KalinBooks.com - Science Fiction, Anarchism and Atheism

-- Download My Old Get To Know a Marijuana Dealer Website (ISellPot.ws) as PDF --

Around the turn of the century I started a website called Get to Know a Marijuana Dealer, where I announced that I sold marijuana and that I was not willing to quit, as a protest against drug laws. The site became kinda popular, but didn’t quite have the political affect I was hoping for. I was never busted for selling weed after starting the site, (though I was once busted before, which is what inspired me to start it) despite running the site for seven or eight years. Eventually I forgot to renew my domain name and an advertising bot stole it from me.

Anyway, I think I’m going to start posting some of the stuff I had on that old site, maybe just for the sake of my old memories. Here’s some of what I had on the introduction page:

I am a peace-loving marijuana dealer, science fiction novelist and web developer, designer and programmer. I run this website to tell everyone that I sell marijuana to my friends and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop me. Criminal laws are worthless and it’s high time humans stop thinking about legal and illegal and starting thinking about right and wrong.

…

The legalization of marijuana is not just about a bunch of hippies wanting to get high. It’s an integral part of world politics, that wastes countless dollars and innocent lives. Weed is a peace-promoting plant that has never killed a human. And it’s a plant that can help change the way you look at life.

The problem is that we pot smokers aren’t standing up for ourselves. We’re forced into a life of hiding and deception, instead of standing up and shouting “Fuck you! This is our god-given right!” like we should be.

So it’s time to stand up and smoke on the street at the bus stop; it’s time to smoke out the geeky kid in the back of the class; it’s time to smoke out your parents and your teachers and tell everyone that you demand your freedom.

I didn't like to have my name indexed by search engines so I put my real name inside images like this one so the police would still know who I was if they wanted to arrest me.

…but also… smoke responsibly.

…because it’s also time to show the people around us that drug users can contribute to society, can behave like responsible adults, can use drugs in a way that positively benefits their life, and can have solid moral values.

…it’s time to stop lying and sneaking. Morally solid individuals are above that.

Let me put it to you this way: I’ve been telling the world that I sell pot since June of 2000; and I’m helping change people’s opinions.

Now, If you’re a person who can’t even tell the people that you love that you smoke pot… well… Just stop and think about that for a moment. Think about the affect your lies will have on you and the people around you in the long run.

The site ultimately became most popular for my book, The Beginner’s Guide to Marijuana Distribution where I unloaded all the advice I had on how to get into the field and stay safe and profitable. I plan to post that book on this site as well, since it’s still probably the most popular thing I’ve ever written.

-- Download The Complexity of Equality Between Men and Women as PDF --

So I have about fifty unpublished or incomplete posts and pages sitting in my queue for this blog and I feel like I need to clean things up a bit, so here is one that I found sitting around that I think has some decent points. I had a bunch more stuff to say on this subject, but my mind has wandered in the year since I wrote this, so I’m just going to post it as-is.

---

I once had an argument with someone about gay marriage and he claimed that gays already had equal rights because they have the right to get straight married. He thought it was ridiculous to claim that gays were not equal because the laws are applied in the exact same way regardless of your sexual orientation.

If you have two children, one who is obsessed with trains, the other who loves dinosaurs, you could take both of them to nothing but train related outings, but that wouldn’t be treating them equal, even if you’re giving them both the exact same things along the way. You’d be treating them the same, but clearly they wouldn’t be equal because they have different interests and different feelings. Instead, they should be treated differently but equally.

These are two extreme examples, though the first is actually a common belief among conservatives. However, I think this same basic concept applies to aspects of society in many other ways that we don’t always stop to think about. When you start thinking about laws and certain social expectations in this manner, suddenly our society is not even as equal as we thought it was.

Take marijuana laws as just one example. Marijuana is notorious for giving different people different effects. Some get hungry, some silly, some have an easier time focusing, for some it becomes harder, it feels wonderful to some and uncomfortable or even scary for others. Different people have different chemical makeups but our laws disregard this fact. In this sense, people who have certain mental or chemical tendencies are clearly not being treated equal.

You can say something similar about fines and many other types of punishments. On the surface it seems fair to impose a flat fine for a certain infraction, but when you stop to think about it, the harm from that fine is greater for a poor person than it is for a wealthy one. The actual physical action is the exact same regardless of wealth, but the effect on the person’s life can be vastly different.

To me it’s not the action that’s important, but the end result. It means nothing if two people are technically equal if they don’t feel equal because their emotions or culture are different. Ultimately it’s our feelings, not our possessions, that’s truly important.

---

Originally I wanted to focus on relationships between men and women for this post, but I kind of got sidetracked because this concept is a big reason why I’m anarchist.

I saw a blog post a number of months ago at blaghag.com, (I no longer read this blog after Elevatorgate but I used to be a big fan) and there was some talk about the Old Spice guy–the hot black guy, “I’m on a horse”–and Jen (or someone she was quoting; I can’t remember and can’t seem to find the post) was using this as an example of how men have to deal with the same kind of sexual objectification that women do, and it hurts us just as it does women. I found this a little offensive and felt it illuminated the fact that the author did not understand how men think and feel and made the assumption that underneath we are all the same. Men have many complaints about many things relating to sexuality, but some hot guy selling cologne is not one of them.

Sexual objectification is a women’s issue and I don’t think it’s fair to pretend like it affects men in the same way. In many ways men feel the opposite. Men tend to enjoy being sexually objectified and it usually makes us feel better about ourselves, not worse. Women are under no emotional obligation to avoid this kind of thing while men certainly are.

Same thing with safety. Men are under a very real obligation to avoid scaring women, which we can see from the drama surrounding Elevatorgate, even if we have no way of knowing or understanding why they are afraid. Those kind of emotions are foreign to most men, and it takes a ton of effort to remember to be sensitive to them twenty-four-seven, but it’s still our obligation. For women, on the other hand, as long as you’re not pointing a weapon, you really don’t need to give a crap about men’s feelings of safety. We don’t need you to.

With these issues, women who follow The Golden Rule with their dealings with men, are actually hurting men rather than helping them. Sometimes it’s not right to treat others the way you want to be treated. It’s better to take the time to understand the other person and treat them the way they want to be treated.

So I feel like if men are under these obligations that women are not, I think it’s fair to ask for a couple other concessions in exchange for these things, things that women might have no idea are hurtful to men. I’m not sure what the male community would decide we want those concessions to be since I’m far from a typical male and I don’t listen to male-oriented talk shows or read about men’s issues. I can guess, however, that we’d ask for things like making your sexual intentions clear and not tricking us into being friends when you know we have a romantic interest, not calling us creeps without a fair or at least clearly defined reason, or not inviting us into your bed only to tell us sex is out of the question.

