Mr. Mortensen, I read that you’re endorsing Jill Stein
You may have friends, but now you’re no friend of mine
I’m the de facto American 2-Party System
And if you’re a REAL patriot, then you’ll only vote within them
I mean, there are a hundred arguments for why voting 3rd party is dumb
Just for whiny-baby ethics voters, sucking on their thumbs
But, aren’t you from upstate New York? Hell, that’s like being half-Canadian
And you’re voting like your Canadian half, not the half that’s ‘Murican
You must think that you’re smart, Viggo… reading Camus— speaking Italian and French
But in this Country’s political dialogue, your intellect doesn’t gain you an inch
Don’t you realize that your Stein vote is only a throw-away
And the right time for a protest vote DEFINITELY isn’t on Election Day
I read your published letter that endorses Jill Stein
But, “Speaking truth to power,” won’t earn your candidate Big Bank dimes
Viggo, don’t you understand the facts
And how a citizen in the voting booth should act
Trump supporters assert that 3rd Party votin’
Is basically just an indirect vote for old “pay-to-play” Clinton
And Hillary lovers say voting 3rd party only gives a bump
To their sworn enemy— the “racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, pussy-grabbing” Trump
So, basically, if you cast a vote for Stein or Johnson
You’re paradoxically, at the same time, casting a vote for both Trump and Clinton
Though you only vote for one, you’re somehow also voting for the other two
Making your vote, according to the pundits, only work against you
Mr. Mortensen, you better own up to the sad truth, though it’s tragic
Don’t you know, Viggo? In America, 3rd Party votes are black magic
My fellow Americans, tomorrow is the big day. Vote your conscience after considering all of your options in due diligence. Also, if you choose not to vote for some ethical position, that is fine too. This election has done so much to divide us. Never have I witnessed a more fractured USA in my lifetime. Let’s do our best to be kind to one another, even when our political opinions differ.
To Mr. Mortensen, thank you for taking an unpopular stand for your chosen candidate and presenting your reasons in a well-written, and dare I say, truly patriotic fashion.
To read the mentioned endorsement letter, click this link:
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Scientific Studies (HBO)- Screenshot- Used under Fair Use Act
Here’s the thing about science… for the most part, scientific progress is generally a slow process and boring to almost anyone who isn’t a scientist. That dynamic begs the following problem: With an Internet Culture that demands to be constantly wowed by new, provocative, stimulating, but not-too-intellectually demanding information, and click-bait news articles and blogs, how should media outlets, “news” sites, TV talk shows, and professional bloggers, all thirsty for advertising revenue via views present science and scientific studies? Well, for the most part, the answer is to propagate complete bullshit, hack interpretations of data, push non-peer-reviewed studies as proven facts, or to re-package peer reviewed studies so that they fit nicely on the low shelf and can be married up with exciting buzz worthy titles.
Before moving forward, let me give you complete disclosure. I am not a scientist. I am a writer, poet, and ebay entrepreneur. But, I love science and highly esteem its value to humanity as an empirical method of discovery. Because of that, I cringe when the revelatory power of the Scientific Method and complex findings of scientific studies are wielded about by the unlearned in media like a toddler with a .357 revolver.
Too strong of an analogy? I think not. Maybe too weak. Toddlers with revolvers would only have six shots each to do damage with. A scientifically flawed online article or news story has the power to dangerously deceive millions. The thing is, the propagation of pseudo-scientific bullshit can and does kill people. That is particularly the case when people have an aversion to traditional, proven medical treatments for various cancers and other deadly afflictions and turn rather to the magical promises of unproven (and sometimes inherently dangerous) “natural” remedies. On the flip side, otherwise healthy people can be MADE ill via untested supplements and the like. Sure, a healthy and varied diet is to be lauded and applied in one’s life. Yet, when you need modern medicine and/or treatments backed by vetted scientific research to cure a particular malady, don’t presume that merely eating more of this or that and/or taking some crap the salesperson at your local supplement shop assures you is the miracle cure-all will fix your problems. You may well avoid traditional medicine, relying on “natural remedies” until the situation is too late to reverse. Do traditional treatments always work? Nope. But they have at least been tried and tested via trial, error, and peer-reviewed research. I’ll take that over some magic beans any day.
