“The word Catholic is actually a derivative of cat lick i.e. ‘to lick a cat’. This has led many to speculate that the pope is addicted to kitten huffing, though he is on the record as saying he ‘never inhaled.’”

Dear Pope,

I suppose that at this point, I ought to be numb to the incredible ignorance and bigotry of the Catholic monarchy. After a history of violence and oppression that differs from Nazi Germany only in its lack of brevity and the willful ignorance of the recent regimes, this sort of thing is what I ought to have come to expect. Alas, I am still shocked when the crass dogmatism of Catholicism is made clear.

I refer to, of course, your recent statements regarding atheism.

Though I think you are actually perfectly aware of the following, I should like to present some of the many deceptions and outright lies now included in your “encyclical:”

1. Atheism originated during the French and Communist revolutions.
   1. This is, to say the least, historically laughable. Atheism has been around for millenia, with recorded ‘atheist’ sentiments in ancient Greece. Of course, just as a Catholic would not recognize a gnostic Christian from 200AD, we would probably not recognize atheists from previous centuries. Of course, if Catholics were well versed in history, they probably wouldn’t remain Catholic, and you know that.
   2. Atheism did indeed see an increase during the French and Communism revolutions. This period, stretching from the late 1700s to the late 1800s, is also historically known as “the enlightenment.” In 1790, France renounced the authority of the church in its government… seems the monarchy is still sour about that one. By the way, this might just be a funny coincidence, but atheism saw a significant rise in Europe at around the same time that the Catholic church stopped roasting ‘heretics’ - the French Revolution took place from 1789 - 1799. The Catholic Church did not officially condemn the use of torture until Pope Pius VII in 1816.
   3. This statement is highly fallacious, and intentionally misleading. The reader is meant to associate atheism with the highly bloody and violent French Revolution and evil Communists. Neither revolution, however, was conducted in the name of or solely for the propagation of atheism, contrary to the crusades, the Inquisition, and numerous other evils endorsed with massive Catholic rubber stamps. As I recall, Nazi Germany also had the support of the Catholic church, which (still) hasn’t condemned Hitler and his actions. You knew that, though, from your days as a Hitler Youth.
   4. Bad politics, Popey. You could have just inadvertently pissed off all of China. Of course, China probably won’t care all that much. It’s not like you were googling Tianamnen Square or anything.
2. “Atheist ideologies,” such as Marxism, that claim that humans must establish their own social justice have been proven wrong by history.
   1. What, like the country and ideology behind this godless document?
   2. But Popey, if you condemn all social justice, you’d have to condemn all capitalist and democratic governments, including most of the governments of western Europe, and… Italy. Oh, wait.
   3. Perhaps you’d like to advocate a system of order and justice owned and operated by Thy Uptightness and his Holy Member? It was done once. Those times are now referred to as the “Dark Ages.” Back then, little boys knew how to keep their mouths shut too.
3. Atheism is the cause of some of the “greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice” in history.
   1. Well, unless you count the Crusades. Or the Inquisition. Or the Holocaust. Or the witch hunts, 9/11, the apartheid, genocide in Sudan, WWI, WWII, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, the War of 1812, country music, and so on. In fact, could you please name a case where atheism is the direct cause of cruelty and violation of justice? Humans are human, I’m sure there’s at least one out there.
   2. Still hoping that I’ll just brush the whole Medieval era under the rug?
   3. Atheists do a great deal of good. We could do the good Catholic thing and burn the heretics at the stake, but then we would be lacking Mark Twain, Ernest Hemingway, Douglas Adams, Isaac Asimov, Ayn Rand, Salmon Rushdie, Kurt Vonnegut, Woody Allen, George Carlin, Adam Carolla, Sir Ian McKellen, Billy Joel, Diderot, Voltaire, Bertrand Russell, Richard Feynman, Alan Turing, Linus Torvalds, Steve Wozniak, among many others.

Why? Why atheists? Is it because we pose a legitimate threat? Is it because you know we aren’t going to sue or suicide bomb you? Are we easy scapegoats? After all, we wouldn’t want you slandering something truly evil in this world, such as Scientology. They have big lawyers with sharp nasty teeth.

I chalk it up to sexual frustration. Revoke the celibacy thing, please… for the good of all boys under age 12.

