Searching For the Wrong Eyed Jesus


If you haven’t pondered this documentary – now is the time.

http://kickass.to/middle-americana-searching-for-the-wrong-eyed-jesus-2004-t1261658.html

Just An Idea


I had an idea, far from claiming it original or earth shattering; just a thought crossing my mind. One of those little moments of clarity, akin to that instant when Algebra makes sense or you understand “cereal box French” – for the first time in your life not having to flip to the English side.

I’m still bargaining with “promise” – I assured her I wouldn’t write about religion. Promises born of good intent are common – minuscule snippets of idea arrive when least expected. My apologies for a flippant promise – little ideas will trump every time.

Worn to my last nerve at the thought of defending my “Godless” views, sick of the label Atheist, and steadfast in belief that religion will be the death of us all – I had an idea. Instead of the “Godless” patting themselves on the back for cleverly debunking the faithful; they need to organize and form a recognized “religion”. Before fundamentalist Atheists vow to jump down my throat – hear me out. We pride ourselves on analytical thinking, minds open to possibilities and truth. The truth is – this idea has some merit.

Like it or not our world is based on religious bias. Values such as freedom of speech and religion become contentious when a segment of society is deemed void of religion. The Godless can justify their position till blue in the face – truth is, nothing less than official recognition will level the playing field. If the Godless stepped down from their fortified positions, organized, put their minds to good use and refused to take the bait dangled by fundamentalists mouth pieces – think of all the good we could do.

Wouldn’t irony rule the day if the Godless behaved with dignity, respect, inclusion and charity? How perfect would it be to exhibit virtues so many faithful overlook in their rabid agenda to eradicate the Godless?

No one will win a pissing match of egos, intellect, common sense or values.  I’m tired of the game.  A proposal to change the rules – more accurately a “game changer” set in motion by tactical planning aimed at putting an end to the madness strikes me as a refreshing summer rain.  Forming a “religion” isn’t hypocritical – it’s smart, decisive, and pivotal towards getting on with more important issues. Granted, the Godless might have to choose something to “worship”. I say – suck it up people, look at the big picture. Maybe we could worship “seeds”, the implications could vastly alter genetic modifications if we put our minds to it.

I could care less if my neighbour was waiting for the rapture or a reincarnated soul from the planet Xenu. As long as they don’t shove it down my throat, making the world a better place should come easily. It wouldn’t be difficult to find a qualifying niche. The link below is for the IRS rules regarding tax exempt/ non profit religious status. Following is an excerpt regarding the validity of religious belief. At least give it a ponder – somebody has to take the high road for the good of us all – why not the Godless?

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part7/irm_07-025-003.html

7.25.3.6.4  (02-23-1999)
Validity of Religious Belief

  1. In making a determination whether a religious organization qualifies for exemption under IRC 501(c)(3), the Internal Revenue Service cannot pass judgment on the merits of the applicant’s asserted religious belief.
  2. Accordingly, proof of entitlement to exemption does not include proving the validity of the religious doctrines or beliefs of the applicant or its members. It is the government’s duty to “make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary.” Zorach v. Clausen, 343 U.S. 306 (1952).
  3. This concept is also discussed in U.S. v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1943), in which the Court stated “The Fathers of the Constitution were not unaware of the varied and extreme views of religious sects, of the violence of disagreement among them, and of the lack of any one religious creed on which all men would agree. They fashioned a charter of government which envisaged the widest possible toleration of conflicting views…The religious views espoused by respondents might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake that task, they enter a forbidden domain.”

7.25.3.6.5  (02-23-1999)
Religious Belief Defined

  1. The term “religious” as used in IRC 501(c)(3) is not subject to precise definition. The leading interpretation of the term was made by the Supreme Court in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965), in which the Court interpreted the phrase “religious training and belief” as used in the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 50 U.S.C. section 456 (j), in determining an individual’s eligibility for exemption from military service on religious grounds. The Court formulated the following definition: “A sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualifying for the exemption comes within the statutory definition.”
  2. The Court elaborated upon the Seeger definition in Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 33 (1970), stating that “[i]f an individual deeply and sincerely holds beliefs that are purely ethical or moral in source and content but that nevertheless impose upon him a duty of conscience to refrain from participating in any war at any time, those beliefs certainly occupy in the life of that individual a place parallel to that filled by… God in the lives of traditionally religious persons.” Thus, religious beliefs include many beliefs (for example, Taoism, Buddhism, and Secular Humanism) that do not posit the existence of a Supreme Being in the conventional sense.