So, when I read or watch pseudo-science presented by news anchors, Internet article writers, and bloggers, I get a bit angry. I get angry when people are given false hope for their sicknesses by modern day snake oil salesmen. I get angry when energy is wasted in society filtering out the bullshit AND when people, even fairly well educated people, are fooled by said bullshit. Lastly, I get angry that our modern society is left intellectually weak by being allowed to hit baseballs off of the tee like children when we should be swinging at fast, difficult pitches like adults- metaphorically speaking. Though, I can’t blame only those who are selling snake oil. As a society, we are buying it time and time again.
Because of all that, I am thankful to the John Oliver Show people for their new related segment. Please, please, PLEASE, my fellow humans… let the scientists do their work. Give them time and funding to do it. Let the scientists re-test and peer-review the experiments and data. And, when their findings are a bit outside the realm of our own layman’s understanding, we should let the scientists explain it to the rest of us rather than the news anchors.
I encourage you to seek to expand your own understanding of the Scientific Method and various areas of scientific exploration as a part of your own personal study and life-long learning. I assure you, having a finely tuned bullshit detector is a very handy thing in this world. You may also find some merit in this handy poster from a previous blog:
“Keys to Sound Thinking” Poster by: Luke Austin Daugherty
First as tragedy then as farce. The new “Religious Freedom” law has forced me into a comedy career in order to explain how a business, open to serve the public, should run in Indiana.
From the tame “Chubby Bunny” challenge to the uber-dangerous new “Fire Challenge,” social networking sites are teeming with “Internet Challenges.” What is an “Internet Challenge” you may ask? Well, it is basically just a dare, but instead of being done for a payoff of street cred with real friends you know personally, it is for internet cred with complete strangers. You are supposed to accept the challenge, video yourself doing it, and then post the video online.
I remember dares when I was a little kid… A buddy daring me to talk to the girl I had a crush on or jumping a really high and sketchy ramp assembled by friends at the trailer park on my BMX bike. Hell, sometimes we’d even jump over each other. There were regular dares, “double-dog” dares, and so on. Yet, for the most part, I wasn’t into dares, dishing out peer pressure, or giving into it. I carried that trend even more so into adulthood. What I want to do, I do. What I don’t want to do, I don’t do. You won’t bully, manipulate, or peer pressure me into doing some shit I don’t want to do.
So, when I now behold the trendy spectacle that has become known as the “Internet Challenge,” I stand amazed at the nincompoopery of it all. The first one that I ever noticed a couple years ago on Youtube was the Cinnamon Challenge. There isn’t much to it. Basically, you just eat a huge spoonful of cinnamon and try to swallow it. The result? Hacking, watering eyes, a nose dripping with snot, and instant regret apparently. See the video link below for a compilation of people doing the challenge.
One reason I stopped doing dares at a pretty young age was, once you start, you just can’t stop. If you gain your fame among peers for doing dares, the dares will never cease. Not only that, but they tend to increase in ridiculousness (and danger) as they go. Such has been the case with the Internet Challenge phenomenon as well. The Cinnamon Challenge became The Ghost Pepper Challenge, The Flour Slap became The Knock Out Game, The Ice Bath Challenge became the Fire Challenge, so on and so on.
