Jesus Christ Sworn in as Monterrey's Ultimate Authority

During a public speech last Saturday, Mayor Margarita Arellanes of Monterrey (Mexico) has granted the Keys to the City to no other than Jesus Christ. Yes, you read it right, and no, I’m not joking.

Monterrey is not your average Mexican town; it is the main municipality of Mexico’s third largest metropolis, and at 4 million inhabitants, it boasts an impressive industrial and financial might. Firms of multinational caliber such as ALFA, CEMEX and FEMSA are based in the city, which is also home to ITESM, one of Mexico’s finest universities. Regios, as locals proudly refer to themselves, are arguably the hardest working people in the country. Their forthright approach to life and business is the stuff of legend. Regios and Regias are amazing people, and I should know it, I married one.

 

 

Monterrey is the capital of Nuevo León, a state that has unfortunately had a very rough time during Mexico’s so-called war against organized crime. Once a safe haven with very low crime rates, Monterrey has endured more than a lustrum of unprecedented carnage: kidnapping, gang-related murder, terrorism, you name it.

In the midst of this appalling situation and in an act of colossal cowardness, Mrs. Arellanes decided to throw in the towel in favor of celestial guidance:

“I, Margarita Alicia Arellanes Cervantes, give away the City of Monterrey, Nuevo León, and open the doors of this municipality to God as its ultimate authority. I recognize that without his presence and help we cannot aspire to real success.”

 

 

God as the ultimate political authority in a city. If this doesn’t scare the shit out of you, I don’t know what will.

Article 40 of the Mexican Constitution is crystal clear and categorical on the matter: “It is the will of the Mexican People to constitute a laic republic”. Surprisingly, Mrs. Arellanes is not alone in her unconstitutionality. Last year, the heads of three municipalities (Juárez and Guadalupe in Nuevo León, as well as Ensenada in Baja California) pulled similar stunts.

Mrs. Arellanes and the other three clowns certainly have a right to profess their creed privately, but what is not permitted and should not be tolerated, is that someone under the authority granted by a laic state turns a public event into and act of religious proselytism.

I haven’t made up my mind as to what these people’s motivations may be, but I have a gut feeling it has to do with a mix of superstition, irresponsibility and political opportunism. Any combination of the above and at any dosage should be worrisome enough. Basing public policy on personal hallucinations, avoiding responsibility by granting it to the unaccountable or using faith to increase political popularity are all acts at the lowest level of moral disloyalty. Shame on them!

We Mexicans are widely considered to be a fervently religious people (which is only partially true), but we are also known for our patriotic enthusiasm (which is spot on true). I think that Mrs. Arellanes and friends have underestimated the rapport de force between the two passions.

President Benito Juárez (1806-1872) promoted what is known as Ley Juárez in 1855 to seriously curtail clerical power in the country. A string of laws known as Leyes de Reforma quickly followed, thus cementing the reality of Mexico as a secular state. Juárez, also known as El Benemérito de las Américas (The Meritorious of the Americas), is probably the most popular historical figure in the country. His liberal ideas regarding equality and respect are unquestioned. Every town in Mexico has a street named in honor of the Emancipator. If you fly into Mexico City, you’ll land at Benito Juárez Intl.

 

 

As angry and frustrated as Mayor Arellanes’ actions make me feel, the general reaction to her stupidity -as can be gauged through social and electronic media- gives me much to be hopeful about. I would have been solidly disappointed to see a majority of religious fruitcakes cheering along her pathetic lines. Although there are some tightly blindfolded puppets clapping like retarded seals, this time around they are not the majority. It’s so refreshing to see outspoken believers defending the separation of State and Church. I’m so profoundly glad to read bona fide believers who understand that this kind of circus acts don’t do anybody any favors.

Mayor Arellanes has been under intense fire since her inopportune intervention and is now asking that her faith be respected. She’s confusing the outcry of an intelligent people for aggression towards her faith. She played with fire and got severely burnt. Too bad.

Juárez's ideals seem to withstand the passage of time and the power of supernatural delusion, and for that, secularism in this country deserves a modicum of celebration.

¡Viva México!

 

The Humanist Worldview

 

The Manifesti

“Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

[…]

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature's integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.”

Humanism and its Aspirations, 2003.

 

 

 

In 1933, a group of signatories led by Raymond B. Bragg, drafted and published the original Humanist Manifesto. In 1976, a revised version was published acknowledging both the shortcomings and the strengths of its predecessor. Another forty years on the clock, and out came Humanism and its Aspirations (known as The Humanist Manifesto III).

Many things have changed since the first version of 1933.
 

Although it never adhered to any kind of dogma, the Humanist movement dropped its previous self-concept of “new religion” and learnt a great deal from the atrocities of Nazism, WWII and other major conflicts of the 20^th century, thus realigning its concerns and priorities: “recent decades have shown that inhuman wars can be made in the name of peace. The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook”. (The Humanist Manifesto II, 1973).

