Fascism: The Roberts Supreme Court

In light of a few of the most recent Supreme Court decisions, namely the upholding of a ban on late-term abortions and the now only few days old ruling against affirmative action, it is clear that the highest court in the United States both cares nothing for precedent – an illusion many abortion rights advocates held on to for dear life – and cares nothing for either women’s or minority’s rights in general.

Many attempted to placate those worried by the appointment of radical conservatives to the Supreme Court – social conservative, Catholic extremists – with sweet talk about the respect Roberts and Alito allegedly had for precedent, a nefarious lie now laying exposed after only a few rulings.
Affirmative action has been a cornerstone of American judicial law for forty five years, and rightly so; there is a reason why Colin Powell, by no means a liberal, and the military wrote an amicas curia in support of affirmative action, without affirmative action we wouldn’t even know Colin Powell’s name.
The affirmative action ruling has served as daunting testament to the irrelevance of precedent in the views of the radical Catholic Judges. There is now no rational reason whatsoever to believe that the Judges will care anything for precedent when they review Roe v. Wade.

The latest vicious attacks on minority’s rights are but a prelude of what is to come in the later decades of the now, on balance, fascist court.

Secular Tribalism

The startling tendency of the unsophisticated atheist to conjure up illusory amalgam groups, totally homogenized and undifferentiated, in order to entirely separate the faithful from the skeptics and unbelievers - the latter being, by definition, good and the former being, by definition and regardless of the content of belief, evil – is fanatic secular tribalism, pure and simple.
The atheist who closes ones eyes in the face of the staggering diversity of religious groups and sects and instead simply pounds ones fists and shrieks aloud that all adherents of religion are raving lunatics and savage terrorists is practicing a from of infantile and narrow-minded thinking that most closely resembles religious extremism. Rather than putting forth the minor effort required to adequately discern the various distinctions which are to be found among immense groups, especially religious, the unsophisticated atheist instead conjures up and believes in a viciously dichotomized world.
In such a worldview there simply is no room for the modern and liberal Muslim who prays five times a day yet defends as strongly as any atheist the principle of free expression. It must be denied that there exist Christians who regularly attend Church services, may contemplate the possibility of an afterlife, yet who view the bible as the fallible product of human endeavor and even question the very divinity of Jesus. It is taken as a matter of course that there is no such thing as the observant Jew who questions even the very existence of a supernatural entity. Instead, every Muslim is understood to be violently hostile to modernity, free expression, women’s rights and so forth; never mind reality. Every Christian is understood to be a bible pounding, anti-gay, anti-science demagogue and every Jew is seen as a torah waving, devout and viciously tribal religious maniac.
There is a startling, even hateful, Stalinist character to this sort of puerile, demagogic tendency. In fact, it is also strikingly biblical, either you are in “our” tribe or you are in the “evil” tribe and “our” tribe – by virtue of being the “chosen” tribe in possession of the infallible “truth” – may do as it so pleases to the so deemed “evil” tribes.
This tendency of secular tribalism must be exposed and combated wherever it is to be found, it is an actual danger.

Reaction to Rushdie's knighthood is beneath contempt

That Salman Rushdie’s “knighthood” should evoke from Islamic extremists violent reaction and “offense” is itself offensive. Free-speech is a principle upon which I shall not waver. If Islamic extremists, religious lunatics and fanatics, feel that the mere writing of a book – which the most extreme and reactionary Islamists have not read and most likely could not – justifies calls for murder and suicide bombing, I have to say that their violent opinion is beneath contempt. Their extreme, bigoted and violent views simply serve no practical role in either the judging of the literary worth of works of fiction or the rewarding of those who produce exemplary literature, such as Salman Rushdie.
It is the decision of the British who they knight - for reasons which they so choose, in this case, very good reasons indeed - and the reaction of crazed Mullahs in Tehran and in Pakistan are simply irrelevant and beneath contempt. Freedom of speech simply cannot be denigrated on account of violent religious hysteria.
As for the so-called “moderates” and “liberals” who advocate the taking of said violent views as justly put and further, worst of all, sympathize with the small factions of Islamic extremists who claim “offense” and who advocate murder, suicide bombing and violence in general, I wonder if they realize that by so doing they are legitimizing as the true voice of Muslims world over the violent extremist fringe which, in reality, a majority of Muslims reject as blasphemers and apostate lunatics. They are, in effect, legitimizing as representative of all Muslims the very extremists who put to death moderate and liberal Muslims, shame on them.

Jesus Camp

After keeping my distance for some time I finally broke down and decided to watch Jesus Camp and in so doing my apprehensive suspicions regarding the films contents were not only confirmed, but, furthered immensely. Jesus Camp is the most effective horror film of the year, never mind the fact that it is a documentary and there are scenes of hysterical, albeit unintended, irony and humor.

The first scene which offers to us the main documentary character, Pastor Becky Fischer, displays Fischer working herself, and subsequently the crowd which is mainly comprised of young children, into a hysterical frenzy wherein she proclaims, in part, that “We got too many Christian grown ups who are fat and lazy. They don’t want to give up their evening meal, they don’t want to fast for a three day fast or a forty day fast,” which may be the most ironic statement in the entire movie - excluding for now the ringer of hypocrisy Ted Haggard - for Pastor Becky is grotesquely obese and seems to not only refuse to give up her evening meal, but, seems as though when off camera she does nothing other than gorge her repugnantly fat and hippopotamus-like face. After ranting and raving like Joseph Goebbels at the Weimer rally, Pastor Fischer claims that “President Bush brought some real credibility to the Christian faith” after which I was forced to pause the movie in lieu of my inability to cease laughing uncontrollably. If the Christian faith must resort to President Bush for “some real credibility” then it is clearly but a short time until the Christian faith collapses in on itself for lacking anything which can even be remotely considered anything of the same species as credibility.

Apart from the laughable insanity, of which I have just provided a few examples, the movie contains, what must be considered by conscionable human beings concerned for the communal well being of children, moral abominations and a fundamental example of an ethical crisis. For example, the documentary follows a little ten year old girl whose passion is dancing, she clearly loves to dance, but, due to being so grossly warped by her parents maniacal Christian faith, this little ten year old girl says “When I dance I really have to make sure that’s god, because people will notice when I’m just dancing for the flesh and I do that sometimes, I must admit that and I really need to get over that.” After she said that I was in utter shock and had to rewind the scene and watch it again in order to regain myself, it honestly made me nauseous. There is absolutely no reason, no reason whatsoever, that any parent should indoctrinate their children with such poisonous dogma, such nefarious self-degradation and guilt. This girl is a prepubescent ten year old and her parents have no business of indoctrinating her with such overt sexual repression and guilt before she is even sexually developed; such thoughts, quite simply, have no business running through her mind. To instill in children such loathsome sexual repression, before they have even begun to reach sexual maturity, is far beyond depraved and immoral, it is tantamount to psychological terrorism.

