The Myth of Judeo-Christian Values

The ultimate value of life depends upon awareness and the power of contemplation rather than upon mere survival.
-- Aristotle

“We are stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values”

That was President Donald Trump addressing the Value Voters Summit in Washington D.C. last Friday.

We are stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values.

That’s what he said.

Attacks.

On Judeo-Christian values.

What does that mean?

No, stop. Think about it. What does that mean? How do you attack a value?

Seriously. How do you attack a value?

Look here: Values are defined as those principles we hold important in life.

How do you attack that?

Values are personal. We each determine for ourselves what is important. Values are your personal ethics, morals, your standards of behavior. Values are often, but not always, the ideals imposed on us by our environment, ways of thinking learned from various examples: our parents when we are young, leaders, public figures, community, law, teachers, friends, societal groups, and so on. Because everyone’s experience is different, our values are often different in varying degrees.

A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.
-- Muhammad Ali

Our values tend to change over time as our relationships and community and experience change and indeed if your worldview is the same at fifty as it was at twenty, well, like the man said, you might have wasted much of your life. But that doesn’t necessarily mean we get wiser. There’s nothing more enlightening than listening to a fifty-year-old conservative moral absolutist describe how he was once a liberal but his values changed when he [found Jesus, joined the NRA, became a Republican, etc] and that’s why moral relativism is evil.

But ask that same moral absolutist to provide a list of universal values, see what you get.

No, better yet, ask a room full of moral absolutists to provide a single list of human values, ordered by importance.

Then time how long it takes for the angry shouting to start.

Is there an agreed upon list of human values? Not Judeo-Christian values (we’ll get to that in a minute), just plain old ordinary every day human values?

Is there?

Quick, what are they? List them in order. What’s the most important value to you? Truth? Compassion? Strength? Altruism? Selflessness? Courage? Wait. Are those even recognized values?

Are they?

Are you sure?

Funny, isn’t it? Certain words we use. Words describe concepts. And we all think we know the definition of those concepts. Moreover, we assume that everybody else’s understanding of that concept is the same as ours.

But ask a hundred people to list the most important human values, and you’ll get a hundred different answers.

Because values are relative. Values are subjective.

I’m not the first person to notice this. Obviously. There are entire fields of study going all the way back to the great philosophers of Ancient Greece.

A lot of very smart people have devoted lifetimes of research into this very subject. One of those people, a social-psychologist named Shalom H. Schwartz, came up something called the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. You can find a current and reasonably readable overview of Schwartz’s theory here, published by the The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Schwartz’s Theory of Basic Values has been around for a while and it’s commonly used by psychologists and sociologists and those who study ethics and human interaction as a starting point.  Schwartz said that values are “beliefs linked inextricably to affect.” And what he meant was that values are tied to emotion and goals. For example, “People for whom independence is an important value become aroused if their independence is threatened, despair when they are helpless to protect it, and are happy when they can enjoy it.” This applies to nearly any value you can name – again in varying degrees depending individual circumstance. But it’s not something you can measure quantitatively.

Basically the theory says:

• Values are beliefs.
• Values refer to desirable goals that motivate action.
• Values transcend specific actions and situations.
• Values serve as standards or criteria.
• Values are ordered by importance.
• The relative values of multiple values guides action.

And I think that works as a general description of what a value is. But what are actual human values?

What would you list as human values?

Schwartz defines ten basic human values based on the criteria above:

• Self-Direction: independent thought and action--choosing, creating, exploring.
• Stimulation: excitement, novelty, and challenge in life.
• Hedonism: pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself.
• Achievement: personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards.
• Power: social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources.
• Security: safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self.
• Conformity: restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms.
• Tradition: respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that one's culture or religion provides.
• Benevolence: preserving and enhancing the welfare of those with whom one is in frequent personal contact (the ‘in-group’).
• Universalism: understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature.

Hedonism. Stimulation. Power. Conformity. When you were trying to think up a list of human values, unless you are a sociologist, you probably weren’t thinking in those terms, were you? But nearly any value you can name falls into one of those categories as described by Schwartz’s theory. 

It matters.

Precision of language matters.

Because that language, the words we use, defines how we see the world around us. How we relate to each other. Words can build a society, or tear a civilization apart. Language is information. And information used as a weapon can bring a dictator to power, topple governments, start wars (or end them), or shape the worldview of a nation.

And I want you to remember that.

“We are stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values”

That’s what the most powerful man in the world said last Friday.

He was speaking to an audience made up largely of hardline conservative Evangelical Christians.

What does that audience think Trump meant by that statement? To them, to those particular people, what are Judeo-Christian Values?

Remember: Values are beliefs linked to emotion, values are ordered by importance, values motivate action towards particular goals.

Remember: Values tend to be personal, and thus relative.

Remember: Language defines concept. Terms matter.

Thus: for values to be shared, they have to be defined and we all must agree to the definition and its emotional importance. And ultimately, we must agree with the goals inherent to each value.

Also please note that when Trump said, “We are stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values,” he didn’t bother to define … anything.

He didn’t define “attack.”

He didn’t define who was doing the attacking.

And most importantly he didn’t define “Judeo-Christian values.”

And Donald Trump is not the only one.

Breitbart led off their article on the subject with,

President Donald Trump vowed to end leftist attacks on Christian values that threatened the United States.

President Trump vowed to end Leftist attacks on Christian values that threatened the United States?

Christian Values. That threatened the United States.

Wait a minute here.

Words matter. Let’s read that again.

… on Christian values that threatened the United States…

Yep, still says, Christian values have threatened the United States.

(On a side note, odd that Breitbart mysteriously dropped the Judeo part. It’s almost like their old Anti-Semite CEO is back. But again, I digress)

If Christian values threatened the United States, why would the President vow to end attacks on them? Shouldn’t all Americans attack these Christian values that threaten America? I mean…

What?

Oh.

Right. Okay. Sure. But again, precision of language matters. Particularly when we’re talking about somebody attacking the United States.  As such, somebody needs to let Steven Bannon know his editors don’t understand basic sentence structure at even the sixth grade level. I’m just saying. For clarity’s sake. Given that it’s the lede and all. Right up front and ....

What?

Fine. Fine. Moving on.

So, if I’m reading confused Breitbart grammar correctly, the basic idea here is that certain undefined “leftists” are somehow in some manner “attacking” “Christian values.” And, given the context, an attack on Christian values is an attack on America.

But see, the problem here is that the article again doesn’t define (other than in vague terms) who is doing the attacking, why they are attacking, how they are attacking, and most importantly of all: exactly what Judeo-Christian values are. Nor does the article explain how Donald Trump might end these attacks.

We are all just supposed to know what those things are.

Values change.

Morality changes.

This is the nature of civilization.

Once upon a time in America, it was moral to own other people. The measure of a decent man was once determined by how he treated his property, his slaves.

Is that a value we respect nowadays?

Is that an American value we want to bring back?

Is that a Judeo-Christian value? After all, slavery and how you treat it is integral to both the Jewish and Christian holy books.

No?

No, I suppose not.

But how do you know? How do you know if the terms are never defined? Given recent violent demonstrations in places like Charlottesville by hardcore Christian conservative Trump supporters marching under the Swastika and the flag of the Confederacy, how can I know that slavery isn’t a Judeo-Christian value?

How do I know?

I mean, I assume that’s not what these conservatives mean, but how do I know?

If the terms are not defined?

Let me show you. Fox News, in a Special Report last Friday entitled: Eagle Scout: RIP Boy Scouts of America. You were great for 100 years, laments the destruction of the once venerable organization.

We all knew this was coming. The Boy Scouts of America stood for over a century on its strong foundation of Judeo-Christian values, growing boys into young men, and young men into leaders.  However, in recent years the BSA has allowed cracks to form in that foundation.

There is it, Judeo-Christian values.

Undefined.

Unexplained.

Unspecific.

Nowhere in that article does the author list those supposed values. Don’t take my word for it, click on the link and go look for yourself.  The article doesn’t describe in any way whatsoever the specific Judeo-Christian values that Lord Baden-Powell supposedly based the Boy Scouts on, nor does the author tell you which values they’ve supposedly discarded.

The author just assumes we all know what he means.

Because, of course, we are all Judeo-Christian in America, are we not?

And all Jews and Christians are the same, with the same worldview and outlook and values. Same as the author. Right?

Right?

With much handwringing and teeth-gnashing, the article goes on to bemoan the “incredibly disappointing news” that girls – girls – will not only be allowed to enter into Cub Scouts, but the BSA organization will soon create a scouting program for older girls – girls – to advance and earn Scouting’s highest rank of Eagle Scout. The author is outraged at the idea of stinky girls – girls – being allowed anywhere near Scouting. He rages against “inclusion” and the end of “manhood” and points out how “[i]t is important for boys and young men to grow together free from the distraction of girls.”

It is important for boys and men to grow together free from the distraction of girls.

It’s important.

For boys and men.

To grow together.

Free from the distraction of girls.

The article doesn’t bother to explain why it’s important for boys and men to grow together. In the woods. Alone. Though he does point out the danger of putting girls – girls – into the same situation:

I have to wonder why any parent would want their young teenage girls camping in the woods with young teenage boys?

