Or maybe not. I don't make a secret of my religion. I'm a Christian, and always have been, and I believe in the divinity of Christ. I haven't memorized the Bible, nor do I go to church regularly, but I am Christian. I don't go around telling everyone they'll burn in hell if they don't accept Christ now, either, because I figure God gave us free will so we could choose what we wanted to do with ourselves. I let people make up their own minds.
Some people aren't so nice about their religion. An atheist teacher is being sued because of his anti-Christian rants that he prefaces each lecture with. I know he's an atheist because most of the vocal "atheists" are actually anti-God, not anti-religion. They hate God and Jesus specifically, for whatever reasons they may have--personal disappointments, not enough skin on Love Boat, whatever--and cloak their personal hatred in "atheism".
Atheism is a religion; it is a set of personal beliefs about the cosmos which are unverifiable (for or against) by science. It is unique among religions in that it generally contends that there are no gods, and people just end when they die--that there are no souls, no afterlife, and "near-death experiences" are just what happens when the brain is starved of oxygen.
Generally I don't have a problem with the beliefs of atheists. (See above.) America was founded on a number of concepts, and one of the chief ones was freedom of religion--WTF, if you want to rub grape jelly in your hair, dance around a fire holding a rubber frog chanting "Ulla-boola" at each full moon, and call it a religion--so go right ahead. I won't stop you; in fact, for the most part, I'll defend your right to worship whatever and however you please. As long as you're not torturing people or animals, or killing them, WTF-ever, dude.
But once you start standing up and denouncing my religion, that's where my largesse ends.
Atheists like that stupid teacher seem to think they're somehow smarter than the rest of us: "You're a hopeless dupe!" It shows in the attempt by some to re-label themselves "Brights". "Bright" carries a thick overtone of smugness.
"When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth," this particular example of intellect has said. What a dick.
In the same vein, there is this article about a truck with a religious message on it.
The owner of the truck drove it through a town in New York which has a ban on billboards with "religious messages". The town's theory is that the side of a semi trailer is the "equivalent" of a billboard. "Burritt is accused of putting non-permitted religious messages on the side of a semi-trailer along State Route 11," says the article.
What the hell is that shit? "Non-permitted religious message"? This is America and we have freedom of expression here. How the hell is that shit Constitutional?
In fact, what happened is that someone saw the truck, got offended by the message on it, and decided on using a unique interpretation of the local law to punish the guy for not being ashamed to be a Christian.
That makes me want to go there, rent a bigass truck, and plaster something like "JESUS LOVES YOU!" on the side of the thing, and do nothing but drive up and down all the streets of that town until I run out of gas or get arrested.
Abortionist doesn't wash his hands? Because it chafes?
When you are performing any procedure, you wash your hands before and after. This was drilled into my brain in my CNA classes; but besides that, it's just common freaking sense. You have to do it because touching can spread bacteria, and you don't know what might get on your hands when you take off the gloves, when you walk from one room to the next, and so on. There's a world of bacteria and viruses out there and the best thing you can do for your patients is to make sure your hands are clean before you touch them.
I saw this article yesterday which discussed the use of checklists by doctors--and it's been found, time and again, that if the doctor follows a checklist and doesn't skip any steps, infection rates drop.
This guy sounds like the kind of doctor people have nightmares about.
A woman gives ten reasons she "broke up" with God. They are, of course, vain, vapid, and selfish reasons. She blames God for AIDS, Darfur, a lack of gun control, all sorts of things.
"OK, I lied. I have a million top ten reasons why I reject the notion of the kind of God invoked in particular by the Republican candidates...."
They they're your top million reasons, not your top ten, dumbass. This is what we have to contend with: people who don't even know how to count. If she can't even understand the difference between ten and a million, this bimbo is utterly hopeless.
I could explain my entire philosophy of religion in detail again, but I won't. It's a long diatribe about why God lets the world be the way it is and I'm sure all three of you can remember reading it, so why waste our time? The woman is stupid and will burn in hell forever because she thinks God should make us all perfectly safe and happy for our entire lives. Enough said. :)
The URL for this one ends with "Liberty-Bell-Slavery.php", and it's a story about the memorial planned for the site of George Washington's home.
If it is news to anyone that George Washington had slaves, that person should have to immediately take remedial American History and not be allowed to vote until he passes with at least a "B".
Heinlein pointed out, in Citizen of the Galaxy, that the primary forces which drive cultures to keep slaves are economic forces. For example, in the American south, cotton was a huge cash crop--but the nature of the crop made it very labor-intensive. Since slavery was a viable option, a large number of slaves were imported from Africa and elsewhere.
Even if the Civil War had not taken place, slavery would have ended--it would have taken longer, but it would have ended--because of the industrial revolution. Machines were invented which could harvest cotton faster and more efficiently than slaves. Other aspects of the business were also mechanized. Sooner or later, keeping slaves would have been outmoded by the advance of technology.
But in Washington's day, none of that was true, and slaves were the most efficient way to get things done. Washington kept them; a lot of the Founding Fathers did. Few people thought much of it, the same way we now don't think much of having a gasoline-powered lawn mower--yet two hundred years from now, what will people say about our habit of burning gasoline as fuel?
(NO I am not trying to equate owning slaves with burning fossil fuels.) Maybe I should. It might boost readership....
But I don't think it somehow makes Washington hypocritical or the US a "fraud" (unlike, I suspect, the people responsible for this impending monument). Several of the Founders who kept slaves didn't like the necessity; some had wanted to abolish slave ownership at the beginning of the country but couldn't because the southern states needed slaves to survive, economically. Many of these men were smart enough to understand that they had to take what they could get, and know that the institution of slavery would fall in the future.
Slavery happened. It ended 130 years ago in the United States. No one alive today in the US has ever been a slave. Get over it already. If you want to get all up in arms over slavery, why don't you worry about the places where it's still happening--driven, I might add, by muslims?
* * *
Okay, so the religion content isn't as high as I thought it would be. That's okay. The people who skipped this didn't miss much anyway.
Of course, when I make jokes about increasing my readership, I'm not really serious. I've seen it said many places--and it's true--that if you blog, you must blog for yourself, not for readers. It's not about being read; it's about putting your thoughts out into the ether so that they could be read.
I like being read; really I do. But it's not why I write this, and ultimately I don't really care who reads it. It's all part of the "competition of ideas"; if someone finds something worthwhile in my linguistic perambulations, great--but if not, at least I am having fun with it.