Best Comments So Far About the May 21st Rapture

"I just hope no one is raptured in my drive-thru or it will throw off my speed of service times something fierce." - Thorarin (commenter on Friendly Atheist)

"I'll have the iPad with me, ready to blog about all the Republicans zooming up into the sky." - PZ Myers (aka Pharyngula)

"Be sure to wear Protection Factor 15 if you walk amongst the heathen today." - Tim Spence (commenter on www.justsaypictures.com/rapture-gopher.html)

"The Sunshine Coast Atheists in Queensland has planned a 21 May party at which we will sit on a member's back deck to watch the good Christian citizens of our region ascend into heaven.
In anticipation of the fate awaiting us, we've planned a curry dinner - might as well get used to the heat. We believe a copious intake of alcohol on the Saturday night will prepare us well (and possibly enhance our flammability) for Judgment Day on Sunday." - Kristy (commenter on Pharyngula)

"Seriously, when the Bible was written and the Rapture was planned, instantaneous communication across long distances was unheard of. The Big Sky Fairy may not have taken that into account." - Menyambal, Son of Sambal (commenter on Pharyngula)

"Did they specify if the "6pm local time" takes daylight savings into account?" - Wilson (commenter on Pharyngula)

"Is it possible to postpone it a couple of days? Saturday is not a good day for me, I have other plans..." - MichaelEybye (commenter on Pharyngula)

"I just took a quick look at my VISA card bill. It's due on... May 22nd! Yay!" - SirBedevere (commenter on Pharyngula)

Why I Do Actually Care About the Royal Wedding

I don't care about the Royal Wedding in the way that most care about it.  Not in the joyous, get up at 4am to watch it, thinking it is wonderful news in a world full of violence and sadness kind of way.  I care about it in the angry that tax payer money is being wasted when a large portion of their citizenry are fighting to make ends meet and many are not succeeding kind of way.  Weddings are joyous by nature, but this one is far too wasteful to bring me anything but sadness and anger.

Let's get one thing perfectly clear.  I wish William and Kate much happiness in their marriage and life together.  The same as I would wish any newly married couple or really any human being regardless of their situation. But that's just the point - These 2 individuals are no more important than you or me or anyone else on the planet.  William is no more important simply because he was born "royal". 

I don't always agree with the writings of Thomas Paine, but I think he hit the nail on the head with this one:
"To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and tho' himself might deserve some decent degree of honours of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them."

There are many estimates out there for how much money was spent on this wedding.  One estimate notes 20 million pounds.  Another source suggests that the bill is closer to 80 million pounds.  Yet another source discusses the cost of the event to the actual economy as a whole. 

I am a capitalist by nature.  I believe that if you work hard and earn money you should be able to use that money for whatever makes you happy.  Charlie Sheen is a perfect example.  He has worked hard on many television shows and movies and he has made ample money.  He has chosen to spend that money on hookers and drugs.  I'm okay with that.  It's his money and he earned it and the right to spend it as he pleases.  Bill Gates is another example.  He has more money that he knows what to do with and contributes mass amounts to charitable causes.  While I find Gates to be far more admirable than Sheen, I find neither of them to be right or wrong.  So if someone has earned millions of dollars and they want to spend it all on a lavish wedding I say go for it.

But here's the problem.  The members of the royal family do not have jobs.  They have not earned any of the mass amounts of wealth they possess.  So where do we think all the money that is paying for this wedding has come from.  The tax payers of course!  So I'm sure that since the tax payers are footing the bill, they were all invited right?  Of course not!  How silly!  What would they wear?

This brings me to why this makes me angry.  To forgive Charlie Sheen for feeding his drug and sex habit rather than feeding the poor is one thing - taking care of those less fortunate than him is not his responsibility.  To forgive the royal family for feeding their lavish lifestyle rather than taking care of their far less fortunate citizens is something completely different.  The money they are using is for the sole purpose of taking care of their people.  How would we feel if Stephen Harper or Barack Obama used tax dollars to pay for the extravagant weddings of their children - or even a modest ceremony for that matter.  There would be an uproar and possible criminal charges for misuse of public funds!!! 

An article from December 2010 stated that:
"Those dependent on emergency food boxes, which contain a three-day ration of essentials including tinned meat, fish and fruit, pasta, tea, milk and sugar, has increased from 25,000 two years ago to 60,000, of whom some 20,000 will be children. The organisation estimates that, on current trends, this would swell to 700 food banks feeding 500,000 people by 2015."
and:

"Last week it emerged that 3.7 million children live in poverty in Britain with a record 2.1 million working families now below the breadline. The situation will get worse in coming months as food prices rise, VAT increases to 20 per cent, and job losses due to public sector cuts mount."

and:

"Traditionally, the homeless have been the main beneficiaries of free food parcels. But organisers say they are increasingly helping families and working people. Some parents are so desperate they skip meals or contemplate crime to feed their children."

How sickening that tax dollars are going to celebrate, feed and entertain the rich while so many are suffering. 

My Own Little Foxhole

There's an expression that there are no atheists in foxholes.  It implies that even the most militant atheist will turn to a higher power during high levels of stress or danger.  This is something I've often wondered about on a personal level.

I didn't grow up in an outwardly religious family, but I was surrounded by the idea of God through friends, television, books, movies etc.  I learned more about the concept of a personal god in high school going so far as to accept Christ into my heart during one ill thought out moment. 
Meryn Cadell sums that moment up nicely:
"And then later in the car, my hot-from-crying face against the window, shutting out the conversation around me, I thought about what I'd said .....and I already doubted it. So intangible, so surreal.
Lettin' Christ into my heart? I didn't even know the man."

After high school I really started to examine my beliefs - not just figuring out what I believed, but looking more deeply at why I believed it.  This led to the search for evidence.  I couldn't find any evidence for the existence of Jesus at all - I'm talking primary resource material which completely excludes the bible and anything written based on the bible.  This lack of evidence pretty much made the whole prophet / lunatic / son of God controversy moot. 

