Awareness of Gay Bullying Through Silence is Disruptive

Imagine you’re a thirteen year old boy.  Alone.  Scared.  Alienated for something you can’t control or change.  You’re crying, you’re depressed, you’re an emotional wreck… your only way out?… how about you’re looking at a belt and a closet?

Perhaps that sounds too much like a Hollywood drama.

Alright, how about this: Imagine you’re a 21-year-old college student who is robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, and tied to a fence.  Hanging for 18 hours before being discovered only to die several days later.¹

or how about one more: You’re a 15-year-old kid who asked another boy to be his Valentine and because of that you’re shot in the back of the head during class and killed by that same boy.

These are not inventions of some mythical gay agenda to whip up sympathy from an unconvinced society for political means.  These things happen.  They are happening to our kids today.  While the first scenario is an invention, it is not a far fetched one as we can see in our papers recently of the girl who was literally bullied and harassed to death because no one wanted to step in and take responsibility for the problem.

The other two actually happened.  The first was Matthew Shepard, killed for simply revealing he was gay.  The second was the events surrounding Lawrence King’s death.

These events are real and they’re tragic.  As Ellen Degeneres stated on her show about Larry’s death:

“A boy has been killed and a number of lives have been ruined. And, somewhere along the line the killer, Brandon, got the message that it’s so threatening, so awful, and so horrific that Larry would want to be his Valentine — that killing Larry seemed to be the right thing to do. And when the message out there is so horrible that to be gay, you can get killed for it, we need to change the message.”²

One of the last things I am is what some in the community call a “gay-nazi”.  I don’t yell and scream about gay marriage with a poster exclaiming “Give us our rights!” while draped in flannel with a crown of spiky hair outside of our courthouses or legislative buildings.  (No offense to the flannel wearing spiky haired lesbian set.)

I learned to believe in making change through education and communication.  Through expressing ideas by knowledge and enlightenment of the problem.  I truly dislike many forms of “gay awareness” and “community activism”.  Those social buzzwords make me want to vomit my stomach contents.  Mainly because it’s not about the ideas expressed above but simply about throwing it in the worlds’ face and trying to force them to accept it.  However, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with bringing attention to an issue through a passive, compassionate means.  Especially when it addresses a problem that young gay people face.

This is the idea that greeted me this morning when I read a news report that had conservative family groups such as the American Family Institute are protesting public schools who were allowing students to take part in the awareness effort called “Day of Silence” affiliated with a gay and lesbian advocacy group.  The idea is simply nothing more than students remaining silent all day in an effort to create awareness of the fact that gay and lesbian students are harassed and bullied to sometimes lethal extremes.  This highlights the underlying issue that not only are they verbally and physically abused but that their voices go virtually unheard so often.  Sometimes resulting in the most horrifying outcome: death.

Yet, some “conservative family organizations” believe that this is, “is a disruptive waste of taxpayer dollars and a reason to keep kids out of school.”  They also go on to say that, “Obviously this is intended to make an impact on the educational environment — otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it at school.”

I don’t think you could find any more densely argued ideas in two sentences than you find in those two right there.  I think the summation of those two sentences go without follow-up.  They speak for themselves about the hardlined fear and willful ignorance these “family groups” fanatically hold on to in order to maintain some illusion of being “safe” from those awful gays.

YES, OBVIOUSLY they ARE intended to make an impact on the educational environment!!  That’s exactly where the problems lie!  Getting the word out after hours or off-campus as critics suggest should be done doesn’t expose the root and source of the problem and doesn’t target it.  These bullies and murderers come from your families!  You’re mentality toward gays and lesbians and where they fit into society is bled into your kids and your kids take it right to school where the ideology manifests itself into your children believing that they are superior to other children and have an innate right to harass and degrade those they see as wrong-minded and different.

A disruptive (disruptive?  Silence!) waste of taxpayers money and a reason to keep kids out of school.  I don’t remember the last time I heard that silence was in any way disruptive.  If anything I think we should institute more “days of silence” on our kids.  Can you imagine the pervading din of silence that would fall over the land if we could just get kids to shut up for a day?  Ironically the solution posed by the critic to pull kids out of school is the very idea of disruption and waste of taxpayers dollars.  So because you think the idea is a disruptive waste of taxpayers money you’re going to cause a bigger disruption and waste of taxpayers money and pull your kids out of school.