(this is where I politely don’t provide links to literally thousands of Christian and Jewish church youth programs across America where boys and girls do exactly that)

The article ends with this:

This is what the Left does best:  target and destroy everything good in America.  They cannot compete with us on ideas, so they have to eliminate everything that makes us who we are.  If they were truly motivated to provide girls, homosexuals, and “transgenders,” with the same experiences Boy Scouts provides, then they would form their own youth organization.  But it isn’t really about that, is it? [sic]

So, is that it?

Are those Judeo-Christian values? Exclusion? Bigotry? Segregation of the sexes? So that boys and men might grow together, free from the “distraction” of stinky girls? Alone. In the woods.

Well, is it?

But why then call it Judeo-Christian? Why not call it Islamic-Judeo-Christian values, given that devout Muslim fundamentalists forbid mixing of the sexes.

Separation of the sexes isn’t a Judeo-Christian value you say?

Well then what is?

A guy named Michael Imhof wrote a letter to the editor of Madison Country Herald Bulletin, in Anderson City, Illinois.

It’s time to eliminate the Democratic Party. This is no longer the Democratic Party of the John F. Kennedy era. The Democratic Party has transitioned into the Marxist and Socialist Party of America.

Because apparently in this American’s mind, freedom is when the government dictates what political parties you can have. Because that’s totally not Marxist at all.

But here I am, digressing. Again.

Mr. Imhof spends a couple of paragraphs describing how everybody who isn’t just like him must certainly be an un-American commie socialist and then he gets to this:

The Democratic Party doesn’t care about the Judeo-Christian values of America, nor the Constitution. They’re the party of globalism, and they’re anti-American, anti-sovereignty. They use people and causes to promote the godless agenda of the global elitists.

There it is again. Judeo-Christian values of America.

Judeo-Christian values.

Undefined.

Unexplained.

The author just assumes we all know what he means.

Because, of course, we are all Judeo-Christians in America, are we not?

Imhof spends another paragraph describing how all liberals obviously must love Lenin, and then fetches up here:

Vote the Democrats and Republican In Name Only (RINO) Republicans out of office. Vote for candidates with tea party and Judeo-Christian values.

Tea Party and Judeo-Christian values.

Which would seem to indicate that in Imhof’s mind, those values are the same.

The Tea Party. Taxed enough already. I’ll keep my freedom, my money, and my guns, and you can keep the change. That Tea Party?

Is that it? Are those Judeo-Christian values? Isolationism? America first? Sovereignty? Teabagging for Jesus? Money and guns?

No?

Are you sure?

A few weeks ago, former White House hobo Steve Bannon went to Alabama to speak at a rally for Roy Moore – Alabama’s openly racist, homophobic, Christian-nationalist former Chief Justice. Moore was running for the Senate against Donald Trump favorite Luther Strange.

Moore has somewhat interesting interpretation of the First Amendment.

You have to understand it was the duty of the government under the First Amendment…to foster religion and foster Christianity

That’s what Moore told Vox reporter Jeff Stein in August of last year.

The First Amendment makes it the duty of the government to foster religion and specifically Christianity.

Got that?

I know. I know. You thought the First Amendment meant pretty much exactly the opposite. That’s why you’re not a judge in Alabama.

There’s more.

There’s so much more.

Roy Moore: There are communities under Sharia law right now in our country. Up in Illinois. Christian communities; I don’t know if they may be Muslim communities. But Sharia law is a little different from American law. It is founded on religious concepts.

Jeff Stein: Which American communities are under Sharia law? When did they fall under Sharia law?

Moore: Well, there’s Sharia law, as I understand it, in Illinois, Indiana — up there. I don't know.

Stein: That seems like an amazing claim for a Senate candidate to make.

Moore: Well, let me just put it this way — if they are, they are; if they’re not, they’re not. That doesn’t matter. Oklahoma tried passing a law restricting Sharia law, and it failed. Do you know about that?

No. No. Don’t roll your eyes, that’s not even close to the best part of Moore’s interview. Not even close. But I don’t want to spoil it for you. You can read the whole thing here – and remember, this guy was Alabama’s chief justice and he’s probably going to be one of the state’s senators when Alabamians go to the polls this December.

Moore was the leading voice of birtherism, he is rabidly homophobic and anti-Muslim, and he spends a lot of his time hanging out with neo-Confederates – you know, people who actually and openly hate America and parade about under the flag of America’s enemies.  Moore’s fanatical religious ideology has prompted his critics to nickname him the “Ayatollah of Alabama.” And despite the fact that Moore’s repeated claim of communities living under Islamic Law in the United States has been repeatedly and soundly debunked (and Moore himself can produce no evidence whatsoever and essentially admits he doesn’t really know or care), he continues to push this falsehood.

So, I suppose it was unsurprising when Steve Bannon showed up in Alabama to stump for Roy Moore. 

Judge Moore knows the Ten Commandments is the basis for the Judeo-Christian West. Judge Moore is a good man, he’s a courageous man, and more importantly he’s a righteous man.

And there it is again.

The Judeo-Christian West.

Judeo-Christian. Undefined. Unexplained. Except for some vague reference to the Christian’s Ten Commandments (which are apparently the solution to pretty much everything).  

Steve Bannon just assumes everybody in the crowd knew what he meant.

And from the cheering, everybody in the crowd assumed that they did know what he meant and their definition and list of Judeo-Christian values was exactly the same as Roy Moore’s, Steve Bannon’s, and everybody else in the crowd. But, well, look at who was up on that stage. Are those Judeo-Christian values? Knowingly pushing falsehoods and conspiracy theories? Bigotry? Intolerance? Xenophobia? I mean, don’t take my word for it, look up Roy Moore for yourself (and Steve Bannon while you’re at it) and tell me which part of his career embodies Judeo-Christian values. Tell me what those are. Hell, it’s Alabama, maybe everybody in the crowd was on the same sheet of music. Maybe those are the values of Judeo-Christianity.

No?

But are you sure?

How do you know and can you prove it?

No?

Well, what then?

What are Judeo-Christian values?

Donald Trump seems to know:

We are stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values. They don't use the word Christmas because it is not politically correct. We're saying Merry Christmas again.

Is that it? Is that one of them? A Judeo-Christian value is saying Merry Christmas?

Jews for Christmas?

Really? I admit to being a little fuzzy on the finer points of Judaism, but I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works.

But, there it is. Judeo-Christian values again. That’s what the president said.

Undefined.

Unexplained.

And the crowd once again cheered.

I mean, we’re just supposed to know. Right?

That is the inherent assumption whenever this term appears. Otherwise, they’d explain what they meant. Trump was speaking to the Value Voters Summit, a convention of hardcore religious nuts hosted by the Family Research Council. They define all kinds of things from traditional marriage to what constitutes “life” to what makes a real American. But they don’t bother to define Judeo-Christian values before people like Trump take the stage. And they don’t ask people like Trump to define it either.

And that – that right there – tells you something important.

We’re all supposed to know.

How about this?

Dr. Richard Lee, who according to his bio, is the Founding Pastor of the Atlanta, Georgia, First Redeemer Church. He is also the Editor of The American Patriot’s Bible:

THE ONE BIBLE THAT SHOWS HOW ‘A LIGHT FROM ABOVE’ SHAPED OUR NATION. Never has a version of the Bible targeted the spiritual needs of those who love our country more than The American Patriot’s Bible. This extremely unique Bible shows how the history of the United States connects the people and events of the Bible to our lives in a modern world. The story of the United States is wonderfully woven into the teachings of the Bible and includes a beautiful full-color family record section, memorable images from our nation’s history and hundreds of enlightening articles which complement the historic King James Version Bible text. 

Lee also authored God’s Promise to the American Patriot and The Coming Revolution, among other works.

So you figure, if anybody can describe Judeo-Christian values in detail, it’s got to be the guy who edited the Bible and slapped an American flag on it.

Right?

Right.

Lee says there are in fact seven Judeo-Christian values, or principles. To wit:

Principle #1: The Dignity Of Human Life

Lee cites Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder” and Matthew 22:39 "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Oddly, he doesn’t reference Jewish text anywhere – and looking back I likewise see only a reference to the King James Bible in his book blurb. That seems an odd omission right out of the gate, Judeo-Christian values wise, I mean. But hey, I’m sure he’ll get to it. Eventually.

So, dignity of human life. No murder. Love your neighbor. Sounds reasonable. I mean it does, doesn’t it? Respect human life. Not really exclusive to just Jews and Christians though, is it? And I bet you can guess where he goes with it, can’t you?

Can’t you?

See, that bit about “murder,” that’s the kicker. That’s the weasel word. Thou shalt not murder, not kill, murder. Words matter. Language matters.

Abortion, of course, that’s what we’re talking about here. Murder, you know, that’s what guys like Lee call abortion. Murder. We’re good with other kinds of killing, war, the death penalty, letting people starve to death, so long as there’s no abortion.

And respect for the dignity of human life? The dignity of human life forsooth, well, that only goes so far.

As you will see.

Principle #2 - The Traditional Family

Again, a Christian reference: Genesis 2:21-24 "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place.  Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.  And Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."  Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

Lee says “The biblical view of marriage and family is the basis of our society and serves as the backbone of a healthy social order.”

So, the biblical view of marriage as defined by Genesis 2:21. Got it.

