Je suis pas Charlie

I am an ass. And damn proud of it too.

--Charlie

I am not Charlie. Charlie is an ass. But I am Charlie's brother; I love Charlie and believe that even though he is an ass, he deserves to live a life free from fear. It doesn't matter that Charlie makes fun of things you hold dear.

They were human. Just like you. Each of the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo was a human; with a life; and a family and friends. You killed Charlie, you bastards! I feel angry. I am furious. You behaved like a two-year-old throwing a tantrum. "You don't hit!" I tell my kids. You don't kill, I tell the adults. WTF!?! I shouldn't have to tell you that. I don't even have words for this.

Words are just that, words. They may hurt, but they don't kill. Drawings are just another form of words. Words that are blasphemous to one may not be to another. Given the vast variety of religions and gods that are held in belief by the human population on this planet, the list of blasphemies that could be uttered is very long indeed. And it is not possible to circumlocute around all of them. We, as a species need to develop a thicker skin; be slower to take offense, even when offense was inteded.

The artists of Charlie Hebdo are magnificent at what they do. They poke fun at everything. Nothing is sacred. In fact if it *is* sacred to someone, they will likely poke fun at it just because it is. This is why I say they are asses. I commonly refer to Richard Dawkins as an ass as well. Sometimes it takes an ass to get the point across because all of us pansies are carefully tiptoeing around, too afraid to offend. So I stand up for Charlie Hebdo and their right to be a collective ass.

I am a pacifist. I do not believe that killing of another human is ever justified. Let me make that clear. Killing is always the wrong answer, even if the other person is an ass.

Thinking outside of the box

I recently attempted to engage in civil discussion about the Ordain Women (OW) movement in a forum. How did that go, you ask? Not so well. I mean I am pretty it was a waste of time and effort because everything I said fell on deaf ears. It turns out that there are some topics in Mormonism that are taboo to the point of anathema. Literally. There is a woman professor at this very moment under 'investigation' at BYU-Idaho for expressing her personal opinion on her Facebook page. A former student read her remarks and anonymously turned her in to the honor code office. Now has to talk with her bishop, department head, maybe the dean, and who knows what after that to see if she is aligned with the school honor code and church views. Yikes. If she is found to not align with the honor code and church views, her job could be terminated. Anathema.

This is how Mormonism forces people to tow the party line. You agree with us or you get kicked out (and by inference go to Hell.) Some topics are worse than others, but any outspoken idea that does not fit within the correlated doctrine of the church can put you on the outside. OW is one of those ideas. And really it is not so far fetched. Other Christian churches have allowed women (or gasp! homosexuals) become ministers or pastors holding the priesthood. But not Mormonism. It is still waiting for God to reveal to its privileged, white, male, prejudiced leadership that this is the right thing to do. But this won't happen any time soon because the patriarchy must protect its position of power. Don't even mention that SO many women could be wonderful bishops or other leaders. So many are willing and able. The church is overlooking half of its adult population for positions of service just because they are female.

[ It turns out that your experience will widely vary from ward to ward, stake to stake. The ward I am currently in, though not exactly active, has a very understanding bishop, who really is Christ-like and loving. He knows who I am and what I believe (or don't, as the case may be) and all he asks is, "Is there anything I can do for you or your family?" Awesome. Now if all wards and stakes in the church could be so inclusive. ]

Another form of sanction besides excommunication is revocation of a temple recommend. One of the questions is: "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" So agreeing with OW at this point in time is technically in violation of the questions asked to get a temple recommend. Apparently I am not worthy.

There is so much vitriol on Facebook and other social media sites against any pro-OW discussion. Only in private circles does any reasonable discussion take place. The funniest thing about this is that the people who are so anti-OW would likely about face if the prophet came out tomorrow and announced that women are now eligible for the priesthood. But until that happens, the topic is not up for discussion. Shut it down.

But who am I to talk? I opened my mind to discussion and new ideas and completely lost my faith. So maybe it is better to shut it down and push out the riffraff.

Beyond Mere Replication

We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination.

--Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

By nature, all organisms will tend to look out for their own (genes) best interest. That is what The Selfish Gene is all about. It is not about a gene that makes organisms selfish, but rather how the genes will ultimately program organisms to better replicate themselves. Not that genes have that kind of foresight, but it is more of a trial and error, feedback-reinforced cycle that we call natural selection. Basically, genes that fail to propagate to the next generation will not be seen again. Replicate or die.

In many cases this causes the organisms themselves to behave in rather selfish manners. This includes humans. But as humans, we are among the few species that might possibly rise above this selfish gene-level programming to be better individuals and better as a whole.

"I'm gonna tell Dad." "I share no kinship with that individual!"

--SMBC episode 3101 by Zach Weiner

Life as a 'higher' organism, whatever that may mean, implies to me that our concern should be more than just what our genetics would dictate. In the cited SMBC episode, the mother says that she has no kinship with her child's father. While she has no kinship with the father, she has a vested interest in keeping him around so he can contribute energy in ensuring success of THEIR offspring. But maybe it rings more true in this comic strip because the mother now has a cloned daughter that carries 100% of her DNA, so there is not as much need for the sexually produced daughter that only carries 50% of her DNA. We don't currently have a way for people to clone themselves commercially, so our most selfish of desires (to live forever, either ourselves or through our DNA legacy) cannot be fulfilled quite yet. But I digress....

Our legacy is carried on through our offspring which each carry 50% of our DNA. Because the portion carried may overlap, there is no way to guarantee that all of our DNA is copied into our children, but obviously the more kids we have the higher the probability that we have not missed any of our DNA. But what I would like to argue is that it is not just our kids that carry our DNA. Each of our parents shares half our DNA. And our aunts and uncles share a quarter, as do our grandparents and grandchildren. Our first cousins share one-eighth of our DNA. Or wait, they share 99.99% of our DNA. What am I thinking?!? We are all HUMAN, which means we all share 99.99% of our DNA. Hell, we share 99.5% of our DNA with chimpanzees, and we don't even count them as humans. What I am trying to get at here is that we have moved the US and THEM line too far up the tree. If we push it back just to the point that separates us from the rest of Mammalia, then that leaves a big US. Like almost seven billion of us. Say it again.... There are almost seven billion of *us*. You and I are one kind. You and I may not have the same mother, but we are siblings. Nearly identical in every way except those that don't count (hair color, skin color, eye color, height, weight, strength, etc.)

This is our chance to take that step, to learn ourselves what it means to be inclusive, to teach our kids to love humankind, each and every one. There is no reason for killing. There is not reason for violence. There is no reason for hurt. Realization of who we are (NOT sons and daughters of a vengeful god), brother, sister, mother, father, all of the same family, can lead to a world of peace, a world where we can grow and become much more than mere replication could have ever imagined.

American Gods

This is a bad land for gods.... The old gods are ignored. The new gods are as quickly taken up as they are abandoned, cast aside for the next big thing. Either you've been forgotten, or you're scared you're going to be rendered obsolete, or maybe you're just getting tired of existing on the whim of people.

--Shadow in American Gods by Neil Gaiman

American Gods was a really fun read. I like the strange world that Neil Gaiman came up with. Or was he just writing the reality that he saw? That is what I would like to discuss here. Ever since the possibility that God may not be what I think He is, I started to wonder why religion and gods exist at all. This story explains many of my thoughts in a very artful way.

Gods started out as a way to explain all the things.

 At some point in our prehistory, one of our ancestors found the mental capacity to think about something besides survival; food, protection, and reproduction. They had questions like: why lightning? or what after death? or cause of random event? Maybe the first questions were even more basic than these. "Some external power makes it so" seems to be a reasonable answer when you don't have any other answer. As one person told another person this idea, it spread like wildfire because there was no evidence to the contrary.

People believe. It's what people do. They believe. And then they will not take responsibility for their beliefs; they conjure things, and do not trust the conjurations. People populate the darkness; with ghosts, with gods, with electrons, with tales. People imagine, and people believe: and it is that belief, that rock-solid belief, that makes things happen.

--Shadow in American Gods by Neil Gaiman

We believe not because we want to believe, but because the evidence compels us to believe. It would have made my life a lot easier to just believe that God exists and not deal with the fallout with my believing family, but the evidence compelled me to believe that there probably (very, very, very likely) is no god, thus my exodus from religion. But when fire still seems like magic, and lightning can only be explained by supernatural powers, believing in a god only makes sense.