The only thing I really worry about is that these people can breed and they make more little people who think just like them.  Hopefully, the ones who can breed and who do allow their kids to remain will retain a hold of the majority of reproductive society and thus we can see an end to the ideas that because someone is gay or lesbian it’s okay to pick on them, harass them and beat them.  Someday that might just be as antiquated as the ideas they’re reading about in those books their learning from.

__________
1.) Wikipedia entry for Matthew Shepard-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard
2.) Ellen Degeneres Show transcript 2/29/2008

Bad Names Could Hurt Terrorists Feelings

From AP
“WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s advisers will remove religious terms such as “Islamic extremism” from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.

The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”

That shift away from terrorism has been building for a year, since Obama went to Cairo, Egypt, and promised a “new beginning” in the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world. The White House believes the previous administration based that relationship entirely on fighting terror and winning the war of ideas.

“You take a country where the overwhelming majority are not going to become terrorists, and you go in and say, ‘We’re building you a hospital so you don’t become terrorists.’ That doesn’t make much sense,” said National Security Council staffer Pradeep Ramamurthy.
(You’re right, that doesn’t make sense so if anyone would like to clarify this statement to me, I’d be most appreciative.)

“Do you want to think about the U.S. as the nation that fights terrorism or the nation you want to do business with?” Ramamurthy said.”
(Um… If you’re not a terrorist then you shouldn’t be worried about it.  Why can it not be both?  Why is it either/or?)

Okay here’s the deal, the so-called “Christians that were arrested a couple of weeks ago for seditious activity related to plotting to kill police officers and to incite war on the United States, they are Christian extremists.

They are militant Christians.

I am not offended at calling it that and I am furthermore not hesitant in the slightest to denounce them as such and as a wayward religious cult that is unidentifiable with mainstream Christian doctrine and beliefs.

Is it insulting to insinuate that there are jihadist militant extremist Muslims that exist?  If it is, it should be insulting to Muslims that their religion is being represented by jihadist militant extremists.

 

I would like to know what term exactly President Obama will now use to identify these people.  The creation of these terms and the inclusion of their faith is not a slam to a religious ideology per se, it is an identifying feature in defining exactly who we are fighting and what exactly we are up against.  Using the moniker of “Muslim” or “Islamic” identifies to people the idea and base these people use as a launching pad to wage war on innocent civilians.  It isn’t our fault that most of the terroristic activities we hear about in the news today are most commonly perpetuated by Muslims.  It’s an identifying marker to who we are fighting against.  Eliminating these terms in speech is whitewashing the situation.  If Muslim leaders, businessmen, politicians, or people feel that identifying terrorists as Muslim extremists, then perhaps they ought to be more proactive in eliminating these elements out of their religious affiliations and denouncing them for the cold-blooded, heartless, militant, jihadist extremists that they are.

Let’s review some major terrorist attacks over the past couple of decades:

“The men who used passenger jets to attack America on 9/11 were Muslim extremists.
In 2000, our warship the USS Cole was attacked by Muslim extremists. 
In 1998 US Embassy’s in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists killing 212 people and wounding thousands.
In 1996 Muslim extremists exploded a truck bomb outside an Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia killing 19 and injuring hundreds more.
In 1995 five Americans were killed by a car bomb explosion executed by Muslim extremists.
In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim extremists killing 6 and injuring thousands.  Also in 1993 Muslim extremists plotted to assassinate former US President George Bush….
In 1988 Another passenger jet PanAm flight 103 was bombed by Muslim extremists killing 270 people.
In 1986 Muslim extremists bombed a West Berlin discotheque frequented by US servicemen.
In 1985 Muslim extremists siezed an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Loro (sp?) and murdered Leon Klinghoffer, a 69 year old, wheelchair bound America.
In 1983 Muslim extremists blew up US Marine barracks in Beruit killing 241 American servicemen.
In 1982 Muslim extremists bombed the US embassy in Beruit killing 49 people including 17 Americans.
In 1979 Muslim extremists stormed the US embassy in Iran and held American embassy staff hostage for 444 days.

