BACKWOODS BUCKTOOTH FILES #1

I pick on religion. I think it deserves it. In fact, I think it deserves all of the respect it gives to the people it condemns with no evidence but faith and a book. But from time to time I get a little ahead of myself and neglect to offer complete explanations and omit various necessary exemptions and clarifications. So without any further ado I’d like to offer these as explanations of my religious worldview and from henceforth in all religious discussions or writings these shall be assumed: *

1. There are good people within all religions. Attacks on religion are an attack on the institution, not generally the individuals within it. Though individuals do, at times, warrant a bitch slapping.

2. There are decent religions/denominations. However, the more “liberalized” religions and even more liberal individuals within conservative religions are a product of intellectual progression. They exist because people have allowed their life experiences to alter their biblical views—the mark of a person who has evolved beyond caveman status.

                     

*This list is not all inclusive. I may add or subtract at any time. I’m human and, thus, reserve the right to change my mind.

 So now that that’s out of the way, on with the religious smackdown…

This is why I believe firmly that religion is dependent upon the brainwashing of children in order to survive through time—

I don’t hate these people. No, these people aren’t to be hated. These people should be pitied. They’re a product of the same child abuse they’re now passing down to the children in their congregation. This is sad and this is why religion causes so much suffering in our world. Maybe that little boy in the video will grow up and realize that he’s gay. Imagine his suffering when he has to try to resolve what he knows intuitively about who he is with what he’s been brought up to believe.  

This is one of the saddest and most despicable videos I’ve watched in recent times. Bigots are not born, they’re raised.

Matthew 18: 5-6

            “And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be downed in the depths of the sea.”

And Jesus wept…

DOG WHISTLES AND MORAL MAJORITIES

Every time I write about religion I find myself asking the question, why does religion get a free pass from scrutiny? I think it’s a more than fair question considering there are many out there who would wish that their religious beliefs should dictate civil law. Of course, they wouldn’t frame the argument that way. They would say that their beliefs are based on tradition and natural law. They would also be ignorant.

If there is one phrase I hate, one phrase that makes me want to projectile vomit across the room, it's, "This country was founded on Judeo-Christian Values." That's just plain ignorance. It implies that basic human decency is reserved for only the so called descendants of Abraham (except, of course, the Muslims). It's a backhanded attempt to detract from any person who doesn't think like them, and its implication that Christianity should dictate our law is antithetical to the most basic values of this country.

There no doubt that religion played a role in the formation of this country. The evangelical movement was a primer (not the only primer) for the idea that all were created equal and the true moral measure of a man is with his deeds rather than his hierarchical place in society. This certainly isn’t to say that religion or God, per se, was the reason for going to war. Our Founding Fathers weren't bible thumping evangelicals at all. Many were deists, many were Unitarians, Episcopalians, but certainly not snake-handling, tongue-speaking, fire and brimstone-preaching, holy-rolling, shove my religion down your throat Jesus freaks. They embraced the egalitarian principles of religion and dumped the dogma. Our Founding Fathers were also influenced by Rousseau, Locke, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Machiavelli, among others. Do we call ourselves a country founded on Machiavellian principles? In fact, I would argue that the split from the Anglican Church and the ideas of the first great awakening and subsequent schisms in the Protestant Church were largely influenced by (secular) Enlightenment thinking.

There's no doubt and it's laughable to argue against the fact that the majority of Americans in the history of its post-Revolutionary existence were (and are) Christians. A Christian majority is not synonymous with a national Christian identity. There is only one fact that needs to be mentioned to understand the role that our Founding Fathers thought religion should play in government and that’s that there is no mention of God in our Constitution. Rest assured it was debated, but in the end, the decision was to leave God out.

But Lemon, how about the part that says, “…the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them,” or even more celebrated, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

You fool, that’s the Declaration of Independence.

But alas, I’ve got you this time Lemon…In the signatory section of the Constitution it states, “…in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven…”

Give me a break. This is a reference to time, not religion and it was common to refer to the date in this form in the period in both religious and secular circles.

