Texas Textbooks

On May 21st, the Texas State Board of Education passed their new Social Studies standards, removing the alleged “Liberal Bias” in the curriculum. Before going into the standards themselves, let me first give an idea as to the type of people we are dealing with.

Yep, started the discussions on the proposed standard changes with a prayer and an explicit statement of the nation’s Christian origin.  Now, I have read through all four documents mentioned, and, like many of the colony founding documents, they all are indeed founding the colonies as Christian colonies.  The two key elements here is that these are founding charters (with the exception of the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut) for colonies, not the founding documents of the nation. Many of these colonies went on to create laws wherein not being Christian, or being the wrong flavor of Christian, was indeed punishable by law. The actual founding document would be the US Constitution. The so called “Christian Origin” of the nation is something I have already written about.

She goes on to speak of the Bill Of Rights, and how it was inspired by the belief of the Founding Fathers.  This despite the fact that the First Amendment clearly separates church and state, and that many of the Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine, were clearly not Christians. Some of the Christian founders were also opposed to building the nation on a religion.

Anyhow, enough history, most of that has already been covered elsewhere. Let’s go on to these standards.

Admittedly, I have not read the final standards in their entirety, but due to time constraints in the real world, I will speak solely of what I have read, the first 25 pages of the high school standards. The Middle and Elementary School standards I will read later.

Let’s begin with this new “Celebrate Freedom week.” This one is a federal law, so it applies to all states. The part that annoys me the most it the required memorization of this passage from the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[71] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Aside from memorization being pointless (I could once recite the entire Gettysburg Address, I can’t anymore) compared to the actual meaning of the document, this particular passage stops short of the important part. The part about abolishing Governments that encroach on these rights.

On page two of the changes, an article requiring study of the Founding Fathers is mentioned. It lists “Benjamin Rush, John Hancock, John Jay, John Witherspoon, John Peter Muhlenberg, Charles Carrol, and Jonathan Trumbull.” These are all Christain founders, none of the non-Christian or pro-secularist founders mentioned above are mentioned in this list.

On page four, Social Darwinism is added to a list of social ideas that need be studied. While no one in their right mind is pro-Social Darwinism, I cannot help but wonder if this pro-Christianity schoolboard has ulterior motives for the addition and terminology used.

Page five mentions study if the McCarthy witch hunts. More interesting is the addition of the Venona Papers, which do show communist presence, allowing McCarthy to look like a good guy. Never mind the manner in which the witch hunts were performed as a political move rather than for the safety of the US.

Page eleven mentions various political and social leaders. Interesting additions are evangelist Billy Graham and anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly.

Page eleven also mentions learning of the history and meaning of “E Pluribus Unum” and “In God We Trust.” Again, I find myself doubtful that the history of “In God We Trust” will reflect the Cold War reactionary nature of it.

Speaking of incorrectly taught histories, page 23 mentions “development of demogractic-republican government from its beginnings in the Judeo-Christian legal tradition.” I believe I have already addressed why this one is junk.

Page 23, in talking of Enlightenment persons, removed the term “Enlightenment” as well as Thomas Jefferson, but adds Saint Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin.

The following page in discussion of Eastern history, removes study of all Eastern religions, despite the fact that Christianity is still heavily prevalent and studied with some depth all throughout the curriculum.

Another thing I noticed throughout the section I have read were a couple vocabulary changes. For instance, all occurrences of “American imperialism” were replaced with the happy sounding “expansionism,” and all instances of the religiously neutral “BCE/CE” system were replaced with the Christian “BC/AD” system.

My non-Texan readers might ask why they should care. Simple. Texas buys so many textbooks that many other states buy the Texas edition rather than having their own printed. Fortunately, many other states have already opted to skip the new Texas history books.  None the less, I fear for the education of the children in my home state.

Everybody Draw Muhammad Day

Muhammad re-dedicating the Black Stone at the Kaaba. From Jami Al-Tawarikh, a book commissioned by late 13th to early 14th century Muslim ruler of Mongolian Iikhanate, Mahmud Gharzan.

In April of this year, South Park Creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker joined the list of cartoonists threatened with death for depicting the prophet Muhammad in their show. This was not the first time the two had shown Muhammad in South Park. In episodes prior, Muhammad had been censored out by Comedy Central, due to threats against cartoonists involved in a Danish newspaper publication. Prior to that, Muhammad appeared uncensored and seemingly without controversy in 2001. Comedy Central has since removed the video from South Park Studios and will no longer re-air the episode.