If you look at BlagHag’s statistics, for example, you can see that more than half of her readers are men, and yet it’s a feminist blog. Granted, it’s more about atheism and science, but feminism is definitely a big player. For every male issue I’ve discussed or read about in my life, I’ve probably read or discussed five women’s issue. I have a feeling this is somewhat typical of liberal males, but I have a feeling the opposite is not true for liberal women. I feel like (and I’ll admit this is just a feeling without scientific basis) women in my liberal area (Seattle, Washington), and particularly feminists, tend to put a lot of faith in The Golden Rule and don’t acknowledge that men’s thoughts and feelings work very differently from theirs, and don’t realize the men around them may be hurting from things women can’t identify with. Perhaps this is because women are rarely exposed to these issues in non-confrontational settings. Men have no choice but to come to terms with our differences because it’s made so obvious to us, so in a lot of ways it’s our own fault for not speaking out about men’s issues in the way women speak out about their’s and making the information accessible to women.

-- Download How Police Allow Us To Promote Hatred and Violence as PDF --

Why All the Smashy-Smashy? A Beginner’s Guide to Targeted Property Destruction. | Slog.

This is an excellent article about the effects and morality of politically-motivated vandalism. I personally don’t see how this is any worse than the Boston Tea Party of American history, but I also thought I’d share one guy’s response.

Fascinating stuff here. It’s odd that someone who talks about “Real Americans” is also advocating that the state murder protesters instead of addressing their grievances. I know this guy is just a troll, but these attitudes are real. People actually feel this way. Alan Carter (I can only assume that’s not his real name as his Facebook account is mostly empty) is so fed up that he’s using any excuse he can to promote hatred and real violence, while many others in our society follow along with this kind of attitude, because it satisfies their basic animal instincts. We all have this blood lust as products of brutal evolution, but in evolutionary history, there has always been serious consequences for violence. In our current society, however, police give the public the means to feel as though they are the ones beating and torturing people, and gives them that terrifyingly addictive satisfaction of vengeance. Most supporters of police are not as blatant and honest about this as Alan was, and most don’t even realize its their blood lust that drives them to support guns and prisons, but that doesn’t mean they don’t feel the same way Alan does.

Here’s the thread on Occupy Seattle’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/OccupySeattle/posts/271341899628410

-- Download How do I Kill the Negativity? as PDF --

A couple days ago I posted a Conversation I had with a Christian about God and the value of religion and I’m still thinking about it and hoping I didn’t notably hurt any feelings. I actually wrote to the Social IQ Lady, my favorite atheist blogger, and twelve hours later she’d written a thoughtful post about it. I asked her if it had been worth my time, but maybe what I was thinking more of is was it worth the hurt feelings? (It never occurred to me that the term ‘Dude’ could be derogatory but now that she points it out, it makes perfect sense.) Writing a blog post about a general concept is a lot different than arguing directly with someone because there’s no way to avoid the sense that you’re attacking and having a little battle.

The reason I like the Social IQ Lady so much is because she’s found a way to be mostly positive, avoids anything that’s purposefully insulting, but still manages to make meaningful atheist points. Most other atheist sites I’ve found either dilute their message, or resort to insults and accusations of evil. I used to read BlagHag, but after elevatorgate 2011, I couldn’t handle the nastiness anymore.

One major reason I never revived my previous website was because it had become so negative. It was marijuana-focused and atheism was a side-issue, so most of my readers came looking for info about weed, then the religious ones got offended by some of my articles and would say nasty things, then I would try to show my superior writing skill by out-insulting them. Then the next person would see those posts and it would serve as an invitation for more nastiness. (Ironically my first website started as a celebration of God and faith but it turned into anti-religious nastiness.) I’m doing a whole lot better with kalinbooks. I can’t think of any point where I’ve been purposefully hurtful, though in a lot of ways I’m saying things that are more harsh than I did on my previous site. I have not received one death-threat since I revamped this site in 2010 so I’m not doing too horribly.

But still, I’m so negative all the time. While i don’t say anything deliberately hurtful, all my posts seem to be about what’s wrong with things. I talk about police brutality and all the things that are wrong with criminal justice. I talk about atheism, but instead of focusing on the benefits of mental freedom and equality, I focus on the ways religion has harmed myself and society. I really want to write a series of posts about my vision of a Utopian society and outline how humans could live peacefully without laws and religion. I have so many ideas in my head, but instead I just attack our current society without offering alternatives

I keep thinking about another negative post I want to write about Ted Bundy and how reading a couple books about him cemented my anarchism, explaining how criminal justice inspired him to kill and how the police helped him get away with it.

But there’s a part of the Ted Bundy post I need to remember to include. Most people don’t know that he actually volunteered and worked tirelessly at a suicide hotline, saving possibly as many people as he killed… but even fewer people know about the story of one of the women who got away.

Ted Bundy, in the midst of his killing years, stopped to pick up a young female hitchhiker. Once she realized he had lied about where they were going, he admitted that he intended to rape and murder her. Something about her state-of-mind, however, was different than his other victims. Perhaps the situation was so surreal that her brain somehow skipped over the fear. Instead of screaming and crying and calling him names, she started talking to him like a person, asking him about his childhood, about his motivations, about how he feels when he’s killing people, and how he thinks his victims feel. Despite the fact that he was about to brutally murder her, she remained relatively respectful and continued calmly talking to him about the situation until finally he pulled off to the side of the road, told her that she’d earned his respect, and let her go.

Part of me wants to ask how it’s possible that someone can admit to a random stranger that he’s a serial killer and the cops still can’t bust him, but what’s really important in this story is the fact that one woman did in a half hour conversation what millions of dollars of criminal justice could not, and the key to her success was the fact that she respected him, despite what a monster he was. This is the kind of thing I want to talk about on this site, those beacons of hope, and the fact that so few people have faith in these days, that every person, no matter how evil or insane, can still be reached through communication and compassion. I have no idea if I’ll succeed.

-- Download This is a Real Conversation I had with a Christian as PDF --

Whew… I’m so very sorry that I have to do this, but I must. Today I’m posting a conversation I had with a Christian Facebook friend.

I made him cry.

I’ll call him “G”. I did not edit this, other than his name and cutting out the beginning where we made smalltalk and I told him that I had gotten a job in the porn industry (writing Javascript and Actionscript), which got this whole talk on God started.

I think this conversation illuminates a few interesting things. First, is the fact that ethnocentrism is an inherent and integral part of the Christian religion.

Another is how Christianity justifies violence, and how Christians systematically turn a blind eye toward the suffering of others, particularly when it’s caused by their own religion. Watch for the parts where I basically get him to admit his support for killing in the name of God.

You may also note the common religious strategy of bombarding opponents with catch-phrases and creative ways of saying God is wonderful, while evading any topic that is difficult for them to address.

