Prepare, for the End is nigh… or not.

It’s true; it’s just around the corner. Just over three years from now! But don’t take my word for it. Not one, but two completely unconnected ancient cultures say it’s so. Both the Mayan calendar and the Chinese Tao te Ching have tracked and predicted the events of our planet. And both mysteriously end at the same time, December 21st (the winter solstice) 2012. The Mayans believed this signified the end of the world.

Personally, I don’t buy it. When that day comes I don’t believe the Rapture will come, nor will we nuke ourselves into oblivion, nor will space aliens come down to conquer us, nor will the earth split in two. I believe that these two systems, both mathematical in nature, must be similar and suffer from the same numerical curiosity. Although I do wonder if anyone has tried to confirm this. But no, I don’t think the world in coming to an end, at least not at that precise time.

But it’s not about what I believe, what worries me are the countless masses that do believe. The reality is that the world is filled with ignorant, superstitious and fearful people. It is this portion of the populace that we all must prepare to defend our selves from. Undoubtedly, as the time draws closer, fear-mongers, religious leaders and the media will turn the spotlight on these historical facts for their own purposes.

Remember the Y2K scare? Now add to that an economic recession, terrorist activities, a significant portion of the population that already believes Armageddon is upon us and more than a dash of paranoia provided by those mentioned above and you can imagine how things can go south real quick. I’m not saying things will definitely fall into chaos. I certainly hope not. I hope that logic and reason will prevail. But given what human nature has shown of itself in the past, it’s better to be prepared.

This pretty much says it all.

What's a guy to do?

In today’s “civil” society, how can anyone constructively release built up frustration and anger without risking landing in jail, getting sued and/or losing your job? I’m asking because everyday I’m exposed to more and more of the ignorant, repressed, self-indulgent, self-righteous, ill-logical, egomaniacal masses. And it’s getting harder and harder to climb up above what these people are shoveling. This may sound a bit judgmental and elitist in and of itself, but hear me out.

We’ve got the Religious Right constantly trying to impose their brand of right and wrong upon every aspect of our lives, regardless of our own beliefs. We’ve got the American Corporate mentality that has forgotten the needs and desires of all but the highest echelon of their hierarchy. And we have a federal government that has worked primarily for themselves and the rich and powerful, paying only lip service to the needs of the middle and lower classes.

I perceive countless examples of bias, injustice and hypocrisy at my job, in my city, in the news and throughout the country, literally on a daily basis. The management at my job shows me and every other worker bee little more than passive-aggressive abuse, disrespect and/or neglect. Corporate greed is driving up prices on everything, which hurts the middle and lower classes the most. The government keeps passing laws that protect the interests of whatever lobby lines their pockets the most. And self-righteous groups and activists are constantly working and fighting to force everyone to bow to their particular point of view.

I can’t be the only one that is being driven mad by all this, am I? And when the frustration builds up to a boiling point, what can I do? If I’m in public, I can’t loose my temper and just scream at anyone or I risk being arrested for any number of lame reasons. No physical violence, just yelling. At work, where I need to de-stress the most, I can be disciplined or even terminated for doing the same thing.

And why is that? Because in our “civil” society, with it’s delicate sensibilities, we aren’t allowed to display any extreme or intense emotion. We can’t make a scene because some thin-skinned individual might feel uneasy, uncomfortable or offended by what we have to say. We can’t point out that what someone is doing is unjust, when they are being a hypocrite or that what they say is not entirely true, even when everyone around us knows it. Simply put, we’re not allowed to call bullshit for what it is. It seems like everyone would just rather sweep it all under the rug, let it slide, don’t make a fuss and forget it ever happened. Why!? What are we afraid of? It’s maddening!

So all this goes back to my original point. Each frustrating instance is yet another straw on this camel’s back. When the stress gets to be just too much I’m not allowed to hit, punch or kick anyone (no matter how deserving they may be). I can’t even beat on an inanimate object without risking serious repercussions. I can’t loose my temper and just yell at anyone (because that would be improper, I guess). And I refuse to get into drowning my woes with alcohol, drugs or any number of other destructive behaviors. Soooo…

Seriously, what’s a guy to do?

Maintain church-state split

I thought this article is so well written and on the mark that I had to publish it here as well.


Maintain church-state split
by Stephanie Salter


Quick quiz.

How many times does the U.S. Constitution mention God?

How many times does it talk about the Bible?

In what sections does it address Christianity?

The answers: None, none and none.

As for religion, as physicist Ellery Schempp recently observed, the Constitution “mentions religion just twice, and both times the word ‘no’ is attached.”

I met Schempp recently in Madison, Wis., and listened with keen ears to his speech to the annual Freedom From Religion Foundation convention. The national organization of state-and-church separationists honored him with its “Champion of the First Amendment” award.

Schempp, 66, is one of the most reasonable, sanguine and thoughtful people I’ve met in a while. He is also an atheist, as were many of the 750 or so convention attendees. In addition to atheists there were agnostics, secularists, humanists, pagans and theists like me: people who practice a religious faith but do not want ours – or any religion – to be allowed to wreck one of the greatest things the United States has going for it.