So naturally it took the Transportation Administration completely by surprise when the pilots of the planes being smashed into the World Trade Centers were Muslim extremists.”
(Source: Ann Coulter – If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans ©2007)

These people’s basis for terrorizing a planet has its roots in their religious ideology.  You cannot separate them from one another because to do so would be to deny the roots of the cause.  Whitewashing what they are for the purposes of building relationships with Muslim countries is plainly denying the truth of the cause for the sake of money and popularity among nations.   If Muslim countries are insulted by their terroristic counterparts, then perhaps they should take steps more prominent on the world-wide stage to combat them instead of directing any mismanaged anger at the ones who dare to label what is going on by what it is.

McGregor Blasts Bush for War

By WENN.com | Tuesday, March 30, 2010

The Trainspotting star is furious ex-U.S. President Bush has not been called to account for his decision to invade the two countries – and is dismayed Blair never apologised for the U.K.’s involvement in the controversial conflict.

He insists it was right the former British leader gave evidence to the Iraq Inquiry in London earlier this year (10) but is adamant the two ex-politicians should be made to provide more answers.

McGregor says, “My thing about politicians is that ultimately they’re never really accountable for what they do. I think that’s awful. No one goes, ‘Wait a minute, Tony – before you go, don’t you think we have a right to know about this and this?’ People are dead, there’s blood on the streets, and is anyone accountable? I was pleased that Blair had to sit down and answer for his decisions. And saddened that Bush never will.

“Bush has retired to the golf course. I cannot stomach that. It’s not right. Blair hasn’t said sorry or, by all accounts, made any comment to the kids who lost their arms and legs and eyes. Probably thousands of kids – and he hasn’t visited them. I don’t know how you live with yourself, really.”

Well, Ewan, I would have to say that, firstly, Bush can’t declare war on whomever he chooses without the consent of 2/3rds of Congress.  Which he had.  Secondly, many prominent Democrats (many of whom were in Congress) who later opposed the war agreed with Bush at the time and advocated getting Saddam Hussein out of power because of intelligence information that was gathered showing he was harboring terrorists and had WMD’s.  (Not to mention that subsequent information yielded evidence of vehicular labs for development of these weapons.)  Bush also had to send a delegation (I believe headed by Colin Powell) to the United Nations to be held accountable for his actions before heading into Iraq.  France, who initially shat on the idea (as they do most things) congratulated Bush for finally catching Saddam before demanding that he let the UN handle the processing of the man. 

If you want to talk about the children being hurt, why not acknowledge that far more children were being hurt, abused, dismembered, raped, killed, and separated from their families under a sadistic dictator for several decades.  Not to mention the fact that American and British soldiers didn’t do these things to children and that if damage was done to them it was from the insurgents from their own country who perpetuated violence on their own people with their IED’s. 

Finally, if you’re going to criticize, Ewan, then have an answer to the problem.  What should American and British leaders have done when our countries were viciously attacked by jihadist Muslims intent on killing as many innocent men, women, and yes, CHILDREN as they possibly could and the sources from which these terrorist were STREAMING out was Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan?  If we weren’t supposed to go in there what were we supposed to have done?  Would you have had us react to Hitler the same way?  Sit on our collective arses and do nothing while he committed the atrocities he did and please remember, Hitler didn’t attack our country, Japan did.  Yet we went to war directly with Germany and Japan.  The same logic applies here. 

I am a HUGE Ewan McGregor fan.  I love so many of the movies he’s/you’ve made.  I am saddened that you take such a dim view of the ugly choices our countries were forced to make in light of even uglier circumstances.  Yet, if you don’t have a better solution and you don’t know all the facts, which apparently you seem to lack… and also, if you’re not an American citizen, then don’t criticize my President and his choices and actions.  Especially if you don’t have a better solution.

Atheists’ Hate Sign = Lawsuit

I remember reading last year during Christmas that the Illinois Capitol Building had displayed in it’s lobby several different displays featuring seasonal icons or messages.  In a typical PC attempt to encompass every idea on the season, the Capitol chose to display an Atheist’s message as well.

