Issue 287 Curch of non-belief 2 March 7, 2014

Well a church of non-belief is about more than just marriage. In fact, the non-believers creating their own church per say gives them opportunities to organize and compete for "worshipers" against the faith based communities. But what would it look like?

United yet divided: Like faith based communities, there will be different groups of non-believers vying for popularity. So we may have the ones that believe that aliens created man kind versus Ayn Rand’s objectivist atheists. Basically, similar competition between various groups of Protestants, Catholics and Baptists. The only thing that would unite them is that they are non-believers in the same way believers can come together around a belief in God.

Moral compass/Ideology: In order to properly compete, the church of non-belief must develop a cohesive foundation that allows people to gather around it as a source of strength. So while one group may revolve around Objectivism, another may revolve around a combination of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism while removing the deity like aspects involved in each. Another may even develop a basis around nature and spirituality. All in all, each would develop a unique group or a single cohesive group based around ideologies and aspects of spiritualism to from the basic moral codes needed for them to compete against the faiths.

Everyday teachings: In addition to a moral compass and ideology to gather behind, the church of non-belief will need basic rules and teachings to follow. So the obvious no killing, steeling or violence against others is a given. However, other teachings will be needed like a ten commandments of logic, exceptions to the rules if any, and a source of punishment that will reinforce these teachings.

The source of punishment is key as if there are no penalties for bad behavior in everyday society then the church of non-belief will fail and so will society along with it. This is the weakness that non-believers have and coming up with the right kinds of punishments like shunning, boycotts and the like would do well to keep people in line with the non-faith. It is important as while faith based communities have God as the person deciding if we go to Heaven or not, there is no fear that can adequately keep non-believers from violating their own moral codes (especially if they beat out the faith based communities in respect to "worshipers").

Conclusion: I have been very disappointed in the non-faith organizations as they currently stand. They seem to attack the faith based communities rather than debate them, as they prefer humiliation and "put downs". In short, they look down on people of faith from my perspective and thus it shows in their advertisements. Meanwhile individual non-believers that I have met never attack, but in fact respect others who believe and do not believe alike. So I think it is a symptom of desiring power at the organized level rather than a blanket snub to all believers. As such, it would be best in my opinion for the non-believers to establish their own churches with masses that advocate humanity, civil rights and personal responsibility. Their gospels could be tales from Aesop's Fables, and Grimm's Fairy tails. Their readings could celebrate mans achievements like discussing how far we have come scientifically or socially by looking at art, science even psychology which would inspire hope for humanities future. They could even have guest speakers and debates by welcoming members of the faith based communities and other groups of non-believers so as to debate and discuss rather than hide or shun differing views. If the non-believers want to compete against the believers come at us by taking our worshipers by showing the merits of embracing non-belief rather than attacking the beliefs of others. I wish you luck and may the truth be ascertained by our competition.

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.