I feel pretty bad that I made him cry, but after reading back through this, I realize I stuck to compassionate verbal strategies. I don’t change my argument to save people’s feelings, but I never say anything purposefully designed to hurt. It’s not okay to let someone tell lies simply because the truth hurts but it’s also not okay to purposefully insult them. I think I did a good job maintaining that balance.

Oddly enough, this guy is a huge fan of my writing… or was. How that happened I have no idea, but to give an example, this is the first message he ever sent me on Facebook, about a year and a half ago:

I know it is my duty 2 celebrate ur lordship sir. I’ve been 2 ur site & i’ve known wht it weigh in term of knowledge, more greese 2 ur elbow sir. Sir, hw i wish i could b like u, nt necessarily become a poet like u but i want u 2 mentor me in ways & hw i can improve on my self in writing. Ave had some articles 2 my credit, bt i think as a father & my mentor there would b ways u canmake me improve on my self. My name is G, an engineering student in 1 of nigeria university. Thanks sir.

Note that he’s an engineering student, and apparently a published author, as in, he’s not a crazy street-person. But he did ask me to be his mentor, so I guess he kind of asked for this.

So without further ado, here is the unedited conversation. I made comments in red.

 

G:

Wht?

Nudity! Y should u take dat job sir?

 

Kalin:

I like porn and it’s an awesome company

they definitely treat us better than any company I’ve worked for before

and surprisingly it’s the most professional company I’ve ever worked for

 

G:

Havent God being faithful enough? Is sinful sir, detestable in God’s sight.

 

Kalin:

are you joking?

 

G:

I’m sorry 4 i went offline. It was wht u said dat sacred me 2 d pt where my phone fell & scattered on ground

 

Kalin:

lol

 

G:

I’m serious it doesn’t worth it sir

 

Kalin:

what’s doesn’t worth it?

you’re serious that you think porn is wrong because god told you so?

religion kills countless people and porn hurts no one

Note: I said this in the heat of anger. What I should have said was that the porn industry hurts fewer people than the advertising industry where I worked previously, or the fast food, automobile, oil or military industries.

 

G:

No matter hw much they r saying God is still nt on their side

 

Kalin:

a woman was murdered in the name of God on the front lawn of the home where I grew up

Note: I say a few crazy things about my personal experiences. I assure you, I did not make any of them up. I actually knew the guy who killed this woman and you can read one story I wrote about him.

to use God to push twisted moral values when so many people are killed in the name of God and so much hatred in the name of God you have no right to judge others in God’s name

 

G:

Y?

Hw?

 

Kalin:

the concept of God causes such an insane amount of harm in our society

have you read my article, 22 ways religion promotes crime?

http://kalinbooks.com/atheism-religion/22-ways-religion-promotes-crime/

 

G:

I’m nt judging sir. D scripture only says we should offer r body as a living sacrifice 2 d lord. Porn dont justify dat sir

 

Kalin:

I’m an atheist dude

I used to be a Christian but it almost killed me

God is nothing but a delusion dude

 

G:

No sir, i wil check dat out rht away sir

 

Kalin:

cool

hey sorry if I get all defensive

 

G:

Pls sir

 

Kalin:

god is just a touchy subject for me

 

G:

Pls sir

Sir, i’m a living testimony dat God is real. I died wen i was operated on jan 9 2012. I say Jesus christ wit my eyes, sir, i saw heaven, sir, God is real

 

Kalin:

how many times have you seen god?

 

G:

10nk God 4 taking bk 2 life. Sir dont let anybody deceive u Jesus is real sir

 

Kalin:

how many times have you talked to him?

 

G:

Sir, he reveals himself even everyday 2me 2ru d scripture, bt after my coming bk 2 life. I only saw him 1s more again in my dream & he spoke 2 me

 

Kalin:

so you’ve seen him twice?

did you at least thank the doctors who actually saved your life?

 

G:

Sir is there any thing i could do 2 convince u?

 

Kalin:

Like I told you I used to be a Christian

Note: Admittedly this could be a little misleading. There was a two-year period of my life where I accepted Jesus as my personal savior. I wasn’t actually involved in any church or organized Christianity and my personal religion was very non-standard but everything I tell G about my experiences are completely true.

if you have only seen God twice that’s not much proof for me

I saw God hundreds of times

God spoke to me and told me all sorts of amazing things

he told me to do stuff

I spoke with God on a daily basis

so I know all about your kind of experiences

 

G:

I died bt lived again by His grace. I fell @ d sight of His glory, its a revelation i would shear until death take me again

 

Kalin:

are you listening to what I’m saying?

did you thank the doctor at least?

 

G:

U r making me 2 cry now

 

Kalin:

the doctors most likely studied for years to be able to bring you back to life.

I’m sorry

but we need to face reality and you will be better off in the long run if you hear the other side of the story

I’ve found that life can be so much more magical without God than with Him

 

G:

Pls sir trust me. I mean wht i said, God loves us. He told me dis over & over again

 

Kalin:

yeah, He told me too

He also told me that Satan had invaded the Christian religion and had corrupted the Bible and poses as God and that the only way to escape it was to become atheist

but that was all just my mind playing tricks on me

Hey, I’m sorry if I upset you, man, but I have to keep it real, ya know

 

G:

Sir tell me u r only displaying ur talent & i wil belive u

 

Kalin:

not sure I understand

 

G:

Tell me dat all is just joke, & i wil hold bk my tears

 

Kalin:

no, I’m sorry it’s not a joke

I know it’s painful but you must remember that God does not hold a monopoly on goodness and kindness or the human spirit

just because he’s not real doesn’t mean there isn’t truly amazing and wonderful things in the world

 

G:

If Anyone could be real even more than my parent, God has always been real. He meant it wen he died 4 us. Is sin He could nt behold. Dat is y he seems so far bt times

 

Kalin:

When you think about evolution and how all the laws of the universe interact and how we all came here threw billions of years, it’s pretty darn amazing

Ok, I know you feel that way, but you’re not really making any actual arguments. You’re just saying that you believe in God using different words

And none of that justifies the harm caused by religion

 

G:

D scripture says we conquer d dragon by d word of r testimony, haven u read dat?

 

Kalin:

I read the first 27 chapters and it was so racist, sexist and hateful that I couldn’t handle it anymore

have you read my bible commentary?

http://kalinbooks.com/2011/genesis-bible-commentary-chapter-1/

I go through all 27 chapters and make comments along the way

 

G:

U mean d scripture?

 

Kalin:

we’re talking about the Bible,right?

 

G:

Sir, do u think there could b any architectural work without d maker?

Hw much more d design of dis world?

 

Kalin:

There could be an abstract maker but it’s unrealistic to think that priests and the authors of the Bible could actually understand Him

and it’s unrealistic to think that any creator has a direct hand in anything that happens on earth or in human affairs

 

G:

Do u think all just came up my chance? Dont u think there is a makes behind dis?