It read:

“At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

The group responsible for this sign is Freedom from Religion Foundation who’s also responsible for such actions as encouraging people to complain to the post office about a stamp honoring Mother Teresa and challenging the prayers at President Obama’s inauguration.  They are also responsible for planting this same sign across the country near nativity scenes at Christmas.

The lawsuit has been filed by GOP comptroller candidate William J. Kelly in which it states: “The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, in conjunction with the 14th Amendment, forbids state action that has the effect of disapproving, inhibiting or evincing hostility toward religion.  The United States Supreme Court has specifically held, for instance, that the Constitution affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any…  The language in the sign at issue stating ‘Religion is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds’ is speech that evidences disapproval and hostility toward religion.”

A commentary by “Dafydd ab Hugh” states:

“…consider this hypothetical placard, which could have been erected directly in front of the menorah in the rotunda:

At the time of the Mass of Christ, let the Son of God prevail. There are no laws, no acts that can save you from hell. There is only the divine salvation that comes from the King of Kings. Judaism is just myth and superstition that bewitches believers and damns souls.

Does anybody believe that such a (purely hypothetical) sign would be allowed under the Illinois state Capitol dome? Obviously not, because it is not so much an expression of faith as an attack on other people’s faith.

FRFF (sic) plants their pugnacious sign like Cortez planting the flag of Spain in Aztec Mexico: Wherever it stands, it’s a deliberate and truculent affront to religions other than atheism… as even the foundation’s co-president agrees!”

This is in line with a similar Atheist campaign last year on busses in the United States and the United Kingdom.  The one’s in the US said: “”Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness’ sake.”  The one in the UK said, “There probably is no God.  Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”  This movement has taken, or tried to take, more aggressive and insulting forms in different countries since then.  My question is, Why NOT believe in God?  Why are you worrying and not enjoying your life because you DO believe in God?”  Taken altogether however, these are considerably less insulting to members of faith than the sign displayed by the Freedom from Religious Foundation, but nonetheless evoke the question, why not simply promote your viewpoint instead of starting off with mine?

So many people construe (and I think mainly because religious zealots pitch it in such a repressive manner) that Christianity is evil.  Strictly speaking… “God loves you and wants your love in return” is the point of the message of Christianity and doesn’t seem so egregious a concept to me.  However, whether you believe in God or not is completely up to you and for your own reasons you’ve chosen to deny His existence.  I’m not arguing the belief system, or lack thereof, I’m arguing the nature of the Atheist that feels it’s perfectly acceptable to hatefully disparage the Christians beliefs for acknowledging a God and embracing His tenants.  Perhaps I am treating the Christian evangelization effort with blinders, but from what I’ve seen and experienced there’s not too many mainstream Christian believers that will adamantly or blatantly say, “You’re going to hell if you don’t believe in God.”  I say mainstream because I can’t account for the endless parade of Evangelical/Fundamentalists who are on their own separate mission from God and seemingly have little qualms about ostrasizing those they are attempting to save by spouting antagonistic phraseology like that. 

For instance, what Atheist is going to be charmed by the phrase, “You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can’t Make Him Think” which is a book by Fundamentalist extremist Ray Comfort (“Way of the Master”)?  Well, gee… let me reconsider my stance on Christianity right now!  How insulting!  If anything, there is less evidence for God than there is for tangible material matter.  It is easier to believe in what you can experience with the touch and examine with the mind rather than believe in a Being who has not manifested Himself in over 2000 years and whose proof of existence is mostly confined to a personal experience and miraculous word-of-mouth, so to speak.  I have my own reasons for my belief by following logic, historical fact, and personal experience the least of which has anything to do with feelings, and I am very convicted about it.  If someone doesn’t believe in the existence of God then that is their decision.  My personal mantra is a quote attributed to St. Francis of Assisi which states, “Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.”  If you live your own life and do your own thing, paraphrasing the saint again, by “Walking what you preach” then if they want to know, or better still can see the benefits of living that way, then you will have made a much more convincing argument for your belief than mere words can do.