The Third Manifesto of 2003 -the introduction and conclusion of which are cited at the beginning of this post- was signed by more than a hundred humanists and Nobel laureates like Richard Dawkins, James Randi and Mexican scientist Mario J. Molina (Chemistry, 1995).

This Manifesto provides the blueprints for applying the humanist philosophy and ideals. The six tenets in Humanism and its Aspirations represent the building blocks for a better society. It is a cool piece of work and I certainly recommend the quick read:
 

http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III

The choice of “–ism”.

I personally dislike “–isms”. Atheism, Agnosticism, Buddhism, Catholicism, Capitalism, Marxism, Socialism, Sadomasochism; these words are nothing but restrictive labels that confine opinion and belief to a rigid mould. Moreover, those standpoints are often misunderstood, misrepresented or prejudged.
 

I adhere to the atheistic proposition in the sense I do not worship any God, but I’m also an agnostic since it is impossible for me to prove the inexistence of God. Adding to the labeling confusion, I’m equally an anti-theist. Unfortunately, in certain ultra-conservative circles (including a big chunk of the southern US), ignorance and prejudice have given any of these labels the same moral stature of pedophilia.

This labeling thing is quite tricky and affects every area of opinion.

 

I’m a fervent believer in competitive free-markets, which is certainly a distinctive capitalist trait, but that doesn’t turn me, per se, into a full breed capitalist pig. I do think that capitalism is the better -albeit imperfect- system, but I could never wish for those who cannot thrive in it to be unjustly marginalized. My belief is that an equalitarian welfare system, which is a socialist proposition, is an absolute necessity in any dignified country. But again, I could hardly be defined as a socialist.

 

I like to think of myself as scientific (at least in spirit), but since I only hold a degree in Finance, I think I’d come across as a  pretentious wannabe, or a fake, if I described myself as a scientist. I really enjoy writing and that doesn’t automatically make a writer.

It is very hard, almost impossible in fact, to define a personality via a label or a set of labels. I’m  made out of bits and pieces of “-isms” and “-ists”, but any given term only explains a very small fraction of what I actually am.
 

The one label that explains most of my being is Humanism. It is not everything I am, but I adhere to most of what it stands for.

Humanism

 

Humanism is the use of scientific inquiry and critical intelligence in order to build a consensual moral guide for Humanity. It’s actually that simple.
 

The Humanist worldview doesn’t feel ashamed of our natural origins and understands that our ethical values should have, at their core, a true common interest. Humanists embrace life to its full extent, up to its natural conclusion in definitive and nonnegotiable death. Humanists take responsibility; for their actions, for their fate, for their joys and for their woes. By doing so, humanists override the noise of dogmatic rigidity and superstition.

To me, the great appeal of Humanism springs from applying a scientific approach in building a moral framework that is as just and unbiased as possible. Reality, unpleasant as it may seem to the obtuse, is what should cement a comprehensive understanding of what is best for all of us.

As every branch of knowledge, morality ought to be a dynamic process; adapting, fine-tuning and readapting along the way. Not everything on morality should be set in stone. As our understanding of the natural world advances, so should certain boundaries of what is right and wrong, and everything in between.

 

This is so evidently true, that even the most unbending fundamentalists have seen their morality evolve through the ages. I think it is safe to say (although you never really know) that most fundies don’t look into the the book of Leviticus for parental guidance:

 

“For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.” Leviticus 20:9

Humanism acknowledges the unknown and the possibility of the unknowable. The humanist approach factors-in our propensity to err and leaves wiggle room for future generations to adjust the bearing.

Humanism is applied science in the quest for a better world for all.

Comparison with Dogma

As always, it is easy to see how the Humanist standpoint contrasts with the dogmatic rigidity and chronic disregard for reality on which the religious base their creed.

Religion has coercively established a monopoly on the rights to morality. Up until today, a recurrent argument against secularism is that religion is sine qua non to morality. I have quoted Christopher Hitchens ad nauseam on this topic, and I’ll do it again: “Human decency is not derived from religion, it precedes it”.

The argument regarding which approach serves humanity best does not have to remain hypothetical; a real-life experiment has already been carried out. Stubbornness is clearly more resilient than memory, and many forget that religious dogma had its try at ruling the realms of Good and Bad, unconstrained, and for a very long time.

Its domination spanned for the best part of a millennium, and historians coined a perfectly illustrative term to describe that era: The Christian Dark Ages. After much suffering, oppression, and an overly expensive opportunity cost in terms of foregone progress, the 15^th century finally welcomed the unbelievers, the philosophers, the artists, the freethinkers, the scientists, the naturalists and the revolutionary. After pitch-black darkness there was indeed light. The French named it “La Renaissance” and the Italian “Il Rinascimento”, I personally prefer the name truest to what that epoch represents: The Age of Reason.