• God creates Adam artificially from non-living ingredients, i.e. mud. Essentially life in a lab.
• Then God makes Eve by taking a biological sample from Adam and genetically engineering it to produce a cross-sex clone (see the reference: bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh, taken out of a male, transformed into female. God could have created a completely new person from scratch, but he didn’t. Pretty clear what we’re talking about here).
• Adam then marries what is for all practical purposes his fraternal twin.
• Adam and Eve then proceed to break the law, become felons, and are exiled from civilization for their crimes.
• While on the run, they produce two sons – presumably without the assistance of artificial laboratory aids.
• At which point one of the sons murders the other – which may or may not have something to do with the fact that their parents were, genetically speaking, brother and sister.
• A few generations later, the world is populated with Adam and Eve’s descendants, which God wipes out because they are all insane murderers, rapists, drunkards, and deviants. And you’d think God would have seen this coming given the limited gene pool.

I gotta be honest with you, maybe this isn’t the best example.

Lee goes on to say, “Since the joining together of Adam and Eve, marriage has been defined as a holy union between one man and one woman.” Except, the very reference Lee uses, i.e. the Christian Bible, provides numerous examples of marriages that are not just one man and one woman.

Numerous.

Principle #3 - A National Work Ethic

Another reference to the Christian bible: 2 Thessalonians 3:10 "For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat."

We didn’t even make it two values past “Dignity for Human Life” before we got to the part about why poor people should starve.

Also, how is a national ethic a personal Judeo-Christian value?

I’m going to speed this up and give you the last four without commentary.

Principle #4 - The Right To A God-Centered Education

Principle # 5- The Abrahamic Covenant

Principle #6 - Common Decency

Principle #7- Our Personal Accountability To God

You can read the whole thing for yourself here at Sermon Central. Again, note that Jewish text isn’t referenced – though I suppose Lee would weasel out by suggesting his Old Testament references apply. Still, seems that if you’re going to use the term Judeo-Christian, Jews should maybe get equal time. Just saying.

Well?

What do you think. Are those Judeo-Christian values?

Are those the Judeo-Christian values?

I suspect many people in Trump’s audience last Friday would agree that they are – even if they couldn’t name them off the cuff.

But … they can’t be.

Words matter. Language matters. Context matters.

“We are stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values”

Which of those values are under attack?

For those to be the values Trump was talking about, they’d have to be under attack. By definition. That’s what the man said. That’s what they all said.

So, show me a single Jew or Christian in America who was prevented from respecting the dignity of human life.

Go on. Do it. I’ll wait.

Show me any Jew or any Christian who was denied a traditional marriage license.

Show me any Jew, any Christian, who was prevented from working hard or was prevented from attending the religious school of their choice.

Show me a single Jew, a single Christian, who was prevented in any way from adhering to some supposed contract with their deity – a covenant, I note, that was specifically between the Jews and their God and nobody else, an agreement that Christians are apparently attempting to horn in on.

Show me a single Jew, a single Christian, who was attacked for Common Decency, right after you explain why one group of Christians gets to define what “common decency” means for all of us.

As to that last one, your personal accountability to your god, I would love to see Donald Trump explain how exactly anybody would go about waging an attack on that.

None of these values apply to the other examples either – though I admit to a chuckle at the thought of Lee attempting to explain to my Boy Scout troop how Adam married his Sister (I learned to drink and swear in the Boy Scouts, skills that served me well in the Navy. We would have gotten a good laugh at Adam’s expense. Alone. In the woods. Far from the distraction of girls). 

I’m afraid I don’t buy it, even if Dr Lee did write his own bible.

No. After weeks of research, I don’t have any idea what those values are.

And I bet you don’t either.

So, I asked.

A quarter of a million people follow me every day across various social media platforms. Jews. Christians in various and assorted flavors. Muslims. Non-believers. Sort of believers. Atheists. Some that don’t fit well into any category. So, I asked. What are Judeo-Christian Values? What are they? Give me a list. It doesn’t even have to be exhaustive, just give me the top three.

Now, you’d think that a quarter of a million people could come up with something.

Three Judeo-Christian values. That’s all I’m asking.

Far and away the most common answer was: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I got hundreds, thousands, of responses that said that. That’s THE Judeo-Christian value.

That one, right there.

The Golden Rule.

Apologies, but I can’t accept that.

Treating people decently is hardly a uniquely Judeo-Christian value and …

You again? What is it this time?

Oh, I see, you’re upset by the qualifier “unique.”

You feel that’s unfair. You think I should have specified that up front.

I did.

And I mentioned it up above, you should have seen it coming.

Language matters. Precision of language matters. Context matters. Judeo-Christian values. It’s right there in the label. And that specific label matters.

See, if we were just talking about values, human values, universal values, those values defined and enumerated by Schwartz up above, well, then you would have no need for the qualifier. Would you?

But there it is: Judeo-Christian values.

That’s what those examples up above were talking about.

President Donald Trump vowed to end leftist attacks on Christian values that threatened the United States

The Boy Scouts of America stood for over a century on its strong foundation of Judeo-Christian values […] This is what the Left does best:  target and destroy everything good in America […] they have to eliminate everything that makes us who we are.

The Democratic Party doesn’t care about the Judeo-Christian values of America, nor the Constitution. They’re the party of globalism, and they’re anti-American, anti-sovereignty. They use people and causes to promote the godless agenda of the global elitists.

…The Ten Commandments [are] the basis for the Judeo-Christian West.

We are stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values. They don't use the word Christmas because it is not politically correct. We're saying Merry Christmas again.

Seven Principles of the Judeo-Christian Ethic

They were quite specific about it. Go back and look, follow the links, read those words in context. Look for your own examples. The people who use that term, Judeo-Christian, use it to highlight that those values are special, unique, and specifically foundational to the United States itself. This is clear from the context.

Just as those same people and media outlets define “American values” as uniquely American and by definition not something you’d find in any other country.

That’s what “exceptional” means.

And we are exceptional, America, are we not?

If these were universal values, human values, we wouldn’t have to caveat it.

This term, Judeo-Christian values is used purposely by conservatives to identify values specific to their religious and their political ideology.

But more importantly the term Judeo-Christian directly and deliberately excludes all other political and religious beliefs – and this is the point where I remind you that the people who use this term are also the people who daily denounce multiculturalism and diversity, racial mixing, cultural dilution, and often going so far as to insist that everybody speak the same language. So, by definition, by context, by omission, when these people say Judeo-Christian values, they mean values that are exclusive to their ideology and that specifically exclude all others – which is why you don’t see these values labelled Judeo-Christian-Islamic values, or even just referred as American values, or human values.

The exclusion is on purpose.

So, when I asked the question, I set specific limits on the answers. Because when you say that your values are unique – and moreover, that uniqueness specifically makes you better, exceptional, correct, righteous – but when asked to describe that uniqueness, you proceed instead to describe the same values that can be found universally and that are not in any way exclusive to your political party or religion or nation, well, then you’re full of shit.

So if you insist on using the term “Judeo-Christian” to identify your values as superior to others, then I will require you to show your work.

And so I set limits on the question.

• The value must be uniquely Judeo-Christian, it cannot be common to any other value system, secular or non-secular
• The value, whatever it is, must be common to both Jewish and Christian belief systems, i.e. it must be Judeo-Christian.
• Be specific. Show your work. Don't make vague hand-waving pronouncements.

And out of a thousand answers, from Christians, from Jews, Muslims, atheists, agonistics, from Rabbis, from Preachers and Shit Shakers and Holy Rollers, I got … nothing.

No definitive answer, not even a vague answer.

I got bible quotes and guesses and a lot of sarcasm and a bunch of hand waving. I got links to Wikipedia articles – an article, I’m at pains to point out, which does not in any way provide any kind of definitive list of Judeo-Christian values.

I would like to note that I got a polite and reasoned discussion among thousands of people on my various Facebook pages, which is either a testament to the personal values of those particular people or a testament to my screening criteria. Maybe both.

But for a list of values that we’re all just supposed to know, that we all assume everybody else knows, that our leaders insist are the very basis of our country, well, there’s absolutely no consensus at all.

None.

Many responders threw their hands up in the air and said given the limits I placed on the question, an answer was impossible. Some of them got angry about it. One person left the Stonekettle Station Facebook Group in outrage, thinking that I was mocking her religious beliefs because she could not answer the question as asked.

But…

Words matter.

Definitions matter.

Concepts matter.

Precision matters.

Because that language, the words we use, defines how we see the world around us. How we relate to each other. Words can build a society, or tear a civilization apart. Language is information. And information used as a weapon can bring a dictator to power, topple governments, start wars (or end them), or shape the worldview of a nation.

When the president of the United States tells Americans that their values – their Judeo-Christian values – are under attack, it matters.

The limits matter. Because these are the conditions set by those who would use their values as a weapon. As a club. As a flail. As a cudgel to beat the rest of us about the head and shoulders.

These are the conditions set by those who would claim that their values are exceptional and thus should be the values of the nation and us all. By force, if necessary -- even if they themselves are unable to detail exactly what those values actually are. 

These are the limits set by those who would use some imagined martyrdom to justify theocracy and fascism and to put their boot on our throats.

And so I asked.

But the answer, given the limitations placed on the definition by those who use the term, is impossible.

And that – that right there – was the point.