Let us park there just for a moment… “The Fire Challenge.” This challenge is a simple, yet staggeringly moronic one. Basically, you dump flammable liquid on yourself and then set it ablaze. Yes, you set yourself on fire. As much as I’d like to rename it the, “Darwin Award Challenge,” or, “The Proof That I’m Incredibly Stupid Challenge,” that would only serve to confuse such an obvious title for the challenge. There is really only one downside to doing this challenge. That is, you end up on fire. If that isn’t enough to dissuade you from doing such a challenge, likely, no other reason I can provide will. See the following video for a good example of this nonsensical challenge. (language warning)
There have been many news stories done on these Fire Challenges gone wrong recently. In my opinion, since you end up on fire, they are all gone wrong. One of the most interesting things to me about many of these videos is, the participants seem really surprised the the fire is hot once lighting the flammable liquid. PEOPLE! It’s fire! Of course it is going to be hot! That is one of the primary reasons that you typically avoid catching on fire when it is under your power to do so. The sad thing is, this new challenge won’t be the last of them. Once the enamor and prestige of setting one’s self on fire has worn off, inventors of Internet Challenges (whoever they may be) will come up with something even more dangerous and stupid. I could presuppose some insane ideas, but I won’t for fear that someone would be crazy enough to try it.
That said, I would like to reveal the last Internet Challenge you will ever need to do, ironic though it may be. I call it, “The Ignoring Internet Challenges and Social Media Peer Pressure Forever Challenge.” This is how you do it… After committing to participate in my perpetual challenge, any time you see a new challenge pop up online, you totally ignore it. You say to yourself, “Self, this new challenge was probably invented by a moron with nothing worthwhile to do but come up with stupid challenges. I will not allow the foolish whims of a nameless stranger nor the potential praise of others on social media to manipulate me into doing something dumb.” That is it! So, please share my new, “The Ignoring Internet Challenges and Social Media Peer Pressure Forever Challenge,” and make the world a better, hopefully less nitwit filled place! If you would like to post a video of yourself doing my challenge, basically just record yourself doing anything but an Internet Challenge: eating cereal for breakfast, reading a book, watching TV, drawing a unicorn… whatever. 🙂 -Luke
An interesting phenomenon has developed over the last several years via the reach of youtube- the rise of independent, “professional” pranksters. These are creative people who started out small, and due to their consistent and well-filmed prank videos, have reached a certain level of internet fame. For some, that fame and the ad revenue it produces even makes for a full time personal income allowing them more time to focus on their art of creating prank videos.
If you are into the prank videos on youtube, you may know some of the primary pranksters well. Many of their videos go so viral that even if you aren’t into watching the pranks, you will see the links posted on various social media sites. Other videos become so popular that they are referenced in major news stories nationally and internationally. A few of the “kings” of youtube prank channels are Jack Vale (the Pooter guy), edbassmaster, Roman Atwood, Vitaly at VitalyzdTV, Tom Mabe at MabeInAmerica, PrankvsPrank, The Scary Snowman, Dennis Roady, MagicofRahat, and others. Some of these pranksters have also learned the trick to being one of the “popular kids” as it were. That is, you team up and tell the populace that the other person is cool too. So, some popular pranksters often team-up to do videos and pranks together. It is brilliant cross marketing and pools their creative resources as well.
These viral pranks range greatly in their nature, style of execution, and subject matter. Some are just goofy “fart” pranks pulled off in public spots, stores, or elevators. See Jack Vale’s video’s for the best examples of these.
Others are also very simplistic in nature, but always have a great payoff, such as the Scary Snowman videos.
Hey, fake farts and people getting startled have always been and will always be funny. Video pranks will vary from those simple and relatively harmless versions all the way to some very potentially dangerous ones. Some pranksters have also made a real effort to use some of their pranks to benefit others or have done social experiments to raise awareness of some important issues. I applaud the noble efforts of such pranksters to use their art form in the service of helping others to whatever degree they can.
But, there are two other categories of prank videos that I would like to address. Actually, the two have some overlap. That is, pranks that can potentially (or likely) cause harm to the public and pranks that waste the resources of emergency or police services. I was inspired to address this issue after seeing several of those types of videos being discussed by people on Facebook in the last few weeks. It seems that there is a one-upmanship battle going on between the royalty of youtube pranksters. The nature of some of these pranks is getting more ridiculous and/or dangerous. Please know, I am not a “fuddy-duddy” that doesn’t get a kick out of a ton of the pranks I see. Yet, in day to day life, I am not a prankster myself. Since I don’t like being messed with personally, I don’t dish it out either. But, due to the rise of the “professional prankster” some of them think that saying, “IT’S JUST A PRANK!” after doing something crazy in public somehow puts them “on base” from any repercussions.