Appalled by Comedy Central’s haste in bowing to the threats, cartoonist Molly Norris proclaimed today, May 20th, as “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.”

While some may find the idea disrespectful, and others find it silly, I find it to be a rather noteworthy protest. As things stand, Comedy Central has established a dangerous precedent by censoring itself to religious extremists. They are forfeiting their free speech, a right guaranteed by the Constitution, a right supposedly valued by this nation. I know death threats are not something to be taken lightly, but neither is a move at the start of a slope to censorship by religious extremists. If we can no longer show Muhammad at risk of being harmed by a radical group, what next?

Just as Stone and Parker refuse to censor themselves over these threats (though they be at the mercy of their distributor), others have decided that they will show they will not be threatened either.  Sure, local newspaper cartoonists, web comic authors, and bloggers don’t have the impact that a nationwide television show has, but it shows that there are countless citizens who will not be intimidated, and that our ranks are too numerous to be quashed by mere threats.

Now you may note that I opted to post a drawing not my own. The reason is twofold. Rest assured I did indeed draw my own image, signed, dated, and placed online. Because I do not want my name attached to this blog, not for this, but for other things I have and plan to discuss, I opted to use a public domain image here rather than my own. The second reason is the history of the image used. Much as depictions of Jesus are commonplace in churches and bookstores, depictions of Muhammad were once commonplace iconography, especially in 14th century Persian manuscripts. The Qur’an itself does not forbid images of the prophet; it is forbidden in tradition-become-dogma.

As I have stated above, I know I am just a faceless blogger with a very small readership, but I ask you join in this protest. It may seem like a small and silly gesture, but the meaning of it, that we are numerous and unwilling to simply forfeit our right to free speech, is too meaningful to simply brush over.

Ilkhanate

A Story About Christmas

Once upon a time many years ago, a star in the east lead wise men to a humble scene, where a child was born of the virgin mother Isis. Wait…that’s Horus, wrong guy. 

In any case, the whole “virgin birth” in humble beginnings, like caves or mangers, is not something unique to Jesus. The Egyptian god Horus, the Greek god Dionysus, the Persian god Mithra, and numerous other ancient gods all share similar birth and life stories to Jesus.

Winter festivals were around long before the birth of Jesus. Saturnalia, Brumalia, Sol Invictus, and other festivals commemorating various son gods were commonplace in numerous cultures. 

It is believed that Christmas was placed on the 25th to coincide with these festivals. The actual birth of Jesus was likely in the spring, as evidenced by the shepards tending to their flocks when confronted by the angels, as well as the simple fact that Jesus didn’t freeze to death in a manger. 

Interestingly enough, Christmas has been banned multiple times in history, not by non-Christian governments, as the fear is today, but by Christians themselves. In 1645,under the rule of Oliver Cromwell, the celebration of Christmas in England was abolished. On this side of the pond, Massachusetts banned Christmas from 1659-1681, due to it’s pagan roots. 

It was not until 1860 that Christmas was a Federal Holiday in the United States.

So today if you’re busy reveling in the birth of your savior and shaking a fist at those who dare do something other than that, take a moment to remember the origins of the holiday, and that it was once fought against not by godless heathens, but by the very people trying to defend it today.

How to Put Christ Back in Christmas

To the “put Christ back in Christmas” crowd,

 It’s not the atheists nor the liberals who took Christ out of Christmas. It was you. When Ulysses S Grant made Christmas into a federal holiday in 1870, at that moment, Christmas became a secular holiday. Partly due to separation of church and state, no government endorsement of religion and all that. If it’s federal, it’s secular by default. But that’s not the part that really killed it.

 By making Christmas a federal holiday, a day where most businesses close, non-Christians are essentially forced to make the best of that day. Now they can’t go shopping or run errands, everything is closed. This leaves them with nothing better to do than celebrate Christmas as they see fit. And if they aren’t believers in Jesus, then it only makes sense that their celebration is going to be devoid of Jesus. By essentially forcing every Jew, Muslim, Pagan, Wiccan, Buddhist, Atheist, and whatever other religious peoples I have failed to mention to celebrate this supposedly Christian holiday, Christians have practically invited other beliefs and traditions into their holiday. That is, of course, neglecting the beliefs and traditions borrowed from other faiths, but that’s a different topic entirely.