While I also didn't see any evidence for a personal god, I wasn't yet ready to let go of the entire concept.   As more and more time passed and my research continued, my views began to evolve.  Gradually it went from acknowledging the existence of a higher power to doubting the existence to more recently denying the existence.  I will still never confidently proclaim that there is no god just as I will never confidently proclaim that there are no pink unicorns on Jupiter.  You can only prove the non-existence of something within very specific parameters and I don't have that ability.  I will however say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I have yet to see any.  Until such evidence becomes available I will continue to view all religions and thoughts of gods or goddesses as primitive superstitions which have no place in today's societies (and especially in schools, governments and legislation).

This brings me to my foxhole pondering.  While I feel good about walking away from these superstitions, I have often wondered how I would react in a dangerous or traumatic situation.  Would I leap wholeheartedly back and pray for some sky fairy to save me?   I recently got my answer.

Almost a month ago I hit a patch of black ice while driving on the highway and lost control of my vehicle, swerving violently and rolling off the edge into the median.  I would imagine that others who have had similarly dangerous experiences will understand when I say it all happened so quickly, but in slow motion.  Because of the slow motion I can honestly remember everything that went through me head at the time.  First there were some expletives which were expelled from my mouth and I won't detail those here.  Then I remembered hearing or reading somewhere that many of the injuries sustained during accidents are caused by individuals bracing for impact and that you should try to relax your body against that instinct.  (I credit my lack of injuries to following this little nugget of wisdom!)  As I started to go over the edge I just accepted that I no longer had any control over the situation and had to deal with whatever outcome lay ahead.  Then I quietly waited and listened to all of the commotion around me (crunching of icy snow, the scraping of metal, the cracking of the windshield...).  When all of the motion and noise stopped I opened my eyes, started breathing again and assessed the situation (a little difficult while hanging upside down). 

I am thrilled to say that at no time during the entire ordeal did I turn to God or prayer.  This tells me that I have truly succeeded in shedding the superstitions from my past and have moved forward to claim my life and my actions as completely my own.  It's a great feeling!

On a side note, I did gain a little faith that day as well - faith in humanity.  I still find myself teary eyed thinking of all of the people who risked their own lives that day to stop on an obviously icy highway to help out a stranger in need.  A very heart-felt thank you to all of the good samaritans out there.

You Know It's Kind of Hateful

The American Atheists recently put up a billboard by the Lincoln Tunnel.

My gut reactions to this sign were
1. I can think of far better uses for $20,000
2. I agree with the message
3.  It's kind of a slap in the face to Christians

The more I thought about it though, the more I came to accept this sign - like it even.  The intentions of the group were to reach out to non-believers and let them know that they are not alone during a season when we are bombarded with Christian and Jewish songs, imagery and stories.  The message in the ad is blunt, but valid.  It's a message that even a lot of Christians would agree with.  At least in my area of North America, the majority of the the Christians I come in contact with don't believe the stories of the bible are literal, but more along the lines of symbolic allegories.

I even got over the amount of money spent on the sign since, due to the controversy surrounding it, they raised $65,000 in donations.  Pretty good return on investment.

And the controversy itself got people talking openly about beliefs which I always think is beneficial.  The more people realize that not everyone thinks the same, the more they will re-evaluate their own beliefs.  I'm always happy when people think critically, regardless of the outcome.

So, end of story, right?  Nope.

The American Atheists have put up a new billboard advertising their January meeting in Alabama.

Now, having lived in Alabama for a time, I'm really glad that an atheist group is making itself known in the area.  I wasn't actually an atheist when I lived there, but it would have been nice to know some people whose first question upon meeting me wasn't "What church do you go to?".  I'm sure many others felt the same way, but you kept those thoughts to yourself.

Alabama is very different from where I live now.  Based on the people I met while there, the bible is taken quite literally by a very large portion of the population.  Those who don't take it as 100% fact, still feel very strongly about it.  So any atheist billboard in Alabama would be controversial and that's okay - controversy opens the dialogue.

But here's what they put up:

Scams?  Really?  Seriously?  This isn't a slap in the face.  This is hitting them with a Mack truck! 

Now, over the years I have become an atheist through and through.  I don't like religious institutions, what they stand for and the untruths* they tell.  However, scam is a very strong and hateful word.  It implies that those running the churches are knowingly deceiving people - that they don't believe in what they're selling.  This is certainly true in some cases, but hardly across the board.  The implication itself could be considered libelous.  I sure hope that the American Atheists don't have to spend all of those generous donations on a court case. 

* Defined as "the condition of being false".  I use that word instead of "lies" because, while I believe that the stories told in houses of worship are untrue, to call them "lies" would be to imply that the story tellers also believe them to be untrue and would therefore be knowingly deceiving the audience.

Car vs Bicyclist

I almost hit a woman with my car tonight.  I was pulling out of the parking lot and had stopped to wait for the oncoming traffic before turning right.  Just as I started to pull out I saw a woman riding a bike on the sidewalk to me right.  I had to stomp on the brakes and then back up so she could pass.

My initial reaction was horror and guilt for my appalling error.  As I drove on I changed my attitude.

First of all - the legality of the situation.  She was on a bicycle and was therefore considered a vehicle, not a pedestrian.  As a vehicle, she should have been on the other side of the road and, as a vehicle, she shouldn't have been on the sidewalk.

Second - the safety of the situation.  It was a dark, cloudy, misty night.  She was wearing dark pants, a dark jacket and a dark helmet.  She did have a small red safety blinker on her helmet (which is what caught my eye), but it was hardly sufficient to compensate for the dark clothing.

So while I would still have felt horrible had I hit her and hurt her, I certainly wouldn't feel "at fault".  I do hope she made it home safely.  I also hope she has learned to be more visible in the future.

Remembrance Day

Yesterday was Remembrance Day in Canada.  The day commemorates the end of World War I at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918.  On November 11th we are supposed to honour all of the soldiers who gave their lives in times of war.

I drop out of society every year on Remembrance Day because I hate it.  Before you judge me as cold hearted, please hear me out.

First of all, my grandfather fought in WWII.  He was one of the lucky ones who came home alive.  We have no idea what happened while he was fighting because he never spoke about it up to the day he died.  It's obvious to me that he didn't want to remember.  My hubby's grandfather also fought in WWII and was a POW for a large portion of the war.  He was also lucky to make it home alive.  He does talk about it and the things he tells us are atrocious.  I love both of these men intensely and I honour them, not for their forced war efforts, but for the men that were/are. 