Sincerely,

An American Atheist.

The local missionaries set up a table in front of the HUB today, singing hymns, handing out pass-along cards, and generally pestering whoever happened to be so unfortunate to not be engaged in conversation right when they walked by. I happened to be one of these people.

Leaving the church was the single most difficult experience in my life, bar none. I lost everything I had, and gained precious little to replace it with. I am conflicted because I do not want to bring that level of pain to any other human life, but at the same time, I strongly believe that religion of all sorts is a destructive (or at least inhibitive) force in our world. I generally make a point of abstaining from trying to “convert” anyone to my opinions for that very reason.

Imagine my discomfort when approached by a representative of the same sect that so recently tore me apart.

I remained polite. Mostly.

He approached me asking my thoughts on the subject of religion. I gave him fair warning that he was asking the wrong fellow, as I am a recent apostate. In retrospect, I probably would have been better off had I stated that I was gay, but alas.

He then began to ask in feigned bewilderment what may have caused this oh-so-evil choice of mine. “I read too much. Are you from Utah, bychance?”

He replied that he wasn’t, but that he was from Arizona. That was all that I needed.

“You are from Snowflake, then. You have some level of confidence here, so I would assume that you have been on the mission for over one year, meaning that you are 20 years old. You were raised in a Mormon household, where your parents taught you from birth that the church is what it says it is, yet you had close relatives that strayed from the church. This emboldened and strengthened you in your youth because you saw how fragile faith can be. You attended and graduated seminary in high school, and you didn’t date much - you were waiting for your sacred companion, whom you would meet after you return home from your mission. You attended BYU for either a semester or a full year, where you lived in the dorms and opened your mission call with a great number of friends. You were disappointed at first to be called to somewhere as un-exotic as Seattle, Washington, but soon reconciled as you realized that it was where ‘the Lord’ wanted you to go. At this point on your mission, you have been approached with some people bearing anti-mormon facts and literature. You dismissed their claims as Satan-inspired lies and dismissed them as enemies of the church who want nothing more than to destroy everything that you hold dear. Nonetheless, you did hear some points they said which were curious to you. You asked your leader what his opinion of the points were, and took his opinion as solid evidence that they were nothing but slanderous lies. You are now looking forward to fulfilling your two-year commission and returning to BYU, where you hope to find that eternal companion and raise little missionaries of your own. Am I close?”

“…how did you know I was from Snowflake?”

The rest, apparently, didn’t phase him.

It didn’t take me long to realize a couple of things:

- He felt that he had a monopoly on truth, enlightenment, and wisdom. I, who turned away from the church, am clearly foolish and ignorant. After all, if I knew what he knows, I’d be Mormon, right? This spiritual arrogance was pointed out to me when I was Mormon, but I scoffed at it then. This was the first time I saw the phenomenon from the other side.

- He believed that anything critical of the church was flawed because he felt the church was true. For some reason, this circular logic is quite pervasive in religion

- He thought that he would be able to dissuade me from my current convictions if he could prove to me that the church gives you warm fuzzies, which I must have never felt before.

But the one realization that really shocked me was about myself. I didn’t want to de-convert him to atheism. I didn’t desire to destroy his faith or his religion.

My sole desire was to show him that, while he may strongly disagree with it, my position is a legitimate one. My points are reasonable and have their basis.

I imagine that these feelings arose from my conflicts with the mormons I care about.

I knew a mormon man back home whom I respected while I was a member, and grew significant respect for as I was leaving the church. He is the father of a past girlfriend of mine, and one of the most intelligent men I know. He recognized that the church has a great number of fundamental problems which are not easily answered. He studied these things quite thoroughly, and while his heart kept him from being completely unbiased, tried to remain impartial. He is an active member of the church, but can still understand and respect those who leave it.

This is not the case, usually. I remember speaking to one friend in particular about it. She asked me why it was, exactly, that I left. I explained in no unequivocal terms for the better part of an hour the things I found, the conclusions I came to, and the choices I made. It felt incredible to have her listen and apparently understand my concerns. However, at the end of the hour, I asked her opinion. She answered with a succinct, “I think that you left so that you could sin and not feel guilty about it.” I cannot express my frustration at that point.