“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

That sentence is in the First Amendment to the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights. The other reference to religion, as Schempp pointed out, is in Article VI, which states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

For an atheist, Schempp knows his Bible very well. (Come to think of it, he knows it better than many Christians I’ve run across.) He’s studied it along with the holy books of other faiths which, he likes to remind people, are viewed by the U.S. government as equally worthy of protection to exist.

“The Bible never once mentions democracy, a republic or anything related to American values,” he said. “The Bible never once mentions freedom of speech or freedom of religion ... separation of powers and limitations on the power of the executive; nor an independent judicial branch ... elections or voting. The Bible provides no model for ‘good’ government or for personal freedoms. It is a purely religious/theological document.”

Schempp’s education in – and commitment to – the constitutionally prescribed separation of church and state began in his teens when he and his family were Unitarians living in suburban Philadelphia. In 1956, two years after Congress inserted “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance, Schempp challenged a Pennsylvania law that required the reading of 10 Bible verses each morning in public school classrooms, recitation of the Lord’s Prayer and then the Pledge of Allegiance.

About two dozen other states had similar laws.

The 16-year-old asked for help from the American Civil Liberties Union – he sent a $10 bill with his letter – and set in motion what would become a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision. In 1963, the court ruled 8-1 that Bible reading and non-private prayer in public schools was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Please take a moment to note that majority. Not 5-4 in a time of activist liberal judges, but 8-1 in a court descended from the Eisenhower era.

Schempp’s family was both congratulated and reviled. As he told the Freedom From Religion audience, he learned later that the principal of his high school had written “letters of disrecommendation to every college I applied to.”

One letter, of the more than 5,000 the Schempps received – and answered! – still speaks volumes to Ellery Schempp. It concluded, “In the name of Christ, go to hell.”

Along with a physics teaching career at the University of Pittsburgh, Schempp has spent his adult life advocating for the strength and beauty of the U.S. Constitution and the democratic form of government it was designed to promote.

“The Constitution of the United States of America has proved itself to be a remarkably successful model for decent government,” Schempp said. He also noted, ironically:

“And look how successful separation of church and state has proven to be. The United States has more church-goers, more denominations and more money donated to churches than any other country in the world. All evidence shows that the secular Constitution has been extremely good for ‘religiousness.’ ”

What deeply concerns Schempp and the members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and me is the organized effort to unite one idea of church – 189 denominations of Christianity notwithstanding – with the secular state.

About 200 years ago, James Madison (a Schempp favorite) was similarly concerned, warning his fellow citizens that, throughout history, “superstition, bigotry and persecution have accompanied the union of religion and government.”

Given the kind of collective fear that Americans have experienced since 9/11, we now find ourselves “living in an age of belief in silly things,” Schempp said. Too many people choose to slide into simple-minded beliefs about not just religion, but a whole host of “stuff related to magical thinking and supernaturalism,” be it images of the Virgin Mary in food items or alien abductions.

In such a time, Schempp said, “separation of church and state is all the more important – it does government no good to rely on magical thinking, and it does religion no good to be separated from reality.”

The oft-repeated notion that Christianity is “under threat of annihilation” in the United States, Schempp said, is not only “absurd,” it is contradicted by the evidence. Churches proliferate, believers proliferate, and “the Christian right are thriving – and flush with political power. And have huge amounts of money. And claim to speak for all Americans.”

Christianity isn’t in jeopardy, our hard-won and carefully crafted approach to government is – and with it the very thing that makes this nation unique now and in history.

“The danger is that by wrapping God up in political discussion, we short circuit and shortchange the public square of discourse,” Schempp said. “Claiming that your idea is more godly than mine or that some people are more ‘chosen’ or more ‘saved’ than others is bad politics and bad religion. ... Discussion about the complexities of dealing with terrorist threats and bad governments here and abroad is impaired when God and religion are mixed up with patriotism.”

Stephanie Salter is a writer for the Terre Haute Tribune Star, where this first appeared.

Two Glasses of Wine

When things in your life seem almost too much to handle, when 24 hours in a day are not enough, remember the mayonnaise jar and the 2 glasses of wine…

A professor stood before his philosophy class and had some items in front of him. When the class began, wordlessly, he picked up a very large and empty mayonnaise jar and proceeded to fill it with golf balls. He then asked the students if the jar was full. They agreed it was.

The professor then picked up a box of small pebbles and poured them into the jar. He shook the jar lightly and the pebbles rolled into the open areas between the golf balls. He then asked the students again if the jar was full. They agreed it was.

The professor next picked up a box of sand and poured it into the jar. Of course, the sand filled up everything else and he asked once more if the jar was full. The students responded with a unanimous “yes”.

The professor then produced two glasses of wine from under the table and poured them into the jar, effectively filling the empty space between the grains of sand. The students laughed.

“Now,” said the professor, as the laughter subsided, “I want you to recognize that this jar represents your life. The golf balls are the important things; your family, your children, your health, your friends, your favorite passions; things that if everything else was lost and only they remained, your life would still be full.”

