What'd Jew Do This Weekend?

My fiancé and I have had nothing but awkward resistance from her family regarding the wedding. The older of her two younger brothers is coming, but her younger brother and parents are being sent an invitation anyway. Maybe she sees it as passive-aggressive; I think it’s a waste of a stamp. As with all disagreements, we did what she wanted.

Whether it was a nice gesture or a back-handed swipe, she seems to be trying to stay on their good side. One of her cousins is getting married today, and she was invited. I was not. She thought I would be insulted. I’m just glad I don’t have to go and wear a kippah.

That whole thing is a major sore spot with me. I don’t like impositions. I hate uniforms and dress codes. I believe people should be allowed to pre-judge you based on what you wear, but people should think before assuming the appearance of something implies the it is a reality. Remember, all the guys who ran this country into the ground over the last eight years wore suits.

So what’s the deal with making me wear a Jew-niform just to sit through a boring spiel? I’m already sitting through a ceremony that’s in a foreign language I don’t understand, how uncomfortable are you trying to make me feel?

I once went to some sort of dinner that was days after the wedding of one of my fiancé’s friend. It has some Hebrew name, and she’s not here to tell me what it is. So besides feeling completely uncomfortable, the food was unpalatable. I had some salad and bites of everything else. Then we had bread made from blond children (or so I hear).

Afterwards, she pointed out I was the only one without a kippah (that’s a yarmulke to most Gentiles). I hadn’t noticed, but apparently those who know to look probably did. It’s a very strange exclusionary practice. I for one have a full head of hair (perhaps my one good physical feature). I certainly don’t need a bald-spot cover.

So she’s gone to the “lion’s den,” although I’m only worried about her drive to Brooklyn… and being the only one to walk the dog tonight.

Above Criticism

The UN Human Rights Council has voted to adopt a text proposed by Pakistan that makes defamation of religion a human rights violation. Apparently the term "human rights" does not translate well into Arabic, as this resolution does not protect the rights of human beings, just religious ideas. The measure was pushed through by Muslim nations who seek to leverage the rule against those who would criticize their religion, and by extension their theocracy.

"Defamation of religious [sic] is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of their adherents and incitement to religious violence." Actually, reacting to criticism everyone else endures by moving to prevent people from ever questioning you is "restriction of freedom." As for "incitement to religious violence," that's a problem originating with the religious, not the critics.

This is largely a reaction to the Mohammed cartoons and the controversy they caused. Apparently the Muslim world is upset that they can't kill people who criticize Islam if they do it from free land. This measure seeks to put religion above reproach, outside of the realm of what can be discussed critically.

I doubt these measures will lead to any action, but they are an indicator of one major flaw of fundamentalism: the inability to take a joke.

The Wedding

It occurred to me that blogs are usually a catalogue of people's every day, mundane activity. This is why I hate reading most blogs and stopped blogging after the first three times I tried. If there's one thing worse than hearing about someone's boring, routine life, it's being reminded of my own boring, routine life. However, people don't just get married every day, so I thought I'd post about my upcoming wedding in May.

I met her through an online dating service that asks a bunch of questions and matches you up. It was not eHarmony, or any other pay site. It was a free one, so obviously we're both cheap. We had that in common from the start.

When we first met up, we had a good time and just kept hanging out, closer and closer together each date (both in time apart and proximity in space). Pretty soon I made my move. "Wanna hang out in bed?" I asked on the *censored for decency*th date. Like a lady, she said "sure."

She pretty much didn't leave my apartment for several months except to go to class and go out with me to get groceries. We talked about moving in together after a couple months, but we decided to wait until we'd been together a year... so we didn't look crazy.

We've been together over two years now and we're getting married in two months. I owned one cat before meeting her and she owned two. I rescued a fourth cat off the street when we still had separate residences, but we found him a home through Craigslist after it became clear that four cats and my feline allergy would not be realistic for our move in together.

We moved in last spring. By the summer, I went with her to a music festival. I can't stand the things, but I figure a weekend here or there each year is a whole lot less to sit through than church on a weekly basis. It's comparable to the less rigorous "Christmas/Easter" Christians. I don't care how anyone practices their faith, so long as it doesn't impose upon me (and I don't find parades or nativity scenes imposing, just kind of gay).

