for as long as i can remember, we as americans were simply supposed to side with the israelis because "it's the right thing to do."  i've never really thought about it much before.  however, after looking at it, i find that palestinians have a legitimate "beef" when it comes to the invasion of their homeland.  i don't care if israel is our strongest ally in the middle east.  it doesn't make things right.

---

if we didn't hold on so tightly to our religious convictions, then i strongly doubt that the state of israel would have even formed.  israel's very existence is a continual reminder that, even to this day, we perpetuate the idea that it's okay to be "separate but equal."  it's as if we looked at the jews, recognized that they had been the target of genocidal campaigns and undue prejudice throughout history, and told them to go play on a separate playground because it would stop the "name-calling."

...lot of good that did...

by creating a separate state especially for the jews, we basically validated the following idea: people never really liked you in the past, so therefore most likely people won't like you in the future.  that's basically what we said.

if we really look at it, the only reason the arab states don't like israel--in addition to their being kicked off their own land--is that their religious convictions are different.  it's a war over jerusalem.    it's a war over faith.

it's a war over belief without justification.

it's completely ridiculous.

---

if we didn't have fundamentalist islam, we wouldn't have to worry so much about the continual threat of religious jihadists carrying out the "divine will of god."

if we didn't have fundamentalist jews, then there would be no israel to fight over.

if we didn't have fundamentalist buddhists, then we wouldn't hear about christians being attacked for trying to evangelize in china.

if we didn't have fundamentalist christianity, we would be on the cutting edge of possibly live-saving stem-cell research.  we wouldn't have the caustic anti-semitism that fueled WWII (hitler was a catholic...look it up).  we wouldn't have political gridlock because of moral "wedge" issues e.g. gay marriage.  we wouldn't be having this huge "debate" over the scientific validity of evolution as guided by natural selection.

*most of the people arguing don't even have a really good grasp of what they're arguing against...

---

i'll admit it.  rigid fundamentalism scares me.  if someone honestly believes that things are coming to an end, what could possibly make them stand up and defend a dying world?  where is the honor?  where is the compassion?  where is the belief that tomorrow is worth fighting for?

if we didn't have fundamentalist religion, we wouldn't have a population of impressionable minds growing up thinking "i am right and everybody else should just fuck off."  we wouldn't have the underlying tensions fueling the tension in the middle-east, or between india and pakistan.  if we simply applied the same investigative rigors to religion that we do for EVERYTHING ELSE IN OUR LIVES, we would see that there is nothing there to lift up religion. 

it's just an empty container.

if we didn't have fundamentalist religion, WE WOULD BE DOING THE RIGHT THING SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO...and not because some book keeper in the sky told us to.

could you imagine?  an altruistic world acting on the behalf of justice, not because big brother in the sky was watching and taking notes, but because, at their core, people knew it was the right thing to do.

---

despite how these issues are often framed, atheists do not think they have all the answers.  we make our way through the world based on the information we find, and in the end, we hope it's enough.  we don't claim to know everything, even though it may come off that way.

we actually find it arrogant and condescending for anyone to proffer such. 

so often, atheists are actually trying to lower theologians back onto the level playing field.  for the "devout," however, playing on a level field is the same as stooping, and they choose "never to stoop." i'm tired of trying to tug gently...

i'll admit it.  it's a frightening thing: not knowing.  i don't know how many times i've had to deliberately break down my worldview and rebuild it from the ground up.  however, all of this effort does remind me EACH AND EVERY DAY that life is precious, and i feel the pain of every second i waste.  this is my one chance to get it right.  this is my one chance and i'm not going to let myself fuck it up.

it's been a frustrating week.

so there is some new drama involving a piece of ineffective political satire falsely characterizing barack obama as a militant muslim, and as much as i can understand how dangerous it would be to have a war-monger in office (i find it rather hard to abstain from mentioning the current one),  i don't see how having an islamic president would necessarily be a bad thing PROVIDED that he/she hold a the common court of law above his/her own theological convictions. 

i just don't see why the president of the united states needs to be a christian. 

i really don't.

i'm not entirely sure whether i should be posting this image.  i fear it may simply propagate the ridiculous funny business surrounding senator obama's candidacy.

to anyone else out there who happens to come across this post, do any of you NOT believe in evolution? 

despite how mundane this question may seem, a recent blogging thread has made it clear that there is very little of the consensus i thought there was.  i simply need to know.

---

this is all rather fun.  aimless, but fun.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/evangelical.vote/index.html

so...according to james dobson, an outspoken member of the religious right, "Obama [has a confused theology and] should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament."

so...the teachings of the old testament are antiquated and irrelevant?  are they really now?

then explain this.

2:16 - 2:59

have a nice day you hypocrite.

---

so there are mentions of homosexuality in the new testament.  touche yurkidding...touche.

on the issue of shellfish, i'm guessing this is the passage you were talking of (somewhere in there):

Peter's Vision (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10)

 9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

 14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

 15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

 16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

people apparently can't conclusively determine whether or not the vision was metaphorical.  most people agree that it is, which is understandable considering that even peter had to "wonder about the meaning of the vision" (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10).  some believe the vision to be a test for peter, to see if he'd willingly disobey one of god's preordained laws.  another interpretation--and probably the more viable one--dictates that the vision liberated peter to now associate with the gentiles.  in either of these contexts, the vision has nothing to deal with actual food.

however,even if we are to believe that it does relate to the stuff people can eat, then it still doesn't mention anything about the "abomination" that is shellfish.  it only mentions "four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air."  i know that may seem nitpicky (i know, i know) but to me, it echoes those minute differences in scripture that people use to justify their various different denominations of christianity.

as a little confession i have to make, i will admit that many of my earlier posts dealing with this stuff were mainly boosts to my own ego, to prove myself right and everyone else wrong.  once i realized i was consumed with such a petty goal, i also realized that what i was doing was only self-serving--and minutely self-serving at that.  however, when issues of theology spill over into the arena of politics, which actually do affect me and the people i love, i will not let flimsy, vacuous argument pass for legitimate justification for a voting decision or public policy.  that's it.

i now know that i have no jurisdiction over the corners of your mind, and i will no longer try (as hard) to level the entire world in an attempt to have everyone agree with me.  however, when your ideas translate into action, particularly political action which affects not just me, but every u.s. citizen, i have a civic duty to deter people from committing what i believe to be a monumental error.

this origins of this post stem from my defense of barack obama's character moreso than from that characteristic--and sometimes careless--tendency of mine to try and undermine religion.  as the election draws near, you can bet on me trying even harder to make my case.

i really don't think life is prepared for how badly i'm going to kick it in the face

rereading it, i know none of that actually makes sense, but to my soul, it's like blue skies and sunshine, which make total sense.

for today, i really don't give a hoot what you think.  hopefully i'll remember that come tomorrow.

everyone have fun in asia

it'll be a hoot, a very hot (but still very fun) hoot