One thing I didn't understand in life was that I had $100,000,000 in the bank and I couldn't buy happiness. I had everything: mansions, yachts, Ferraris, Lamborghinis, but I was depressed. I didn't know where I fitted in. But then I found family and friends and I learned the value of life.
-- Vanilla Ice

Dear Christians: A Modest Proposal

 

It’s a curious thing, isn’t it?

It’s a curious thing that when religious people create a law granting themselves “religious freedom” somehow the rest of us end up with less freedom.

I said as much on Twitter:

The responses were … instructive.

Here’s a couple from one random internet denizen:

Everybody got that? Christians don’t pass laws. Politicians do. 

In America, Christians don’t pass religious laws, it’s the politicians, see? And it’s totally coincidental that the laws in question were written and passed entirely by Christians despite protests and pushback from non-Christians (and many, many non-fanatical Christians too, to be entirely fair).

Earl, who as it turns out is Canadian, went on to helpfully explain how “Laws on morality do not tend to come from the religious.”

Laws on morality don’t come from the religious.

Laws. On Morality. Don’t come from the religious.

Heh heh.

Sure they don’t, Earl. Suuuuure they don’t.

That’s why so many atheists propose morality laws everyday here in America, right?

That’s why the religious spend so much time explaining to the non-religious why there can’t be any morality without a deity in the sky to punish the wicked for doing bad things. Right?

Earl, it seems, lives in the Canadian province of Denial.

I’ve got a pile here of outraged email and direct messages in response to that tweet. Others agreed with Earl’s premise.  Christians, they tell me, are being discriminated against in the United States. Christian values and beliefs are under attack from every quarter. Christians are being persecuted in record numbers, just like in ancient Rome, just like in those Islamic countries we hear so much about.

And so these new laws are simply there to protect religious freedom – for everybody, of course, not just the majority religion who already owns nearly every holiday and tradition and political office in America, tax free.

It’s just a coincidence that the sponsors of Religious Freedom Restoration bills happen to be Christian.

It’s just a coincidence that laws are written and passed by people who believe they must protect Christian beliefs and promote the Christian version of morality and who loudly declare the United States a Christian nation based on Christian values.

It’s just a coincidence that Christian fundamentalists came up with Indiana’s new Religious Freedom bill – and Arizona’s Religious Freedom Bill, and eighteen other states with similar religious “freedom” laws. Not to mention the federal law. It’s just a coincidence that those bills had no non-Christian sponsors.

It’s just a coincidence that it was a Christian Arizona state legislator who declared church attendance should be mandatory for every American. Not for religious reasons, of course, oh no. For moral reasons. It’s just a coincidence that she didn’t say Mosque attendance should be mandatory, or Temple attendance, or Pagan Druid Ceremonies, or a non-religious class on ethics and morality. No. Just a coincidence. An oversight. Her evangelical Christian beliefs had nothing to do with her statement that every single American be forced to attend Christian church for moral reasons. 

It’s just a coincidence that the overwhelming majority of those who attempt to limit reproductive freedom and end of life choices are fanatical Christian fundamentalists.

It’s just a coincidence that those currently demanding America go to war with Muslim Iran are, yep, again outspoken Christians hoping to bring about the prophesied Holy Land apocalypse of their Christian bible. Totally coincidental.

And, of course, it’s purely a coincidence that a proposed ballot initiative currently before the California Attorney General, the so-called “Sodomite Suppression Act” was brought by a vehemently evangelical Christian.

 

I’ll say this, at least that last one, the California Sodomite Suppression Act is honest.

 

At least the proposed law doesn’t whore itself up with bullshit lies about “equal rights” and non-discrimination like the recently passed religious law in Indiana.

The proposed California law makes no bones about it.

It hates gay people and wants them dead.

Right up front the proposed Sodomite Suppression Act says that the Christian God hates gay people and non-Christians, and all true Christians should be allowed to murder anybody not of their faith on sight. Bang, bullet to the head.

 

In California, anybody can propose a ballot initiative.

If they pay the requisite fee of $200 and submit the proper form, the state Attorney General is required to create an introductory description and allow a ballot petition to be circulated. 

Now, it seems highly unlikely that the initiative’s sponsor, lawyer and Christian conservative Matthew G. McLaughlin, will be able to collect the required 365,880 signatures needed to get the Sodomite Suppression Act on the ballot.

And even if McLaughlin does get the signatures, it’s highly unlikely that California voters would pass the act into law.

And even if they did, it would be unconstitutional. Obviously so. And would be immediately thrown out by a judge – without the necessity of going all the way to the Supreme Court at either the state or federal levels.

A lot of people are outraged that it’s possible for such a bill to become law, no matter how unlikely. They want the Attorney General to find a way to stop it before it can become a petition.

You know what I think?

I think this is as good of place as any to get this hate right out into the open.

I think it’s about time to drag this festering murderous Christian bigotry out of the dark kicking and screaming and spastically clutching its little plastic Jesus, drag it out into the light where we can all see the ugly hunchback pinheaded slobbering monster clearly for what it is.

Go on, get it out in front of the voters.

But – but – instead of the Sodomite Suppression Act, let’s call it The Mandatory Christian Compliance Act.

No more cherry picking Leviticus for Christians.

From now on, for those who identify as Christian fundamentalists, if you insist that the rest of us comply with your religious ideas, if you’re going to demand the right to kill Sodomites as your God commanded, then you have to comply with all of His law, all of it, to the letter, not just the part you like.

Since the primary Christian objections to homosexuality come from the Book of Leviticus, let’s just us see what other requirements that part of the Bible levies on Christians, shall we?

1.       Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)

That’s right, Christians are prohibited from burning honey or anything with yeast in it when they make offerings to God.

Better keep a close eye on those sacramental hosts when they’re in the oven.  Hate to piss off God by burning the holy bread. Of course it’s unleavened, but are you sure, really sure, there’s not a single cell of yeast in there? That stuff, wild yeast, floats around all over the place. That’s where natural sourdough comes from, you know. I’m just saying, you sure? Really sure?

It’s probably not something the average Christian has to worry about, but then again it’s number one on the list and you’d hate to see an entire church damned to hell for a contaminated batch. 

The bible doesn’t give a specific punishment for this transgression, just the standard penalty you get when you make God mad.

Now since the Sodomite Suppression Act updates the killing of Sodomites with the use of modern secular tools (i.e. guns and bullets), and specifically cites the California Penal Code, I think it’s both fair and keeping within the spirit of the original proposal to use California’s sentencing guidelines for those Christians who violate their own holy law. $1000 or 30 days in jail, suspended if nobody gets hurt, should do it for the first offense.

2.       Failing to include salt in offerings to God(2:13)

I’ve been in a lot of churches, never seen any salt in the sanctuary.

Same deal, you offer up prayers to God and forget the salt, $1000 fine or 30 days in jail. For the first offense.

You know, I bet you could make a killing in the Holy Salt Shaker market once this law goes into effect.

3.       No eating fat (3:17)

According to the Bible, this one is “a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live.”

By God’s law, all fat is to be saved for offerings to God. All fat. All.

Any Christian who eats fat of any kind, but particularly that from “clean” animals, is in violation of the law. And any Christian who fails to offer up fat to God is in violation of the law.

$1000 fine or 30 days in jail. This is big one though, God loves his bacon after all. In accordance with California sentencing guidelines, the second offense gets you a $10,000 fine or a year in jail.  You don’t even want to talk about three strikes and you’re out. Seriously.

Between this and the following items, you’d better stick to salads, Christians – no oil & vinegar dressing either.

4.       No eating blood (3:17)

No traditional English breakfast for Christians. No black pudding or blood sausages.  No Scandinavian pancakes. No French coq au vin or pressed duck. 

I don’t suppose this will be a real hardship, but a lot of Christians are going to miss those rare steaks. 

5.       Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve witnessed (5:1)

Ah, now we’re talking felonies.

Leviticus says that those who fail to testify against ANY wrongdoing, any, “They will be held responsible” for the wrongdoing itself.

Any wrongdoing, no matter how great or small. Any violation of the law. Any transgression. Any bending of the rules in any fashion, and if you don’t speak up, Christians, then you’re just as guilty as the person who committed the crime.

Standard sentencing guidelines apply, you could find yourself facing a minor $65 fine or the electric chair. 

Better step up. Seriously.

6.       Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1)

Under secular law that would be hearsay, but under God’s law, you’d better report any alleged violation you hear about, no matter how small. 

God holds you to account for hearsay same as He does for witnessing actual crimes, i.e. “they shall be held responsible.”

7.       No touching an unclean animal (5:2)

No dogs. No pigs. No snakes. No shellfish. No crustaceans. No touching. This isn’t about eating unclean animals, we’ll get to that in a minute. This is about touching them.

Pet a dog? $1000 fine or 30 days in jail. 

8.       Carelessly making an oath (5:4)

Any Christian who “carelessly” makes an oath, even if they have their fingers crossed behind their backs, even if they don’t realize they’re doing it, is in violation of God’s law. $1000 fine or 30 days in jail.

Boy, if I was a Christian, I’d be very, very careful about clicking “Agree” on any software update.

Especially from Microsoft. 

That shit could get expensive really fast.

