Offensiveness

Offensiveness, as defined by dictionary.com (the best source of information bar Wikipedia), is: causing resentful displeasure; highly irritating, angering, or annoying.
I’ve always supposed that, being a political atheist (or ’secular humanist’…as a more accurate term in the context of politics), I would end up raising the ire of certain groups – particularly ones  such as the Catholic Church, Family First party and SaltShakers all of which I have absolutely no patience or sympathy for. Politically, these groups and I are diametrically opposed on most issues. All three, in my view, are bigoted, anti-science, sexist, homophobic and dogmatic. I’ll discuss the finer details of that later, but for now, I’m talking about offensiveness.

What constitutes offensiveness in this context? If I say “I hate religion”, most people won’t take offense to it because I’m not attacking a particular religion. But because religions vary in their dogmaticness, vitriol and rationality, it would simply be too simplistic to say that all religions are bad, or all are good or all are mediocre. They are all relative; I for one would argue that, compared to the three main Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam and Christianity), Sikhism is fairly mild. I also find Mormonism to be particularly bad a religion if not for their door-to-door marketing techniques and the clear absurdity of believing Utah to be some kind of holy site (whereas no other monotheistic religion says so). Utah isn’t Jerusalem. But is this targeting of certain religions fair?

I very much doubt that this poster would be socially acceptable in Australia, given our huge Christian population...

Freedom to insult religion is a fundamental human right, I believe. If the insult isn’t justified, then the argument can be taken down in true argumentative style (complete with jibes at the opposition’s facial hair). If I declare that Judaism is evil because of events in Israel/Palestine and that the conflict there is because Judaism is an evil religion, it can be safely concluded that what I’m saying is abjectly specious. But people should have that right to think that. It might be terribly and deliberately offensive, but it’s no more irrational than Creationism. I’m opposed to any attempt to remove free speech. In that example, I’m fairly sure most Jews would be offended if I called their religion evil. I’m maliciously targeting them. But how is this different to liberals calling conservatives ‘evil’? If someone holds that value (be it religion or politics) close to heart, then it can be very offensive. But what if that value of theirs offends you?

As an atheist, should I have the socially-permissable right to insult the hell out of Christianity – seeing as Christianity as a concept and a religion, offends me? Actually it doesn’t really…but I’m reacting to Christians who are offended by atheists. In an ideal world, nobody would be offended by diverse views on the world – but let’s assume they do. Well..the thing here is that saying Jews are evil (to re use that same example) is deliberate and calculated. Me saying that Christianity is throughly annoying is not deliberately offensive. I don’t go out of my way to insult Christians. I might vote against them or rally against attempts by Family First to destroy secular education…but that’s about it.

Should I make myself feel offended by these people? In reality, I condescendingly cast a weary eye over them and wish they'd just sod off...

People can choose to be offended by someone’s actions, assuming their actions were deliberately offensive. I could choose to be offended by anti-abortion protesters (whose inability to recognise the difference between a bunch of totipotent stem cells is second only to their inability to understand women’s rights), but I’m not. I would understand, however, if a woman who’d recently had an abortion would be offended – particularly if the anti-abortionists were religious ones (the ones who say you’re going to hell if you do X, Y and Z). The midway point between being insulting to someone and unintentionally being rude about their belief system is insensitivity. Most people suffer from this. It’s not deliberate. The problem that lies herein is determining whether something said or done was deliberate or not. It’s no easy feat.

It takes a religious mind to…

…let your daughter die, whilst you pray for her. Of course, we could do what most apologists do and dismiss this case as one of extremism. But surely it takes a tenuous (if not nonexistent reason) justification like that of religion to have such things take place? Would this happen if the individuals concerned were atheists? Surely not.

Discuss.

Is religion a form of authority?

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith; we need believing people.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Yes, I thought I’d start today’s post with a quote from one of the most famous and ruthless men who ever walked the planet. Adolph was indeed a religious man. Whilst he clearly identified himself as a Catholic, he also is religious in the sense he that he followed a strict, cruel dogma that could not – under any circumstances – be questioned. Religion today is obviously no where near as extreme, but the same form of unquestioning following tends to occur. If, say, the three monotheistic religions (Judaism, Islam and Christianity), were questioned using logic and deductive reasoning (e.g. “if God is morally righteous, why did he allow Hitler to come to power?“), then they – quite simply – would cease to exist in their current form. They rely upon authority for their survival; and what better authority than an ancient convoluted book whose sole existence has been reshaped, altered, censored and re-written across the centuries and is constantly being recited by men in clear authority (e.g. Pope)?

