Collected Writings - Brian P. Ellis

How the Occupy Movement can create a New Political and Economic System

2011-12-11T01:06:00.000-08:00

The Occupy Movement has introduced people all over the world to direct democracy, a participatory form of democracy in which all people have a say in the decisions which affect them. This type of democracy is much different than the “representative” democracy most of us are used to, in which professional politicians run on a platform (agenda), and vie for campaign contributions that indebt them to their financiers. Direct democracy, whether utilizing consensus-based or majority-based decision making models, puts power in the hands of the people and takes it out of the hands of the wealthy and powerful. In a direct democracy candidates do not run for office, local general assemblies or other decision-making bodies make the decisions. In matters that concern more than just the local community, decisions made through local assemblies are communicated to the next level of assembly (city, state, regional, global, etc.) through appointed or elected delegates who are instantly recallable (impeachable, should they fail in their duty).

Though sometimes tedious, direct democracy ensures that society is shaped in the interest of the people, rather than the corporations or the ultra-rich. Considering that democracy literally means “rule by the people”, our current system of democracy must be regarded as what it is – a very limited form of democracy in which the wealthy hold the most power, i.e. sham democracy – and done away with. Direct democracy is the only antidote to the world plutocracy (rule by the rich). Occupy activists have successfully used horizontal (non-hierarchical) direct democracy to organize their movement and they are in the position to revolutionize society by further implementing direct democratic control.

In order to create this radical change it is imperative that Occupy activists work outside of the existing corrupt system that cannot be simply reformed. Instead of working within the established system we have to create a new, competing alternative to it that will challenge its power and legitimacy. For the Occupy Movement to take this next step it must evolve beyond a mere protest movement and become a viable alternative to the existing order. That means putting direct democracy into practice in our communities and workplaces. For genuine democracy in the political sphere alone will not create a truly just society, democracy must extend into the economic sphere as well. Workers should organize into unions and fight for fair wages, benefits, and ultimately, for control of their workplaces. Only when the people themselves, and not a ruling class, control the workplaces will we see an end to irresponsible production and worker exploitation. In much the same way, people should form citizen’s councils and solidarity networks and use these decision-making bodies (which could be considered unions for citizens) to challenge and eventually replace the existing corrupt and oppressive governmental system.

Anarchism and the Occupy Movement

2011-12-05T02:10:00.000-08:00

Recent acts of vandalism involving anarchists organized into a black bloc – a tactic in which people dress in black to coordinate action and conceal identity (usually used as a method of defense against police and opposition groups) – has created controversy and piqued the interest of many in the Occupy Movement. Unfortunately, some people taking part in occupy protests have begun to decry anarchism or anarchists in general as a result of these actions. Many of these individuals seem to have no understanding of anarchism, mistakenly equating the centuries old political philosophy with social disorder; nor do they seem to realize that anarchists are not a homogenous group. While most anarchists subscribe to the belief that a diversity of tactics is necessary to create change in society, not all anarchists agree on which of these tactics are appropriate or useful. Another fact that some of these individuals may be ignorant of is that anarchism has greatly influenced the Occupy Movement. Although I do not typically identify as an anarchist, the label “anarchist” could very well be used to describe my libertarian socialist political views (libertarian socialism is an even more broad umbrella term, which would encompass the tendency known as social anarchism, aka socialist anarchism or anarcho-communism), so I take issue with disparaging blanket statements made about anarchists. In this article I will be addressing anarchism in general and how it has influenced the development of the Occupy Movement in hopes of providing a bit of clarity.

Anarchism literally means without rulers (an – without, archos – rule/rulers); this does not mean without organization, law or order. In fact, the origin of the common anarchist symbol – a monogram of the letter A within the letter O – is the slogan “anarchism is order”. The type of order that anarchists promote is called “self management”, meaning that the people will govern themselves without the control of professional politicians or bureaucrats which make up the state. Although there are many schools of thought within anarchism, the most active and influential strand of anarchist philosophy is social (socialist) anarchism. All forms of anarchism hold one commonality: a strong critique of hierarchy and unjustified authority, and a strong critique of capitalism and other coercive and hierarchical economic systems, including the so-called socialism that exists in places like North Korea or China and which used to exist in Soviet Russia. In place of these systems of organization socialist anarchists advocate for horizontal (non-hierarchical) and direct democratic self-management of society, and socialist systems of economic organization. Anarchists also place a great deal of emphasis on the freedom of the individual; advocating for protections from the tyranny of the majority in matters of personal choice.

Anarchism traces its roots back to the ideas of utilitarian philosopher, William Godwin (1756 – 1836); the French politician, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809 – 1865) – the first to explicitly use the label “anarchist” to describe his views; and later the pacifist and philosopher, Henry David Thoreau (1817 – 1862). Some anarchists believe that anarchism goes back even further, considering it to be a general tendency in human thought throughout all of history. Anarchist thought became better defined and expressed in the 19^th and early 20^th century through the writing of influential anarchists like Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin and Emma Goldman. Some notable contemporary anarchists include the MIT linguist and philosopher, Noam Chomsky; and anthropologist, David Graeber. Examples of anarchism (though not necessarily labeled as such) in practice include: revolutionary Spain (1936 – 1939), the Israeli Kibbutz Movement, the Zapatista Autonomous Communities, the Free Ukraine (1918 – 1921), the organization of industrial or trade unions in the CNT (National Confederation of Labor [Spain], IWW (Industrial Workers of the World), IWA (International Workers Association), etc.

Anarchists are critical of all forms of government in which the people are not directly in power. They have opposed not only oligarchic systems like monarchy, aristocracy and dictatorship but also the so-called democracy that exists in the US and other capitalist nations. The main anarchist critique of representative democracy is that those with the majority of wealth (the ruling class) invariably also wield the majority of political power. In these nations what develops is a very limited form of democracy in which powerful corporations and ultra-rich individuals dominate the political system. The working class (what those in the Occupy Movement might refer to as the 99%) are left with a “choice” between politicians who are most often bought and paid for by the ruling class. This sham democracy is often referred to as bourgeois democracy, in contrast to direct democracy in which all people have a say in the decisions which affect them.

The more participatory forms of direct democracy which anarchists promote, like consensus democracy, have, without a doubt, shaped the Occupy Movement and the mass movements of protest of recent years and the late 20^th century. The consensus democratic process, which seeks to give all people a voice in the decisions that affect them and create decisions all people can live with through compromise, is thought to have been first developed by indigenous peoples in North America like the Iroquois. Consensus democracy was later popularized by anarchist groups, including the Zapatistas (indigenous resistance in Mexico that is influenced by traditional Mayan practices, anarchism, and Marxism; and is organized in an anarchist fashion). The anti-consumerist and anti-globalization publication, Adbusters, which called for the Occupy Wall Street protest, is sympathetic to anarchism, regularly publishing the work of anarchist and libertarian socialist writers. Even if one does not subscribe to anarchist political philosophy it is impossible to ignore the important role it has played in shaping the Occupy Movement.

The occupy movement is diverse, politically and otherwise. What we need more than anything in the Occupy Movement is unity; only a broad coalition of groups and political tendencies will be able to stand up to the 1% who exercise enormous control over the economy, political system and media. At this stage the only thing that can destroy this movement is to start attacking one another over disagreements in tactics and ideas. While it is important to engage in debate and dialogue, and to constructively criticize tactics which we feel are alienating, we must be careful not to make blanket statements about people with certain views or to outright condemn our allies for engaging in tactics we may not support. Even though I share a great deal in common with most anarchists, I too am critical of the tactic of petty vandalism used by some of the anarchists in Oakland, because these acts will do nothing to further our cause; the banks and corporations are unaffected by such minor things and instead of stirring people to action these acts have created division. People in this movement should understand that not all anarchists agree with these tactics. With that said, it should also be stated that those who took part in these acts most likely did so with the best intentions in mind. It seems absurd to label these acts as “violent” as some Occupy activists have done. “Violence” against private property like breaking windows and graffiti is nothing compared to the real violence against people that is being perpetrated by those in power – a broken window is nothing compared to the millions who are dying as a consequence of imperialist war and the lack of access to shelter, health care, food or clean water. If we are to succeed in creating revolutionary democratic change and social justice we must focus on what we have in common, allow for a variety of tactics, and stand together in solidarity despite our differences.

An Introduction to the Jesus Myth Theory: Did Jesus Exist?

2011-09-20T20:59:00.000-07:00

To most people it is without question that Jesus was a historical person that actually existed; many may doubt that he was actually the son of God, born of a virgin, but very few have actually doubted his existence, that is, until recently. In the past couple decades a growing number of skeptics and even some biblical scholars have started to express doubt that Jesus actually lived, that is, they have become proponents of the “Jesus myth theory”. Proponents of this theory, aka Jesus Mythicists, may believe that there is no evidence to support the claim that Jesus existed, or they may take a more conservative stance, holding the view that some evidence exists that would suggest a person named Jesus may have existed, but that we cannot know for sure he existed or discern much accurate information about his possible existence. The Jesus myth theory is controversial because it challenges the very core of Christian theology – if Jesus did not exist it would mean that New Testament does not describe a person who lived but a mythical figure.

Despite the recent growth of the Jesus myth theory, it is not a new idea. Some of the first to postulate the Jesus myth theory were French Enlightenment thinkers like Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s. In the 19^thand 20^th century there was John M. Robertson, Robert Taylor, Joseph McCabe, Bruno Bauer and Arthur Drews.

Who are the prominent Jesus Mythicists of our time?

Earl Doherty, author of The Jesus Puzzle, Challenging the Verdict and many others; G.A. Wells author of Did Jesus Exist?, Who Was Jesus? A Critique of the New Testament Record and many others; Robert M. Price, author of the Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, Deconstructing Jesus and many others; Alvar Ellegård, author of The Myth of Jesus and Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ and many others; Acharya S, author of The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold and many others. Christopher Hitchens, author of God is Not Great has also espoused Jesus Mythicist views though he does not specialize on the subject.

Jesus mythicists base their views on a few facts which we know to be true:

No contemporary non-biblical writer or historian wrote about Jesus, and there were many which existed at the time [see section “Contemporary Writers and Historians who should have noted Jesus”]. (There are some non-biblical mentions of a person called Jesus or “Christus”, etc., in the century and a half following the date in which he is said to have died, but the veracity and importance of these are disputed.)

The Gospels are unreliable from a historical perspective:

Besides the obvious fact of their biased nature, they were not eyewitness accounts (as traditional Christian teaching suggested). Their actual authors are unknown; the consensus among scholars is that they were written anonymously, with the first of the gospels, Mark, being written at least 35 years after the date Jesus is said to have died (this is known because Mark mentions the destruction of second Jewish Temple in 70 CE).

There exist many contradictions between the gospels - too many to list here but here are some examples:

Matthew and Luke disagree on lineage.
Only Matthew and Luke mention a “virgin birth”, but paradoxically mention that Joseph was a descendant of King David (this makes no sense if Jesus was fathered by God; it is an attempt at fulfilling Old Testament prophesy).
In Luke Jesus is born during a census conducted by Quirinius, Governor of Syria, which took place in 6 CE. In Matthew he is born during the reign of King Herrod – Herrod died in 4 BCE. This accounts for a difference of 10 years.
Matthew states that after the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem the family resided in Nazareth. Luke states that the family already resided in Nazareth but returned to Bethlehem for Quirinius’s census.

The authors of the gospels were engaging in a type of midrash where they were attempting to fulfill Old Testament prophecy; they incorrectly fulfilled the prophecies in many instances. A few examples (out of many):

Born to a virgin to erroneously fulfill Isaiah 7:14 (the author of Matthew mistranslates the Hebrew word for young woman into “virgin”).
Herod’s “slaughter of the innocents” (which there is no record of happening; Josephus definitely would have mentioned since he wrote extensively about Herod’s atrocities) erroneously fulfills Jeremiah 31:15.
In an unintentionally comical fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9 Jesus rides two donkeys at once into Jerusalem – a misinterpretation of Zechariah 9.9 which actually meant a young donkey.

For more on Gospel contradictions and erroneous fulfillment of prophecy see: New Testament Contradictions (1995) by Paul Carlson - http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

Paul’s Epistles (written before the gospels, around 51 – 58 CE) do not mention a recent historical person. Instead they portray Jesus as an intermediary between God and humanity that exists in a purely spiritual realm. Paul states in Galatians 1:11-12: ^“For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (ESV)

Paul, and Peter as well, do not mention any of the important details of Jesus’ life contained in the gospels: the purported miracles, baptism by John the Baptist, betrayal by Judas, the mob of Jews, ministry in Galilee, crucifixion at Calvary (Golgotha), holy sites, ethical teachings, the virgin birth, his trial, Pontius Pilate, the empty tomb, Jesus’ disciples, birth at Bethlehem, life in Nazareth, Mary or Joseph. Note: The consensus among scholars is that Paul wrote most of the epistles (7 of the 13), though even of these there are some interpolations. The remaining 6 are considered forgeries.1

The story of Jesus bears similarities to the stories of several middle-eastern gods or demigods who died and came back to life (life-death-rebirth gods). Dionysus, for instance, was said to have been born from a mortal woman who was impregnated by the god Zeus. Dionysus was tried for claiming divinity, died a violent death and was resurrected. Believers in the cult of Dionysus had performed a ritual that involved eating bread and drinking wine. Many of these ancient deities were said to have been: born on December 25^th – the approximate winter solstice and/or to be a product of god-human intercourse (sometimes the female human was a virgin).

Early Christians recognized these similarities and pointed them out in defense of their religion which was considered bizarre and cultic by the pagans of the time, which were a majority.

“When we say that the Word, who is the first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus).” – Justin Martyr around 150 CE

When Christians were accused of creating a religion by copying various pagan traditions and combining it with Judaism, defenses such as this were used:

“For when they say that Dionysus arose again and ascended to heaven, is it not evidence the devil has imitated the prophecy?" - Justin Martyr

Though it is an unpopular view the Jesus myth theory certainly has merit. It is highly unlikely that someone could do all the things that Jesus is said to have done in the New Testament and not be written about by anyone other than the gospel writers – around 40 years later. Jesus is said to have: raised people from the dead (Lazarus, Young Man from Nain, Jairus’s daughter); performed many other miracles (calming the storm, walking on water, using few loaves of bread and several fish to feed thousands, turned water into wine, exorcised around a dozen people; healed the blind, lepers, paralytics – more than a dozen; etc.); suffered execution at the hands of the Roman state; and following his execution there was said to be 3 hours of unexplained darkness, an earthquake and saints came out of their graves to appear before people in the city (Matthew 27:45, 27:51-54). You would think at least one contemporary writer or historian would have gotten wind of some of these miraculous acts and at least mentioned it in their writing.

At the very least the evidence and lack of evidence presented by Jesus mythicists should compel us to re-examine what we can know about the central figure of Christianity.

Supplemental Documents

Contemporary Writers and Historians who should have noted Jesus:

If Jesus lived, developed a following, performed miracles and greatly affected Judean and Roman history you would think many contemporaries would have written of him and his deeds. But oddly we have absolutely no contemporary record of his existence, nor of his apostles or disciples.

In John E. Remsburg’s book, The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25), he provides a list of contemporary writers and historians who lived up to a century after Jesus’ death [list derived mostly from Remsburg’s book (also sourced in 1), edited here to show categorization, more common names, information, and birth/death dates]:

Philo of Alexandria (contemporary) – diligently recorded history of Judaea but never mentions Jesus.

Seneca (contemporary) – no mention.

Pliny Elder (contemporary) – no mention.

Petronius (27–66 CE) – no mention.

Columella (4 CE – c. AD CE) – no mention.

Marcus Velleius Paterculus (c. 19 BCE – c. 31 CE) – no mention.

Historians and writers living in the century after the date given for the death of Jesus:

Arrian (86 – 160 CE) – no mention.

Dio Chrysostom (40 – 120 CE) – no mention.

Juvenal – (late first century – early 2^nd) – no mention.

Martial (c. 38 – c. 102 CE) – no mention.

Persius (34 – 62 CE) – no mention.

Plutarch (c. 46 – 120 CE) – no mention.

Justus of Tiberius (lived in the second half of the first century CE) – no mention.

Apollonius - (lived in the second half of the first century CE) – no mention.

Quintilian (c. 35 – c. 100) – no mention.

Lucanus (November 3, 39 AD – April 30, 65 CE) – no mention.

Epictetus (55 – 135 CE) – no mention.

Hermogenes Silius Italicus (c. 28 – c. 103) – no mention.

Statius (c. 45, Naples – c. 96 AD, Naples) – no mention.

Ptolemy (c. 90 - c. 168 CE) – no mention.

Appian (c. 95 – c. 165) – no mention.

Phlegon (lived in 2^nd century CE) – no mention.

Phaedrus (c. 15 BCE – c. 50 CE)

Valerius Maximus (wrote during 14 – 37 CE) – no mention.

Pausanias (2^nd century CE) – no mention.

Florus Lucius (late 1^st century – early 2^nd century CE) – no mention.

Quintius Curtius (wrote from 41 – 54 CE) – no mention.

Aulus Gellius (c. 125 AD - after 180 CE) – no mention.

Dio Chrysostom (c. 40 – c. 120 CE) – no mention.

Valerius Flaccus (died c. 90 CE) – no mention.

Damis (early 1^st century – early 2^nd century) – no mention.

Favorinus (c. 80–160 CE) – no mention.

Pomponius Mela (wrote around 43 CE, died c. 45 CE) – no mention.

Appian of Alexandria (c. 95 – c. 165 CE) – no mention.

Theon of Smyrna (fl. 100 CE) – no mention.

Extra-Biblical sources widely considered to be forgeries or of little value:

Note: even if these passages were authentic they can only be considered hearsay, not direct evidence of Jesus’ existence.

Josephus – was born in 37 CE, making him a contemporary of the apostles. He was a well known and reputable Jewish historian (who meticulously recorded the important figures and events of Palestine), a one-time Governor of Galilee (where Jesus was said to have lived and taught), a Pharisee, a devoutly religious Jew, and a native of Judea, who lived in Cana (where Jesus was said to have performed his first miracle). A single mention of Jesus and his brother James is attributed to him in a document written around 94 C.E. The paragraph concerning Jesus is widely believed to be an interpolation (a later insertion; a forgery probably perpetrated by Eusebius, an early church historian). It is certain that if Jesus existed, performed miracles, developed a following, and clashed with authorities, leading to his execution, that Josephus would have written extensively about him. The paragraph about Jesus is clearly out of place, interrupting the preceding story line. Also, the language used is much different than the language used in the rest of Josephus’s works, and completely implausible at that – obviously Josephus, a devout Jew and Pharisee would not call Jesus the messiah, or derisively blame Jews for his demise. The Christian scholar Origen never mentions this passage even though Eusebius used his same library for research; in fact, Origen stated that Josephus did not believe in Jesus. It should be noted that Josephus also wrote about the mythical figure Hercules.2

Suetonius – wrote about a man named “Chrestus” and his Jewish followers in 120 CE. Scholars do not believe this to be a mention of Jesus though some Christians have purported that it is. Chrestus is not a misspelling of “Christos” (an alternate form of “Christ”), but an actual Latin name. In the same text Suetonius spells “Christian” correctly; it is considered unlikely that he would misspell Christos.

Lucian – describes naïve Christians who worship a “crucified sophist” in The Passing of Peregrinus, written around 165 CE. Because this is not a historical record of Jesus but a record of early Christianity it is of little value in determining the historicity of Jesus.

Pliny Younger (61 CE – c. 112 CE) – priest of ancient Roman religion, jurist, Governor of the Roman provinces, Bithynia and Pontus. Mentions persecuting Christians in a letter written to the Emperor Trajan in 106 CE. Not a historical record of Christ.

Mara bar (Son of) Sarapion – Stoic philosopher who penned a letter to his son while imprisoned by Romans sometime between 73 CE and the third century. Mentions Jews who executed their “wise king” and who were subsequently “expelled from their kingdom”. Again this is most likely just someone repeating what Christians of the time believed. It is likely the gospels were being circulated at this time and some may have taken them to be eyewitness accounts even though we know today that they were authored anonymously over 35 years after the supposed fact. It should be noted that the actual identity of the “wise king” is not mentioned but most scholars believe this to be a reference to Jesus.

The Talmud – a collection of Jewish civil and religious law, ethics, history, discussions, etc. Christian apologists have pointed to certain second century passages that mention a person named Yeshu (possibly a translation of “Jesus”). These passages may be about individuals other than Jesus. Passages do not match up with the gospel accounts of Jesus’ trial and execution. Not a record of Jesus’ existence.

Thallus (wrote around 55 CE) – not much is known about this writer. All we have is second-hand accounts of his supposed writing on Jesus and post-crucifixion events from Christian apologists. Not reliable.

Celsus – wrote and anti-Christian book around 180 CE. Accuses Jesus of being a sorcerer based on Christian accounts of his supposed miracles. Not a record of his existence.

Acts of Pilate – purported record of Pilate’s prefectorship in Judea. No copy exists. Mentioned by the Christian apologist and church father, Justin Martyr. It is not known if this document ever was in existence or if it was made up.

Extra-Biblical Sources widely considered to be relevant and authentic:

Tacitus (c. 56 – c. 117 CE) – was a pagan and a Roman historian. He is said to have written around 116 CE that “Christus” was executed by a procurator (he was actually a prefect), Pontius Pilate. It is believed that Tacitus actually wrote this, though scholars have noted that Tacitus may have been echoing Christian sources since he makes the error of calling Pilate a procurator (which would have been unlikely if he was copying Roman sources), and because he most likely would not have used the messianic title “Christus” (alternate form of Christ, which means “anointed one” or savior). Later writers like Origen, Eusebius, and Tertullian do not mention this reference. In 1834, Robert Taylor who wrote the atheist classic Diegesis, noted that this reference was not mentioned until the 15^th century. He believed it to be a forgery written by Johannes de Spire 2, though this view is not widely held.

Archaeological Evidence

Shroud of Turin – debunked as a forgery. Carbon-dated to 1260 – 1390 CE (around the time it was discovered or created by crusaders), “blood stains” have been identified as red ochre, human dimensions are not realistic.

James ossuary – a first century chalk box used for holding bones of the dead. Inscribed on its side is "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus". The Israeli Antiquities Authority determined in 2003 that the inscriptions were made at a much later date. The artifact collector who sold the ossuary, Oded Golan is on trial with three others for forgery.

Sources:

1. Doherty, Earl, The Jesus Puzzle, Age of Reason Publications, 1999

2. http://www.atheists.org/Did_Jesus_Exist? – article written by Frank R. Zindler.

Are Plants Sentient (do they feel pain)?

2011-07-16T21:08:00.000-07:00

I was recently working on this question for the Animal Rights Advocates of Nebraska FAQ. The answer I provided turned out to be way too long winded for the FAQ but I felt that the “long answer” deserved to be posted somewhere for those who were curious to know more. Here is that long answer:

No, they do not. Plants lack brains or nervous systems of any kind so they are unable to perceive or feel anything, though they do react biochemically in complex and fascinating ways to stimuli. In addition, from an evolutionary perspective it does not make sense for plants to feel pain since they are unable move away from a negative stimulus.

But even if it were the case that plants could feel pain or think, veganism would still make sense. The animal agriculture industry utilizes most of the world’s plant crops as animal feed, and less food energy is returned to the world in the animal’s carcasses than went into nourishing them. So, even in this hypothetical scenario, the best way to protect all life would be to consume plants only.

Occasionally vegans or vegetarians will get this question – sometimes in seriousness, sometimes in jest (in an attempt to dismiss or make light of our ethical obligation to non-human animals). Those that are serious often cite that they have heard about studies that show that plants remember or feel. This is not surprising since several pseudoscientific books and articles have been published on the subject of supposed plant sentience. In addition, many “pop science” websites and magazines have featured articles with titles like “Plants ‘can think and remember’”. Pop science or popular science is a way of presenting scientific information in a way that most people can understand, which, is a good thing, but unfortunately, sometimes this information is presented in an over-simplified manner which can be misleading. Also, pop science is sometimes written by non-scientists who do not have a full understanding of the subject they are presenting, which can lead to the unintentional spreading of misinformation. The article mentioned above was written for BBC News in 2010 and used the terms “think” and “remember” in quotation marks to indicate that this was a metaphorical device but not many of the site’s readers picked up on it. Soon, the article was being posted all around the internet as evidence of plant intelligence and awareness. For more on this see: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=plants-cannot-think-and-remember-bu-2010-07-16

The most popular of the pseudoscientific books on the subject of plant sentience is a book published in 1973 by Peter Tomkins and Christopher Bird, entitled the “Secret Life of Plants”. This book was subsequently made into a documentary of the same name. The authors of the book were not trained scientists and were also well known for their interest in pseudoscience: investigation of the “paranormal” and the occult. Their book has been widely discredited by real scientists as new age sophistry. Other well known charlatans have claimed to have found evidence of plant sentience, among them L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, who would hook up plants to his e-meter (basically an electrical resistance meter). After performing “research” with his e-meter, he claimed tomatoes “scream when sliced”. His work has also been dismissed as nonsense by the scientific community.