As a disclaimer and qualifier, I do not condone violence against another person merely over words or insult. I do support defending one’s self when you believe that you are in immediate danger, are being actively and physically intimidated, actually attacked, or are defending another person who is in one of those situations. I would assert that some of these pranksters are going too far and becoming reckless in a way that is dangerous to themselves and others with some recent pranks.
Since I have enjoyed watching youtube pranks for years, I have tried to hold back on being too judgmental on some “iffy” pranks that I have seen online. But, the first one I saw from a major prankster, in this case Roman Atwood, that I think definitely crossed the line is the one below:
The “Drive-by Shooting Prank” is just reckless, stupid, and dangerous. If you noticed, one person actually shot back at Atwood’s vehicle toward the end of the video. Atwood is lucky that the shooter was a poor shot and no one else had a car handy to chase his SUV down in to return real fire. Here are my main points of contention about that prank:
1. Going to a potentially high-crime neighborhood where people are already on edge and making random people think they are really being shot at is just negligent, unthinking, and lacks compassion. I would like Atwood or any other prankster who thinks such a prank is funny to consider what it would be like to walk out your front door, your small child in tow, to what you think is a real drive-by shooting pointed in your direction. Would that just be “ha-ha” funny? Would that just be all good after your and your child were terrified? I know there was not a small child apparent in the video, but I appeal to Atwood’s sensibilities (if he sees this blog) knowing his is a father.
2. The prankster his or herself could actually be injured.
3. The people who believe they are being shot at may assume that they know who is shooting at them: a neighboring gang, a person who they have had trouble with before, etc. and take revenge. Or, they may just go looking for a person who was driving the same kind of vehicle as the supposed shooter to get back at them. That is the type of thing that can happen in the real world.
4. Likely, police or emergency services are called because of such a situation. That wastes resources paid for by taxpayers at large for ridiculous reasons. It also can create a potential investigation that could falsely implicate an innocent person.
The recently posted video just below, “Killer Clown Scare Prank,” inspired a lengthy discussion on Facebook last week between quite a few people. (Graphic scenes)
That Killer Clown video is another example of a prank gone too far in my opinion. Many of the comments on Facebook had to do with the assertion that the person commenting would have reacted violently or shot the “clown.” Some of that may have been hyperbole, but I would say the majority of the people commenting were being literal. I myself live in a state, Indiana, which has a substantial amount of people who carry a concealed pistol, myself included. It would be reasonable in my opinion, especially in a city like Indianapolis with a crazy murder rate, to fire at a person who you believe is trying to attack you with a hammer, ax, knife, etc. It is inevitable that one of these pranksters engaging in highly irresponsible pranks will eventually be seriously hurt or killed. With so many real tweakers and violent people out there, as an individual on the street, you can’t just not act in a situation because there is a 1% chance you may be the target of a prank. Several pranksters have even been punched or slammed to the ground after doing a prank when they faked stealing a person’s property or said something highly offensive. Again, I don’t condone a violent reaction to words. But, you can’t expect to say crazy things to random people in public and not get hit eventually. Of course, it makes for great video and lots of “clicks,” so getting hit may be worth it to some pranksters. See the following for an example: (language warning)
Last, I would mention pranks that demean people. Even if done under the label of “helping” these pranks are in poor taste. Sure, people can do whatever they want for the most part and should be able to in making videos. But, I can also share my thoughts. In the following video, helping needy people is done in a way that is demeaning at the same time. If you’re going to give homeless folks money, do it in a way that doesn’t involve apparently blowing money out of your ass guys. Just because the homeless will take the money any way they can get it, does’t mean you should force them to grovel for money from your butt (of course, it isn’t really, but that isn’t the point)
In Atwood’s defense, he has fed the homeless and given money on several occasions in previous videos in much more tasteful ways (see the link below). And, he and his team have made tons of great prank videos as well. He is actually one of the best all-around pranksters online. Though, the push to get more and more sensational has to hit a wall at some point.