"I don't need to think for myself. I have this book to do it for me."

The reason the Christian Lobby is so avidly against any attempt to cement the separation between Church and State is because it means people will abandon its dogma and find their own path. But this is a good thing. One of my favourite philosophers, Bertrand Russell had this to say in his aptly titled essay “A brief Outline of Intellectual Rubbish“:

As soon as we abandon our own reason, and are content to rely upon authoritiy, there is no end to our troubles. Whose authority? The Old Tesament? The New Testament? The Koran? In practice, people choose the book considered sacred by the community in which they are born, and out of that book they choose the parts they like, ignoring the others. At one time, the most influential text in the bible was: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”. Nowadays, people pass over this text, in silence if possible; if not, with an apology. And so, even when we have a sacred book, we still choose as truth whatever suits our own prejudices. No Catholic, for instance, takes seriously the text which says that a bishop should be the husband of one wife.

Bertrand’s digress makes quite an amount of sense to me. All ‘holy books’ effectively act as a Rorschach test and are ‘piloted’ by a figure with power (such as the Pope, or the Ayatollah of Iran) to drive home their own belief system. It’s an intellectual dictatorship; a dogma, by which one may find themselves doing something against their own wishes through the whims of another entity simply because they happen to have faith in an ancient book.  As one anonymous commentator (on a forum somewhere) once remarked “Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned“. Spot-on, I think.

Entrance to Easter

As many of you know, both me and Oskar are attending The University of Melbourne. I’m doing a Bachelor of Environments (a generalist degree readying us for architecture or urban planning, in my case) whilst Oskar is studying a generalist science degree with mathematics and physics as core disciplines (the only two things in life he truly loves).

As most of you know, this time of the year is special for at least to main religions. For Christians, it’s Easter. For Jews, it’s Passover. On campus, all the Christian groups are banding together in one formidable mass (no pun intended) to promote belief in Jesus (remember him?) and faith. To counter this, the UMSS (University of Melbourne Secular Society of which both me and Oskar are a proud part of ) launched a ‘chalk-campaign’ of writing quotes about religion and reason on the ground. The way we battle things out at university between different groups is by drawing, in chalk, on the tarmac and hope for the best. And the best did arrive. On one such quote, about how religion teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world, someone wrote “Religion makes you good; and go to church“. Does anyone find this slightly ironic? Here’s a secular quote alluding to the supremacy of reason and someone comes along and reinforces this, unintentionally.

The Christian groups have also tried to convert me on many occasions. On Wednesday, I was relaxing with some friends on the lawn when two boys came up and asked if they wanted free chocolate biscuits. Naturally I asked “are there any strings attached” to which they gave a negative. But as soon as I had polished off my biscuit, they launched into a tirade of biblical nonsense – thus making the ’string’ a biblical one (presumably attached to heaven). I told them firmly that I was an atheist, that one of my friends was Jewish and that the other two were Christian, so they took head and engaged with my other two friends who happened to be Christian (Pentecostal). I thought that was reasonable of them.

I declined to debate them there and then lest I bring out my sarcastic fury and insult them; but it did get me thinking about something: Why do Christians go out soliciting their wares more than other religions? It’s certainly the case that here in Melbourne, it’s Christians that go around spreading the ‘word’ of ‘Christ’ – rather than Muslims spruiking Mohammad and his ideas or Sikhs going around spreading the word about their Five K’s. Maybe it’s because Christianity, at least in Australia, is losing its appeal with younger generations and is thus becoming more desperate. That was the atmosphere that I gleaned off the readily-assembling Christian students at any rate.

On a final note, I got accosted by a Fundamentalist Catholic on the tram recently; just thought you ought to know.

Determinism and Faith

(Nat)

I propose that an individual cannot be held accountable for their beliefs.