Letter to DN Editor in Regards to Pro-Routine Infant Circumcision Article

2011-03-15T18:45:00.000-07:00

Letter published on March 15th, 2011

Dear Editor,

In the March 7th, 2011 issue of the Daily Nebraskan, Nate Shapiro expressed his opinion on a bill being proposed in San Francisco which would ban male genital mutilation of minors, most commonly occurring as routine circumcision of male infants. Shapiro believes that this bill would take away the parents’ right to choose what is best for their children. Considering himself fortunate to have been “liberated from his foreskin” thereby joining the “illustrious ranks” of “edited males”, Shapiro apparently believes that circumcision is no big deal. He compares a parent’s decision to genitally mutilate their child to their decision to have them see the dentist and take baths, and describes the procedure as “a tiny cut of some unnecessary skin”. He states that “circumcision has been around for thousands of years”, and then asks “so could it really be that bad?” For Shapiro, male genital mutilation is an important religious practice, and he states that the “cosmetic reasons are undeniable”, adding that “you can't put a price on not looking like the family dog.” Yet he concedes that “like any surgical procedure, there are indeed risks. Unfortunately, sometimes these things get botched. And yes, it's probably painful.”

It can be assessed from my summary above that Shapiro is aware of the potential harm involved in routine circumcision. However, he chooses to write his article in a very dismissive and flippant manner, which is insulting to individuals who may resent the genital mutilation done to them without their own consent. What strikes me most about Shapiro’s article is his apparent lack of knowledge about the male circumcision procedure and genital mutilation practices in general. He repeatedly attempts to downplay the adverse effects of male circumcision, and deny that it is a form of mutilation. He states in his seventh paragraph that male circumcision cannot be reasonably compared to female genital mutilation (which has been made illegal in many areas) because it is not as severe. The error in this statement stems from Shapiro’s apparent belief that female genital mutilation occurs only in one form, infibulation, which is in fact the most extreme of 4 different forms. One of the most common forms of female genital mutilation which is performed in several regions (most commonly in Africa and the Arabian peninsula), and was in fact relatively common in the US during the late 19th and early 20th century, is analogous to male circumcision. This procedure, known as type 1a female genital mutilation, involves the removal of the clitoral hood or female prepuce. Perhaps Shapiro is an advocate of parents’ choice on some forms of female genital mutilation as well.

Male genital mutilation, just like female genital mutilation, is a violation of person’s human rights. Mutilating your child should not be considered a parental prerogative, regardless of one’s religious beliefs. If a child grows up, reaches the age of majority, and decides he wants to take part in the ritual of circumcision, let him give consent to the procedure. There is no evidence that indicates the necessity of circumcision; it is a pointless, elective procedure that affects a person for their entire life. A great deal of evidence suggests that circumcision negatively effects male sexual enjoyment, and there is plenty of documentation of adverse effects, from post-operative infection to severe hemorrhage, disfigurement and even death. In addition, medical science is continuing to learn more and more about the function of the male foreskin and its vital importance in sexual and overall urogenital health. The male foreskin has been demonstrated to protect the glans from desensitization and keratinization, help in control of ejaculation, make sex more pleasurable for the man’s partner, and prevent conditions such as meatal stenosis; nor do all people prefer the aesthetics of a surgically altered penis. Despite what Shapiro may think, all forms of genital mutilation (regardless of severity) are barbaric acts that deserve to be outlawed. This bill should be applauded by everyone who supports a person’s right to decide what is done to their own body.

Sincerely,

Brian Ellis

Why Boycott Breeders and Pet Stores?

2011-02-20T14:50:00.000-08:00

Someone recently asked me (in a somewhat rude way) why I have this written on my Facebook Profile: "I urge everyone who cares about animals to spay and neuter their companion animals; boycott pet stores and breeders - only adopt from humane societies or animal shelters; and give a vegetarian, or even better, a vegan diet a try."

My response:

While working at the local humane society I personally euthanized (killed using the most painless method available) thousands of healthy companion animals (cats, dogs, guinea pigs, rabbits, rats, snakes, reptiles, birds, etc.). These animals died because there are not enough homes for them. Meanwhile, independent breeders and those that supply pet stores continue to bring more and more companion animals into the world, in order to sell them for profit.

This is absolutely senseless and if more people knew what happened behind the doors of all the animal shelters all over the world, breeding would be illegal. In the US alone shelters euthanize 3 - 4 million cats and dogs, each year. See more here: http://brianpellis.blogspot.com/2009/03/companion-animal-overpopulation.html

I would honestly suggest working at a shelter if you want to get a better perspective on this issue. After you have to inject poison into the veins of a puppy because the shelter is full, I think you will change your mind. And if you think euthanasia is always painless and easy, you are mistaken. The procedure can easily be botched if the animal is frightened and uncooperative - which many of them are. Many of them can sense that something is wrong.

As for the last part of my statement - a vegan diet is the best way to save animals in your everyday life. All of the animals that die to become food for you may not be as cute as your dog or cat but they feel pain and experience terror just the same. Most of the meat and dairy products in this country come from animals reared on factory farms, which are notorious for their abysmal conditions. These animals suffer every moment of their short lives, I know because I have seen it with my own eyes. Plus, since you can be just as healthy (if not more so) on a plant-based diet there is no way to rationally justify killing animals for food. If you still feel like you need some animal products to be healthy, consider eating eggs from companion hens.

Why it is Important to Support Abortion and other Reproductive Rights

2011-01-25T17:33:00.000-08:00

Abortion rates are the same in countries where the procedure is outlawed as in countries where it is legal. The only difference is that in countries where the procedure is legal it is much safer for the woman. 70,000 women die each year from unsafe abortions and another 5 million suffer permanent or temporary injuries. Of abortions performed in 2003, 48% were considered unsafe (performed by unqualified people or in conditions that did not meet minimum medical standards), 97% of which occurred in poor, developing nations. ¹
Abortion rates decrease in areas where sexual education is taught in schools and in which contraception is made readily available. ²For instance, the Netherlands, which is known for having some of the most liberal laws on contraception and abortion, has an annual abortion rate of 1% in comparison to the 3% world-wide annual average. The Netherlands also covers family planning services, such as contraception, as part of its medical system and teaches sex-ed in all public schools. Incidentally, the Netherlands also has the lowest rates of teen-pregnancy.
Nearly all anti-choice groups are extremist and theocratic. They wish to impose their version of religious morality on everyone via the state. Not only do these extremist individuals and groups want to completely outlaw abortion (even in instances of rape), many of them also want to prohibit stem cell research, physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill, all forms of contraception and the teaching of sexual education in schools. Ironically, as evidenced by the study findings above, these individuals are actually working counter to their professed goal of eliminating abortion – as we can clearly see that the prohibition of abortion does not effect its incidence and opposing sexual education and contraception does nothing but raise the abortion rates (not to mention sexually transmitted infections [STIs] and teen-pregnancy rates). The fact that their activism is counter to their ostensible goals lends credence to the view that these individuals and groups are opportunistically using the emotional issue of abortion in order to advance their theocratic agenda.

A non-viable fetus is non-sentient and completely dependent upon the mother. Those who support liberty and personal autonomy from state or mass coercion should support the right of women to have sovereignty over their bodies. If women are denied this right of autonomy a dangerous precedent is set which the state can use as a foothold in its quest to increasingly control more and more aspects of our lives.

Reproductive Rights in Nebraska

According to a 2005 Survey USA poll 49% of Nebraskans are pro-choice and 47% are anti-choice, with 4% undecided. ³ A 2008 poll by Anzlone Liszt Research of Nebraska voters, of all political parties, showed that Nebraskans strongly favor sex education (69% overall with 51% for sex-ed and 18% for a combination of sex-ed and abstinence), funding for contraception (62%), support pro-choice politicians (52%), and are very skeptical that abstinence only education is effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy and STIs (16% effective/54% ineffective/30% don’t know). ⁴ It should be noted that the Nebraska Board of Education currently recommends abstinence-only education.

In April 2010, Nebraska became the first state in the U.S. to outlaw abortion after 20 weeks gestation. This legislation was advanced by Senator Mike Flood and is based on conversations he had with doctors who are on the record as being anti-choice. These doctors based their findings on evidence of fetal movement in response to negative stimuli such as needles. As many developmental neurobiologists have pointed out, this kind of reflexive response to negative stimuli is not necessarily indicative of pain. Contrary to this law, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a report in June of 2010 concluding that fetuses of 24 weeks (6 months) or younger are unable to feel pain. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has also stated that it “knows of no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain at 20 weeks’ gestation.” The predominant view amongst medical experts is that pain perception is not possible until the third trimester when neural pathways and the higher brain develop. Some developmental neurobiologists have suggested that pain perception may not occur until birth as amniotic fluid contains endogenous chemicals which keep the fetus in an anesthetized, sleep-like state. ⁵

While research into fetal sentience is important and limitations need to be set for elective abortion, this limited abortion ban should be opposed because it is not based on well-founded scientific research. Instead it should be seen as what it is – an attempt by anti-choice individuals and politicians to undermine the reproductive rights of women in the state. NARAL Pro-Choice America gives Nebraska a grade of “F” due to the fact that 97% of Nebraska counties do not have an abortion provider, in addition they cite the Nebraska ban of pre-viability abortions which do not include adequate exemptions for the health of the mother or in instances of rape/incest; mandatory delay; mandatory biased counseling; insurance restrictions; and several other anti-choice barriers and laws. Both Governor Dave Heineman and the Nebraska Legislature are decidedly anti-choice. Based on this information it is apparent that many of the politicians in Nebraska do not represent the views of the majority of Nebraskans but instead pander to an extremely politically active extremist subset in order to garner endorsements and votes.

Opponents of abortion want to make it seem like those that are pro-choice encourage and like abortion. The truth is that no rational person looks upon abortion as a favorable thing – it is either an extremely difficult decision for a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy or a medical or psychological health necessity (in the cases of gross fetal abnormality/serious pregnancy complications and rape, respectively). Abortion is always a physically unpleasant procedure and like all medical procedures comes with a risk of adverse health effects (albeit a very small risk when performed by qualified medical personnel in an appropriate facility - for example mortality from pregnancy is 11 times greater than from safe [meeting the above criteria] abortion). ⁶ Pro-choice advocates want abortion to remain a safe and legal option for women but would like to see abortion rates decrease to a minimal level. In order to accomplish this goal we must educate children about sex before sexual maturity, we must demand that contraception be made available to all, and we must promote social justice so that no woman feels pressured to terminate her pregnancy for socioeconomic reasons alone. We are already starting to see a decrease in world-wide abortion rates as the number of abortions performed has gone down between 1995 and 2003 from 45.6 million to 41.6 million. Owing most likely to increased contraception availability, the most significant decrease occurred in the developed world, dropping from 39 to 26 per 1000 women in contrast to the developing world, which saw a decrease from 34 to 29 per 1000 women. ⁷

Legal Abortion Worldwide: Incidence and Recent Trends by Gilda Sedgh, Stanley K.Henshaw, Susheela Singh, Akinrinola Bankole and Joanna Drescher. Published in The Lancet, Volume 370, Issue 9595, Pages 1338 - 1345, 13 October 2007
Recent Trends in Abortion Rates Worldwide by Stanley K. Henshaw, Susheela Singh and Taylor Haas. International Family Planning Perspectives Volume 25, Number 1, March 1999
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=516c169f-b22c-456d-a5c6-916c07b7d297
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/heartland/state-nebraska-30130.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/magazine/10Fetal-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
Reproductive health and human rights by Yanda K. et al. Published in the Sept 2003 International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 82 (3): 275–283.
Shah I, Ahman E (December 2009). "Unsafe Abortion: Global and Regional Incidence, Trends, Consequences, and Challenges". J Obstet Gynaecol Can 31 (12): 1149–58.

Letter to the Editor Regarding Humanewatch and Humanewatch Shill, Jake Geis

2011-01-25T16:57:00.000-08:00

The following letter was published in the November 23rd, 2010 issue of the University of Nebraska Newspaper, The Daily Nebraskan. It was the most commented article for about 2 weeks after it was published, until the letter, and all links to it disappeared from the site (typically, letters to the editor remain permanently in the site archives). When I inquired about its disappearance I was ignored. I suspect the letter was censored by Daily Nebraskan staff at the request of higher ups at the University of Nebraska, which is heavily invested in corporate factory farming - which Humanewatch exists to protect. A worker at the Daily Nebraskan (whom I will not name) confirmed that this has never been a problem in the past and that someone would have had to go in and delete it from the site archives. Very telling is the motto of University of Nebraska's Animal Science department: "Serving animal industry".

Dear Editor,

In the November 18^th issue of the Daily Nebraskan, Jake Geis wrote an article that was extremely critical of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). In this article, Geis (ironically a second year veterinary student) parrots the specious arguments of Humanewatch.org – a Center for Consumer Freedom front group. The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is a propaganda group for hire that receives millions in corporate “donations” as payment for smearing groups which they feel may hurt their bottom line. CCF has created dozens of these offshoot “front” groups in order to run smear campaigns against public interest groups like: Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) when they were hired by the liquor industry to oppose MADD’s work toward blood alcohol limits; the Center for Science in the Public Interest when hired by the fast food industry to downplay the negative health effects of trans-fats and obesity; the Center for Disease Control (CDC) when hired by the seafood industry in an attempt to discredit the CDC’s claims about the dangers of mercury in seafood; organized labor as a whole through its front groups Center for Union Facts and Employee Freedom Action Committee – in order to defend low wages; and now they have been hired by big agribusiness corporations in order to slander groups that propose animal welfare and environmental standards – standards which corporations feel would hurt their multi-billion dollar profit margins.

Humanewatch and CCF were created by Richard Berman, a Washington D.C. lobbyist, with the help of a $600,000 grant from the Phillip Morris Tobacco Corporation to fight anti-smoking groups. Humanewatch is listed by the IRS as a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization, but this “non-profit” funnels 92% of its multi-million dollar corporate “donations” into Berman’s PR firm Berman & Company. By exploiting this legal loophole Berman is able to forego transparency standards for non-profits and acquire all of these millions of dollars as tax-free profits.

CCF’s groups are notorious for their cunning sophistry, often framing issues in a way that makes their arguments seem sound and rational – unfortunately Geis falls right into this trap. The Humanewatch claim about HSUS allocating only 1% of its donations to local shelters is a clear example of this. HSUS has never purported to be connected to local shelters or to fund them, on their website they state very clearly: “Local humane societies and SPCAs are independent entities and are not run by The HSUS or any other national entity. The HSUS works with local humane societies and supports their work through training, evaluations, publications, and other professional services. Additionally, The HSUS operates its own network of animal sanctuaries and rescue operations, providing emergency care and homes to more animals than any other organization in the United States.” It should be noted that the first humane societies were set up to promote the welfare of the most vulnerable – children (this aspect was eventually phased out as other child advocacy groups took over) and animals, i.e. they were welfare organizations which advocated for and were concerned with the treatment of all animals, they did not focus solely on sheltering lost or unwanted companion animals – a tradition which the HSUS has continued. Today’s humane societies exist primarily as companion animal shelters, set up in order to contain the perennial companion animal overpopulation problem – they do little to no animal welfare advocacy other than companion animal spay/neuter and vaccination programs; this leaves the majority of the animals in the US – “food animals” without representation, besides the HSUS.

Geis goes on to site a news broadcast by WSB-TV, an Atlanta ABC affiliate, as evidence of HSUS wrongdoing concerning Hurricane Katrina donations, but again, he fails to check his sources; in this case the TV station realized that they had been given bogus information by Humanewatch – in response they immediately issued a televised correction, pulled the footage, and wrote a “cease and desist” letter to Humanewatch who was posting the copied video without permission and without the correction. CCF’s Humanewatch has continuously stooped to outright lying in order to smear animal welfare groups such as HSUS – they were even forced to issue a formal retraction after falsely accusing HSUS of funding international terrorism. Geis makes many other claims in his article, some are unintentionally comical, like when he refers to a modest California animal welfare initiative (which set standards that would allow animals the room to stand up, turn around and stretch their wings/limbs) as “anti-meat”; an official HSUS rebuttal of all of these CCF-dervied claims can be viewed here: http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/opposition/misc/hsus_responds_to_ccf.html.

Nebraskans who care about animal welfare should be aware that there is a corporate-funded disinformation campaign being waged against groups and individuals that put lives over corporate profits and should therefore be extremely discerning when it comes to where they obtain their information.

Sincerely,

Brian Ellis, Licensed Veterinary Technician

Humanewatch Comes to Lincoln

2010-11-19T17:41:00.000-08:00

Have you seen this billboard on 10^th and L Streets?

This billboard recently went up in Lincoln, NE in order to coincide with a visit by Humane Society of the United States' (HSUS) President, Wayne Pacelle. The group behind the billboard is Humanewatch, ostensibly a watchdog group monitoring the HSUS, a group they claim to be an “extremist animal rights group”. In reality Humanewatch is an offshoot of the disingenuously named Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) – a propaganda group for hire. CCF has created many offshoot “front” groups in order to run smear campaigns against public interest groups like: Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) when they were hired by the liquor industry to oppose MADD’s work toward blood alcohol limits; the Center for Science in the Public Interest when hired by the fast food industry to downplay the negative health effects of trans-fats and obesity; the Center for Disease Control (CDC) when hired by the seafood industry in an attempt to discredit the CDC’s claims about the dangers of mercury in seafood; organized labor as a whole through its front groups Center for Union Facts and Employee Freedom Action Committee – in order to defend low wages; and now they have been hired by big agribusiness corporations in order to slander groups that propose animal welfare and environmental standards – standards which corporations feel would hurt their multi-billion dollar profit margins. CCF and its offshoots have also attacked the Environmental Protection Agency in defense of cancer-causing pesticides, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and restrictions on indoor smoking (by attempting to downplay the harm of secondhand smoke).

CCF’s Humanewatch has stooped to outright lying in order to smear animal welfare groups such as HSUS – they were even forced to issue a formal retraction after falsely accusing HSUS of funding international terrorism. The statement on the billboard above is an irrelevant “straw man”, as HSUS is an animal welfare organization which runs its own shelters and does not purport to fund local shelters. CCF offers a valuable service to ruthless corporations by allowing them to anonymously attack organized labor, charity and public interest groups that get in the way of their profits, all the while receiving tax breaks for their “donations”. But don’t take my word for it - all of this information is easily uncovered by doing a simple internet search. 1,2

Humanewatch and CCF were created by Richard Berman, a Washington D.C. lobbyist, with the help of a $600,000 grant from the Phillip Morris Tobacco Corporation to fight anti-smoking groups. Humanewatch is listed by the IRS as a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization, but this “non-profit” funnels 92% of its multi-million dollar corporate “donations” into Berman’s PR firm Berman & Company. 3 By exploiting this legal loophole Berman is able to forego transparency standards for non-profits and acquire all of these millions of dollars as tax-free profits.

Sources:

1 Mayer, Caroline E. and Joyce, Amy. "The Escalating Obesity Wars Nonprofit's Tactics, Funding Sources Spark Controversy", The Washington Post, April 27, 2005.

2 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rick_Berman

3 2005 IRS Form 990 for the Center for Consumer Freedom. Retrieved on October 20, 2009.

FEEL FREE TO PRINT, DISTRIBUTE AND OTHERWISE USE THIS ARTICLE

Confusion over Political Terminology

2010-11-07T12:59:00.000-08:00

Right vs. Left

Political jargon in the US (and many other parts of the world) has become so distorted that it is nearly impossible to make sense of. For instance consider the term “right-wing” - this is a term used quite frequently to describe a wide range of social and political positions, which may often be disparate, such as fascism and libertarian capitalism. Conversely the term “left-wing” is used to describe an incredibly diverse range of political affiliations ranging from the US Democratic Party to Marxism (ideologies which appear similar only to the politically naive).

In order to accurately describe political positions a new, more accurate terminology must be used. The best system I have found for making accurate descriptions of political positions is the political compass – www.politicalcompass.org. On their website it is stated, “On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.”

The political compass system consists of 2 intersecting axes. The vertical axis is a spectrum between authoritarianism - governmental control exercised by dictators, bureaucrats, representatives, monarchs, etc. (top) and libertarianism – no external governmental control but instead democratic control by the people (bottom). The horizontal axis is a spectrum between capitalism – the system based on private ownership of production and competitive economics (right) and socialism – the system which advocates even distribution of goods/services and ownership of production by workers or communities (left). While I am somewhat critical of the website for questions used to determine positions on the left-right/top-bottom spectrum and some of their categorizations (was Gandhi a leftist? I think of him more as a somewhat apolitical social activist; can libertarian capitalists really be considered “libertarian”? Proponents of libertarian capitalism generally do not advocate direct democracy and capitalism allows for concentrations of wealth which inevitably results in concentrations of political power, i.e. plutocracy – a definite form of authority), overall I think the 2 axis system is the best for determination of political position.

Further Confusion – Labels

Popular labels are also a source of confusion. Take the term “socialism” which is used, again, usually by the politically uninformed, to describe a wide array of positions ranging from any type of market (capitalist) economic system that employs any central planning or social safety nets (nationalization of certain elements of infrastructure [health care, police/fire, energy, water treatment, schooling, etc.], welfare, social security); to authoritarian, completely state owned and controlled economies. In reality the end goal of modern socialism has always been an egalitarian and cooperative system in which production and society itself is democratically controlled by workers and community members; the previous mischaracterizations of socialism are a) descriptions of modern, first world, capitalist systems that employ government regulation and social safety nets, and b) a failed theory of how to transition an isolated feudal or proto-capitalist country into a socialist country implemented by many nations, e.g. Russia, Cuba, China, etc. Socialism is also sometimes used to denote a transitional period between feudalism or capitalism and communism though not by any major, founding theorists. The terms communism and socialism are most often used synonymously.

Another oft-abused term is fascism. This particular epithet is often bandied about carelessly to describe any type of authoritarianism or government control, when in fact, authoritarianism is but one aspect of fascism. Fascism is best described as the combination of authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, racialism and nativism. In addition historical fascism has been characterized by several, usually concurrent traits, most often: anti-communism, anti-liberalism, anti-internationalism, anti-intellectualism, cultural conservatism - including close relationships with conservative religion, indoctrination in state obedience, social Darwinism, promotion of eugenics, corporatism, and opposition to multi-culturalism (often manifested as state-sponsored hatred of a scapegoat groups – ethnic groups, religious groups, people with a certain skin color, sexual orientation, etc.); in place of multi-culturalism fascists advocate assimilation, racial purity and national identity. Proponents of fascism claim that by creating strong national unity, corporatist organization and military-like discipline, fascism will lead to peaceful collaboration between classes and acceptance of class roles. At least in theory fascist regimes have opposed the excesses of capitalism and promote their system as a third way between Marxist socialism and “supercapitalism” – a decadent form of capitalism. Fascists commonly appealed to the middle class strata of the working class and small business owners claiming that they would promote and protect their livelihood while opposing “big business” and communism. Historically fascism has resembled the welfare state system – a capitalist economy with social safety nets in place to combat poverty, lack of healthcare, etc.; but fascism (as in the combination of authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism/imperialism, racialism or nativism) can opportunistically latch onto any economic system.

Fascism has as its goal hegemonic empire via violent suppression and imperial conquest. Some pro-capitalist commentators and authors have argued that fascism is a form of socialism – often citing the National Socialists German Workers’ Party (Nazis) of Hitlerite Germany – this is, again, a mischaracterization – the Nazis opportunistically adopted the term socialism due to the fact that it was the most popular of the populist movements of the time. German fascism adopted elements of what is generally considered to be “leftism” (again a useless descriptive term), i.e. welfare state reforms, and combined it with capitalist market economy, but it was vehemently anti-Marxist and anti-communist. Incidentally Marx is widely considered to be the father of modern socialism. It should be noted that disingenuously adopting popular terms is relatively common; another example of this guise is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) – a single party state that is not a people’s democracy nor a republic. Interestingly, many state socialist regimes and fascist regimes have had similar attributes, even though these state socialist regimes vehemently opposed fascism.There are two fundamental differences between fascism and socialism: socialists advocate direct democracy by workers and community members whereas fascists advocate top down authoritarian control of society; socialists advocate transferring the means of production out of private capitalist ownership and putting the workers themselves in possession and control of them, whereas fascists advocate corporatist organization where either private capitalist owners or the state still retain control of the means of production but workers (in theory) have representation through their corporate body. Historical fascism could be characterized as an authoritarian and socially conservative form of the welfare state. Conservative pundits often purposely conflate the welfare state model with fascism for propaganda purposes, even though fascism entailed much more than a welfare state economy.

Today fascism in its historical form has become increasingly rare – only being espoused by fringe groups. A new term, neo-fascism, has fallen into popular usage as a description of a political tendency that contains the essential elements of fascism but which has moved further toward unregulated capitalism and has eschewed the least socially acceptable traits such as eugenics, overt racism and authoritarianism, instead adopting a gradual repeal of civil liberties, veiled or overt classism and nativism or cultural assimilationism.

The term liberal is multivalent; it can apply to economic or sociopolitical positions and is therefore quite confusing. Economic liberalism is a capitalist philosophy that espouses a laissez faire (government hands off) form of capitalism, whereas a social liberal is one who champions equality, civil rights and liberties, democracy, etc. Classical liberalism is a general term that encompasses both of these concepts but is a philosophy that began in the 18^th century, therefore, its proponents had a whole different view of capitalism (being relatively benign at the time and better than feudalism in several ways). In America the term "liberal" (or liberalism) generally means one who advocates social liberalism and regulated capitalism, i.e. capitalism with protections such as nationalized infrastructure and social safety nets like welfare, food stamps and medicaid, etc. The newer term “neo-liberal” describes an economic philosophy promoting laissez fair free trade capitalism in which corporations and governments collude in order to achieve maximum trade and profits (for the corporations).