I have quite a few relatives who have voluntarily joined the military.  I respect their choices as I respect them.  I don't really know what any of them have done in this capacity because I don't ask.  It terrifies me to think that these men would put themselves in harms way and even worse that they would be willing to take the life of another human being without even knowing their name. 

Now we're getting more into the reason that I hate Remembrance Day.  It all began with public school assemblies.  Every year we would be herded into the gymnasium, all wearing our red poppies, where someone would recite "In Flanders Fields" and someone would play "Reveille" either live or via recording and we would sit still for 2 minutes of silence.  If it had stopped there, I probably wouldn't feel the way I do today, but it didn't.  There were also films.  Some were just people talking or watered down animated shorts.  I remember one stop-motion short where the toys in a toy store window start a war with each other.  It was a fairly creative approach for younger kids to show the destruction of war.  But once again, they didn't stop there.  They also showed what must have been news reels from war time in which actual men were killed by guns and landmines.  I vividly remember the men being hit and slumping to the ground or being thrown by the mine explosions, all while other men ran past them with their guns intent on killing someone else.  From the age of 6, every frakking year they made me watch men kill each other.  Is it any wonder I have been traumatized?  Once I hit high school, where the walk to the auditorium was no longer supervised, I began disappearing before the assemblies.  Thus began my annual disappearance.

The messages that I got from these assemblies seemed mixed up to me.  War is horrible - Yes, I can agree with that, absolutely.  War is necessary - I still can't buy into that.  Killing people and dying for your country is worthy of honour - This is another one I have trouble with.  For one thing it glorifies killing people you don't even know.  For most of the wars in our past, the vast majority of our soldiers were drafted, meaning that they didn't necessarily want to fight or even believe in the cause.  It was a case of get out there and kill strangers or face the consequences.  If that was the case here, where we place such high value on "freedom", then I think it's safe to say that it was the same or worse for the other side.  Which makes me wonder how many people killed and/or were killed who didn't even believe in what they were killing over. 

Remembering obviously isn't doing the trick since we are still sending men and women out to war zones.  If the grown ups of the world can't figure this out, then how will we ever be done with war?  I, for one, will continue my November disappearing act until war is only something to be remembered.

Election Time!

Tomorrow is municipal election time in my neck of the woods.  Time to vote for the next Mayor, Councillor, School Board Trustees and Regional Chair. 

My politics teacher in high school instilled in me the importance of voting - that it was our civic duty and that we couldn't complain about our government if we didn't speak up at election time.  He also taught me that it wasn't enough to just go through the motions - You need to know who and what you're voting for.

So for the last couple weeks I have been brushing up on my knowledge of these political posts as well as reading everything I can find about the various candidates.  I want to know what they believe in, what they stand for and why they think they deserve my vote.  The internet has made this so much easier than in the past when I had to rely on the newspaper and possibly a televised debate (providing I was available at the time or remembered to set the VCR!)  The typical candidate now has a website (and often a Facebook page) where they tell you everything you need to know.  Some are bare basics while others are a masterpiece of marketing.

When I head to the polls tomorrow, I'll feel confident that I'm voting for those who I believe are the best candidates for the jobs.  I hope that many others will have that same feeling when it's time for them to vote.  And for those who don't want to take the time to educate themselves in time for an election, I offer this advice - Please stay home.

Religious Hypocrite of the Day - US Army Chaplain Lt Col William McCoy

The hubby and I recently received some chastising from a Christian friend for allowing the bad behaviour of a few in the religious community to tarnish our view of the whole flock.  The hubby wisely countered that "When an organization touts moral authority, it opens itself to scrutiny." 

The problem I see with my friend's argument is that it seems to be the other way around.  I have met very few religious people who actually practice what they preach.  The above mentioned friend is absolutely one of them.  From what I've seen, she lives every moment of her life as a testament to her beliefs.  While I strongly disagree with those beliefs, I can still be impressed by her ability to walk the talk.

But back to the bad apples.  I've lived, gone to school and worked in various environments.  I've also attended a variety of houses of worship.  This has all brought me into direct contact with a lot of people in the religious community.  And I've read the news from around the world which has allowed indirect knowledge of many more.  Very few of them follow the rules as laid out by their own deity.  Some are, in my eyes, minor transgressions such as little white lies.  Others are to the opposite extreme and include pedophilia.  Then there's everything in between.  Sometimes it's things that I have no personal issue with (ie sex before marriage), but are still considered to be sinful under the individual's supposed religious beliefs.

This brings me to US Army Chaplain Lt Col William McCoy.  This gentleman is not only a religious leader (Chaplain), he is also the author of "Under Orders: A Spiritual Handbook for Military Personnel" in which he provides spiritual guidance for those in the armed services.  This book was endorsed for all military members by Gen Patraeus.

It turns out that Lt Col McCoy and his wife also have a very adventuresome sex life including swinging, threesomes, naked photos posted online, voyeurism, cybersex and masturbation (apparently he wasn't listening to Christine O'Donnell!).  To be perfectly clear, I have no moral objections to anything in this list, but Lt Col McCoy's god DOES. 

How dare he claim to be a spiritual and moral authority while at the same time defying so many of the covenants touted by his god?!?!?!?!

Canadian Blood Services Needs Type O Neg Blood

I received this email today from Canadian Blood Services:

I am writing to ask for your help.

You are one of only 7% of Canadians with O Negative blood. You are part of a select group whose donations are compatible with all blood types; you hold the title of universal donor.

In an emergency situation, such as a car accident, your blood can be given to patients in need when there is no time to check their blood type. For this reason, we need O Negative donations more than any other right now so we are asking you to help us find others that share your blood type.

Chances are that other members of your family have type O Negative blood as well. Please encourage them to call 1 888 2 DONATE (1-888-236-6283) and book an appointment today. If they are unaware of their blood type, this will be determined when they donate.

It may be that you will be in need of blood yourself someday, and type O recipients can only receive type O blood. By encouraging other family members who share your blood type to start donating, you can help ensure we have a healthy supply of O Negative blood now and into the future.