This is because beliefs are typically formed by outside influences beyond the control of the individual; whether dictated by fate or a God or by sheer dumb luck, it is beyond their control. Firstly, though, are my thoughts on belief:

The system of belief – whether it is in God, Allah, Buddha, magic, physics or whatever else – is primarily a tool for the individual to connect to reality in a way where he or she may gain some knowledge over it. To do these through study is the most common method, and the most socially acceptable. To come to your own opinions through your own channels, without first referencing the ‘facts’, is a heresy not much appreciated.

That’s because while the primary nature of beliefs is to support that illusion of control, the secondary nature is another, more insidious trick; to act as a metaphor representing just how the universe works. This is an illusion that drives many seemingly mad, desperate to commit horrible acts in the name of whatever faith they belong to, theistic or otherwise… and it is, naturally, the same illusion that drives fundamentalism. This is reality without studying, without wisdom: this is why the heresy is not appreciated by many.

But these people can’t help it. They are a product of their environment. The Catholic, for example, may derive their beliefs from a much earlier experience: a close relative was very sick, and they prayed as hard as they could, and the relative got better. This is a miracle in the subjective eyes of the Catholic. Regardless of whether or not it was a coincidence, it is interpreted using the Catholicism model as a miracle. A physicist, then, has the luxury of seeing physical results of his reality-tunnel; but these are no more (and no less) convincing then the experiences held by the Catholic. Two models can intersect, naturally, but they clash much more often.

Anyway – enough from me. What do you think?

Bertrand’s teapot

Personally, I'm inclined to think a teapot God would be accompanied by an unusual capsicum halve...

Agnostics and believers alike tend to argue that there’s no way of proving god’s existence or lack of existence. That’s true enough, in the absence of deductive reasoning that would argue against their being a god. But why can’t we use reason to argue against this celestial dictator called God? I’ll save that discussion for later, but right now I’d like to bring to your attention, Russell Bertrand’s teapot analogy where he compares the notion of the existence of god to a harmless teapot. He wrote (back in the early 20th century):

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Logically, I think this analogy works. Dawkins agrees:

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell’s teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don’t exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don’t stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don’t warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don’t kneecap those who put the tea in first.

What do you think? Is the celestial teapot analogy a good one?

The analogous relationship of politics and religion

I’ve consistently said that religion and politics are perfectly analogous. Nat and Kath disagree. I’m not sure about Oskar…though I’m sure he’d disagree with me just for the fun of it.

But what of this analogy? Well, according to Nat (who believes in Determinism…which states that our ideas and opinions are dependent on our environment and our experiences – so therefore we can’t be blamed for our values), this is all a bunch of bollocks. And besides, religion doesn’t cause externalities so we shouldn’t bother with ‘em. Leave those bible bashers in peace! But I beg to differ.

Firstly, let’s put aside the determinist ideas espoused by Nat (and Kath…but purely for convenience sake I suspect). It’s a grey area that’s undergoing immense debate (and will be posted on shortly, we hope). Here are the strong similarities of religion and politics:

• Religion and politics both form a basis for one’s own opinions on any variety of subjects. Euthanasia – for example – is a topic that usually results in some sort of moral high ground being claimed. In such a debate, someone else’s politics and religious identity becomes quite clear. Religion is often intertwined with other issues. To say there are no externalities that exist with personal faith is either blissfully ignorant or disingenuous.
• Politics and religion both dictate our way of life. Religion is more direct, with commandments such as “you mustn’t eat pork” whilst politics is more indirect…but still plays a major role. Vegetarianism – more often than not – is a political statement as one example.
• There are many political parties based on religion. The Christian Democrat Party and Family First are two examples I can think of off the top of my head. There are also plenty of theocracies in the world – I’m thinking Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel (though Israel is certainly the most democratic of all the theocracies) and the Vatican.
• Religion is often associated with conflict. Think of the Israeli/Palestinian Crisis, the Northern Ireland ‘Troubles’ and the Indian/Pakistani animosity as classic examples. Obviously religion isn’t the sole factor in such bloodshed, but I think you’ll find it plays a significant role. The Hamas dogma explicitly calls for the destruction of all Jews. Within Israel, the most critical factor in the segregationist social paradigm is religion – except in Haifa, a city in Northern Israel. Does anyone seriously think these conflicts would be just as intense if we removed religion as a factor?
• Atheism, as an ideology, is antagonistic to the Abrahamic religions in close similarity to the way The Greens are antagonistic to the Liberal party. Their ideologies have very few, if any, similarities. Atheism states ‘there is almost certainly no god and religion is stupid dogma’ whereas the Abrahamic religions state ‘there is a divine tyrant in the cosmos that will wreak vengeance against sinners’. The Liberal party would demand that we ‘lower taxes for corporations and free up land in the outer suburbs for urban sprawl’, whereas The Greens would want to ‘curb urban sprawl and place greater taxes on housing to account for other costs’. The interplay betwen these various ideas is quite parallel and analogous.
  