 

Kalin:

That’s what makes evolution so beautiful

there are natural laws in the universe that have played out to create what we see here

you can call that God if you want, and that’s reasonable

but the religious God is so far away from that that you can’t justify a specific religious God by arguing something so abstract

 

G:

D Lord is in Spirit & those who worship Him do so in spirit. U can never understand God 4rm d flesh view, it is d spirit dat reveals Gods secrets 2 his ppl & could only be understood by his ppl sir

 

Kalin:

Can you ever respond to any of my actual points?

I mean, you’re just finding different ways of saying God is magical

 

G:

U cant justify wht is of spirit by d flesh sir

 

Kalin:

then why does that spirit cause so much harm in the world?

God and religion has caused so much hate and violence in this world, how can you justify it just because it makes you feel good?

particularly when you have no idea how wonderful and amazing the alternative

I’m so much happier and more successful since I became a full-on atheist

 

G:

GOD is nt an author of confusion. Ppl confused His word. He is faithful 2 his word, ppl just labelled Him a liar(also 4 dat reason he was crucified). Even up 2 dis time, d veil dat tag Jesus as a corrupt & unreal person stil covers ppl’s eyes & can only be taken away if 1 turns 2 God

 

Kalin:

why can’t you answer any of my questions?

how does it justify all the hate?

 

G:

About ur sudden wealth sir, it only last in dis world, bt nt d world 2 come. Apostle Paul said & i quote: wht shall separate me 4rm d love of God, is it money?

 

Kalin:

I am a much better person since I became an atheist too

again, why can’t you answer my question?

 

G:

Who told u sir dat God cant provide all there, He said & i quote: i can do exceedingly above all u can ever think of. Is cos u r nt patient enough 2 wait on Him. He can do it only if u r among His sons

 

Kalin:

God repeatedly told me I was the second coming of Jesus

and told me I had to become an atheist because that was the only true path to God

why should I believe you over God Himself?

Note: Again, this actually happened to me. I’ve never talked about it because it’s so insane. Obviously now I realize it was just my mind and inflated ego playing tricks on me.

besides, you still haven’t answered my question?

What actual, real-world benefits do we see from religion that can justify all the hate and violence that comes from it?

 

G:

Being hated cos of Christ is nt something strange. D scripture says we dont ave an high priest(JESUS), who dont share in r weaknesses. If u r slapped cos of Christ, rememces jesus was 1s slapped, if u wept cos of Christ remember He 1st wept 2

 

Kalin:

Are you sure you’re not an automated bot?

 

G:

No sir.

 

Kalin:

You’re not actually responding to anything that I say

 

G:

I’m trying 2 respond sir

 

Kalin:

you haven’t shown me how religion actually benefits anyone

 

G:

GOD dont kills nt 2 say he would send his believers 2 hate others. D gosple is a good tiding. Its should never b 4ced on anybody. We only live it as God help us.

Christianity is nt a religion sir, is a way of life

 

Kalin:

Can you not see how ridiculous you’re being in terms of your approach to this conversation?

 

G:

Christianity dont captivates, it only liberates

 

Kalin:

every time I try to make a point you just spout out catch phrases and different ways to say that christianity and God are magical without ever explaining why or how or give any real-world statistics or examples

you need to really think for yourself

 

G:

Sir i told u, d gosple is d mind of God. D holy spirit only reveals it 2 God’s ppl 2ru d spirit. Hw do u want me 2 explain dis much better without d help of d spirit making u 2 understand, i’m helpless in dis case, cos i dont ave power 2 save or make d God’s mind 2 b understood. Its God himself dat draw ppl nearer 2 Himself. All wht i was saying & ave said all ave their basis in d scripture. Hw else do u want me 2 say it sir

 

Kalin:

so you’re basically just saying it’s magic and I should have faith? You reject the notion that there is any logical argument for christianity or belief in God?

 

G:

No! GOD is nt a magician, sir, until His word became flesh in u, i fear dat even if i talk till 2morrow, u might stil b thinking dat its magical.

 

Kalin:

you’re saying God is not a magician?

 

G:

Yes sir

 

Kalin:

yeah, you can’t convince me just by repeating catch-phrases and repeatedly telling me it’s wonderful without offering any logical arguments

if you believe there are logical arguments for religion and God, can you make one of them here for me?

 

G:

Sir, i am an engineering student, & i was thought logic & philosophy. Bt after being thought all dis, i could see dat its just a wisdom of dis world. INFACT, God dont think dat way. No wonder d scripture said He uses d foolishness of dis world 2 confound d wise sir.

Sir, i discarded dis wisdom cos 2ru dis i know i could become wise. Apostle Paul said & i quote : let God be right & every other person be wrong

 

Kalin:

you haven’t made any logical arguments

why can’t you just answer my simple question?

what has religion done for society that justifies the harm it has done?

 

G:

I told u sir. Stop classifying xtianity as a religion, is nt a religion, is a way of life. Call every other thing a religion bt nt xtianity

& i stand 2 tell u dat it has never done any havoc 2 mankind & wud never done it until Jesus returned bk

Is there any u know & could share wit me sir?

 

Kalin:

any harm from Christianity I could share with you?

 

G:

Logic & philosophy wont take u anywhere sir. Is a wisdom of dis world

 

Kalin:

do you not remember me saying that a woman was murdered on the front lawn of my childhood home in the name of Jesus?

did you read the statistics on my page about how 99% of all violent criminals come from religious households?

are you not aware of how many wars are motivated right now as a result of christianity? Why do you think my country wants a war with Iran so much? it’s because we’re %75 christian and we hate them for being muslim.

 

G:

Sir, anything dat happened 2 Christ is a replica of wht would happen 2 us. Christ died 4 us, we should be ready 2 die 4 him 2. Honestly, she had a glorious death.

Note: I believe he’s saying that the torturous death of Christ is a replica of hell if we don’t believe in the Christian God. At first I thought the last sentence was referring to Jesus, and it was a typo that he called Him a ‘she’. However, G talks in leetspeak but actually doesn’t have a lot of typos. Now I think he was actually saying that the woman murdered on the front lawn of my childhood home “had a glorious death” and that she “should be ready 2 die 4 him 2″.

 

Kalin:

You just made the claim that Christianity has not caused any harm in this world. Are you still standing by that claim?

Can you defend it in a logical manner or are you just asking us to have faith simply because God will torture us in the afterlife if we don’t?

 

G:

Yes, i could stand by it 2 any lenght sir. Even 2 d laying down of my life 4 gosple sake.

 

Kalin:

so how can you justify the woman who was murdered on my front lawn?

are you saying she was evil and deserved to die?

 

G:

Sir, i may b offline anytime cos my battery nw low, bt till then i’m still on

 

Kalin:

that’s how you get out of it?

 

G:

She died 4 d best course. Do u know hw peter died? Do u know hw paul died? 4 crying out loud, r u saying they r evil? No! They r nt. They chose 2 did 4 d cause they belive so much in 2ru Christ Jesus

 

Kalin:

so you’re saying her murder was a positive thing because it was done by the Lord?