I feel bad, making fun of homosexuals in a piece about weddings. I wasn't trying to spit on anyone while they were down. I didn't mean it to insult gay people, just religious people (you know, since they would hate being gay). Oy...

So these music festivals... they're kind of like Vegas. What happens at music festivals stays at music festivals. It's nothing secretive, it's just that for some reason no one remembers a damn thing from the whole weekend… except for me. I remember things... horrible things...

Drum circles so big you can't see the other side. People tripping on acid mushrooms talking about elves darting through crowds of sheeople (that's people who look like sheep). Everyone is bright red from passing out in the noon sun, and they dance like Dionysian devils in the fire light, under a dark new moon by night. I may not believe in the gods, but I almost believe in demons after this.

I kid. It was mostly just sitting around, being unreachable outside cell phone range, while you sipped drinks and listened to awful jazz and funk musicians practice scales and arpeggios for hours on end.

My biggest true complaints were 1. the prevalence of vegetarian food to the exclusion of meat, and 2. the fact that people didn’t go to sleep until very late. I hate to be a bitch about going to bed early, it’s just a pain to sleep in a tent in the summer sun. I can’t sleep past nine in the summer. I don’t drink, so I’m not passed out; I’m actually conscious and having to make an effort to sleep.

My ability to tolerate a music festival cemented her love for me. We arranged to get married and set a tentative early summer date. We made the long drive from Pennsylvania to Indiana, where my parents live. We told them the good news. My mom’s reaction (looking straight at my fiancé): “Are you sure you want to marry him?” Priceless.

Things didn’t go so well with telling her parents. For one thing, I had (and still have) yet to meet her parents. This is by no fault of our own. Her parents simply aren’t interested in meeting her goyfriend turned fiancé. Something about demanding she inbreed, I can’t even pretend to understand it. Maybe it’s best he only uses his limited imagination, I might surpass that.

So she told them by phone from my parents’ house. They weren’t too thrilled. Letters began pouring in from people she barely knows. Long-lost cousins dropped in from out of town to nervously change the subject as I came in the room. It didn’t occur to me until now, but someone who didn’t love the person they were with so much might have been scared off by some of this. It just gives us a good laugh.

One night, my fiancé gets a call from one of her brothers. The half of the conversation I hear sounds like the brother has something important and that she needs to go somewhere private. Bastard knows I’m listening! Tricky!

I hear laughing and she comes back in to explain. Her brother informed her that he consulted a rabbi in Israel about our situation (as he was in Israel at the time… so this is a trans-Atlantic phone call...) who said that one of three things would happen: either I would convert to Judaism, we would break up within a year, or (this one’s my favorite) I would die. It’s Jewish Voodoo: Voojew.

Giving the curse the full benefit of the doubt, we look forward to celebrating our first year anniversary, even if she continues to beat me mercilessly. Not the face!

Obviously we aren’t having a lot of religion in our wedding. As it turns out, that leaves very little to the wedding besides the declaration and eating. I never liked the other stuff anyway. There will be no officiant, as Pennsylvania allows for self-uniting marriage (thank you Quakers). It will be just me, her, our closest friends and family in the great outdoors, surrounded by food. I even weaseled my way out of having to wear a tux.

As the date gets closer, things supposedly get more stressful. I don’t know, everything has gone smoothly and continues to fall into place. She has done a great job doing most of the planning and organizing for the wedding herself, and I’m eternally grateful that she doesn’t look down on me for every stupid attempt I make at helping.

I wish the wedding was over and done with. I look forward to marriage. The act is largely legal for me, as the symbolism is completely lost upon me. I would do anything for my fiancé, wedding or not. I don’t need a ring around my finger to remain faithful and loyal. She’s been the only woman I want to be with since the first time I told her I loved her, and as far as I’m concerned, everything else is just for show. The world wants a show, and she doesn’t mind giving them one, so wedding: here we come.

Politics, and Why I Hate It

I used to be quite interested in politics, and my opinions on it were as passionate as my feelings for religion. However, the 2008 presidential race turned me off to politics.