There are fewer things that need explaining.

 The gods (and mostly Yahweh, because he was the main God in the region at that time) started to loose their mighty grasp on the minds of their creators sometime around the Renaissance. People started to think, reason, and understand; science started to explain the mysteries of God. Copernicus, in my opinion, though he was a Christian, pried back the first finger of God, allowing later freethinkers to finish Him off. Stating that the earth is NOT the center of the universe starts one thinking about why God would have created humankind, the pinnacle of His creation, off to the side, putting the sun at the center of our galaxy instead. So maybe we aren't as important as we thought? As science and reason advanced, we found that lightning (and all weather in general) is not caused by a vengeful or loving god, but rather it is a natural part of the earth's ecosystem, water cycle, etc. The same goes for earthquakes and volcanoes, tsunamis and hurricanes. Not a vengeful god that is trying to punish us, but rather the earth, doing what it does without malice or forethought. Medicine has come a long way from humours and leeches to antibiotics and DNA sequencing. Thanks to Darwin, humankind no longer has reason to doubt that we are cousins to every living thing on earth.

Gods die. And when they truly die they are unmourned and unremembered. Ideas are more difficult to kill than people, but they can be killed, in the end.

--American Gods by Neil Gaiman

The gods are going extinct.

It would take hours to list all the things that were once ascribed to gods that we now have non-supernatural reasons for. The tenacious grip of god has turned tenuous. The gods of yesteryear are merely the stuff of myth and legend today. If it were not for the vast quantity of writing and digital caching of the Internet, they would fade away even faster. For this same reason, it seems that Yahweh (and Allah for that matter, though they are really just two names for the same God) have had a strong grip on the world because their stories are immortalized in the written word.

If it makes you more comfortable, you could simply think of it as metaphor. Religions are, by definition, metaphors, after all: God is a dream, a hope, a woman, an ironist, a father....

--American Gods by Neil Gaiman

Someday, I expect, that even though it says in the writing that those books of scripture are the word of God written by his holy prophets, people will come to realize that it is just a story (and not a very good one at that). They will realize that religion is a metaphor, a tool that was used to calm the doubts and fears of the masses to allow civilization to flourish.

What is religion anyway?

Yes, I believe that we are genetically inclined to believe in religion. I think that Richard Dawkins has some great points in The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion.  I think that religion evolved as a social mechanism to help mankind form societies where intelligence, peace and prosperity could thrive, thus further separating us from our cousins and reaffirming the dominance of our species. But, as Dawkins says in The Selfish Gene, "Whenever a system of communication evolves, there is always the danger that some will exploit the system for their own ends." This is one of the dangers of religion: leaders wielding their power for their own ends, usually with detrimental effect to many others. Now that science has squeezed all the gods into the cracks of the unknown, another one of the issues I have with religion is that it reinforces ignorance and praises blind faith. I find it hilarious that many Mormons (members and leaders) are terrified of reading "anti-Mormon literature" because it can pull you away from the true teachings of the church. Yet, if there are things that are that dangerous to your "truths" you may want to examine those truths again to see if they match up with reality.

Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them. Such trusting obedience is valuable for survival: the analogue of steering by the moon for a moth. But the flip side of trusting obedience is slavish gullibility. The inevitable by-product is vulnerability to infection by mind viruses.

--The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

As terrible as the phrase sounds (and I think the pointed wording was on purpose, because we all know that Richard Dawkins is an ass), it really rings true to me. I believed as a child with all my heart in the truth of the gospel as taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I knew it was true because I was taught that it was true. I had become a carrier to pass it onto my children as well. And I did. Isn't that how viruses spread? Or how 'viral marketing' works? One person to the next because of how great it is. When you are a believer, your religion is the one true religion and it is great, so you want to pass it on. The newly indoctrinated take over the cause and make it their own.

Now if religion did no harm, I would not have so much problem with it. But you saw how the gods in American Gods fought each other. Their subjects do as well. They are commanded by their gods to conquer other unbelieving nations and impose the good word on the infidels. Nearly universally, they oppress women and homosexuals (and every other minority). Because of this, I am somewhat anti-religious. Yes they do great good, but until we can convince the leaders of these religions of the need for HUMANITY, that there is no "us and them," that we should not be fighting, but helping, lifting up instead of oppressing, most all religions should be torn down.