 

G:

Ave told u dat God dont kills. If God could open ur eyes sir, u wil know dat there is no gain in gaining all dis world full of money & d rest bt lord God’s kingdom

 

Kalin:

But God told a man to kill a woman. That would not have happened if he were not a Christian

 

G:

I mean wht is d essence of gaining d whole world bt lost 1s life

 

Kalin:

Are you saying it’s no big deal if people die because God is more important?

I don’t know why you keep talking about money either. I’m not a fan of money myself

I just want you to explain how you can justify all the killing and hate done in the name of God, or show me some kind of evidence that those examples of hate and murder are not the result of God

 

G:

1s again sir, wen i’m talking about God here, i’m refering 2 Jesus Christ. I can only defend Him. Dont let anybody deceives u dat they were sent by him 2 kill. Its a lie. It happened 2 in d scripture. Every thing i was saying ave their paritutral bk up. I’m nt saying dis in my wisdom sir.

 

Kalin:

first of all, God does tell many people to kill in the scripture

second of all, God tells people to kill each other all the time

He once told me to kill someone

Note: I never went through with it, of course. Another little detail I’ve never talked about, though it’s one of the main reasons I fight so hard against religion.

Do you think each and every one of us is lying about it?

 

G:

Let everyone be wrong, bt God only be right sir

 

Kalin:

and we’re back to the catch-phrases

 

G:

Is nt God dat talked 2 u sir. Devil also talk 2 man.

 

Kalin:

Then why did they stop talking to me when I became an atheist

and why can’t the most devoted Christians never tell the two apart?

 

G:

Dat is y u need d spirit of God 2 discern all other spirits

 

Kalin:

But the ones who have the strongest spirit of God within them are the ones most likely to commit horrible acts

 

G:

Y did i love 2 talk 2 u wen i discoved who u r. I even cried bt love u more sir

Note: I feel bad for ignoring this statement, but had to press on because it’s necessary to speak the truth no matter how much it hurts. Ironically this is one of the few Christian fundamentals that continues to stick with me to this day. Thou shalt not lie… or as I interpret it, Thou shalt not evade the truth no matter how painful it may be, nor allow others to evade the truth.

 

Kalin:

And in the end, the devil comes along as a package deal with Christianity. By becoming Atheist you are rejecting the devil more than you are rejecting God

 

G:

U r wrong sir

 

Kalin:

So you can blame the devil, but the devil is just part of the beliefs of Christianity, so it’s still the religion that is promoting the hate and violence

 

G:

Sir…. Xtianity is nt a religion sir.

 

Kalin:

you said that before

but the muslim religion for example, is a religion?

 

G:

Yes dat is muslim, dis is xtianity i’m talking about sir

 

Kalin:

so you think Christianity is a way of life but the muslims just have a religion?

 

G:

We r nt serving dsame God sir.

 

Kalin:

do you know anything about how muslims live their lives or what they do on a daily basis?

They’re pretty similar in my eyes, but how can you say christianity is a way of life when other religions are not? Doesn’t that sound pretty pretentious to you?

Do you think other religions and belief systems don’t have every bit as much emotional passion as yours?

 

G:

U can be dedicated 2 cause & dat could neva make u rht if u s wrong 4rm d onset, Jesus christ is d only name given 2 us dat could save sir

 

Kalin:

so you’re saying Christianity is the only true religion and all others are fake?

 

G:

Yes sir

 

Kalin:

How can that not sound hateful to you?

 

G:

Bt sir is nt a religno

 

Kalin:

yeah, okay, Christianity is the true way of life and can’t be considered a religion. I get that you feel that way

but the muslim people feel that way about their religion and think yours is the false one

they have spoken to God more than you, most likely if you have only spoken to God on two occasions

 

G:

U no i 1s told u dat xtianity is nt a thing of 4s. Is either we accept it or leave it sir. No one 4ces anybody 2 belive in God. GOD only saves. I dont ave d power sir

 

Kalin:

countless people over the years have been forced to embrace Christianity

parents routinely force it upon their children

maybe you think Christianity shouldn’t be forced upon people but many Christians clearly do so

 

G:

I spoke 2 God spoke 2 me 2ru d scripture everyday. Hw could u think d so called muslim could talk 2 an unknown God?

 

Kalin:

They know God every bit as much as you do

and to claim that they don’t is just racist in my eyes

 

G:

Dat is where they Got it wrong. Gospel is a good news.it should nt b 4ced

 

Kalin:

But you said earlier that religion has not done harm

or I mean Christianity

How can they get it wrong if they are doing what they believe in their hearts God is telling them to do?

 

G:

Yes

 

Kalin:

I mean, the man who murdered that woman truly believed in his heart that God was speaking to him and that he was doing the right thing.

You can’t just say after the fact that “Oh, well they got that all wrong,” and then not offer any reliable means for how we can get it right

 

G:

They got it wrong sir

 

Kalin:

And Christians will continue to get it wrong, over and over and over

Because that kind of system is fundamentally flawed

 

G:

GOD doesn’t ask us 2 kill

 

Kalin:

I completely agree

because God is not real

It is our emotions, which we interpret as God, which are telling us to kill

There are countless examples of people who have claimed that God told them to kill

See, both logic and religion can be used to justify kindness, compassion, teamwork, forgiveness, because those are things that have value and give us a real-world return on our investment.

Only God can give us an excuse to murder

Note: I think his battery ran out at this point.

Hey, I’m sorry if all this got a little heated. I know I get riled up sometimes, but as an Atheist I believe everyone deserves love and compassion no matter what their beliefs and I would never wish harm on anyone for it.

-- Download About My New Story, I Kill For Money Preview as PDF --

I posted a new story today called I Kill for Money… well, it’s not actually a story as much as it is a few sample chapters from another EVE Online novel that I came up with. Unfortunately I have no immediate plans to write this story, but I still love these scenes so I decided I had better just go ahead and post it.

The story follows Vena and Deihlmin who are cybernetically enhanced assassins for the Gurista pirate faction as they pursue a Concord chief, unravel a tale of war and deceit and find themselves falling in love. I wrote these a couple years ago when I was still actively playing EVE Online. I had just written a story called The Atrocity Planners, which a while later was published in issue #22 of EON Magazine (originally this was titled My Gurista Mom and Dad, but I took it to a writer’s group meeting at the local sex club and they gave me some wonderful suggestions including the new title). Anyway, the Vena character from The Atrocity Planners is the same Vena, all grown up of course, in this new novel idea. It’s not mentioned in the sample chapters but the idea of course, is that there’s a lot of back story about how she dealt with the tragedy that occurred in The Atrocity Planners.