I heard that same sentiment expressed while I was in the church - so-and-so read anti, left the church, and now he/she is an amoral party hound who attacks the church with vengeance.

The belief that apostates leave the church due to sin or the desire to do so is dreadfully common among the faithful. It is also insulting and highly frustrating to those of us who have.

I did not leave the church so I could feed my vices. I had never even tasted alcohol before deciding to leave the church. I did not anticipate having sex for quite some time. I never did drugs, hated cigarettes, and watched plenty of R rated movies when I was mormon anyway.

Even if I did have great desire for these so-called carnal lusts, I’d have to be a complete fool to trade my eternal salvation for a bottle I’ve never tasted and a fun evening. The very idea that a person of any intelligence would do such a thing is quite laughable. Yet, this is the common belief.

It could be that no believing member wants to allow for the possibility that an apostate might have legitimate concerns, for a multitude of reasons.

I just hope that my family one day understands the true motivation for my choices. I don’t think that the odds are in my favor.

Too many shadows in my room
Too many hours in this midnight
Too many corners in my mind
So much to do to set my heart right
Oh it’s taking so long i could be wrong, i could be ready
Oh but if i take my heart’s advice
I should assume it’s still unsteady
I am in repair, i am in repair

Stood on the corner for a while
To wait for the wind to blow down on me
Hoping it takes with it my old ways
And brings some brand new luck upon me
Oh it’s taking so long i could be wrong, i could be ready
Oh but if i take my heart’s advice
I should assume it’s still unsteady
I am in repair, i am in repair

And now i’m walking in the park
All of the birds they dance below me
Maybe when things turn green again
It will be good to say you know me

Oh it’s taking so long i could be wrong, i could be ready
Oh but if i take my heart’s advice
I should assume it’s still unsteady
Oh i’m never really ready, yeah, oh, i’m never really ready
I’m in repair, i’m not together but i’m getting there
I’m in repair, i’m not together but i’m getting there
I’m in repair, i’m not together but i’m getting there
I’m in repair, i’m not together but i’m getting there
I’m in repair, i’m not together but i’m getting there
I’m in repair, i’m not together but i’m getting there

-”In Repair” by John Mayer

Read more

…and they started out so well!

Ah, bollocks. Suppose that’s what I get for caring.

Contrary to popular belief, the covering of the Muslim woman is not oppression but a liberation from the shackles of male scrutiny and the standards of attractiveness. In Islam, a woman is free to be who she is inside, and immuned from being portrayed as sex symbol and lusted after. Islam exalts the status of a woman by commanding that she “enjoys equal rights to those of man in everything, she stands on an equal footing with man ” (Nadvi, 11) and both share mutual rights and obligations in all aspects of life.
- Liberation by the Veil

It’s true! Did you know that rape only happens here in the heathen western states? How often do you hear about rape in the Middle East?

There’s a reason for that.

Apparently, there’s an addendum in the Shari’a stating that if you are raped, you’d best keep your mouth shut, bitch. The addendum in question:

And she that is raped, may she be silent always, so as not to bring shame to her rapists, for Allah knows that deep, deep down in the heart (sic) of a woman, she knows that she really wants it anyway. I mean, c’mon, we all know when they’re not submitting to Allah, they love submitting to their master. Besides, showing both eyes like they do, you know they’re asking for it. Therefore, Allah commands that all women, should they be raped, shall STFU before him.
- Wasalta I-dharwa*

According to a recent article on CNN.com, a victim of gang rape in the Kingdom has been now sentenced to 200 lashes and a six month prison sentence. Her crime? Speaking out about the rape. Now, this might be understandable if the Kingdom and its judges are mortally afraid of bad press - speaking out could be seen as trying to garner negative attention to the country in the international media.

Oh wait, she was already sentenced to the tune of 90 lashes simply for being raped under Islamic law.

Of course, this is shocking and disgusting to us enlightened westerners. “Look at those backwards sand-niggers, with their silly and oppressive laws! I’m so glad I’m a good God-fearing Christian/Jew.”