Now I get off my high horse.

Telling Mom: Revisited

Mom, it's okay. I'm okay. I'm an atheist.

--The Thinking Atheist

This is the sort of conversation I had with my mother in person. It hurts more than words can say. People can say terrible thing (me included) in situations like these. I wish sometimes that it hadn't gone down like it did. I hope when my kids come to me with something, I can react differently.

Yes this is staged, but it rings so true.

Cell-icide: drawing a line in the sands of abortion

What bothers me is that if a rover
on Mars discovered a single cell organism,
the science world would be abuzz
about the discovery of life.

But discover a single cell organism
in the human uterus, and they refuse
to recognize it as life.

Hypocrites.

--Repeated again and again on the internet

I recently saw (for the thousandth time) this comment on Facebook. This pro-life argument lacks steam because it's not that I don't recognize the fertilized egg in a uterus as life, it's that I don't recognize that it is human. So terminating its life is no different to me than pulling a carrot from the ground, using anti-bacterial hand wash or squishing a mosquito. The true hypocrites in this are those that refuse an abortion to 'save a life' when the mother may die or the child, when born, may die an early death anyway from some terrible debilitating disease. Who are you to sentence a mother to death or another human to lead a life that he never would have chosen to live?

I think we can all agree that killing humans is bad. The big question then becomes, "What is a human?" The North Dakota 'Personhood Amendment' would define that a fertilized egg, or zygote, is human and therefore unlawful to abort. I think they could go farther. Even human egg cells are alive. They respirate just like any other human cell. Human sperm cells are alive as well. In some religions it is already unlawful according to God's laws to 'spill seed' or masturbate. Enlisting a federal ban on masturbation might help prevent killing all these innocent sperm. We should also take this procreation debate one step further and ensure that no human egg cells are wasted; we should ban menstruation. It would be required for all women of menstruating age to become pregnant to prevent the loss of the precious life of these human eggs.

Sound a little bit crazy to you? Me too.

I don't know a man alive who would vote on a *secret ballot* for a ban on masturbation in order to 'save seed.' Maybe publicly they would support a ban, but not when it comes down to the actual vote.  And I am sure that all pro-life women would support a ban on menstruation requiring them to be constantly pregnant to save their eggs from certain doom and destruction.

Let's get real. We need to draw a line in the sand, but let's do it with logic, not emotion; science, not god.

What IS the difference between the amoeba on Mars and a human zygote? Potential. The amoeba will not grow into a multi-cellular, intelligent, life form. I am going to pull a fast one and swap out that amoeba for a chimpanzee zygote. Now, both will grow into multi-cellular, intelligent, life forms. The only difference is that one will grow into a human and the other a chimpanzee. Since we kill chimpanzees all the time, it is okay to abort a chimpanzee embryo. Wait! We kill humans all the time too....

If we use DNA to compare the difference between the human and chimpanzee zygotes, we find that we share 98.7% of our DNA in common with chimpanzees. So we are really close. At the zygote, blastocyst and embryo stages, I am pretty sure that it would be impossible to tell a chimpanzee from a human. Well other than the obvious fact that chimpanzee embryos grow in a chimpanzee uterus. It should be possible to find some point at which it is obvious that a human fetus is really a human fetus by observation.

Just because it looks like a human does not necessarily make the thing a human. Can it sustain life outside of the uterus? If no, I would still argue that it still has a parasitic relationship with its host. Why didn't I say mother? Because theoretically we could come up with some machine that could serve as a host to a fetus. Doctors can already keep a fetus alive long before the 40-week mark.

We can take this too far in the other direction too, though. A one-year-old child cannot survive on his own. He requires food, shelter, protection, and love. That sounds like a parasitic relationship to me. So really only independent adults are human. You don't like your needy teenager? Abort him!