I have tried to pretend to be a Democrat, but like being religious, the tag just doesn't fit. I'm very clearly not a Republican, since I don't think the world would be a better place just by preventing gays from marrying and women from planning when they have a baby. However, the issues which are important to me are largely ignored by the general population. Worse yet, no political party sides with me on any of my most important issues.

If you want to limit government influence, you have no one to vote for. If you think churches should be taxed, you have no one to vote for. If you oppose funding the wars of foreign nations, you have no one to vote for. If you think the second amendment is an outdated rule from the era of single-shot muskets, you have no one to vote for. If you oppose the war on drugs, want to lower the drinking age, or think cigarette taxes are too high, you have no one to vote for. I'll get to Libertarians in a minute.

Republicans in particular voice their agreement with me on some issues, but their track record in the White House under Reagan and both Bushes has proven that it's all talk meant to garner the vote of people like me (angry men who don't want to be bothered). Republicans love to court the vote of "Libertarians" by making empty promises of smaller government and low taxes. Of course, Libertarian is just what young Republicans call themselves because it's so embarrassing to admit you voted for Bush or McCain.

If you vote Republican, the only things you will end up supporting are socially restrictive policies meant to intrude on private citizens and their rights. Republicans attack liberty at every turn, from the PATRIOT Act to bans on gay marriage and abortion. There's nothing Libertarian about the Republicans besides the horrendous tax policy shared by the two, a tax policy which only serves to create a massive gap in wealth between the rich and middle class.

Eisenhower, the last great Republican president, had it right when he signed off on a 90% tax for the wealthiest earners. This tax carried America through it's most prosperous years, enabling us to grow and build our infrastructure to what we have today.

Republicans and Libertarians would have us believe that the government screws up everything, but the truth is that government is only inefficient when Republicans are running it. The highway system, NASA's trips to the moon, the Postal System, parks, police, firemen, etc. are all "socialized." Republicans can't even say the words "our military" without immediately following it with some variant of the phrase, "which is the best in the world." So if socialism is good enough for the best military in the world... why not other things that benefit every citizen?

Democrats, on the other hand, are more open to the ideas I support... but they're also open to some I oppose as strongly as I would if they were Republican. PETA, Green Peace, censorship, media scapegoating, and countless other types of legislation which I would characterize as "Mommy Laws" all serve only to intrude on the choices of Americans. We don't need anything safer "for the kids." Fuck the kids, and fuck their lazy parents who don't bother raising them.

So if it's between Femacrats and Retardicans, I get bored. I think that's why I like discussing religion: there's more than two sides. The false dichotomy presented by American politics is dwarfed in intellectual size by the plurality of religious debate.

Traffic and Philosophy

Often, the case is made that the modern world is more fragmented and alienating that previous periods. On the contrary, I would argue that, while perhaps physically alienating, human beings are working together in a manner never before imaginable. For one thing, the internet simultaneously makes its user anonymous and connected to numerous others. They all enjoy an element of privacy that enables many to lower, or even completely shrug off, their inhibitions. It may be this sordid view of humanity that people don’t truly like: a simple, reptilian brain that still functions beneath the deep recesses of the complex cerebrum in all of us.

My favorite example of the modern dichotomy of anonymity and interconnectedness is traffic. Imagine the complexity of it all: the multitude of human beings sitting behind a large engine within which numerous tiny explosions are being converted into the power to reach speeds often exceeding seventy miles per hours, faster than any other land animal on earth. With the use of a modest system of signs and lights, hundreds of thousands of people pass daily with little effort over distances greater than many people two-hundred years ago would venture in a lifetime.

Traffic, with its thankless courtesies and required patience, might seem an impossible feat to someone who has never seen it. Philosophers for millennia have debated the capabilities of the average human being. Traffic appears to disprove the pessimists who would say that most people are incapable of… did you see that? He just cut me off! I’m gonna speed up and pass HIM, then slow down and see if he likes it. Oh what the fuck, let me in you faggoty ass semi. Goddamn butt-fucking truckers, I swear to God; they can all just eat my ass raw. Jesus Fucking Christ! What’s this asshole doing? GET OFF THE PHONE YOU JACKASS! Ahem, sorry.

Shit, what is the hold up here, why are we stopped? Looks like some kind of accident… God I wish they’d just scoop up the wreckage, corpses and all, with a snow plow and go sort it out someplace else. This is fucking ridiculous. I knew I should have taken the surface roads.