While I am on the subject of psychological terrorism I must mention some of Pastor Fischer’s evil comments. While pacing back and forth in front of an auditorium full of young children like a tiger with mad cow disease, Fischer, while discussing the subject of sin, yells “while I’m on the subject let me say something about Harry Potter. Warlocks are enemies of god…had it been in the old testament Harry Potter would have been put to death!” While this is no doubt true, the Pentateuch is essentially a verbose index of death sentences, it is of the most reprehensible actions to indoctrinate young children with such life-negating, violent and hostile fear-mongering, it is, again, a fundamental example of psychological terrorism. Preaching vengefulness, hatred and murder are not subjects for which young children should ever have to be subjected to, shame on this crypto-Nazi of a Pastor.

Fischer, her insatiable appetite for terrorizing the youth not yet satisfied, goes on to tell the young children “you’re one thing when you’re at church and another thing when you’re at school with your friends. You’re a phony and a hypocrite,” after which a number of the children begin to cry, a little boy actually collapses to the floor curling up into the fetal position shaking with convulsive tears. This is child abuse to an unfathomable level and should not go unpunished.

As a rather explicit illustration of the exclusionary, superiority and neo-fascist dogmas instilled within these children a boy explains in one scene “Whenever I run into a non-Christian there’s something that always doesn’t seem right, there’s always something that makes my spirit fell yucky.” Of course he is wrong to ascribe his feeling of unease to his “spirit,” for the source of his unease is surely the fear-mongering indoctrination which he has been gratuitously fed by his parents and elders who teach him that all non-Christians are evil, sinful, on their way to hell and some – such as the literary character of Harry Potter, for instance – are so evil that their murder is warranted; yet another example of the child abuse and psychologically inflicted trauma which is on display all throughout the film.

There is another scene wherein the lunatic Pentecostals amass a substantial group of young children only to teach them that abortion is murder and that they, being “god’s righteous judges,” must put an end to abortion. They then work the children into such a hysteria that some have tears running down their face as they shake, tremble and speak in tongues; speaking in tongues being a recurring phenomena in this film, which, the first time I saw it, made me laugh so hard I was forced to pause the movie. Near the end of the, I don’t even know what to call it, (rally?) the children pump their fists in the air and chant “Righteous judges!” over and over again. I can only imagine that this is what it must have been like to attend the Nuremberg Rallies.

The portion of the film which covers Ted Haggard – “Big Gay Ted” as gay columnist Dan Savage refers to him - may be the most vertigo inducing experience in all of film, Haggard being the former leader of the National Association of Evangelicals and the former Pastor of the mega-church New Life Church who resigned his duties after the scandal wherein it was exposed that he paid a homosexual prostitute for methamphetamine and sexual favors. In part of his sermon he claims that he has “…a ten year rule about dating. If you married someone thirty years older than you, I hope he dies so you can get his money,” after which he began to cackle like a warlock himself, it sent chills down my spinal column. Then, the climax, which is perfect, shows Ted Haggard being interviewed and saying, in true Jack McFarland effeminate form, “It’s a fabulous life!”

There is a scene wherein Pastor Fischer is sitting in her home salivating over the footage that had thus far been obtained and she then begins to foam at the mouth, saying “Some extreme liberals, they have to see this and start shaking in their boots…the intensity that you see in these kids, there’s no doubt they have got be watching this and going ‘oh my goodness’” I hate to disappoint, but, I was not shaking in my boots over the extreme and sick indoctrination of these children with exclusionary and hostile dogmas, I am merely concerned that the repugnant treatment of the children is going to lead to serious neurosis and trauma, I worry about their futures and their psychological well being. These crazed Pentecostals are raising a generation of psychological cripples, of guilt ridden, anxiety riddled, delusion driven, fantasy intoxicated cripples. These children are going to face serious psychological pathologies, traumas and abnormalities when confronted with the real world later on in life and I fear for them; I cannot even imagine what it must be like to be a five or six year old forced to the brink of emotional collapse – in almost every scene the children are brought to tears - by ones parents and elders all in the name of a false mythology.

In summation, the only right way to end this review, is to quote the crazed comments of a little girl who says “My dad says that when the missionaries are about to go somewhere dangerous they jump around yelling Martyr, Martyr, Martyr! It’s cool.” Obviously, in the heart of America, pathological parents and fascist Pastors are raising a generation of children who will subsequently become either psychologically disturbed and emotionally broken or the Christian equivalent of Al Qaeda militants.

Being Muslim is not a crime

There is one issue upon which liberals and conservatives alike appear to be in general consensus, the vilification of Muslims. In a U.S.A Today/Gallup Poll thirty nine percent of Americans admit to “feeling some prejudice against Muslims.” A similar percentage of Americans agreed with requiring Muslims, which would include U.S. citizens, to carry a special ID “as a means of preventing terrorist attacks in the United States.” Twenty two percent stated that they would not feel comfortable with Muslims living in their neighborhood while both liberal and conservative periodicals, such as The Progressive and The FrontPage Magazine, have propagated rhetoric which both agrees with and encourages such views.

I really should not have to point out that these sentiments are strikingly reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the “special ID” being a virtual parallel between the Star of David which Jews were forced to wear. Singling out an entire religious and ethnic group of human beings only by virtue of their belonging to the group is wrong, by definition. The fact that many Americans are openly doing so in modern times is only further evidence that human civilization is yet but a yearling in evolutionary maturation; modern, first world, industrialized society appears to still fervently cling to the religious practice of fashioning a scapegoat upon which to cast its every sin and fear to then be ritually sacrificed thus, as religious theory goes, purging the sins and fears of the society and therefore serving as an act of purification. It seems fairly evident that Muslims have now become the scapegoat of choice for a significant percentage of Americans.

The vilification of Muslims is as transparent as it is both fallacious and wicked being the product of ignorance, bigotry and fear-mongering. There are 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide; I shouldn’t have to point out that they are not all terrorists, just as I should not have to point out that not all Christians are abortion doctor murderers. While it is certainly true that there are radical Muslims practicing a nefarious form of Islam, an Islam which celebrates the metaphysical principles of martyrdom for example, it cannot be legitimately argued that all Muslims accept such forms of Islam. Furthermore, and this is my main argument, by so grossly generalizing, castigating and vilifying the entirety of the Muslim population one is effectively alienating the most crucial asset of a serious enlightenment and reformation movement within Islam, the liberal and moderate Muslims.

When bigoted fear-mongers construct and argue for a stark dichotomy, “either you are for terrorism or you are for freedom,” they are, in effect, not only conflating reality, but also further exacerbating the fundamental problem. Many Muslims reject as strongly as anyone else the terrorism being condoned and propagated by the extremists within their religious ranks, but, when the only alternative offered them is the western accusatory and bigoted caricature of “pluralism” and “freedom” it is not at all too difficult to understand why some may find the choice unappealing.

When political officials publicly declare a “war on Islam” the moderate Islamic impulses which are an absolute necessity in the reformation of radical Islam are by default alienated and estranged, pushed away by the generalization that is conceptualizing Islam as an amalgam of violent terrorists, suicide-bombers, fascists and savages. Human civilization is no more at war with Islam as it has been as still is at war with Christianity; civilization is at war with dogmatic, exclusionary and violent extremism and only an idiot or a sociopath – or, more appropriately, a political criminal - would alienate and deny the moderate impulses which are an absolute necessity in the remediation thereof.