My point is, if you want to put Christ back in Christmas, there is an easy way to do it. Remove Christmas as a federal holiday. Any other person of any other religion has to use put in time off requests or burn vacation time to take off their holy days. And since they are the only ones taking that day off, they don’t have too much trouble keeping them holy. Since giving Christmas the same treatment would allow non-Christians to hold on to that vacation day in favor of their holidays, and put a little cash in their pocket, there ends up being incentive to not celebrate Christmas. With all the non-Christians out, there’s plenty of room for the Christians to put Christ back in.

The War on (Everything That Isn’t) Christmas

Apparently, there is a War on Christmas. Maybe it’s due to jealousy, corporate driven greed, or maybe it’s just an evil cold hearted liberal agenda to destroy the holiday.

I can attest only to what I think, what I’ve observed, and what others have told me with regards to this issue.

As I have stated before, I am an atheist. I am also fairly active in a local atheist group, the kind who launches billboards and bus campaigns. Two things I can vouch for here. We’re not trying to attack Christianity or Christmas, we’re trying to reach out to those who feel they must hide their lack of faith. And second. Most of us are completely unbothered by the phrase “Merry Christmas.” In fact, if you wish me a Merry Christmas, I’ll wish you one back. Nearly every atheist I know will do the same. Same for the Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Pagans, etc.

I know anecdotal evidence is rather meaningless, but I would be willing to bet this sentiment is common nation wide. And if that’s the case, what is this “war” really about?

Apparently, the major offenses are saying “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas,” and, even worse, mentioning holidays other than Christmas.

Let’s look at that phrase, “Happy Holidays.” As a kid, I was always told it referred to the combination of Christmas and New Year’s. There’s even a Christmas carol with lyrics to that effect. The phrase, “Happy Holidays” is a bit more concise than “Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.” However, I later learned of other religious celebrations around the same time. The Jewish celebration of Hanukkah tends to fall in late December. While it did not fall in December this year, the Islamic celebration of Ramadan often falls around this time. Kwanzaa, a celebration of African heritage, falls in December as well. Wiccans, Pagans, and other naturalistic religions celebrate Yule around this time as well. “Happy Holidays” is an encompassing term, wishing good times to everyone, regardless of what holidays they do or do not celebrate.

So if “Happy Holidays” is offensive, mentioning of other holidays is offensive, and when most the combatants tote bumper stickers like these, the actual motive is quite obvious. The motive is to make sure the only holiday recognized in December is Christmas itself. It is not trying to “save” the Christian holiday but to push aside every holiday other than Christmas itself. It is trying to snuff out the voices of anyone who celebrates something other than Christmas, and even those who may still celebrate Christmas, but have no qualms with people celebrating something else.  It is not a War on Christmas. It is a War on Everything That Isn’t Christmas.

Why Religion is Dangerous

One word. Faith.

Merriam-Webster defines faith as:

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one’s promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

emphasis mine. When I am talking about faith, I am talking about belief in something, acceptance of that something as undeniable fact, despite a lack of proof, or even in the presence of evidence to the contrary.

I am not talking about faith in your friends. Friends treat you well, there tends to be precedents there, so that isn’t that faith I’m talking about.

I am not talking about faith in humanity. There’s enough decent people out there that some faith in humanity is indeed warranted. 

I am talking about faith without evidence. And I would consider faith in any deity to be faith without evidence. 

Faith is harmful to science, to critical thinking, and to people. And the worst part; faith is considered virtuous. 

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

-John 20:29 (NIV)

Thomas had the gall to question the notion that Jesus had risen. Jesus then showed himself to Thomas, and gave the above line. Thomas needed proof, but apparently, it is better to accept these things in the absence of proof.

Why is this harmful? Greta Christina did a better job on this than I ever could, but I’ll throw in my own two cents. 

Because faith needs no evidence, nay requires an absence of evidence, it cannot be questioned or countered, and therefore cannot be critically considered by the faithful. 

Because faith is considered virtuous, to even consider anything against the faith is frowned upon, even in the presence of evidence contrary to the faith.