Fun With Language: Atheism vs atheism

I have been challenged that atheism and Atheism cannot be different things simply because of capitalization. A poster in the comments of one of Uruk’s posts claimed “what I do call nonsense is the idea that a definition changes simply because you capitalize a letter in the word. Atheist will always mean the same thing, whether it is a big A or a little a - and it does not mean the same thing as agnostic (big A or little a).”

I will refute your claim in two parts. The first part is easy. You must not be familiar with English if you don’t understand that capitalization makes a huge difference in a word. The word God, for example, refers to the monotheistic deity followed by English-speaking Christians (and sometimes Jews and Muslims, though they have their own terminology which is borrowed from Hebrew and Arabic, respectively). The word god or gods refers to the basic idea of deities, and may refer to any divine beings from any of a number of religions.

But I’m not done there. I was so intrigued by the ignorance of this statement, I went on a quest to discover as many as I could. Many names have this trait. For example, Rich and Dick are both short for Richard, whereas rich and dick are synonyms for Republican. 10,000 Maniacs is a band, whereas 10,000 maniacs would be a Republican convention.

There’s Earth, which is the name of the planet we inhabit, while earth is soil. The next one is in the form of two example sentences: “The Irish march through the streets in March for St. Patrick’s Day. The gays may have a parade in May.”

A Pole is someone from Poland, while a pole is something strippers dance around. If you fly west from California, you will reach the East (as the compass directions aren’t capitalized, unless denoting a place). Much later, after writing some of these, I found this, which actually defines the term for this phenomenon of language (capitonym) and gives many more examples. It has two great poems at the bottom.

Now that we’re clear that capitalization is clearly an important component of the English language, we can move on to whether there is (since there clearly can be) a difference between Atheist and atheist.

Before I go too in depth, realize that my goal in self-applying the term “atheism” is to avoid confusion. While I could use some esoteric terminology, I pragmatically sided with atheism over agnosticism (the two being the most popular, over non-religious, non-theistic, and others) because many theists, in my experience, think an agnostic is fodder for recruitment, since there appears to be some implication of doubt.

Short of the clouds parting and a heavenly voice calling my name and beckoning me, I can’t imagine anything that would make me rethink theism. To a percent, I am 99.999 repeating-forever percent sure. This is mathematically 100%, as .9 repeating is equal to 1. Don’t believe me? What is 1/3rd expressed as a fraction? The answer is .3 repeating to infinity. Triple that, and you have .9 repeating to infinity. So while I may not express myself as 100%, it is virtually the same. If I seem like a literalist, it is because I am.

Since theism cannot prove its existence, some people do not even acknowledge it. Some are apatheists, and don’t care about this “god” stuff. Some brush it off as something other people worry about, believing it won’t affect them. Then they get sick one day; it’s not a prophecy, its mortality. Suddenly the fact that religious fundamentalists hate funding science plays a direct role over whether there is medicine which will treat you. I can’t ignore this moral travesty, and the other little things that religion messes with (like equal rights) will just be icing on the cake if religion ever loses its influence. Since religion won’t topple itself, it’s up to skeptics to help.

I’m more accurately a non-theist, or perhaps antitheist. However, some would misinterpret antitheist to mean I somehow envision myself as aligned in opposition to gods. This would in turn imply belief in gods. Antitheism has nothing to do with faith, only an opposition to theism. Non-theism, then, is probably the best descriptor for my stance on gods. Also, I think the title of my blog pretty much sums it up.

However, non-theism, like atheism, is not a statement of affirmation. Instead, it is merely the rejection of an idea. If I were to describe myself, I would say I’m an opinionated, independent, argumentative rationalist who believes in total unification (though not homogenization) of the human race and who is fascinated by mythology, philosophy, morality, and ethics.

Divine Intervention and Spider Bites

The faithful have a phrase that has always bugged me: "Everything happens for a reason." I don't agree with this at all, as I am not a fatalist. Pre-determination is not an idea to which I subscribe. I think everything that happens has a cause, but not a "reason."

Reason would imply some sort of planned, designed, or even desired outcome. While some things do indeed happen for a reason, it is not a universal. While my initial goal of this post was to delve into free will, I would rather analyze a situation I found while browsing some online news stories.