The Nefarious Cult of Scientology

Scientology is a cult whose primary concerns are money and power, power inasmuch as it advances monetary income. I have long despised Scientology after having read Lafayette Ronald Hubbard’s views on psychology and psychiatry and after having become acquainted with the entire demagogic aspect of the pseudo-psychological and space-age religious cult.

There are several theories which attempt to explain Hubbard’s and thus Scientology’s irrational and vitriolic campaign against psychiatry. One theory posits that after Hubbard had been diagnosed as psychologically unsound by Naval psychiatrists and thus discharged from the Navy he nurtured a desire for revenge. Another conceives that Hubbard developed a dislike of psychiatry after the APA rejected his book Dianetics essentially calling it a hoax and a potentially dangerous fraud; the Scientific American review being a perfect example.
Both of these events actually occurred, however, it remains unknown whether either are the cause for Hubbard’s latter vilification of psychiatry. I will not now go into the debates surrounding these theories.

What is important is that, like all religions, Scientology has conjured up it’s own illusory scapegoat upon which to cast it’s “sins of all humanity” and around which to organize a demagogic assembly of religious fanatics, Tom Cruise being an illustrative case in point.

Throughout the entirety of human history religions have incorporated scapegoat’s, in ancient Greece – as elsewhere and even before – a shamanistic priestly class protected the ancient society from plagues, famines and virtually anything that would serve detriment to the society by performing certain religious ceremonies, chiefly among them, human or animal sacrifice or the expelling of a pharmakos, which translates to scapegoat. Such a ceremonial ritual has been part and parcel of religions over the centuries and is still firmly established in modernity, fundamentalist Christians demonizing homosexuals and abortion doctors, Muslim extremists vilifying Jews and Scientologists fashioning psychiatry and psychiatrists as their own personal pharmakos.

It is informative to read the pamphlets and, essentially, the screeds Scientology offers regarding their views on psychiatry. It is most remarkable in light of the fact that it is indisputable, and generally conceded by any serious Scientologist that Hubbard was, at the very least, influenced by the psychiatry of his day, Freudian psychoanalysis. In my analysis Hubbard was not merely influenced by Freud, in fact, he completely usurped an elementary conception of the Freudian theory of the mind; the elementary conception being a testament to the general ignorance of Hubbard, a science fiction author by trade. I will not go into great detail regarding Hubbard’s expropriation of Freudian theory, although I could further elucidate the general points which follow.

Hubbard writes that “the mind has three major divisions,” which are the analytical, the reactive and the somatic mind. Without going into great detail this conception is in effect a spurious conception of the Freudian theory of the mental apparatus which is composed of what is unconscious, preconscious and conscious, otherwise know as the Id, Super-ego and Ego. The Scientology somatic mind is a poor counterfeit of the Freudian id, they both consist of basic impulses, the basis of the psyche and the lowest manifestation of the mind. Dianetics, Hubbard’s book which laid the foundation for the cult, is essentially pseudo-psychology based on a tenuous understanding of Freudian theory and occult, science fiction voodoo (the latter being Hubbard’s area of expertise).

After Dianetics had been rejected from all respectable psychiatric and medical associations Hubbard began to write negatively about psychiatry. In his short book Scientology The Fundamentals of Thought Hubbard begins the book by attacking psychology, in particular Wilhelm Wundt, on the second page of the first chapter. Hubbard writes: “This man conceived that man was an animal without soul and based all of this work on the principle that there is no psyche.” He then writes of Wundtian psychology by saying: “It taught that man was an animal. It taught that man could not be bettered.” Hubbard is correct on one ground, that Wundt and Wundtian psychology views “man” – the human species – as an animal; specifically, as a highly cognitively developed and socially evolved animal, and correctly so.

It may or may not be true that Wundt himself objected to the supernatural notion of souls, although, if he did he did so with logical validity and parsimony. However, it is certainly true that, while psychology may not outright reject the conception of a soul, the field of psychology does not even consider the soul and, again, rightly so. Psychology is a science and science is guided by scientific naturalism, the supernatural has no place within a legitimate scientific field. However, Hubbard’s claim that Wundtian psychology “taught that man could not be bettered” is simply diametrically opposed to reality. One need only open a psychology text book or visit with any psychologist to know this is a blatant and nefarious lie, demonstrably so. One of the major components of psychology, clinical psychology, is literally built upon the premise that “man” can be “bettered.” Clinical psychology’s explicit intent and pursuit is the remediation of psychological disorders; that is why it exists.

Hubbard writes far more disturbing falsifications and ad hominems regarding psychiatry and psychiatrists, in fact, Scientology has an entire website and magazine dedicated to the sole purpose of fashioning psychiatry as its pharmakos. Hubbard, when he later incorporated into the self-help, pseudo-psychological voodoo that is Dianetics the space-age religious aspect, he fashioned into his dogma - among other tenets which include intergalactic space aliens (Xenu, not to be confused with Xena), UFO’s, volcanoes wired with thetans (souls) and nuclear bombs, etcetera - intergalactic psychiatrists who were themselves the source of great evil and mischief, essentially, the Christian equivalent of Satan or the Norse equivalent of Loki.

Scientology can be criticized on a plethora of grounds, some more compelling and more demanding of direct action than their views and castigation of psychiatry. However, this particular subject has long been for me a source of exasperation. Clearly Scientology is a demagogic assembly of religious fanatics propagating a campaign of distortion and vindictiveness. Scientology is a cult of aggressive greed and avarice and belligerent, even violent, psychological terrorism.

The Religious Right: Campaign of Immorality

The new radical right, or religious right as it is often called, is hysterical over alleged moral and social issues. They claim to be offended and disgusted with the social environment and the moral degradation thereof. In their view nothing currently demands more immediate and serious attention than the social moral decay of America.

This extremist minority has become, since the late seventies, one of the more proficiently mobilized political factions in the U.S., demanding that their agenda be taken seriously and dealt with accordingly.

It is first worth noting that this faction, while referring to themselves with such titles as “the moral majority,” are neither moral nor in the majority. It is further worth noting that while they maintain their immediate concern is the moral crisis of society they not only fail to acknowledge serious moral crisis – such as civil rights of the past and present - they sometimes even hold real crisis in contempt. Their primary concern is political in nature rather than moral. For if their concern were merely moral they could simply live their lives according to their own moral standards while others lived their lives to their own moral standards, but they wish to legislate their pernicious ideologies making their movement explicitly political.

They spend vast amounts of energy deriding vulgar language and depictions of sexuality claiming that such things are indicative of the decay that is our culture all the while opposing abortion and thus women’s rights, same-sex marriage and thus gay rights, welfare programs and thus ignoring the plight of the impoverished, etc. They not only oppose abortion rights, but, they also predominately oppose all aspects of women’s rights won by the feminist movement which is exemplified, to provide one example, in their accusations of working women having neglected their children’s needs.