 

 

After the huge struggle to break free (let's not forget it took a fair amount of bloodshed), some are still happy to grant the former oppressors a role of  massive consequence in matters of morality. To portray such a stance as abhorrent schizophrenia would be a massive piece of understatement.
 

In Conclusion

 

“The lifestance of Humanism -guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience- encourages us to live life well and fully.”
 

Reason, compassion and experience. Add a pinch of audacity, stir with a little love and enjoy life responsibly.

 

Praying: Does it do any Good?

This is not an easy topic, period.

If answered solely by yes or no, either position taken on the matter is inevitably bound for controversy. Those who believe in prayer, as a means of communicating and lobbying with the divine, will have a hard time defending their claim in face of logic-driven skeptics. Those same skeptics, quick to discard prayer as mere “superstitious mambo-jambo”, are obnoxiously disregarding some rather powerful stuff.

In this particular case, my personal standpoint is not as clear cut as you might expect. I think that a verdict on the goodness of prayer can only be given in a case by case basis. I also have to be overemphatic on the meaning of the question of this post: it’s about prayer being “good”, which doesn’t always mean “effective”.

 

 

 

 

It all depends on what “good” means.

On the one hand, as a secular skeptic, it is impossible for me to believe in a supernatural being that listens, ponders and then acts upon our recommendations and/or demands. I do think I have a strong case to support my position, which I will be glad to explain.

 

On the other hand, and unlike many fellow atheists may think, my opinion is that the power of prayer shouldn’t be dismissed as something irrelevant. If only as a placebo, praying may be one of the very few benefits of supernatural delusion.

 

If by “good” you mean “directly effective”, prayer is basically empty. If you mean “beneficial”, there may be something to it.

 

 

Position 1: You are only wasting your time.

“Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer” -Anonymous-.

When the goal of prayer is to get something in return; be it a lucky break, a favor, money or love, for sure, you are wasting your time. This would hold true even if there is a God. Here’s why:

 

a.)         It isn’t supposed to work:

God’s plans are perfect (thus immutable, I dare to add). If so, why do you think he would ever listen to your advice? I wouldn’t expect a change of plans unless they were flawed.

God knows everything. Then why would people be required to tell him about their wishes, demands or complaints if he already knows about them? That’s inefficient and redundant; two not very “godlike” characteristics.

 

 “And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith”. Matthew 21:22.

I obviously lack the faith to test this claim, but I still wonder how God chooses what to do when he is asked for two mutually exclusive demands? Let’s take two boxers or two soccer teams for instance, both fervently praying to the same God for victory. If he grants one’s wish, he’ll automatically deny the other’s. That’s inconvenient. Unless… that is why sometimes they tie?

 

As you can see, even if I were a believer, I’d have to be suspicious about the concept of prayer as an effective tool for getting things done. Only if I were told, either that God doesn’t have a plan, or that we live in a supernatural democracy of sorts, would this story start to make the tiniest bit of sense. The supporting logic would be that depending on how many people pray for a cause, and/or how hard they pray for it, they may or may not get what they want.  

 

Well, yes, but…err… no… I don’t know; it sound iffy at best and lacks the sheer grandeur you’d expect from God’s wisdom.

 

b.)         It has never worked:

The probability of obtaining something through prayer is exactly the same, ceteris paribus, than by doing nothing about it.

Take for example a throw of dice, getting a job, winning the lottery or keeping a wingless plane in flight. If by adding prayer to the recipe you get the same statistical cake, it simply means that prayer is a non-event: just a fancy word for “useless”.

 

You can test this as long as you want, and if you ever succeed at molding the Universe to your advantage and at your will, Mr. James Randi will gladly hand you a 1-million dollar check for your troubles. His offer has been outstanding (and unsuccessfully challenged) for more than forty years now. Unsurprisingly, charlatans will invariably fail to demonstrate their “powers” when basic scientific measurements are involved in the process of verification.

 

In essence; if you pray wishing to get something in return, you are wasting your time. Time is the only thing we can’t buy and wasting it strikes me as a very bad idea. Prayer, in that sense, doesn’t do any good.

 

 

Position 2: Forget about the obvious pitfalls, there are indirect benefits in prayer.

Even if you pray into empty space, it doesn’t necessarily mean it cannot have a beneficial side-product.

 

Happily enough, not all believers are spoiled little whiners who constantly ask for celestial favors (although some frustratingly are). Most have the humbleness to acknowledge the good things in their lives and use prayer in a thanksgiving fashion. I wouldn’t precisely call it praying -since the process implies a bilateral arrangement that I think is easy to dispute- but meditation is a suitable substitute word.