9.       Deceiving a neighbor about something trusted to them (6:2)

God says that if you borrow something from your neighbor and you lie about it, you have to return the item and pay them 20% of the item’s value PLUS the usual penalty of $1000 fine or 30 days in jail.

10.   Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3) 

God is not real big on finders-keepers. Any Christian who comes across something somebody else has lost and tries to keep it, is required to return the item to the person who lost it, pay them 20% of item’s value, and be assigned the normal penalty of $1000 fine or 30 days in jail.

11.   Bringing unauthorized fire before God (10:1)

This for some reason is a biggie.

If a Christian starts an unauthorized fire, God is supposed to smite him. However, just like the gay thing, since God generally doesn’t go around smiting people who violate Leviticus these days, it’s up to us. So, any Christian starting an “unauthorized fire” should be shot in the head as specified by the Sodomite Suppression Act.

If I was a California Christian, especially in SOCAL, I’d be damned scared, damned scared, come fire season. Shit’s already crazy enough without summary executions.

12.   Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)

God’s law is pretty specific about this: Messy hair? You will die and God will be mad at everybody.

Now, depending on which version of the bible you read, this law might only apply to the priesthood. But better safe than sorry I say. Any Christian with unkempt hair? Bang! Right in the forehead. Get them before God gets us – just like it says in the Sodomite Suppression Act.

13.   Tearing your clothes (10:6)

Again, you’ll die and God will be mad at everybody. You know what to do if a Christian rips his pants.

And remember, it’s the law.

14.   Drinking alcohol in holy places (10:9)

Guess what? “You will die.”

Looks like open season on Catholics and Baptists, eh?

15.   Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (11:8)

16.   Touching the carcass of any of the above (11:8)

17.   Eating or touching the carcass of any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12)

18.   Eating or touching the carcass of the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19) 

What the hell is a hoopoe?

19.   Eating or touching the carcass of flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22)

By the time you figure out what kind of legs the damned thing has, it’s probably too late.

20.   Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (11:27)  

21.   Eating or touching the carcass of the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard,the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29)

22.   Eating or touching the carcass of any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42)

God really doesn’t like you touching his stuff.

No eating pigs, rabbits, and the bible specifically mentions camels – though I don’t know how common camel BBQ is in California. Nevertheless, don’t do it, or you will be “unclean” yourself.

No eating or touching birds, bugs, lizards, or dead cats.

The bible’s not real clear on what the punishment for being unclean is, so the standard penalty applies, $1000 fine or 30 days in jail for each offense.

Also, note that part about no touching. Especially no touching pigs or pig parts. So, no more football. Nope. No football. Even if the ball is made from synthetics, it’s still called a pigskin. Do you really want to take a chance? With the guy who killed off every firstborn in Egypt and drowned the entire world. Really?

Besides, you’re supposed be praying all day on Sunday, not watching sports and drinking beer. Bad Christian, no salvation.

23.   Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)

Any woman who gives birth to a boy is unclean for a week, and then forbidden from attending church for thirty-three days.

THEN she has to offer up a sacrifice to God.

Otherwise? It’s jail time!

24.   Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5) 

Giving birth to girl is worse. Unclean for a week and forbidden from attending Church for sixty-six days. Then sacrifice and don’t forget the fat and salt, because the cops will be checking.  

25.   Having sex with your mother (18:7)

Now, if it were me, I’d say that the act itself was punishment enough, but God says that if a Christian has sex with his mom, he’s to be “cut off from his people.”

So, I’m guessing that’s either solitary confinement or exile to Alabama.

26.   Having sex with your father’s wife (18:8)

Yeah, that’s a big no no. Plus, Dude, really? Anyway, both are to be put to death.

27.   Having sex with your sister (18:9)

Good news, God says that if you have sex with your sister, you get the choice of marrying her or being put to death.

The bad news is that if you marry her, you’re both to “be removed from your people” and sent to West Virginia.

28.   Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)

29.   Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)

Standard penalty applies, solitary confinement and major fines.

30.   Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13)

This is big deal for Christians. Leviticus mentions it twice.  Standard penalty, solitary and fines, plus in Leviticus 20:19 God specifies that the offender will be held responsible for the dishonor. I’m not real clear on what that means, but we’d better just shoot him.

31.   Having sex with your uncle’s wife (18:14)

32.   Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15)

What are you? Woody Allen?

33.   Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)

34.   Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (18:17)

Okay, even Jesus would call you Bro for this one. You did the mother and the daughter and the granddaughter? Hallelujah, Duuuuude! Ever thought about going into the priesthood, you’re a natural! 

35.   Marrying your wife’s sister while your wife still lives (18:18)

Somehow I doubt you’ll live long enough for God to punish you for this one.

Also, Jesus, man. Are you crazy?

36.   Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19)

Hey, I hear it helps with the cramps.

37.   Having sex with your neighbour’s wife (18:20)

Basically, if you’re a Christian and you’re having sex of any kind in any position at any time with anybody, ever, you’re screwed. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

38.   Giving your children to be sacrificed to Moloch (18:21)

Is this a thing? Does this happen nowadays? I mean do we really need a law?

And honestly, was this even a thing back in Biblical times?

It was? 

Moloch sacrifice. Well, then.

Okay, Christians, anybody caught sacrificing your kids to Moloch will be shot in the head. Other people’s kids? That’s okay.

39.   Having sex with a man “as one does with a woman” (18:22)

Ah, finally!

Wait, thirty-nine?

Gay sex is thirty-nine?  

Gay sex is wedged in between Moloch and making metal gods?

What. The. Fuck?

Thirty-ninth? Thirty-ninth? Gay sex didn’t even make the Ten Commandments. And in Leviticus it’s thirty-nine? Thirty-nine?

Don’t eat Bald Eagles is more important than don’t have gay sex.

Don’t touch bugs with bendy legs is more important than don’t have gay sex. 

No Messy Hair is more important than don’t have gay sex – seriously, go look at your bible. It’s right there. The fact that you own a fucking comb is more important to God than not having gay sex.

I’m just saying here!

Hey, don’t get pissy with me. This is your goofy stone-age religion, not mine. Always carry a comb! Come on. 

40.   Having sex with an animal (18:23)

You have to shoot them both.

Good thing this is California and not Texas. We’d need a lot more bullets.

41.   Making idols or “metal gods” (19:4)

Is anybody else picturing 50 foot tall Robo-Jesus shooting laser bolts from glowing red eyes or is it just me?

We told you not to make a metal god! Now look what you’ve done! No! Spare us, Robo-Jesus! Zap! Zap! Aaaaagh!

It’s just me, isn’t it?

42.   Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9)

Leviticus is pretty specific about this. Christian farmers are to leave the outer edges of their crops as a gift to the poor.

Avocados. Oranges. Grapes (see item number 43). Nuts. Soybeans. Cabbages. Doesn’t matter. You leave the outer rows for the poor.

I’m curious why you don’t see more Christians demanding this. Seems like it would go a lot further towards Jesus’s command to feed the hungry than shooting gay people would – but then I’m not a Christian so what do I know? I’m rooting for Robo-Jesus.

43.   Picking up grapes that have fallen in your  vineyard (19:10)

God says that any grapes that fall in your vineyard are to be given to the poor. He was quite specific about it.

There’s a lot of vineyards in California, aren’t there? And there’s a lot of poor people.

So how come there are raisins?

Nobody ever asks the Pope these questions and you’d really think they would, wouldn’t you?

But again, all things being equal in God’s eyes, He’d probably rather you were out shooting gay people instead of feeding the poor.

44.   Stealing (19:11)

45.   Lying (19:11) 

46.   Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12) 

47.   Defrauding your neighbor (19:13) 

48.   Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (19:13)

God obviously doesn’t understand how Capitalism works. Which is kind of weird, given how much he loves America and all.

49.   Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14)

50.   Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15)

Uh oh.

51.   Spreading slander (19:16) 

Bad news for Birthers, Truthers, and Fox.

52.   Doing anything to endanger a neighbor's life (19:16) 

53.   Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18) 

Boy, good thing Christians don’t bear grudges.  God hates that, which is why he’s been mad at the entire human race because some naked chick helped herself to an apple 10,000 years ago.

But I digress.

54.   Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19)

55.   Cross-breeding animals (19:19) 

56.   Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19) 

Laws 44 through 56 don’t have specified punishments.  Gay sex, God saw fit to spell out the sentence for that. Because gay sex. But stealing, lying, fraud, perverting justice? Whatever. Use your best judgment. Community service.

57.   Sleeping with another man’s slave (19:20)

Christians have to offer up a ram in sacrifice.

What about California Governator Schwarzenegger? How come he didn’t burn a sheep on the front lawn of his mansion when his wife caught him screwing the help? Easy, he was sleeping with his own slave. It’s a technicality, but God’s totally good with it.

58.   Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23)

Don’t have this kind of sex. Don’t have that kind of sex. No screwing your mom. No sleeping with your sister. No banging your aunt or you uncle’s second cousin twice removed. No screwing somebody else’s slave or cows. No cheating. No lying.

Also? No fruit.

Anybody else get the feeling that this list is a little arbitrary?

59.   Practicing divination or seeking omens (19:26)

Hmmm. Leviticus mentions this three times.

It only mentions don’t be gay twice.

So, how about all all those Christians with TV shows and all those Christian preachers who keep prophesizing the end of the world? God’s wrath. Poison arrows and toads falling from the sky?