In light of the real social crisis in America, such as the stagnation and increasing poverty of the lower class, the abysmal nature of both the medical and educational programs (for example: the attempt to destroy social security or the teaching of maniacal propaganda to children, i.e. creationism and abstinence only sex education), the absolute disregard for fundamental aspects of a free and civil society (as in the disregard for habeus corpus and the barbaric support of torture), the vilification of Hispanic immigrants, the disastrous effects of the drug prohibition (such as the ever increasing evolution towards a police state and the disregard or blatant contempt for the fourth amendment), the fascist program of legislating hate and bigotry (such as constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage), the overt hostility towards progressive goals long since won by the social movements (such as the hostility towards the success of the feminist and civil rights movements, i.e. the anti-abortion pro-submissive-housewife and the anti-affirmative action ideologies), etc. I believe these all serve as far more pressing issues than the utterance of “fuck” or the depiction of a breast.

While the fanatical religious right clamors on in their intolerant and exclusionary neo-fascist political campaign which seeks to undermine four decades of social progress and insure no more is made, there are serious and dire social and political crisis which demand attention. As is so often the case with the religious, those making so much noise about their moral principles are, in theory and in practice, the most perverse pariahs of morality; for it is worse than immoral to neglect the real injustices and depravities of society, it is to be complicit with them.

A Distinction Within Religious Criticism

    Intelligent, discerning human beings are able to distinguish between the criticism of religion in general as opposed to the criticism of the behavior of the particular religion's adherents. It is further obvious to anyone willing to do some reading that all three Abrahamic religions contain a disturbing amount of incitements to violence and conflict. A large portion of the Pentateuch is essentially a long index of death sentences while the Gospels generally reaffirm, uphold or approach the commandments ambiguously and throughout the Qur’an are found similar edicts.
For an individual to claim that one religion is “better” than another based upon the adherents’ behavior is to fundamentally miss the point.

     For an adherent of a religion with such genocidal commandments to behave in accordance with modernity, the adherent is embracing information, logic and ethical principles outside of the specific religious worldviews fundamental commandments – commandments which have not been erased from the religion's canon - and ignoring certain passages found within the text upon which the religion is based, thus ignoring specific aspects of the particular religion. Furthermore such an adherent is very clearly ignoring explicit commandments which incite violence and aggressive conflict, while doing absolutely nothing in the way of extricating such incitements from the religion's scripture. This is dangerous, for as Sam Harris adeptly illustrates, such moderation as exemplified in the ignoring of nefarious aspects of a religious text – which explicit commandments seem to object to – is simply that, a neglect of the incitements. This offers no bulwark against the persisting violence and savage aspects of the religion in general. It allows the possibility for any number of adherents to later embrace such barbarism.

    So long as the religions proclaim that their books are holy, sacred, or worthy of our consideration whatsoever, while not outright expunging the nefarious aspects, they are necessarily allowing, at least implicitly, the incitements to violence and conflict to remain a part of the religion. Only when such incitements are completely abolished, until they are entirely extricated from the religious scriptures, are the religions then free of being charged of association with such views and incitements.
It is an elementary truism that what is ignored today yet allowed to persist may tomorrow be once again embraced. To argue that Islam as a religion is any more intolerant or violent than either Christianity or Judaism is to fail to understand the nature of religious criticism and to fail to make the most rudimentary of distinctions. There is no dispute that currently Islam as it is being practiced by its adherents is more violent and nefarious than either Christianity or Judaism, by way of statistics. However, the religions all share an almost entirely equal amount of culpability so far as the contents of their religious texts are concerned; while such commandments remain in the religious texts, so to do they remain a part of the overall religion in general, irregardless of whether or not they are currently being acted upon.

    Islam is, statistically, currently motivating the most violent and aggressive adherents; however, there was a period in history when Islamic adherents were the more peaceful and tolerant. Christianity and Judaism both share past histories of the violent and aggressive nature inherent in their scriptures being acted out through their adherents as commanded by the corresponding religious texts. So long as such commandments remain a part of the scriptures, and thus a part of the religions, so to remains the possibility that the adherents of these religions may once again adopt an affirmative view of the violent and aggressive commandments.

    It is an objective fact that the three religions which have been mentioned all share an equal amount of culpability for the incitements to violence and conflict which exist in the religious texts upon which the religions are founded; and unless or until such savage and genocidal filth is eradicated from the texts this will remain a truism. No one religion is superior to the others in this fundamental sense.

The Origins of Religious Impulses

I believe those who say that religion is ineradicable in humans, especially so long as humans fear the dark, death and the unknown, may very well be correct. I remain convinced that Freud was right, certainly regarding a substantial amount of the religious, in The Future of an Illusion wherein he explained that religion, as it was and is predominately being manifested, is the product of wish fulfillments, these being the cheapest forms of emotions and ambitions. That it is the product, the resolving manifestation, of the fear of an impersonal and random nature. As Freud says: “Man’s self-regard, seriously menaced, calls for consolation; life and the universe must be robbed of their terrors.” These terrors which are inculcated by nature, specifically the anxiety of helplessness, are resolved by humanizing them, by ascribing the random, impersonal, many times unjust and frightful machinery of nature human characteristics; such as will, intelligence, emotion and justice.
It is Freud’s theory that so long as humanity experiences such an anxiety of helplessness, such a burdensome fear of death, the dark and the unknown so shall there be religion. I am certainly in agreement, however, I am of the opinion that there are a number of reasons that may incite religious belief and behavior beyond wish fulfilling.
Another theory, of which I am skeptical of and of which Freud later dealt with in the beginning of Civilization and Its Discontents, is that the religious impulse emanates from a particular feeling. A feeling which a friend of Freud’s called “a sensation of ‘eternity’, a feeling as of something limitless, unbounded – as it were, ‘oceanic’.” Freud’s friend went on to claim that this feeling was a subjective truth, it did not require faith to accept. However, it did not assure one of immortality, or any of the other illusions of religion, it merely brought forth the energy with which organized religion then buttressed such articles of faith to.
Freud first responds, as do I, that no such feeling is recognizable to him. He then provides a long and thorough explanation outlining an individuals’ development of a sense of ego, or “ego-feeling” as he phrased it, and the fact that such an ego is only a minute portion of the entire mental apparatus of the unconscious. He goes on explaining that an infant is not yet aware of its ego as distinguished from the external world and only through experience of sensations is such a distinction realized and made conscious. Meaning that, regarding sensations and feelings, the ego originally included everything, only later separating the external world from itself. Freud says “Our present ego-feeling is, therefore, only a shrunken residue of a much more inclusive – indeed, an all embracing – feeling which corresponded to a more intimate bond between the ego and the world about it.” The implication of this being that in some people such a primary ego-feeling may persist to a greater or lesser degree and, if so, it would exist along side the more distinct “demarcated ego-feeling of maturity,” the “ideational contents” of which would be identical to the feelings of limitlessness and of the ‘oceanic’ feeling thus accounting for the natural origins of such a religious impulse; an impulse Paul Kurtz has appropriately labeled “the transcendental temptation.”