  To say their dress code isn't due to a pious belief is inaccurate...

Tenuous Justification

By Reuben.

Kath says:

He [Jesus] challenged the hard and fast religious rules of the Pharisees, the leaders of the predominant religion (Judaism) of the time. He showed that the interpretation of God’s words could indeed be subjective.

Let’s skip over the irony of having a subjective book (the bible) preaching the subjective messages of an invisible dictator (‘God’), for an audience whose subjective views espoused off the subjective book are so incredibly diverse, it makes the book seem almost useless as a guide to one’s life.
Nay…that was a cheap shot; the operative term of the above quote is “challenged”. Yes…a tasty word, ‘challenged’. Other great words are ‘test’, ‘counter-intuitive’ and ‘doubt’ – and what does this all add up to?

The erosion of faith.

“But no!” shriek religious people, “I constantly test my faith” and “Faith unquestioned, is dogma, it is not real.” Good. I’m glad that believers challenge their faith. But how do they do this? In the face of tangible evidence – or no evidence – ‘faith’ is immediately dissolved. Theologians never tire of pointing out that the whole point of ‘faith’ is to ignore rationality and evidence for a bit whilst we get out our biblical texts and start praying. But then how do they question this faith if not through evidence or rationality?

Enter argumentum ad ignorantiam, guns blazing. If you repeat an idea (e.g. resurrection is possible) long enough to an audience (particularly a susceptible one, like children), they will – in all possibly – believe it. Unfortunately, argumentum ad ignorantiam is a logic fallacy and so, in the eyes of religion, to be shunned. Fortunately, most people re-energise their logic and rationality outside religious settings – possibly why the argumentum ad ignorantiam is employed so readily by the Department of Transport (the DOT). The DOT claim that our rail lines are at capacity, yet when one manages – somehow – to unearth the 1960’s engineering reports regarding the City Loop that show that they’re only a bit more than 50% at capacity with the current timetable, you know the government’s claims are fallacious to the extreme (extreme in the sense that the government – both federal and state – are ready to spend big on a project based on a so-called analysis that excludes the said reports). Shout, inculcate and bombard someone with an idea for long enough and eventually people just accept it. Fortunately in the last example I gave, we have people like Paul Mees reminding us of erroneous government claims; that’s to be expected in politics. The same can’t be said of religion.

The Doctor shouts at a Dalek in the vain hope that it'll just bugger off back to Skaro and leave his precious London alone.

So, now that I’ve gotten that idea out of the way, I pose this question to religious people: What epistemological reasoning do you employ to justify your faith?

Discuss.

What is God? Is God Real? Does it matter?

I’m Kath, the token Christian of N.L.T. However, hopefully I provide more than a standard interpretation of the Christian faith. I am a socialist, feminist, queer Catholic and just to make things a little more exciting my best friend is involved in black magic and my partner is an Orthodox Jew. I like to believe that this colours my understanding of Christianity and concepts such as God, faith and religion.

This post is in the main a response to the much loved, token bastard of N.L.T: Reuben.

I would like to provide some definitions before I begin. I acknowledge that these words, like many in the English language have many meanings. For the purpose of this post however this is what I mean when I use the following words.

Faith: A personal and spiritual belief.

God: A higher being-”begotten not made” which means essentially that God has no creator.