It turns out that we can really draw a line in the sand anywhere from pre-conception through early adulthood. Almost all using the same logic. The saddest part of this is that while we debate this, people are dying; people are getting killed. Abortion clinics are getting bombed. Teenage girls are dying from back-alley abortions gone wrong. Where is the humanity. I don't care if you believe in a god or not. Do you love your fellow humans? Maybe you don't believe that it is right to have an abortion. So don't have an abortion. But understand that maybe someone else has a different point of view on what a human is. Maybe you are not human to them.

Personally, I don't believe that abortion is a good practice. If you don't want to have a baby, don't have unprotected sex. But I can't fault a person for drawing the line at 10 or 20 weeks because I really don't know if that is a human yet. Because there is so much gray area in this matter, it is hard to say exactly where to draw the line. I don't want to snuff out human life, but I don't yet really understand what it means to be human. I am on a journey of learning to find that answer for myself. In the mean time, I don't plan on killing anybody: pro-life or pro-choice.

Planet of the Asses

I like bananas, coconuts and grapes. I like bananas, coconuts and grapes. I like bananas, coconuts and grapes. That's why they call me Tarzan of the Apes!

--Unknown, Summer Camp Cheer

Peaceful donkey

Some people say we evolved from the apes. That would make this the planet of the apes. But I am here to tell you that I believe this is the planet of the asses. I am an ass. You are an ass. We are all asses. Let's get over it.

Just because deep inside my brain I have some a section inherited from early primates does not mean that I should throw my poo when I get upset. Nor should you. But if by chance I get hit by your flung poo I promise to do my best to resist the urge to retaliate.

Resisting the urge to get upset becomes a lot easier if you adjust your expectations to align with reality. I really do HOPE that you can behave with respect, kindness, etc., but if I understand that you are really an ass in sheep's clothing (mixed metaphors are fun), then when you behave like an ass I should not be surprised. Being imperfect myself, I occasionally say or do things that might upset others. Beware! I am an ass.

Now that we understand that we are all collectively asses, we can adjust our expectations of others' actions so we don't have to get so upset. You can be happy and well adjusted even if someone else flings poo at you. He only did it because he's an ass; it's only to be expected. And when he says a kind word about you, you can continue to be happy and maybe a touch happier because he was behaving better than expected.

Every day, all day (unless you are an island,) you will be surrounded by asses. Armed with this knowledge, rise above that and don't act like one yourself. But don't be surprised when others don't follow suit. This little treasure has helped me keep my cool on many occasions as well.

The Gay Gene

K0k bL0k  - a smart blog

I had a pretty early exposure to homosexuality due to my dad being gay. Long story short, the LDS church's policy at the time was that if you were leaning to the gay side of the path, get married and have kids and all that straight sex will get you on the right path. Eventually, my dad left his wife and children so he could pursue his gay lifestyle. (No hard feelings, read on, Dad.) While the LDS church no longer pushes this as the current 'cure' to being gay, the church certainly does not have a very gay-friendly environment; they say you can be gay as long as you don't act on your feelings.  Wow. That's so magnanimous.

When I was a kid, I believed that being gay was a choice. To be honest, I didn't really spend much time thinking about homosexuality, other than the strong link in my head to 'bad.' I didn't drink colas as a child because they were 'bad' too, but a modern analogy might be deciding on your favorite cola: most people like Coke, some like Pepsi, and even smaller numbers choose Dr. Pepper, RC, or cheap knock-offs. What I didn't see until my teenage years was the HUGE social stigma against homosexuality; even if being gay is just a choice, you don't get shunned by friends and family for choosing to drink a Pepsi. Not the same.

Well, if it were just colas, you can acquire a taste after a time. You could forget how you like that twist that Pepsi has as an aftertaste. The bold tang of Coke might persuade you to only drink Coke (especially if all the Pepsi was gone from the fridge.) Since being gay is NOT a choice, my dad's only real choice was to either live with the mental anguish of being squished into the straight box or to leave his family and be happy. My mother remarried and I had a wonderful childhood, so really, I think things turned out best for everyone involved. Now I have a good relationship with my gay dad.

In high school, we learned some about evolution and genetics. Enough to make ill-informed decisions, I think. I decided that homosexuality could most definitely not be genetic, and MUST be a choice. Why anyone would make that choice, I don't know, because it seems so weird from the straight side of the path (so says the 16 year-old Mormon brain). Plus, look at me, my siblings and I are all straight (insufficient empirical evidence.)