The conspicuous absence of God from the Constitution should be a big flag to everybody out there that our Founders explicitly knew the dangers of intermingling civil law with religious doctrine. Combine that with the First Amendment, and it’s a no brainer—“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” In so many words, religion is an important aspect of many people’s lives and they deserve to practice their form of worship, but it’s a private choice and, thus, government has no business forcing it upon its citizens via legislation nor at the barrel of a gun. Yes, when the founders talked about free exercise of religion, they were largely talking about freedom to practice the whichever Christian sect you chose and, in deed, many feared atheism, Islam (Mahometans), and deism. But our Founders also owned slaves. People evolve and if you remain stagnant in a changing world then you, too, will become irrelevant. You want government sanctioned religion—go live in Saudi Arabia (I’d just suggest watching your head or you might lose it).

Now, all that said, what the hell are these Judeo-Christian theorists even talking about anyway? Which values, exactly, are they referring to? Are they talking about the fact that a large segment of society is denied basic civil rights because they love differently than the majority? Are we talking about relegating women to subservient and subjugated roles to men by denying them the right to make choices, paying them less for the same work, or making them pay more for basic medical care, if not outright taking away access to preventative healthcare? Maybe they’re referring to tactics ranging from covert operations to fighting outright wars in order to advance our (and our allies) economic interests and to satisfy our imperialistic tendencies from the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran to protect British oil interests, to Panama, to going to bed with Saudi Arabia, to going to Grenada to cover up for a disaster in Lebanon, to abandoning Afghanistan to go to Iraq, to filtering money from the World Bank and USAID to underdeveloped countries so corporations can rape them of their resources and then flee once the money’s made (shall I go on?). Are we talking about war profiteering and that the US military actually had the gall to inscribe Bible passages on weapons intended to kill in some of the most violent ways possible? I would remind these people what the Bible really says about war profiteering (Proverbs 1:10-19, Isaiah 59:1-8). Maybe these are the Judeo-Christian values they’re talking about.

But alas no, these are not the values our Judeo-Christian supremacists are referring to. They refer to our basic sense of right and wrong--equality of man, liberty, human creativity, that we don't (in theory) murder each other, steal from each other, lie to each other, or screw somebody else's spouse, among other things.

Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on morality. These are basic rules of human decency. Any group of people that has to live together in a community could figure out that they probably shouldn't kill each other. Do you honestly think that if there wasn't some invisible warden or taskmaster in the sky that you'd feel free to guillotine your neighbor? Is it only the threat of punishment that keeps you from murder? If so, then I fear you more than anybody outside of Judeo-Christianity.

The reality is, anytime you hear someone refer to our country being, "founded on Judeo-Christian Values," you can rest assured that it's a dog whistle. It's a coded message meant to rile up the emotions of supremacists who believe they're the gatekeepers to morality and saviors of our depraved country. They're telling their audience that they don't have to worry about the homos being able to marry, or the women folk aborting all those babies, or a Muslim being able to walk into an airport without being strip searched, and those atheist heathens aren't gonna be able to keep our God out of the public institutions anymore. Every time you hear "Judeo-Christian Values," or "Family Values," translate it as homophobic, anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-anybody who doesn't kneel at the cross on Sunday mornings. In fact, there was a time not long ago that churches had very little to no interest in playing politics. They didn't want the dirty pool of politics to taint their religion. Oh, what a wonderful time that must have been. Believe it or not, we weren't blessed with the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Paul Weyrich, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and other right hand men of God until the latter half of the 20^th century. Now we're stuck with one political party that's a demi-religious cult.

I'm sick of hearing about Judeo-Christian values. I'm tired of Christians thinking they are the moral authority when, in reality, their value system is just a result of an evolving need to live together in a community. I'm sick of the claim of "family values" being a cloak for the hypocrisy of pastors who rail against gays while they're smoking crystal meth and banging their male masseurs on the weekends. A word of advice: the louder someone rails against homosexuality, the bigger repressed homo they are themselves. And I'm entirely sick of Christianity being used as a guise for racism and male hegemony. So the next time you think that your Christian roots give you moral superiority over all others, I have the perfect place you can stick your Judeo-Christian principles.

LIFE LESSONS FROM LEMON VOLUME 2: A PRIMER ON GYM ETIQUETTE

This post may not necessarily belong here, it's not exactly politics or religion. But it’s something that’s on my mind and when something’s on my mind I like to let everyone know about it!