Faith stops people from searching for understanding in science, in art, in philosophy, in politics, in anything. The instant the conclusion becomes “God did it,” the exploration process has come to an end. The conclusion has been met, the curiosity is quelled, that’s it. The end. “God did it” kills the ‘why?’ and the ‘how?’ and halts discovery.

Faith justifies bigotry. Hating gays, interracial couples, and atheists is generally not okay, unless that hate is in the name of God. Then it’s fine. I’ve known people who have lost friends or were even disowned by their own parents for being gay or atheist, as it violated their parent’s faith. 

Faith is the standard by which religion is measured. Religion is the only thing measured by that standard. Everything else is measured by evidence, by reason, be experiment. It is analyzed, criticized, and evaluated until it is determined to be true or false. Why should religion not hold to the measurable standards of the real world, but to a standard immune to rational thought?

Separation of Church and State (and How it Applies to Your Nativity Scene)

The US Constitution does not explicity call for “separation of church and state.” That phrasing comes from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, explaining the First Amendment:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”

It seems to me Jefferson does a fine enough job explaining why the First Amendment calls for separation of church and state, but let us look at the amendment itself.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

-US Constitution, First Amendment

“Make no law” – this explains itself.

“respecting the establishment of religion” – There are two major elements to this clause. The first is the establishment of a State religion. Many of the original colonists left England in order to flee the State established Church of England. And like England, many of the new colonies established their own official religions. Seeing the division brought by religious intolerance and the discriminatory laws brought about by state religion, the founding fathers sought to prevent this from occurring nation wide.

The second element, the government cannot favor one religion over another. Consider the wording, “respecting the establishment of religion.” Things get iffy when discussing this element, as the term “establishment of religion” can take on two meanings. The first, establishment of a state religion, and the second, establishment of religion in general. Much of the debate withing the constitutional convention went back and forth between wordings explicitly forbidding a national religion, and wording explicitly forbidding any religious favoritism, before finally ending with the wording we see today.

“Or prohibiting free exercise thereof” – No laws forbidding religious practice or expression.

It is the notion that the government cannot favor one religion of another, and how that applies in places such as schools, courthouses, and city halls which bring about so much controversy.

With regards to public schools, faculty lead prayer is forbidden, yet student led prayer is still allowed. Yes, you can pray in schools. Forbidding the students from praying would be unconstitutional, as it would be creating a law prohibiting free exercise of religion. However, faculty cannot lead prayer, as they are representative of the state funded school. If they were to lead a prayer, it would be endorsement of religion. Requiring students to join in the prayer would indeed be unconstitutional, as it would be state endorsement of a specific religion. But is the mere act of leading the prayer unconstitutional? Truth be told, I would argue no, assuming faculty was free to express whatever religion deemed necessary. However, because doing so would effectively reveal the religions of those who participated, and perhaps more importantly, those who did not, this would create easy grounds for religious discrimination, hence it is still a poor policy. 

With regards to courthouses, the more common issue is the appearance of the Ten Commandments. Disregarding the fact that only three of the Ten Commandments are even US law, and the other seven probably should stay outside the law, the issue becomes the grounds by which they are placed at the courthouse. Should I decide to post religious material at a courthouse, I could be fined for solicitation, whereas the posting of the Ten Commandments was done with the legal blessing of the state. Key word there, legal. By permitting the posting of one religious symbol, and forbidding the posting of others, likely under threat of law (though it will be disguised as trespass or solicitation rather that posting of material of the wrong religion), law has been established favoring one religion over another. 

Around this time of year, it’s the nativity scenes posted at courthouses, city halls, and other federal buildings that get the presses rolling. Much like the Ten Commandments at courthouses, permitting one religious symbol and not others under threat of legal action does indeed establish law that prefers one religion over another, and as such is indeed unconstitutional. As such, there shouldn’t be a nativity scene, nor menorah, nor a flying spaghetti monster on any federal buildings this or any holiday season. 

No one is stopping you or your church from putting up whatever holiday decoration you please. Each year my father puts up lights saying “Merry Christmas,” with the Christ in a different color. I’m fine with this, as it’s on his own property. While I do not believe in it’s message, it is his right to put that up on his property, and anyone who says otherwise has severely distorted if not blatantly disregarded the meaning of the Constitution. 