When understood as an equal to meditation, the potential benefits of prayer are easier to catch:

 

Awareness is a precondition to gratitude, which means that people who are grateful must be aware of the improbable odds of the good things they experience… be it only their very existence. That is undeniably a good thing.

The peace and quiet provided by meditation are undoubtedly of great value. When we give ourselves enough time to reflect on sensitive matters, we improve the probabilities of making the right choice by following a healthier decision-making process.

 

There is also the matter of empowerment of course. If people believe they are getting their strength from above, and really get a sense of renewed vigor from prayer, I don’t see anything wrong about that. Believers are convinced it’s the work of God, while I personally think it’s a very sophisticated placebo effect, but if it works…who cares?!

 

 

And lastly, soul searching can even have somniferous effects! We all know that getting enough quality sleep is very important for a healthy lifestyle, so there you have it, a life-saving benefit of prayer as well.

 

 

In conclusion

Prayer has two sides.

 

It can be a massive waste of time (a bad thing) or an awareness-raising, motivating, empowering, peaceful phenomenon… Yes, a good thing. And yet, being completely honest, I still think we could do without the supernatural component of prayer and recommend we stick to good-old meditation instead. Unlike meditation, prayer can delude people into believing they either obey to divine orders or they benefit from special treatment from upstairs. That is just self-centeredness at its worst.

 

By carefully analyzing what belief in prayer ultimately implies, the results aren’t pretty:

Pious prayer is nothing less than the belief that an all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent puppeteer will bend the otherwise immutable laws of the Universe, to accommodate for individual or collective human caprice. Go figure!

 

Such a claim is as egotistical as it is ridiculous. It is vain, it is childish, it is arrogant, it is delusional and it is absurd.

 

The corollary of it being true would turn the world into a biased, nepotistic and discriminatory theocracy. Try granting every wish to every kid in the classroom, favoring those who cry the loudest. Now try it with a bunch of power-driven, greedy, hormonal, narcissistic adults… North Korea would pale in comparison to such a living hell.

I’m not only convinced that praying for reward doesn’t work, I could never wish it did.

Five Reasons for Disbelief

It’s quite easy to find literally dozens of reasons to be a godless person (just another word for unbeliever or atheist); the real challenge is keeping the list down to the best five.
 

 

The list deals with disbelief in a personal and interventionist God. This is the kind of God that listens to prayers and performs miracles whenever he feels like it or has been asked fervently enough for it. I will not refer in this post to the non-interventionist concept of God (a.k.a. “first mover” or “first creator”). I do not believe in either kind of God(s) but since the proponents of a Deist view are harmless and their claims unfalsifiable, I’ll gladly agree to leave the possibility of such a God open. Most religions (my beloved enemies) only adhere to the first definition of God, so that’s the only God whose existence I really care to question.

In no particular order, here are my top-five reasons for not believing in a heavenly daddy who listens and answers to our constant childish whining:

1.    Proof-less claim

This is so easy it hurts.

God is by far the most successful proof-less claim that has ever been thrown around.  I’m willing, unlike most believers I guess, to change everything I hold to be true. I’d do it in a heartbeat, in exchange for just a thread of verifiable evidence. And I don’t mean the psycho blab nonsense that many are willing to take as evidence; I mean real, verifiable evidence.

It’s almost sad how people will cling on to whatever they can find to support their beliefs. You’d think the creator of the whole Universe would be resourceful enough to convince us all, without a reasonable doubt, of his existence and power. He (or she) could rearrange the constellations to spell something like I’M GOD AND I LOVE YOU, bring the T-Rex back from extinction or appear everywhere at once speaking a language that all of us would understand. But no, he decided to go for a dubious manifestation in ancient Mesopotamia, and by all means, a portrait on a piece of toast.

 

2.    I’ve read the Scripture

Not every bit of every scripture of course, but I have read the Bible cover to cover (no less than three times), the Quran (only once, although I’ve been told that if not read in Arabic it doesn’t count) and bits and pieces of many other “holy” texts including interpretations of Mayan codices and the book Dianetics from L. Ron Hubbard, the founding father of Scientology.

Needless to say, they are all pretty boring and pretty crazy…

But nobody knows that because most believers have never read their holy texts! The magnum opus of incoherence; they vehemently defend their religious views but have no idea what they are. Only once has someone told me with a straight face to have actually read the Bible and believed all of it (She seems like a nice person, so I still have my doubts). People hear a few peaceful verses from the Book during Sunday Mass and think they’ve heard it all. Believers need to do their homework if they don’t want to look like fools.

I have done my homework and there is no nice way to put it: I’d have to be high on crystal meth or simply a gullible deluded punk in order to believe that an almighty, all-knowing, benevolent God had anything to do with the writing of such nonsense.