On behalf of patients in need, thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Dr. Graham Sher
Chief Executive Officer

I try to make a blood donation every 2 months.  My next trip is in a couple weeks.  All it takes is a little time out of my schedule.  One donation has the potential to save 3 lives and they thank me with cookies.  How awesome is that?

So I want to encourage anyone and everyone who is reading this and able, to call your local blood services and make an appointment to donate.  Don't stop there.  Spread the word and encourage others to do the same.  Maybe we could even arrange some blood drives at our places of work. 

The last time I went there was a man there making his 200th donation!!!  If he had never missed a donation opportunity (every 63 days) that would still have taken 34.5 years!!!!  Let's try to get more people working towards the 200 club.  We'll take it one cookie at a time!

Is Three Really a Crowd?

I often have very non-traditional views on life.  This is another one of those cases.  When polyamory is discussed with the general population (on the rare occasion that it is), the concept is often met with looks of disgust.  People's thoughts generally go to polygamy and certain religious groups who marry off multiple underage girls to older men in a sort of subservient breeding harem.  I want to make it perfectly clear that this brand of polygamy has absolutely nothing to do with polyamory.

 From the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association:
"Polyamory is the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. Among the concepts critical to the understanding of consent and of ethical behaviour within polyamory are gender equality, self-determination, free choice for all involved, mutual trust, and equal respect among partners."

 From this definition we have desire, acceptance, intimacy, knowledge, consent, ethics, equality, trust, respect....  It certainly sounds like a good thing to me.

Yet, currently in Canada it is illegal to enter into any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time regardless of whether it is recognized by law as a binding form of marriage.  Wait...it gets worse!  It is also illegal to celebrate or assist with such a union.  Therefore simply attending a ceremony could get you up to 5 years in prison!!!! That is ridiculous!!

I personally have never been in and am not looking for a polyamorous relationship.  I think it's hard enough to find one person that you can live with in harmony.  For those who find multiple partners who are all able to live and love together, I am happy for them, and a little bit envious.  After all, human beings are complex and one person could never truly meet every single one of your needs.  There would be a much higher chance that more of your needs would be met with a multiple partner union.  In my personal situation, my additional needs tend to be met by my friends outside of my marriage - shopping or dancing or a chick flick - but I can see how awesome it would be to have that special someone right at home.

I can also see the benefits of poly families with kids.  Imagine having the ability to have dual incomes as well as a stay at home parent.  As sexist as this sounds, I have often expressed to my hubby that I wished that we had a wife - especially one who liked to cook and clean.  With all the hustle and bustle I see with the typical families these days (ringette, swimming lessons, hockey, soccer, girl guides, ....), multiple parents would make the scheduling chaos so much more feasible.

The arguments against polyamorous unions are pretty diverse, but I haven't yet heard anything that would be a catastrophic problem. 
'How would you handle a divorce?'  - Same way it's handled now.  A marriage is a legal contract and the dissolution of any contract would be handled by the courts using set rules.
'As a business owner, why should I have to provide dependent benefits to multiple spouses?  That costs me money!' - For the same reason that you provide dependent benefits to multiple children.  You couldn't make a rule that you'll only provide benefits for one child so why should the same be true for spouses.  Whether an employee has no children or 20 children, you're going to have to cover them all.  Let's face it - Even if polyamory is deemed legal, it still most likely won't be that common.  And since families seem to be having fewer children these days, maybe it will just be a trade off. 
'What about the children?  They'll be traumatized!' - This argument was used for homosexuals too and those kids seem to be doing just fine.
'This is just another form of adultery!' - No it's not.  Adultery involves deception and a general lack of respect for your partner.  When everyone involved is a fully aware and consenting adult, there is no adultery.

The likelihood of me ever being involved in a polyamorous relationship is quite low - mostly for the reason I mentioned above:  It's hard enough to find one person with whom you are truly compatible.  But if for some reason that perfect person appeared I would be very open to the possibility.  It would have to be a full triad.  I could never be in a relationship where one person had two spouses.  If I would do this everyone involved would have to be equally engaged with everyone else.  Since I am married to a 100% heterosexual man, this would mean that the third person would have to be a woman and we would both have to be in love with her and she would have to be in love with both of us.  So while this all seems wonderful in theory, seriously - what are the chances?

I Love the Atheist Community

Within the atheist community recently there has been much talk about behaviour.  It seems to have all started with Phil Plait's "Don't Be A Dick" speech.

I recently read this post on PZ Myers' blog Pharyngula and it evoked such a sense of pride in me for the humanity among atheists.

Someone calling themselves "EvolutionSkeptic" posted a comment on one of PZ's posts asking for help.

"Hey, so some of you may remember me (one can hope). I found this thread that some people told me last time to find when I wanted to ask a question. Since I have one, I thought I'd check in. Hope everyone is doing well.
All right. I read "Why Evolution is True" and "The Greatest Show on Earth," as recommended by several of you. After that, I also started reading some of the stuff on Dawkins' site, because I really liked his calm approach to the subject.
After reading there and a good bit here, I'm actually getting a little afraid, and this is where my question comes in ... I can recognize the validity of evolution and that it's true. This began to make an impact on my belief in God, but I still felt like he could have set the whole thing in motion.
But the more I read there and here, the more I'm questioning that, the more I worry that my faith may be in danger. Since you guys were so helpful the first time, I thought maybe I could come to you to ask a couple of questions again ...

1. I truly don't mean this to be insulting, so please don't take it that way, but what is your motivation to live a moral, upstanding life without the guidance of the rules of God and the Bible? I know you guys do this, but I'm not sure I understand how it works without concrete guidance.
2. For those of you who were once Christians (I'm guessing there are some), how did you reconcile your atheism/agnosticism with your relationship with your Christian family/friends? How do you tell them? Do you still go to church for the fellowship but just don't pray/participate? Did you lose friends/family in your process of change?

I hope I'm not interrupting a conversation here, but any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for reading, if you actually got this far."

 PZ then moved it to its very own post with his own reply and the suggestion that "this is one probably better answered by the diverse views of the hivemind."  The hivemind did not disappoint!