Gym etiquette. Now, I’m not talking about wiping down your benches, or yakking away on your cellphone, or grunting like Maria Sharapova at Wimbledom while you’re warming up with 10 pound dumbbells. Yes, Mr. Hyperhidrosis is disgusting, I’d like to smash Chatty Cathy’s cellphone against the wall, and the over-testosteronized ape trying to draw attention to himself needs to realize people are laughing at him, not admiring him. (**Note: I’m talking about the meathead grunters who are clearly want for attention and probably have small penises, not those who let out a little groan pushing out that last set or rep-all respect to hard workers, no respect to assholes).

No, I’m not talking about those people. I’m talking about people who are at the gym for its social aspect. I’m talking about the people who, if they worked their muscles out as hard as their jaws, they’d be ripped. I'm talking about Mr. or Ms. STFU (though, I find that it's almost always Mr. STFU, despite the stereotypes).  

I have no problem if you want to pay a monthly fee to go make new acquaintances at the gym, but you need to learn how to discern the difference between social gym goers and people who are there to workout seriously. Look to the right of this post. See the picture of the chick with the red, white, and blue cowboy hat and mannish looking arms? That’s me. Do I look like somebody who’s at the gym to make friends? If your answer was yes, then you’d be wrong.

Don’t get me wrong, I like people—I really do—but I take working out seriously. I don’t have a problem taking a second to say hi to my fellow lifters. Heck, if you’re a friend, I have no problem taking a minute to catch up with you. And if I haven’t started or I’m finished with my workout I’ll stay and talk to you as long as you want. But I’m the type of person who has very little interest in inane, how’s the weather-type conversations anyway, let alone when I’m trying to bench press 150 pounds. So, here’s a little advice—when you see a chick bench pressing her body weight, it’s not generally advisable to go strike up a conversation with her. She’s not there for the sociability of the gym.

And just in case, here are a few more signals that someone is not interested in interrupting their workout to strike up a conversation—

1.      Brim of the cap covering the eyes. This is a signal that the person is focused on themselves and what they’re doing. They are avoiding eye contact so as not to entice onlookers to interrupt.

2.      Headphones. Headphones are actually a multi-purpose device. Yes, they deliver the sweet dulcet sounds of Kenny Loggins to your eardrums, but they have a highly useful secondary function. Headphones are an antisocial device. They scream leave me alone. Sometimes I even put headphones on without any music for that sole purpose.

3.     Working out at 4:00 AM. Anyone who hauls their ass to the gym at 0400 is probably there for a workout and not to talk. Leave them alone. If you want to be social, go to the gym at 4:00 PM.  

4.     The person limits answers to “uh huh,” “mmm,” “yep,” and other nonsensical utterances while grabbing at the piece of equipment they are currently on. This is a big one. You’ve already tried to strike up the conversation. The person is telling you, “I’m working out here. I’m trying to tell you to go away without being completely rude.” Be careful because this person is one step away from going Regan MacNeil on you.

I’ve tried all of the above and still seem to attract the social butterflies of the gym. So, clearly, they are not fool proof methods. I suppose I just scream, "come talk to me." It must be my friendly aura.

AYN RAND SHRUGGED

The latest manufactured kerfuffle on Capitol Hill has been Paul Ryan's sudden rebuke of the once heralded conservative philosopher Ayn Rand. The man who once said, “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” now rejects her philosophy and in lieu of the objectivist viewpoint, now claims to prefer the much more Catholic-approved Thomas Aquinas.

I guess Paul Ryan is no longer John Galt.

You have to wonder sometimes if these politicians haven't heard about the Google—a wonderful new invention that can prove someone is lying in about 3 seconds.

Why the sudden rebuke of Ayn Rand from our favorite House budget author and restorer of America's promise? It's not the cold-hearted rational egoism philosophy or the embrace of the widely discredited and plutocratic laissez faire capitalism. It's not the inherent greed and callousness of philosophical objectivism or her staunch promotion of child labor. No, no.

Here’s the reason Paul Ryan now rejects his former hero:

The tune is changing in this election year for the vice presidential wannabe to a more dulcet religious tone and Ayn Rand was--GASP! GULP! YELP! SAY WHAT?-an Atheist. Now Congressman Ryan claims, "I reject her philosophy. It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.