Keep your nativity scenes on your own yards and your churches’ yards and out of our city halls, and I’ll keep my, well, nothing, in mine. We both leave city hall alone, and we’ll both have a happy holiday.

The United States is NOT a Christian Nation

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.upcoming posts”

-Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11

So I return from my rather extended hiatus, and I figured I’d start off this holiday season by attacking a notion I hear far too often, especially around this time. The notion that the United States is a Christian Nation.

It is true that many of the original thirteen colonies were indeed founded on Christianity. While some colonies were tolerant of religion, others practiced a brand of religious law comparable to modern Sharia law. Take for instance, this lovely except from the 1647 Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts:

“That if any Christian within this Jurisdiction shall go about to subvert and destroy the christian Faith and Religion, by broaching or mainteining any damnable heresie; as denying the immortalitie of the Soul, or the resurrection of the body, or any sin to be repented of in the Regenerate, or any evil done by the outward man to be accounted sin: or denying that Christ gave himself a Ransom for our sins, or shal affirm that wee are not justified by his Death and Righteousnes, but by the perfection of our own works; or shall deny the moralitie of the fourth commandement, or shall indeavour to seduce others to any the herisies aforementioned, everie such person continuing obstinate therin after due means of conviction shall be sentenced to Banishment.”

Banishment is a fairly common punishment throughout the Massachusetts laws. Of course, death is in there rather often as well. Good Christian colony, Massachusetts.

Of course, when we speak today of the foundations of the United States, we rarely speak of the pilgrims, but instead of the drafters and signers of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

Starting first with the Declaration, there are three instances used as evidence of Christianity as a foundation.; the mention of “Nature’s God” and the “Creator” within the first two paragraphs, and the mention of “Divine Providence” in the closing sentence.

These may indeed be clear appeals towards a higher power, but is it the Christian God? The latter two statements could be made concerning any god; the only one with any specifics is the first mention, the mention of “Nature’s God.” The full opening paragraph, for context:

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Nature’s God. This phrase I have never heard used to describe the God of Christianity. In fact, such a description would have awarded me a swift scolding from my parents or my former church for such blasphemous language. Would it not make more sense, if this were indeed the Christian God, for him to have been referred to as such? The God of Abraham rather than the Nature’s God? There is nothing to show that the God mentioned in the Declaration was indeed the Christian God.

Perhaps more noteworthy when it comes to the god in the Declaration is the faith of it’s primary Author, Thomas Jefferson. In fact, once it is revealed that Jefferson was likely a Deist, the use of the term “Nature’s God,” a common deist term, begins to make sense. Jefferson never referred to himself as a Deist, though his references to his own religion have varied from Christian to Materialist to Unitarian. Whatever he actually was, in looking into his letters and indeed his removal of all that is supernatural from the Gospels that Jefferson, by nearly all standards, was not a Christian, and thus it is not a stretch to say that the God in the Declaration is, at the very least, not the God of any mainstream Christianity.

The documents that most would indeed consider the be the foundations of the nation, The Articles of Confederation for the newly born nation, and the Constitution of The United States of America. Neither have a single mention of God, or any divinity for that matter. Neither are they based on the Ten Commandments, nor any other religious doctrine. In fact, there is nothing in either document even reminiscent of anything in the Ten Commandments. The only ones that have anything similar in US government would be laws reminiscent of the sixth (murder), eight (theft) and ninth (false witness) commandments. None of the others are represented even in law.

There is no mention of religion at all in the articles, and the only mentions of religion in the Constitution are not an endorsement of Christianity, but a protection of religious freedom. There is only one mention of religion in the main body of the Constitution, the “no religious tests” clause:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”

-US Constitution, Article 6

In layman’s terms, there is no religious requirement to serve in any federal or state position. There exist state laws contrary to this, which have yet to be challenged in the Supreme Court, but that’s a different post for another time.

The only other mention is in the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This one is pretty straightforward, no making laws that establishing a national religion, perhaps even no law endorsing one religion over another, and no laws preventing free exercise of religion either. There is much debate with regards to this clause, no explicit mention of the widely touted “separation of church and state.” That notion comes from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, with regards to the meaning of the First Amendment. In it he states:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”

Faith is between a man and his god, and law should deal in actions and not in opinions. While it is easily arguable that opinions influence actions, and thus are indeed important to the lawmaking process, it seems the intent here is that only if the action itself is deemed harmful, likely to the liberties guaranteed in the Constitution, only then is law to be written. Not due to religious convictions.