What we don’t realize is that if Christians and Jews actually followed the law as defined by the bible, they would do the exact same thing… worse, in fact. Yes, those crazy Muslims actually are more lenient than Christians and Jews ought to be:

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
-Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Whereas a Muslim woman might only be lashed, a Christian or Jewish woman must be stoned, and I don’t mean that in the fun way. The same rule of law applies to an animal that has been raped, as well. Of course, this doesn’t happen in our modern society, but according to the “holy” babble, it should! The only reason there aren’t routine stonings of rape victims at the county fair grounds is that Christians and Jews don’t adhere to their own scripture. Instead, upon reading said verses, mumble to themselves that they’re silly, archaic, and in the Old Testament. Good point.

How can Christians get away with writing off Old Testament law while simultaneously holding aloft the entirety of the Bible as the ultimate guide for morality? This is not nearly the only case of reprehensible verses in the so-called “good news.” Many argue that the laws of the Old Testament were somehow fulfilled when Christ came to the earth. Why then, pray tell, do we still preach from and teach our children about it? If Christians had any decency, they’d confine anything from Genesis to Micah to the history books, where they belong. They don’t, and here’s why:

Why Christians refuse to condemn the Old Testament:

1. It contains Genesis. Whereas the rest of the Old Testament might be rife with scientific errancy (God has the strength of a unicorn, in case you were ever wondering), Genesis isn’t. God actually did create the world in 6 days (amazing, considering he hadn’t created the sun until day 3, which is necessary to define a “day”), making evolution an obvious fabrication.
   
2. They know that the New Testament is just as silly, so they would have to condemn it as well.
3. They would have to admit that their morality comes from somewhere other than a holy book.
4. No harm, no foul - nobody actually reads their Bibles anyway, except for the verses their preachers hand-pick
5. What else would they teach in Sunday School? All those warm fuzzy stories about Christ get boring after awhile. Kids want to hear about Joshua and his armies and their “scorched earth” campaign through Canaan, or how Abraham nobly nearly slaughtered his son.
6. There’s money to be made.

Jon Stewart has won me over.

Watson, a most respected scientist and one of the originators of the DNA double helix theory, has come under significant fire in the news recently for condemning those of African descent as less intelligent.

Editorials and blogs ignited over his statement, asking a particular sort of question:

How could he do such a thing, as a role model and public figure? What kind of person would say something like that? Is he a racist? A bigot?

I have a different, and better, question:

Is he right?

Note: before I begin, I have been informed that some who read the following post grossly misinterpret the ultimate conclusion, and therefore my true opinion, of this question. Just so there is no confusion:

There is no conclusive evidence of any race having a greater capability of intelligence over any other. Therefore, it is my belief that no race is more intelligent than any other. We do see a disparity in the current US, but this is more likely due to socioeconomic conditions.

That being said, here is my study of the current statistics:

There is a distinct correlation, in this modern world of ours, between race and intellect. From all studies I have seen, the fairly conclusive conclusion rates the intelligence of the races as follows:

Origin (from highest to lowest)

1. Far Eastern and Ashkenazi Jew
2. Caucasian
3. Arabian and Native American (including Hispanic)
4. African and Australian Aboriginal

Source

We can see this in our stereotypes: the AZN with four eyes and a calculator wherever he goes, average white guy, Mexican laborer, Black criminal. It’s hard to not concede that stereotypes do have a ring of truth to them.

Interestingly enough, intelligence is also negatively correlated with likelyhood to be incarcerated or commit a crime. Consider the following statistics:

Seems to be a pattern here. I arranged each of the statistics to be in the same order as the top 5 states according to prison population per capita, and it is quite easy to see the correlation between race, intelligence, religiosity, income, and single mothers. While none of these correlations are nearly conclusive (to do so is not remotely within the scope of this post), it surely is interesting. Texas (carrying Oklahoma along, I am sure) is known here in the states for its unique judicial system and statistics. I consider both to be anomalies. If we look at the other states, we see three of the dumbest, most religious, poorest, and blackest states in the union.

It certainly would be easy to assign causality to any one pair of these statistics: they’re dumb because they’re black, they’re criminals because they’re poor, they’re unwed because they’re religious, and so on. This, however, would be fallacious - correlation is not the same as causality, and the statistics can be interpreted in a number of different ways.

What can be gleaned from these statistics, however, is that if you are black, you are more likely to be from a “deep south” state, less intelligent, have a criminal record, be religious, poor, and be, know, or have children out of wedlock.