“The pebbles are the other things that matter like your job, your house, your car. The sand is everything else; the small stuff. If you put the sand into the jar first,” he continued, “there is no room for the pebbles or the golf balls. The same goes for life. If you spend all your time and energy on the small stuff, you will never have room for the things that are important to you.”

“Pay attention to the things that are critical to your happiness. Play with your children. Take time to get medical check-ups. Take your partner out to dinner. Play another 18. Make one more run down the ski slope. There will always be time to clean the house and fix the disposal. Take care of the golf balls first; the things that really matter. Set priorities. The rest is just sand.”

One of the students raised her hand and inquired what the wine represented. The professor smiled. “I’m glad you asked. It just goes to show you that no matter how full your life may seem, there’s always room for a couple of glasses of wine with a friend.”

- Anonymous

The New Ten Commandments

Every so often you hear about someone trying to place a representation of the Ten Commandments in a school or government building and why not? As many love to declare, this country was founded with Judeo-Christian beliefs, right? But then someone else complains, people start yelling “separation of church and state” and things get ugly very quickly.

Personally, I can understand both sides. Some of the commandments listed DO make sense for society’s general well-being. However, like many who would complain, I also feel uneasy about the public posting of a document that DOES seem to promote a particular religious point of view. This dilemma has inspired me to compile a secular list of commandments. They may not have been passed down to me from a deity, but that fact doesn’t make them any less viable or true.

1. Promote a mutual respect and tolerance toward one another.
2. Do not knowingly lie or deceive, whether through speech, writing or implying in any manner.
3. Strive to forgive one another.
4. Do not murder one another.
5. Betray not the love or trust afforded you by another.
6. Do not steal from one another.
7. Take heed the wisdom of your elders.
8. Do not knowingly cause another undue hardship or pain.
9. Avoid the temptations of excessive Wrath, Sloth, Gluttony, Envy, Lust, Greed and Pride.
10. Embrace the virtues of Wisdom, Knowledge, Courage, Humanity, Justice, Temperance and Transcendence.

These commandments are not intended to be unbreakable laws, but basic principles of self and society so as to nurture a more peaceful co-existence with all mankind. Sometimes a situation dictates that in order to do the “right thing” a commandment must be broken. However, such situations are rare at best and to error on the side of these principles is usually the better path.


-

Harry Potter and the President

I recently took my family to see the newest Harry Potter movie. As usual we all enjoyed it very much. In this installment of the series Harry and his friends go up against the latest Defense against the Dark Arts instructor, Deloris Umbridge. At first glance she appears as a smiling, unassuming woman who just wants to be everyone’s friend. Her true, more devious nature soon reveals itself and I found her to be extremely creepy and un-nerving. While her whole attitude and behavior was unsettling, some examples of her dark behavior are noteworthy: (no real spoilers here)

-Umbridge threatens to label a fellow professor as being an “uncooperative” in regards to the will of the Ministry when she openly questions Umbridge’s methods.

-She is in complete denial of the very real dangers that loom in the world, all the while wasting her time trying to force everyone else to conform to behavioral standards that she professes to uphold.

-She demands Order, at least her version of it, at the expense of free-will and individuality.

-If she wishes to do something and finds herself prohibited from doing so by law, she is quite willing, even eager, to either have that law changed to allow her to do what she wants or to simply disregard that particular law all together.

After watching the movie, I couldn’t help but see more than few similarities between the behavior of the Umbridge character and our current president. I guess art does imitate life.

A New Twist to the 2nd Amendment

Here’s something to chew on. We’ve all heard it at some point in our education; “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” And we all know what that means. Or do we? It seems obvious that U.S. citizens are guaranteed the right to own firearms, but is that the true extent and intention of this controversial amendment?

Perhaps the founding fathers had intended something of a broader meaning. Some have argued that the right to keep and bear arms is synonymous with the common law of the Right to Self-defense. I submit that it’s possible that the true intention of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the right of its citizens to defend their person, their loved-ones and property from unlawful invasion, with lethal force when necessary, from not only threats foreign, but domestic as well.

If this interpretation were enacted through Law, just imagine what the consequences might be. What if every criminal knew that the instant they committed a crime, their intended victim had the legal right to kill them in self-defense? That every rape, mugging, car-jacking or home invasion they commit could easily end with their untimely death. No Miranda rights, no due process, no innocent till proven guilty. Just swift and brutal justice.

The threat of capital punishment, while arguably somewhat effective, doesn’t seem to have brought the rate of violent crime to a screeching halt. I believe this is mostly because that particular threat is far removed from the “here and now” in the criminal’s mind. Couple that with an extremely prolonged sentencing and execution phases and you can see why a death sentence is not the great deterrent you would think it should be. But if criminals knew that justice and retribution could come instantly and permanently by the hand of their not-so-defenseless intended target, perhaps it may give them pause to reconsider their actions.

Let me go on record as saying that I am not in favor of capital punishment in most cases. All too often new evidence surfaces to exonerate death-row inmates, sometimes coming too late to save them from an unjust fate. So, in lieu of that option, perhaps we should just rethink how we interpret the Second Amendment and how this would affect our current laws and particularly the rights of the victims.
-