According to Leviticus, those Christians should be shot in the head immediately.

60.   No trimming your beard (19:27)

61.   No cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)

62.   No tattoos (19:28)

Clear rules. Pretty unambiguous. 

It’s gonna be hard to tell the fundamentalist Christians from the fundamentalist Muslims (and the Jews for that matter), but then it already is. They’ve got a hell of a lot more in common than they don’t – probably why they hate each.

Leviticus doesn’t specify a particular punishment for shaving, haircuts, or ink, so I guess we should just apply the standard $1000 fine or 30 days in jail for each offense.

63.   Making your daughter prostitute herself (19:29)

God says that if you make your daughter prostitute herself, the whole land will turn to prostitution.

Because apparently your daughter is just that goddamned good (But then, the preacher’s daughter usually is).

Seems like an odd punishment, doesn’t it?

What? You made your daughter into a prostitute? Okay, whores for everybody! That’ll teach you!

64.   Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31)

Doesn’t Nancy Reagan still live in California?

Get in the car, Nancy. You’re going to jail.

65.   Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)

When I get old, I’m going to spend my days wandering through churches making citizen’s arrests.  No, no, don’t get up … just kidding, you’re under arrest!

66.   Mistreating foreigners (19:33-34)

“the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born”   

Again, pretty specific. The foreigner residing among you MUST BE treated as your native-born.

Must be.

So, how come devout Christians aren’t flooding the California State Attorney General’s office with petitions to get the “Give Jose and Juan full native born citizenship right goddamned NOW” act?

Of course, I have the same question about the “Prostitutes For Everybody Act” too.

67.   Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36) 

68.   Cursing your father or mother (20:9)

This one is a big deal. It’s punishable by death.

Just like man sex.

Curse your mom, you might as well be gay. Creation Science don’t lie, Folks. Because lying would get you shot in the head. Think about it.

69.   No marrying a prostitute, divorcee or widow if you are a priest (21:7,13)

70.   Entering a place where there’s a dead body as a priest (21:11)

Kind of takes all the fun out of the clergy, doesn’t it?

Ah well, there’s always the money.

71.   Slaughtering a cow/sheep and its young on the same day (22:28)

72.   Working on the Sabbath (23:3)

73.   Blasphemy (24:14)

Another death sentence and just how certain are you really that your interpretation of the Bible is correct?

Are you willing to risk a bullet in the head? Summary execution by any random Christian on the street?

Are you really?

What if somebody shoots you down for blasphemy, but the crowd misunderstands and thinks you’re gay? Do they all go to hell for bearing false witness?

74.   Inflicting an injury; killing someone else’s animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22)

Wait, what?

If a Christian inflicts an injury, kills somebody else’s animal (even by accident), or kills a person – they must be punished in the same fashion.

So, if you kill a gay person for being gay, you must be killed the same way, then the guy who kills you must be killed, then that guy must be killed…

Okay, it’s just me, right?

75.   Selling land permanently (25:23)

Again, I don’t think God understands capitalism, but who am I to argue?

And finally, 76.   Selling an Israelite as a slave (25:42)

All the way down here at the bottom. Oh, um one other thing, uh, don’t sell any Israelites. That’s bad. Touching a squirrel is worse, sure, right up there with sucking a dick. But after that, well, you know. Also, you can sell anybody else into slavery, that’s cool. But no Israelites. Got it?

Quite the list, isn’t it?

And that’s just one book of the Bible.

How many Christians adhere to these rules?

How many?  

Tell you what, when Christians start living up to their own rules, under penalty of death, maybe they can tell the rest of us what to do.

Until then, their religion is free to take its version of Sharia law and go smite itself.

 

If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you. You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit.
- Leviticus 35:37

The Camel’s Nose

She was dead, of course, by any definition medical science had accepted for the last century. Someone had wired her to a robot doctor, probably during the final stages of the epidemic. It was capable of doing just about anything to keep a patient alive and was not programmed to understand brain death. That was a decision left to the human doctor, when he or she arrived. The doctor had never arrived. The doctor was dead and the thing that had been Charlie's mother lived on…
- John Varley, Tango Charlie and Foxtrot Romeo

 

And we circle back around to Texas.

Where religious fanaticism blows across the landscape like tumbleweeds.

And where personal freedom is prized above all things … well, unless it goes counter to the evangelical church, in which case your ass belongs to God and your liberty is decided at the hands of the priests.

A year ago, Marlise Muñoz suffered a fatal blood clot. She was fourteen weeks pregnant.

Her husband found her on their kitchen floor in the middle of the night. She was rushed to the hospital, but it was too late, she was clinically dead by every test medical science has – and by every test religion has, for that matter.

Her heart had stopped and Marlise Muñoz had been too long without oxygen, her brain had died.

Now, if you believe in science: it was a tragic and terrible accident.

Medical science progresses, someday if religion doesn’t shut down the research first, we will be able to see this sort of thing coming. Hopefully stop it before it happens. Maybe we’ll even be able to correct it after the fact. But for now, nothing could be done. She was dead.

However, if you believe in the vengeful evangelical God of the Old Testament, well, then the bitch had it coming. 

Maybe it was part of The Big Plan and she was destined to die along with her baby right from the day she herself was born. Why? Who knows? It’s not the lab rat’s place to ask why. Tough shit. Too bad, God’s will.  Or maybe she’d done something to offend Him. Isn’t that how it goes? Isn’t that what evangelicals threaten us with every single day? Better be good, better toe the line, Lab Rat, or else. Do something to offend God and Whamo! He’ll kill ya and cast you into the fiery Pit. Well, maybe that’s what happened. Hell, maybe the baby pissed God off, maybe it was gay or liberal or something and God took them both out as punishment for that sin.

What?

What’s that? Oh, I’m being offensive? I’m being disrespectful of your beliefs by making them sound just as fucking stupid as they are?

Hmmm. Interesting. You don’t get it both ways. Either you believe in the shit you’re shoveling or you don’t. This is your idiotic belief system, not mine, if you don’t like how it sounds when it’s dragged out into the light of day try to imagine how it sounds to me.  Maybe you ought to give some thought to this nonsense before you start threatening the rest of us with it.

And don’t try to pretend that’s not what your religion is saying, because it is, word for word.

Whatever happened, by design or accident, Marlise Muñoz was dead.

She was dead. 

Machines kept her body going in a macabre semblance of life, but she was dead. Her baby was dead. Dead.

She’d made her end of life wishes known, to her family, to her husband.

And so, they decided to let her go.

It never occurred to them that it was anybody’s decision to make but theirs.

Imagine then, their surprise and horror when in express defiance of the family's wishes, the hospital refused to pull the plug.

Hospital administrators, religious fanatics in a state run by religious fanatics, cited an obscure Texas law they claimed required them to keep the dead women on life support as a slowly rotting incubator for her unborn child – and no, I’m not being dramatic, she was dead, her body was literally rotting. The fetus was horribly damaged by lack of oxygen, non-viable, and to be "born" would require that the corpse of its mother be kept on mechanical maintenance for at least five months – again, while the woman's body literally rotted away.

No one, not even the demented Mengelesque "medical professionals" who were perpetuating this horror, believed that the fetus would live or be anything other than a grotesquely deformed curiosity.

This travesty became a huge public fight as the state government, lawyers, news agencies, pundits, priests, padres, shamans, Holy Joes, and the ignorant howling mob all intruded into the what should have been a private decision by the grief-stricken family.

I wrote about it here in Decisions and Regrets, in an essay that got me both a personal letter of thanks from one of my favorite and most admired authors and thousands of vitriolic threats and violence-filled message from fanatical religious lunatics who purport to be Christians but are in point of fact no different whatsoever from the intolerant Muslim extremists they revile and despise.

Eventually the court acknowledged reality over unhinged religious fanaticism and Eric Muñoz was allowed to, finally, unplug the corpse of his wife and unborn child.

 

Then he got to bury his family among the vile and disgusting taunts of so-called Christians who branded him “baby killer” and “murderer” and informed him that they were assigning him a special place in their religion’s hell.

 

It’s been a year now.

But the religious fanatics just can’t let it go. 

I guess that’s what makes them fanatics, no different in spirit from those currently lopping off heads in the Middle East.

Hundreds, thousands, of children have died in the year since Erick Muñoz buried his family.

They’ve died from hunger and from neglect and from poverty and from violence and from abuse and from a lack of medical care.

Nearly every single one of them could have been saved.

But they weren’t.

They weren’t because the very same people who fought to keep a corpse on life support in order to appease their small and vengeful deity do not give a good goddamn about those children.

They could have saved them, they could have fed them, and clothed them, and healed them, as their God commanded them to do, but they didn’t. They refused and stubbornly turned their eyes away.

They’ve passed no laws to save those lives.

And in point of fact, they have worked tirelessly to dismantle what little protections those children currently have, they call it government overreach and socialism and ungodly and they turn children back at the border because they have the wrong color skin and speak the wrong language.  Think about that, no really think about that: these people demand that a corpse be kept on maintenance for five months as an incubator, and they demand it in the name of their god and for the supposed sanctity of life. But real live living children? They are turned back from the border every single day by the very same people.

Apparently, their miserable god has no time for the poor and the hungry and the sick.

Their god has no love for children already born.