I have read the first 200 of the almost 400 comments that were added.  So many people provided their own personal and honest stories as well as their theories surrounding ethics and morality.  Many others simply put in their two cents and then wished ES luck with his/her quest/journey.  It was absolutely lovely to see all of these "strangers" come together to discuss their views, philosophies and knowledge and encourage this person to grow and seek truth.  It wasn't about telling someone what to believe, but instead giving ES an outlet to discuss what he/she believes and how those beliefs are changing without encountering any guilt or embarrassment.

I also found it wonderful that despite EvolutionSkeptic's own community which appears to be against belief in evolutionary science and free thinking (I base this assumption on ES's fears about losing friends and family based on a belief in evolution), ES is still searching for answers and knowledge.  That is a true testament of courage - to go against the herd and find answers and beliefs that make sense to you.

I was particularly touched when ES, in thanking everyone for their replies, comments that he/she is unworthy of all the attention (comment #137).  This is responded to with comments like "Why are you unworthy? We are all in this together, support is what humans do best." (#157) and "Who could be more worthy than you?" (#195). 

This thread gave me such warmth and pride for the atheist community and their non-dickishness.  It was just one big warm fuzzy. 

I wish ES a wonderful journey full of knowledge and enlightenment and new friends.  I hope that he/she will remain strong, independent and forward thinking.  I hope that his/her current friends and family will respect, support and encourage ES in this quest regardless of the outcome - I certainly do. 

A Protest I Can Rally Behind!

On September 13, 2010 at 12pm, member organizations of One School System Network are planning a rally in Toronto to protest the public funding of Catholic schools in Ontario.  The event has been planned for this date as it is the first day of the two day international summit on education being held by the Ministry of Education.

In Canada, The Constitution Act of 1867 mandates that Catholic schools be publicly funded.  This has remained in the Constitution despite the fact that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also prohibits discrimination based on religion. 

You can't have it both ways.  You can't provide full public funding to one religion's school system while denying it to others.  You can't publicly fund a school system that denies entry to students based on faith.  You can't publicly fund a school system that denies jobs to teachers based on faith.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has even condemned Canada (1999) for discriminating in their providing of public funds to Catholic schools and not other denominations..  

The solution would seem to be to fund all religious schools or none.  If we were to fund all religious schools we would be taking funds out of the current public school system at a time when funds are desperately needed.  That leaves us the solution of funding none of them.  Keep the school system secular and public, available to all children regardless of faith and open to all teachers regardless of faith.  This would be following the lead of other Canadian provinces like New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI, Newfoundland & Quebec.  Quebec for crying out loud!  Quebec which has statistically the highest percentage of Catholics of any province in Canada no longer publicly funds Catholic schools!!!

Come on Ontario - Get with the program!!!  Faith is personal and has no business in the public classroom.  This is why there are churches and youth groups and family gatherings.  If you want to raise your child in your faith, then feel free, but don't expect my tax dollars to pay for it.

While we're on the topic of my tax dollars, there is a misconception that needs to be cleared up.  Catholic schools in Ontario are fully funded.  This means that the funds are given to these schools in the same way and from the same coffers as the rest of the public schools.  When you fill out, on you property tax form, whether you "support" the public school system or the Catholic school system, it means which do you support politically, not to which do you wish your tax dollars to be applied. 

There was an excellent article called Canada's Dirty Little Secret in the journal Humanist Perspectives recently.  It was written by an Ontario public school teacher named Richard Young.  Mr Young does a phenomenal job detailing how the system works as well as how much money could be saved (or hopefully applied to the public system) if we stopped funding the Catholic schools.  I encourage everyone to read it.

Richard Dawkins also recently did a documentary on faith based schools in the UK which can be watched online.  I've only watched the first half so far, but have found it very interesting and fairly relevant to our current situation in Ontario.

My Love of Online Debates

By now you have probably figured out that I love talking about my opinions, but you may not have fully understood why.  It's not because I think I'm right about everything (although I think I am, just like you think you are - Go on!  Admit it!) and it's not because I want to convince everyone that my way of thinking is the best.

I love sharing my views because I hope that you'll share your own.  I love the back and forth discourse on whatever topic I'm feeling passionate about at that particular moment.  I love hearing other people's views because they have the potential to enlighten me.  I can get my mind set on one way of thinking and along comes a thoughtfully worded paragraph from someone else and I find myself saying "I didn't realize that" or "I've never thought of it that way".  That's not to say that I'm always flip flopping on my views, but my opinion on any given subject is constantly evolving.

I, in particular, love an online debate.  You do lose the social aspect, and sometimes a person's tone is hard to read (was that sarcasm or an insult?), but I find it better than a face to face discussion for a variety of reasons. 

The main reason is that you can provide reference material for your thoughts - Here is what I think and here is an example (link to an article or study).  This is far better than a verbal discussion where you can mention a study, but the other person has no real means at the time of refuting it as they may not know anything about it.  Online, I can provide the study link and you might come back and point out that it wasn't double blind so the results could be simple correlation or could be interpreted in a completely different way at which point I might have one of those "I never thought of that" moments.

With this back of forth presentation of evidence, I find the whole experience much more educational.  If someone replies to my argument with something on which I have no knowledge, I have the ability (and generally the motivation) to immediately jump on the internet highway and educate myself.  If we were having a face to face discussion, neither of us would have that opportunity and the debate wouldn't do much to enlighten either side.

Online debates tend to not be instantaneous.  I make a comment.  You might read that comment tomorrow and respond.  I might read your response right away, but not comment until next week.  If we were face to face the replies would be expected instantly, therefore leaving no time to digest what you've heard, reflect on it, investigate it and respond in a well thought out manner.  Unless you're extremely knowledgeable on the subject and a superb debater (i.e. quick on your feet), the online world is a far more productive forum for a good discussion.

This time between replies also gives you the ability to calm down if something has been said which has upset you.  A face to face conversation might at that point disintegrate into an angry argument, but online you have the ability to walk away, to cool down and/or read the post again (maybe you misinterpreted what was said).  That time to collect your thoughts enables you to respond rationally and hopefully keep the conversation moving forward.