Social conservatism is the opposition to social change or social liberalism; conservatives are wary of social change due to religious views or just a general fear of change (fearing that a breakdown in social mores will lead to chaos and disregard for law or morality). A fiscal conservative is someone who believes government spending should be minimal and they often oppose social safety nets like welfare and programs to help impoverished people. Neoconservative, or the shorter variation, neocon is a newer term that describes a position much different than traditional social conservatism or fiscal conservatism. Neoconservatism is a view that embraces the spirit of classical liberalism - democracy, laissez faire capitalism, equality, etc. - and promotes the active spreading of the classical liberal model in order to revolutionize the world; this spreading is to be done by any means necessary including military intervention and regime change, hence the association of the term with hawks like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Neoconservatives are typically okay with the existence of limited mixed economy capitalism (capitalism with protections) and are supportive of free trade. The term paleoconservatism describes a position that is more akin to social and fiscal conservatism, which places importance on limited government, laissez faire capitalism, anti-federalism (the view that the states should have equal or more power than the central or federal government), and opposition to imperialism/intervention.

The term anarchist is commonly used in the US as a synonym for chaos or disorder - a pejorative usage coined by opponents of anarchism in the 19th century. Anarchism is actually a centuries old political philosophy which considers the state (external government) to be an illegitimate, destructive and corrupt form of authority. Most anarchists advocate direct democratic associations as an alternative to external government. There are various tendencies within anarchism some being social (socialist) and others being individualistic or capitalistic; most social anarchists do not consider capitalist anarchism to be a true form of anarchy. The most familiar and the most active form of anarchism, historically and currently, is social anarchism, otherwise known as libertarian socialism (or communism) - a more broad classification - and anarcho-syndicalism if emphasis is placed on the role of worker organizations to bring about revolution and order. This form of anarchism is best understood as a type of democratic socialism or communism which opposes the state in all its forms; some social anarchists refer to their philosophy as "radical democracy".

The term radical is associated with any political position which diverges from traditional political positions - this term is most commonly used by those on the left end of the political spectrum (socialists, communists and social anarchists).

Class

Class labels are also used carelessly which renders class labels extremely ambiguous. Often politicians speak of the working class referring to “blue collar” workers (those who sell their physical labor to employers). Working class or proletariat (the French term for working class used by Marx) is actually a Marxian term referring to all workers who sell their labor (mental or physical) to employers, so the usage referring to “blue collar” workers is erroneous. Politicians and commentators may also refer to stratum within the working class such as lower class or middle class, etc., which leads to further confusion and leads some to believe that their interests are fundamentally different than other working class individuals and that so-called upper class folks are part of the same monolithic class system.

The only way to properly understand the differences between classes is to view them from a Marxian perspective which divides classes into two groups – the working class (or proletariat) and the employing class (AKA ruling class or bourgeoisie). When class-based society is analyzed from the Marxian perspective the fundamental differences between these two classes are laid bare – the working class is comprised of individuals that sell or, more accurately, rent themselves and their labor to the employing class, which do not sell their labor but profit off of the labor of the working class. The employing class occupies the highest rank in workplace hierarchies for they actually own the workplace, therefore they control and dictate how things are to be ran or delegate this task to higher paid wage earners – managers. The petit or petty bourgeoisie are capitalists who own small businesses and employ others to work for wages or salaries. The petty bourgeois often work alongside their wage-laborers but hold most of the authority and control; they also garner more in pay as they set their own income. The petty bourgeois usually do not make enough of a profit to re-invest a significant amount in constant capital (machines for production, land, buildings, etc.) to make it into what would be considered the bourgeois class and remove themselves from actually taking part in production. An example of a petty bourgeois capitalist would be a doctor who owns a small clinic. The self-employed are neither in the working class, petty bourgeois class, or ruling class; they occupy a position in the social strata similar to that of the working class - they own their own constant capital but are out-competed by the petty bourgeois and bourgeois who employ others and extract surplus value (the difference between a worker's wage and what they produce, a profit).

Nationalism

This term can mean a belief in national superiority over other nations. Racialists use the term to denote not only superiority of the nation-state but also the racial and cultural majority within that state. Nationalism can also be a term used for an ideology in support of national liberation. For instance, Irish Nationalists support a united Ireland - Northern Ireland's independence from the UK.

When it comes to political or socioeconomic labels care must be taken to use these labels appropriately; do not trust that those on television or the radio or even in office are using these terms in a fair and accurate way.

Working Class falls prey to Divide and Conquer Tactics in Fremont, NE

2010-07-11T15:17:00.000-07:00

"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half." - Jay Gould, 19th century American financier and railroad businessman

On June 21st, 45% of the eligible voters in Fremont, NE turned out to vote on whether or not to pass an ordinance that would penalize employers who hire illegal immigrants and landlords who rent them shelter. The ordinance was passed 57% to 43%. 1 What many people don't know is that the ordinance was largely the work of Kris Kobach who works for the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) - the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a group listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center due to its ties to white separatists, racist eugenicists and racist authors. 2, 3 In 2009 Kobach also sued the University of Nebraska Board of Regents and the Board of Governors for Nebraska Community Colleges in order to prevent in state tuition being offered to undocumented students. 4

The passage of this ordinance was a major blow for the working class here in Nebraska, not only because it was the work of a front group for an outright racist organization, but because it demonstrates how little we understand about the nature of our class-divided society. If you don't recognize the fact that modern society is divided into two general classes it might not make sense to you why this hurts all of us working people, but the truth is there are two very distinct and separate classes - those who own the places where we work and make their living off of employing others and those whose only option is to sell their mental or physical labor to an employer. Respectively these two classes are the ruling class (or the employing class) and the working class.

The ruling class of course enjoys being able to take advantage of the cheap labor that undocumented immigrants provide. They could care less who works in their plants as long as it betters their bottom line. The ordinance was not proposed by them (at least not the ruling class owners who directly profit off of undocumented immigrant labor), it was proposed by a few right-wing demagogues and a portion of the working class people in the community. The situation that exists in Fremont is one in which working class people have become divided - they have turned on each other just like starving dogs turn on one another for scraps of food. It is a classic case of scapegoating - by both the ruling class and the working class. The endemic problems that exist in capitalism are not blamed on the system of inequality and manufactured scarcity itself but on the most vulnerable - the undocumented immigrants or the impoverished who are just trying to get by. It should be made clear that undocumented immigrants do not come to America for baseball and McDonald's, they are here due to economic necessity - the conditions in capitalist Mexico are even worse than the conditions here in the US; for these immigrants, coming here to work is the only option they have to provide for their families.

In 1994 the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was created. NAFTA allowed subsidized corn and other agricultural products from the US to enter into Mexican markets, which in turn drove millions of Mexican farmers out of farming - they couldn't compete with US corporate agriculture. In addition the entry of corporations like Walmart, which rely primarily on cheap Chinese labor, out-competed small Mexican grocery stores and shops, creating further unemployment, desperation and poverty. If that wasn't enough to completely crush the Mexican working class, the average wage for Mexican workers also dropped significantly, so work in American owned factories was not even enough to provide for a family. All of these factors led to the current up-swing of immigration to the US. It should be understood that the American ruling class was the main force behind the passage of NAFTA - this trade agreement would allow them to increase their profits by exploiting the cheap labor of Mexican workers and it would also allow them to expand the market for goods produced by even cheaper labor or government subsidized products.

Working class people who are US citizens are very much aware that, out of desperation, the undocumented workers will often work for much less and without benefits, they are made to believe that these workers are in competition with them for jobs, so it seems to make sense to them to eliminate this competition through the ordinance. By eliminating the competition for jobs they hope to raise wages and make jobs available for themselves and their family and friends. What a significant portion of the Fremont working class fails to realize is that low wages are a result of so-called fair trade agreements like NAFTA (which allow corporations to out-source labor) and that they are unlikely to see any benefit, even short-term benefits, for turning on their fellow workers. In fact, they are more likely to see rising taxes, pay reductions and loss of jobs. A similar ordinance in Pennsylvania has already incurred 5 million (1.25 million a year) in legal bills to be paid mostly by tax-payers. 5 In addition, the owners of the plants who employ/ed undocumented workers will continue to keep wages low any way that they can, if necessary they will move the plant elsewhere where labor is cheaper. Employers also have the option of filing for work visas from the government; this creates a sort of feudal arrangement where undocumented workers are allowed to legally stay in the country in order to work for these employers. In these arrangements the worker is at the complete mercy of the employer and cannot complain or make any sort of demands for better conditions, to do so would likely result in termination and subsequent deportation.

Ruling class employers are expert at dividing us: creating hierarchy and inequality in pay within the workplace that pits worker against worker, effectively playing on prejudices or fear by blaming low wages, lack of jobs and rising taxes on immigrants or the down-trodden, etc. But no matter what happens in Fremont as long as the working class remains divided the ruling class wins (and most of them know this very well) - divided working people can't fight for better conditions. We don't need to turn on our brothers and sisters to fight for a decent living; we're all in the same sinking boat. The only way workers can better their lot is to band together - regardless of skin color, country of origin, religion, etc. Only through this working class solidarity can we stand up to the ruling class and demand fair wages and benefits and eventually change society into one in which we run and control our workplaces democratically and for the good of all (instead of for the profits of a few).

The ruling class elites are stronger than us - they have all the weaponry of the state at their disposal - but they are few and we are many, when we come together nothing can stop us from demanding an end to wage slavery, poverty and oppression. A society where everyone contributes what they can and takes what they need is possible, there is plenty of food, water, shelter, clothing, and the things in life that make it enjoyable to go around. It is time to get rid of the real parasites - the ones that don't work like us working folks do - the ones who get rich off of our labor. As long as class-divided society exists there will always be an antagonism between these two classes - the ruling class wants cheap labor; the working class wants wages higher, better benefits, etc. - It's a constant class war that will never end until class society is abolished, including all the tools that class-based society uses to oppress workers - money, borders, and the state.

1. http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/article_a36e5b1c-7d5e-11df-a972-001cc4c002e0.html

2. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2007/winter/the-teflon-nativists

3. http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2010/06/23/kobach-calls-fremont-falls/

4. http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2010/02/19/anti-immigrant-forces-target-struggling-american-communities/

5. http://thereader.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1276719988&archive=&start_from=&ucat=3&

Religiosity and the Health of Nations

2010-07-07T14:34:00.000-07:00

I attribute the below to a combination of the truth contained in "Marx's religion as an analgesic metaphor" and the inclination of the godless to create their own justice, as opposed to waiting for it to come from above.

The following is taken from Sam Harris' An Atheist Manifesto .

Countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on Earth. According to the United Nations' Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant mortality. Conversely, the 50 nations now ranked lowest in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Other analyses paint the same picture: The United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its level of religious literalism and opposition to evolutionary theory; it is also uniquely beleaguered by high rates of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, STD infection and infant mortality. The same comparison holds true within the United States itself : Southern and Midwestern states, characterized by the highest levels of religious superstition and hostility to evolutionary theory, are especially plagued by the above indicators of societal dysfunction, while the comparatively secular states of the Northeast conform to European norms . Countries with high levels of atheism also are the most charitable in terms of giving foreign aid to the developing world. The dubious link between Christian literalism and Christian values is also belied by other indices of charity.. Consider the ratio in salaries between top-tier CEOs and their average employee: in Britain it is 24 to 1; France 15 to 1; Sweden 13 to 1; in the United States, where 83% of the population believes that Jesus literally rose from the dead, it is 475 to 1.

Does the Bible Teach us how to be Moral?

2010-07-07T14:28:00.000-07:00

Text of a flier I made for LSH in 2006

Does The Bible Teach Us How to be Moral?

The Bible prescribes capital punishment for behavior our society doesn't even consider criminal.

If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21 KJV)

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

The bible calls for sacrificial killings to appease god.

And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD'S, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands. And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, [even] twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel. And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she [was his] only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back. And she said unto him, My father, [if] thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, [even] of the children of Ammon And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.. And he said, Go. And he sent her away [for] two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains. And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her [according] to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel, [That] the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year. (Judges 11:30-40 KJV)

The God of the bible tested Abraham's faith by asking him to sacrifice his son, stopping him right before he cuts Isaac’s throat.

When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. Then Abraham put forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I." He said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. (Genesis 22:9-18 NIV)

There are hundreds of instances where animals are sacrificed in the bible, here is just one:

If his offering [be] a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD. And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that [is by] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces. And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire: And the priests, Aaron's sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that [is] on the fire which [is] upon the altar: But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, [to be] a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD. (Leviticus 1:3-9 KJV)

And we must not forget that in order for god to forgive humanity it was required that a human being, Jesus, was to be tortured and sacrificed - and this is supposed to prove god’s love.

The Bible is degrading to women

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. (Exodus 21:7 NLT)

When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. (Leviticus 15:19-22 NIV)

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is god. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. (I Corinthians 11:3, 8-9 KJV) *NEW TESTAMENT

Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (Genesis 3:16 KJV)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also sayeth the law. (I Corinthians 14:34-35 KJV) *NEW TESTAMENT

Let the woman learn in silence in all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression. (I Timothy 2:11-14 KJV) *NEW TESTAMENT

Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (Numbers 31:15-17 NIV)

If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity. (Deuteronomy 25:11-12 NIV)

The Bible is not tolerant of other religions.

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. (Exodus 22:20 KJV)

The Bible does not directly condemn slavery, it only prescribes rules for slave holding, and in some parts seems to support the institution.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) *NEW TESTAMENT

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NIV) * NEW TESTAMENT

But doesn't Jesus do away with the Old Testament Law?

It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid. (Luke 16:17 NAB)

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

Even if Jesus has repealed the laws that applied to the Israelites, if you subscribe to the Trinitarian doctrine, Jesus is but one manifestation of God (Yahweh); so Jesus at one point thought it was proper for a people to murder young women who had premarital sex or to murder children who had dishonored their parents.

So, does the Bible teach us how lead good moral lives? Or is it more likely that humanistic values like reason, empathy and basic concepts of human decency instruct us?

You be the judge.

Distributed by Lincoln Secular Humanists
www.lincolnsecularhumanists.org

My Dream

2010-02-20T12:21:00.000-08:00

Current mood: optimistic
Category: Religion and Philosophy

When the people come to realize that they can manage themselves with direct democracy, government will cease to exist.

When capitalism is understood as a form of slavery, we will emancipate ourselves. Work will be voluntary and production will be based on need, not profit.

When we understand religion as myth it will be replaced by a new sort of "religion", a secular philosophy characterized by an understanding of our connection to all life and nature; an empathetic concern for the well being of all sentient creatures; a feeling of awe for the mystery and beauty in our universe; and a sense of solidarity between all people.

When all of these things are realized the pervasive moral nihilism we see in our culture today will diminish, along with the rampant violence and misery which we are so used to. Poverty and hunger will be eradicated. Each person will be free to live as they wish, free from tyranny and persecution. Arbitrary boundaries and nations will disappear - we will all be citizens of the Earth. Our species will then come to be the conscientious stewards of the planet that our special abilities allow us to be. We can mitigate the damage we have done to our world and protect it from further harm. One day we may even set off to explore distant worlds.

Understanding Capitalist Exploitation

2010-01-05T21:34:00.000-08:00

All words in bold italics are defined in the glossary at the end of this booklet.

We live in a world dominated by the capitalist economic system, a world fraught with inequality, strife and suffering. The capitalist mode of organization has given us a world of perpetual war where imperialism and the development of increasingly lethal weaponry take precedent over human well–being. A world in which children starve to death because of lack of food in one region while obesity is a major health concern in another, and where ecological destruction poses a serious threat to our continued survival.

In addition to the shocking and glaring problems that we are all familiar with there is the often overlooked, insidious psychological damage inflicted upon each of us who must sell ourselves – our time, our mental or physical labor – for the profits of those who live comfortably and already have plenty. The very wealthy and powerful among us (the ruling class), those who own the places in which most of us work but do little work themselves, make up a very small minority. The vast majority of people who inhabit our planet (the working class) have only one option to survive: sell their time and labor to an employer and spend their life working – a mundane existence, 40 or more hours a week – just to try and make ends meet. Some working class people have it worse than others, those who are unable to find employment or adequate pay for their work languish in abject poverty, existing only with the help of charity, government aid or by scavenging. This inequality means more than just having less, it means fewer opportunities, a lack of proper health care, inadequate nutrition, meager education, poor housing and a dangerous environment – all of which lead to higher morbidity and mortality rates. One must ask, "Does it have to be this way? Is there really no alternative to a system that only provides when there is a profit to be made?" In order to answer these questions we must first understand the exploitive nature of capitalism and how humanity’s greatest problems stem from this system.

To understand capitalism we have to look at the systems of organization of past and present society. Human society was at first, and for the longest part (95 %) of our species existence, a nomadic, hunter-gatherer type of society.

Hunter–gatherer society could be classified as a primitive form of communism – all members of the tribe/society were provided for, currency and private property was non–existent and direct cooperation with others was essential to survival. Although to some hunter-gatherer society may sound ideal, it was far from what most of us would consider Utopian: life spans were shorter than today's average (mortality rates were especially high for young children), people were susceptible to illness from a variety of infectious diseases and parasites (most of which we would consider easily treatable today), they occasionally fell prey to predators, had little protection from environmental conditions and there was the occasional homicide and small–scale war in the form of tribal skirmishes. Death, illness, and natural phenomena, which were not rationally understood, created fear and sparked the formation of religious beliefs (as a way of explaining these things). All things considered life for hunter–gatherers was not all bad; they had much more leisure time than today's working class wage slave, society was essentially egalitarian, and there was no coercion to find employment or to do time in "educational" institutions.

With the advent of agriculture the available food supply enlarged as did the population of many communities, soon the first nation–states and cities formed. Agriculture meant larger populations could be sustained and that people did not have to move from place to place but it also meant that there would need to be a division of labor. In time, certain individuals and groups used force to assert ownership over areas of agricultural land, they then figured out that they could enslave or conscript others into working for their profit. By enslaving or employing others to work their land the owners were able to greatly multiply their wealth and power; they would retain this wealth and power within their families (and friends) throughout generations – the first ruling class was born. Along with agriculture came the advent of rigidly hierarchical society, slavery, currency, large–scale warfare, and dogmatic (usually monotheistic or henotheistic) religion - which reflected the ruler/ruled hierarchy of society. Religion of this sort has always been an effective way of controlling the masses, for this reason the ruling class has almost always allied itself with religious authority within the society or with society's predominant religion.

Human society eventually became organized under different socioeconomic systems, most widespread during the middle–ages was the decentralized system of peasant slavery known as feudalism.

Most societies that adopted the feudal system of organization eventually progressed to capitalism. Each system of organization that has come about since the advent of agriculture has held one commonality: they are all forms of subjection – subjection of a majority to a minority of owners – slave masters, feudal lords and eventually the capitalist ruling class. The minority (the ruling class) have continually carved up more and more land and fought each other for land and resources while the majority (the working class) have always been caught in the middle – doing all the work and fighting all the wars.

What Is Capitalism?

Capitalism is a system in which those who own the means of production seek to produce and accumulate capital; capitalism is also referred to as the profit system, a market economy or a free market economy (although no free market economies actually exist, all nations currently employ some degree of government regulation or central planning as opposed to relying on the market alone). In the U.S. the means of production are primarily privately owned i.e. owned by either an individual or a group of individuals, like in a business or a corporation. The means of production may also be owned by the state; many nations organized in this way may refer to their system of organization as socialism or communism but it is more accurate to classify them as another form of capitalism known as state capitalism. The primary concern of a capitalist (an owner of a means of production who employs others in order to exploit them) is profit. The profit is what is left over after paying employees, bills, and other expenses (these expenses are referred to as "overhead"); this is what the boss or owner gets to pocket. The capitalist derives a profit by extracting surplus value from his employees. To understand surplus value we have to look at the nature of the relationship between an employer and an employee, when one understands this relationship its exploitive nature is revealed. The employer, i.e. the owner of a means of production, extracts surplus value by paying their workers less money than the value of what they produce or of the services they provide. The employer must extract enough surplus value from his or her employees to be able to pay bills and other expenses and still have enough left over to make a profit and/or pay himself a salary that is significantly higher than that of his employees.

For example: a worker in a factory that produces shoes may produce a pair of shoes in one hour, the worker will be paid $8.00 for their hour of work but the shoes will sell for $80.00, the $72 dollars leftover is surplus value; when you subtract the cost of materials, the cost of utilities used to run the machines, and any other expenses from the $72.00 of surplus value, whatever is leftover is profit for the capitalist; the cheaper the labor and materials the more surplus value and profit for the employer. So in effect the worker is not being paid for a portion of his or her labor, this non–paid labor is known as surplus labor. A capitalist must maintain this parasitic relationship in order to continue to have a profitable business and obtain a larger share of money for himself. Since the working class will always want wages to be higher and the capitalist class will always want labor costs to be lower, the interests of the capitalist class and the working class will always be in conflict until capitalism and classes are abolished altogether and the means of production are collectively owned and democratically controlled by the community.

It is often argued that owners of small businesses, managers or bosses also work and often just as much as their employees. In some workplaces it is true that the petit-bourgeois small business owners or managers work alongside their employees but we must make some important distinctions. Managers are not owners they are merely endowed with authority and given a higher wage than those whom they are instructed to supervise; small business owners often cannot extract enough surplus value to be able to completely remove themselves from the actual work of running their business, even still they reap the largest share of income that the workplace generates by extracting surplus value from employees. When discussing the role of bosses and managers in a workplace it should be taken into consideration that their duties consist mainly of organizing this system of surplus value extraction. Bosses and managers duties include: weighing labor costs against sales and ensuring that the former never exceeds the latter – sending workers home when necessary or scheduling so that labor costs are minimalized and ensuring that production remains as efficient as possible and constant (often by using threats of termination and other forms of psychological intimidation), handling business bills, expenses and calculating worker payroll.

When the nature of the manager’s or small business owner’s work is factored in it becomes apparent that they do not actually do a fair share of the productive work. Most of this non–productive work is only necessary within capitalist organization, it does nothing to provide for human need. If all people were working to provide for need instead of managing capitalist functionality the workforce would enlarge considerably. Think of all the people whose only work deals with abstraction, like bankers and stockbrokers. The workforce would enlarge even more so when all those who make up the reserve army of labor were given meaningful work to do; only in capitalism does it make sense that a considerable portion of the workforce would have no work to do when there is always work that needs to be done and people in need. But in capitalism work is only done if there is profit to made; a capitalist does not ask if people need food or homes his first question is: “Is there a profit to be made by supplying people with food or homes?”.

Owners of large businesses or corporate executives often only serve as decision makers, PR managers, and arbiters of company investments and policy – here we see an even more parasitic relationship where their salaries are often a hundred times larger than their workers but they produce nothing of real value. Included in the category of major societal parasites would be: stockbrokers, clergy, bankers, the insurance industry, the lottery/gambling industry, quacks/charlatans, the state and its professional politicians and bureaucrats, etc. The organizational work performed by industry executives could be eliminated entirely or could easily be handled by democratically organized workers in a libertarian socialist system (see what is libertarian socialism).

Capitalism is Slavery

Slavery is a relationship of control and servitude in which an owner (slave master) restricts the liberty of another person (a slave) and coerces the slave into performing labor for the owners benefit. Capitalism is exactly that, a form of slavery – wage slavery. The major difference between chattel slavery and wage slavery is that a chattel slave is bought and owned by the master, becoming capital the master must care for in order to get the maximum efficiency and use out of; a wage slave rents him or herself to a master and the master cares little for the wage slave's long term well-being for they can always rent another.

The genius of capitalism is that it gives the illusion of freedom – most of its slaves are unaware that they are slaves, even though they may know it on a subconscious level. A wage slave has more freedom than a traditional chattel slave but the wage slave’s freedom is still restricted to a considerable degree. Consider the realities of contemporary capitalist society – even in an industrialized country with strict labor laws an employee is required to work around 40 hours a week in order to receive an adequate amount of pay and benefits like health insurance; workers are left with little time for activities that they would enjoy or that would enrich their intellect. If a worker has a family with children there is even less time left over for personal enjoyment and discovery. This work schedule is coerced in a capitalist society – one must sell their labor or risk falling through the holes of the government's social safety nets (if there are any) and starving on the streets. This compulsory work regimen leads to depression, ennui and unfulfillment, especially if one is in a line of work that is not desirable or fitted to ones personality. Further exacerbating these negative emotions is what Karl Marx termed labor alienation – the loss of personal liberty and detachment from the products of ones labor, other workers, friends, and the community. The worker has little say in production or in the services they provide, they just follow orders, humiliated and bored, engaging in tedium in return for a subsistence wage or salary. The condition of working class people is compounded even further by the loaning of credit and the legalized theft that is interest collection - anxiety and despair plague those who fall into the trap of consumer debt. The accumulation of debt is often the result of the endemic conditions in capitalist society of depression and unfulfillment, which drive sufferers to seek the temporary relief and euphoria gained through consumerist buying.