It is my hope that responsible pranking will continue. But, I implore youtube pranksters to mix in a bit of common sense and refrain from doing obviously dangerous pranks and/or pranks that waste police and emergency services. To my surprise, Roman Atwood, the prankster from the “Drive by Shooting” prank recently discovered a prank that was too much for even him. But hey, stealing gas when it’s over $4 a gallon could get you killed anywhere…
Thanks for reading and sharing! For a bit of comic relief, enjoy this classic SNL skit that relates to this blog perfectly 🙂
I noticed over the last week that several Facebook friends had shared a particular video clip of Christian comedian, Brad Stine. I then saw it popping up on other social media sites as well. So, as a lover of stand-up comedy, I decided to check the video out. Stine, who calls himself, “God’s Comic,” is a proud, Conservative Christian. I was not put off by the title, “Atheists are Irrational,” even though I am an atheist. I was interested to hear what all the hoopla was about and I clicked the link to the clip. Please watch the video yourself prior to reading the rest of my blog for proper context:
It was interesting that a video which is nearly five years old is just now “blowing up.” I presume it must have been recently shared on some key social media sites and Interweb momentum just took over from there.
Let me first say that I 100% support the 1st Amendment rights of all Americans for freedom of speech and religion, even when I disagree with them. I also value spirited discourse and debate on issues of religious ideology. I was a Christian minister for over fifteen years and I also very much “get” American Christianity. Now, as an atheist, that personal experience helps me to understand where believers are coming from.
So, as I listened to Brad Stine’s amusing (to his audience) comedic rant, I was not surprised at all with his assertions, though I was underwhelmed by his arguments. I think if his arguments would have been stronger and more concise, I could have enjoyed the comedy more. But, as it was, his weak arguments were too distracting for me to embrace the comedic elements of his performance.
I would like to frame up his primary arguments and provide some non-theistic answers to them. Being that his arguments were a bit “loose around the edges,” I have shaped them up a bit for the sake of deconstruction. That was a slight task as the arguments being made were poorly constructed, comedic elements aside.
-Argument #1: Premises- A. Atheists are upset/offended that their “little stinking ‘niche market’ isn’t being stinking represented.” (I guess he means in America in general or maybe in the Pledge of Allegiance specifically). B. Atheists want, “Under God,” taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance because God offends them. C. Atheists do not even believe God is real. Conclusion: Since Atheists don’t believe god is real, it is irrational that they should be offended by said God and His name being in the Pledge. He actually frames his conclusion in the form of a question: “DUDE! You’re an atheist! You don’t even believe God is real! How can He offend you?!”
So far at premise A. goes, that is just a subjective and anecdotal assertion that Stine is making with no evidence presented. I would not, of course, expect him to present statistical evidence for his assertion during a stand-up comedy routine. But I will say, I don’t know many atheists (actually none personally) that want the government blowing a trumpet for atheism like many believers do for Theism. If the federal government put forth a vote to see if people wanted, “There is no god,” on our legal tender, I would vote against it. It is the government’s job to guarantee freedom of, and freedom from religion, not to push a particular religious ideology. Individuals should be able to share their beliefs publicly all they want, unless dangerously disturbing the peace or maliciously infringing on the rights of another. That is not the job of government though.
Onto premise B… As an atheist, it is not the phrase, “Under God,” that offends me; it is that the government compels it to be said in the official Pledge of Allegiance. I would be very surprised if Mr. Stine actually knew at the time he wrote that “bit” that the phrase, “Under God,” was not even in the Pledge until the 1950s when American politicians felt the need to batten the hatches of our ideology against the Red Scare of Communism at that time. From 1892 to 1954, the Pledge was fine without, “Under God,” in it. Now many believers think if the phrase was removed, the Nation would fall apart. This is nonsense.