Religion: A specific faith, held by a group of people and usually with some sort of hierarchy and rules. (You can be religious, or associate yourself with a religion without necessarily respecting or following all elements of the hierarchy or all the rules)

I provided these definitions because there is no point getting into a debate about the existence of God or religion if everyone involved in the debate is thinking of a different thing when they use the word religion, we all need to be on the same page, that said I aim to set out an argument suggesting that such a debate is pointless. (I know, it seems like a bit of an oxymoron)

What is God?

Well the above definition was merely a Christian text-book definition. That is, it is the simplest was of describing the Christian God, in accordance with traditional Catholic teaching.

It is this concept of God that I believe in. I do also believe in God, as the creator, but that does not necessarily make me a creationist! The Catholic Church has always supported the big bang theory as it supports the Christian theory that there was nothing until God created the world. Strict creationism I suppose (though I have limited understanding of creationism) would state that we are all decedents of Adam and Eve and that God created all animals and plant matter as we now see it in 6 days. Clearly this is factually incorrect. It is however possibly that 7 days did not really mean 7 days as we now think of it, but rather 7 different time periods (allowing for evolution) and who knows, perhaps those time periods are not yet complete? However this is a whole other religious/philosophical theory/debate, I mention it only as a way of providing an alternative to strict creationism. I believe that evolution and natural selection make sense as scientific theories, explaining the world around us. However I don’t rule out the possibility that this is a process that God may have begun and may continue to guide.

One thing that can not be denied of most mono-theistic religions, is that they can be incredibly patriarchal (as is the society we live in) However I remember my year 8 RE (Religious Education) and home room teacher (I attended Catholic school from prep to the completion of year 11) beginning some morning prayers with “Dear Mother” rather than “Dear Father”. God can be whatever form we choose it to be, God is whatever you want it to be and as real as you believe it to be. My teacher saw God as a hamster; I have always seen God as a large, queer, black woman with many arms.

Is God Real?

Now evidently I can neither provide you with proof of God’s existence nor her non-existence. All I can do is attempt to explain to you, why I personally have faith in a higher being.

I was baptised as a Catholic and attended church and a Catholic school. Therefore to some extent it can be argued that my faith relates to my upbringing. However I would like to point out that my parents are not particularly religious, and are not regular church attenders. when I was young I used to have to drag them to church on Sunday mornings.

I love Jesus Christ and my love for and faith in him has always been strong. The stories we read and discussed in class depicted him as a Good man, and of course as more than man, as the son of God. He went around healing people, now whether or not this is possible or real is not the point. The point is here was this character who’s life’s mission was about bettering the life of others. He challenged the hard and fast religious rules of the Pharisees, the leaders of the predominant religion (Judaism) of the time. He showed that the interpretation of God’s words could indeed be subjective. For me as a child the two most important things that Jesus taught us were: not to judge, and to forgive. As a child my religion was a simplistic moral code, something to live by and I suppose something which I did not question. I had total and absolute faith. However I was told by my priest that this was not true faith. Faith unquestioned, is dogma, it is not real.

Then my grandmother fell ill. She got Cancer for the first time. Why? Why on earth would God do that? My Grandmother was a good person. This was a confusing time for me I didn’t really know what to believe. I withdrew from the church for some time. I remember feeling guilty when my Grandfather asked us to pray for her, because I couldn’t. Now if you’ve never believed in God, if you’ve never prayed then the following is a concept that you will struggle to understand. I literally couldn’t pray. I didn’t have faith, but I tried to pray anyway, I suppose out of habit, and out of desperation it seemed the only way to help my Grandmother, but I couldn’t. I mean I could kneel, do the sign of the cross and talk to myself, but because I didn’t believe in God, it was like there was something blocking my path. I believe God watches over us all and listens to us all, regardless of our religious affiliation or lack there of but my lack of faith prevented me from feeling that ever so special connection I had once felt…Anyway, my grandmother is a fighter, she fought it and won! She thanked God for her strength and told us that without us, our prayers and the strength God gave her she would never have made it. Again, with my young and simplistic understanding of God, I felt guilty because I didn’t think I had truly prayed or that God had heard me. The night after Grandma told us this I prayed, and I felt the connection. God was real!