Although the working class in first world countries undoubtedly suffer, the suffering they are forced to endure cannot compare to that of the third world working class. First world workers benefit from the cheap labor of third world workers (just as their capitalist masters do) – the first world working class's conditions are improved by the abundance of cheaply produced goods (think Walmart). Because of this, socialists in America and other industrialized countries who want to awaken others must fight against a prevalent sense of complacency within the working class.

This sense of complacency though widespread is only illusory as the inevitable busts (recessions and depressions) have shown that good conditions are temporary. In order for us to truly improve our conditions world wide solidarity among the working class is needed with the aim of doing away with wage slavery altogether. This requires that we look past our superficial differences e.g. skin color, nationality, ethnicity, religious belief, etc.

The Game is Rigged

Capitalism is like a life or death game of Monopoly and more and more people are figuring out that the game is rigged – they don’t want to play any more. More people have come to understand that capitalism is based first and foremost on acquiring profits; all other considerations, such as ethical or environmental considerations are secondary to this primary goal. Capitalism can be accurately summarized as the source of global disorder for this reason. The reason some starve is because there is no profit to be made from supplying them with food, not because there is a lack of food; the reason our environment is pillaged and polluted is because profit is the primary consideration, not because other, more sustainable technologies and methods do not exist; and the reason wars are waged is because our rulers are vying for wealth, power, resources and control (despite whatever pretexts they may come up with), not because humans naturally want to kill one another.

Under capitalism humanity is its own worst enemy and the fact that we are capable of annihilating ourselves provides an impetus for action in the here and now – not slow gradual reform which may take centuries (we may not have that long) or never accomplish anything at all because it fails to remove power from the wealthy and powerful and put it in the hands of the people themselves. When enough people figure out that capitalism is a scam which robs them of what they deserve, we can take control of our destiny and begin a new era in which labor and resources are used to meet human needs - not to make profits for a controlling minority. Once society has liberated itself from the yoke of wage slavery we can eliminate the scourge of war, poverty, and starvation; we can direct resources toward scientific and medical advancement to better the human condition.

Imagine scientific pursuit unhindered by financial considerations – working to discover new knowledge and new technologies, end ecological destruction from pollution, and working to protect our planet from natural disasters (meteor strikes, earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, storms, etc.) We can also dismantle irrationality in the form of religious dogma, bigotry and cultural conservatism, and eradicate the boredom and depression that most of us are forced to endure by working exhausting full–time work schedules.

What is the Alternative to Capitalism?

If you agree with the thesis of this essay you now realize that humanity must liberate itself from the bondage of capitalism. We have seen that attempts to do this in the past have failed for various reasons; it is abundantly clear that statist ideologies are doomed to fail as are any ideologies that do not remain true to the ethical roots of socialist thought – equality, democracy, and the concept of human rights. Another lesson to be learned from history is that our strength is in numbers – we can only achieve our aims when we are joined together in solidarity, demanding a better future, one based on justice for all. Socialism cannot be imposed on society from above, if we are to better our situation we must do it ourselves from the bottom up. The alternative to capitalism that takes all of these historical lessons into account is libertarian socialism.

What is Libertarian Socialism?

First we should make clear what libertarian socialism is not; libertarian socialism is not reformism – the view that capitalism can slowly be made into a humane or ethical system by introducing reforms, it is not state capitalism or state socialism, it is not a welfare state, it is not a political philosophy that entails a protracted transition period on the way to socialism or a vanguard party dictatorship, and it is not a Utopian vision (a libertarian socialist society will not be without its problems but it will be a society where most of the causes of societal disorder [poverty, scarcity, the profit motive] have been done away with). Much unlike the coercive nature of capitalism, libertarian socialism is a system of organization based upon voluntary cooperation of individuals in a non-hierarchical and democratic society; a classless, money–less, stateless society.

In a libertarian socialist society the earth and its resources would be owned in common by the world community; the means of production would be ran and owned by the workers and by the community they provide for; employment would be abolished, work would be voluntary and production would be based on providing for need alone, those in need would be free to take and use goods and services at will – a society based on the maxim: “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. Decisions would be made democratically by the people affected by those decisions (most often regionally), with each person getting as much say as anyone else. Libertarian socialism is the system of organization advocated by anarchists, council communists and other left
communists, e.g. the World Socialist Movement and their companion parties, various anarchist collectives and confederations, the IWW (a working class, all-inclusive union), etc. Though these different groups may disagree tactically they all envision the same end goal. Lastly, libertarian socialism is not only about economic change, it is about radically restructuring society in many ways (structuring communities to become more self sufficient, challenging unjustified hierarchy, combating bigotry and harmful dogmas, doing away with all forms of coercion, etc.) and empowering people to govern themselves with direct democracy – thus fully doing away with the tyranny of the state. In order to do away with capitalism and the state we need to organize and educate more people about the nature of capitalism: how it steals from the working class and turns human beings into mere slaves condemned to a life of drudgery. The realization of this is known as class consciousness – the level of consciousness one reaches when they fully understand their position in capitalist society. If you are part of the working class this realization should compel you to revolt against your plutocratic slave masters and do away with the capitalist system and the state which serves to maintain it; but you should understand that the only way to do this is in solidarity with others who share your plight. Political parties that claim to represent the working class in reality only represent the ruling class unless their explicit goal is to do away with capitalism completely through popular revolution - not slowly through phases or with reforms. Libertarian socialism is a rational alternative to the madness of capitalism and it is the only thing that can save humanity from itself.

Glossary of Terms:

Imperialism – the policy of acquiring more territory and resources by the use of military, political or economic means. Though the causes of global conflict may seem complex and governments often manufacture pretexts for wars, the main cause of conflict between nations is imperialism in one form or another.

Ruling class – also called the owning class, capitalist class, employing class, or the bourgeoisie. The ruling class are those that own the means of production and employ others to run it.

Working class – the class of people that do not own a means of production and who must sell their labor (mental or physical) in order to survive. The working class constitute the majority of the world’s population. Also called: the proletariat. Anyone who is not an owner of private property is in the working class, regardless of annual income.

Private property – is the privately owned capital or means of production used by a business or a corporation in order to obtain more capital and profits. It is of utmost importance to make the distinction between private property and personal property. Personal property is property owned by individuals for personal use and for this reason it is reasonable to exclude others from using this property e.g. toothbrushes, clothing, personal computers, guns, homes, etc., etc.

Hierarchical – characteristic of hierarchy. Hierarchical organization is based on the ranking of some individuals over others. For instance a monarchy is a hierarchical system in which the royalty are deemed to be more important than the people they rule over. The monarchs are therefore given power to rule over the people and tell them how they must live (as do any politicians or bureaucrats).

Capital – property used by the capitalist in production or to provide services, e.g. taxi cabs, tools, misc. production equipment, etc. Money used to purchase capital is referred to as financial capital or constant capital; money used to purchase labor power is termed variable capital. Capital assists in the production of goods or services which are sold as commodities in order to produce a profit for the capitalist.

Means of production – this is anything used to manufacture a product or provide a service. Means of production are divided into two categories: instruments of labor, i.e. factories, sophisticated and expensive tools, workplaces, etc. and subjects of labor, i.e. natural resources and other raw materials. In Karl Marx’s time, the term “means of production” was most often in reference to factories where much of the working class was employed but today the means of production can just as easily refer to any business or workplace.

Surplus value – the amount of money that is left over after an employer sells a product or a service that his employee has made or rendered and pays his employee a cut. The employee always gets paid less than the value of the product he or she has made or the service that he or she has rendered, the capitalist pockets the difference.

The state – another term for government. Government is any form of hierarchical organization in which officials which are either elected or appointed (or self-appointed) impose rules and laws on the citizens of a country in which they rule over. The state's main function is to preserve the system of capitalism which allows it to exist.

State capitalist – AKA as a “centrally planned economy”, state capitalism is a system of capitalism in which private property is replaced by state property (nationalization) but the underlying system of capitalism remains the same – goods and services are bought and sold and in turn workers are coerced into selling their labor for a wage. Traditionally state capitalist nations are authoritarian, repressive, and refer to themselves as socialist or communist e.g. the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, etc. In a state capitalist society a new ruling class forms (nomenklatura) and is made up of the vanguard party's politicians and bureaucrats. Workers are still exploited as their cheaply produced goods are sold on the world market for state profit.

Petit-bourgeoisie – (pronounced petty) a class of individuals who are not working class but not bourgeoisie either; this class is made up of small business owners, artisans, and sometimes wealthy managers/bosses or professionals. The petit–bourgeois generally side with capitalists if they are comfortable with their livelihood within the system or if they aspire to make it to the "big time".

Karl Marx – Widely considered to be the father of modern socialism (the term he used was communism). Marx was one of the first to articulate the exploitive nature of capitalism. Many of the concepts and much of the language used in this essay was either coined or popularized by Marx.

Labor alienation – is the feeling of detachment from the result or product of one’s work. Marx’s theory of labor alienation states that in capitalism a human being is reduced to a machine that has little control over his or her life and his or her work, individuality is crushed. In capitalism a person is coerced into selling their labor to any employer that will accept them, this employer then makes the rules and gives the orders, the employee is forced into subservience. What the worker produces individually or in concert with others is taken from them to be sold to often anonymous and unknown consumers. Whether the worker provides a service or produces a product there is often the feeling that one is not working for the betterment of the community or others but simply for a wage and for the benefit of the employer, as the employer exorbitantly charges the recipient and then takes a cut of the profit rendered. In capitalism many come to realize that their work is more fit for an emotionless robot for they are actually not producing or providing anything to others but only managing capitalist function (e.g. check out cashiers, bank tellers, accountants, etc.) for the acquisition of a wage. Through inter-workplace competition and enmity that thrives in capitalism workers are also alienated from one another in the process of their work. Alienation from family and friends also occurs and is a result of long hours and the fact that people are often forced to relocate in order to find higher wages.

The reserve army of labor – those who are not employed within the capitalist system. The reserve army of labor help the capitalists by keeping wages low – for the capitalist can always fire an employee or employees who want higher wages or better conditions and bring in new employees from the reserve army who will work for the lower wage or in poor conditions. When there is a large reserve army of labor the employers have the upper hand, they can lower wages, take away benefits or breaks, and fire anyone they deem unsatisfactory. Many people are paid to remain unemployed (via unemployment insurance) by the state because they serve this vital purpose within capitalism (the state also realizes that this is a portion of society that needs to be pacified so that they do not revolt or get out of hand).

Reformism – the idea that capitalism can be slowly reformed into a benign system where societal problems and suffering are minimized. It should be noted that working for specific reforms – higher wages, more say in the workplace, the right to unionize, etc. – are worth fighting for and can be beneficial for the working class as a whole but we should not be conned into thinking that reforms alone will bring about a society worthy of being called socially just, i.e. reformism.

Welfare state – a capitalist state that attempts to create a kinder, gentler capitalism by the use of reforms, i.e. social safety nets (various forms of welfare, nationalized health insurance, minimum wage requirements, etc.). A welfare state may buy the citizens of the said country some security in the short run but because there is no ultimate change in the economic and political structure – no movement toward socialism or radical democracy – the wealthy still have the most political clout (concentration of wealth = concentration of power – see plutocracy); because of this there is always the opportunity to scale back or completely scrap reforms. In addition the welfare state serves the capitalist class by pacifying the working class - it eases symptoms of capitalist disorder but does not cure the underlying illness therefore perpetuating capitalist exploitation. The welfare state does nothing for the third world working class and quite probably makes their conditions worse. Most advanced capitalist nations employ the welfare state model to a certain extent. Only advanced capitalist nations have reached the level where they can effectively exploit labor from abroad - this allows the ruling class to be able to make concessions to national workers as most of the labor is exported anyway; obviously the benefits of the welfare state are not extended to those workers of the third world.

Vanguard party – a party of professional politicians who campaign for political power in order to represent the interests of a class or another group of people. A form of vanguardism was first proposed by the socialist Louis Auguste Blanqui and was put into action by Vladimir Lenin in Russia (via the Bolsheviks), because of this, the view that socialist revolution can only be brought about by a vanguard party or an elite, intellectual cadre is generally known as Leninism (or sometime Blanquism). Leninism is fundamentally flawed as socialism cannot be imposed on society, it can only be brought about when the majority of the working class understands and wants it. The interests of the working class can only be genuinely represented by the working class itself, democratically, without rulers.

Anarchism – anarchism means literally “without rulers” (an – without, archy – rule/rulers), without rulers does not mean without law or without order. Anarchism (more specifically social anarchism) though often erroneously thought to be a synonym of disorder is actually a centuries old political philosophy that advocates a system of organization in which the people govern themselves (practice self management) via direct democracy and provide for one another voluntarily without wages and without buying and selling i.e. libertarian socialism. The popular "circle A" symbol is the letter "A" surrounded by the letter "O" and stands for "anarchy is order". Anarchists generally advocate the organization of the working class into collectives, confederations, and militant, working class unions, i.e. syndicalism. Examples of anarchism in practice: Spain during the Spanish Revolution, the Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities, The Paris Commune, recent workplace occupations in Argentina, early Kibbutzim collectives, Bushmen tribes, Tolstoyan communes, etc.

Consumerism – the belief that money and the buying of more goods can result in happiness and fulfillment. Although some things are absolutely essential and others may bring us enjoyment no one attains true happiness or fulfillment through the acquisition of more "stuff". Consumerism is not merely wanting the necessary things in life that bring comfort; consumerism is an obsessive desire to want to buy more and more in hopes of achieving contentment.

Direct democracy – democracy literally means rule by the people. Direct democracy is a form of democracy in which the people as a whole make the decisions that affect them, rather than have those decisions made for them by elected representatives or by dictators and kings. The problem with representative democracies (republics) is that the "representatives" often fail to represent their constituents and when they do so they are nearly impossible to impeach/recall. They most likely will represent corporations and businesses that have funneled them money. Direct democratic societies and organizations often attempt to reach decisions based on consensus. A direct democracy would also implement protections for individual autonomy via a constitution or some sort of declaration of principles.

Plutocratic – characteristic of a plutocracy. A plutocracy is a society ruled and ran by the wealthy.

Sleep Paralysis and Hypnagogic/Hypnapompic Hallucinations

2009-05-26T23:41:00.001-07:00

I decided to write a little bit about sleep paralysis and some common perceptive phenomena after encountering so much bogus and ridiculous information concerning these things on the internet. Sleep paralysis accompanied by hypnagogic or hypnapompic hallucinations, may be extremely disturbing if one has no idea what is happening and especially if one has received misinformation which informs them that they are being possessed by demons, abducted by aliens, or that they are experiencing “astral catalepsy”, etc., etc. It is important that people receive accurate information concerning these experiences because understanding of what these experiences actually are allows you to remain calm and get through them without a significant amount of stress, whereas misinformation may make these experiences even more stressful and confusing for the individual.

I have experienced sleep paralysis several times in my life. The first couple times happened several years ago and were terrifying because I had no idea what was going on. The first time I awoke but found myself frozen in bed, at the foot of my bed I saw a tall man looking solemnly down at me, after about 10 or 15 seconds I was able to move, I sat up in a panic and the hallucination disappeared. The second incidence I can remember occurred without hallucinations; I again was paralyzed, this time I was lying on my stomach in bed and felt overwhelming panic as if I was dead but somehow still conscious, I could not open my eyes or move at all, I felt as though it was difficult to breathe. After these first couple incidents I did some research and this is when it became apparent to me that anyone looking for information on sleep paralysis must sift through loads of baseless pseudoscientific or paranormal explanations. Just recently I experienced sleep paralysis for the third time and I hallucinated again, this time the hallucination was auditory, I heard an extremely loud screeching sound like someone was scratching a fork on a plate along with a demonic sounding roaring and hissing sound. This time I was not frightened because I knew what I was experiencing and that the paralysis/hallucinations would subside shortly. When I regained the ability to move, I awoke to hear a jet plane's loud roar fading into the distance (which my unconscious mind interpreted to be a cacophony of malevolent beings).

Sleep paralysis occurs when one awakens from REM sleep (Rapid Eye Movement sleep – the stage of sleep in which dreams occur) but the REM atonia, the state of paralysis that occurs during this stage of sleep, has not yet subsided. The person experiencing sleep paralysis is often in a state of consciousness between being awake and asleep and may experience what are known as hypnapompic (upon waking) or hypnagogic (upon falling asleep) hallucinations. These may be vivid as in seeing people or creatures in the room. People who have experienced vivid hypnagogic or hypnapompic hallucinations often describe seeing shadow people, aliens, vanishing ghosts, or small human-like creatures. Hypnagogic and hypnapompic hallucinations may be less vivid and resemble geometric shapes, fractals, or figures. These hallucinations may also be auditory (hearing your name being called, loud voices, screeching, crashes or booms, hissing or roaring), tactile (sensations of pressure or touching on the body), or they may seem to be extra-sensory, as in sensing a menacing presence nearby. Hypnagogic and hypnapompic hallucinations can occur independently of sleep paralysis.

Sleep paralysis is relatively common but it usually occurs infrequently, maybe only once or twice in a person’s lifetime, some people with sleep disorders experience it chronically. In healthy individuals it is thought to be sometimes caused by drugs that effect sleep such as caffeine, THC, and alcohol; It may also be caused by stress and disrupted sleep patterns. Many neurologists believe alien abduction reports and some ghost stories can be attributed to sleep paralysis and accompanying hypnapompic or hypnagogic hallucinations.

Some Common Types of Perceptive Phenomena:

Blue Field Entoptic Phenomenon

This is an entoptic (occurring withing the eye) phenomenon in which someone sees what looks like thousands of rapidly moving worms or bright dots when staring at a “blue field” or a lightly colored field like the blue sky or a white wall. What is actually being seen are thousands of white blood cells moving through the retinal capillaries. The white blood cells do not absorb light (especially blue light) as well as the red blood cells do and therefore create little bright spots in our vision which move very rapidly, as they are rushing through the capillaries. This is something I had noticed for years before I knew what it was, some people never notice this phenomenon until it is pointed out to them...some may not even notice it then. When I first started to research these rapidly moving and swirling dots I came across a website which offered an explanation that quickly set off my bullshit detector, it stated some people can view “energies” and can see them swirling around in space when staring at the sky – complete nonsense and more proof that we must be discretionary and seek out only explanations that are scientifically based.

Phosphenes

A phosphene is a type of entoptic phenomenon in which light or colors are seen without actual light entering the eye. The most common phosphene is the pressure phosphene in which external or internal pressure on the eye stimulates the retina causing the appearance of colors and light, many have experienced this while rubbing their closed eyes. Phosphenes can also be generated by magnetic or electrical stimulation.

Prisoner’s Cinema

Prisoner’s cinema is a perceptive phenomenon in which colorful lights are seen after prolonged periods in the absence of light. These lights often take on the shapes of humans, animals and other objects. This phenomenon is most commonly reported by people who have experienced sensory deprivation, such as prisoner’s who have been forced into dark isolation cells – hence the name. Prisoner's cinema is thought to be caused by phosphenes and psychological phenomena associated with sensory deprivation. I have found that it may only take as little as a half an hour to induce this phenomenon in complete darkness. It is certain that many “paranormal” experiences can be attributed to this phenomenon.

Aura

An aura is what epileptics and migraine sufferers sometimes experience before an attack. These are typically scotomas (blind spots in the field of vision) and lights but can also manifest as auditory, gustatory, or olfactory hallucinations.

Afterimages

This is a phenomenon in which an object previously in one’s field of vision remains there, usually in negative form, after one looks away. This type of optical illusion is entirely normal and involves the tiring of “rod” or “cone” receptors in the retina.

Floaters

Floating thread like objects that are commonly seen when looking at light surfaces or the sky. Floaters are a type of entoptic (occuring within the eye) phenomena that are usually the result of natural changes and partial solidification of the vitreous humor (the gel that fills the eyeball), and are usually not indicative of a problem.

Humanism: a Response to Nihilism and Existentialism

2009-03-15T20:20:00.000-07:00

Nihilism is a philosophy of negation; this negation can take many forms: a negation of life's meaning, of morality, of objective knowledge, etc. Nihilism has been a common topic explored by philosophers, especially in the last 200 years or so. In this essay I will be addressing the two forms most commonly discussed in philosophy and most important sociologically: existential and moral nihilism. Although they may not be identified as being the causative factor, certain nihilistic views create many of the problems we see in contemporary society, e.g. amoralism (which plays a factor in violence and other forms of abuse), self-destructive hedonism (drug abuse, unsafe and promiscuous sex, etc.), depression, suicide and apathy/inaction. Bear in mind that individuals with nihilistic views are not necessarily knowledgeable about philosophical concepts.

Moral Nihilism

Moral nihilists hold the view that morality is meaningless as it is only an invention of the human mind - therefore nothing is "right" or "wrong". I believe the general premise of moral nihilism is accurate - morality is invented by humans, it does not exist independent of us - but I do not arrive at the same amoral conclusion as moral nihilists. I do believe we can develop a method sufficient for making ethical decisions as to what is right and what is wrong: a humanistic (based on scientific reason, not religious dogma) morality that is not only compassionate and just but pragmatic as well. The basis of this morality is that it is immoral to cause the suffering of any being capable of sentience, i.e. capable of experiencing suffering. With the only exception being temporary suffering that is necessary in order to treat illness or injury and the suffering inflicted by the use of defensive force against an aggressor's attack. Any concrete morality must be based on this strict precept otherwise it becomes too open to the human tendency to rationalize that which is clearly harmful to others. An obvious implication of this morality is that it will extend beyond our current sphere of moral concern, i.e. our own species and a few "cute" species of non-human animals. Although our current standard of morality falls short of this there is much evidence to support the idea that our collective ethical views are progressing in this direction.

Since the beginning of recorded civilization we know that humans developed moral codes or philosophies. These moral codes/philosophies provided the framework for societal laws. Moral codes or systems of ethics are a human invention - nothing more than an attempt to create a system of order and justice in society - a necessity for social animals like humans who recognize that a just society is in everyone's best interest. The cliche of the carrot and the stick summarizes how moral systems work in human society: all social animals being dependent upon mutual aid for survival often come to understand that to behave in what is considered to be ethical and therefore socially acceptable ways is in line with their own self-interest, to do otherwise would be to ostracize oneself and to jeopardize one's survival. In this way the idea of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" becomes "the carrot". Also, our ability to empathize with others compels us to want to behave in a way that is beneficent or "moral" and if that empathetic imperative should fail "the stick" of societal law creates negative consequences for unethical behavior. Problems invariably arise when societies do not have a rational basis for the underlying system of ethics or morality which laws are constructed upon. In the US societal laws are constructed in reference to the US Constitution - an imperfect document to be sure - but a vast improvement over religion-based laws common to theocracies. The US Constitution was not based on specific religious dogma as it was mainly authored by the secularist freethinker James Madison.

Primitive cultures and many contemporary cultures often did base their morality on religious moral codes. Due to a lack of proper understanding most religious moral codes are not based on empirical evidence or compassionate consideration of other sentient beings but more often than not on misconceptions and prejudices. For this reason religious morality has failed to create truly just societies. Religious based morality (excluding some of the eastern "theophilosophies", e.g. Buddhism, Jainism) is best described as a false morality: its intent is not to prevent suffering or create liberty, tolerance, pluralism, and social order but to create conformity, obedience and antipathy for anything alien thus leading to a strict tribal or group unity. Tribal or group unity is usually a good thing but when combined with a dogma-inspired enmity toward outside groups (groups with other religions) a recipe for conflict is created. Perhaps due to a violent climate of scarcity this tribal unity at the expense of endemic warfare was seen to be in the best interest of the "common good" of one's own group. This deadly recipe for conflict now only serves to unite disparate groups in the slaughter of one another as technology shrinks the distance between them. Modern society can now, if people demand it, eschew this anachronistic morality and formulate societal law based on humanistic ethics, i.e. ethics based on reason and empathy, instead of religious dogma. This emergence of humanistic ethics is increasingly seen in communities and subcultures that use direct democratic systems of organization and in countries where protections are in place to prevent the entanglement of religion and government. When human society as a whole does away with theocracy and commits itself to higher ideals such as equality and participatory democracy, then we may see the first human society that is worthy of being called socially just.

Existential Nihilism

Existential nihilism is the view that existence has no inherent meaning or purpose. Religion that posits the existence of an afterlife could also be considered a type of existential nihilism as it devalues this life as merely a waiting room for the supposed paradise to come. Passive nihilism is the term used by some philosophers to signify the acceptance of this view coupled with a resultant resignation to apathy. Passive nihilism is characterized by feelings of despair, anxiety, ennui, confusion, or indifference; to a passive nihilist, life and all of one’s endeavors are trivial because of perceived meaninglessness. Attempts to better society or one's life seem pointless to the passive nihilist. Passive nihilism is a type of defeatism usually culminating in self-destructive hedonism and depression - a despondent view that many have experienced, from atheists to the religious who suffer a crisis of faith; some have given up on life after coming to such a bleak conclusion.