3.    Nothing is about us 

The egocentrism of our species is legendary. Our erroneous sense of self-importance once led us to believe we were the center of the Universe! That’s how bad it can get.

Science is a humbling thing that has convinced some of us we aren’t all that special.

Consider that we live in the outskirts of an average galaxy, orbiting around an average star on the crust of a rock that isn’t very special after all (see link below).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/04/21/nasa-discovers-three-potentially-earth-like-worlds/

The immensity of the Universe should also be an eye-opener. So much empty and useless space and all of it designed with only us in mind? I know many people don’t dare to consider their insignificance, but for those who do, this should be a thrill:

http://htwins.net/scale2/

A good look at ourselves can also help us realize how unholy our existence is.

We are, among other things, a species of hominid mammals. We share very specific traits with the minuscule fruit-bat and the giant blue whale. We reproduce in similar ways, have warm blood and digest the same nutrients. We are knit with the same thread as thousands of other species. Genetically, we are barely distinguishable from our close relatives the chimps, the gorillas and the orangutans with whom we share at least 99% of our DNA. We also share a huge number of ailments; from bad teeth to poor eye-sight and sore backs. And some will claim we were created in the image of perfection…

One among the 8.7-million species known to science, we humans are not even the most powerful, longevous or populous (ants outnumber us 1.5-million to one, have conquered all of the planet and are as old as the dinosaurs). The Wikipedia page of Homo sapiens (humans) shares the exact same format with every other species… it’s a sobering and refreshing illustration of our reality.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Please think about poor old Neanderthals for a second. These guys where almost identical to us, and almost certainly had “human” feelings (they buried their dead, an exclusively “human” behavior until that discovery). What did God make of them? Where they also part of his Creation? If so, why did He let them go extinct 100,000 years before they ever got a chance at salvation?

I really hope you can see how ridiculously self-centered religious beliefs are.

It has often been said that the Atheist position is an arrogant one. In light of the above, I would ask you to reconsider if that is true. I think that believing, despite all the evidence, that we are the preferred masterpiece of a celestial being is somewhat more arrogant than the humble perspective provided by reality.
 

4.    We keep on proving God(s) wrong 

No God or gods have ever withstood the passage of time unscathed by scientific progress. Every story about every god you can think of has either been fully discredited or disproved to a very advanced degree. The creation of the Earth in six days took a big blow from Geology. Adam, Eve and Noah were taken out of the equation by Charles Darwin. We now know the Sun doesn’t eat sacrificed human flesh. If the Quran, written millennia ago, had stated that Muhammad flew to the moon on an atomic rocket, Muslim’s would now have a decent point to make. Unfortunately for them, it only cites a winged donkey…  You can see where I’m going with this, and I could go on forever.

It’s fairly easy to break every single twisted idea coming from a fundamentalist believer. Most of them won’t even realize they’ve been swiftly disarmed, let alone accept defeat. But that’s just how they are.

On the other hand, non-fundamentalist believers do accept most scriptural stories as untrue. My question to them is where exactly, if not from those evidently forged stories, do they take their beliefs from? If scripture is admittedly wrong, what is there left to identify themselves as followers of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, Mormonism or any other religion? If so much of what is supposedly holy is not true, how do those same lies become evidence to support the existence of a divinity? How can the dividing line between myth and reality be traced when the foundations of every supernatural claim are so easily dismissed?

I’m absolutely flabbergasted by such incongruence.
 

5.    Which God?

Last but not least, we have the problem of choice. There have been literally thousands of gods throughout the history of mankind and most of them are now “extinct”: think of Thor, Zeus, Huitzilopochtli, Eos, Jupiter, Shiva, Odin, Krishna, Quetzalcoatl and an endless list of etc. What should we make of those gods? Do they deserve the benefit of doubt or can we safely discard them as myth? Believers of the past had every reason to believe they worshipped the right God(s), didn’t they? And yet, somehow, believers of today can rationally dismiss their beliefs. That is simply odd.

 

Ancient beliefs are considered laughable or cute at best; a feather-coated snake, a four-handed omniscient yogi or a thunder-blasting angry man cannot be taken seriously… agreed. So why is it that more than 50% of the world population gives a weird family triumvirate and a prophet splitting the moon in two so much credit?*

*Christians who are supposed to believe in the Holy Trinity, combined with Muslims who are supposed to believe in the Prophet Muhammad make up for 3.8-billion out of the 7-billion inhabitants of Planet Earth.

Think for a second about your personal God and the reason why you picked it (if it wasn’t imposed to you) as your one true God. If you think about it, it’s probably just an accident of geography, culture or circumstance, nothing more.