This of course all relies on my opponents having the same respect for the art of discourse.  If I make what I feel is a well thought out argument and someone responds with "You're obviously an idiot" then that person is just wasting my time and his/hers.  That said I'm absolutely open to hearing "I think you're wrong and here's why...".  All sides must try to be respectful and bring something productive to the discussion.

So if I write something that you agree with.  Let me know.  Show me more evidence that you've come up with that proves my hypothesis.  If you disagree, I'd still love to hear from you.  Tell me what you think and why.  Enlighten me!

Agnostic vs. Atheist

Amusing, but the spelling drives me nuts!

The Friendly Atheist had a post on this topic in May.  I disagree with the post itself and found the comments to be all over the map, but it all got me thinking.


From Merriam-Webster
Agnostic - 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Atheism -  a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity



By its very nature the existence of some sort of god isn't knowable, unless of course said god one day decides to unequivocally show itself to the masses - maybe by calling a televised press conference (you can be sure that Fox News would be there).  My belief here falls cleanly under the definition of agnostic.

But it's not that easy.  While I don't believe anyone can say that there absolutely is no god, at the same time I've seen absolutely no evidence to lead me to believe that there is a god. I often hear the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".  That's not quite true.  A more accurate statement would be that "absence of evidence is not proof of absence" although that doesn't have near the fancy ring to it.  It is absolutely evidence of absence.  Given this evidence of absence I choose to believe that there is no god.  Here I fall under the atheist definition.

So which am I?  I have long considered myself to be agnostic, but not because it's a "safe way" of saying I don't believe in god, or because the word atheist "sounds evil and wrong and scary" as was suggested by Hemant.  It's because I think the term agnostic best defines my beliefs.

   
My type of agnosticism has changed over the years.  There was a time when I quite strongly believed that there was some sort of supreme, supernatural being that was responsible for everything, but I still didn't think it had any relation to the religions of the world or any of the holy books.  At that time I would have been considered an Agnostic Theist (also known as a Weak Theist).  I referred to myself as a deist or simply spiritual.

Gradually as I did more research in my journey for truth and knowledge, I began to lean farther away from believing in the supernatural.  Now I would consider myself to be an Agnostic Atheist (also known as a Weak Atheist).  I am fairly certain that there is no god, but I have no way of proving it, but I will live my life as if it has been proven. 

One other item from Hemant's post:  "no one says they’re agnostic about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No one says they’re agnostic about Zeus or Thor. So why are they agnostic about “God”?"
I am atheist about the FSM because it is an admittedly made up thing.  No one actually claimed that it was real so I have no problem classifying it as fiction.  I am atheist about Roman and Greek mythology because the general consensus is that they were myths - that the people of the time made up stories to try to explain the world around them.  Anything that is acknowledged  to have been made up does not deserve to be given any credence as fact.

If you ask me about the current world religions, I would also respond that I am atheist about these.  The holy books have been sufficiently discredited for my needs in order to dismiss them as utter fiction.  But the fact that they are still believed by so many is enough to open a crack in my mind to the possibility of something supernatural that may have kick started these beliefs.  Let's be clear though that this is a minuscule crack - enough to keep me in the agnostic category but not anywhere near big enough to have any effect whatsoever on my life.

In reading the comments to Hemant's post, I'm really surprised by the negative views on this.  So many of the atheists view the agnostics as "not having balls" and so many of the agnostics view the atheists as arrogant.  I'm happy to see that some understand that it's just semantics.  It doesn't really matter what we label ourselves - we're all pretty much on the same page.

Blood - It's In You To Give

This week I'll be making my 15th blood donation.  I try to go every 2 months to the local clinic.  It such an easy thing to do and it has the potential to save up to 3 lives.  All it takes is an hour (ish) and afterwards they give you free cookies and juice.  What more could you ask for?  The staff and volunteers are always exceptionally nice and professional.  I've rarely even had any discomfort (although I really don't like that finger pricker!).

If you're interested in making a donation or want more information, please contact your local blood services agency.  In Canada it's at 1-888-2-DONATE (1-888-236-6283).

My Thoughts on French Immersion

Note:  This was originally a note of mine on Facebook, but I thought I would add it to my blog (edited).

Over the years I have been asked by a variety of people, mostly parents, whether I felt French Immersion was valuable in my education. Here is my response:

Why I am glad I was in French Immersion

First of all, yes it was hard, but so was science and math and music. And yes, sometimes I hated French class, but no more than I hated school in general. The difference was that learning French was one of the few things in school that made me genuinely proud. I felt as though I had accomplished something.

Yes I had problems in school. I was an average student in ALL my classes. Very rarely was it because of the language. Usually it was because of the teacher. I hated science with Mr. A. I hated math with Mrs. B. I hated French with Mr. C. Does that mean I hated the subjects? Absolutely not!

And yes there were a few problems specific to language. One was grammar. It’s boring. No kidding. But even the most exciting courses have their boring parts. Second was the transition from French to English. That could have been done much better. Some students had no problem. I had some initial problems in math. Mr. D realized this and sat down with me to help. It was just a matter of translating a few words that I had only known in French. No big deal. My marks shot back up in math from that day on. Problem solved. This is a foreseeable problem and if handled in good time not a problem at all.

That foundation in a second language also gave me a better understanding of the English language. And, when I took Spanish in high school, there was a noticeable difference between the Immersion and Core students. The Immersion students generally picked up the language much more easily and quickly.

Let’s face it. We live in Canada (well you might not, but I do) and whether we like it or not there are two official languages. Knowing both can give you a pretty big leg up. And learning a 2nd language as an adult is very rarely an option.

As for not being able to converse in France, we had five exchange students from Nantes in my Grade Ten French Classes. They had no problem understanding us and vice versa. There were differences, but no more so than trying to speak English in Alabama. They [Alabamians] laughed at some of the things I said as well. But, in either of these scenarios, the versions were close enough that there were no significant language barriers.

(Note that the names of my teachers have been omitted as I don't want them retro-actively failing me)

Disclaimer

While I'm ranting I figure I should probably throw this out there.