The meaning of life.

“Man is the only animal for whom his own existence is a problem which he has to solve.” – Erich Fromm

“As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being.” – Carl Jung

“Man’s main task in life is to give birth to himself, to become what he potentially is.” – Carl Rogers

As our species throughout history attests, humans have pondered the fundamental philosophical question regarding the meaning of life since the ability to write and most likely the development of conscious self-awareness and a higher cognitive ability even before.
For a great number of people this question poses as a serious obstacle, one seemingly insurmountable, and one which is usually resolved through the most vacuous, superfluous and inept means possible, religion.
The principle aim of life, as far as I am aware and in the most rudimentary form, is to survive to the fullest efficacy possible and to replicate ones own genetic lineage. However, beyond these simple tasks – or difficult if you rather - the meaning of life is open to interpretation, it is to be discovered and affirmed by the individual for the individual. In an objective sense the meaning of life is as I described first, in a more subjective sense the meaning of life is infinitely open to interpretation. I would hardly expect two individuals’ specific interpretations of what the meaning of life is to be identical.
As a secular humanist I find the meaning of life to be, in a general sense, the pursuit of life in abundance, happiness, pleasure and love. In a more distilled sense I find the meaning of life to comprise a number of categories such as psychological, biological, social, political, scientific and philosophical. It begins, as I see it, with oneself, through discovering who one really is, and affirming this one develops a healthy and strong psychological awareness of ones own self and is then ready to pursue the other categories. One must realize and then develop the best of their abilities, which consists of cultivating in ones own personality, strength, lucidity, intelligence, a yearning for knowledge, skepticism, empathy and, as Carl Rogers phrased it, “unconditional positive regard.”
Built upon this, the meaning of life is now concerned with social aspects. I take it as the meaning of life to work towards the remediation and reconciling of social ills and conflicts, to help create a peaceful, cohesive and tranquil social environment and world-state. To help others realize and attain their highest potential possible. The meaning of life, socio-politically speaking, is to affirm universal human rights and decency and to work towards creating a citadel of peace and beauty, in this life, globally. It is to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideals of democracy, freedom and the open society. It is to work towards increasing educational standards, literacy and cultural enrichment.
Scientifically and philosophically, the meaning of life is to better understand it. It is to work towards a comprehensive description of the universe which we find ourselves in and the functioning thereof. With the growth of our scientific knowledge comes, inextricably bound, advances in virtually every aspect of our lives. Advances in scientific medicine such as antibiotics, vaccines, modern techniques of surgery, anesthesia, pharmacology and biogenetic engineering has tremendously improved our prospects for a happier, healthier, longer and more fulfilling life. Scientific research has and will continue to elucidate our knowledge of the universe and our place within it through such facets as astronomy, physics, biology, genetics, psychology, sociology, etc.
It is, to me, the meaning of life to pursue these ends. The meaning of life is to not only survive and replicate, but to derive pleasure and happiness while doing so. It is to love life in its abundance, to seek and work towards creating and instilling more abundance and to share this love and experience with others.

Reconciliation

There is much to be gained from debating and arguing against individuals who hold to opposing viewpoints and beliefs. I would even argue that it is foundational to elucidating and even discovering ones own beliefs in fuller form. However, the minor and major differences we all share contribute in painting the vast spectrum of humanity. These differences should not only be tolerated and accepted but celebrated, if at all possible, even shared. The only differences which should be opposed at all costs and without leniency are those causing undue harm and suffering.
The indisputable fact remains that we all, as members of the human species, have far more qualities in common with one another than we could ever possibly have in difference. In point of fact it is usually the similarities which give birth to larger differences, a phenomenon which Freud termed “the narcissism of the minor differences.”
It is all well and good to argue and dispute differing opinions, beliefs, values and philosophies, however, it is of the utmost importance that while doing so one keeps well in mind that they share much more in common with their antagonist than they may be willing to admit. One would do well to acknowledge the differences where they exist and dwell on them only as long as is required, for there comes a time when affirming ones shared humanity takes top priority. I encourage debate and argument for birthed of these activities is an increase in knowledge and understanding, as Thomas Jefferson said: “Difference of opinion leads to inquiry, and inquiry to truth.” However, there seems to be - certainly in our current social climate - something missing; the most crucial aspect is absent. Even while arguing, or at least when one is concluding an argument, there should be a level of reconciliation, of mutual understanding and acceptance, of genuine empathy. This reconciliation, founded upon empathy and – as Carl Rogers phrased it “unconditional positive regard” – is completely absent in our social discourse.
Even when one is at extreme odds with another in debate it is wise to keep in mind the fact that there are, in fact, far more similarities than there are differences. There should be a concerted effort to keep not only this in mind, but, to remain as civil as possible and to end a heated debate with reconciliation rather than vitriolic animosity. We need to affirm our shared humanity, with this alone the social discourse – and overall environment - would benefit greatly.

Defending Morality

Morality, at its base, is centered upon the happiness or suffering of sentient beings and the realization that some actions are more conducive to ones own and others happiness or suffering. Actions and behavior can be deemed either ethical or unethical due to the natural consequences which they necessarily produce.
Moral relativism is an absurd obfuscation of this reality not to mention absolutely hostile to a true moral calculus. Moral relativism is, essentially, the ideology that all forms of morality are the product of culture and of society, which they are, but further that there is no foundation for which to measure the justification thereof, hence all morality is equally viable. At the heart of this ideology is a rather obvious contradiction: the claim that all forms of morality are equally viable, that all forms of morality should be respected, this is not a relative but an absolute claim and one which certainly runs into trouble when a cultures morality consists of negating other forms of morality; for if all forms of morality are true and one form of morality claims that all other forms are untrue then a conundrum is created for the relativist. Furthermore moral relativism neglects the science of humanity, psychology, wherein we learn that there is a human nature characteristic of the human species. What I find most repulsive in moral relativism is the notion that because it is the custom of a specific culture to degrade and devalue their women and allow what is essentially rape that this is permissible because it is their agreed upon morality. These relativists are either ignorant of or hostile to the reality that all women, all human beings for that matter, respond to rape and degradation negatively, the effects of rape and degradation of human beings is equally nefarious across the human spectrum regardless of ones specific culture. Moral relativism is the product of a perverse philosophy, which, in many ways, compares to nihilism.
Worse than the moral relativist is the religious moral absolutist who has received a morality from an alleged supernatural source. With religion one usually finds morality stood on its head, one finds a false morality, immorality. What many religions do with morality is separate questions of morality from true questions of happiness or suffering, they present hysterically absurd falsifications of morality, many of which are utterly immoral. Within the bible, both old testament and new, it is a moral proposition, commanded by god, that homosexuality is an abomination and carries with it the penalty of death. This moral proposition is a clear falsification of morality, there is no discernable suffering, homosexuality does not harm other people, it does not cause others to suffer and despite what fundamentalists claim homosexuality does not destroy “natural” families. However this moral proposition does cause suffering, it causes and justifies the degradation of homosexuals, it goes even further, it calls for the mistreatment of homosexuals, it calls for immorality. Religious morality is replete with such falsifications, such immorality, within its set of moral propositions; what a euphemism, what a true blasphemy, it is to even use the term morality in such an instance.
Whenever you hear the name “god” mentioned within the same breath as morality rest assure it stands for either a vacuous and superfluous platitude or the name by which one justifies the perversion of a true moral calculus.

