Issue 286 Church of non-belief 1 March 6, 2014

You know, I always wondered why the non-believers in our society have not banded together to compete against the faith based groups in a more constructive way. For instance in marriage, faith groups will not marry certain people together. So why don't the non-believers create an institution that will marry these people themselves.

Who non-believers would marry others: Non-believers could marry gay couples together that the faith based community normally would not. Also, those believing in polygamy could also get married in this church of non-belief. Likewise non-believers could marry one another without worry. On top of this, the church of non-belief could marry people of different faiths that the mainstream faiths would not marry at all.

Solves some issues: For one, it would remove the need to have government to be involved in marriage.  This is due to the church of non-belief being able to fulfill the niche roles of marriage that faith based institutions either will not do, or are so small in number that there is simply not enough of these more progressive churches to go around. In essence, the government would no longer need a civil union anymore.

Gays would be able to marry in this church of non-belief eliminating the Federal government and the State governments from making laws changing the institution of marriage as they will be forced to accept the non-believers definitions of marriage in their churches. Reason being is that the Supreme Court has deemed those who do not believe in a faith to also be a form of faith as well.

This form of church will also give more options to the interfaith communities who normally would have limited access to being able to be married due to the lack of institutions that would marry interfaith couples outside of government.

Non-believers can be married in a church if they create their own church as well which would prevent any future backlash by faith based communities against them (I feel that this may be coming due to the growing conflict between believers and non-believers). Even polygamy (I don't agree with it) also has a chance of being recognized in a church of non-belief as well.

Workability: The Church of non-belief would mimic many of the support systems that a church has for married couples including but not limited to family counseling, therapy and support. It would support all groups that are not supported or are isolated by faith based groups in the institution of marriage and thus accommodate these niche groups primarily (which will also allow them to gather funds as well). So the only thing the non-believers have to do is to create a church of non-belief.

Conclusion: Workability is key. As such, non-believers must be willing to accept people of faith that are part of the gay community, the interfaith community and those in between as well as other non-believers without discrimination. If they can get passed this, then this concept may have a chance.

Issue 285 Do we need faith? March 5, 2014

Here is an inevitable question that man has been asking itself for a while, do we need faith? I personally believe we do, but we should at the very least evaluate it to see.

Reasons to keep the faith: Faith based texts provide moral teachings that have helped guide man thought-out the years of man existence. It has taught us relationships and courtship rituals with respect to monogamous relationships. We have gained laws such as our prohibitions against killing, steeling and adultery. Basic laws and discipline have been handed to us through faith.

In addition to laws and morality, faith has provided us with life examples on people to model our every day lives on. Jesus, Moses, and King Solomon have given us people to inspire and also to learn from as we see mistakes they made in life which continue to occur throughout mans history. Faith also gives us strength and a belief that what we do in life means something. That, the things we accomplish have some sort of impact to affect mankind and affect us in the afterlife. All in all, faith is a motivation, a teacher and a guide for mankind.

Non-belief: Non-belief can still read these texts and garner life lessons. A person without faith can read any religious text and get the same messages that a faith based person would. However, their is a weakness to the non-believers that the faithful do not have, reinforcement for each generation. Faith has reinforcement mechanisms built in to keep people from doing wrong things. But non-believers don't have the reinforcement mechanisms like a concept of being judged by God, or that personal actions have more consequences than just breaking the law. As such, with each passing generation of non-believers, the moral codes of society degrade to be governed by the continuously fluctuating societal norms. Since these norms fluctuate, their is no steady guide to society. I am not saying that a system could take faiths place in creating a foundation for society, but that one has yet to exist that would supplant faith.

Conclusion: Faith is a bedrock that continues to reinforce beliefs and morality in society. Non-belief has a weakness it has yet to overcome. I am not saying this as a person of faith as I am Catholic. Also, I am not saying it out of prejudice as some of my very good friends are non-believers. What I am saying is that the non-believers have no reinforcement mechanism to support society's moral condition and maintain it. They need something more than just an excuse that man creates laws and thus those moral conditions based on laws will remain in effect. I know all to well as a political science major that such write offs of things will not be fine because laws will not be enough as man with their own morality make those laws. Non-believers morality is based on societal codes which fluctuate and thus have no foundation which can lead to change from year to year. Therefore, laws and the moral reasoning behind them will fluctuate as well causing chaos. Once broken, a society without its foundation crumbles. So overall, faith is still a requirement to maintain a society from its inevitable collapse.

Issue 284 Father God March 4, 2014

I have wondered why man has been punished in the Bible so many times and then it hit me. God has been a parent to us all this time and we have not even realized it. You are probably wondering how I came to this conclusion, so let's talk about it.

Punishments: If you look at all the punishments in the Bible, man has been punished for ignoring Gods law. Noah's flood was to punish those who forgot God for worldly desires. Sodom and Gomorrah were again to punish sin. Each and every one of these disasters was to punish mans lack of personal responsibility, morality and lack of faith. Basically, corporal punishment for naughty children. All was to steer us in the right direction.