Therefore, in that same regard I would ask that similar kindness be extended by my fellow non-believers.  Attacking me doesn’t prove your point.  Attacking my faith makes you look like the antagonist and a bully.  If any place allows an Atheist to plant their placard why not let it simply state, “If you don’t believe in God, you’re not alone.  Have a wonderful day” or “Believe in yourself”?  What’s wrong with stating your non-belief without directly insulting mine?

“Lord, grant that I might not so much seek to be loved as to love.”
“Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love.”
“No one is to be called an enemy, all are your benefactors, and no one does you harm. You have no enemy except yourselves.”
- Francis of Assisi
(Does this sound like ideological concepts that merit so much antagonism?)

“Avatar’s” Pagan Environmental Worship

Avatar is far from simply being cool graphics, a great science-fiction adventure, and a thrilling 3-D adventure.  Some elements in this film may make some people uneasy or even angry.

I believed enough time had passed from it’s grand opening a few months ago to yesterday afternoon (despite the fact that it’s still number 1 at the movies) that it would be safe to go see Avatar without having to battle crowds.  I nonetheless found that I had to sit off-center because the IMAX 3-D theater was mostly full at the matinée 3:30 showing.

The hype over the visual graphics and the amazing scenery it renders is truly beyond compare and I think anyone who doesn’t take the opportunity to see visual imagery like that through the lenses of a pair of 3-D glasses have robbed themselves of a brilliant one time event that can’t be repeated after it leaves the IMAX.

The graphics themselves tell an amazing story of a futuristic time on a different planet.  That alone is a story unto itself.  It speaks to the mind of an exploratory desire that is fully rendered and more satisfied by the 3-D experience.   Even the actual story itself is spectacular.  The promising ideas presented as reality in the story are captivating and intriguing.  It is definitely enough to have most people engrossed in the story and what it has to offer.  Viewers will connect and sympathize with the main protagonists quite easily.

The entire movie is long enough (almost three hours long) that by the time the real message of the story is completely revealed you’re quite concerned about everything the director wished for you to be engrossed with.

The entire film boils down to one message: The environment is more important than anything else in the world and human beings are its worst enemy.

The message is paraded behind the mask of showing utter disrespect to and indifference toward native inhabitants of a land, yet that points to its bigger message, and that is that the natives are shown no respect because greedy, imperialist, war-mongering humans want to rape the environment for wealth.

The capstone of this message is emphasized by the pivotal point of the story which reveals a paganism worship of nature as the ultimate (and, as portrayed, ultimately real) deity.  A ‘tree of life’ is worshipped, prayed to, and called a deity throughout different points in the film.  It has the power to restore or give life to individuals and it controls all aspects of life on the planet.

I do not, by any stretch, wish to resemble or present myself as a fanatical religious Christian.  I am not.  I think there’s great deal of overreaction and willful ignorance by Christian groups to Harry Potter.  I will argue the negative on that subject at a later date.  Although, I highly dislike the Golden Compass movie (even with the ‘religious’ slant taken out because to any Catholic the iconography is glaringly apparent.)  I will not give my money to Dan Brown or any producer who blasphemes the teachings of Christianity to make a buck, but on the other hand I think if an individual (minor or adult) is not fortified enough in their beliefs to be able to withstand age appropriate fiction then they’re a kool-aid drinker and probably shouldn’t be allowed out of the house anyway.

Those clarifications being made, I still found myself uneasy at the portrayal of nature being a god and that worship of it bestows upon one the graces of it’s benevolence.  Environment is the ultimate god in this movie.  It is the source of life and, much like the force of the Star Wars universe, it surrounds us and binds us all together.  In fact, the main protagonists prayer to the tree reveals that human beings have “killed their own mother” on their own planet and now it is dying which is why, in part, they have come to this new planet to do the same thing.  