Revisiting the Jesus Myth

Viewing the story of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels as heavily influenced mythology is, essentially, the only legitimate understanding thereof. The historicity of Jesus can be debated and will likely be debated for years, however, there is absolutely no evidence suggesting that the accounts of the life and times of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels is anything other than a parsed together story, heavily influenced by the common mythology of the time and written with a concerted effort to align the story with the “prophecies” of the old testament.

As I said in my last post, Jesus allegedly died around the year 33 CE and Mark wrote the first gospel no earlier than 65 CE which leaves a three decade gap, in which the only documents in existence pertaining to Christianity are Paul’s writings. It is a very striking fact that in not one of Paul’s epistles does he make any mention of what we would consider the story of Jesus save for the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus into heaven. Paul makes no mention of the virgin birth, Mary, Bethlehem, John the Baptist, any of the miracles of Jesus – you would think that Paul would have mentioned a few of these alleged miracles in his attempt to convert new Christians – Pontius Pilot, any Jewish mob or any trial. I concede that these omissions do not imply, implicitly, that Paul was unaware of the story of Jesus as later portrayed by the NT gospels. However, these facts are suggestive and must not be overlooked.

In the three decade gap between the alleged death of Jesus and Mark’s writing of the first gospel the story of Jesus was kept alive and spread through oral tradition, a method which is exceedingly susceptible to convolution. It is very likely that while the story of Jesus was spreading it began to accumulate the characteristics of the common mythologies of the time. It is very likely that Paul either came before such an evolution in the story or was simply unaware of it. One must keep in mind that we are considering the first century and the archaic communication which is inherent therein. It is not a stretch of the imagination to conclude that the oral tradition of Christianity gave birth to a greatly exaggerated, added upon and altered story – the gospels were written between thirty and fifty years after the alleged death of Jesus, plenty of time for the evolution thereof – it is really almost impossible to believe that the oral tradition kept perfectly intact the entire account of the stories later relayed in the gospels, which differ amongst even themselves.

As I mentioned in my last post it is a very striking fact that Jesus, as portrayed in the gospels, shares twenty or so characteristics with the common heroic figure, mythic figures such as: Oedipus, Theseus, Romulus, Hercules, Perseus, Zeus, Zoroaster, Thor, Tammuz, Orpheus, Mithras, Krishna, Horus, Hermes, Dionysis, Baal, Attis, Adonis, etc. I have already indexed the shared characteristics and will avoid redundancy here.

Having illustrated the shared mythological characteristics I will now endeavor to bring to the fore the theological and symbolic similarities.

Mithraism was a pagan religion which viewed the mythical Mithras as the mediator between humanity and the unknowable god who created all of existence. Mithraic communities expressed fraternal and communal spirit, their creed insisted on moral conduct, demanded abstinence and self control and postulated a heaven and hell; they sanctified Sunday and December the 25, Yule, this date was also a day referred to as Saturnalia – a dedication to Saturn’s temple – and it is widely believed that this date was chosen as the day to celebrate the birth of Christ, by Pope Julius I, in order to make it easier to convert the Roman pagans, Jesus was allegedly born in September. In any case many of the rites and sayings in Mithraism are similar if not identical to the sayings later attributed to Jesus. The Madonna and baby cults share their relation with both the Tammuz and the Egyptian Isis and Horus. The Christian celebration of easter also shares its origins with the Tammuz and their god Ishtar – pronounced “easter” – which is why easter is replete with fertility symbology.

With Apollonius Christ, the theological similarity is virtually identical. He preached “we cannot hate our fellow man” he created miracles, healed the sick, was accused of sedition in Rome and his followers, after his death, claimed that he had ascended to heaven and came to them in spiritual form afterwards. In fact the theology of Apollonius was so similar to that of Christianity there are records of early Church fathers mentioning and arguing against Apollonius’ divinity, again, using the argument that Satan used Apollonius as a way to deceive:

"How is it that the talismans of Apollonius have power over certain members of creation, for they prevent, as we see, the fury of the waves, the violence of the winds, and the attacks of wild beasts. And whilst Our Lord's miracles are preserved by tradition alone, those of Apollonius are most numerous, and actually manifested in present facts, so as to lead astray all beholders?" – Justin Martyr, early Church father

Apollonians, those who were followers of Apollonius, believed in the immortality of the soul and that upon death they would ascend to heaven. In fact, there is debate on whether or not Jesus had been conflated with Apollonius due to the similarities.

There are also striking similarities between Christianity and Zoroastrianism, the later predating the former. Many scholars credit Zoroastrianism with influencing the eschatology, angelology and demonology of Judaism. Judaism, of course, then influencing Christianity and Islam:

“it was from this very creed of Zoroaster that the Jews derived all the angelology of their religion... the belief in a future state; of rewards and punishments, ... the soul's immortality, and the Last Judgment - all of them essential parts of the Zoroastrian scheme.” – from The Gnostics and Their Remains (King and Moore, 1887).

Zoroastrianism had abstract concepts of heaven and of hell, personal and final judgment and even contains the concept of a coming messiah-like figure referred to as the “Peshotan.”

In light of all of this, viewing the story of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels as heavily influenced and convoluted by the common mythology of the time appears to be the only legitimate and firm contention. It seems abundantly clear that the gospel stories of Jesus have been parsed together, influenced and convoluted by various myths and written with a concerted effort to align the story with the “prophecies” of the old testament.

The Mythology of Jesus

Jesus lived in the first three decades in the first century, allegedly dying somewhere along the year 33 CE, although there were groups of ancient Jews and Jewish Christians who believed that Jesus was killed a century before. The Gospels, beginning with Mark, were written after 70 CE That’s a four decade gap, the only information we have in the gap comes from Paul who claims that Jesus came to him and told him to spread the word. Paul wrote around eighty thousand words about Christianity, Paul’s documents represent, essentially, all we have with regards to the history of Christianity during this four decade gap. What’s further is that Paul was unaware of the “fact” that Jesus allegedly lived as a human on earth, he was unaware of the story of Mary, of Bethlehem, John the Baptist, any of the miracles of Jesus, Paul never quotes anything that Jesus allegedly said, Paul never mentioned the ministry of Jesus, Pontius Pilot, any Jewish mob, any trial; Paul was unaware of what we would consider the story of Jesus save for the last three events, events which Paul did not even place as having happened on earth. To Paul Jesus lived, died and ascended all within the confines of a mythical realm. I find it interesting, rather suggestive, that the only link we have between the time frame given for the life of Jesus and the appearance of the first gospels, Paul, never even believed that Jesus was a human being, he was actually unaware of the idea altogether.