Also, for a Christian, the “God” being spoken of in that phrase always has an equal sign to Jesus, Yahweh, or the Triune Godhead depending on the denominational doctrines the individual holds to be true. They know “God” isn’t talking about Allah, Zeus, Vishnu, etc. in the Pledge. We all comprehend that because Christians are the mark majority of Americans, the “God” in the Pledge implicitly means the Christian God. I not only see that as an infringement upon my religious rights, it is also an infringement on the rights of Americans who believe in “another” god. I assert that the Pledge is perfectly complete without any proclamations about invisible, supernatural beings that may or may not exist. It isn’t a matter of needing my “niche” market asserted. It is a matter of religious liberties being protected for ALL of us.
Premise C spills directly into the concluding question; “How can He offend you?” Well, “He” doesn’t offend me. I do not make a knowledge claim that there is no god hiding somewhere in the universe. I assert that there is not currently enough evidence to persuade me that any god exists. That said, there are many things about the portrayal of the Judeo/Christian Deity that can be offensive. Still, that is not the issue at hand. The issue is the fact that the government pushes a particular ideology that supports theism specifically in the Pledge, on our currency, and in a multiplicity of other ways.
I find it ironic that Stine uses another mythological creature, the unicorn (which is mentioned in the Bible in multiple passages), to compare his god to for the sake of mocking atheists. But, Stine is missing the point by a mile. As he smirks with self-satisfaction in the video, he does not realize that the average American atheist has heard similar arguments ad nauseam. My favorite is, “Hey! You don’t believe in Santa, but I don’t see you running around talking against him!” (sigh) The thing is, atheists don’t have the majority of Americans trying to use the government’s authority to push a belief in Santa, tell us we’ll be tortured forever in an imaginary place for not believing in Santa, and try to force legislation that pushes doctrines that Santa taught. No one prevents two loving adults from marrying based on what Santa said. I also know that though Stine is mocking atheists for being “freaked out” by “God” being in the Pledge, if “Allah” was in the Pledge, he would see the situation much differently.
It isn’t a matter of whether we believe in your (or Stine’s) particular god or not. The issue is that many Christians in America expect the government, State and Federal, to trumpet their particular beliefs to the rest of us. That is unconstitutional.
To sum up that whole segment of the routine, Stine asks, “Who is more irrational… the guy that believes in a God he doesn’t see or a guy who is offended by a god he doesn’t believe in?!” Well Mr. Stine, you must not recognize that part two of that question is based on a straw man assertion. We are offended by the people ASSERTING the god we don’t believe in who have an expectation that we should shut up while they attempt to manipulate the religious dialogue in our Nation by using the government as a missionary organization. We aren’t offended in some direct way by a being that we reckon to be imaginary.
The definition of “irrational” is: “not logical or reasonable.” So, it would be irrational in my thinking to assert a definitive belief in a specific being that is invisible and for which there is not sound evidence for. It IS rational to be put off by said person’s attempts to trample my religious freedom via the government.
Argument #2: Premises- A. Christians believe life has meaning and purpose, as well as believe in the ideas of love, honor, nobility, and courage. B. None of those ideas are “in matter and molecules.” (Whatever that means… He must not realize that his body and brain are made up of matter and molecules) C. These ideas could not come from humans or have evolved since evolution “says” that “whatever happens to survive is all that matters… Right and wrong doesn’t exist. Culture just creates it as it goes.” Conclusion: “You’ve got to be kidding me. You see God in his handy work. How can you not see that?” Also, there is the implicit conclusion that the evolutionary process is not sufficient to allow the development of the aforementioned social virtues.