There very well could be a gay gene. Some scientists say that they have found one (a gene that is passed on from your mother) that is linked to "increased fecundity" in women. This would cause the women to be more attractive to men, have an easier time with childbirth, etc. If this gene has the side-effect of pushing men to the homosexual side of the path, it still helps the mother have more children, thus increasing her chances of her genes being propagated.

From reading more on genetics and evolution, it seems that all things are possible as long as evolution can find stasis along the pathways of that change. All genes are 'trying' to survive, as much as a gene can try. Really, it is just a matter of genes that don't survive disappearing from the pool. If a gene and its alternative allele can strike a balance with one not completely obliterating the other in terms of reproductivity, then it will survive. This goes for all sorts of things you can imagine, from homosexuality to male-pattern baldness to the propensity to bear twins. This is not to say that the only factor is genes, but I think that there is likely a genetic basis. Environment likely also has a role in shaping what for each individual defines a 'normal' and 'healthy' attraction and relationship.

In the end, I think it matters less WHY a person is homosexual than how we treat them. Does it really matter who a person is attracted to? Does it hurt you personally if your child/friend/neighbor/coworker is homosexual? Genetically speaking, heterosexually inclined people should be unconcerned that there are homosexuals because it means less competition in terms of offspring, given that only heterosexual sex causes offspring. Are gay people less human? In many states, they are by law. If a gay man ignores his homosexual tendencies and lives the straight life, does that make him more human? It seems to come down to majority rules without minority rights. Nothing a little bit of tolerance, understanding and humanity can't fix. Love thy brother. And his husband.

A Public Plea for Sensibility

Riots in Libya (Mohamed Abd B Ghany/Reuters)

In the wake of the violent protests against the US spread over much of the Muslim world, here is my plea for humanity and sensibility. Some things that all human-kind should embrace or we doom ourselves to extinction by war.

1. Keep your inflammatory remarks and/or insults to yourself.
2. If somebody does insult you or your beliefs, ignore them, don't strike back.
3. There is no, repeat NO, justification for one human to kill another.
4. There is no need for violence.

Several things went wrong (in the recent past and in times long past). Shouldn't we, as human-kind be big enough to look past shortcomings in others and drop our grudges?

Having watched 'Innocence of Islam,' the alleged tipping point for all these protests, I have to say that I was uncomfortable with the terrible light it portrayed Islam's prophet. I think that the author of the video should be embarrassed for creating such a work. It's only purpose was to insult and provoke those who believe in Islam. Shame on you. There are better ways, more peaceful ways, more effective ways to spread your ideas. Just because your freedom of expression is guaranteed by the US constitution, doesn't mean that you should use your right to denigrate others' beliefs.

Then I move on to the violent protesters. Shame on you. The four US citizens you killed in Libya had nothing to do with the video in question. They didn't make it; they didn't promote it; they were most likely as embarrassed of it as I am. Why would you kill innocent bystanders? They were striving for peace and diplomacy and you respond with murder. Then there have are dozens of others killed around the world as the protests spread. I understand your anger. Nobody likes to have the beliefs they hold most dear to be mocked like this in public. But this does not justify violence. Grow a thicker skin and turn the other cheek. Let's face it, there are some hateful people in the world, but that does not mean we need to sink to their level. Rise above and don't give them the reaction they hope for. After so many of the 'extremist Islam' attacks in the world, much of the non-Muslim world links terrorism with Islam. While this may be an unfair association, violent reactions like this only reinforce that stigma.

South Park's Joe Smith

Several years ago, the TV comedy cartoon 'South Park' made fun of the Mormon prophet in what might be considered to be every bit as inflammatory as this video. I watched it myself and was sad that people could be so rude to others. I did not take up arms to protest. I killed no one. In fact, I think the majority of the Mormon believers just decided that they would ignore the video altogether. If not turning the other cheek, ignoring the initial blow. Today, many Mormons have probably forgotten about the South Park cartoon, especially in the wake of the Broadway musical hit 'The Book of Mormon,' which was written by the same people. My point here is that there are other ways to deal with an insult. Peaceful ways.

As a plea from one human to another: let us live in peace; stop the violence.