When looking at the Gospels one must be aware of the fact that allegorical literature was very common at the time, many of the gospels – the apocryphal – were thrown out due to their being too unbelievable and based on folk lore stemming from a plethora of various other myths; there has been a concerted effort – the Jesuits being an example – of people actively attempting to demythologize the bible, trying to take away the folklore (such as the “virgin birth”).

The folklore inherent in Christianity was nothing new or original. Jesus shared some twenty odd characteristics with other mythical heroes, heroes such as Oedipus, Theseus, Romulus, Hercules, Perseus, Zeus, Zoroaster, Thor, Tammuz, Orpheus, Mithras, Krishna, Horus, Hermes, Dionysis, Baal, Attis, Adonis, etc. the shared characteristics being: the heroes mother is a royal virgin, stars appear at his birth, visited by Magi from the east, his father is a king, the circumstances of his conception are unusual, is reputed to be the son of a god, at birth there is an attempt by his father to kill him, but he is hidden away, is raised by foster parents in a foreign country, we are told nothing of his childhood, on reaching manhood he returns and goes to his future kingdom, after a victory over a king, a giant or a dragon, marries a princess, turns water into wine, heals the sick, performs miracles, becomes king, reigns uneventfully, proscribes laws, later losses favor with subjects, is driven from the throne of the city, meets with a mysterious death, death is often at the top of a hill, killed on a cross or a tree, his children if any do not succeed him, his body not buried, etc.

It is a staggering fact to note that Jesus shares the majority of these common hero characteristics with other heroic figures such as Oedipus, Theseus, Romulus, etc. There are other similar savior figures during the same time period such as Apollonius Christ and Osiris, however, nobody takes these stories as anything other than mythical despite the congruent similarity. I find it further revealing that those whose job it was to spread Christianity used the similarity it shared with all other mythology as an advantage:

“When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter.” – Justin Martyr, church father.

What’s even more is that many pagans, after being proselytized to by the early Church fathers, claimed that what the Christians were saying about Jesus had been what they claimed about Dionysis for years and they didn’t actually believe in such myths either anymore. To which the early Christian apologists would respond with the claim that the difference being this time, with Jesus, the story was true, for it was Satan who counterfeited in advance the other stories with the foreknowledge that this day would come and wished to subvert it.

“For when they say that Dionysus arose again and ascended to heaven, is it not evident the devil has imitated the prophecy?” – Justin Martyr, church father

This is clear evidence that the early church was well aware of the fact that their story, their mythology, was perfectly similar to others which came before and in response to this had to resort to claiming that these other similar mythologies were the work of the devil, a sorry argument if there ever was. It is important to keep in mind that the first celebration of easter was in 2400 BCE long before any alleged existence of Jesus.

For thousands of years humanity has been obsessed with blood sacrifice, it is no coincidence that the story of the crucifixion of Jesus gave Christians a suffering and tortured hero whose flesh they could eat and whose blood they could drink – this is the absolute height of religious sacrifice - and for all those who claim that modern Christians are no longer obsessed with blood sacrifice I submit to them that they watch The Passion of the Christ, the most bloody, gory, violent movie of Jesus ever made and also, far and away, the most popular; many Christians claim this movie is the most profound ever made and it is centered around nothing other than blood sacrifice.

In summation of all of this I find it more than fair and logical to question even the very idea that Jesus ever existed. It seems far more plausible to me that the story of Jesus, the Christian faith, is nothing more than a parsed together story, incorporating the common characteristics of a heroic mythology with a concerted effort to align it with the “prophecy” of the old testament, and nothing more. Thus is, the mythology of Jesus.

The Opium of the People

There is never a shortage of individuals misquoting Marx in order to make it appear that he presented sentiments parallel to claiming that religion was nothing more than opium, the only function of which was to drug the masses and dull the mind. This is, of course, inaccurate. What Marx actually claimed, in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, was much deeper in its analysis and broader in its implication. He says in his introduction:

“Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people… The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness….The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo….Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and cull the living flower.”

Undoubtedly many have already become acquainted with a portion of this quote, that religion is the “opium of the people,” but many have likewise failed to actually understand what Marx meant by this. He does not mean by “opium of the people” that religion drugs the masses so as to dull the mind, but, rather, religion is the opium of the people in the sense that it is that which consoles and gives comfort to those facing impossible circumstances. Marx is stating that, through class struggle, religion is wholly dependent upon and is birthed by the material and economic realities which society faces. To Marx religion is the manifestation of a societal defense mechanism, not only the expression of societies suffering but of its protest against it and this suffering is caused by material and economic injustices, political connivances. He believes that by criticizing and abolishing religion one would be able to inculcate within society the foundation for political revolution, or, at least, its evolution.

The Ultimate Sadist

I shall preface this essay by submitting the fact that the god I am speaking of is not the “totality of all existence” god, the vague pantheistic god of deist-like enlightened transcendentalists. I am not speaking of this god that exists in some vague realm but does not meddle in the affairs of human endeavor. I am explicitly speaking of the “watchmaker” god, the creationist god of Abraham. The god that is both a part of nature and above it, the god that creates miracles, heeds prayer, rewards and punishes and is enveloped in the affairs of human endeavor; more precisely, the god that is allegedly a “benevolent providence.”

It is a striking observation that the concept of a benevolent god who is concerned with the affairs of human endeavor is, in every way, contradictory with the reality of existence and the occurrences of everyday life. It is clearly not a benevolent entity that oversaw the savage killing of innocent human life, including many children, in hurricane Katrina. It cannot be a benevolent entity that not only allows but puts into motion such brutal violence and savage murder. Who, in their right mind, is able to reconcile a benevolent god that interjects itself in the midst of human activity with such “acts of god” consisting of hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, mudslides, firestorms, plagues, birth defects, deadly viruses, etc.? Clearly this index of barbarism cannot be written off as the effects of gods gift of free will and the inherent iniquity of humanity, this is either evidence that god is a twisted sadist, that god doesn’t intervene in the affairs of humanity or that god simply doesn’t exist. If the concept of god is that of the “watchmaker” who concerns itself with the affairs of humanity then this god is so very clearly the ultimate sadist.

To believe in such a god requires the believer to be the ultimate masochist and as Freud so insightfully pointed out sadism and masochism are both intricately intertwined with repressed and/or distorted aggressive sexual urges and desires. Masochism, in short, is the manifestation of the ids, or the subconscious’s, repressed and distorted sexual instincts. I am by no means an orthodox Freudian, I believe much of the psychoanalytic theory regarding the foundational aspects of the libido, that libido is the foundational physiological substratum of human instinct and motivation, is incorrect and misguided but with regards to the sexual links between sadism and masochism psychoanalysts have a very strong case. It is not without significance to point out that many of these devout believers who conceptualize a “watchmaker” god who is concerned with the affairs of humanity and interjects itself into them are also, not so incidentally, the very same fundamentalists who believe that abstinence is the only correct moral position regarding sex before marriage, that sex is only to be used for procreation and that, essentially, sex is fundamentally filthy and sinful.

