THE ABOVE FOUR ONE SYLLABLE WORDS ARE USED MOST OFTEN TO INVOKE THOUGHTS OF WORLD PEACE. WE LEAVE IT TO YOU TO PICK THE ORDER OF VERBAL PRIORITY TO EFFECT WORLD PEACE.
It will seem to you, and rightfully so, that we pick on religion. We do this to shock people into the realization that the clashing of religious cultures could eventually trash our wonderful planet. Yes, we are impolite, but our adversary is even more impolite, and downright wrong. Following are what we call DICTUMS OF TRUTH. We invite the reader to add to this list. Send your thought to info@atheiststation.net. We may take these truisms and enter them into thetruthcontest.com (if they'll allow us in -- right now, I think they may be pro-Christian).
DICTUMS OF TRUTH (as of 2-02-2008)
1. MORALITY IS NOT DEPENDENT ON RELIGION!
2. FAITH IS BY DEFINITION WHAT ONE BELIEVES IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF (if you could prove it, it wouldn't be faith).
3. SCIENCE AND FAITH ARE WORLDS APART (science is only what one can prove; they are opposites).
4. SCIENCE IS NOT A RELIGION (with religion, the conditions of faith never change, but laws of science fearlessly change as new data upsets older assertions).
5. JOHN STUART MILL'S ASSERTION CONCERNING CONSERVATIVES (Although it is true that not all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative).
6. IF EVOLUTION IS "JUST A THEORY," THEN RELIGION IS JUST AN OPINION (150 religions have more than 1,000,000 members, and 33,800 sects call themselves Christian alone).
7. FEAR AND FAITH REINFORCE EACH OTHER (faith is worshipful respect for what really is unknown; fear is a less disciplined reaction to the unknown).
A NEW REFORMATION By Ronald P. Stauffer, July 2005 (revised October 11, 2005 & January 2008)
WHEREAS, religions have outlived their cosmogonic utility, presently causing:
1. division among cultures; 2. lies and misleading fabrications to justify and preserve themselves; 3. self-limitation of innocuous pleasures; 4. abnormal consternation about reality; 5. relative disbelief in science and history; 6. promotion of mysticism; 7. promotion of superstition; 8. promotion of fear; 9. exposure to confusion and mental conflict; 10. exposure to naivete; 11. exposure to vulnerability; 12. hostility toward competing sects; 13. default to jealousy; 14. instability among nations; 15. untoward guilt of conscience; 16. subordination of rational thought; 17. subordination of the Cosmos; 18. subordination of responsibility; 19. subordination of conscience; 20. subordination of self-image; 21. subordination of understanding nature; 22. subordination of curiosity; 23. subordination of skepticism; 24. subordination of human understanding and tolerance; 25. subordination of objective thinking, defaulting to the subjective; 26. differentiation of charity (too often with condition and inconsistent priority); 27. disdain for one's own natural body; 28. sense of persecution, even when they are the majority (Christians take note); 29. anxiety toward the future; 30. anxiety due to the realization that one can never have enough faith; 31. self-denial, in varying degrees, of life's potential; 32. a 'holier than thou' pecking order, or caste system of righteousness; 33. starvation of newborns in Third World nations deprived unnecessarily of birth control information; 34. stagnation of life: a. by placing limits on achievement, b. by de-facto sanctification of ignorance, c. by giving back hard won freedoms, d. by enhancing and promoting nationalism, e. by promoting the biblical First Commandment in the face of our Constitution's First Amendment; 35. a path toward a hidebound, robotic lifestyle, over that of the individual; 36. a tax burden on those who aren't religious, its pious tax exemptions taking from the common weal.
NOW, be it considered that religion should be relegated officially to that important status of the individual's own personal conscience, negating forever its influence on Civil government. Religion's contributions to morality and charity have and will always be duly and sentimentally noted -- but it is time to move ahead. It is time for nations, and their citizens, to ACCEPT SOLE RESPONSIBILITY for their actions, and advance beyond the mysteriously dark psyche that has impeded progress for at least a millennium.