You may be tempted to say that all gods are the same God and that we’ve only given him different names. Unfortunately, that claim is discredited by the teachings of certain gods themselves. Yahweh and Allah (among many others) explicitly forbid the reverence of other gods, with fatal consequences for disobedient infidels. According to a majority of beliefs, there’s only one right answer and you better choose wisely, or else…

But let’s say we can disregard that fact, since I would very much like to agree with the claim that every God is the same God.

All gods really are the same and come exactly from the same place: the remarkable power of our species imagination.

My Problem with Organized Religion (I Should Have Started With This).

After a few weeks posting on this blog, I realize I’ve made a big mistake: I forgot to explain my motivation to write about God(s) and Religion(s). I did say I think these issues are irrationally overprotected, but then failed to specify why I think arguing against both concepts is worth my while. I skipped a very important step and went straight towards the protecting walls, frantically kicking and shouting at the guards. The corollary is that I may come across as an angry and ranting heretic, thus jeopardizing my chances of actually being heard. Allow me to present my apologies and let me try to right the wrong. Here’s the long explanation:


Pecking Order.

If I could choose the audience of this blog, the following would be, in order of preference, my favorite readers:

1. Hardcore religious fundamentalists: People who take scripture literally, including Noah’s Ark, the Virgin Birth, the Creation of the Universe in 6 days, etc.

2. Old-school religious believers: They study scripture, believe most of it, but have to compromise in order to function in the real world, i.e. accept Evolution.

3. Plain-vanilla believers: If pressed, most of them don’t even know what it is they’re supposed to believe in.

4. Middle-of-the-roaders: There are three types: the first one is torn with guilt, the second one has never thought too much about the matter and the third one doesn’t care. They are typically known as “Agnostics”.

5. Closet non-believers: They accept a high degree of agnosticism but only to themselves. They are (understandably) afraid of public discrimination.

6. Regular non-believers: Will freely admit to a high degree of agnosticism.

7. Active non-believers: Same as 6 but feel the urge to speak out. (I belong here if you were wondering).

Disclaimer: You will notice I only talk about degrees of belief and degrees of agnosticism. I did this to avoid the very annoying semantic debate between the use of the terms agnosticism and atheism (Yes, I know the difference between the two… but that is another topic).

One of the goals of this blog, besides keeping my mind running during week-ends and breaks, is to make every reader jump down at least one notch on the above list i.e. from 1 to 2 or from 3 to 6.

Would you agree to say we were all born natural 6’s? You didn’t come up with the idea of God by yourself, someone told you about him! Most of us were, at some point, indoctrinated to become ones, twos or threes. For us, the indoctrinated folk, number 4 is a very important stepping stone; it is the point where we start to doubt what has been force-fed into our brains since the day we were born (think baptism).

If you were raised a 4 or have gotten there by your own means, I’m hoping to present enough facts and evidence to help you make the leap to 5 or 6. If you are a 5, I would encourage you to come out of the closet; life is always easier when you have nothing to hide! And in the spirit of full-disclosure, I’ll say I don’t have an agenda to turn sixes into sevens.

 

A Secular Preacher?

From the above, you may be tempted to blame me for doing what I vehemently criticize in others: preaching.

Well… Yes and No. Yes because I’m trying to change something in you, but No because it’s your approach I’m trying to change, not the end result (what you actually think or believe). There is a world of difference between the former and the latter.

Unlike religious preachers, I promise not to use cheap tricks like fear or guilt to make you  read this blog or to believe in it (“sin” is the accepted religious synonym for that). I’ll never threaten you if you don’t agree with me (excommunication, stoning, whipping and even the death penalty are methods of enforcement still in use by certain religious organizations). I’ll be damned if I ever ask you for money in return of my thoughts. I don’t care what you eat and when you eat it, who you have sex with and in which position. Those things are none of my business and what do they have to do with anything, anyway?

You’ll get nothing of the sort from me. I’m simply asserting that Truth, whatever that may be, is the right thing to pursue. No placebo is half as good as a bit of the real deal.

For sure, sometimes I’ll use a little irony, a little sarcasm or a bit of humor here and there, but never anything too serious to frighten anybody. I’ll veer away from duress and will always stick to facts and simple logic. I love facts, and logic, and sarcasm, and irony, and humor, and beauty, and elegance. And if any of those things happen to feel like a threat to you or to your belief system, I’m truly sorry, I didn’t mean them to. If so, I’d suggest you rethink your beliefs to determine why such inoffensive things sound so harsh to you.

It is my earnest conviction that once unchained from the fear of indoctrination, anyone willing to have an honest look at the Universe will find it very hard to take answers from Faith. If anything, I’m just saying you should give freethinking a try; questioning everything you have ever been told, without guilt, without remorse. I secretly hope you’ll use me as your lab rat: If I don’t get struck by lightning or burn by spontaneous combustion for all this heresy, you’ll probably feel pretty safe to do a little second guessing of your own.