7.25.3.6.6  (02-23-1999)
Actions Distinguished from Beliefs

  1. The constitutional protections afforded religious beliefs do not prevent government from regulating conduct or actions when it has a compelling interest to do so. Thus, the First Amendment does not prevent the government from requiring compliance with general laws designed to effectuate an important governmental policy or objective even though compliance may be contrary to an individual’s sincerely-held religious beliefs.
  2. In Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), the Court upheld a law passed by Congress that made the practice of polygamy by persons residing in United States territories a crime. The Court interpreted the constitutional prohibition in this way: “Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” Finding that polygamy had long been considered an offense against society in all the states of the union, the Court held that the statute under consideration was constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the territories. In holding that religious belief did not except persons from operation of the statute, the Court said: “While they [laws] cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.”
  3. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), the Court endorsed Reynolds, stating that “the [First] Amendment embraces two concepts, freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.” See also Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 33 (1890), and Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U.S. 1 (1890), where the Court grappled with the same issue. While continuing to affirm the right of freedom of religious belief, the Court nevertheless held that legislation for the punishment of actions “inimical to the peace, good order and morals of society” did not violate the First Amendment.
  4. A notable recent application of this doctrine is Bob Jones University v. United States, andGoldsboro Christian Schools v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), in which the Supreme Court upheld revocation of the exemption under IRC 501(c)(3) of religious and educational institutions on the grounds that its religiously motivated policy forbidding interracial dating violated a fundamental public policy against racial discrimination. The Court concluded that educational institutions that practice racial discrimination based on religious beliefs are not charitable in the generally accepted legal sense and thus do not qualify for federal tax exemption.

How Dare You Label Me


While speaking to my mother this evening, I learned she told her friend about my blog. She said her conversation came with a warning about my Atheist views. They got into a discussion of fanatic atheism, her friend recommending books I should read to temper my point of view.I`ve never met this person in my life, nor had he read a word I`ve written – he heard the term Atheist, which apparently sent him into salvation mode.

My initial reaction was disbelief – not only for my mother choosing to share my blog with a disclaimer, but for the reaction of this man. Not often do I feel the need to set the record straight; in hope that this phantom stranger actually takes a peek – a definitive ponder on my religious views…..

The idea that God didn`t create man, man created God has been discussed for ages – I agree completely with this statement. My agreement isn`t dismissive or judgemental; it comes with the understanding that what sets mankind apart from other species on the evolutionary ladder is our ability to not only question, but reason. Since the dawn of time `faith` has comforted, guided, and shaped our destiny. Without it, man would never have become mankind. There isn`t a civilization in history without a creation myth. One of the first questions children ask is `where did I come from`, answers given by parents serve as comfort or reassurance – that is how I see faith. Some parents answer `the stork brought you`, some say `I found you in a cabbage patch`, others `from mommy`s tummy` – I see these as different religions. Not a question of right or wrong, merely a personal decision based on family values. Not one of us would take issue with this, or force parents to respond `you came from God`. My respect goes out the window when religion becomes a matter of public scrutiny.

I believe `faith` and `church` are two very different things. Millions upon millions of people quietly draw strength from belief in their God. When I write about religion my words aren`t meant for these people – it doesn`t make the slightest difference to me if people worship God. The fact that I don`t should be a non issue; what matters is how we spend our brief lives. What matters is that we respect others right to answer `I found you under a lily pad` if that`s how they want to.

I strongly believe anything less than complete separation of church and state infringes on basic human rights.

The term `fanatic atheist` makes me gag. Fanatic anything alludes to a one way ticket on crazy train; that said, what`s the worst thing a fanatic atheist could do – stalk forums and bait religious fanatics for amusement. I can`t imagine how the average Godless persons actions hold a candle to Pastor Michael Stahl of Florida wanting to create an Atheist data base or George H.W. Bush saying `I don`t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God`.

I don`t believe the `church` is above the law, the same rule of law should be applied to Catholic priests as your average paedophile or rapist.  I see no reason for churches not to be audited more closely – in particular ministries preaching on television or in travelling tent shows – extracting a lavish lifestyle in the name of God is criminal. Religious groups who speak out against homosexuality or abortion should be prosecuted for hate crimes. Scientology should never have been given official non profit status in America. God should be banned from reference in political speeches or campaigns. No person should ever be asked to disclose their religious affiliation.

So there it is; my abbreviated views on religion. If this makes me a fanatic Atheist – I give up. If respecting another’s right to faith, while speaking out against despicable injustice or crime in the name of God makes me worthy of data base registration – there is no hope for mankind. As long as I have to wear the label ` Atheist`, closed minds will dictate the future.

Church and State


When I look back at history, I can’t help but think scary similarities are rearing their ugly heads. Like it or not; religion has  dictated more historical conflict than not. At the very least, religion has shaped history according to whose temple had the most might at the time. Conquest led to far more than having your home torched – invading forces brought with them little choice – death or conversion. Once the soldiers finished plundering and fires went out, it was spiritual control that kept them in power. Legions of missionaries obliterated traces of former deities,history, and language. It was “gods” way or the highway.

Watching the conservative religious fundamentalist movement gain popularity has me pondering that history. I haven’t the slightest problem with a person’s faith, god, or beliefs. It doesn’t matter one iota what anyone chooses to believe – happy to never discuss religion for the rest of my days – but for this army of religious bullies pushing their weight around. I can’t shake the feeling that history is repeating itself.

In many ways fundamentalist assaults are worse than ancient military campaigns – instead of simply getting the job done – fundamentalists appear as everyday people. They enter politics preying on fear or family values, without blinking an eye to the nature of their assault.without understanding the damage they are doing.  In America they claim to fight for the constitution; the same constitution that promised freedom of religion and separation of church and state. Using media as an unimaginably powerful weapon, they spread paranoia, misinformation, and  dissension without even realizing their attack on fundamental human rights. It is their way or the highway.