This is not to say religion should be outlawed, but religion should never attain the obtuse measure it strives to become today without subjecting its mores and tenets to the same rigorous examination as reality. Any way you dice it (or fluff it) FAITH IS NOT FACT! Faith is at best a personal or collective viewpoint, non-provable and vulnerable to falsification -- the antithesis of Science and Mathematics: their axioms that can be proven time and time again. At worst, faith is submission to FEAR and hearsay, placing superstition and emotion above mental elucidation!
Like Martin Luther's Reformation in protest of the greedy Catholic Church and its system of paid-for indulgences, this is a protest of the mindless lockstep of religious tradition performed in the name of heritage without giving thought to its eventual consequences listed above. We can drown in religion's unyielding orthodoxy and fundamentalism, or we can soar from the quagmire, free as our winged cousins, to view a world that beckons to be appreciatively cultivated.
FROM SECURITY BLANKET TO MATURITY
Those who start a war have, I suppose, the dubious honor of labeling what that war will be all about! That's the way it has been down through the millennia -- the ultimate expression of despair -- usually well defined, if not thought out. The defense is taken aback by the revolt, or counterattacks, characterizing and confirming the reason for the revolt in the first place.
Though the United States was unquestionably attacked on September 11, 2001, by religious zealots in the name of Allah, killing 3,000 mostly American citizens, our president and his political party (as religious as they are) are in denial that this was the beginning of a religious war. "It is a war on terrorism" George W. Bush insists. But has he the right to controvert that faith-based initiative with his own imaginative label (coming from a rather unimaginative man)? He tried, but too many of his party are reacting quite negatively to any hint of Muslim existence. And, of course, the Muslims for the most part are not hypocritically hiding their animosity for Christians and Jews (I shall withdraw from giving them any credit though).
Although the Religious Right and Conservative Cretinists have disdain for "political correctness," what else could their motive be to avoid using the label of religious war? Is it because of their self-preservation, as people of faith, is at risk? Can they no longer safeguard their delusion that religion in general and theirs in particular is the answer for world pacification? "They hijacked the religion of Islam!" too many Republicans/Christians chant, but they go ahead anyway and systematically destroy two Islamic countries -- kill as many as need be, and let God sort it out. "Surely we'll get most of 'em," I know many of those "good" Fundamentalist Christians said.
Yes, this is another rant by a bleeding heart liberal who is all for full prosecution and jail time for the biggest sleaze-ball of recent time, Rush Limbaugh. But my heart does not bleed for the Moslems who are trying to avoid exploitation by the western nations. Nor does it bleed for the Christian fundamentalists that hate Islam. They deserve each other's hatred -- may they kill well, each other. I, myself, do not mind to see the slaughter, for they deserve to be slaughtered -- each in their delusion of eternal bliss.
Perhaps sometime in the future, after all the bloodletting, those reasonable enough will see why they survived. Then maybe, just maybe, some progress can be made to understand the folly of parochial religiosity. No one politician dare take up that challenge now, for it would be career suicide. When in the future reason will trump "true" faith is far long a time that I'll never live to see.
Either God is playing with us, or there is no God -- so much for the loving, caring Almighty who would condemn most of mankind to Hell. There are a few of us who see through all the smoke quite plainly, but our suggestions are not considered or even heard. So, in turn, we laugh and make fun of those who plod through life so seriously, expecting better things in a heaven they have no inkling about. Such sad souls, full of fear, killing one another in the name of Allah or whatever. Is this God's Plan that the clergy often talk about from their pulpits?
Until man understands he must assist his fellow man; that he, and only he, is solely responsible for his actions; and that happiness can only be achieved when fear is laid to rest, can his kind progress to a saner, more stable civilization. Objective perception of our wondrous surroundings must hold sway over the wishful and ungrateful conception of even better things in the nebulous beyond. There IS, or there ISN'T -- and we can perceive with certainty that there IS. It is not necessary to conceive of anything else!