Guidance of an active to an inactive God: We also have instances where God led man by the nose like with Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt and the Ten Commandments. Finally, when God deemed we were old enough, he sent his son Jesus to teach us how to be individuals and govern ourselves. Jesus taught us how to be independent and thus earn our way to heaven as individuals rather than a collective. Basically, we became young adults in Jesus' time and God sent us off to find our own path. All this was a form of parental guidance from infant to adult (our at least naughty teenagers).

Reasoning: Based on the aforementioned examples we can see that God may be like a parent. However, we also have to look at it based on the creation stories in the bible as well. Eden may not have been on earth, but instead a womb. God may not be just a Father, but a mother as well. Depending on which version of the stories you read, Eden with the first humans sounds more like an infant in a mother’s womb rather than an actual paradise. Then following mans expulsion from the womb of God, we experienced harsh discipline and had to follow certain rules as laid out by God through natures law.

Conclusion: Well this is my reasoning. I cannot say it is sound reasoning, but it has a basis for truth. I did not go full into examples because this is an opinion piece that is designed to have people think, not to think for them. I want people to draw their own conclusions based on their own knowledge of their faith. I will not say that God killing all those people to punish them is not bad, but we have to conclude that those killed by natural means differ than those killed by man. Thus, those killed by God may have a second chance at repentance. But that is a topic for another time. I am always open to debate and I hope you enjoyed my small article.

Issue 283 Heavens Dictatorship March 3, 2014

You know, people often wondered what heaven will be like once we die. Will it be a democracy? Will it be run by us? Heavens no, for heaven is Gods domain and we must follow Gods rules. Hence it is a dictatorship. Let's discuss.

Why we will not be running heaven: First off, people are imperfect. We tend to create factions that divide us based on schools of thought, similar physical characteristics and other useless things. In short, we naturally divide ourselves into tribe like groups. Heaven on the other hand is not a place where factionalism is allowed. So basic human nature is not allowed. Hence why in paradise a single ruler (God) is the only one allowed. Humanity also tends to be violent due to divisions in beliefs and culture. As such, in heaven, we all will be exposed to one single truth, God is our ruler. As such, certain divisions shall be eliminated.

At one point, people thought heaven had a finite amount of space and that certain people were chosen by God to ascend to heaven in the afterlife. This caused strife even amongst members of the faiths as some created factions which started civil wars. So basically humanity is prone to violence which is why we are not allowed to rule.

Our benevolent dictator: God is the ruler because God created us. As our creator, God has say over the laws we follow while in heaven and our conduct to follow. I doubt freedom of thought will be suppressed as there are instances in the Bible and the Koran that God listened and accepted human reasoning. Therefore Thomas Jefferson's letter to his son stating that God prefers inspired questions to blind faith should hold true. Also, unlike man, God is what we define as a perfect being which leads us to believe that he knows the results of all choices we will make. As such, we may expect that God may continue to test our worth even in paradise for who knows if something lays beyond heaven.

Conclusion: A benevolent dictator is not a bad thing. This is especially so as that dictator is God. So don't expect a free ride while in heaven, or to indulge in passions that we enjoyed on earth. Life in heaven will follow a different set of rules that we have yet to know and understand. It may be a curse to live in interesting times while alive, but it may not be so while in heaven.

Issue 282 Bound by Greed February 28, 2014

Have you heard of a person bound by Greed? We are bound by greed as it is part of the virtue of selfishness. Greed is capable of creating great things in society that can be a positive. But it is all a manner of what you do with it.

Greed: Typically greed is considered a negative, and it can be if it is left uncontrolled. It is neither an emotion nor a vice. It is an inbred fault in our human design. It is a disease that cannot be gotten rid of. It is selfishness, desire, gluttony and more. It cannot be escaped. We have greed bread into our very core.

Examples: Let's think about the civil rights movements. Are they not motivated by a form of greed? The desire to gain rights and privileges in society is a form of greed for rights and privileges are another form of wealth are they not? Those in favor of civil rights are just as greedy as those who stand above those seeking those rights. Those who already hold the status of a first class citizen do not wish to loose that power and authority as the status quo is shaken to its very core. Both sides are greedy.

It is again the same in war. We know that those invading another country do it for the acquisition of money, power, natural resources, and other various means including religion. But are not the defenders just as greedy trying to keep their territory all to themselves? They are greedy as their very survival as a nation and a people hinges on protecting their rights and privileges acquired through their society and their culture.

Good greed versus bad greed: Greed to protect oneself from harm and to gain freedom is good. However, greed at the expense of someone else is bad. This is where a moral compass comes in. A person without a moral compass will obey the worst forms of greed and sacrifice all for the sack of gaining power and wealth. Those with a moral compass will however think upon their actions and choose the best method that does not sacrifice the other parts of their humanity to do so. So what is greed?

Conclusion: Greed is the natural survival instinct that we all share. The same goes with gluttony, lust and other terms we would like to distance ourselves from. However, Ayn Rand summed it all up into a simple word "selfishness." Unchecked the aspects of selfishness like greed will run rampant as we all fight like the animals we are to maintain our safety and security. However, a moral compass and a set of values will help protect against this. With these checks upon ourselves we can protect ourselves from becoming inhuman monsters which enables all of our ambitions to finally counteract each other peacefully rather than violently as mankind's nature dictates. We are bound by greed and our only cure is self control. Good luck.