Existentialism

I, like many others who have grappled with the absurd and uncaring nature of the universe, eventually progressed from this bleak outlook of passive nihilism to that of existentialism (or active nihilism), a positive view that accepts that life has no inherent meaning or purpose but goes on to declare a sense of liberation due to the fact that we are free from the imagined confines of fatalism or subservience to a deity. Existentialism asserts that as conscious beings who crave a purpose for living (a raison d'être) we must create our own meaning and purpose for our existence. Simply put, the meaning of life to an existentialist is that which he or she gives to it. Ironically most individuals who develop an existentialist outlook, though once shocked by the realization of existential nihilism, could not imagine themselves happy any other way. I for one could never be happy as a slave made to worship a creator who manufactured some "purpose" for my life without my input in the matter. Some who come to hold the existentialist view progress further to embrace the philosophy of secular humanism.

Secular Humanism

Secular humanism (sometimes just referred to as humanism) is a form of existentialism that goes a step beyond. It makes all of the declarations of existentialism but then states a method by which we may derive our ethics and how we can best provide meaning for our existence. A humanist has come to the conclusion that the universe and our lives do not appear to be divinely governed, nor is there any apparent prefabricated purpose or objective meaning for our existence, but asserts that despite this we can ascribe meaning and purpose to our lives by helping one another and striving for a better future. A humanist has come to understand that there is nothing that compares to the positive feeling of knowing that you are making the world a better place than it would have been had you not existed. Humanists focus on the joy and pleasure that can be found in life in spite of the negative realities of existence and we draw strength from a sense of solidarity with others that comes from recognizing that we are all in this together. Corliss Lamont defined modern humanism in this way, "I would say that it is a philosophy of joyous service for the greater good of all humanity in this natural world and advocating the methods of reason, science, and democracy."

Humanists base their morality on scientific reasoning and by focusing and relying on the more noble aspects of our psyches, such as the human sense of empathy and compassion for fellow sentient beings. A simplified explanation of reason driven morality is based on the idea that actions that have a negative impact on oneself and others are generally immoral actions, those which have a positive or even a neutral effect are considered good (moral) or acceptable. Abraham Lincoln, who was often critical of organized religion, succinctly expressed this by stating, "When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion." The use of science is of utmost importance to humanists though we recognize that science alone will not give us all of the answers or tell us what is always the best course of action; we must also rely upon our compassion for others, and all the varieties of human expression and thought. Humanists are progressive thinkers, we strive for a world of equals, free from wars of conquest and conversion; we are extremely concerned about our environment and developing better and more ethical ways to live together. Central to humanism is the need for enforcement of human rights and a genuine democracy by a well informed and educated public.

Humanism seeks to combat not only nihilism-inspired apathy but also the arresting influence of dogmatic religion on cultural progress. This is apparent as we can see that humanism in our time is most concerned with refuting the continued surge of religious fundamentalism and extremism in an attempt to free our fellow humans from the bonds of intellectual slavery. Although this is a necessary and noble aim I disagree with some of the tactics being used. I feel that too much of our energy and creativity is being directed toward evangelizing freethought instead of focusing on the positive attributes of humanist philosophy. Humanism will not stand a chance of usurping the dominance of religion if it cannot provide what religion currently does. We must offer an alternative to religion that eschews the negative aspects of religion but retains the positive: the humanitarianism, the social support network, and the sense of purpose. More than anything humanism must become a radical force for social change and social justice, for as long as we live in a world where there is widespread suffering passive nihilism will plague society and religion will always be around as a tantalizing political tool for some and an opiate-like form of escape for others. We cannot sit on the fence any longer and allow capitalism to ravage the planet while billions remain impoverished, to do so is beyond immoral. Until we destroy the societal conditions (poverty, inequality, etc.) that allow moral or passive nihilism, blind conservatism and religiosity to thrive we will constantly be fighting an uphill battle.

The History of Christmas and the so-called 'War on Christmas'

2009-03-15T20:19:00.001-07:00

by Brian Ellis

The majority of Christians I have met know very little about the origins of the Christmas holiday, just as they know very little of the history and origin of their religion. The following is a short history lesson on the origins and history of the Christmas holiday.

Christmas, which is widely believed to be the commemoration of the birth of Jesus was not always celebrated by Christians. In fact, Christmas (at first called the Feast of the Nativity) was not celebrated until the fourth century (300 some years after 33 CE - the year that Christians believe Jesus was crucified and resurrected), when the early Christian church created the holiday. The bible never mentions the date of Jesus' birth, so we have no way of knowing exactly when Jesus was born. Most historians and scholars agree that Jesus, if he existed, would not have been born in the month of December. One of the main reasons that the date has been deemed improbable is based on scripture. In Luke 2:8 it says, "shepherds were keeping watch over their flocks by night." Historians note that shepherds only tended their flocks at night from spring to autumn, due to the harsh winter climate. But there was certainly motivation to designate the December 25th date as Jesus' birthday since many of the Christ-like savior deities that preceded Jesus also had that birth date, not to mention the astronomical significance of the Winter Solstice. * It is likely that the early Christian Church chose the December 25th date in order to make the Christmas celebration occur at the same time as the contemporary and popular Pagan celebrations of Saturnalia (a holiday in honor of the god Saturn) and Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (birthday of the savior-god, Mithra, the invincible sun). 1 By making these celebrations coincide Christmas could subvert and eventually replace these Pagan holidays and this was effectively accomplished by 394 after the edict of Theodosius I outlawed Paganism in Rome. 2

Christmas in America

Christmas was not celebrated in early America and was even outlawed in certain areas for a time. Most of the Pilgrims that came to America were Puritans and they considered Christmas celebrations to be blasphemy. They knew December 25th had nothing to do with the birth of Jesus and that Christmas was actually a holiday invented by the early Catholic Church and that it had absorbed many Pagan traditions. Christmas did not gain popularity in the U.S. until the 1840s (thanks to Charles Dicken's stories) and was not declared a federal holiday until June 26th, 1870. December 25th was such an insignificant date in early America that Congress was in session December 25th, 1789, the country's first Christmas under the Constitution. 3

Modern Christmas celebrations are an amalgamation of Christian and Pagan traditions, Santa Claus folklore and mythology. Many of the Christmas traditions originate from the ancient solstice festival, Yule, celebrated by Germanic Pagan tribes. Decorating evergreen trees (originally called Yule trees but now known as Christmas trees), Yule logs, ham feasts, stocking stuffing, gift giving, caroling (started by ancient Roman Mummers), holly and mistletoe are all examples of Pagan traditions associated with Christmas. Ironically there is plenty of biblical scripture that admonishes believers not to involve themselves with any sort of Pagan traditions.

Recently right-wing pundits like Bill O'Reilly have popularized the idea of a war on Christmas waged by "secular progressives". O'Reilly believes that attempts to make the holiday season more inclusive, and thereby more enjoyable for everyone, are attempts to destroy Christian traditions and Christianity itself. These pundits are most likely unaware that Christmas is essentially a Christianized form of the Pagan Yule celebration and that their "besieged holiday" is not the anniversary of Jesus' birth. Nor do they seem to be aware of the biblical admonishments against boastful displays of faith or the fact that no one is attacking the freedom to celebrate Christmas or worship. I have to admit that I do find a bit of comical irony in watching or listening to sanctimonious Christians become incensed about the disappearance of mostly Pagan traditions from the public sphere.

Secular Alternatives to Christmas

You do not have to be religious to enjoy Christmas and the holiday season. Christmas has became more of a cultural holiday than a religious one and many non-religious folks simply enjoy the time with family and friends and opt out of any overtly religious traditions, preferring the mostly secularized holiday traditions. Humanist or freethought groups commonly celebrate the winter solstice (including Lincoln Secular Humanists). The winter solstice is a true celestial event, and a celebration of longer and sunnier days to come. In recent years the humanist celebration of hope and a brighter future, HumanLight – www.humanlight.org, has gained popularity. For a more irreverent holiday some choose to celebrate Festivus (for the rest of us), which was popularized by the sitcom "Seinfeld". Festivus involves erecting a celebratory aluminum pole, a traditional feast, an "airing of grievances" and the "feats of strength" in which the head of the household must be wrestled to the ground. And, of course the New Year's celebration is an entirely secular holiday and can be enjoyed by all. For a list of secular celebrations visit - www.secularseasons.org

Humanists do not wish to do away with Christmas or Christianity for that matter but would like to make sure that our government upholds the first amendment by keeping religious displays off of public and government property. We would also like to encourage a type of public atmosphere where everyone feels welcome and accepted, not one in which majority groups receive special treatment and acknowledgement. Humanists are unconcerned with the displays and celebrations that go on in the church or in someone's home. The use of neutral phrases like, "happy holidays" are not meant to detract from Christianity, they are only meant to be more inclusive and ensure that people of other religions and people without religious beliefs are not offended. In the spirit of the HumanLight celebration I look forward to a future in which everyone is free to practice whatever religion they choose or none at all and celebrate whatever holiday they wish comfortably; a future where overt religious displays on public property, which imply the government endorsement of one religion over another, are not tolerated.

Sources:
1. "Pagan Christs" by Joseph McCabe, pg 10 – 13
2. "Theodosius I", Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912
3. http://www.historychannel.com/christmas
* Deities (and semi-deities) said to have been born on December 25th: Attis, Horus, Dionysus, Mithras, Hercules, etc.

Atheism vs. Humanism

2009-03-15T20:17:00.000-07:00

What’s the Difference Between Atheism and Humanism?

Written by Brian Ellis, atheist, and more specifically, secular humanist...............

Although most secular humanists consider themselves atheists (or agnostics) the terms secular humanist and atheist are not synonymous. Atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in a god or gods, the label 'atheist' tells you nothing about what one actually believes in or how they arrived at their conclusion. Atheism says nothing about ones belief in other supernatural conceptions e.g. belief in an afterlife, reincarnation, ghosts, spirits, leprechauns, etc., nor is there a unifying belief in atheism; atheists may be humanitarians or murderers, democrats or dictators. On the other hand the more specific term secular humanist means one who uses scientific reasoning tempered with a compassionate and empathetic respect for all life as a way of living, making decisions and understanding the world.

Since secular humanists base their worldview on science we naturally eschew dogma and belief in the merit of unexamined tradition. Secular humanists with their dedication to the scientific method are methodological naturalists. Methodological naturalism states that the universe is best understood by using the scientific method i.e. hypotheses should be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of anything considered supernatural or immaterial. Therefore, supernatural hypotheses such as intelligent design, which are by definition untestable and which forego the methodological naturalism of science are not considered viable hypotheses by secular humanists. Gods, in the traditional religious sense, are supernatural conceptions – secular humanists are either atheistic or agnostic about their existence. Secular humanists recognize that it is up to us to solve our problems and understand that prayer or appeals to a 'higher power' accomplish nothing other than catharsis.

Secular humanists are very concerned about the effect religion has on our world and want to promote an alternative to religious belief. We generally have a different approach than the 'hard-line atheists', who view religion as wholly evil and damaging. Although we may agree with this view in certain circumstances, as in the case of fundamentalist or literalist religious sects, we understand that religious belief is more nuanced than that and cannot be categorically vilified. We recognize that religion has been both good and bad throughout history and that religion may have once been necessary for humanity's survival. Religion also serves as a coping mechanism in many peoples' lives that helps them to deal with the pain we all experience in living – loss of loved ones, facing ones own death, disappointment, failed relationships, illness, etc. Although a religious person's belief may be false the joy and relief they obtain from their beliefs is very real – we do not wish to destroy this belief by ridicule and leave the ex-believer wounded, despondent and nihilistic. Instead we hope to replace their religious belief with a rational alternative that addresses the need for hope which we all have and which religion attempts to satisfy with only empty promises.

Secular humanists would prefer to live in a world where religious belief is less prevalent because we know that religious myths are no longer needed and that religion can be divisive and destructive and has definitely been so in the past. Despite this want for change secular humanists strongly support religious freedom – the freedom to practice whichever religion you choose or to practice no religion at all. We feel the best way to counter religiosity is by making our views known and accepted in hopes of appealing to those who have their doubts and are unsatisfied by their religion or those who have escaped religious indoctrination (by not being exposed to it or by resisting it). Secular humanists generally agree that a more ethical and just society would have less of a need for religion. The desperation of poverty and the lack of education certainly play a significant role in encouraging religiosity and often religious extremism and religious-inspired terrorism. One of the best ways secular humanists can promote the secular humanist lifestance is by working towards a better future, one in which people would be less apt to turn towards the irrationality of religion for comfort.

Because of our focus on empathy secular humanists embrace a progressive political stance that emphasizes democracy, egalitarianism, secularism (separation of church and state), and caring and providing for all of humanity, non-human animals, and the planet. Secular humanists count the members of liberal religious denominations among their allies. We believe working together with people who share common goals to be more important than whatever philosophical or theological differences we may have. Since we hold no dogmas humanists do not necessarily agree on everything, despite this, our shared method of coming to conclusions sees that we tend to agree on many issues. For instance members of LSH share nearly 100% agreement on many issues, here are some examples:

Social justice/Putting an end to poverty
Equal rights for homosexuals
Gender equality
Fighting homophobia and racism
Abortion and birth control rights (reproductive freedom)
Abolishing the death penalty
Legalizing physician assisted euthanasia for the terminally ill
Fighting mistreatment and stigmatization of the mentally ill
Reducing incarceration rates of non-violent offenders
Concern for the environment and reducing the harm being caused
Concern for animal welfare
Freedom of religion and from religion/Church and State separation
The importance of a democratically controlled society
Support for stem-cell research
Free speech rights
Equal access to adequate healthcare

In summary, secular humanism is more than merely disbelief in god/s, it is a ethical philosophy - a way to live an ethical and fulfilling life. It is my hope that secular humanist becomes a more widely understood and used label since it is more informative than the label of atheist or agnostic. ..............

Why We should Abolish Columbus Day

2009-03-15T20:16:00.001-07:00

by Brian Ellis.

Columbus Day is a federal holiday in the U.S. The United States honors only two men with federal holidays bearing their names, ironically one of them fought racism - Martin Luther King, Jr., and the other was a genocidal racist - Christopher Columbus. When we celebrate Columbus Day we are honoring a man who helped initiate the holocaust of the indigenous peoples of the Americas and the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Furthermore, Columbus never set foot in the land we call the United States or even North America, nor was he the first explorer to reach the "New World". Columbus’ arrival in the New World was preceded by the Norse explorer Leif Ericson and possibly others. The true discoverers of the land Columbus encountered are the ancestors of the native peoples who were living here when Columbus arrived. In fact, Columbus never knew or claimed that he had happened upon land off the coast of a new, unexplored continent, he always believed he was in the Indies. It wasn’t until after Columbus’s death that Amerigo Vespucci demonstrated that Columbus had discovered new land. Unfortunately the education system of the United States has failed to teach the entire truth about Christopher Columbus. Most students learn the bland facts about Columbus - "sailed the ocean blue in 1492", "the ships were the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria," etc., but they do not learn about the murder, the rape, the enslavement, the torture and the spread of Christianity by the sword.

The Truth about Christopher Columbus

Before making his voyage across the Atlantic, Columbus made a living as a trader, transporting cargo to Portugal, Spain and Italy.. In 1492 Columbus persuaded the king and queen of Spain to let him set sail in hopes of finding a shorter and faster western route to the Orient in order to procure gold and spices for Spain with the promise he would keep 10% of the profits. It is a myth that Columbus was attempting to prove that the Earth was round; the knowledge of the Earth’s spherical shape was widespread by the 15th century and had been understood by many academics and navigators since the 4th century [Source: Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians, Russell, Jeffrey Burton 1991, Praeger, New York, Westport, London 199]. What was not known was the exact circumference of the Earth. Columbus had greatly underestimated the planet’s size and this is why he believed he could travel west across the Atlantic and reach Asia and the Indies more quickly. On his journey to Asia (which he never would have made it to), Columbus instead stumbled upon the Bahamas archipelago, which he believed to be the East Indies and mistakenly named the peaceful and generous Taíno (or Arawak) peoples he encountered "Indians". In his journal Columbus writes: "They... brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned.... They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features.... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane.... They would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want."

The first thing Columbus did upon arriving was capture some of the natives and demand to know where the gold was (he knew there was gold around because the native people were wearing gold jewelry). Columbus wrote in his log: "As soon as I arrived in the Indies, on the first Island which I found, I took some of the natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in these parts." In order to ensure the captured people would return with gold Columbus instituted a tribute system, it was simple but effective - every Taíno over the age of fourteen had to supply a hawk's bell (roughly one ounce) of gold every three months; those who did were given a token to wear around their necks as proof that they had made their payment; those caught without tokens would have their hands cut off with swords and were left to bleed to death [Ward Churchill, Indians Are Us?: Culture and Genocide in Native North America (Common Courage Press, 1994)]. After acquiring as much gold as he could (and anything else considered to be valuable), Columbus and his men kidnapped approximately 25 Taíno people to be sold into slavery in Spain, only 7 or 8 survived the voyage [James W. Loewen (1995). Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong].

This discovery set off a series of expeditions that Columbus was to lead in order to colonize the new land and acquire gold, slaves and anything else of value. Columbus was soon appointed as "Governor and Viceroy" of the newly-formed Spanish colonies and under his rule over 5 million natives were killed and millions more were enslaved within 3 years [Actual survey conducted in 1496 by Bartolome de Las Casas, cited in J.B. Thatcher, Christopher Columbus, Vol. 2 (Source: New York: Putnam Sons Publishers, 1903-1904), p. 348ff. cited in Churchill]. The Taíno population declined from 8 million (just before 1492) to 28,000 in just over twenty years – a 99% population decline. [Kirkpatrick Sale, The Conquest of Paradise: Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy (NY: Plume Books, 1991) pp. 160-161].

Some of the best accounts we have of the atrocities committed against the Indigenous Peoples are those described by Bartolomé de las Casas. Las Casas, was a Spanish friar who emigrated with his father in 1502 to the Caribbean island of Hispaniola (modern day Haiti/Dominican Republic). Las Casas became well-known for his advocacy of the rights of the Indigenous Peoples. In his book, The Devastation of the Indies: A Brief Account, he recalls how he witnessed, "cruelty on a scale no living being has ever seen or expects to see." In the passages below from The Devastation of the Indies, Las Casas describes in chilling detail the brutality of the men under Columbus:

"The Christians, with their horses and swords and pikes began to carry out massacres and strange cruelties against [the Indians]. They attacked the towns and spared neither the children nor the aged, nor pregnant women nor women in childbed, not only stabbing and dismembering them but cutting them to pieces as if dealing with sheep in the slaughterhouse. They laid bets as to who, with one stroke of the sword could split a man in two or could cut off his head…They took infants from their mothers' breasts, snatching them by the legs and pitching them headfirst against the crags. They made some low, wide gallows on which the hanged victim's feet almost touched the ground, stringing up their victims, in lots of thirteen, in memory of Our Redeemer and His twelve Apostles, then set burning wood at their feet and thus burned them alive."

"A Spaniard...suddenly drew his sword. Then the whole hundred drew theirs and began to rip open the bellies, to cut and kill [a group of Taíno assembled for this purpose] men, women, children and old folk, all of whom were seated, off guard and frightened...And within two credos, not a man of them there remains alive. The Spaniards enter the large house nearby, for this was happening at its door, and in the same way, with cuts and stabs, began to kill as many as were found there, so that a stream of blood was running, as if a great number of cows had perished."

"In this time, the greatest outrages and slaughterings of people were perpetrated, whole villages being depopulated...The Indians saw that without any offense on their part they were despoiled of their kingdoms, their lands and liberties and of their lives, their wives, and homes. As they saw themselves each day perishing by the cruel and inhuman treatment of the Spaniards, crushed to earth by the horses, cut in pieces by swords, eaten and torn by dogs, many buried alive and suffering all kinds of exquisite tortures... [many surrendered to their fate, while the survivors] fled to the mountains [to starve]." "My eyes have seen these acts so foreign to human nature, and now I tremble as I write." [all passages from: Bartolome' de Las Casas, The Devastation of the Indies: A Brief Account (originally published in 1547) reprinted by Johns Hopkins Press, 1992.]

In light of these atrocities and the near extermination of an ethnic group it becomes apparent that honoring Columbus with a holiday is offensive and highly inappropriate for any nation that claims to respect human rights. I believe most Americans (once informed of the truth) would be outraged with the idea of honoring a slave trader with a holiday. So we must ask: why is Columbus Day so widely celebrated in the U.S.? Surely the white-washed and distorted history taught by most American schools is a major factor. In order to respect human rights and denounce racism, genocide, and imperialism we must recognize that Columbus's legacy does not warrant celebration and inform others of the historical truth. Teaching students to think of Columbus as a hero and glossing over the realities of his conquest is wrong. It is time to get rid of Columbus Day, and replace it with a federal holiday which honors the struggles of Indigenous Peoples against imperial conquest - Indigenous People's Day.

What can you do:

*Write your school board (feel free to include this article: http://brianpellis.blogspot.com/2009/03/abolish-columbus-day.html) and ask them to make sure their teachers are teaching their students the truth about Columbus.

*Print and distribute this article freely. Teachers, hand it out to students on Columbus Day.

*Organize a public protest of Columbus Day or a celebration of Indigenous People's Day in your community and hand out information. If you live in Lincoln, NE join us for our annual protest of Columbus Day on the second Monday in October, held in front of the Federal Building on 15th and O.

*Write a local, state, or federal representative about replacing Columbus day with an Indigenous People’s Day.

*Sign the petition to abolish Columbus Day and replace it with a new federal holiday - Indigenous People's Day: http://www.change.org/petitions/the-president-of-the-united-states-replace-the-federal-holiday-columbus-day-with-indigenous-peoples-day

Ask a Humanist - Comfort from Humanism?

2009-03-15T20:15:00.001-07:00

Ask a Humanist - Comfort from Humanism?

"What comfort do you get from your beliefs during times of loss?" – Question asked by an anonymous person via email.

Brian’s answer:

First, I should clarify that secular humanists do not believe something simply because it provides comfort, we believe something to be true because it is supported by evidence. We do not see compelling evidence for the existence of anything supernatural, like the existence of a soul or an afterlife, therefore, we have a naturalistic view of life and death. Comfort can be found in the naturalistic view. We accept that life is temporary and understand that death is the permanent loss of consciousness and nothing more. We do not have to fear whether or not we or a loved one will make it into heaven or be damned to eternal torment. We know that in death there is no suffering and those that have died no longer have to fight their illness or suffer their injuries. Although most people who call themselves humanists do not believe in a literal after-life, we know that people do live on in a way through the effect they have had on other people’s lives and the world. We can remember those we have lost and continue their life’s work, share their art or writing, remember their sense of humor, what we liked about them, and what they taught us.

Despite the lack of evidence, some individuals, whether they be religious or non-religious, may choose to believe in an afterlife because it makes them feel comfortable. There is nothing wrong with this belief in and of itself, but in some instances these unfounded beliefs have proven to be dangerous - some religious people believe they will be rewarded after death if they are martyred or die in battle against non-believers. It goes without saying that religious views on martyrdom have often inspired individuals to commit acts of violence when other non-violent options were available to them. In a more insidious way, the belief in an after-life causes harm by pacifying people with hopes of eternal paradise after their life is over; this belief may cause people to accept their suffering and bad living conditions instead of attempting to better their situation.

Humanists are aware that this is most likely our one and only life, and we want to make this life the best it can be for everyone. The only way to do that is by loving one another: caring for each other and working together to come up with rational solutions for our problems.

A Humanist Perspective on Routine Neonatal Circumcision

2009-03-15T20:14:00.001-07:00

Tradition, whether cultural or religious, is often viewed as exempt from criticism. Tradition's immunity to critical examination is reinforced by the fear of being offensive, or due to the fallacious assumption that age or popularity lends merit to an idea. Humanism has often been at odds with cultural, religious, and other traditions because Humanism seeks to examine traditional beliefs and practices critically through a scientific and empathetic lens. Such an examination often brings to light the negative aspects of traditional belief. This is why Humanism is often seen as an enemy to social conservatism, which is by definition tied to old, and often unexamined, traditions. Humanists should subject all traditions to unbiased examination in order to determine whether they are beneficial, detrimental or innocuous. Cultural traditions which are beneficial or neutral should be accepted or tolerated whereas traditions which cause unnecessary harm or otherwise violate human rights should be actively opposed. One such tradition is the practice of routine neonatal circumcision of male infants.

Genital mutilation, the alteration or removal of the external genitalia for non-medical reasons, takes a wide variety of forms and is performed for a number of different reasons. For example, some people choose to alter their genitals as a form of expression; this is known as body art or modification. There are also cases of elective procedures performed with patient consent for aesthetic reasons. These forms of genital alteration are not of concern because they are done for personal or medical reasons and are performed with the consent of the individual. Medically indicated procedures used to treat certain rare conditions are not considered mutilations for they have a solid medical purpose. However, neonatal circumcision is a form of genital mutilation which is performed without the consent of the patient and without solid medical justifications. Parents who give consent for the procedure by proxy may feel coerced by tradition or tenuous medical claims. Therefore the routine practice of neonatal circumcision should end.

A History of Routine Neonatal Circumcision

Religious ritual circumcision is antecedent to the modern tradition of cultural and secular (in this instance meaning not specifically motivated by religious dogma) neonatal circumcision. The ancient Egyptians practiced circumcision for religious reasons as did various other cultures though out history. According to the book of Exodus God commanded Abraham to circumcise himself and all of his male descendents as part of the covenant between God and Israel. The Abrahamic faiths Judaism and Islam both explicitly call for circumcision based upon this covenant. Any man marrying into Judaism and any slave purchased by an Israelite was also to be circumcised. The penalty for not observing the circumcision covenant was to be cut off from Israel. Male circumcision either in infancy or adolescence is still practiced by most Jewish and Islamic communities. Ritual circumcision very rarely involves the use of anesthetics as these procedures are usually not performed by medical professionals.