Ron Stauffer, (10-23-03)
O P T I O N S ? (3-29 03)
September 11, 2001, has brought a lot of unexpected trauma to the citizens of the United States and, to a lesser extent, the citizenry of the world. Depending on what philosophical bent one is, the effect of the assault has more or less bound people up in confirmation of their personal philosophy: to the moderate Christian it was an attack by jealous thugs under guise of religious fervor (a__hole zealots, that are everywhere. . . in every jaded, extremist persuasion -- as one Episcopalian friend shared with me); to the fundamentalist Christians it was retribution by God on the sinful ways of present day America -- putting the blame on us rather than the nation of the assassins; to the Muslim, it was payback for the crass materialism of the West, put upon the innocent and poor of the Middle East . . . and the support of Zionism in the midst of their religion; and to the atheist, it was stark proof of the brewing of a religious war -- an extension of the early Crusades.
The above mentioned four interpretations and attitudes hardly form a consensus of why the heinous, premeditated intent to destroy the most obvious and vulnerable symbols of America's might occurred. Perhaps it is all of the above, and may very well represent the remainder of the world as a fifth opinion. Now, the question is: where do we go from here? Certainly, the future does not look very bright. It is not hard to see where the thugs are going -- they are going to jail or execution if they can be caught before accomplishing more terrorism; the fundamentalist (evangelical, some might prefer to be called) Christian, prepared for the coming rapture is, mysteriously and out of character, asking for the select destruction of national regimes that harbor or might supply terrorists -- at the collateral expense of killing and maiming innocent civilians; the Muslims are particularly incensed at what they perceive as America's intent to annihilate them; and the atheist, unwilling to take sides in such folly as a religious war, sits back and reminisces of a not too distant past when religion seemed to be in remission -- the "silent, or moral, majority" was content to fight crabgrass.
No, it is not a rosy picture of the future. The world is in contortion (not that we weren't in confusion before), because we are in a second war of attrition that is only going to drain the resources of America rather than secure its constituents in their homes. No matter WHAT we do, there are no viable options that will deliver us safely to the relatively innocent and nostalgic years of before: thugs will continue their idiotic suicidal bombing (which seems faith-based to me); the fundies, not altogether convinced that they will be swept up into heaven anytime soon, will support George Bush's wars ". . . no matter how long it takes" -- even as it violates the teachings of their Christ (the ultimate irony of their confused position is that two of their leaders, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, blamed the 9 -- 11 assault on American citizens' deserved punishment by God for their sinful acceptance of the ACLU, gays and Democrats); the Muslims will continue to react negatively to the West's cultural and physical domination and hypocrisy.
It does indeed seem that the human race, because of its primeval reliance on the spirit world, has painted itself into a corner. Perhaps the analogy is too mild: one can extricate oneself from the unpainted corner with some little consternation; but who in the world is willing to say: "Hey, maybe we're wrong. . . let's start all over again -- before it's too late. HA! Yeah, everyone from Martin Sheen to the Pope (and even some of your neighbors) are crying out: PEACE, PEACE. Correct me if I'm wrong, but have not these same people, in a mix with others, been asking and praying for the same thing for eons? So what's different now to expect that their wishing and beseeching are going to result in success? Fat chance, my friend, fat chance! Unless someone -- and I mean SOMEONE -- who has the ear of the world, who is above the political and cultural fray, can and is willing to step forward and lead us, maybe then we can avoid almost certain disintegration. I know of no one with that kind of stature, unless Madison's and Jefferson's indifferent God exists whereupon HE or SHE or IT might willingly set us all straight. HA! Who in the world would be a party to THAT?
Let's face the facts: No one is going to change the way he or she believes -- accepting the truth that they might have been passively brainwashed from birth. A few of us have made the quantum leap, but we Atheists have little voice shouting over Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Kay Parker and the village priest or parson. Even in this country, the wall separating church and state is crumbling, with the help of ALL THREE branches of our government. The so called liberal press, controlled by conservative Rupert Murdoch, and other heartless (and mindless) corporate conglomerates are doing little more than treading water in our rush to reaction. "INSANITY! INSANITY!" a British Army Officer was seen crying in the aftermath of the bridge's destruction at the end of the 1958 film "BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER KWAI." He would more than shudder to see the dilemma that we face today!