The final piece of evidence I wish to lay is the very piece I have started with. The Treaty of Tripoli. Piracy in the Barbary coast lead to a series of treaties with the nations of said coast. In order to cease the piracy and to prevent it’s sailors from enduring the harsh treatment of captured sailors, especially those who were not Muslim, the US negotiated and signed treaties with the various nations that made up the Barbary coast. Among the stipulations of the treaty was the aforementioned article, denying the foundation of the United States on Christianity. In 1797, it was unanimously passed by congress and signed by President John Adams.

With such a blatant and explicit statement of this nations non-Christian foundation, what more evidence do you need?

Definitions and Semantics

I am going to end my little logic thing rather short, I’ll address further fallacies as they come up. This topic does still tie in a little bit.

Many times, arguments come down to definitions and semantics.  Often we try to work around that, avoid arguing semantics, but it is a significant enough issue that I think it needs to be addressed. I will discuss the problems I see with definitions in three issues that have come up in my own life recently, spanning the categories of sex, politics, and religion.  In the realm of sex, there’s the semantics of the “rape fantasy.” In the realm of politics, the use of the terms “life” and “murder” in the abortion debate, and on the religion front, the very definition of the words “atheism” and “agnosticism.”  In each of these situations, I will refrain from stating my opinion on the actual issue, as that is not the purpose of this post.

 

Starting with the issue of the rape fantasy. Some will consider this normal, while others are opposed to even the thought. Of all the arguments I have seen with regards to this issue, all problems revolve around the word “rape.”

Let me take a moment to say that rape is something I am vehemently opposed to. It is not something to be taken lightly.

That being said, in terms of the rape fantasy, in most situations I have encountered, the term “rape” could easily be replaced with the term “control” or “power.” When in the head, it exists entirely in the realm of fantasy, and in my opinion is not really worth addressing here. Where the issue comes up is in the physical. When it is a role-played or simulated rape. In this case, the act is a consensual power-play act,  generally discussed and planned out beforehand, wherein the dominated has the power to continue with or end the scenario as they see fit. It fits rather nicely into the realm of dominance and submission, a series of acts wherein the phrase “Safe, Sane, Consensual” takes precedence over all aspects.

As stated before, the actual act of rape is not something to be taken lightly. Non-consensual sex harms people both physically and mentally. To many, the act is on par with, perhaps even worse than murder.

Considering the vile nature of actual rape, it is not difficult to see why such opposition to “rape fantasies” exists. The rape fantasy could be viewed as desiring, even glamorizing the act of rape. However, very few would be opposed to a simple consensual “control fantasy.” The definitions and connotations of the word “rape” complicate what would otherwise be a simple, consensual act.

 

Moving on, abortion. Anyone who has ever been in an abortion debate can attest that the arguments boil down to “when does life begin.” Life. There is quite a bit of conflict to that word. What’s it mean?

The pro-life crowd will say that “life” starts at conception. Common arguments revolve around the religious concept of the soul and the potential for the fetus to become a full grown person. To them, the soul and the potential, the simple fact that the cells are “alive” means it has “life,” and to end that is indeed “murder.”

On the other end of the spectrum, “life” doesn’t start the instant the sperm penetrates the egg. To the pro-choice crowd, “life” doesn’t begin until much later. Definitions on this side vary, from the development of nerves, to the brain, even as far as brain wave activity, which doesn’t start until 26 weeks. Further arguments on this side ask why it is ok to kill an insect or small animal, which have brains, central nervous systems, perhaps even self awareness, while it is “murder” to kill the homogeneous clump of cells that exists shortly after conception? Apparently killing what is “alive” isn’t always “murder,” so what defines having “life” as opposed to merely being “alive,” and what defines “murder.”

Until these terms can be agreed upon, no real productive argument can be had between the two sides.

 

Lastly, there’s the atheists and the agnostics. Unlike the previous, this pertains more so to perception of the groups rather than any arguments between the two.