The views expressed at The Soap Box are mine and mine alone.  They don't necessarily reflect the views of my employer, my family, my friends, my acquaintances or any people I may or may not meet in my lifetime. 

Blah blah blah....habeas corpus....veni vidi vici....R'amen

Habitat for Humanity Just Rubs Me the Wrong Way

I think I'm fairly average in the charitable department.  There are certain organizations that I donate to regularly and I generally support my friends for the various "a-thons".  I've even been known to partake in a few "a-thons" myself although I absolutely hate asking people for money.

That said, Habitat for Humanity just bugs me.

Every year my office encourages the staff to spend a day volunteering for HfH and every year a colleague or two asks me if I'm going to join in and build a house.  And every year when I politely decline, I'm asked why not.  People should really know better than that.  It takes incredible restraint for me to keep my opinions to myself, but if you come right out and ask, I'm gonna lay it on you!

So here's the deal.  HfH works as follows:

• Habitat for Humanity builds homes using volunteer labour and donated materials.
• Homes are sold to partner families with no monetary down payment required. However, they must contribute "sweat equity” in the form of 500 volunteer hours.
• Families receive an affordable and sustainable no-interest mortgage, with monthly payments based on 25% to 30% of the family's monthly income.

Now, I work my butt off in order to afford my house.  I make well thought out decisions on how I'm going to spend my money so that I could afford the down payment to begin with and so that I can continue to pay down my mortgage.  I live within my means and deny myself luxuries if they will prevent me from affording the basics.

I know that there are many people out there who have just been bitch slapped by life in ways in which they have absolutely no control.  I know some people personally and they don't ask for handouts from anyone - would even be offended if they were offered.  Instead they work hard and do whatever they have to in order to make ends meet. 


I think my issues with HfH probably go back to the various articles I've seen in the newspaper since I was a teenager.  You've probably seen similar stories of people complaining that welfare doesn't provide enough of an income to survive.  Meanwhile the photo with the story shows the person in question cigarette in hand and a case of beer in the background.  Even as a 15 year old I could see the contradiction there.  
On a more personal note, I knew a guy who was on welfare.  The only thing that the government asked was that he fill out a weekly form detailing the ways that he tried to find work.  Each week he would go to a few places he knew weren't hiring and ask for work.  On the off chance that they offered him an application, he would throw it out and leave that one off his list.  Then he would go home with a bottle of Jack Daniel's.

I just can't trust that these houses are going to people that truly deserve them or that there aren't better ways to help them out of their problems.  Sometimes I feel like we're rewarding bad decisions.  I heard of one family who arrived each day to work on their house driving a luxury sedan.  Granted I never actually saw this and am taking the word of a friend, but can we say bad priorities???  If you can't afford a mortgage then maybe you should have bought an Accent instead.  Then there are the people with multiple children.  (This is where I get those horrible looks like I eat babies for breakfast.)  In my eyes if you can't afford to feed, clothe and provide proper shelter for children then you shouldn't have had them.  Having children is a choice.  In this day and age it can rarely even be called an accident.  I'm reluctant to draw attention to specific people, but there is a lovely story on the HfH site detailing one woman who had TWO ADDITIONAL children while waiting for her house to be built.

For me it all boils down to that proverb about giving a fish or teaching how to fish.  Maybe the money and time could be better spent helping these people get a better education, create resumes, find viable work or learn how to budget their money.  (All of which already have existing government programs ready and willing to help.)  If they have children, maybe volunteers could spend time doing childcare while the parents take classes or go on interviews.  There are many other options that I would support over HfH.

In the end, if you believe that HfH is a wonderful program, by all means put on your work boots and go pound in a nail or two.  Just don't invite me to come along.

The Sex Talk I Wish I'd Had

I never really had a sex talk with my parents.  One day in elementary school I was told an absolutely absurd little factoid by one of my classmates.  He was under the crazy notion that in order to make a baby the man's penis and the woman's vagina had to touch.  I, of course, told him that he was a stupid head and went home to regale my mother with his silliness.  Soon thereafter there appeared a book on the kitchen counter.  My friend and I read this book with astonishment and a lot of giggling.  Apparently my classmate had his facts straight after all.

That was the end of my sex education until health classes in senior elementary and high school.  In those classes I learned that girls have menstrual cycles and how pregnancy occurs.  I don't remember much else although I'm sure there was discussion of STDs as well.

In addition to the items noted above, here's my top ten list of what I wish someone had told me when I was a teenager.

1.  Sex = Good

I have spent a very large portion of my life thinking that sex is dirty, naughty, taboo....  Even after marriage I was still concerned that people (my parents in particular) would know that I was having sex.  Oh the horror!!  It's taken years and a lot of re-evaluation of my beliefs for me to realize just the opposite.  Sex can be wonderful.  It's not in the least bit embarrassing.  I'm betting that even my parents are having sex - Imagine that!  (On second thought, don't imagine that.)

2.  Always cum come prepared

It used to be that girls were getting married and having sex in their teens.  Nowadays we would call them child brides.  But they weren't considered children then - they were considered women as soon as they began menstruating.  Just imagine being a spinster at 20!  Now the pendulum swings the other way and many don't feel girls should be having sex until they're at least eighteen.  Ask some fathers and the answer is more like 32.

From a purely physical standpoint, I would say a girl's body is prepared for sex once her menstrual cycles become somewhat consistent (and therefore strong enough to bear children).  But the physical is such a small part of whether a girl is ready.  For this reason I am glad that the age of the child bride is over (with the exception of certain parts of the world, but I'm speaking from a North American perspective).

From a more emotional standpoint, it's far more complicated and I believe different for every individual.  One must understand the consequences (both positive and negative) of engaging in sexual activity and also be prepared to deal with them.  This includes the obvious - pregnancy and STDs - but also the things that young girls don't want to think about.  What if I have sex with him and then he breaks up with me?  What if he tells everyone I know that we did it?  What if I don't like what he's doing?  What if I don't like what he wants me to do?  Let's face it, as Hedley puts it, most boys do the thinking with their little head, instead of their big one.  A girl needs to be emotionally strong enough to deal with all of these consequences and take whatever precautions are appropriate.