Issue 281 Ends Justify the Means? February 27, 2014

Do the ends really justify the means? Can they ever be justified? I don't think so. Time for another discussion.

Means to an end: We have always heard the phrase ends justify the means, but that is not true. Does sacrificing ones friendships, family or another person’s livelihood really justify an end result? Of course not. For one, you are isolating yourself if you sacrifice your family and friends. If you sacrifice another person’s livelihood, then you should hopefully feel guilty (otherwise you are probably pond scum). So you can isolate yourself, you can harm others, but in the end, was it worth it? Was it worth the sacrifice to harm all those people and yourself? It becomes easier if you are affecting total strangers, but that can only happen if we forget to place ourselves in that very same position that we will be placing them in. Even then, there is no guarantee that the end result will be the desired one, let alone reached. So again, is it all worth the sacrifice?

Risk versus this mentality: There is a big difference between the ends justifying the means and risk itself. Risk is something that is calculated and meant to gain something significant without loss if at all possible. The mind set of the "ends justifying the means" means you are willing sacrifice all for the end result. So if you fail in risk, then you did not properly prep for the possibility of failure. With ends justifying the means, it means just continue sacrificing everything until the desired result is gained.

Us today: I feel like most of the United States if not the world has fallen into this cruel and heartless mind set. Sorry to say, but the Wall street bail outs should not have happened for there should have never been need of such crappily written laws if the banks actually thought about the sacrifices they would have to make to achieve their wealth. Much of welfare I feel would not be necessary if parents thought about addiction to drugs, alcoholism, and proper spending choices over their own immediate gratification. This too is ends justifying the means, taking a small immediate happiness now at the sacrifice of the future of the household. If politicians thought about how their laws and taxes affected businesses, and the economy, we all might be a lot richer rather than perpetuating divisions in society to maintain political power. Sad is it not?

Conclusion: Our society, while technologically advanced, has regressed socially. We no longer use calculated risks, but instead use a mentality of acceptable sacrifices to get what we want. I cannot accept such a mind set which is why I plead with you, be conscious of how you achieve your goals in life. The journey to your goal is equally if not more important than the goal itself.

Issue 280 No choice but to think February 26, 2014

You thought you had a choice didn't you. Maybe you thought you can just skim by and not even have to work a single brain cell. Sorry buddy, flex them brain cells, cause you got no choice and never did.

You're always thinking: Our brain is a wondrous organ. It operates our entire body and keeps it working for as long as we last. It stores memories and allows us to process information. We take in so much of the world around us and yet we don't even realize the brain is working on our behalf to understand it all. But we are not vegetables. We have to move and feel emotion. Survival is paramount and thus is human interaction. Human interaction breeds conversation and thus you think some more. There is no excuse to be had as you will be forced to think no matter what.

What should you think about?: That's right; I'm asking, what should we all think about. The weather is good for thinking about when to go out based on what outside activities we wish to do. What food to eat based on what your body needs is another. But what about things that are not mundane. Not fun or happy. Things that can make you sad or depressed. These things need to be thought about too. Locking yourself away and thinking just about what you can see hear and feel is not enough. You must think of the things that keep you from being ignorant and thus taken advantage of. You may not like it, but people naturally seek to control and manipulate others. As such, you must counter those acts to control you with deep and purposeful thought.

Power of thought: Dreams are a collection of ideas given form. But all these ideas are thoughts. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did not originally want to be a civil rights leader. He was uncomfortable with the "thought" of having so many rely on him and his leadership. But he had no choice but to think. That thought process was on how to lead the civil rights movement to success in uniting the people of all races, colors, and creeds in America. He was forced to think and thus looked to examples like Gandhi and Jesus Christ who also had no choice but to think.

George Washington was forced to think. He had a fiery temper when angered, but it was out of frustration and failure. Washington's thought process went from a British officer, to General of the Continental army and finally (yet reluctantly) as President of the United States. His faith guided his thoughts. Martha his wife guided his thoughts. The future of the nation and what was needed to protect and preserve it were his guide posts in his thought processes. President Washington had no choice but to think.

Conclusion: We have no choice but to think. There is no excuse for ignorance and the bliss that follows for that is tantamount to slavery. It is slavery not to think as then we allow others to make decisions for us in the same manner as a parent to a new born child. Thomas Jefferson said it best when he wrote that letter to his son: "question with boldness, for surely God wants inspired questions over blind faith..." This quote means question everything! Do not be satisfied with the answers that are given, but think on the answers given and the information you have acquired. Thinking is a virtue and a freedom that is impossible to take away. You may question God, any authority, and even your own beliefs for you are meant to. It refreshes and secures yourself from ignorance and protects you from those that would abuse your lack of knowledge. Questioning is thinking, and coming up with life's answers is also thinking. Stop doubting yourself with thoughts of "my ideas mean nothing" for your thoughts hold value to you. You will think and you will not be given a choice in that, but it is up to you to determine what to think and as such what has enough value to think about.