The Reason I Care.
 

Let me go back to the original point as I’m digressing again. Everything I’ve said so far explains what it is I am trying to achieve and how I will do it, but it doesn’t explain why I want to do it. So finally, here’s my claim:

The single most important change we can make as a species, in order to help us move forward, is to have every one of us thinking by ourselves. History has proven, time and again, that indulging in the alternative can be extremely dangerous. Belief of any sort builds solidly upon Faith. By the own admission of those who profess it, Faith is the antonym of Reason. You cannot rationalize Faith.

Bad things happen when people give up on the difficult process of freethinking only to rush for the ready-to-use beliefs of others. The most common and widespread source of belief is organized religion. Organized religion is, quite literally, the largest ticking bomb I can think of. If we could only accept a Universe without God(s), organized religion would become redundant and irrelevant. Away with the threats of mass delusion, welcome to a better world for all.

“Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people, living life in peace.”

Maybe he was a dreamer, and maybe I am too, but Mr. Lennon knew what he was talking about…

With that said, I would like to make it very clear that I don’t have a problem with God. I really don’t, how could I? I don’t even believe in God! I’m guessing you don’t have visceral feelings towards dragons or unicorns… It’s exactly the same here. My true enemy is organized religion. I cannot stand the way they use honest belief to satisfy their greed for power and relevance. I fear the lengths they will go (and have gone) to maintain their senseless rule, showing absolutely no remorse for the consequences of their selfishness.

The impasse arises -unlike many “new age” believers and deists think- from God and religion being deeply and indissolubly intertwined. Religion told us about God and not the other way around. The concept of God is collateral damage in this war against religion. If you are trying to discredit the practices of a psychedelic guru, you won’t hesitate to sacrifice unicorns and dragons if it helps in the process.


Route of Administration.

I do not think that everything about religion is evil or that every believer is wicked. There are great things done every day through religious organizations and there is a majority of believers who happen to be fabulous people. The catch is that good deeds are done through religious organizations by human beings, who are, regardless of their religion, inherently good. In the same line of thought, I’m sure these fabulous believers would continue to be charming people even if they stopped believing tomorrow. The following is my favorite quote from the great Christopher Hitchens: “Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”

I don’t believe in God, but that doesn’t mean I don’t know the feelings that religious people experience to be quite real. I have myself experienced “supernatural elation” in the past. I was a believer, remember? It so happens that those feelings are very much like the ones I experience while discovering the Cosmos, or while having a good time with my wife and friends. Many people have “religious experiences” while practicing their favorite sport or activity, which is known as “being in the zone”. These feelings are, if you think about it, very similar to being high on mind-altering drugs (anything from alcohol to heroin). There is nothing wrong with experiencing these wonderful “highs”; it’s the route of administration that is questionable.


“So Why Don’t You Just Leave Us Alone?”

This has been a recurrent question… Short answer: you may be part of the problem.

I could argue based on the simple axiom that there are no religions without believers, but that would be way too simplistic. Digging a little deeper, the problem emanates from the chameleonic link between God and religion; sometimes ridiculously evident and sometimes almost invisible. That link is a big problem because it takes God hostage and turns him into a protecting shield for the dark side of religious organizations: “If you mess with religion, you are messing with God”. The widespread overprotection of religious freedom becomes the perfect cloak for religious libertinage.

Best case scenario: out of unjustified and exacerbated “respect”, some believers will turn a blind eye to the shady deeds of religious organizations.

Worst case scenario: otherwise good people will follow religious doctrine by the book (where do you think the saying comes from?) with disastrous consequences.

As long as we continue to give religion a moral free-ride (either by passive or active reinforcement) its dark side will thrive unchallenged and unchallengeable.


The Danger Within.

I’m also aware that, more often than not, my view may come across as a bit over the top, as overly aggressive, overly exaggerated. I think I have an explanation for that: We are so accustomed at linking religious belief and virtue, that it is very hard for us to see and recognize the danger within. It takes a while to wash that out of the system. At times, even I will cringe at my own words. Indoctrination does that to you.

The following are a few examples, dating from no more than 75-years ago, that have either changed the course of recent history, have deeply affected the life of individuals or both. Religion and dogma are at the core of each and one of them:

·         Northern Ireland and “The Troubles”: A country with two groups of people killing and discriminating each other for decades. Ethnically indistinguishable, the northern Irish all eat the same food, drink the same beer and fancy the same sports. The dividing line is religious. They both belong to two of the closest subsets of Christianity -Catholicism and Protestantism- and that simple fact has been enough for hatred to flourish. 