I don’t care that Paul Ryan has suddenly seen the error of his ways in his Randist philosophy. The political maneuver should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain. Not to mention, none of this matters anyway. It's a manufactured controversy and nobody but a few wing nut Christians and a few liberal opportunists is really concerned about the Ryan/Rand connection.

My question is about the blatant atheophobia in America. You probably have a better chance of winning public office in this country if you’re a black, gay, Muslim than if you’re openly atheist. Why are Americans afraid of atheists? Why the necessity for some faith-based belief in a “higher power?”  You don’t have to believe in their God, just as long as they believe in some God, but non-belief—that’s unacceptable.

I’m quite confident that it's because religious people can't comprehend that morality can exist without God. Despite abundant evidence to the contrary, they believe morality is derived from only God and, therefore, without God there is no morality. This is ridiculous, of course. Morality isn't derived from God but out of an evolutionary necessity to live together in a commuity. Atheists don’t blow up buildings in the name of atheism, atheists don’t bomb abortion clinics in the name of atheism, atheists don’t commit genocide in the name of atheism. The view of the “immoral/amoral atheist” is a conjured up straw man used by the religious in order to explain away all the ills of the world.

But Stalin was an atheist…so more people have been killed in the name of atheism than any other philosophy.

Because Stalin was an atheists does not mean his murder streak was in the name of atheism. Atheism was a part of the larger Communist philosophy. Stalin was a totalitarian psychopath. Besides, Stalin was educated in an Orthodox seminary—it’s just as arguable that his religious upbringing and education had plenty to do with his violence. There’s a reason they call them the “formative years.”

But, Lemon, Hitler was an atheist.

Um…no he wasn’t. Do a little research before you start throwing out easily disprovable lies that you heard from some right wing loony tune.

I don’t support the larger part of Ayn Rand objectivism. I’m a liberal. I believe that there is a place for the collective good over self-interest. Objectivism is a cold, heartless philosophy not based in any sort of realistic vision of society or people in general and, frankly, I think it’s just wrong. First, quantum physics is starting to disprove the metaphysical aspect of objectivism (that reality exists independent of man’s conscious observations—for a great quantum read, I suggest Biocentrism by Robert Lanza). I’m far less Aristotelian than Rand. Aristotle, was (ironically) irrationally optimistic about man. While I agree that reason and logic should be man’s way of acquiring knowledge, the empirical evidence shows that man’s worldview is not based on logic or reason. Take religion, for example. The vast majority of people in the world have some sort of religious belief. Studies show that belief decreases with an increase in analytical thinking. Religion is, by nature, irrational. If ration was man’s default, there would be far less religion in the world. Objectivism is a rather ironic viewpoint in that it’s an idealistic view of man rather than a view based on the empirical evidence. Besides, as a liberal, I don’t believe that man’s default is total rejection of the collective good in the name of self-interest and no good Christian ethicist should believe that either. Remember the whole basis of your religion? JC died for you, not for him (apparently). 

I don’t support objectivism, but Ayn Rand nailed it on the head with her views on religion.

In response to the question, “has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?” Ayn Rand answered:

“Qua religion, no - in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man's life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very - how should I say it? - dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith.”—Playboy Interview, 1964

That is a reasonable opinion. So why do so many people fear reason? Why does religion get a free pass from being questioned? Is it because if people were asked to defend their religion, they might sound a little ridiculous? This is particularly true of intelligent people. A less intelligent person has no problem saying that a man lived in a big fish for three days or Lazarus was raised from the dead. Smart people hedge at the thought of hearing themselves defending talking snakes and virginal births. So instead of defending the book they use to condemn whole segments of society, many religious people just claim the Bible is symbolism. Frankly, I’m of the belief that religion is far less about God than it is about a perceived social obligation—but that’s just me.

Atheophobia is, in itself, irrational. The evidence points out that the areligious, in terms of basic moral decency, are actually more moral than their religious counterparts. More secularized countries and more secularized states in America are less violent than the more religious countries and states.

The amoral atheist is just a plain lie and I’m sick of the automatic correlation between religiosity and moralism. There’s just no link. Tell me a man is religious, fine—so they believe in a prescribed set of philosophies. Is he moral? That’s a different question and it’s not based on his chosen religion.

And for those of you, like Paul Ryan, who still believe or at least portray that Christianity/Religiosity should be a prerequisite for public office, I would simply remind you of Article VI, paragraph 3 of our own Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.