In my experience, the definitions of “atheism” and “agnosticism” differ between the self-proclaimed atheists and agnostics and society. Within the community, there is a differentiation between the gnostic and agnostic atheist; the gnostic atheist believes there is no god, while the agnostic atheist lacks belief in god. The overwhelming majority of atheists I have met, myself included, fall into the agnostic atheist category. Furthermore, within the community, agnostics are considered those who either unwilling to commit to to a specific belief or lack thereof.

Amongst society, however, the definition of the agnostic atheist is applied to the agnostic, while the definition of the gnostic atheist is applied to all atheists.

The problems caused by this tend to manifest in discussion and perception of atheists and agnostics both inside and outside the atheist community. The self-identified agnostic is often viewed as a lazy thinker or one still grasping onto their faith by atheists, while society in general vies the agnostic as being more logical or “safer” than the atheist, and easier to relate to. The self-identified atheist is generally more readily welcomed into the atheist community, but society in general tends to view the atheist as being a “god-hater,” someone to keep your children away from.

Until the two groups can reconcile these differences, there will continue to be problems between the theist and atheist communities, and furthermore problems within the atheist community itself.

Dissecting the Traditional Relationship

From as early as I can remember, it was instilled in me that I would grow up, get married, and have children. Here I am, age 24, and I’ve never even dated, nor do I really have the desire to. Some may say I am missing out, others may go so far as to say I am broken, but I am happy as I am. That being said, as someone on the outside, I’ve spent quite a bit of time looking in, trying to understand. What makes friendships and capitol R Relationships different? Are they really that different? Is this distinction even necessary?

Full disclosure, I have no qualms with polyamory, and based on behaviors that commonly mark the distinction between a friendship and a relationship, some might say that I am involved in multiple romantic relationships. I would disagree with the latter part, which will make sense as I go.

So, where is the line between friendship and “something more” actually defined? Ask a million different people and you’ll get a million different answers. Some will cite a feeling that apparently defies description. Others will draw the line at physical affection. I’ve heard answers that span everywhere inbetween.

Once the line is established, it is accepted that people distinctly fall on one side or the other. For the monogamous majority, only one person can fall on the relationship side, but even amongst the polyamorous, the line still exists. What I find most interesting about this line is the limitations and expectations it sets up. Several behaviors are considered exclusive to the Relationship; these behaviors are expected of those in a Relationship, and expressly forbidden for those outside of one. Much like the definition, these behaviors vary from person to person. Use of pet names, purchase of gifts or meals, frequent conversation, especially via phone, IM, or email, and extensive travel for visitation tend to fall on the Relationship side for most people. These things are just not done outside the Relationship, and especially not with “just friends” while in a Relationship. They are considered disrespectful at best and may be considered cheating at worst. Furthermore, once one officially enters a Relationship, these activites are expected. It is as though the act of dating instantly changes the whole relationship.

But why establish these limits and expectations? As far as I can tell, they only serve to limit friendships, and break relationships. Gestures of affection in a friendship bring rise to questions of motive. Failure to meet the expectations, even in a young relationship, bring question to the depth of feeling. The line breaks the natural growth of feelings of love and trust amongst people.

How many times have you caught yourself choosing your words carefully, offering a handshake rather than a hug, or refraining from calling a friend in need, lest your actions be interpreted as romantic advances? I am ashamed to admit that I am guilty of multiple counts of each. It is sad that people feel they must limit the affection they show to people they care about due to silly, rather arbitrary limitations on friendship.

So why follow them? Why not cast off these restrictions? If a friend is feeling down, give them a hug and a phone call later to see how they’re doing. Hell, if they’re a friend, give them a hug and a phone call to see how they’re doing. Feelings are too complex to lump into two neat boxes of “friends” and “relationships.” If a friendship with one person ends up naturally advancing to individual outings, or “dates,” so be it. If that happens with multiple people, that’s cool too (just make sure all of them are cool with it (and honestly, in my opinion, if one of them isn’t, that’s their problem)). I’d even go so far as to say if one or more friendships grow to a point where physical affection is shared, including sex, that’s fine too. No arbitrary limits and no forced expectations, just natural development of the relationship. So long as all people involved are aware and ok with it, I see no reason why one person could not enjoy dinners and movies with person A, dancing with person B, and sex with person C. Or dinner, movies, dancing, and sex with all three.

I see no benifit to keeping with the established system, and no downside to just letting relationships be what they will.