Well Mr. Stine, if you assume that atheists find no meaning or purpose in life, you must have never had an honest and open conversation with an atheist. I can honestly say that I find more purpose in this terrestrial life now than I did as a believer. This world actually IS my “home.” I’m not just “passing through.” Though I will surely die, it is the only home I’ll ever have. Not only that, it is the only home my progeny will have. So, I want to leave it better than I found it. Trying to make the world a better place is not just, “Polishing the brass on the Titanic,” like I have heard many preachers say. I am not looking for Jesus to come bail us out with the rapture. I don’t believe that I’m seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. I am right here. My family, my friends, and even strangers give my life immense purpose. Nature is beautiful, music is numinous, poetry is moving, philosophy is challenging, science is encouraging, and the universe is awe inspiring. Love is a mystery, joy is a cherished commodity, and a feeling kinship with, and duty to my fellow humans is tacit… no god required.
Evolution via natural selection is an established, scientific fact. If after reading that you immediately reply, “NO! Evolution is just a ‘THEORY!’ Duh!” then I suggest you study what a “theory” is in science because you don’t know what you are talking about.
Evolution DEMANDS cooperative populations. We would not even exist currently as a human species had we not developed and possessed inherent values such as fairness, altruism, compassion, etc. Even our near-kinsmen in the animal kingdom possess such qualities. If that assertion is offensive to you, I suggest that you read up on relevant studies and data.
The fact that Brad Stine has an impoverished conception of evolution and humanity sans theism merely undermines the credibility of his poor arguments and weak assertions. Yet, I fully support his right to make them. He probably is a very funny comedian in general. I just do not support his “right” to have the government of the United States of America as part of Christendom.
Skipping ahead passed Stine’s appeal to authority via an Anthony Flew anecdote, Stine concludes by telling the audience:
“You’ve got to be prepared folks…Prepared to battle for our Country’s standards of morality… But I say that there’s a whole bunch of people like us…who aren’t going away… and want our Country back… and we’ll fight for it!”
When Stine says, “our Country’s standards of morality,” what he means is HIS standards of morality via his interpretations of the Bible. Sorry Brad, it is not the government’s job to hammer free citizens with your pet standards. But, you are right; there are a whole bunch of people like you, the majority of America in fact. Yet, the numbers of non-theists are rapidly increasing. Check the Pew and Barna research data if you doubt that. You should hope that if and when we are the majority, we do not use the government to bully you like you do us now. I have no desire to and do not personally know any non-theists that do. I support your rights and always will. I just will not stand silent or idle in the shadow of a pseudo-theocratic oligarchy that is our Nation’s current government.
So far as the cry that believers “want their country back,” I must call a persecution complex like I see it. Unless one is in the closet, there is not a single atheist in Congress. There are some states that will not even allow an atheist to run for an elected position. The majority of news journalists are theists of some persuasion. When I turn the TV on, approximately 1/3 of the stations are Christian stations. Not just “theistic,” but SPECIFICALLY Christian. In most towns and cities in America, a good pitcher could stand next to any church and hit the next one with a baseball. In my own small town, Google shows about twenty-five churches within a two mile radius from my house. There is not a single free-thinker’s meet-up in the same town. Christians own it. Yet, many preachers here proclaim Christians are being persecuted in America from their pulpits, whipping their congregants into a worried frenzy. Our weekly town meetings are opened with prayers by Christian ministers. That is the case for most towns in the United States.
Christians, (I speak only to believers to which the following applies) you have had the “microphone” in our culture so long that many of you think being disagreed with is “persecution.” There is so much confirmation bias supporting your beliefs in this Nation that you feel beat up when a person tells you that they think you are wrong. When you do not always get your way, you assert that you are being bullied or persecuted. If your child always expected to get his or her way, you would rebuke them. Yet, as a Christian in America, you whine when you don’t always get yours and have to share this great Nation with all the other “kids on the playground.” Well, that is just life my friend. Most Atheists in America get more push-back than you can ever imagine in daily life, peer groups, at work, and in their families. This being the Easter season, we are inundated on social media with admonitions about Jesus, sin, repentance, and that we are going to go to hell if we reject said doctrines. We do not consider this persecution, rather just normal life and rarely even refute the assertions directly.