The deification behind this environmental finger pointing stems directly from it’s creator James Cameron who is a big time environmentalist and it is clearly visible in this film.  As I stated before, movies and media don’t usually affect me in an adverse way regardless of their content because I am clearly fortified enough in my faith that I can conceive of fictional beliefs as opposed to real ones.  However, the problem I face with any medium which presents such ideas as certainties is that it does seep into the mainstream mass conscience and at some level people absorb it and sometimes experience some sort of conversion to the ideas contained within it.  Things presented in this fashion create an impact on people that I don’t think is necessarily right.  I don’t come to the movies to learn or be taught about the environment, political agendas, or religious ideology.  I come to the movies to be entertained.  I dislike hearing and seeing someone’s personal agenda being propagated through an inappropriate platform and those who use their position in entertainment to proselytize their personal campaigns.  There’s a time and place for everything.  Everything can be addressed but doing it on stage during your Oscar acceptance speech, or through a movie is a bit insulting and inappropriate in my mind. 

This may sound a bit like going off the deep end a bit, but Cameron himself understands this position very, very well.  He understands the power he has to influence the masses through his medium and specifically wishes to do so as he clearly stated in an interview for the film, “… the thing is, you can’t move people from their belief system. So if you have someone who doesn’t believe the energy crisis, or wars are created unjustly because of our energy requirements.  If they don’t believe the world is the way it really is, than they’re not gonna change their mind. If somebody does believe that, or is looking for an answer, this may influence them because of the sense of outrage that is produced by moments into his film.  Maybe its optimistic, maybe it doesn’t work that way. But if a film is successful and becomes a part of the zeitgeist, and there’s a feeling its good to believe this way, and its good to have a sense of responsibility, than people will still rail against it, but maybe it does create a little bit of movement. Our culture evolves through all of its various influences. And major films, major TV shows, celebrities, whatever.  If you hear it enough times, it does start to generate an interest.  Read more: The /Filmcast Interview: James Cameron, Director of Avatar

Pound your viewpoints into people’s heads long enough and it becomes their truth.  They will fight for you and for your cause because they have begun to believe whatever you tell them regardless of its truthfulness or error.

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” 
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”
- Adolf Hitler

The truly aggravating thing to me is not that environmentalism is promoted and preached in this movie, it’s that the environment is promoted above all things here to the point of making it an object of worship and deification.  I think regardless of whether or not its fiction, its supposition is wrong and, fortified against it or not, it ultimately makes the whole movie off-putting. 

A person shouting, “expecto patronum!”  isn’t going to conjure up a magical beast of light to ward off dark beings.  An individual can’t wield a light sword and make things move with their minds, but people can believe that environment is so important that individuals must revert to a primitive way of life in order to be part of it.  (Just look at all the environmental extremists and their efforts to reduce global warming.)  People can and do believe in pagan worship of nature and can encourage others to do the same.  Suggestion can be a very powerful thing.  The more subtle it is, the more plausible it is, the more likely it is to be effective.

Atheism Poster Wrong Atheists

Not too long ago an aquaintance of mine sent me a poster.  I found it at the time to be particularly distasteful to receive.  Not because it advocates that Atheism is a mindset to adhere to, but it seemed to insinuate to me that as a believer I was the moron because I held to a faith tradition.  It suggests that all the smartest and most prominent people were Atheists and I think thereby assumes that those who do practice a faith tradition are the real idiots.

 

After looking at this there are several glaring problems with this poster.  Mainly, that most of those people did hold to some sort of religious idealology, if not to an organized religion or church.

The most insulting to me was Abraham Lincoln who’s writings I’ve enjoyed reading.  He very often referred to scripture and God in high reverence.  His one clarifying statement regarding this is:

“That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or any denomination of Christians in particular.”
– July 31, 1846 – Handbill Replying to Charges of Infidelity

As to Thomas Jefferson I read:

“Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man’s, and trouble none with mine.” –Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198

“Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle.” –Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

“I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to Him, and not to the priests.” –Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. M. Harrison Smith, 1816. ME 15:60

From Benjamin Franklin I read:

“You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render Him is doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
“As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see… I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed…
“I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the goodness of that Being in conducting me prosperously through a long life, I have no doubt of its continuance in the next, without the smallest conceit of meriting it… [Benjamin Franklin, letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale, shortly before his death; from "Benjamin Franklin" by Carl Van Doren, Also see Alice J. Hall, "Philosopher of Dissent: Benj. Franklin," National Geographic, Vol. 148, No. 1, July, 1975, p. 94]