A few years latter Grandma fell sick again, I was in late primary school at this stage. Ever morning before school I would go to church and kneel, on the kneeler in front of a statue of Marry. In front of this statue there are many plastic candles with slots in front of each. I put money in a slot in front of one candle and it would light up, I lit a candle everyday for Grandma. I would pray for her and our family and I would say the Hail Marry. One night, I overheard my parent’s talking about Grandma. Dad told mum that the Chemo wasn’t working, and that the doctors had said it was only a matter of days before she died. They were debating whether or not it was appropriate to take my brother and me in to see her before she died. The next morning I went to church once more before school, but this time was different. There was desperation in my prayer, as though if I prayed hard enough I’d save her. I remember crying and concentrating really hard on the face of Marry. Then, and it’s hard to explain exactly; I saw a change in the facial expression of the statue and I felt some sort of feminine, maternal comforting presence. I stoped crying and went to school. Within days Grandma turned a corner, the Doctors didn’t expect it, and couldn’t really explain it. Not that we cared. She got better! Since then we’ve had eight years with Grandma. She’s seen four births in the family, her son got married and her eldest grandchild (me) graduated from high school and many other significant and fantastic events.

Just recently Grandma, has again been diagnosed with Leukaemia, we now rely on modern medicine and prayer. If you are religious I ask you to include Helen and her family in your prayers.

I do not present this as evidence, more as an insight into my personal faith. Since that time I have questioned my faith and my religion, as two separate, though related things. I have periodically flittered in and out of the St Joseph’s community, (my local parish).

Clearly as a feminist and a political queer I do not agree with or like all elements of Catholicism. However my belief in God remains strong and I love my parish.

Does it matter?

In my opinion the existence of God is relevant only if you believe in her. I believe in God, and God is important to me, though I might not be a crucifix wearing, abstaining, hetro. I have learn that the bible like most religious texts is all about interpretation.

Reuben has in the past argued that it does matter because religion and faith must be held accountable.

I would disagree. My faith does not need to be held accountable because it doesn’t hurt anyone. It is not faith or religion itself which needs to be held accountable but any religious authority i.e: the Pope, or theocracies.

I do not HAVE to defend or explain my faith to believe. However when religion takes a place of political authority, any decree made by a political ruler in the name of religion or God that person must be held accountable.

The most used example of this is the former Taliban rule of Afghanistan. However it should be noted that the vast majority of actions of this supposedly Islamic rule were directly contrary to teachings of the Koran. It is not religion which is to blame, but the people who choose to distort religion for their own gain, manipulating people through religion.

Another example is that of the Pope, the head of the Catholic Church. In more recent times the Catholic Church has come under fire for their involvement in Aids affected Africa, promoting the use of abstinence over “unnatural” contraception to prevent aids, maintaining that with abstinence Aids could be eliminated in a generation. Wom*n who remain virgins, until marriage than die as a result of aids because their husbands were H.I.V positive have been heralded Martyrs for the Christian faith. The Catholic Church has even been accused of spreading myths about the effectiveness of condoms and even stating that condoms were the cause of Aids! For this and the resulting deaths of course the Catholic church must be held accountable! Though it should be noted that what happens in Africa as a result of Papal preaching goes against EVERYTHING that Christianity stands for; manipulating and exploiting the poor and murder! Many nuns in parts of Africa are keenly aware of this hypocrisy and have been found to be handing out condoms and educating people about contraception, including “non-natural contraception”. While I don’t deny that the Vatican as a religious authority must be held accountable, I argue that these actions are not in keeping with the scriptures but rather a desire for control and power held by members of the Catholic hierarchy. I also argue that it is necessary to hold accountable the wealthy, western nations of the world who have not been prepared to give adequate aid money, money which they do indeed have!

I did my best to keep this post as ordered as possible, and not just a total rant. Essentially my conclusion is that faith and religion and a belief in God are three separate though connected concepts and that they are purely personal. A debate about the existence of God seems unnecessary. Believers believe and non-believers don’t. While both may change their belief I don’t think any belief change either for or against the existence of God will occur through debate. I also see there as being no real point to the debate-such debate achieves nothing, and even if it were possible to prove that God didn’t exist, it would not change the world in any significant way! My faith in God does not affect Atheists; it does not rock or change the world. So who cares. The existence of God is irrelevant unless you believe.