We develop a thick skin and know most of your arguments better than you do due to being hit with them so often. Yet, we do not want our “niche” ideology forced on you via the government. We just want equal representation along with every other American and we won’t shut up just because you want us to or threaten us. They call us “New Atheists” because of that. The only difference between the “Old Atheists” you didn’t have a problem with and us is that we will not be pushed around or silenced. You are just going to have to get used to the idea that the Christian dictatorship in America will soon be over. But, do not to worry my fellow Americans. For the most part, we non-theists are also humanists who will treat you as we would like to be treated. See, we don’t disagree with everything Jesus said…
For some related atheist humor, I suggest the video below by DarkMatter2525 on youtube:
I am in gleeful expectation of the full House vote on the HJR-3 Amendment, also known as the, “Gay Marriage Ban,” this coming week. Of recent days, I have been increasingly unsettled by the proposition that my fellow Indiana citizens (the gay ones) may be able to legally marry in the future.
This has been very troubling to me. I have been happily married to my wife, Angela, for 15 years now. Our anniversary is approaching in May. Though our marriage has been highly stable and we have five kids, I am afraid that if the gays were allowed to have legal unions, my wife and I may never see our 16th anniversary. There is something about the notion of icky gays marrying legally that I think would crumble my own traditional marriage. As a couple, my wife and I have made it through good times and bad, the deaths of loved ones, and seeing each other make it through close brushes with death. But, the weight of living in a culture where homos could have their sinful partnerships justified by legal marriage would be more than our marriage could bear. If that was the case in Indiana, I think my divorce would just be inevitable…
That said, I ask all lawmakers in Indiana that cast a ballot on HJR-3 next week to vote a loud, firm, and resonant, “YES!” Then, let’s get this thing through the State Senate and on the public ballot next November so all Indiana citizens can have their say! And their say should be, “YES! We vote against gay marriage! Because it’s already illegal here, but an amendment to the State Constitution would make it REALLY illegal!”
Yet, once we have that item checked off the list, we have so much farther to go for “traditional values” in Indiana. I’ve been reading my Bible a lot recently and there are some other serious matters that must be addressed. We need a few more key laws and amendments added that can help us navigate our way back to a more “traditional” and wholesome culture, guided by the Bible. Below is my personal wish list for traditional laws that I would like added to our Indiana code in the near future:
Once we’ve blocked the gays from marrying, we need an amendment that solidifies the legality of REAL traditional Biblical marriage…polygamy. If one wife is good, then two or three should be better. If you are super-rich, like King Solomon, you can have hundreds, plus hundreds of prostitutes. Whatever floats your boat. Unless you are a lesbian. Then you can’t have any. (Ps. Make prostitution legal too. Without it, we wouldn’t have the Tribe of Judah that Jesus eventually came from)
With all the pressure to make Indiana a more “business friendly” state, we need to reinstitute slavery. The Bible is very pro-slavery and even tells slave masters the right way to beat their slaves, so we can just copy/paste the Bible text into our state code to keep it simple. Obviously, we wouldn’t want to transgress the rights of our fellow Hoosiers and let’s not make this a “black-white” thing like the last time. Rather, we’ll do as our more moral and ancient forefathers did in the Scripture. We can just send people over to a bordering state (I suggest Illinois) and forcibly bring unfortunates back to Indiana to be our slaves. It’s good for corporations. And what’s good for corporations, is good for Indiana.
Since we have a lot of over-crowding of our jails and juveniles, we should make more crimes capital offenses. If parents could just stone their rebellious and/or fornicating kids, problem solved. Also, go heavy on people who deny Yahweh (and we’ll toss in Jesus). Make belonging to a “false religion” a crime punishable by death again. But, let’s forget about the Sabbath thing. Closing shop one day a week can be bad for business. And, if you could be killed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, how could you play golf on your day off? Also, go easy on greed, adultery, and lying. We can’t put a portion of our own lawmakers behind bars now can we?
(Please note: the above article is satire. Don’t hate me. Unless you actually like the article…then you can hate me)
Please make your voice heard by your representative before next week. I did. Follow the link below.
Luke Austin Daugherty 