In the past, ideologists would posit hypothetical, though plausible, scenarios in order to illustrate a point. Today, we have the internet to allow us access to countless real situations (in theory). The case of David Blancarte is one of great interest.

In 1988, at the age of 27, David was a boxer and dancer. Then, he had a motorcycle accident. He became paralyzed from the waist down. This was a tragedy of youth wasted, and the young man was confined to a wheelchair. The thoughts running through his mind must have been unthinkably bleak, as the situation seemed hopeless.

After 21 years, David had another bit of bad luck. He was bitten by a brown recluse spider. Though not deadly, the bite is painful and can lead to necrotic ulceration (epidermal damage resulting in dead tissue around the site). What could he have possibly done in a past life to deserve this?

But David's story doesn't end here. Instead, David's nurse attempts a treatment that has never been proven effective in clinical trials: electric shock to the affected area. David felt the shock as it was administered, even though the injury was to his leg.

After months of rehabilitation, David walked out of the hospital having been admitted paralyzed with a spider bite. His case is being hailed as a medical marvel(or "miracle," to those so inclined). Surely the gods must have some great plan for David, and he can't wait for the day when he will walk his 14-year-old twin daughters down the aisle of their respective weddings.

However, it would seem David is not interested in any of these plans, as he was arrested this month on an outstanding warrant stemming from a contempt of court charge that occurred during a domestic abuse case. Perhaps the gods wanted David to be able to walk himself into prison.

This case is a strange ride through destiny.

Atheism as Rebellion

I have often said atheism is not a religion, though Atheism (with a capital A, defined as one who claims and militantly defends the belief that there are not, or cannot be, gods) is a faith; when organized into a group, it can take on aspects of religion (like American Atheists or Brights).

On the other hand, atheism is simply a rebellion against religion, just as anarchy is not a system of government, but a complete lack thereof. Both of these ideas, anarchy and atheism, are statements of one saying that having nothing at all would be better than what we have now. Both are a call towards ideological emptiness, devoid of all culture, an intellectual vacuum. When a system begins to break down, and that system has successfully suppressed much of its outside influence, rejection of the old is directed towards nothing, figuratively and literally.

However, most individuals cannot stay in a state of rebellion for long, let alone a lifetime. It is not some form of weakness that draws people to faith, nor is it fear, or even emotional. Each person’s needs are fulfilled differently by religion, which is why we are fortunate to have such a vast choice. Religion offers many things to people: moral guidance, community, and some third one (I thought for five minutes and got nothing). However, it does not have a monopoly on any of them.

I would argue that there are more believers in America because there are more options (though more people in non-monotheistic religions would be nice). It’s the same reason we watch more TV: more channels. If you live in a country with few options, you will be driven to atheism. Many atheists will convert before they die. Many won’t. I have no idea what the break down would be, but it’s clear from observation that some, like Anne Rice, forsake their hedonistic past. Others, like Christopher Reeves, reject organized religion to the very end.

We all take different paths in life. While some follow what they hope to be a master’s path, they must trust those who have tread upon and obscured the original footprints. Some push to new terrain, despite the herd’s shouted threats of danger. Perhaps the maps we follow are different because we do not seek the same things. Regardless, atheists may wander freely, while Atheists must be content to sit alone, laughing at those who pass.

It is great to have choice, even with A/atheism.

Infomercial Invasion

Some people may have noticed a surge in primetime advertising for... well... crap. The most popular ones are Cash for Gold, the Snuggie, and ShamWow. My personal favorite is the last one, as this is a product I have had personal experience with. No, I never ordered one, but the material (mostly rayon) has been used as a towel by swimmers for years now.

I can attest that it makes a great pool towel, but I would highly discourage the use of it as a disposable towel replacement. I can't imagine the gross build up that would occur after cleaning up a couple soda or juice spills with that. An interesting side note: the guy who does the commercial is named Vince Offer. He's a former Scientologist. *daily Scientology reference quota met*

Why is there a surge in awful ads? TV advertising is going down in price, so that means we can expect more of these almost-great ideas. Of course, I stay up late, so I'm no stranger to awful commercials. I've seen midgets selling real estate, Esteban selling guitars, and about a dozen products from Billy Mays. I think it's fair that people on normal sleep schedules should suffer as I have for so long. In the end, you at least get a great laugh out of it (or sponsor a kid in Africa with a suspiciously Western name).