3.  Have you met you?

Masturbation is a wonderful and pleasurable way to learn about your body.  It's a private time that allows you to figure out what you like and what you don't like.  Best of all it's a way to have an orgasm without the danger of pregnancy or diseases.  When you decide that you're ready to involve someone else you're going to want to know these things.  After all, how is he going to know how to give you pleasure if you don't even know.  Sex is best when both people know what they want and are confident enough to gently lead their partner in the right direction (and/or away from the wrong direction).

4.  Oh...That's the spot!

The clitoris is a really important part of the female anatomy.  Whenever you watch love scenes in movies or soap operas it's completely ignored.  50%-75% of all women need clitoral stimulation in order to orgasm.  (I'm almost too ashamed to admit that this statistic came from Dr Phil. I'm not sure about its accuracy as a 25% variable seems rather high.)  So listen to your clit and treat her well!  While you're at it, go on a hunt for your G spot.  The debate is still hot about this elusive spot, but the searching can be as much fun as the finding.

5.  Give me one good reason

There are loads of bad reasons to have sex.

• Because your boyfriend wants to have sex
• Because you're afraid your boyfriend will break up with you if you don't have sex (If a guy is so uncaring that he pushes you to do something you're not ready for, he's not worth having around anyway.)
• Because you want to get losing your virginity over with
• Because everyone else is doing it (seriously, do I have to pull out the "if everyone jumped off a bridge" metaphor?)
• Because you want to feel grown up

 All of these reasons are irrelevant if YOU don't really want to have sex.  However, if you think you're ready (see emotional section above) and you know how to be safe and smart about it and YOU want to have sex then there is nothing wrong with that.

6.  What about the wedding bells?

For those who want to abstain until marriage, that is a choice and good luck with it.  However, it's not the best choice for everyone.  Sexual compatibility is a very important part of a lasting relationship.  Imagine finding out after you've made that lifelong commitment that one of you is insatiable and the other has absolutely no sex drive.  I can almost guarantee that your relationship won't last (or it will last with both spouses miserable and resentful).

7.  Playing for the other team

If you find yourself attracted to girls instead of guys (or as well as), that's perfectly fine too.  Don't try to be something you're not just to please the people around you - always good advice.

8.  Toys aren't just for little kids

There is a wonderful world of sex toys to be found.  They're good for when you're solo or with a partner.  Start with the basics and be willing to try anything that you think you might enjoy.  Don't be discouraged if you try something new and don't like it.  Not all women like the same things.

9.  Welcome to Fantasy Island

Fantasies are wonderful.  You can imagine anything you want.  My gynecologist once told me that I could fantasize about anything, even something that in real life I would find unacceptable, because as long as it's  only in my head it's okay.  That was a turning point in my journey to break away from the whole sex is naughty thing.  I had never even given myself permission to think about sex freely.  Even my mind was tied up in knots.  If you're like me and need a little kick start in the fantasy department try a romance novel.  You don't even need to start with Harlequin - the Twilight series has its fair share of lusty scenes.  (Oh Edward!)

10.  Sowing your oats

This might end up being the most controversial on my list, but I have no issue with casual sex.  In this day and age there is a very good chance that you won't end up with the guy with which you lost your virginity.  There has been a double standard for far too long whereby guys who sleep around are studs and girls who do the same (or more often less) are sluts.  This doesn't mean that I'm suggesting that you should just have sex with every guy that walks by (unless of course you really want to), but it does mean that you don't necessarily need to wait for "the one" before you have sex (unless of course you really want to).

In the end my list is all about making your own choices.  Be confident and be yourself.  Be smart and be safe, but don't forget to have some fun along the way!

Our Road to Being Childless by Choice

Note:  This was originally a note of mine on Facebook, but I thought I would add it to my blog (edited).

I went to college for Early Childhood Education and that pretty much burned me out on kids. I was still intending to have them until the hubby and I really started discussing it and it occurred to me that it was actually a choice - not mandatory. Imagine that. I can't believe that concept had never occurred to me.  (Along the same lines as it never occurred to me that I could get married someplace other than a church, but maybe we'll talk about that another time.)  I talked to many people from all walks of life - with kids, adopted kids, no kids by choice, no kids not by choice. Almost all of the parents I spoke with said "I love my kids, but if I had it to do over again I don't know if I would have had them. I'm not even exaggerating here - I was truly shocked by this.  In speaking with non-parents I never heard a single regret. I finally decided that I would rather regret not having kids than regret having them.

The hubby had always taken the stance that he was willing to have children if I wanted them.  The thought of having children with someone who would only be having them for my sake put the nail in the coffin.

At 25 I asked my gyno to do a tubal ligation and he said no, through the receptionist without even talking to me. I told him that no was not an option and he would at least be sitting down with me. In that appointment we were able to convince him that we had put a lot of serious thought into this and weren't going to change our minds. If he didn't do it I would find someone who would. He agreed but said he "couldn't fit me in for 3 months." I think he figured once the appointment was made it would seem more real and I would back out. I did not and we haven't had an ounce of regret since.

Something funny (in retrospect) - the day of the surgery I'm lying on the table and the anesthesiologist comes in. He asks my my age and how many kids I have. I told him 25 and none. He said "WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS???" I sat up and said angrily "DON'T MAKE ME FIGHT WITH YOU TOO!" He shut up and gave me the injection.

So our only kids are four legged and furry. I have nieces and nephews whom I adore and they fill the kid void nicely and when I'm done, I send them home. Nothing to pay for, no illnesses, no missing out on life because I have "responsibilities". Life is whatever we want from it.

We were very fortunate to have family and friends who have fully supported our choice.  I know a few women who made similar choices and are still being pressured for grandkids or being told by the people around them that they'll "change their mind", "it's different when the child is yours" and "you must hate children".  So sad.

There are many parents who had children for all the right reasons and I am truly happy for them. But there are far too many parents who had their children for all the wrong reasons whether it be accident or societal pressures or any of a hundred other bad reasons (My personal favourite is "to take care of me when I'm old" - Hate to break it to you, but there are loads of people in retirement homes whose kids never come to see them). 

For these reasons I am very vocal about the choice we made and stress the fact that it is a choice.