But oh how He loves the unborn – even the ones He left inside a rotten corpse as part of His big mysterious plan.

So now, instead of saving the millions of children they can, ones whose parents would enthusiastically welcome their help, the fanatics have proposed a new law in Texas.

They want to assign government lawyers to represent a fetus.

 

I’ll pause for a moment while you contemplate the staggering hypocrisy of people who demand freedom from government intrusion into their own lives, and demand it at the muzzle of a gun no less, who are now promoting a law to literally force government lawyers into a woman’s uterus.

 

Texas State Representative  Matt Krause (R, Of course) has proposed a law that would require the state to assign a lawyer to represent the fetus in cases where the mother is clinically dead and being kept "alive" via life-support.

“You’ll hear what the family wants, and you’ll also give the pre-born child a chance to have a voice in court at that same time,” Krause told the Dallas Morning News.

You’ll hear what the family wants – and then you can just completely dismiss that, because in Krause’s world the family’s wishes are irrelevant. 

Krause doesn’t care what the family wants. Religious fanatics care only about their own selfish beliefs and they are perfectly willing to force your compliance with their religion, at gunpoint if necessary. Just like any Ayatollah.

You’ll hear what the family wants – this from one of the very people who thinks that the person legally responsible, the father, the husband, is less qualified to determine the wishes and needs of his own loved ones than a state assigned lawyer with a religious agenda.

You have got to be kidding me.

By definition it is impossible to prove the non-existence of God, but I’ve got to tell you that it seems pretty clear to me that he’s not up there. Because if the God of the Christian bible was up there in the sky looking down and judging us all, then given the number of times hypocrisy is condemned in that very bible, fanatics like Matt Krause would have suffered their own fatal blood clot long ago.

The best evidence that their god doesn’t exist … is them.

Krause and his fanatical cronies in the legislature want to assign a fetus legal representation and where does that end?

These are the same people who repeatedly attempt to create “personhood” laws. Now, how long before they’re investigating every woman who miscarries for negligent homicide?

Because that, that right there, is where this goes. 

Because if you believe a father like Erick Muñoz isn’t able to adequately represent or determine what is best for his own unborn child – and a government/church appoint lawyer is – then it follows almost immediately that this situation applies in all cases, not just when the mother is brain dead. 

If you follow this line of thinking to its inevitable conclusion, then it’s not long before you realize all fetuses must have their own legal representation independent of the parents.

These people have made it abundantly clear they believe a woman once she becomes pregnant gives up her own right to self-determination.  Her husband or legally designed representative is nothing more than a caretaker unable to represent her wishes or that of her “pre-born” child – though, strangely, he can be held legally responsible for the welfare of any existing post-born children.

These people will not be happy until pregnancy becomes a legal condition between mother and fetus, to be negotiated by lawyers and supervised by the state after extensive public debate.

Logically, any mother who miscarries must be investigated for manslaughter, for negligent homicide, for endangering the life of her fetus. Could she have exercised more, should she have been in better shape before getting pregnant? Was she too old, or too young? How about her diet? Her environment? The amount of sleep she gets?  Did she clean the cat box? Did she use artificial sweeteners in her caffeinated coffee?  What about her medical history and the medical history of her family, did she take that into account? Did she get a genetic screening?

For that matter, what about her choice of mates?

If a husband and father isn’t legally competent to make end-of-life decisions regarding his own child, and a state appointed lawyer is, then why should that same man be allowed to become a father in the first place without church review and sanction?

Is it not the lawyer’s job to represent the client to the very best of his or her ability?

If the baby is born with ADHD or near sightedness or left handed or just plain ugly, can the baby sue its parents through the agency of its state appointed lawyer for not providing the very best possible genetic and environmental advantage? What if the parents make the baby eat strained spinach or let it get diaper rash or fail to burp it promptly? Shouldn’t the baby then demand justice for these things?

If not, why not?

And do you really, and I mean really, given history, believe that some lawyer or religious fanatic wouldn’t try it?

Oh, I’m being silly, am I?

I’m engaged in the slippery slope fallacy, you say?

You think I’ve carried this to ridiculous extremes do you?

Perhaps I have, but then perhaps I haven’t and I’ll remind you that I’m not one who wants to keep a corpse plugged in as an incubator.  Look, we’re dealing with religious extremists here, fanatics who’ve demonstrated repeatedly that there is no bridge too far when it comes to their obsession with other people’s lives and reproduction – well, unless it comes to taking care of actual real live children, I mean.

So, you tell me exactly and in no uncertain terms specifically why it won’t in fact come to this. Go on, show me, because:

- In 2009, Nina Buckhalter gave birth to a stillborn baby. Two months later the Lamar County, Mississippi, district attorney brought charges against Buckhalter and a grand jury indicted her for "willfully, unlawfully, feloniously”  killing her daughter, “Hayley Jade Buckhalter, a human being, by culpable negligence."  You see, traces of methamphetamine were detected in Buckhalter's system, and the district attorney argued those drugs caused Hayley Jade's death. There’s no proof of this, but that didn’t keep the state from prosecuting her for murder anyway. Mississippi's manslaughter laws were not intended to apply in cases of stillbirths and miscarriages, but that hasn’t kept fanatical right-to-life advocates from attempting to apply them in such cases. Buckhalter wasn’t the first and she wasn’t the last mother to be tried for murder in such cases.

- In 2010, Utah enacted a law which makes it a crime for a woman to have a miscarriage. This law is directed specifically at pregnant women, not third parties who might cause or assist in an illegal abortion or miscarriage. The law was a result of a 17-year-old girl, then seven months pregnant, who paid a man to beat her in an attempt to induce a miscarriage (the attempt was unsuccessful, the baby lived and was put up for adoption).  She was initially charged with attempted murder, but the law wouldn’t support that and charges were dropped. So Utah passed a law specifically for this situation, except the way the law is written it can be applied in every situation I suggested above. In addition to criminalizing an intentional attempt to induce a miscarriage or abortion, the law makes women legally responsible for miscarriages caused by "reckless behavior.”  Since reckless behavior isn’t an exact set of criteria or defined in this law, all the prosecutor needs to show is that a woman behaved in a manner that might lead to a miscarriage, even if she didn’t intend to lose the pregnancy.  Walk outside and slip on the ice, and later suffer a miscarriage, then you could be charged with murder in Utah. I guess you should have bought better boots or stayed indoors. It hasn’t happened yet, but the law is on the books and it was written that way by religious nuts on purpose.

- In 2011, Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklin introduced a bill that would have criminalized miscarriages and made abortion in Georgia completely illegal. Not only that, Franklin’s bill would have made both miscarriages and abortions potentially punishable by death. The bill required every miscarriage to be investigated for "prenatal murder," and would have made felons out of any woman who could not legally prove that there was "no human involvement whatsoever in the causation" of their miscarriage.  The bill did not, however, provide any guidance on what constituted "human involvement."  You see the problem, right? It’s Napoleonic Law, the women is guilty of “prenatal murder” unless she can “prove” her innocence – with a potential death penalty as punishment.  Think about that. Think about it in the context of the fact that medical science doesn’t know what actually causes a miscarriage in a lot cases. According to studies conducted at The Mayo Clinic, it’s possible nearly a quarter of all conceptions end in miscarriage so early in the process that the woman doesn’t even know she’s pregnant, and the best guess as to why this happens is that the fetus isn’t developing normally.  Franklin’s law would have literally made that a crime punishable by death. 

- Kansas is currently contemplating a law that would make any miscarriage at any stage of a pregnancy reportable to the state for review and possible prosecution. Even the bill’s original author, a republican, will not longer support it because the religious fanatics have taken it beyond all rational bounds. Kansas isn’t the only state to try this, Virginia attempted to pass similar legislation in 2009. And other states are currently contemplating similar laws.

And you can find numerous examples far beyond these.

If you start researching this subject, you’re going to find that you’re sliding down the slippery slope pretty goddamned fast indeed (See example: Franklin et al above) because the fanatics can’t discuss this topic without their obsessive lunacy getting completely out of hand and crawling right up the inside of your reproductive system.

Now, yes, a woman smokes meth while pregnant, maybe we ought to have a way to address that. Sure.

A seventeen year old girl tries to induce a miscarriage by paying somebody to punch her in the stomach? Again, yes, maybe we should have a way to hold her responsible – and get her some help, because only desperate desperate people would do such a thing. Only a frightened desperate young woman who thinks she has no hope and no alternative would do this, so maybe we should give her some hope and some alternatives.

And the kind of help I’m talking about would cost a hell of lot less without intruding on personal liberty than a legion of government appointed uterus lawyers.

This isn’t about protecting life.

This isn’t about saving some fetus or about end of life decisions.

This is about power and control.

This is about religious fanaticism.

This is about forcing compliance with religious beliefs, just the same as any Ayatollah.

For a nation which prides itself on exceptionalism, there is nothing exceptional about that.

 

---

The first part of this Essay can be found here: Decisions and Regrets

A Few Thoughts on Religion

“Religion is like a knife: you can either use it to cut bread, or stick it in someone's back.”
    ― Desmond Tutu

 

What’s that old saying?

Religion is like a penis, right?

I think that’s an apt description.

Religion is like a penis.

It’s okay to have one.

It’s okay to be proud of it, I suppose.