Circumcision of male infants is the most common surgical procedure performed in U.S. hospitals.¹ Based on the latest statistical data it is estimated that about 1.2 million infant boys are circumcised annually in the U.S. or about 63% of all newborn males. The percentage of newborns circumcised has been steadily decreasing since the mid 1970s, when circumcision reached its peak in the U.S., with about 85% of all newborns being circumcised. 70% (approx. 102 million men) of the current male population in the U.S. has been circumcised.² Before the 1900s routine circumcision in the U.S. was uncommon, usually being routinely practiced only by religious minorities.

In the 20th century many medical and mental health professionals began to assert that masturbation was the cause of myriad health problems and deviant behaviors: insanity, blindness, neuroses, epilepsy, impotence, gonorrhea, and criminal acts such as rape or sexual assault, etc. Because of these erroneous views and due to the belief that circumcision was a masturbation deterrent which made the act less pleasurable, circumcision gained popularity in the U.S. Although it does not prescribe circumcision, the prevailing religious belief in the U.S., Christianity, surely played a role in demonizing masturbation since many conservative Christians view any sexual act without the intent to fertilize, as sin; and perhaps due to the fact that Christians believe their messiah Jesus was circumcised.

Masturbation phobia reached its peak in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, producing a number of torture-inflicting chastity devices and radical surgical procedures, such as clitoridotomy, clitoridectomy, infibulation, and ovariotomy for females and cutting of the penile dorsal nerves, blistering of the glans, castration, full excision of the genitalia, circumcision, and surgical implantation of electrodes for males.³ Circumcision was viewed as the most humane method of achieving the desired effect of decreasing the urge to masturbate by most physicians.

The Purported Medical Benefits of Male Circumcision

As noted in the preceding paragraphs, routine circumcision prescribed as a medical prophylactic procedure is a relatively recent invention, beginning in the late 19^th century. During this time when little was known about the etiology of disease, circumcision was justified medically as a preventative measure against insanity, depravity, and a whole slew of medical conditions which today we know share no link to the anatomy of the penis. Today there is a continuing trend to try to justify the procedure in a medical context – it is often touted as a way of decreasing the risk of penile cancer, decreasing the incidence of urinary tract infection in newborns, and a guard against HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

The prevention of penile cancer is the most easily discredited claim of a medical justification for routine circumcision. Penile cancer is a rare disease in the United States (0.9 to 1 per 100,000),⁴ and the incidence of this disease is similarly low in countries which do not practice routine neonatal circumcison.⁵ As Sydney Gellis, M.D. writing for the American Journal of Diseases in Childhood states, "There are more deaths each year from circumcision than from cancer of the penis."⁶The American Medical Association corroborates, "because this disease is rare and occurs later in life, the use of circumcision as a preventive practice is not justified."⁷

Some studies suggest that circumcision may reduce the incidence of urinary tract infection (UTI) in the first year of life. One study (which is now widely discredited) shows a ten-fold decrease in the incidence of UTI in circumcised infants.⁸ These studies are often used to cite a solid, medical benefit of neonatal circumcision but, as the AMA states, "the reliability of these studies has been questioned due to the lack of controls for potential confounders such as prematurity, extent of breastfeeding, and the method of urine collection used to identify bacteriuria (presence of bacteria in the urine)."⁷ Premature babies and babies born ill are usually not circumcised due to their poor health; in these immunocompromised infants there is a higher risk of UTI. This would account for some of the higher incidences of UTI in the uncircumcised. The method of urine collection used to collect samples from uncircumcised infants, catheterization, may cause false bacteriuria (bacteria in the urine), an error overlooked by the researchers. Also, some of the UTIs in these hospital studies are thought to be iatrogenic (unintentionally caused by hospital staff or parents), due to the ill-advised instruction by doctors and nurses unfamiliar with the hygienic care of an intact penis, to forcibly retract the foreskin (which is naturally adhered throughout infancy and early childhood) and scrub the glans and underside of the foreskin. The reported preventative benefit of circumcision appears to be negligible when considering the overall low incidence of UTI in uncircumcised male infants (0.4%-1%)⁷ – it appears approximately 100 to 200 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent 1 UTI.^9,10 After factoring in the rate of circumcision complications and the ease of treating UTIs, routine amputation of normal penile anatomy for a small reduction in UTI risk (if one exists) is not even close to being medically justifiable.

There are similar problems with the findings which show a decreased risk of HIV infection in circumcised men. In these studies there has been shown to be a correlation between areas of sub-Saharan Africa where circumcision is commonly performed and a decrease in the incidence of HIV infection. As the medical historian, David L. Gollaher points out, "Circumcision is not random. It remains an expression of powerful cultural and religious ideas. Knowing this, we are apt to wonder whether the circumcised practice different hygiene, engage in different sexual behaviors, or even eat different foods than the uncircumcised." He also points out "the same mapping technique (which shows a correlation between circumcision and HIV infection in Africa) applied to North America would reveal the opposite correlation. The United States has far higher per-capita rates of both circumcision and HIV infection than Canada, but no one has pointed to circumcision to explain the difference."¹¹ In fact America leads the industrialized world in STI (including HIV) infections and circumcision. If circumcision provides protection why do we see such a high incidence of HIV infection? One theory proposes that the desensitization caused by circumcision leads men to promiscuity in an attempt to achieve satisfaction. Or it could be that circumcision plays little to no role at all and epidemiological differences can be accounted for by looking at the different economic and cultural factors of a certain population.

There are many other questions: Could the desensitization caused by circumcision make men less likely to wear condoms? Will sexually uneducated men view this purported protection circumcision offers as a reason to forgo the use of condoms? Does female genital mutilation (FGM) offer any protection against HIV or other STIs - if foreskin tissue creates a greater risk for HIV in men what about the labia or clitoral hood (or prepuce) of females? It should be noted that FGM Type 1a - the removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce - is analogous to male circumcision. If certain forms of FGM offer protection it is unlikely that it would be implemented due to its rightful stigmatization in the west, which shows that there is a cultural bias at work. If some medical professionals are willing to genitally mutilate infant boys for equivocal (at best) protection from disease one must ask why they are not proposing or further investigating similar procedures on women?

Even if circumcision is shown to provide a significant protection against HIV infection, it is surely unethical to amputate body parts from non-consenting patients. Sexual education and distributing and encouraging the use of condoms is a more sensible and ethical way to prevent HIV infection than routine genital mutilation. While not opposing non-consensual genital mutilation outright, the American Academy of Pediatrics provides a fair summary, "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."¹²

Routine Male Neonatal Circumcision; What Is It and What Does It Do?

Routine neonatal circumcision of the male is the partial or complete removal of the foreskin (prepuce), which protects the sensitive glans penis (head of the penis) and urinary meatus (urethral opening) when the penis is not erect. The procedure is performed soon after birth. There are several methods by which circumcision may be performed, most involving the use of a clamp which fits around the foreskin to aid in cutting and hemostasis (the stoppage of bleeding) and a scalpel blade. No matter which method is used, they all accomplish the same end – amputation of the foreskin and occasionally the prepucial frenulum – an erogenous zone that is similar to the anchoring flap of skin on the underside of the tongue. Prior to the procedure the infant is commonly placed on a circumcision restraint board with straps for securing the infants limbs. All neonatal circumcision techniques begin by ripping away the foreskin, which is naturally adhered to the glans in infants and young boys in much the same way a fingernail is adhered to the nail bed. This is done by inserting a probe into the opening of the foreskin, and forcing it in between the glans and the foreskin and then slowly moving all the way around ripping the tissues apart. After the glans is free from the foreskin, the foreskin is excised. The baby usually reacts to the procedure by screaming and crying. Shock may cause the child to run risk of choking or of having breathing difficulties.¹³ Occasionally the baby will become withdrawn and quiet entering a state of neurogenic shock which is often mistaken for calmness or sleep.¹⁴ After excision of the foreskin the glans appears reddened and is extremely sore. Urine (which is naturally acidic), feces and the abrasive diaper surface cause horrible pain when they come in contact with the inflamed glans. Up to 96% of neonatal circumcisions are performed without any type of anesthesia.^13,15 A 1997 study on the pain associated with circumcision was stopped early rather than subject any more babies to the pain of circumcision sans anesthesia. During the study the researchers found that babies not only experience severe pain but also have an increased risk of choking and breathing difficulty, due to the pain.^13,15

The low percentage of anesthetic use in neonatal circumcision is primarily due to the long disproved belief that infants do not feel pain, and the ignorant and insensitive view that it does not matter because they will not remember the procedure. Other factors that contribute to low-usage of anesthetics are the patient's age, which precludes the option of general anesthesia, and problems associated with local anesthetics such as injection pain and reactions to the anesthetic. Topical anesthetics are frequently used (when anesthetics are used at all), but they are almost completely ineffective at controlling the pain of circumcision.¹⁵ Most people would view performing a surgical procedure on a fully conscious adult as an unconscionable act. For some reason this view does not apply to American babies for they are routinely forced to endure an extremely painful procedure with no anesthesia and no regard for their consent, because of the view that "they will not remember it anyways" and their inability to voice a worded-protest.

Psychologists and neurologists now know that the brain is highly formative in the infant stages. Although there is an inability to recall memories of infancy the experiences of infancy will shape how the child develops mentally and psychologically. It has been shown that painful experiences during infancy, such as circumcision, can cause psychological trauma which has a profound and lasting effect on the individual. A May 2002 study published by the Journal of Health Psychology concludes that men who were circumcised as babies can go on to suffer a host of psychological problems including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). In response to the study the US Attorney warned doctors that, "The foundation is well laid for lawsuits." The study states, "PTSD may result from childhood circumcision, just as it does from childhood sexual abuse and rape," and that "some men circumcised in infancy or childhood without their consent have described their present feelings in the language of violation, torture, mutilation, and sexual assault." The study also found that men who were circumcised as babies reported lower self-esteem, feelings of personal vulnerability and experienced problems with rage, depression, phobias, panic and anxiety disorders more commonly than their genitally intact counterparts.¹⁶ Another study showed that circumcised men more commonly experience "shyness, anger, fear, powerlessness, distrust, low self-esteem, relationship difficulties, and sexual shame."¹⁷

The foreskin is not just extra tissue as some people believe, nor is it a vestigial part of the human anatomy. If the foreskin served no practical purpose, or was detrimental to health, it would have slowly disappeared (or be in the process of doing so) from the human phenotype as a natural process of evolution – we do not see evidence of this occurring. The foreskin is present in the human phenotype because it is an important and functional part of the genital anatomy. It is the most sensitive area of the penis¹⁸ with unique and specialized functions.

Below is a list of the unique structures, cells and tissues lost to circumcision (from "The Lost List" - http://www.norm-socal.org/lost.html):

The Taylor "ridged band" [sometimes called the "frenar band"], the primary erogenous zone of the male body. This unique, highly specialized and exquisitely sensitive structure is equipped with soft ridges designed by nature to stimulate the female's inner labia and G-spot during intercourse.
The frenulum, the highly erogenous V-shaped tethering structure on the underside of the head of the penis. (The frenulum may be either partially or completely removed during circumcision; in some men, it is left largely intact)
Between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types, which can feel slight variations in pressure and stretching, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture.
Thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors called Meissner's corpuscles, which are also found in the fingertips.

Also lost are:

The foreskin's gliding action, the non-abrasive gliding of the shaft of the penis within its own sheath, which facilitates smooth, comfortable and pleasurable intercourse for both partners.
The "subpreputual wetness" which protects the mucosa of the glans (and inner foreskin), and which contains immunoglobulin antibodies and antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as the pathogen-killing enzyme lysozyme, a potent HIV killer which is also found in tears and mothers' milk.
Estrogen receptors, the purpose of which is not fully understood.
The foreskin's apocrine glands, which produce pheromones.
The protection and lubrication of the erogenous surface of the penis, which is designed by nature to be an internal organ like the vagina. Natural sex involves contact between two internal organs.¹⁹

The glans penis is covered with mucosa, a type of tissue that lines internal organs such as the intestines and the inside of the mouth – mucosa is not meant to be constantly exposed to the outside environment. The glans penis of a circumcised individual is noticeably hardened and is less sensitive than the glans of an intact male. There is therefore a decrease in pleasurable sensation produced by masturbation and sex. This is due to the constant exposure of the glans, which is normally ensheathed in the foreskin that protects it from friction and dryness. In order to protect the sensitive glans the body begins the processes of keratinization (or cornification) – moving the tough fibrous protein, keratin, to the surface (much like a calloused hand or foot). The foreskin also provides a natural lubricant and gliding action which makes sex more pleasurable for both partners and makes penetration much easier. Many men circumcised in adulthood report that sex with their partners now requires lubricants and their female partners reported a loss of pleasurable sensation, an increase in vaginal dryness (during sex) and an inability to achieve orgasm.^20,21It has been hypothesized that the ridged band, which is lost to circumcision, improves female arousal by stimulating the Gräfenberg spot (G spot). The foreskin also eliminates a significant amount of friction which preserves a woman's lubrication ^19,20

The common female complaints about not being able to produce enough lubricant, or achieve an orgasm during sex (Female Arousal Disorder or FAD) may be related to male circumcision and not dysfunction in the female.^20,21 A fine touch pressure study performed at Michigan State University has shown that not only does circumcision ablate the most sensitive parts of the penis, it also causes a decrease in the sensitivity of the glans.¹⁸ The peer-reviewed urology journal, Urology Today, states: "This study suggests that the transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. It appears that circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis."²²

There are many complications associated with circumcision. The exact complication rate of the procedure is unknown. Excessive bleeding and infection are the most common complications. Bleeding may be severe if the patient has a clotting disorder – which are not screened for preoperatively. Infection can lead to sepsis, a serious and potentially fatal infection in the bloodstream.⁷ Especially during infancy there is an increased risk of meatitis, meatal stenosis and meatal ulceration.²³ Studies have shown a link to many different types of sexual dysfunction including impotence, desensitization which makes ejaculation difficult or impossible, painful erections, painful intercourse, premature ejaculation, and chordee (curvature of the penis).²⁴ The use of local anesthetics during circumcision can cause anaphylactic reactions, necrotic reactions, and systemic toxicity.⁷ Accidents during surgery can result in lacerations of the glans, and accidental amputation of parts of the penis which may require sexual reassignment of the individual. Death from routine circumcision is rare but has been documented.²⁵ Other complications include skin bridges – adhesions formed between the circumcision scar and the glans, hypospadias and epispadias (abnormal positionings of the urethral opening), skin tags, cysts, psychological problems, ulceration of the glans, lymphedema, secondary phimosis, urinary fistulas, and more.²⁵

Putting an End to Neonatal Circumcision

In the past few decades there has been a large international effort made by organizations and individuals to end the atrocity of FGM while male genital mutilation such as neonatal circumcision has been largely ignored. It is time that organizations and individuals who oppose FGM end this hypocrisy by opposing all genital mutilations regardless of severity of the procedure or gender of the victim.

Furthermore, ethical people and ethical societies should no longer allow individuals to cite religious freedom as an excuse to harm their children (or other people's children) with genital mutilation. Religious freedom, including the freedom to consent to one's own ritual genital mutilation, is vital to a free society but each individual must have sovereignty over their own bodies. No person should be allowed to make the decision for another person when it comes to an invasive and medically unnecessary procedure. When a person reaches the age of majority they can choose whether or not to partake in ritual circumcision or other genital mutilation practices. An interagency statement sponsored by the United Nations Human Rights Commission, the World Health Organization and many other international organizations, citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stated: "Female genital mutilation is nearly always carried out on minors and is therefore a violation of the rights of the child. The practice also violates the rights to health, security and physical integrity of the person, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death." ²⁶ There is no reason this statement could not be extended to the genital mutilation of males. Although the human rights to liberty and physical integrity may contradict the dogma of certain religions, they must be enforced diligently; human rights as decided by secular society must trump the dictates of religion if we are to realize the humanist ideal of a universal ethical society.

People may prefer to not hear the truth about genital mutilation. Many men report feeling uncomfortable, angry, or violated after becoming conscious of what has been done to them by circumcision; they may wish to return to their previous state of ignorance about the issue. Some people may dismiss the controversy over circumcision as not a big deal. Others may maintain a pro-mutilation position, in order to avoid feelings of guilt for their complicity in the genital mutilations of their children. It is important to face these feelings, become aware of what has been done, and come to terms with the pain or the guilt so we may use these feelings constructively. We cannot change what has been done but we can fight to ensure that a future generation does not have to go through this traumatic and unnecessary procedure.

Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project – http://www.ahrq.gov/data/hcup/factbk7/factbk7b.htm.
Population .. U.S. Bureau of the Census; Circumcision .. Wallerstein.
H. Tristram Engelhardt, "The Disease of Masturbation: Values and the Concept of Disease," Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Vol. 48 (1974), 244-5.
Cutler SJ, Young JL Jr (eds): Third National Cancer Survey: Incidence Data. National Cancer Institute Monograph 41. Bethesda, Md, US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1975.
Wallerstein, Edward. Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1980.
Gellis SS. Circumcision. Am J Dis Child 1978; 132: 1168-9.
American Medical Association, Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99), Neonatal circumcision.
Wiswell TE, Roscelli JD. Corroborative evidence for the decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised male infants. Pediatrics 1986; 78: 96-99.
Thompson RS. Is routine circumcision indicated in the newborn? An opposing view. J Fam Pract. 1990;31:189-196.
To T, Mohammad A, Dick PT, Feldman W. Cohort study of circumcision of newborn boys and subsequent risk of urinary tract infection. Lancet. 1998;352:1813-1816.
David L. Gollaher, "Circumcision: A History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery", pg 103-104.
American Academy of Pediatrics, "Circumcision Policy Statement", Pediatrics, 103(3):686-693, March, 1999.
Circumcision study halted due to trauma -http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circumcision.anesthetic.
Romberg, R. Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey, 1985.
J. Lander et al, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada "Comparison of ring block, dorsal penile nerve block, and topical anesthesia for neonatal circumcision: a randomized controlled trial" http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/lander/
Gregory J. Boyle, Phd, Ronald Goldman, Phd, Ephrem Fernandez, J. Steven Svoboda, MA, JD, "Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma, and Psychosexual Sequelae" Journal of Health Psychology, Volume 07 Issue 03 - Publication Date: 1 May 2002, http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/.
Rhinehart, J, "Neonatal Circumcision Revistited," Transactional Analysis Journal 29 (1999): 215-221.
Sorrells, M, et al., Michigan State University, "Fine-Touch Pressure Thresholds in the Adult Penis," BJU International 99 (2007): 864-869.
"The Lost List" - http://www.norm-socal.org/lost.html
Bensley GA, and Boyle GJ: Effect of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm. N Z Med J 116: 595–596, 2003. - http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/bensley1/
O'Hara K, O'Hara J. The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. BJU Int 1999;83 Suppl 1:79–84. - http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/
Reuters (2007, June 28). Does Circumcision Remove The Most Sensitive Parts Of The Penis? ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 9, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2007/06/070627144210.htm
Freud, Paul (August 1947). "The ulcerated urethral meatus in male children". The Journal of Pediatrics 31 (2): 131-41. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(47)80098-8. Retrieved on 2006-07-07.
Foreskin Sexual Function/Circumcision Sexual Dysfunction - http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/
Kaplan, George W., M.D. (August 1983). "Complications of Circumcision" (HTML). UROLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA 10 (3): 543–549. Retrieved on 2006-09-29. - http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/kaplan/
Eliminating Female genital mutilation: An interagency statement - OHCHR, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO - http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/csw52/statements_missions/Interagency_Statement_on_Eliminating_FGM.pdf

Female Genital Mutilation

Female genital mutilation, female genital cutting, and female circumcision are all terms that refer to any procedure "involving partial or total removal of the female external genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons," according to the World Health Organization.

"Between 100 and 140 million girls and women in the world are estimated to have undergone such procedures, and 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk of undergoing female genital mutilation every year. Female genital mutilation has been documented in 28 countries in Africa and in several countries in Asia and the Middle East. Some forms of the practice have also been reported from other countries, including among certain ethnic groups in Central and South America. There is also evidence of increasing numbers of girls and women living outside their place of origin, including in North America and western Europe, who have undergone or may be at risk of undergoing female genital mutilation." – The World Health Organization

The World Health Organization puts FGM into four different classifications: Type I, II, III, and IV.

Type I: Type I along with Type II are the most common forms of FGM. This form involves either the removal of the clitoral hood alone – "hoodectomy" (or "clitoridotomy"), i.e. Type Ia; or removal of both the clitoris and the prepuce: Type Ib.

Type II: This type involves excision of the clitoris and the labia minora. It is called khafd (reduction) in Arabic speaking countries.

Type III: Is known as infibulation or Pharaonic circumcision. It involves removal of all external female genitalia and the suturing of the vaginal opening. Only a small hole is left open for the draining of urine and menstrual flow. This opening is sometimes re-opened by the woman's husband for intercourse or by midwives during childbirth, it is subsequently re-sutured. Type III accounts for 20% of all FGM.

Type IV: Is the miscellaneous category for mutilations which are non-traditional or obscure.

FGM types II and III are considerably more severe mutilations than male circumcision, Type Ia (without removal of the clitoris) is analogous to male circumcision.

Whacking Off

2009-03-15T20:13:00.001-07:00

Whacking Off

Hey, Kids! Did you know that MASTURBATION IS FUN AND IT'S GOOD FOR YOU?! Masturbation is the only way to have truly safe sex. No one gets a disease and no one gets pregnant: what could be better?! Masturbation has been vilified throughout history by holier-than-thou types; they even thought it caused disease (see my article on circumcision)! Did you know that Kellogg’s corn flakes and Graham crackers were invented by religious prudes (Dr. John Harvey Kellogg and Rev. Sylvester Graham), to be staples in a bland diet that was supposed to discourage the "disease of masturbation".

Thanks to science we now know that masturbation does not cause disease. On the contrary, masturbation has many well known health benefits:

1. Lowers stress and consequently blood pressure.

2. Teaches you what feels good and what doesn’t so you can let your partner know.

3. Releases natural happy chemicals that fight depression.

4. Lowers your chances of developing prostate cancer.

5. Relieves headaches, menstrual cramps and other aches and pains.

6. Lessens your chances of having a nocturnal emission and random erections, which can both be problematic for young lads.

7. Helps combat insomnia.

8. Teaches you how to control your orgasms and prolong your pleasure.  This is of great benefit to men who have problems with premature ejaculation. FYI: masturbating before sex will also help to prevent premature ejaculation.

Despite all this good news about the "five finger shuffle", goofy, prudish attitudes about "wankin’ it" persist. Former Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. Joycelyn Elders, was forced to resign in 1994 just for stating that masturbation should be mentioned in sexual education and that it was safe and healthy.

So go be revolutionary and fight sexual repression by "tip-toeing through the two lips" or "firing the Surgeon General" today.

Companion Animal Overpopulation Statistics

2009-03-15T20:12:00.001-07:00

Companion Animal Overpopulation Statistics

Here are some statistics, from various sources, that I have compiled on companion animal overpopulation. Please print this out, e-mail it, or otherwise distribute this information. Thanks to all the sources who have made this information accessible on their websites.

Shelters euthanize 3 – 4 million cats and dogs a year in the U.S. (according to 2006 Humane Society of the United States estimates – HSUS.org).

That's more than 250,000 animals a month, to put that in perspective, the population of my hometown, Lincoln, NE is about 250,000 people. In addition to the animals euthanized yearly at animal shelters it is a fair estimate to say that just as many animals die on the streets due to disease, injury, starvation or dehydration - based on my experience as a licensed veterinary technician who worked for several years in an animal shelter.

The Humane Society of the United States' estimates are more conservative than other estimates. The American Humane Association's estimates put the number of animals euthanized by shelters yearly at 9.6 million. Their estimates are extrapolated from a 1997 survey by the National Council on Pet Population (http://www.petpopulation.org). In that survey only 1000 of the estimated 4000 shelters in the U.S. responded.

This is from the American Humane Association's website:

National euthanasia statistics are difficult to pinpoint because animal care and control agencies are not uniformly required to keep statistics on the number of animals taken in, adopted, euthanized, or reclaimed. While many shelters know the value of keeping statistics, no national reporting structure exists to make compiling national statistics on these figures possible. It is from these numbers that we estimated what is occurring nationwide. It is widely accepted that 9.6 million animals are euthanized annually in the United States.

More statistics:

For every 1 person born in the U.S. there are 15 dogs and 45 cats born (HSUS estimate).

Number of cats and dogs entering shelters each year:
6-8 million (HSUS estimate)

Number of cats and dogs euthanized by shelters each year:
3-4 million (HSUS estimate) based on my experience I would estimate more than half of these animals are healthy, with no behavior or temperament problems.