A lot of the action-adventure details for this novel aren’t worked out yet, but I have a pretty clear idea of the characters, which is usually more important. Vena is a professional, trained from childhood for many facets of war. She has a shady history having been raised by pirates with frequent hardships, rolled with drug smugglers in late childhood and became a prostitute as a teenager. This allowed her to begin purchasing her cybernetic enhancements, which rapidly became an addiction. Through her late teens she spent the majority of her income on stolen military-grade implants and mental interface software. These implants led her back to the Gurista faction where she was hired and gave up prostitution and drug smuggling in favor of professional killing and espionage.

Vena was escaping from her childhood trauma and the difficulties she endured as a teenager. She escaped into her cybernetic implants, which finally gave her the sense of control over her own emotions and the power to manipulate the situations around her. The computers allowed her to escape her own life and as time went on she started to forget which parts of her were human and which were machine. She began playing characters for the Guristas, adjusting her personality to fit whatever mission. As she says in the second chapter, “ The best actors don’t act, they become.” But now she’s been infiltrating and playing parts for nearly a decade and she can no longer tell which character is actually Vena and can’t tell the difference between real love or passion and technological manipulations designed to accomplish a mission.

Deihlmin, on the other hand, grew up straight, in a wealthy family. He got bored with life and started buying implants in his early teens, but soon learned that the implants couldn’t help him do anything satisfying other than getting away with crimes. He started with petty crimes, simply for the fun of getting away with something and in a few years had moved up to drug smuggling. He too became a little addicted to artificial enhancements, though was careful not to lose his personality within the machine. Then, a group of smugglers he was working with on a particularly large score, were busted by Concord and he watched his friend get beaten to death. Deihlmin  was able to escape, but the police already had all his information, so he realized he could never return to the straight world. He was taken in by the Guristas who sympathized with his experience and he fell in love with the pirate lifestyle. Now that he had a score to settle with Concord within a few years he worked himself up to one of the Guristas elite infiltration soldiers.

So we’ve got two killers. Deihlmin truly believes the Guristas are the good guys, sees Concord as evil and wishes to fight them any way that he can. Vena simply kills for money. She tells herself the Guristas are the good guys, but deep down inside, doesn’t know if she’s sure.

Ultimately they unravel a conspiracy that goes through some top level officials in Concord and discover that many of them have been directly working with Gurista leadership in an attempt to keep a balance to the war, so that neither faction gains ground, but the local military industry, which of course has deep ties to both sides of the conflict, profits dramatically.

The story would explore the nature of criminal justice and the drive for violence through seemingly moral purposes. Like my first EVE Online novel, Against a Rock, there would be a lot of action, violence and suspenseful surprises, and the characters, of course, are not the most morally upstanding individuals. But unlike Against a Rock, this book would have a love element with just a hint of sexy stuff… but alas, I probably won’t write it any time soon unless by some miracle I get a real book deal

-- Download Injustice Everywhere as PDF --

Injustice Everywhere.

This is a site providing a daily news feed of police brutality and misconduct. You can see that every single day in the US there are twenty or thirty different stories of police officers doing awful things. Everything from beating up their wives to falsifying evidence, tazering children or having sex with kids. Here’s some examples just from yesterday (March 18 2012).

• Edinburg TX cop gets probation in official oppression plea for shaking down a motorist in order to get his customized cooler full of beer.
• Collinsville IL cop shown manufacturing cause to search motorist’s vehicle in home video made by that motorist.
• Yakima WA police are accused of intentionally misinterpreting state law as an excuse for keeping a police sergeant’s misconduct and the investigation into it a secret, and it isn’t the first time they did so.
• Youngstown OH cops are accused of cuffing & arresting a grandmother in front of her grandchildren without charges.
• NYPD officers shown on video slamming an Occupy medic head-first into a door window, breaking the window while arresting him for unknown reasons.
• Orlando FL cop suspended w/o pay for unspecified period of time for throwing a woman to the ground on video, breaking her teeth in the process.
• Newark NJ cop accused of hitting mentally ill man in the chest with a running leap punch before he died.
• Del City OK police are being accused of a coverup after witnesses claim they fatally shot an unarmed teen in back while his hands were raised.

So my question is, where do these stories come from? Are they just crowd-sourced? I have a feeling this is not an exhaustive list and there are even more stories that never make it to this site because they just can’t keep track of every paper and community in the country.

Then take into account the basic idea that only a tiny percentage of criminals are ever caught for their crimes. I’ve read that statistically the average child molester assaults dozens of children before ever getting caught. Some research indicates similar numbers for rapists. I know from personal experience that the average drug dealer can make hundreds if not thousands of deals without ever getting busted and without even taking basic precautions. I’ve read interviews with police who claim the numbers are similar for murders. There is no reason to think police brutality and misconduct is any different than any of these other crimes, except for the fact that police are in a much better position to hide their crimes and understand how to get around the laws far better than the average criminal, and because the majority of victims and witnesses are too terrified to come forward.

For every article of police abuse and misconduct posted here, I think it’s reasonable to assume there are a hundred more that go completely unnoticed. As I’ve said before, this is not an issue of a few bad apples and being more vigilant about reporting misconduct. This issue runs far, far, deeper. If we ever want a peaceful society we must make a fundamental shift in the way we think about and deal with criminal behavior.

-- Download Ron Paul's Attitude on Equality Laws as PDF --

I’ve seen Ron Paul getting attacked for his view that businesses should be allowed to discriminate and the government shouldn’t intervene and enforce anti-discrimination laws. When you first read this, it sounds awful. Your gut reaction is to think he doesn’t support equality, and that he won’t stand up for minorities, and I totally understand why it would seem this way. However, I’ve been opposed to these kind of laws for a good decade now, though I have not been vocal about it because I think there are far more harmful laws that need to end first and because it’s a little harder to point out the counter-productive nature of anti-discrimination laws. Perhaps they are helpful in the short term, but legislating social interactions in the long-run is never going to turn out well. It’s totally fair if you disagree with that but what’s unfair is for people to paint Ron Paul and others with this viewpoint as though we’re monsters who want to go back to segregation and white’s-only bathrooms. When you’re voting you have an obligation to dig a little deeper, do your due diligence and do your best to understand what the so-called “crazy person” is really trying to say.

So there’s a number of reasons why I think anti-discrimination laws do slightly more harm than good.

First, I don’t think it’s a good idea to entrust our equality to a massive bureaucracy which has been responsible for things like banning gay men from donating blood and starting racist wars (would anyone consider going to war with Iran if they were doing all the exact same things but happened to be Christian?). Our government wiretapped, and according to some, assasinated Martin Luther King. They drive the war on drugs, disproportionately incarcerating minorities, which has contributed significantly to Mexico’s rates of violence. Why would we want to trust a system with this kind of track record on equality?

These type of laws also don’t address the real problem. If there are bigoted attitudes in our society, we need to address them directly, by changing attitudes. Many of us do not want to simply place a band-aid over our social problems and prefer policies that help us address real change. Doing things by force is not going to change any minds.