·         9/11: The terrorist attacks on the WTC do have an important political component, but the political conflict between East and West has firm roots in religious differences. Only religion and the false promises it offers can push somebody to kill thousands of people for being “infidels”. In the case of Islam, the heavenly reward for “martyrs” is 72 virgins waiting for them in Jannah (paradise). I’m sure you can also appreciate the misogynistic touch in the matter. I’m tempted to include the recent Boston attacks along this example but it’s still too soon. Let’s wait and see what transpires to prove me right or wrong…

·         2007 failed terrorist attack on the UK:  A group of people planned an attack with car bombs in London on June 29^th, 2007. When their mechanisms failed, they attempted to raise terror at Glasgow’s airport a day later. Luckily they failed again. This particular example is not the most spectacular but it is very enlightening: The leaders of the terrorist group were Muslim doctors, one of them a neurosurgeon. It is hard to believe their motivation came from economic hardship or a lack o education. How more educated can a neurosurgeon be? It takes religion for good people to do evil things.

·         Herbert and Catherine Schaible: Believers of “Faith healing”, the Schaibles systematically refuse their children access to medicine. A few years ago, their first son died from bacterial pneumonia. Earlier this year, their 8-month old baby died from diarrhea. The Schaibles, who now may face criminal prosecution, are not alone in their delusion: more than 300 children have died for the same reason in the past 25-years in the US alone. I’m sure these people, ignorant and deluded as they may be, are probably decent loving parents. I’m sure they believed they were doing the righteous thing by not taking their suffering children to a doctor. How great the anguish and fear from indoctrination must be, in order to let your children die from perfectly curable causes? It’s inconceivable… Only religion can do that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/herbert-catherine-schaible_n_3138001.html

·         Pam Stenzel on Abstinence: “If you take birth control, your mother probably hates you”. That is the kind of sex-ed provided by this Christian cuckoo with thousands of followers.

http://atheism.about.com/b/2013/04/22/pam-stenzel-if-you-take-birth-control-your-mother-probably-hates-you.htm

·         Fundamentalist Education: In the ACE program, one the the many fundamentalist schools in the UK, education is solely based on scriptures. Please read the link below, I couldn’t believe my eyes…To distance themselves from fundamentalists, certain believers will often argue that fundies are misinterpreting scripture. I’m sorry to say they are not. Fundamentalists are simply taking what they believe to be the word of God at face value. And to be honest, it does make sense; if it is the word of God, why shouldn't it be taken literally? The only interpreters of scripture are non-fundamentalists; and they have to bend over backwards in order to force a fit between their sacred texts, the real world, and basic intelligence. My question to them is: Where exactly do you draw the line between what’s to be taken literally and what is not?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2013/mar/27/fundamentalist-schools-accelerated-christian-education

·         The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: It is very hard to summarize such a complex and painful conflict in a nutshell. If nevertheless I were to try, and if I was pressed to find a single factor that prevents a peaceful solution from coming to fruition, I’d have to say it is religion. A big part of this conflict lies in the control of the City of Jerusalem. The three Abrahamic Religions - Christianity, Islam and Judaism - (in alphabetical order), claim the City as an important piece of real estate, both for religious and historical reasons. Well of course they do! All three religions are nothing but the same old myth, twisted in different directions with a few distinguishing features. And what's the best solution their leaders find to this predicament? Killing each other, naturally! If you think about it, there is a logical path to violence when each group honestly believes they are the Chosen one. If you honestly believe to be defending a holy cause, killing the infidel next door seems like the natural thing to do. Religious belief is such a powerful but irrational force that unwarranted violence is bound to happen.

·         Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI defense of pedophiles: The evidence is uncontestable: two consecutive Popes of the Catholic Church tried as hard as they could to conceal the truth; their priests, protected by the taboo of religion, sexually molested thousands of children. When BXVI finally backpedaled, through washed-out excuses and apologies, it was too late. This alone should be enough to enrage every person with the slightest hint of human decency. And somehow, certain believers find it offensive to criticize the Institution! What else, if not total and absolute delusion, can blindfold people to this extreme?

·         The Holocaust: The victims of the gloomiest chapter in recent History were Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Homosexuals. In New Testament terms: heretics, witches, heretics and sodomites. As hard as some people may try to label Hitler as a non-believer,  they are bound to fail. He was a devout Catholic; baptized in April 1889 and confirmed in May 1904. The Catholic Church in Rome celebrated his birthday from 1939 onwards by instruction of Pius XII a.k.a. “Hitler’s Pope”. I’ll let you connect the dots.

This is only a limited selection of examples that illustrate the width and depth of religion’s vices. I’m certain you can effortlessly find thousands more if you are just willing to open your eyes.

Since we are able of doing good things on our own, why do we insist on keeping a 'god-given' moral framework that is so evidently corrupt? For the sake of our kind, we need to grow out of it.

Once the above is taken into consideration, hopefully my ranting, my kicking and my shouting will no longer seem unjustified.