Number of cats and dogs adopted from shelters each year:
3-4 million (HSUS estimate)

Number of cats and dogs reclaimed by owners from shelters each year: Between 600,000 and 750,000 – 30% of dogs and 2-5% of cats entering shelters (HSUS estimate)

Number of animal shelters in the United States: Between 4,000 and 6,000 (HSUS estimate)

Percentage of dogs in shelters who are purebred: 25% (HSUS estimate)

Based on my experience and local humane society statistics I would estimate that about 2/3 of the animals that most shelters take in are strays, the other 1/3 are relinquished by guardians.

Only 15 - 16% of pet owners adopt their pets (cats and dogs) from animal shelters. (2005 – 2006 American Pet Products Manufacturers Association National Pet Owners Survey) Imagine how many animals would be saved if more people adopted from shelters.

Over $2 billion is spent annually by local governments to shelter and ultimately destroy 8-10 million adoptable dogs and cats due of shortage of homes. (Business Wire Features)

Capital Humane Society Statistics - 2006:

Total dogs sheltered: 3,603

Dogs adopted out: 24.40%

Dogs euthanized: 35.19% (1,261 dogs, average of 4 euthanized a day)

Dogs reclaimed: 38.91%

Dogs DOA: 1.61%

Total cats sheltered: 4,035

Cats adopted out: 17.70%

Cats euthanized: 73.80% (2,985 cats, average of 8 euthanized a day)

Cats reclaimed: 4.91%

Cats DOA: 2.95%

Dog and Cat Reproduction:

Average number of litters a fertile cat can produce in one year: 3

Average number of kittens in a feline litter: 4-6

Average number of litters a fertile dog can produce in one year: 2

Average number of puppies in a canine litter: 6-10

In seven years an unspayed female cat and her offspring can produce 420,000 kittens and an unspayed female dog and her offspring can produce 67,000 puppies.

The Top Ten Reasons for Pet Relinquishment to Shelters in the United States (National Council on Pet Population and Study - http://www.petpopulation.org)

Dogs

1. Moving
2. Landlord issues
3. Cost of pet maintenance
4. No time for pet
5. Inadequate facilities
6. Too many pets in home
7. Pet illness(es)
8. Personal problems
9. Biting
10. No homes for littermates

Cats

1. Too many in house
2. Allergies
3. Moving
4. Cost of pet maintenance
5. Landlord issues
6. No homes for littermates
7. House soiling
8. Personal problems
9. Inadequate facilities
10. Doesn't get along with other pets

What You Can Do:

Spay and neuter your pets and encourage others to do the same. Tell them why it is important.

Keep Identification on your animals and encourage others to do the same. Every pet should have an RFID (microchip) as a back-up.

If you are looking to adopt a companion animal, adopt from an animal shelter, NOT from a pet store or breeder.

Inform and educate other people about companion animal overpopulation

Pick pets that are right for your needs. For example, a family with small children should not adopt a shy or fearful Chihuahua, a young person with little time should adopt a cat or a pocket pet not a pit-bull puppy.

Support legislation that helps animals. Recently there was a law passed in Nebraska that made it harder for puppy mills to operate.

Volunteer or donate to the local humane society.

Only adopt companion animals if you are ready for a long-term commitment. Taking care of animals costs money and will take up a good amount of your time…it is much like having children.

Some of the Benefits of Adopting an Animal from a Shelter

Pets from shelters are already spayed or neutered

They also receive their initial vaccinations and have been dewormed and treated for external parasites (fleas, ticks, etc.), and tested for heartworm disease.

All adoptable pets at shelters have been screened for behavior and temperament issues.

Animals for adoption have been examined by a veterinarian to ensure their health

The cost of adoption is much less (often 5X or more less) than what it would cost to vaccinate, spay/neuter, and de-worm a "free" pet

Countering the "Walk for Life"

2009-03-15T20:08:00.001-07:00

Countering the "Walk for Life"

LSH Counters Anti-Choice "Walk For Life"

By Jackson Meredith and Brian Ellis

On January 26^th, members of the Lincoln Secular Humanists gathered to protest the anti-choice "Walk for Life". Despite finding out about the rally only the night before, we were determined to counter their dogma with a message affirming women's rights. Upon arriving at the Capitol, we realized that we were outnumbered at least a hundred to one. We were surprised to be the only pro-choice voices in attendance; there were no other progressive groups or citizens to support reproductive freedom. The anti-choice crowd met us with plenty of sneers and gawks, apparently surprised that we would dare oppose their sanctimonious rally. But we were also encouraged as we were greeted with support from dozens of onlookers.

The "Walk for Life" march is an annual protest of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling which legalized abortion across the country. Nebraska Right to Life, the sponsor of the march, is an affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). The NRLC was founded as an organ of the Catholic Church, which was rather apparent considering the visibility of priests, nuns, and crucifixes within the marching crowd. The NRLC is one of the top-ten most influential lobbying groups in Washington, D.C. (Forbes magazine, 1999); they are a major part of the massive grassroots effort by especially fundamentalist Christians to re-criminalize abortion. In addition, the NRLC also opposes physician-assisted suicide, stem cell research, in-vitro fertilization, human cloning, and even some contraceptives, including emergency contraception and the birth control pill.

We were not expecting the massive turnout at the anti-choice rally. The eight of us walked north, toward the thousand or so protestors at the Capitol, and set up a few yards away. The police officers on crowd control quickly noticed us and moved to stand between us and the marchers. We stood and listened unenthusiastically to the speakers, as we finished our signs and waited for the march to begin. About an hour later, bagpipe music came on over the P.A. system and the crowd began to move north.

We quickly lined up to march behind them on the street, but the police informed us that we could not be on the street without a permit. We decided to march on the sidewalk, parallel to the crowd in the street. Most of the marchers ignored us, but there were some notable exceptions. A large group started repeating a "Hail Mary" prayer as we walked alongside them. One man shouted to us, "You guys must hate women." One man, holding a crucifix attached to a large pole, prayed at us while standing on the other side of Centennial Mall. But, to their credit, the two most common words we heard from the protestors were "good morning."

Humanists support all human rights, including reproductive rights. We strive for a society in which birth control methods are readily available to everyone, and universal sexual education ensures that everyone knows how to practice safe sex. Abortion would be rare in such a society, but it must remain an option for unplanned pregnancies, victims of rape, and those facing dangerous health complications associated with pregnancy. With the political establishment increasingly bowing to the thinly-veiled theocratic edicts of groups like the NRLC, we feel it is important to stand up and protect reproductive rights.

We are all Slaves Now

2009-03-15T20:07:00.001-07:00

We are all Slaves Now

Ninety nine (students) out of one hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom. This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual. – William Torrey Harris, US Commissioner of Education from 1889 - 1906, The Philosophy of Education (1906)

This is not a conspiracy theory, this is not left-wing rhetoric, it is verifiable fact, it is a truth that is right under our noses but which we are mostly blind to. Since the beginning of human civilization people have been enslaving other people and it continues today overtly as human trafficking and covertly as wage slavery. Each of us has been trained from a very young age to fill a specific role in a society engineered to run like a machine. The purpose of the "machine" is to dominate, to control natural and human resources and create order. The elite individuals who are aware of this intent believe we (the masses, the fools, the proletariat) are unable to govern ourselves and we need their guidance. To them we are simple children who need parenting. We have all been circumcised or otherwise de-sexualized; brainwashed by cultural norms, schooling and religious indoctrination; assigned a number and given standardized testing to determine where we fit into society, what type of instruction we should receive, and what role will allow us to be complacent but efficient. We know nothing of using the natural world to provide food and shelter, we only know how to perform our repetitive, assigned tasks. We are taught to believe it is normal and natural to surrender 40 or more hours of our lives a week to a company or a boss in exchange for an arbitrary wage we can use to purchase sustenance.

Slaves of earlier times also received payment for their labor in the form of food and shelter, the only difference is they were given no illusions of freedom. Any notion we have of freedom is but a façade - 2-week vacations, the right to quit and try for better employment – do nothing to change the fact that you must sell your labor or be forced into poverty or homelessness. In present society you must make a contract to sell your labor to an employer or you will not be able to afford adequate healthcare, food or shelter. Most of us also believe it is right that we should owe the government some of our earned wage in exchange for their "protection". Many of us even feel it is appropriate to die or risk harm fighting against another nation's wage slaves for the interests of an abstract legal unity known as a country, if it is asked of us.

But you may feel this is a benevolent control. It may seem to you that governance is for our own good, we need schools and prisons and jobs or else there would be chaos. To think this way is to buy into the deception. Teaching, justice, and the production of goods and the availability of services could all be provided without hierarchical structure and without coercion. There is a possibility for the existence of a more ethical society, one without the Judeo-Christian view that humans are all scum – selfish and sinful, who need selfish capitalistic motivators to work together. The motivation for human cooperation and morality is one of necessity, there is no way to exist completely independent of other people and other life. The only way to liberate ourselves is to attain a higher consciousness – become aware of control and then enlighten others, develop alternatives to traditional society and fight hierarchical control by any means necessary.

My Favorite Quotes

2009-03-15T20:04:00.000-07:00

On Religion and Philosophy

"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Carl Sagan

I find it amazing that a part of the universe (a human being) has become aware of itself.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." – Carl Sagan

Having a firm grasp on reality is the best antidote for irrational fear – fear of death, fear of the unknown – and is much better than any delusion people may get temporary comfort from.

"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." - Carl Sagan

The feeling of isolation, of being alone in a dark, cold, and mostly lifeless universe would definitely be unbearable without love.

"Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist." - Epicurus

I consider myself to be an Epicurean. Epicurean philosophy is best described as sensible hedonism - I facetiously call it funarchism. Epicurus was probably the first person recorded by history that you could consider a Humanist. In this quote he summarizes the rational view of death.

"The fear of death is the most unjustified of all fears, for there’s no risk of accident for someone who’s dead." - Albert Einstein

Death is simply losing consciousness and returning to the earth, the universe. We have all been dead before - we were dead before we were born. It is nothing to fear. Life would be meaningless without death ...and the world would be extremely overpopulated.

In 1929, Einstein was asked in a telegram by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein whether he believed in God. Einstein responded by telegram: "I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism." - Albert Einstein

Einstein is my favorite Spinozist (Pantheist).

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life and the fear of death and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge" - Albert Einstein

To me Humanism is the path to genuine "religiosity".

"To define twentieth-century humanism briefly, I would say that it is a philosophy of joyous service for the greater good of all humanity in this natural world and advocating the methods of reason, science, and democracy." - Corliss Lamont

A wonderful definition of humanism.

"There is not sufficient love and goodness in the world to permit us to give some of it away to imaginary beings." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Imagine all the time and devotion wasted on imaginary gods that could have been used developing rational solutions to human problems and helping one another.

"Whence arose all the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death, and religious wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from this impious thing called religion, and this monstrous belief that God has spoken to man?" - Thomas Paine

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the bible is filled it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of god. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize [hu]mankind." - Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine was one of the best when it came to refuting the religious conception of god. He was a deist, as were many of the people who helped to found the United States.

Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of the U.S., and author of the Declaration of Independence was also a deist (the god he was referring to in the D.I. was not the Christian god as many believe) . Imagine that a deist president – today that would be considered political suicide!

"When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion." - Abraham Lincoln

Very succinct and simple but true for most Humanists. I would only add - what is bad is that which negatively affects myself and others, what is good is that which positively affects myself and others.

"When I became convinced that the universe is natural – that all ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain . . . the joy of freedom. . . . I was free – free to think, to express my thoughts . . . free to live for myself and those I loved . . . free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope . . . free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the ’inspired’ books that savages have produced . . . free from popes and priests . . . free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies . . . free from the fear of eternal pain . . . free from devils, ghosts and gods. . . . There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought . . . no following another’s steps . . . no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words." - Robert Ingersoll

It is an amazing feeling, to liberate yourself from, as Ingersoll called it, intellectual slavery and superstition.

Religion easily—has the best bullshit story of all time. Think about it. Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man...living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money. - George Carlin

"Hell is an outrage on humanity. When you tell me that your deity made you in his image, I reply that he must have been very ugly." - Victor Hugo

A god that can create something like hell is not a benevolent god. The Judeo-Christian and Muslim gods are indeed very ugly. I can’t believe people can be content worshipping a god they believe will infinitely torture other humans.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen Roberts

Another way this has been stated (in response to monotheists) – We are all atheists, I just take it one god further. I think this was Dawkins who put it this way.

"The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women’s emancipation... I know of no other book that so fully teaches the subjection and degradation of women." - Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Although I agree, I have to state that the Quran is definitely on par with the Bible when it comes to the subjugation of women.

"If a god exists, she would be more insulted by religion than atheism." – Unknown

No doubt, with all the killing done and suffering caused in her name.

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the soul of a soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions. – Karl Marx

This best summarizes my view of religious belief. I see religion as Marx did, as an opiate – a painkiller necessary for some to deal with the pain inflicted by a sick and diseased society. Existence alone can sometimes be painful but combined with the coercion and exploitation of capitalism or other types of oppression it sometimes becomes unbearable without an "opiate". Illusory religion will therefore always exist until the conditions which make it a necessary coping mechanism are done away with.

"A jealous lover of human liberty, deeming it the absolute condition of all that we admire and respect in humanity, I reverse the phrase of Voltaire, and say that, if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him." – Mikhail Bakunin

If the Judeo-Christian god actually existed he/it would be the most oppressive tyrant imaginable.

"The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth." – Mikhail Bakunin

The very concept of god is degrading to humanity, it insists we need parenting and authoritarian rule. It is antithetical to democracy (rule by the people). And this view is often coupled with the idea that we are scum that deserve nothing less than hell.

"Man is the religious animal. He is the only religious animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion - several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat, if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven." - Mark Twain

We can never know for certain how many have been killed in the name of god, how many were killed because they were practicing the "wrong" religion or none at all, but it is certainly an incredible number. And we continue to see this religious inspired violence today.

"My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race." – Bertrand Russell

Fear, often fear manufactured by religion itself i.e. hell and punishment, in my opinion, is one of the main motivators for religious belief.

"The Meaning of life is that which we give to it." - Unknown

There is no intrinsic meaning to life, we create the meaning. You can do with your life whatever you want, be who ever you want to be, you are free!

"Get busy livin’ or get busy dyin’" - Shawshank Redemption

I love that movie.

"The Bible is one of the most genocidal books in history." - Noam Chomsky

Read it and find out for yourself.

On Apathy and Ignorance

"To sin by silence, when we should protest,
Makes cowards out of men." – Ella Wheeler Wilcox

"Sometimes to be silent is to lie." – Miguel Unamuno

"I do not understand those who take little or no interest in the subject of religion. If religion embodies a truth, it is certainly the most important truth of human experience. If it is largely error, then it is one of monumentally tragic proportions - and should be vigorously opposed." - Steve Allen

"You can't be neutral on a moving train." - Howard Zinn

Why do so many remain neutral and ignorant of politics and philosophy when their very well-being, their very lives and the lives of those they care about are at stake? It’s as if somehow our culture encourages numbness and apathy. The belief that, ’someone smarter will decide things for me’ is very prevalent.

Inspiration For Action

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. - Martin Luther King Jr.

"That so much . . . suffering can be directly attributed to religion - to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious taboos, and religious diversions of scarce resources - is what makes the honest criticism of religious faith a moral and intellectual necessity." - Sam Harris

[By working to improve the world:] "One thing is certain: you will find plenty of worthwhile things to do. You will not be bored, or lack fulfillment in your life. Most important of all, you will know that you have not lived and died for nothing, because you will have become part of the great tradition of those who have responded to the amount of pain and suffering in the universe by trying to make the world a better place." - Peter Singer

"Optimism is a strategy for making a better future. Because unless you believe that the future can be better, it’s unlikely you will step up and take responsibility for making it so. If you assume that there is no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope. If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, that there are opportunities to change things, then there is a possibility that you can contribute to making a better world." - Noam Chomsky

"My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain . . . to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still." - Robert Ingersoll

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr.

"If you look at history, even recent history, you see that there is indeed progress. . . . Over time, the cycle is clearly, generally upwards. And it doesn't happen by laws of nature. And it doesn't happen by social laws. . . . It happens as a result of hard work by dedicated people who are willing to look at problems honestly, to look at them without illusions, and to go to work chipping away at them, with no guarantee of success — in fact, with a need for a rather high tolerance for failure along the way, and plenty of disappointments." - Noam Chomsky

In hopes of countering the apathy mentioned above.

On Authority

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster." – Nietzsche

In opposing oppression and injustice we must make sure we do not also become oppressive and corrupt.

"I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom." - Noam Chomsky

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker." - Pierre Joseph Proudhon
When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People’s Stick." – Mikhail Bakunin

"In its mad passion for power, the Communist State even sought to strengthen and deepen the very ideas and conceptions which the Revolution had come to destroy. It supported and encouraged all the worst antisocial qualities and systematically destroyed the already awakened conception of the new revolutionary values. The sense of justice and equality, the love of liberty and of human brotherhood — these fundamentals of the real regeneration of society — the Communist State suppressed to the point of extermination. Man’s instinctive sense of equity was branded as weak sentimentality; human dignity and liberty became a bourgeois superstition; the sanctity of life, which is the very essence of social reconstruction, was condemned as unrevolutionary, almost counter-revolutionary. This fearful perversion of fundamental values bore within itself the seed of destruction." – Emma Goldman

"Freedom is the mother, not the daughter of order." - Pierre Joseph Proudhon

"I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else;if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead youinto the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some oneelse would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands,and get yourself out of your present condition." - Eugene V. Debs

"The more you can increase fear of drugs, crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people." - Noam Chomsky

I am as much an enemy of oppressive, nominally communist nations like China and the former U.S.S.R. as I am of nominally democratic and free nations like the U.S. Authoritarians co-opted and destroyed the movement for social justice in Europe and Asia and the evil done in the name of equality and social justice by the "communists" of Russia will forever be used against us by the right-wing. To me authoritarianism (authority from the top down) is the primary enemy of human liberty and is antithetical to all movements for a more ethical and egalitarian society.

On Animal Rights

"I believe I am not interested to know whether Vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn’t. To know that the results are profitable to the race would not remove my hostility to it. The pains which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity towards it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further." – Mark Twain

"Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human lives."
-Albert Schweitzer

"Animal factories are one more sign of the extent to which our technological capacities have advanced faster than our ethics." -Peter Singer

"The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"
- Jeremy Bentham

"There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher animals in their mental faculties... The lower animals, like man, manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness, and misery."
- Charles Darwin

"Until we have the courage to recognize cruelty for what it is - whether its victim is human or animal - we cannot expect things to be much better in this world... We cannot have peace among men whose hearts delight in killing any living creature. By every act that glorifies or even tolerates such moronic delight in killing we set back the progress of humanity. "
- Rachel Carson

"When a man has pity on all living creatures then only is he noble."
- Buddha

"All the arguments to prove man’s superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals." – Peter Singer

"A human being is a part of the whole, called by us the ’Universe’, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." - Albert Einstein

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." - Albert Einstein

"Those who claim to care about the well-being of human beings and the preservation of our environment should become vegetarians for that reason alone. They would thereby increase the amount of grain available to feed people elsewhere, reduce pollution, save water and energy, and cease contributing to the clearing of forests. When nonvegetarians say that "human problems come first" I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for human beings that compels them to continue to support the wasteful, ruthless exploitation of farm animals." - Peter Singer

"A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral." - Leo Tolstoy

The struggle for a more ethical society, should not be limited to human liberation...I chose these quotes because they represent the reasons for my belief in the rights of animals (that is, the right to be free from human suffering and the right to live in their natural environment). Animals suffer as we do and the prevention of all suffering is my highest ideal - all sentient life should be protected from suffering. Human and animal suffering are inter-connected in that what we tolerate being done to non-human animals will affect how we treat humans.

On War and Peace

"Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering - excerpt from Nuremberg trial interview.

"The guns and the bombs, the rockets and the warships, are all symbols of human failure." - A speech writer for Lyndon B Johnson

"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. . . Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem." - Howard Zinn

"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." - Albert Einstein

"The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that refuse military service." - Albert Einstein

“I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world.” - Eugene V. Debs
"Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism." - Martin Luther King, Jr

"Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind" - A speech writer for JFK

"They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason." - Ernest Hemmingway

"War paralyzes your courage and deadens the spirit of true manhood. It degrades and stupefies with the sense that you are not responsible, that ’tis not yours to think and reason why, but to do and die,’ like the hundred thousand others doomed like yourself. War means blind obedience, unthinking stupidity, brutish callousness, wanton destruction, and irresponsible murder."
- Alexander Berkman

Although I am not a strict pacifist (I believe in defending ones self and others by any means necessary), I feel fighting for the imperial interests of a nation, a nation that has committed indefensible atrocities, to be a foolish endeavor.

On Socialism

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why thepoor have no food, they call me a communist." - Archbishop HélderCâmara

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." - Albert Einstein

"Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." - Eugene V. Debs after being sentenced to 10 years in prison for opposing war.

"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin

"The war against working people should be understood to be a real war…. Specifically in the U.S., which happens to have a highly class-conscious business class…. And they have long seen themselves as fighting a bitter class war, except they don’t want anybody else to know about it." - Noam Chomsky

“No state, however democratic – not even the reddest republic – can ever give the people what they really want, i.e., the free self-organization and administration of their own affairs from the bottom upward, without any interference or violence from above.” – Mikhail Bakunin

"It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place. And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins. We are going to inherit the earth; there is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it leaves the stage of history. We carry a new world here, in our hearts."
- Buenaventura Durruti

"That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met." - Noam Chomsky

The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.” It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. - Albert Einstein, from his "Why Socialism" essay.

"Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth." - Lucy Parsons

Miscellaneous

"Hello, babies. Welcome to Earth. It’s hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It’s round and wet and crowded. At the outside, babies, you’ve got about a hundred years here. There’s only one rule that I know of, babies—God damn it, you’ve got to be kind." – Kurt Vonnegut in "God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, or Pearls Before Swine"

"Of all the things which wisdom provides to make life entirely happy, much the greatest is the possession of friendship" - Epicurus

"The important thing is not to stop questioning." - Albert Einstein

“We are here to unlearn the teachings of thechurch, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live ourlives so well that death will tremble to take us!” - Charles Bukowski

"If Voting Changed Anything, They'd Make It Illegal" - Emma Goldman

Change must come from bottom up revolution. Voting for different masters will not change anything. We need real democracy - direct democracy - where we actually vote on the decisions which affect us. This is not to say that we should not vote on local ballot initiatives - this an instance where we actually are allowed to vote on the issues.

"When we can't dream any longer we die." - Emma Goldman

"Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed? John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?" - Emma Goldman

"We do need to learn history, the kind that does not put its main emphasis on knowing presidents and statutes and Supreme Court decisions, but inspires a new generation to resist the madness of governments trying to carve the world into their spheres of influence." -Howard Zinn

"The whole educational and professional training system is a very elaborate filter, which just weeds out people who are too independent, and who think for themselves, and who don't know how to be submissive, and so on -- because they're dysfunctional to the institutions." - Noam Chomsky

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." - Noam Chomsky

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

"That's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything." - Noam Chomsky

"To hold a pen is to be at war." - Voltaire

"Surely, in the history of lies told to the population, this is the biggest lie. In the history of secrets, withheld from the American people, this is the biggest secret: that there are classes with different interests in this country. To ignore that-not to know that the history of our country is a history of slaveowner against slave, landlord against tenant, corporation against worker, rich against poor-is to render us helpless before all the lesser lies told to us by people in power.

If we as citizens start out with an understanding that these people up there-the President, the Congress, the Supreme Court, all those institutions pretending to be "checks and balances"-do not have our interests at heart, we are on a course towards the truth. Not to know that is to make us helpless before determined liars.

The deeply ingrained belief-no, not from birth but from the educational system and from our culture in general-that the United States is an especially virtuous nation makes us especially vulnerable to government deception. It starts early, in the first grade, when we are compelled to "pledge allegiance" (before we even know what that means), forced to proclaim that we are a nation with "liberty and justice for all." " - Howard Zinn, in "America's Blinders"

"Protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy; it is absolutely essential to it." - Howard Zinn

Religion's Negative Impact on Animal Welfare

2009-03-15T20:03:00.001-07:00

Many religious traditions, through their prescriptions for ritual animal sacrifice, have caused outright and unnecessary harm to animals. The anthropocentrism common to many of the world's religions has led to the pervasive belief that humans are superior beings who have a right to use animals as they see fit. Although there are religions that are mostly conducive to animal welfare, such as Jainism and some sects of Buddhism, and there are individuals which advocate animal welfare in all the world’s religions, overall, religion has been detrimental to the cause of animal welfare.

Animal Sacrifice

Throughout history animal sacrifice has been practiced by many different religions, e.g. Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Santeria, certain ancient and modern pagan sects, various “cults”, ancient Greek and Roman religion, etc. Of all the world’s religions the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have the most scriptural content relating to ritual animal sacrifice; for this reason I will be focusing on these religions in particular. The Christian Bible’s Old Testament (derived from the Hebrew Bible) is filled with hundreds of passages describing or commanding animal sacrifice. In the Old Testament animals are sacrificed to vicariously atone for sins, unclean acts, or for no reason other than to please or make peace with Yahweh, who, we are told, enjoys the smell of burning flesh. The blood of the animal sacrificed is usually to be sprinkled on God’s altar and for a “burnt offering” the flesh and innards are to be separated and burnt accordingly “for a sweet savor unto the lord”. Here is just one example:

"If his gift for a burnt offering is from the flock, from the sheep or goats, he shall bring a male without blemish, and he shall kill it on the north side of the altar before the LORD, and Aaron’s sons the priests shall throw its blood against the sides of the altar. And he shall cut it into pieces, with its head and its fat, and the priest shall arrange them on the wood that is on the fire on the altar, but the entrails and the legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall offer all of it and burn it on the altar; it is a burnt offering, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD.

