices. Hell, I don't agree with people buying giant fucking SUV's or having 19 kids like the Duggar-factory in Arkansas, but those are choices they've made. It's not my business what car someone drives, how many kids they have or who they have sex with and what it costs them in resources, time or money.

Some people have religious views against prostitution, but you know I've thought carefully about that and decided, well, who cares what your god thinks....nobody's god has ever been proven *ever* and can't even be defined coherently. Religion is irrelevant when it comes to the natural world. Quoting from a 2000-year old collection of anonymously-written fairy tales has nothing to do with anything, anymore than quoting the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster would seem relevant in a sensitive discussion about abortion or stem-cell research.

Think about it. Topic, gun-control. Thoughts?

'The great Fleekeemikmak of planet Sookulsh says ixnay on the unsgay!'.

Correct response: 'You sir, are a fucking moron. NEXT.'

There is zero difference between this example and anything a theist says in reference to a Bible when applied to the natural world. Zero difference. The only difference is the social impetus to 'respect' this belief due to sheer numbers of believers......but the stories are no different in their idiotic appeals to mystery and authority.

The pursuit of sex always costs money, time and resources and as we know, time+resources=money. Some guys choose to get married and get tangled up in expensive divorces...not a choice I would make, but they were willing to gamble and it's their choice. If they think that it's worth half their net-worth to 'secure' a woman, that's them. I think it's a terrible bet considering the more than 50-percent divorce rate, but they are consenting adults....just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to get married.

Likewise, it's none of mine, yours or the goverment's business which consenting adults have sex, or whether a consenting man manages to wrangle more than one consenting woman to participate in his harem. Certainly it's none of our business how much time, resources or yes, money it costs those who pursue mates or just sex because in the end, we're all prostitutes.


-dB-