It would be incredibly naive of me to think these bullies have the slightest inkling of the damage they cause. The only hope is to ban any reference to God or religion in politics. How dare any of them claim to uphold the constitution – they know of no constitution other than the bible, which has no place in politics.

I don’t have to read the bible or believe in God to respect people who do. My issue is with fundamentalists bullying people  to read the bible and believe in God. Conservative politicians using God as a weapon that takes away the freedom of choice or beliefs. It makes my blood boil.

Federal Department of Well Being


The other night I opened my post on Scientology with a paragraph about ” sensible Canada.” Standing behind my opinion and reasons for this assertion isn’t difficult; my dilemma stems from use of the word “sensible” – I would like to change that to “reasonable” – the examples I gave where reasonable in my mind. There is nothing “sensible” about a nation with a Department of Well Being. Forget the fact it sounds like Communist propaganda; in many ways that would be easier to swallow than the mission to make Canadian federal workplaces “”inclusive to all, offensive to none”.

Susan Bonhart heads the Dept. of Well Being, her goal to include all while offending none, might just have blown my mind. Don’t get me wrong; inclusion is good, offensive is bad, yet much like the distinction between opinion and rant, where do you draw the line? At what point does it become silly?

I’ll go out on a limb by saying this is silly enough to force an amendment from “sensible” to “reasonable” – and only reasonable on a case by case basis. My Canada is nuts and I can’t stop laughing. Tomorrow I may be shaking my head but for now laughter fuels this ponder.

Listening to CBC rradio this afternoon I caught an interview with Susan Bonhart. I have to say, I kind of liked her. She came across as a grade 3 substitute teacher, trying to win over the class with exaggerated enthusiasm. Obviously a woman who takes her job seriously, scary as this may seem, I believe she means well. Good intentions and earnest delivery aside, her message was just plain silly.

The Department of Well Being was formed to govern practices for federal employees. Under the direction of Bonhart these phrases are banned in the federal workplace.”bless you”, “for heavens sake”, “oh my God”, and “cheers”. “Bless you” infers “God bless you”, is offensive as it marginalizes with the message “I believe in God, my God” When a government employee sneezes at work the suggested replacement for banned bless you is – “Oh no, I heard that”. Bonhart reasoned this response let the sneezer know they where heard and showed empathy for their sneeze. Also acceptable is the wave of a hand or pat on the back; she recommends using hand sanitizer after back contact.

“For heavens sake” is deemed offensive as it “opens up debate of an afterlife”. “Oh my God” or” OMG” implies “if you don’t share the same God as I do you have no right to be surprised” , her suggested replacements -” wow”,” oh”,” well, huh.” “Cheers” offends simply because it belongs in a bar not the office. My drive ended before any further enlightenment. If you have 5 minutes to spare, listening to the audio clip on this link will explode your head; well worth the lost few minutes of your life.

http://www.cbc.ca/thisisthat/blog/2013/01/23/saying-bless-you-after-a-sneeze-deemed-offensive-by-feds/

A Pagan World


Stop and ponder for a minute – picture our world if we were all Pagan.

Heathens, infidels, gentiles – pagan thorns in the side of chest pounding, power brokers carving out their niche in the ancient world. Non followers of the emerging religious muscle men, scorned and ridiculed; their beliefs becoming the poster child for debauchery. Painted as simple and inferior for worshiping multiple deities, big religion eradicated and absorbed culture after culture. Indigenous people assimilated – converted into malleable shells; easy to control, easy to milk for the vast fortunes needed to maintain the bloated machine.

If by some magic it were all a bad dream – what would be so wrong with that? Ponder where we might be today if the Aztec and Inca civilizations were left to their own devices. Think of the men of science burned at the stake because they made the church nervous. Picture where medicine could be but for snuffing out Pagan practitioners. Ponder a world built on reverence and respect for natural resources that sustained us. Contemplate a life freed from guilt, oppression, or arbitrary rule changes.

Before “big religion” reared its ugly head people worshiped deities that made their world definable. Fertility, harvests, seasons, success in battle – all handled by separate spiritual departments. The Pagan gods didn’t get bogged down in the details, each one with a specialty; clearly defined and not subject to whims or political hankering. Ancient deities  kept us focused on our planet, they brought rain, food, and sunlight.

Be it ancient heathens or big religion; all were born in creation myth. Since the beginning of time temples and places of worship have been erected, and offerings were made to the “gods”. The difference is, ancient deity worshipers didn’t change the rules as they saw fit.

Once upon a time religion made sense of the unimaginable, structured society and brought people together. Over time it’s become a hideous monster. Oppressive, judgmental, and ignorant – so far removed from its innocent intention at birth – I now fully understand the term “blind faith”

So I ponder a pagan world; for lack of a better description a world where we don’t give a rats ass what deity any body else worships. Worship God, Allah, or a box of cornflakes – pray for a new iphone or world peace, nobodies business but your own. All I ask is that the righteous stop talking about it.If your deity was the one and only, how the hell did the rest of us get here?