 

On Charles Darwin I read:

He [Darwin] was a Christian and yes, he did lose his faith. But he was never an atheist. He engaged in religious debate with friends but confessed to being in a hopeless “muddle”.  (TimesOnline.com September 17, 2008 “God, Evolution and Charles Darwin” Nick Spencer)

“The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.” (Charles Darwin’s Autobiography)

“In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” (Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879)

My point to this is that it doesn’t take a lot of research and reading to know instantaneously just by looking at this poster that it’s wrong in its assessment of people’s faith or beliefs.  With enough insight and experience one can often tell who does read and examine the point put forward and who simply accepts it at face value.  Also, who believes what anyone will say and who will consider the source.  Unfortunately, too many will believe a lot of things much too easily without follow-up of any kind.

 cogito ergo sum

Plastering Jesus Everywhere

A few days ago I came across a video story regarding a government contractor company called Trijicon who produces scopes for combat rifles used by the US Military.  As far as I have been able to discern this company has been doing this for the better part of twenty years.

Recently, it was reveiled by a religious advocacy group”, Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), that Tijicon has been subtly adding innocuous references to Bible verses in it’s serial codes on it’s products.

An excerpt from CNSNews.com – Trijicon’s “outrageous practice” of stamping Christian references on rifle scopes used by the U.S. military “was an unconstitutional disgrace of the highest magnitude to our military and an action that clearly gave additional incentive and emboldenment to recruiters for our nation’s enemies.  It is nothing short of a vile national security threat that, despite our nation’s efforts to convince the Muslim world we are not pursuing a holy war against them, our military and its contractors time again resort to unlawful fundamentalist evangelical Christian practices, even on the battlefield,” Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) head Mikey Weinstein said, after Trijicon Inc. announced it would now stop the practice.

He also states on its Web site that it “brought to light” the existence of “the secret ‘Jesus’ Bible codes.”

Before the MRFF-initiated “ABC News investigation,” Trijicon had included the biblical references alongside other markings on its products for more than two decades, a practice it ascribed in a statement this week to “our faith and our belief in service to our country.”

Thanks to the MRFF, the obscure sets of numbers and letters like 2COR4:6 and JN8:12 are now widely known to refer to New Testament verses.

Trijicon… agreed to stop putting references to scripture on products manufactured for the U.S. military…

You can read the full story here: CNSNews.com – Group That Alerted Media to Biblical Markings on Rifle Sights Wants Congress to Investigate ‘Military Religious Extremism’.

I have to admit I did run through several opinions in my head at once upon reading this.  My first opinion was, There they go again, plastering Jesus everywhere and in the most inappropriate places.

While I haven’t really come away with a different mentality about this opinion I still think it’s mostly an idiotic fight to get the “bad guys” who dare invoke the name of Christianity everywhere.  I agree with the notion that they shouldn’t be on there.  Mostly because I think it’s extremely disrespectful and irreverent to invoke Christ, who died for our sins in the most brutalistic way, by throwing around verse numbers to the Most Sacred Book which is the Bible like so much cheap fortune cookie advice.  Which is, unfortunately, the tact of many of our Fundamentalist/Evangelical brethren.  I agree that it shouldn’t be on there at all in the first place.  There is a time and a place for everything and putting that on a gun scope is probably not the brightest idea.

However, the idea that it is proselytizing to Muslims is utterly idiotic!
I defy anyone to give me an abbreviated Qur’an book with chapter and verse right now who is not a Muslim.  You probably wouldn’t recognize it if you saw it.  While I agree they shouldn’t be on there because (among many reasons) it’s just tackily irreverent, I defy that any single Muslim ever while either being shot at by one, or being trained by one, ever looked at the serial number and thought, Hey, Jn 8:12!  That’s a *gasp* Bible verse!  I bet most Americans wouldn’t even notice it, and if they did I am betting some wouldn’t be afluent enough to even connect it to the Bible.

I think it’s a bad combination of religious disregarding reverence and decency and the bored liberal fringe who hate everything to do with Christians, running headlong into each other.

Either way, I’m annoyed at every side on this one.