Another issue is that these kinds of laws only protect certain segments of the population, and indirectly cause the public to not be concerned about other groups who might not have official protection. People with piercings or tattoos are not protected, even if they are for religious purposes. Marijuana smokers and other drug users most certainly are not protected (a few months back I had a very liberal, pro-equality “friend” tell me I was not actually a person because I smoke pot and I’ll admit its still bothering me). People who don’t have automobiles aren’t particularly protected. Young people get little to no protection, and in fact, are explicitly discriminated against in a multitude of ways by the very government we are expecting to protect us from discrimination. (I can’t possibly be the only one who thinks it’s wrong to practically ban young people from live music simply because they might be around some alcohol.)

These laws also only apply in certain situations, specifically where jobs or money is concerned. What about relationships? People discriminate in their friendships and dating lives. Why is that not just as wrong? I can’t count the number of times I’ve talked to a so-called liberal who claims to be devoted to equality, talks frequently about feminism, gay rights and the way we treat immigrants, but then when I ask them what they’re looking for in a date, they have this whole list of types of people they automatically dislike. They will openly discriminate on all sorts of things like clothing, hair style, religion, and it seems that even with race it’s open season for discrimination when it comes to dating. I’ve seen extreme anti-discrimination liberals state flat-out that they will not go out with a member of a particular race or religion. I try to call them on the hypocrisy, and they seem baffled, like I have no right to judge, because the dating world is all fair game. I think this is indicative of the fact that bigotry runs deep, and in countless flavors that may have nothing to do with our standardized protected sets, particularly in many of the individuals most staunchly opposed to it. Just as homosexuality tends to flourish among those who wish to write laws opposing it, I feel those who hate bigotry the most passionately are often the ones who have the most deep-seated bigoted attitudes. However, bigotry is not such a horrifying thing if we are allowed to be open about it and allow our attitudes to be examined and addressed in an open and free manner.

Another issue is that these laws discriminate against people who don’t believe in vengeance and force. In our current society, when someone suffers discrimination, we expect the law to take care of it, essentially by punishing the offender. But what if the victim doesn’t believe in getting back at the person or company? What if they would prefer government spend that money trying to change the attitudes of the offenders instead of punishing them? What avenues do non-vengeful people have under our current system?

These laws also have the affect of stealing the credit for the progress we’ve made as a society. To claim that it was the federal government who granted the African-American community equal rights is an insult to Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and the countless demonstrators who fought for those rights. They did the work. They deserve the credit. It’s not the government that makes these things. It’s the power of the human spirit that does it.

The final issue is simply that the laws aren’t particularly effective. Employers can still discriminate based on sex or race, or whatever they want. The only major difference is they aren’t as honest about it now… but sometimes they actually are honest. Twice in my life I have been denied a job, specifically because I was male. Once for a cashier position and once for a bartender position. Both times the manager specifically told me they had a policy of not hiring males for customer-facing positions. I saw the same kind of hiring policies in most of the restaurants where I’ve worked. Men were kept in the kitchen and women were given the higher-paid (because of the tips) waitress or bartending positions. If you look at any customer-service based industry, you’ll see this pattern, though in other industries it may be the customer-facing positions which are lower paid. The government has no power to stop this.

There needs to be solutions other than writing laws and using force. There should be a long-term, peaceful, communication-based approach to these problems that involves individuals standing up for their rights rather than expecting the government to come solve everything for them.

This is not an evil perspective that Ron Paul and myself hold. You can argue that it’s naive. You can argue that it’s not practical; but please don’t try to argue that it’s motivated by blind bigotry without first reading about the ideas and really thinking about them. Remember how much the protected groups and minorities deserve an equal playing field? Well so do political ideas and philosophies. Our beliefs deserve to be judged by what they actually are and they deserve the right to be taken within context.

-- Download Republican Dominated Florida Legislature Passes Bill Allowing Prayer In School | Addicting Info as PDF --

I read this article earlier tonight…

Republican Dominated Florida Legislature Passes Bill Allowing Prayer In School | Addicting Info.

Despite the fact that they’re sticking up for the anti-religious perspective, this article frustrates me more than most on this website. I am definitely an atheist. If you look to the atheist section in the menu to the left, my Atheism category, or my article, 22 Ways Religion Promotes Crime, you’ll see that I don’t hold back nor apologize when attacking religion. However, I feel like this article and many of the comments below it are being unfair toward Christianity and even more unfair to the students. Granted, I don’t know the whole story of how the bill would work and I’m suspicious of anything that has lots of conservative religious support, but this article feels overly paranoid and fearful, claiming this bill will open up avenues of hate speech and religious indoctrination, and cause student conflicts. I don’t know. I say we should calm down about it. They claim this is religion pushing their views on us, but that almost sounds like the same argument the conservatives make about homosexuality… that simply allowing people to be who they are openly in public is synonymous with them forcing their lifestyles upon us.

From this article, the bill almost seems like a good thing, and seems like it has as much chance of bringing positive change as it does negative, while giving the students a little more power over their school assemblies. I’m not totally sure, of course, that I would support this bill if I was a Floridian. I would have to read more about it, and learn more about school policies, but as an Atheist, I think it’s important to say something when I think that the “war on religion” might not be playing fair, and make it clear that no matter how strong my atheist values are, and how much I believe religion is a virus, I do not support the censorship of anyone’s spirituality and don’t necessarily support the hard-line approach our public schools take toward religion.

From what the article says, the bill basically allows students to put together “inspirational speeches” that are allowed to include religious references and statements. The teachers and administrators aren’t allowed to edit or censor the student-controlled speeches, though administrators will be able to place wider guidelines, and like anything related to kids and schools, the parents and teachers have the potential of manipulating the kids, as though religious individuals are really good at controlling their kids. The bill supposedly has some hypocritical wording, but that’s kind of par for the course with government bills in my opinion.

One argument is that “The board could simply only allow Christian themed messages, which would alienate religions such as Islam and Judaism”. I think that while technically this is possible, we need to calm down and not jump to the conclusion that this is a Christian conspiracy to force themselves upon us. I think our society has gotten to the point where if administrators blatantly allowed only Christian speeches, enough people would protest to make it not worth their while in the long run, but if I’m wrong, simply banning all religious-related speech in schools doesn’t solve the underlying problems. It merely hides the issue. If this did happen and administrators refused to back down from these Christian-only policies, at least it would bring the issue out in the open and people would be forced to look into permanent solutions instead of just banning everything without thinking about whether or not that serves the greater, long-term good.