"If his offering to the LORD is a burnt offering of birds, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves or pigeons. And the priest shall bring it to the altar and wring off its head and burn it on the altar. Its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar. He shall remove its crop with its contents and cast it beside the altar on the east side, in the place for ashes. He shall tear it open by its wings, but shall not sever it completely. And the priest shall burn it on the altar, on the wood that is on the fire. It is a burnt offering, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD." - Leviticus 1:10-25 (ESV)

In Exodus we are told that the Judeo-Christian god, Yahweh, avenges the Israelites by killing all of the first born children of the Egyptians (including the first born of their animals), whose Pharaoh held the Israelites in slavery. In order that the same fate does not befall them, each Israelite family is to slaughter a lamb and smear the blood on their door so their god will see the blood and “pass over” these homes without killing their firstborns as well – which gives us the name of the holiday, Passover. Some Jewish sects such as the Samaritans still observe the Passover slaughter of lambs and the bizarre ritual of smearing blood on doors. For further examples of animal sacrifice in the Bible read any of the books of the Old Testament, particularly Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. There are also a couple of passages in the Bible that directly deal with human sacrifice: Judges 11:29-40 (here Jephthah sacrifices his daughter as a burnt offering), Genesis 22:9-18 (this is the almost-sacrifice of Isaac interrupted by God, which can be described as nothing less than psychological torture).

Besides Jesus’ parents sacrifice of two turtledoves in Luke 2:24, the Christian Bible’s New Testament is mostly void of animal sacrifice. This is largely due to its emphasis on the human sacrifice of Jesus (the sacrificial “lamb of God”). The New Testament teaches that Christians no longer must sacrifice animals to God because God has been sufficiently appeased by the sacrifice of his son and/or (depending on your interpretation of the trinity doctrine) the human embodiment of himself. Most Christians do not include animal sacrifice as part of their worship but there are a few contemporary Christian churches that still take part in the practice, such as the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Christian Church of God.

Hundreds of thousands of animals are sacrificed during Eid ul-Adha, a religious holiday celebrated by Muslims. This holiday is celebrated on the 3rd day of the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca that every Muslim must make at least once in their lifetime, the fifth pillar of Islam. The sacrifice of an animal is performed to celebrate Ibrahim’s (Abraham’s) willingness to sacrifice his son, Ishmael, to Allah and Allah’s mercy as expressed by offering an animal to be sacrificed in the place of Ibrahim’s son. At the same time these sacrifices are performed in Mecca they are also carried out by other Muslims around the world. Traditionally the Hajj pilgrims would personally slaughter an animal by cutting the throat, but today many pilgrims purchase vouchers and have a butcher sacrifice the animal for them. The Hindu festival, Gadhimai, is one of the world’s largest animal sacrifice events. This festival takes place every 5 years in Nepal at the Gadhimai temple. In 2009 over 250,000 animals were sacrificed. [Hindu sacrifice of 250,000 animals begins -http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/24/hindu-sacrifice-gadhimai-festival-nepal]

Anachronistic Slaughtering Methods

Kashrut (Jewish dietary law) and Islamic dietary law require animals to be slaughtered according to the methods described in their sacred texts. These slaughter methods are known as shechita in Judaism and dhabiha or zabihah in Islam. Meat from animals slaughtered according to these methods is called kosher meat in Judaism and halal (acceptable) meat in Islam. In addition to forbidding the consumption of meat from certain types of animals and prescribing other details about how the slaughter should be performed, both kashrut and Islamic dietary laws dictate that animals must be killed by exsanguination (death by blood loss) while fully conscious. Exsanguination in both shechita and dhabiha slaughter is achieved by severing the carotid arteries, jugular veins, trachea and esophagus with a non-serrated blade (the spinal cord is not to be severed because this could cause cardiac arrest and stop the flow of blood).

These methods of slaughter cause an agonizing death because the animal is not allowed to be anesthetized or stunned in any way, and due to the fact that the animal is not rendered unconscious immediately from the severing of the arteries and veins in the neck. After the throat is sliced the animal writhes about in a hopeless attempt to escape and tries to vocalize; death may come in less than half a minute or take as long as several minutes depending on the cut made by the slaughterer. This method of slaughter is outdated and causes unnecessary pain. There are methods available today, such as the captive bolt-gun, which (when used correctly) renders the animal unconscious immediately. Both Islam and Judaism call for this anachronistic method of slaughter because both religions believe consuming blood is a sin, what is unknown or ignored by most Jews and Muslims is that it is impossible to remove all the blood from an animal’s body and the capillaries will invariably retain some blood that is, therefore, consumed when eating the meat. The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) has stated that “the method by which kosher and halal meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals and it should be banned immediately.” According to the FAWC “it can take up to two minutes for cattle to bleed to death, thus amounting to animal abuse.” [BBC: Should Kosher and Halal Meat be Banned? - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2977086.stm]

Teaching Human Supremacy

Most of the world’s religions teach human exceptionalism: the idea that humans are not animals – that they are superior beings and therefore more deserving of kind treatment and respect. The Abrahamic religions in particular state that some animals are unclean, disgusting or deserving of contempt. For example, in many areas there is nothing worse to call a Muslim than a “pig”, as that animal is regarded as the very epitome of that which is unclean or haram. In addition, many religious individuals believe in the concept of a human soul – a vague immaterial force that supposedly lingers after death – a concept that (according to traditional religious dogma) does not apply to animals. This idea that humans possess souls while animals lack them is just another example of the belief in human superiority, and many religionists feel this lack of a soul justifies their lesser treatment of animals. One would think that the belief that animals are without souls, and that this life is all they have, would be even more reason to ensure they are able to enjoy their one and only life free from suffering, but this does not seem to be the case.

Many religions believe in dominionism: the view that animals were put on Earth, by god, specifically to be used by humans. In Genesis 1:26 KJV, the Bible states: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” This passage states that humans are made in the likeness of gods (or god and other lesser supernatural beings depending on your interpretation) and that we are given dominion or reign over other animals. This passage alone has allowed many people to rationalize their cruel treatment of animals, whether it be animal blood sports (dog fighting, cock fighting, bull and bear baiting, etc.), vivisection, sport hunting, or inhumane farming and slaughter practices.

Religious apologists will often argue that dominion does not mean we can treat animals poorly. They also claim that their holy books advocate kind stewardship of animals, but ritual sacrifice is not kind stewardship, and neither is severing an animals throat so it can slowly bleed to death, especially when there are more humane alternatives available. (Not to mention the fact that meat consumption is not necessary for human survival – hundreds of thousands of people have adopted vegetarian and vegan diets and are just as healthy, if not more so, than their omnivorous counterparts.)

The truth is that humans are animals and all sentient (capable of experiencing pain/pleasure and perception) animals are deserving of kind treatment and respect. Scientific discovery has shown that all forms of life on this planet are related and connected while religion has mostly served to reinforce anthropocentrism and alienate us from the creatures with whom we share the planet.

To witness the horror of kosher slaughter go here: http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/GetVideo.asp?video=agri_short
WARNING VERY GRAPHIC

What I am Thankful for on Thanksgiving

2009-03-15T20:02:00.001-07:00

What I am Thankful for on Thanksgiving

I AM THANKFUL I AM NOT A TURKEY! Every year 250 million turkeys are slaughtered, 50 million for the holiday season alone, so humans can consume their flesh (Humane Society of the United States [HSUS] stats). Most of the turkeys Americans consume come from factory farms. Turkeys are usually slaughtered at the age of 4 -5 months. During their short lives they continuously suffer the horrible conditions of the factory farm - they are unable to do all the things a turkey naturally enjoys doing. At the end of their lives they are strung up by their feet on a moving mechanical hook system and their throats are cut by an automated spinning knife, then they are dipped into the de-feathering tanks full of scalding water, while many of them are still conscious (either because the knife missed their throat or because they have not yet lost consciousness from blood loss). All of this is considered perfectly acceptable because the Humane Methods of Slaughter act does not apply to poultry. (https://community.hsus.org/campaign/petition_for_poultry)

All of these birds are efficiently bred and slaughtered annually for corporate profit. They are mass produced like any other "crop" with virtually no consideration for their welfare. The corporate farm industry's mantra is "maximize profits", that is the only consideration that goes into the farming of these animals. But these are not "crops" these are sentient beings that experience pain and fear, and we fund these corporations for the sake of an American tradition that has been distorted so much it is not even historically accurate. In fact few people even know the real story of Thanksgiving.

The original "Thanksgiving" of 1621 was the result of a partnership the Plymouth settlers made with the Wampanoag people in order to ensure their (pilgrims) survival. Half of the Plymouth settlers or "pilgrims" were killed by the winter of 1620 because they knew nothing about surviving the harsh winters or procurement of food. The native people showed them how to grow crops and how to correctly hunt for food and the original Thanksgiving was a celebration of this human partnership that prevented what would have been the imminent death of these settlers...I bet the Wampanoags grew to regret saving these people that went on to kill so many of them and push them off the land they were using. The original three-day Thanksgiving feast probably consisted of cod fish, wild goose, lobster and corn, but NO TURKEY. So please give the turkeys a break this year and try some poultry that was ethically and organically raised or better yet try a vegetarian alternative like tofurky (found at organic and health food stores and even some grocery stores).

For more info see:

http://www.goveg.com/factoryFarming_turkeys.asp

http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/ournews/thanksgiving_tradition.html

http://www.goveg.com/f-top10turkeys.asp

In Memory of John Lennon (Oct 9, 1940 - Dec 8, 1980)

2009-03-15T20:00:00.000-07:00

In Memory of John Lennon (Oct 9, 1940 - Dec 8, 1980)

John Lennon was killed 27 years ago today, he was 40 years old. I am a fan of John Lennon, not just because of his music but because of who he was. John was a peace activist, a humanist, and an outspoken critic of the status quo. His ideals are summed up best by his song "Imagine", where he describes a world without religion, countries, classes, and war. John was murdered by a psychotic individual who, being a Christian, was angered by the message of the song "Imagine", John's remarks that 'the beatles were more popular than Jesus', and the lyrics of the song "God" in which John states he does not believe in Jesus or the Beatles (his killer was also obsessed with the Beatles). John is dead now but his message lives on and continues to inspire. I only wish popular musicians of today would use their fame like John did to make meaningful music and do something good with their time on this planet...(sigh).

PETA Bashing and "No-Kill" Shelters

2009-03-15T19:58:00.001-07:00

PETA Bashing and "No-Kill" Shelters

I have seen a lot of criticism lately of PETA based on their euthanasia practices. Many people think it is odd that an organization that advocates vegetarianism also puts (sometimes) healthy animals to sleep. I admit this may seem strange to you if you are not fully aware of the magnitude of the animal overpopulation problem but once you understand the severity of the problem it becomes apparent that euthanasia is necessary in order to control this problem, there is literally no other solution. To give you an idea how dire the situation is consider this - for every 1 person born in the U.S. there are 15 dogs and 45 cats born (HSUS stats) and shelters in the U.S. euthanize 3 - 4 million cats and dogs a year (according to conservative 2006 HSUS estimates). Thats more than 250,000 animals a month, to put that in perspective, the population of my hometown, Lincoln, NE is about 250,000 people. Animals in shelters are put down for many different reasons, the most common reasons are: poor health, behavioral problems, aggressive tempermant, to stop the spread of infectious diseases in the shelter population, or because the shelter does not have the resources or room to care for any more unwanted animals. In addition to the animals euthanized at animals shelters it is a fair estimate to say that just as many animals die on the streets due to disease, injury, starvation or dehydration. I find it a bit odd that critics of PETA are making it seem as if there is some incredible hypocrisy going on when PETA has never made its euthanasia practices secretive or denied that they take this pragmatic stance on the issue. There is a holocaust going on that no one seems aware of and there are plenty of places to point the blame but PETA is not one of them.

The main perpetrators of this atrocity - pets stores, breeders and the people who purchase pets from them, may not even be aware of their implication or are ignorant of it, but the truth is pet stores and breeders are making a profit bringing more animals into a world already overpopulated with companion animals, and they do this while animals at shelters are dying because there are not enough homes for all of them. Pet stores, breeders and their patrons contribute to the problem of pet overpopulation in several ways: first, for every pet they sale to a family they are denying a homeless animal at the shelter a home, secondly, they sell their puppies unaltered (not spayed or neutered) if these puppies or kittens mature and breed there will be even more animals that will take the place of homeless animals who cannot find homes. To better illustrate this point I will point out that in seven years, an unspayed female cat and her offspring can produce 420,000 kittens and an unspayed female dog and her offspring can produce 67,000 puppies (HSUS stats). It may seem cruel to not adopt that cute puppy that your local pet store is selling, because he needs a home too and the pet store has him locked up in that tiny cage but when you purchase an animal from a pet-store even though you are giving that one puppy or kitten a home you are putting dollars into the pockets of people that are one of the main causes of the pet overpopulation problem and by doing so you are abetting them, allowing them to continue their irresponsible breeding for profit business. Ironically another place I point blame is animal shelters themselves, there are too many shelters that seek to hide their euthanasia stats or downplay that aspect of what the shelter does for fear of coming off negatively, but trying to sweep this horrible problem under the rug does nothing to raise the public's consciousness of pet overpopulation.

Those who care about animals and want to help should be doing all they can to educate people about why so many animals have to die and what can be done about it. If a family member, a friend or a neighbor, or even a stranger mentions that they would like to purchase a pet from a breeder or a pet store ask them to reconsider and let them know why, site the HSUS statistics mentioned above, let them know there are many animals that need homes and we should not fund businesses and people that seek to make a profit off of bringing more animals into the world while this problem continues. If you know someone who wants to breed their pet let them know they will be bringing animals into a world that already has too many animals and not enough people to care for them, encourage them to have their pet spayed or neutered, refer them to a low-cost spay/neuter clinic in your town if there is one, and encourage them to adopt from a shelter if they can afford to give another animal a home.

What about No-Kill Shelters though, they save all their animals and never have to put animals down?

Well the truth is there is no such thing as a "No-Kill" shelter. "No-Kill" shelters only accept animals they feel are adoptable and they simply close their doors to incoming animals when they reach capacity. The unfortunate animals turned away then have to be shipped to traditional shelters that accept ALL animals that come to them and perform euthanasia. By outsourcing the "dirty work" of animal sheltering these "no-kill" shelters either intentionally or unintentionally mislead the public into thinking that they care for all animals and are a kinder alternative to the traditional shelters. A few "No-Kill" shelters have even joined in with the naïve crowd in condemning PETA and humane societies for euthanizing animals, seemingly blind to the fact that there are simply too many animals in relation to the amount of people in this country to care for them. Some "no-kill" shelters are also perpetuating a myth that animal shelters that perform euthanasia are doing it needlessly or because the workers are too lazy to attempt to find homes for the animals, I have even seen some websites for "no-kill" shelters insinuate that shelter workers do it because they want to for some morbid pleasure. If every shelter in the U.S. switched to "no-kill" we would have more animals than we would know what to do with and these animal warehouses would be spending all their money boarding unwanted animals that could instead be spent sterilizing pets for low-income families and educating the public about pet over-population. The cost of caring for 1 animal for a week could be used to sterilize dozens of animals and therefore prevent more unwanted births – so where "no-kill" shelters save one pet, a shelter that does perform euthanasia and sterilizes animals available for adoption saves many more lives and spares many more animals the pain of existence in an uncaring and ignorant world.

I am 100% for lowering the kill rates of shelters and for progressive change in sheltering, I worked for 2 ½ years at the Capital Humane Society here in Lincoln, NE and have no apprehension in stating that it is a horribly mismanaged shelter and a perfect example of how a shelter should not be ran. There is a desperate need for public education on the issue of pet overpopulation and there is a desperate need for progressive change in animal sheltering but until the underlying core of the pet overpopulation problem is rectified "no-kill" shelters are doing very little to help and may even be hurting their allies by disseminating false information.

So I ask, if you think euthanizing animals that cannot be placed into a home (because there are not enough homes) is wrong then what is the alternative? …and I am being serious because if you know of one I would like to know. Some people I have discussed this issue with suggest without much thought that we should just ship these animals onto an island, but this is not a realistic option. We cannot ship unwanted pets onto an island or elsewhere into the wild – they are not suited for the conditions, most would not know how to survive, and they would upset the natural ecosystem in several ways. We also cannot let unwanted pets roam the streets because there would be obvious problems with the spread of disease not only between the animals but zoonotic infections like Rabies would become a concern. The sterilize and release programs for feral cats implemented in California show promise but unfortunately these cats are also killing endangered songbirds and other wildlife. We can only hope the feral cat populations are decreased enough by the program so that the wildlife populations may return to normal. So until better solutions are proposed the only options are education, sterilization and unfortunately euthanasia.

For more info on "No-kill" shelters see: http://www.peta.org/Living/AT-Fall2005/nokill.asp

Why I am an agnostic atheist

2009-03-15T19:57:00.001-07:00

Why I am an agnostic atheist

I call myself an agnostic atheist. The first part of the label (agnostic) is an epistemological statement that I cannot know for certain if gods (or other super-natural beings) are existent or non-existent, the second part of the label (atheist) states that I hold no belief in deities (which is the case with most agnostics) because there is no evidence to suggest they exist. Another term for agnostic atheism is weak atheism. Atheism to most people familiar with philosophy is generally meant to mean weak or agnostic atheism by default since few people actually take the strong atheist position. Strong atheism is the certain belief that gods do not exist and cannot exist. It is a common misconception (usually held by religious persons) that all atheists take the strong atheist position.

As an agnostic atheist I do not claim certain knowledge about the existence or non-existence of god/s, but I DO claim that there is not only insufficient evidence to support religious conceptions of god/s i.e. personal and interfering deities, there is evidence that is directly contrary to these beliefs. The idea of a personal god is precluded by sheer logic - prayers fail, bad things happen to good people, holy books such as the bible, the book of Mormon, and the quran are demonstrably false if to be taken literally (and if not they are indecipherable allegories). Therefore I am atheistic when it comes to the anthropomorphic god/s of traditional religion; I can state with all confidence that these gods are "made up", they do not exist.

But there are many conceptions of god and some of them I do not consider inconceivable ...just mislabeled. To some god is love, to Spinozists or pantheists like Albert Einstein god is the universe and its natural laws, and deists consider god to be the non-interfering eternal creator of all that is. These are not dangerous ideas that cause people to kill each other, I have no problem with these beliefs, in fact I actually like these ideas and think they deserve merit. But what beliefs like deism and Pantheism try to describe seems mislabeled when called god because the word "god" to me has become a pejorative due to all the ugliness religion has caused in the world and the word god in our culture evokes images of the anthropomorphic male sky god of Christianity. I like what Taoism states: the Tao that can be named is not the Tao. To summarize, I am not at all against belief in god, but I am against religion and its dogmas that have inspired war and murder and have caused so much death and suffering.

I conclude with some quotes that I think are relevant to this blog:

"Whence arose all the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death, and religious wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from this impious thing called religion, and this monstrous belief that God has spoken to man"? - Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge." - Albert Einstein

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. - Albert Einstein (my favorite pantheist)

"If you love god, burn a chuch". - Jello Biafra

What Makes a Religion or Cult Successful

2009-03-15T19:53:00.001-07:00

I was thinking about what makes religion or a cult successful and came up with a handful of things that I think contribute. I have outlined them below.

What Makes a Cult/Religion Successful?

Sheer passage of time – the age of a belief seems to lend credence to it for people.

Relief from existential malaise: a "ready to use" manufactured purpose to life; ease of anxiety about death via promise of an afterlife or reincarnation.

Threats made towards those who do not believe - fear mongering, e.g. hell, reincarnation as lesser being, ostracism and violence directed at non-believers.

Promise of reward for believers e.g. heaven, a better lifestyle, absolution of sin/guilt, freedom from suffering.

Existing large group of members/adherents resulting in exponential growth.

Early life indoctrination – children lacking fully developed mental faculties and experience are prone to naiveté.

Cultural or traditional norms (flock mentality).

The command to proselytize.

The command to reproduce (go forth and multiply) – religiosity either being passed on by parental indoctrination or (possibly) genetics.

Influential proponents or leaders.

You will notice the most prolific religions in the world i.e. Islam and Christianity, have all of these characteristics.

Theodicy and Supernatural Tyranny

2009-03-15T19:50:00.000-07:00

*In this blog I refer to the concept of god with the capitalized word IT because I feel it is unnecessary to anthropomorphize this mythical and supposedly immaterial being. Many religions anthropomorphize or personify their god or gods by assigning IT a sex as in him or her, but how can a being lacking mass or material have genitals and be differentiated as male or female.

Theodicy and Supernatural Tyranny

Can a god that gives insufficient evidence for IT'S existence mete out eternal punishment to non-believers and still be considered a benevolent being? Strangely many people would answer "yes" to this question. I have asked this question many times and have gotten many different and shocking "yes" answers. Many people claim that there is sufficient evidence to believe in god. It is my belief that an intellectually honest individual cannot deny the FACT that there is absolutely no scientific or objective evidence that points to the existence of a deity or any supernatural being for that matter. Some people believe to the contrary of this and claim that certain unknown aspects of the universe such as the origin of matter and life point to the design of some creator who is supernatural and therefore, conveniently, beyond our ability to perceive. This is what is called a "god of the gaps fallacy" - an assumption that because science does not currently have the ability to explain phenomenon X then phenomenon X was an act of god and therefore god exists. This assumption is not sufficient evidence to prove the existence of something, it is an argument from ignorance, it also gets us nowhere if we are truly looking for answers - if god created the universe then we have to ask what created god? If you would answer god always existed or he is outside of time then why could you not say the same about the universe? The honest truth is: no one knows, not one person knows the answers to life's toughest questions – we are all agnostic whether we admit it or not. This is where the theist's conception of faith comes in. Theists will define faith in many different ways, the common descriptions I have heard are: complete trust in god, believing in god even though you know god is outside your ability of perception, etc. basically what these statements all boil down to is belief in something that there is no evidence for – faith is a euphemism for irrational belief - delusion.

The most common attempt to explain why a god would punish non-believers must be a traditionally handed down explanation taught in religious schools or other indoctrination camps because I hear it rattled off ad nauseum by religious persons, it is usually phrased something like this: 'God does not send people to hell, people send themselves to hell by rejecting god.' This argument is tantamount to someone saying: 'The police do not send people to jail, criminals send themselves to jail by breaking the law' - Yes, in some sense people do send themselves to jail by criminal behavior but if you are speaking literally the police deliver the criminals to the jail and in turn the judicial system where they are judged, just as the god who exists in the theists mind alone, is the omnipotent judge who is the only being who has power to decide your fate and send you to the appropriate eternal dwelling. Furthermore disbelief alone should not warrant an eternity of torment, for that matter any worldly sin being finite could not warrant infinite punishment and would be inconsistent with the idea of a benevolent or loving god. If god is to be viewed as a supernatural judge then IT'S jurisprudence is greatly out of line with what people would consider just, due to the vindictive nature of IT'S justice alone.

Collected Writings - Brian P. Ellis

How the Occupy Movement can create a New Political and Economic System

Anarchism and the Occupy Movement

An Introduction to the Jesus Myth Theory: Did Jesus Exist?

Are Plants Sentient (do they feel pain)?

Letter to DN Editor in Regards to Pro-Routine Infant Circumcision Article

Why Boycott Breeders and Pet Stores?

Why it is Important to Support Abortion and other Reproductive Rights

Recent Trends in Abortion Rates Worldwide by Stanley K. Henshaw, Susheela Singh and Taylor Haas. International Family Planning Perspectives Volume 25, Number 1, March 1999

Letter to the Editor Regarding Humanewatch and Humanewatch Shill, Jake Geis

Humanewatch Comes to Lincoln

Confusion over Political Terminology

Working Class falls prey to Divide and Conquer Tactics in Fremont, NE

Religiosity and the Health of Nations

Does the Bible Teach us how to be Moral?

My Dream

Understanding Capitalist Exploitation

Sleep Paralysis and Hypnagogic/Hypnapompic Hallucinations

Humanism: a Response to Nihilism and Existentialism

The History of Christmas and the so-called 'War on Christmas'

Atheism vs. Humanism

Why We should Abolish Columbus Day

Ask a Humanist - Comfort from Humanism?

A Humanist Perspective on Routine Neonatal Circumcision

Whacking Off

Companion Animal Overpopulation Statistics

Countering the "Walk for Life"

We are all Slaves Now

My Favorite Quotes

Religion's Negative Impact on Animal Welfare

What I am Thankful for on Thanksgiving

In Memory of John Lennon (Oct 9, 1940 - Dec 8, 1980)

PETA Bashing and "No-Kill" Shelters

Why I am an agnostic atheist

What Makes a Religion or Cult Successful

Theodicy and Supernatural Tyranny