It’s not a bad toy to play with, all things considered.  It serves a useful purpose. It makes a lot of people feel better, it gives them release and relief. And it’s been known to make some people very happy. Like the banana, it is ergonomically pleasing – as artwork throughout the ages can attest. Many words in song and poetry have been dedicated to descriptions of its phallic glory. 

Some might even consider it divine.

But like anything else, it can be – and often is – abused.

It can give joy and contentment, or it can cause the owner a great deal of pain – and no end of problems. And let’s be honest, in a certain light, from the wrong angle, when you throw cold water on it, well, it’s a little ridiculous.

When you start obsessing over your organ, worshipping it, preening and polishing and comparing it to others, you’re just jerking off – and you know what religion says about blind self indulgence. 

If you pull it out in public and start flogging it around and demanding that everybody else bow down before your rampant magnificence, most people think you’re just being a dick. Though, of course, people being people, there are always those who will drop to their knees and swallow whatever it is that you’re handing out.

And when you start sticking it into others without their permission, well, my friend, that’s called rape.

 

A post of mine on Facebook led to a conversation about religion and politics. You know, the usual. In the course of the discussion I made a lengthy comment regarding my particular view of religion in general.  A number of folks asked me to turn those comments into an essay here so that they could share it more widely.

You ask, I deliver.

Over the years, given the things I write here, certain people have gotten it into their heads that I’m anti-religion, or that I’m some kind of militant atheist, or that I hate all religious people. 

None of that is correct – though I honestly don’t much care if you think so.

I don’t have any particular problem with the idea of a deity, or deities plural if you prefer. The universe is a big place, if we manage to survive long enough as a species, sooner or later we’re going to encounter entities indistinguishable from gods – if we don’t transform ourselves into such beings first, that is.

I certainly don’t profess to know for certain if there is a god or not.  And I mostly just don’t care.  God stays on his side of the universe and I stay on mine. If he (or she) needs something, he knows where to find me – but I don’t heed mumbo jumbo and I have no use for proxies, if he’s got something to say to me, he’d best show up in person and speak plainly.  You tell me you’re speaking for god, you’d better have a signed power of attorney in hand or other such proof, otherwise I put you in the same category with magicians (I might enjoy the showmanship, but I know there’s a trick).

No it’s not the idea of god that I have a problem with, it’s religion.

Now, I don't have anything against religion per se.  Everybody believes in something, and like the aforementioned penis, so long as you keep it to yourself unless invited otherwise, you and I are good.

Where I have a problem is when people use their religion as a cudgel to beat others over the head.

And just for the record, I feel the same way about militant non-believers.

You believe? Fine.

You don't believe. That’s fine too.

But you start acting like a raging dick about it, then we're going to have a problem.

This is a defining criteria with me.  I am pathologically incapable of suffering fools, or dicks, gladly.  I don’t want to and I don’t have to. You stick your religion, or your cock, in my face and you can expect to get kicked in the balls.

A few days ago, a reader complained that I seem to talk about religion a lot. And I do. But, see, here’s the thing, if you don’t want me to keep harping on your religion then quit bringing it up.

You may not believe this, but I never set out to offend believers (or non-believers for that matter). Unless they ask for it.

Again, it’s like a penis, you pull it out in public and start waving it around, then you’d better be willing to accept the resulting critical analysis.  Don’t like what people say about your pride and joy? It hurts your feelings and makes you feel bad? Then keep it in your pants.

People like Westboro Baptist Church? They're asking for it. Those people stand on the corner waving their dicks at the public every single day.  The US Constitution gives them the right to do so, but that doesn’t mean I have to respect their virulent hatred – and I don’t.

Evangelicals like Michele Bachmann? She's asking for it. The Constitution might give her the right to act like an ignorant dimwitted bug-eyed screeching Jesus freak, but that doesn’t mean I have to respect her hateful stupidity – and I don’t.

Superstitious loons like Rick Perry? He’s asking for it. The Constitution might give him the right to command Texans to pray, foam at the mouth and roll on the floor, and lift up their arms to heaven asking their god to make it rain, but that doesn’t mean I have to join in – and I won’t.

TV preachers who offer salvation in exchange for dollars? They're asking for it. The guy on the corner waving his holy book and screaming at traffic? He’s asking for it. Politicians who violate their sworn oath (an oath, by the way, that they swear on the Bible and end with “So help me, God”) by attempting to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us? They’re asking for it.  Glassy eyed lunatics who knock on my door on Saturday morning and try to shove some religious tract into my hand while damning me to their hell? They’re asking for it. 

These people go around attempting to jam their dicks into every orifice they see. I find this offensive and obnoxious, and it tends to make me offensive and obnoxious in turn.

But that doesn’t mean I think every religious person is a prick, or stupid, or ignorant, or deluded, or obnoxious – because I don’t. Not at all. In fact, I have a great deal of respect for religions, Christians for example, who actually live the tenets of their belief.  Jesus, if what we know of him is accurate, seems like a guy I could respect and call a friend – heck, I betcha he’d be a regular here on Stonekettle Station.

I know a lot of religious folks, including a number of ordained clergy, and they don’t go around acting like raging hard-ons. 

The problem I have with religion, and evangelical Christianity in particular, is when others insist that I live up to their beliefs ... when they don't themselves.

You claim to be Christian, a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, but you only preach the Old Testament and ignore Christ's very explicit orders to give up wealth, to feed the hungry, to clothe the poor, to heal the sick, to do unto others, to reserve judgment for God, to attend first the beam in your own eye, and above all to be kind. And not only do you ignore those commands, but actively dismiss them and rationalize them away when they are brought to your attention,  then you shouldn’t be surprised when I mock your hypocrisy.

Honestly, if you can't live up to the requirements of your religion, then why should I?

If you don’t respect the commands of your own prophet, why should I?

When you insist that I respect your beliefs, but you show no respect whatsoever for mine in return, then you shouldn’t be surprised by my loud disrespect.  You don’t get to damn me to your hell, you don’t get to judge me or anybody else for that matter – and that’s in your Bible, you can look it up.

If you want me to respect your religion, then be worthy of respect.

It’s really just that simple.

And here's the rest of it: when your religion demands equal time with science, then it should have to meet the exact same burden of rigor as science if you want me to take it seriously.

I don't have a problem with creationism being taught in public school, so long as it's taught in mythology class right next to Thor and the Loch Ness Monster.

But the minute you want to insert your religion into science class, you'd better be bringing along the same, the exact same, degree of scientific rigor as physics or chemistry or astronomy or biology or whatever field of inquiry you’d care to name.

And I don't think that’s too much to ask. 

In fact, it should be simple, shouldn’t it?

After all religion claims all of creation, from the beginning of time to its end across the width and depth of the entire universe.  Now surely, out of all that, from creation to man lives inside a whale to the loaves/fishes to angels destroy a city to burning bushes to one guy builds a boat the size of an aircraft carrier out of sticks and fills it full of animals and rides out the end of the world to resurrection itself, surely out all of that, you can find something that can be tested to the exact same degree of scientific rigor required for publication in any reputable mainstream scientific journal.

I think that's fair, and I'm not asking for anything that I don't demand of science.

And as long as we're on the subject of "equal time," you want your religion taught in public school? Then "equal" means you're willing to accept the teaching of science, say evolution by a certified evolutionary biologist, in religious schools. No? Then don't talk to me about equal, because now you're asking to be mocked in public.

I don't have a problem with religion until it insists that I believe without proof, until it attempts to force others to comply.

And that's exactly what you’re doing when you insist that this is a Christian nation. It’s not a Christian nation and never has been. Just as it’s not a Jewish nation, or a Muslim one, or an atheist one. It’s a nation where Christians, and all other beliefs, are free to live their lives without fear of persecution so long as they don’t harm others.  But that doesn’t mean you get to claim the whole goddamned nation for yourself or use your religion to beat the rest of us about the head and shoulders.

And that is exactly what you’re doing when you attempt to force your beliefs on others.

When it comes to things like homosexuality, if you don't like gay marriage because it makes Jesus soggy and hard to light, then don't get gay married. If you don’t believe in birth control because some doddering old virgin in a pointy hat says it’s bad, then don’t go around sticking your dick in things. But you don't get to make other people comply with your religion. Don't like it? Too fucking bad, go complain to Jesus or Thor or Cthulhu or whoever it is you give your money to, but I don't want to hear it.

And if you keep preaching at me, if you keep attempting to force the country that I live in into your church, if you keep attempting to shove your cock in my face, then you'd better be prepared for what comes next.

Finally, and because I was asked, yes, frankly I do often find certain militant non-believers to be just as obnoxious as fanatical believers.

I'm not saying the two are equal, I’m not saying they are the same, I'm saying dicks come in all flavors (yep, I did that on purpose).

You can be a non-believer without being an obnoxious jerk about it. But that’s how I feel about most things. Adults can disagree without being dicks, many don’t, but it is possible.

Next, of course, you'll ask me what label applies to me.

The answer is "none."

I'm neither a believer nor a non-believer.

There's no label for me, just as there’s no label for people who don’t believe in Leprechauns but honestly don’t mind if other people do.

There’s no label for me and I like it that way just fine.

“Religion is like a pair of shoes. Find one that fits for you, but don't make me wear yours.”
― George Carlin