I’ve had lots of religious friends over the years and overwhelmingly it was my religious friends and the time I spent as a Christian that inspired me to be an Atheist. I have many, many gripes about religion, which you’ll see if you explore this website, but surprisingly them forcing their religion upon me on an individual level isn’t really one of them… sure, I don’t like most public policies put forth by religious organizations. (“In God We Trust” has no business on our money). But on an individual level, most religious people I’ve met have been very reasonable and respectful of everyone’s freedom of speech and from what it sounds like, there isn’t anything in the bill that specifically gives Christianity any more power than any other religion or non-religion.

I feel like censoring religion kind of gives it more power. We’ve pretty much banned religion outright from public schools, but somehow we have one of the most religious countries in the world. Censoring Atheism on the other hand, gives us less power, because Atheism makes sense while religion does not. If we allow everyone to speak freely and equally, without censoring the discussion afterward, I don’t see how opening up the lines of communication could be anything but good for the Atheist perspective, and would be good for everyone in the long run. Granted, the locals need to be vigilant that Christian administrators don’t enforce Christian-only messages, but I think the benefits would outweigh the risk of this happening, and people need to be vigilant with school administrators anyway, considering some of the policies they’re placing on our kids.

In High-School I was frequently forced to watch football propaganda, filled with lame pop music piped over crackly speakers with football players jumping through big sheets of paper and cheerleaders screaming about how our school was better than all the other schools. I was an Atheist in High-School, but I still would have preferred to see another student giving a religious speech he had written himself, over what we had in our spirit assemblies.

My junior year one teacher decided that everyone in the school had to say the flag salute so he enforced this every morning by getting over the speakers and forcing us to be a part of this. I always felt this was a form of worship that is every bit as dangerous as religion. They are blindly worshiping a piece of fabric that represents a nation that has a very morally questionable history and they’re doing it on a daily basis. Why are liberals not upset about this? To me this is a far more egregious affront to the personal liberties and viewpoints of students than is allowing a few of them to say some God-related words at an assembly.

When we first started I would stand for the flag salute. I was bitter about it, but I didn’t want to get in trouble. Then another student told me that he never stood for the flag salute, as a protest of the policies of the US government, particularly the drug war and foreign policy (Bill Clinton was bombing people). I started staying seated for the flag salute and what I found was that only a few people were put off by it. Some found it funny, and a couple found it offensive, but the overwhelming majority didn’t care one way or the other. The ones who found it offensive, however, for the most part confronted me about it in a reasonable and polite manner and I explained that I was opposed to military occupation and bombing of other countries and felt it was my moral obligation to avoid supporting that. For the most part this put their concerns at ease, and I don’t remember ever once getting hassled about it…

…with one possible exception. I had a class, coincidentally with this same buddy who also refused to stand, and the teacher would snap his fingers at us and give us rude looks. This lasted for maybe a week and finally we talked to him after class and basically told him he was fighting a losing battle and that if he pushed us on this we’d be filing a complaint. He backed down pretty much instantly and it ceased to be an issue.

My point is that rebellious individuals have options even if it does become overly Christian-dominated, as long as they are aware they have options. I think liberals would have their agenda better served in the long run by trying to teach students about the powers they really hold and teaching them to stand up for their beliefs and their rights instead of simply banning anything that has a possibility of indirectly infringing on their rights, while ignoring other policies that clearly and directly infringe.

For example, attendance policies. To make this issue a whole lot easier, simply lighten attendance policies, particularly when it comes to assemblies, and allow students the basic human right of getting up and walking out on a speech they find offensive. This, to me, is the root of the problem, and banning religion is merely a temporary solution to the underlying problems.

I agree that religion has no place in science class any more than it has in math (ever heard a teacher say “sometimes two plus two equals five if you pray really hard”), but trying to prevent any mention of it at all, I think, is counter-productive.

As one commenter pointed out, this could backfire on the Republicans… assuming this is motivated by a purely Christian agenda, which at first glance, I don’t believe it is. Students may, for example, vote for Pagan inspirational speeches… or for that matter, Atheist inspirational speeches. Why wouldn’t they? When I was in high-school I would have voted for anything that broke the monotony. Atheists are being censored in public schools too. They’re not allowed to get up and talk about the positives of not having a God any more than a Christian can talk about how much they love Jesus, so how can we be sure that some dedicated Atheist or Muslim kid, or for that matter, some kid who invented his own belief-system, isn’t going to be able to write a speech that can get voted in by the student body? Despite having a few students get offended in school, which already happens for a wide variety of reasons, I think it could actually be a good thing to open up these kind of conversations.

-- Download Ron Paul's View on Marriage is Insane as PDF --

I’ve been hearing lately about Ron Paul’s idea that government should get out of marriage entirely. I support gay marriage and all that, but getting government totally out of marriage is a little insane. That legal document means something to many people. The government stamp makes the relationship official. Without that, what reason would people have to stay married? Divorce would skyrocket, but we would have no way of knowing because nothing would be recorded. Couples could just wander away from each other with no legal consequences.

And what would the lawyers do? Divorce is a big industry. Without all the laws and the necessity of hiring lawyers, people might have to sit down with their spouse and talk about their relationship. We all know that’s not realistic. It’s much better to have a representative of the law standing in the middle of your relationships.

The problem is that marriage is the only type of personal relationship that’s legally regulated. Marriage is suffering, not because of too much government involvement, but because the dating world by comparison is completely unregulated. What we need to do is start licensing other personal relationships. We could simplify relationships dramatically if we had to get a license to, for example, start a monogamous relationship. So often in dating we get confused. One person believes they’re just dating casually, the other is planning their future together. Currently there are no legal consequences for leading someone on or breaking someone’s heart, even if it causes far more pain than other crimes. If we legislated this and provided strict relationship rules, forcing both parties to fill out declarations of intent, then we could eliminate a great deal of confusion. People who are only looking for sex, for example, could be quickly identified and matched up with more appropriate partners, and when it’s time to begin a monogamous relationship, you can get an official license from the government. I think anyone would agree that would make it more special and reduce all sorts of ambiguity.

We definitely need best-friend licenses, at least to start. Eventually we should phase in the licensing of all friendships. Imagine never hearing the phrase “I thought you were my friend,” ever again. No more ambiguity. You will always know who your friends are and who you can trust, because you will have federal laws enforcing and guaranteeing those friendships.

We’d have similar benefits from licensing religions. No more arguments about who’s a “true Christian” because we’d finally have a federal document proving it one way or the other. Then we’d have a comprehensive list of all the valid religions in America and have clear statistics about whose a member of which.

These federally standardized social constructs would provide at least two huge benefits. One, they would give the government more information about its citizens. This would aid law enforcement in catching criminals and tracking dissenters or rebels, or could be sold to advertisers for extra revenue. The paperwork and legalities would create jobs and create new fields of law like friendship and religion law. The fees for all these licenses and the fines for breaking the social contracts would result in even more revenue for the government. This money could be used for all sorts of important projects, such as putting nuclear weapons on the moon, because everyone knows that thing is a serious threat to our national security.