Why? It doesn’t seem that anyone has a conclusive answer. Here’s my take:

African-Americans have been integrated (for the most part) into the rest of American society for a whopping 40 years or so. Prior to that, they were subject to segregation, and prior to that, slavery.

I agree with Mr. Watson in that I think that the root of these problems is intelligence. By my definition, an intelligent mind is one with the capability to think critically and analyze. Thinking critically tends to lead to the loss of religious adherence. Intelligence lends the foresight to avoid crime, use birth control, and to prepare for and execute the steps needed to avoid poverty and live comfortably.

Michael Vick makes for an interesting case study. Straight out of the projects, his amazing talent on the football field was recognized and rewarded… to the tune of millions of dollars. Given similar amounts of wealth, many would choose to invest to preserve it, and donate to charity to share it. Mr. Vick, however, spent his millions defending himself from the law for indulging in the barbaric, carnal, and base sport of dogfighting. His case is hardly an exception. It is old news when a sports star, musician, actor, or other celebrity finds their means stripped by scandal, crime, and other remarkably un-wise choices - landing him straight back into the projects from which he came. Without the intelligence to analyze, think critically, and make good choices, wealth is irrelevant.

The breakdown:

It seems quite clear that blacks in current America are more likely to be less intelligent. This does not, however, imply that they are without the ability to be.

I do not know, and I do not think that it is possible to conclusively know at our current level of scientific understanding, if there is a genetic glass ceiling of intelligence that differs in height based on race.

The statistics show a significant correlation between intelligence and poverty rate. I believe this to be the critical correlation.

I think there is a tendency for humans to raise their children in a similar fashion that they were raised. The rich have dynasties, the middle class constantly struggle over generations, and the poor remain poor. This may be true of intelligence as well, but must be true of the value thereof. I would contend that the poor do not value or pursue intellect as much as others, and therefore, will likely remain poor.

I’d be curious to see the statistics of black children adopted by middle-class or wealthy families (of any race) regarding crime, religiosity, etc. I’d be willing to bet that they would be in stark contrast to the statistics above.

Notes:
* I don’t capitalize “black” as it would misrepresent my view of the race. I don’t see a black person as a Black person, but as a black Person.
* I generally use masculine pronouns when referring to hypothetical or otherwise non-specific situations. I’m no misogynist, not by a long shot, but perhaps if we can piss Feminists off enough, they’ll lobby to create a gender neutral pronoun for the English language. We could really use one. In fact, in my freshman English class, we used “narf.”
* I slipped religiosity into this personal study for the fun of it. It’s a subject of great interest to me, and the statistics are indeed intriguing…

Hello.

I like to think that people read this blog. It’s a fun little thought, but not necessary for the continuation thereof. I write here because I must.

I hate writing, (insert cliche here). I love, however, forcing my opinions upon everyone that will hear them - by choice or not.

My paradigm is a dynamic one, and one that I must constantly test and reconsider. There are many who float through life, without a set way of doing things, according to whichever wind happens to be blowing at the time. I would imagine they are quite happy: they are never ‘wrong’ because they never take a stance, have loads of friends because no one is able to disagree with them,  and have everything in common with the boy, girl, dog, fly, microwave, and dust mite next door. If only…

My method of testing generally is argument. I submit a topic of conversation in a subtly inflammatory way, attempting to arouse debate in another individual with different experiences, thoughts, opinions, and views than mine. I continually poke and prod until I find a particular topic that person is passionate about, find flaws in it, and challenge them to do so of my own position. Often, I’ll have a particular subject in mind, and will press continually until they find that they are, to their surprise, passionate about it.

Only recently have I realized that this exercise in self-discovery was abnormal and alienating, yet I continue notwithstanding.

This self understanding has taken years for me to understand, after constant scrutiny. It is the manifestation of nearly two decades of constant observation. You, dear reader, now know me better than any ex-girlfriend ever has.

γνωθι σεαυτόν… two words in a language you likely cannot distinguish from scribbles or an advanced math problem, but when you paste them into a google search bar later, you’ll probably stumble across a wikipedia article with a handful of fascinating “See Also” links. I would highly recommend you curl up with a laptop and enlighten yourself for 15 minutes or so, and discover why your life is “so messed up.”

…

see?