Considering a worst case scenario where eradication of the Moslem holy cities and most of that faith were somehow decided upon and successfully effected, then what? It is still a chess match with hardly more than a faint chance for stalemate. Why? Because the successful Christians and Jews would eventually reopen their festering differences. Then it would be the fight between the two remaining "true faiths," Catholicism and the Christian Fundamentalists. All this after we cleaned North Korea's clock and sent their faithful packing.
I don't know of any viable options. DO YOU?
Ron Stauffer (3 - 29 - 03)
GROUNDHOG DAY - THE MOVIE (2-02-03)
Another Groundhog Day and I'm looking forward to our annual viewing of Andie MacDowell's solemn toast to "world peace;" a lofty ideal, that search and wish and prayer for world peace; but it seems as far away as ever. One wonders why--what is so elusive about achieving universal peace on this planet? I believe there is a simple answer, but first let us look at some of the obstacles:
POLITICS-- Most would agree that conflicting political ideologies are the root cause of disharmony and war, although ECONOMICS is considered to be a prime mover also, as it was in the last two world wars, and our civil war. RELIGION, as it clashes with other faith based cultures, contributes very abundantly to social unrest also. Perhaps 80% to 90% of all warfare are 'tribal' clashes over which belief system is more pious and 'good.'
The world at present is made up of the following political systems, or a mixture thereof: DEMOCRACY- Rule by majority, or majority with minority rights protected (the United States is an example of the latter, having its Bill of Rights--the First ten amendments to the Constitution). MONARCHY- Leadership by royal family either by fiat or by symbol. DICTATORSHIP- Leadership by strong-arm confiscation of power. THEOCRACY- Rule by the clergy and ecclesiastical law.
All of the above political systems can be described as primarily SECULAR or THEOCRATIC. They all are, to some degree, a mixture of both except for the earlier examples of Communism such as experienced in China and the Soviet Union, and of course the theocracies of the Islamic middle east.
In light of today's conflicts, it seems at first glance that theocracies are at each other's throats most of the time. But secular governments have had their bad times too: China and the USSR outlawed religion but certainly challenged world peace with their saber rattling and nuclear arsenals. Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini found the mix of theocracy and secularism to their liking.
Communism was an exalted ideal, whether it be atheist or not (some churches have been founded on the same principle), but not found to be an achievable goal by all-too-fallible humans. On the other hand, free secular societies, like the United States and those countries that have imitated her political philosophy, do allow for idiosyncratic differences within lawful bounds, and have progressed the farthest toward multicultural understanding. Theocracies have lagged behind, being dependent on singular, dogmatic 'truths' that only give way to change when successfully challenged by another competing system. The success of secular nations is hinged on its freedoms, and the supposed endowment of religious principles that its theistic element(s) insist were present at its founding.
It can be said that the above definitions are an over-simplification of a very complex problem, but deserves consideration as a reduction of a myriad, albeit, impossible tangle of human bewilderment. With the risk of being foolish, I naively propose the following AXIOMS to achieve world peace:
A. To those faithful to some divine mover- teach your family and live by example your personal values within the framework of the NATION'S laws.
B. To those having no faith in a god or gods- do likewise, adhering to the laws of the land, living your personal values in your pursuit of happiness.
C. Religionists and secularists must keep their affirmations to them selves, without bothering others with brow beating proselytism, even as one may be wholly convinced the other will spend "eternity" in a very unholy place.
D. Live and let live. . . be content to mind only your own business (didactic effrontery is not polite--but very gross). It should be no mystery to any rational being why it is so important to maintain the wall separating pious and mystical beliefs from that of government policy.
Drink to THAT, Rita and Phil! Oh, and Phil (meaning you, Bill Murray), do SOMETHING besides offering prayer. . . okay, pray if you must, but we all know what you had in mind in that last toast--you sly hound dog--for a piece, but not world peace! L.C.