Atheism's Jewish Roots

I see religion as evolving through history. At first, man must have “worshipped” (or simply stood in awe at) the natural world that he saw. The sun, moon, stars, and weather must have seemed impressive and mysterious to the burgeoning rational human. Even some animals are impressive.

Some people, either through mind or might, would distinguish themselves as powerful. The worship of heroes and cults of personality would arise around those who seemed (or claimed) to possess knowledge or control over nature. Heroes who descend to the world of the dead and return are popular, but sometimes great chiefs and kings have been identified with sky or earth gods.

The end result of all this hero worship is a vast collection, or pantheon, of gods and goddesses. Polytheism was the natural progression from local tribal worship into communal and city systems. Within pantheons, gods seem to vie for power as their followers on Earth war with each other. In the end, these wars seemed to determine which systems “worked best” (or got lucky). Adaptable religions persisted, static religions died, and dynamic new ones filled in the gaps.

What does all of this have to do with a link between Judaism and Atheism? Judaism is the first persisting faith to deny the existence of gods. In fact, all Abrahamic religions owe their theology to Judaism. Prior to this, Greek and Roman theology had practiced syncretism, which is the belief that one small village’s chief god is merely a local manifestation of the father god of the conquering empire’s pantheon. This is why gods like Zeus, Ares, Athena, etc. have many additional epithets that denote local cult worship. Even Yahweh and Jesus were both invoked by non-Jewish, non-Christian Greeks and Romans for the purposes of ritual (most evidence that survives today is in the form of curse tablets, buried in the ground).

The Abrahamic attitude toward the religious faiths of others opened the door for atheism. While it may have taken a long time, this is because the monotheists were much better at quashing resistance than the open-minded pagans before them. While the Romans are criticized by modern Christians for their intolerance, Rome was far more accommodating to new ideas under polytheism than under the Church (as evidenced by the Church’s ability to rise to prominence). The treatment of “heretical” thought under monotheistic control is a direct result of the narrow, singular worldview presented as truth (evidenced by the complete lack of thinking that occurred in the Dark Ages).

So we have progressed from wonder, to hero worship, to a pantheon of gods, to one god. However, this is not where we are today. Instead, we live in a revisitation of the hero worship phase. The most popular religions around the world are Christianity and Islam, both of which are reliant on cult figures to define their worship. While Christians claim Jesus was God, and Muslims won’t bow down to a picture of Mohammed, the reverence for these very human (and therefore imperfect) men as unquestionable pillars of religious practice have resurrected the hero cult.

New personalities are always appearing, ready to lead their own flocks in the name of the one god. The heroes portrayed themselves as self-sacrificing, all in honor of the one god. Monotheism can potentiate one positive cause, but only if it is successful in complete membership of every person: complete unification under one goal. This is unrealistic, and perhaps frightening when one considers how foolishly humanity tends to act when no criticism is tolerated (and what methods are used to achieve complete “compliance”).

It would appear the next logical step was atheism, as this is the complete severance from the abstract notion of the divine. I have no doubt atheism will become popular, but it will likely never be a majority. Atheism, in the average person, is a vacuum of faith which sucks in any nearby idea. Those not intellectually motivated to pursue secular solutions to replace those of religion will be cursed to swallow the venom of dogma along with the waters of belief when the next person comes along claiming to have the answer. Old faiths will continue to disappear, and new faiths will replace them.

As atheism increases, the cult of personality will as well, and new religions will form more frequentlty. Scientology has already filled a niche in a scientifically minded society. It has constructed its theological and philosophical vocabulary around scientific sounding terms and theories. It has even gone so far as to paint their primary secular competition, psychiatry and psychology, as the enemy.

Whether popular religions today continue into the future will not be an issue of which faith is “better.” There is no better or worse faith, only ones that work for their time and place, and ones that do not. The one’s that work in the future will be ones that are compatible with society’s ever changing needs and situation. Whether a religion can evolve will determine whether it survives to lie another day, or retires to the night-time fairy tales of tomorrow’s children.