The god I have been speaking of is, without a doubt, the ultimate sadist and for the belief in such a god to exist it is a necessary requirement of the believer that they be the corresponding ultimate masochist.

Religious Sensitivity

Whenever I encounter an individual pleading for a cessation of criticism on behalf of religious sensitivity I am usually never sympathetic. The entire charade of religious sensitivity reeks of intellectual bankruptcy, if one is able to support the beliefs, dogma and practices with argument then one hardly needs to plea for exemption. It is predominately those beliefs, dogmas and practices which are unsupportable which individuals will evoke sensitivity for. I find this tactic not only intellectually reprehensible but exceedingly revealing. It doesn’t say much for the beliefs in question if, rather than allow the evidence and support for them surface, one attempts to prohibit their being questioned or criticized in the first place.
Religious sensitivities raison d’etre is clearly a not so subtle attempt to prohibit the questioning and criticism of religious beliefs, dogma and practices. This illustrates that the individual evoking such a plea is already well aware of the insecurity inherent in their claims and practices, otherwise they would be more than willing to illustrate the evidence and reason for these items so that the questioner or critic would be able to understand the conviction in dispute and possibly even agree with it.
I am also not the least bit sympathetic to anyone who becomes offended when a cherished belief of theirs is questioned, criticized or repudiated. I understand very well that many people are unable to review their beliefs and hold to them in a dispassionate manner, this is no ones fault but their own, and furthermore many of these “sensitive” beliefs are not only offensive to others but dangerous. People would do well to arrive at their convictions through a systematic and dispassionate process by which they reviewed specific claims and adhered to them only when they are sufficiently supportable and furthermore they should not become emotionally involved with the convictions to a point that, when the convictions are questioned or criticized, they then feel personally denigrated.
I hold to many beliefs - as does everyone - and many of them are questioned and criticized on a daily basis and yet still others have been repudiated. Never have I felt that my personhood was under attack, except for the instances in which it was, I have never reacted in an overtly emotional manner and I have never pleaded for the cessation of questioning or criticism on behalf of sensitivity lest I become offended. Sometimes I am offended by an argument or a criticism sent my way but rather than ask for the cessation of that criticism I engage it and the majority of the time I and my antagonist reach an armistice or at least a better understanding of each others positions, this is only possible when tactics such as pleading for exemption on behalf of sensitivity are completely ignored. I take such questioning and criticism as the very process by which my convictions are emboldened and strengthened, it illustrates the errors of my beliefs and helps in their remediation; I take such criticism as an essential aspect foundational to my pursuit of knowledge and understanding and I am nothing less than grateful for it.

Life after death

Life after death is inherently implausible, much like life before birth.
Our conscious existence, our self-reflexive insight, our private I - that is our inner self - is a reflective loop that stems from and is based in the physical brain. Our personality, our temperance, our characteristics, our loves, hates, desires, emotions and sense of self are all mechanisms of our physical brain. We are not “consciously” aware of ourselves at birth and only acquire our conscious awareness after our brain has attained a certain level of development and our neuro-pathways have made the necessary connections and web. When we die our physical brain dissolves and so does our consciousness, our inner-self (sometimes, mistakenly, referred to as our “soul”), so as far as an afterlife involving ones personality, conscious awareness, inner-self, etc., such a thing does not exist. It only exists in the minds of those who, not only hold a phobia of an impersonal and random nature that is not concerned with human endeavor, retain a neurotic fear of death (which is understandable to some degree).
This is one instance in which I am an orthodox Freudian. In Freud’s The Future of an Illusion he explained religion and the mythology of the afterlife inherent therein as the highest form of wish fulfillment, being the cheapest form of our emotions. I believe this to be the case with belief in the continuation of self after death with regards to any religious precept and notion, there simply is absolutely no evidence that ones self will continue after the dissolution of their physical being.

Logic

I have recently debated logic with several theists, a fundamental Calvinist and a Roman Catholic, and they both tried to argue that logic is an external manifestation and phenomena of god that we as cognitive entities merely tap into. I disagreed for I claim that logic is a product of the mind based on and influenced by the foundational laws and consistent mechanisms of material existence, or to put it plainly the "nature of reality." Logic is necessarily a product of the mind rather than a law of the universe itself and certainly not some external characteristic or attribute of any supernatural entity/force. These misguided and piously intoxicated theists claimed that logic itself was a law of the universe and I, again, disagreed. For I define logic as a mode or system of reasoning with formal principles, surely these formal principles are based on and influenced by the various laws of the universe but logic is not, itself, one of these laws as the theists were arguing. Logic is *not* a law of nature and it is not a force of material existence, without a mind that is. However the fundamental laws and truths upon which logic is built certainly are logical. They are logical because they are susceptible to our observations, reasoning, analysis and understanding and they are susceptible to these things because they are necessarily predictable and the universe is predictable because it is an amalgam of consistent material mechanisms, thus these laws and mechanisms are logically coherent. I would point out that this does not mean that logic itself is a law but that, via evolution of the mind, logic is a product of these laws. I also claim, contrary to the theists positions, that logic did not always exist but that it has evolved with numerous species and that it varies in intricacy. Logic evolved and came to fruition within the mind based on and because of the various laws of the material universe, not because it always existed and that any given species with a mind then taps into it. I claim that logic has not always existed, the foundation for which logic was reliant on to evolve and come to be surely always existed but not logic itself. I would point out that I view logic as evolutionary phenomena, much like life on earth.

My main point is that logic itself does not really govern anything. It is not a law or force unto itself, but a product of the various laws, forces and material mechanisms of the universe.

Logic, like mathematics, is a secondary product of the nature of reality not the nature of reality itself.

Consensus

Thanks to my-space.com I was just afforded the displeasure of reading a rather long and vainglorious affirmation of the insipid and shallow belief in a supernatural entity/force that was, in this case, referred to as *god*. It is my firm belief that such an affirmation, via my-space messaging no less, is a rather blatant display of theist-egoistic-insecurity. Yes, that seems to be a contradiction but so is every assertion and belief put forth by these individuals and so is every argument spent on behalf of such inane premises. I find that *egoistic-insecurity* covers the characteristic rather well actually; for the majority of these individuals, evangelicals and fundamentalists most especially, present themselves with egregious egoistic smugness and moral superiority but I always sense that deep within their essence there lies an insecurity and uncertainty that belies their false pretenses. Their sureness and composure seem to be nothing more than a weak attempt at hiding their true sense of uncertainty about the world and circumstances in which they live; an extreme form of self delusion and denial of the most important and relevant of issues – those of reality and existence.

I find it rather revealing that such individuals find solace and comfort in numbers. When ever you find that one is forced to resort to “consensus,” then one has nothing to back their argument with whatsoever. One is doing nothing more than pandering to the majority of individuals that “feel” or have “faith” in the very same, intellectually dishonest and inherently false, beliefs that they are straining so hard to vindicate and justify. I find such actions intellectually reprehensible, immoral and embarrassing.