Recently I got a comment about a posting where, as usual, I blather on about (TV) religious types who cry and beg for money. The commenter noted with irony that I have a Donation button. My questions is am I therefore a hypocrite? In this case, I don't think so. I'm not offering salvation, asking for tithe or whatever you want to call it, and then making you feel guilty for not giving. I have no intent of blackmailing you into giving me money for redemption of your soul or to make you spiritually clean. I offer no implied services and I expect nothing in return except comments.

If you want to donate - fine. If you don't then don't. There will be no penalty or reward either way.

Movie Pirating

Apparently many of the movies in the theaters have a tracking mechanism that, if the movie is copied, allows authorities to determine which theater suffered the violation. How this deter copying I don't know. Perhaps the theater will suffer consequences if they don't institute full body cavity checks of entering customers. The mechanism consists of red dots, seemingly random, but apparent enough that viewers are getting annoyed.

Is this the best the RIAA and studios can do. Annoying red dots? Cheese off the customers by ruining their watching experience: Tense dramatic scene and there's dots in the corner. The movie pirate won't care. The dots won't deter him. He won't get into trouble. The theater might but, again, who cares?

The solution is simple. Don't rely on a visual mechanism but an aural one. It would be simple to include random background sounds that serve as identifying markers and the sounds wouldn't be nearly as intrusive as the visual markers.

You Label Me, I'll Label You

Guilty. I hate being labelled and yet I do it. The "Puckered Right" being my latest sin. It's hard not to use labels. It makes it convenient as a way of generally describing someone without having to go into great details. And honestly when I see a picture of Donald Rumsfeld I can't help but think he's one puckered motherf.

Yet labels are dangerous and potentially detrimental to one's health For example, I would label myself a "weak" Atheistic, dogma-free Jewish, Humanist and if ever a combination existed for receiving blind hatred this would be a contender. The only way to make it "worse" would be if I was also a black, gypsy, homosexual. No offense meant to any members of those groups. Yet even by labelling myself I erroneously pigeonhole only part of my personality and part of the error is in how I view myself versus how others see me. Likely "asshole" would fall somewhere in a description. I hope I'm far more than mere words. Here's the breakdown.

A "weak" Atheist is someone who simply doesn't believe in God(s). A "strong" Atheist denies deities - period. Either way an Atheist is usually downright hated by religious folks. Atheists are usually considered immoral. Religious types say that to have a morality you must have a deity as a moral anchor. Complete rubbish, of course. Atheists can have a very strict morality. It just happens to leave out the God part. Religious types like to point out that Atheism was the religion of Communism and look how people died in the USSR, which I like to counter with mention of the Spanish Inquisition. One shouldn't confuse or mix Religion with Politics, which again is the usual argument about the evils of Atheism. I like to think that Atheists have a stricter moral code that non-Atheists because we don't have a deity to hide behind. We have one major excuse less for our behavior.

Dogma-free Jewish - do I even have to explain the worldwide glut of anti-semitism? Go see "The Passion" and feel your hatred rise up. Practice saying "pogrom". For all the talk I don't think Jews will ever believe that Christians and Muslims en masse can be considered "safe" to live among. This is not meant as a general insult - I have friends in both religions. I feel that the distrust and rhetoric against Judaism pervades those religions, despite the occassional bleatings otherwise from various leaders. In other words, if the Pope says today that Jews are okay to hug, not many Jews will be hugged. If he said today that Jews are OK to kill, many Jews would be killed. Growing up Jewish I felt and saw unjustified hatred. My Temple periodically got trashed. It's hard to impart to non-Jews that feeling of blind hatred, though blacks, gypsies, and homosexuals can likely relate.

Humanist. I don't believe in a deity, singular or plural. I place my faith - my unreasonable hope - in Humanity. I place my hope that we as a living people can transcend our differences and learn to live together. Human genetic variability says otherwise but I refuse to give up. I don't believe in Heaven or Hell after death - I believe Heaven or Hell are our choices on Earth. Dead is dead. If the afterlife were so darn wonderful let those who believe in it go there as quickly as possible.

A "weak" Atheistic, dogma-free Jewish, Humanist. Three strikes and for my own survival I keep my mouth shut. I'm not allowed to prosletyze or question the beliefs of others but they're free to try to convert and/or "save" me. And always the look of pity like my existence is so shallow and empty. Ironically I pity those people who live with blinders on when life can be so wonderful and beautiful. I don't want my kids chasing after a mythical heaven - I want my kids to enjoy their lives every day, whether rain or sun, whether with friends or alone. Life is the pinnacle of experience. There is no alternative.

Labelling introduces tunnel vision. You see people and things within a narrow preconceived range of definition. I don't like it. I don't want it. I try not to pass that on to my kids. I want my kids to be critical thinkers, to see things openly without prejudice. I don't want them to be at the complete mercy of Marketers or those who've mastered Rhetoric. Growing up in Judaism, I heard repeatedly about what a great religion it is because we're allowed to question, pushed to question. And so I did early on. Two basic questions: "Why should I believe there's a God?" and "If we can't know God directly, why should I worship?" I was told pretty much to keep quiet. Any answers they gave boiled down to having Faith. But even at a young age I felt that Faith wasn't good enough. Faith was too open to interpretation and manipulation by various leaders. Faith was, essentially, a lame and dangerous excuse. If you want to pass on morality and "life lessons" you don't need a deity to do so!

Restricting oneself to one religion or one culture without knowledge or experience of others is short-sighted. This is life - explore, learn, try. Don't be satisfied with pat answers. If God exists - hooray! We still have our free will to live without relying on a deity. And wouldn't God be pleased to see us acting in such a capable, responsibile manner? If God doesn't exist or if God is simply the great, grand power that is, then again we're free to live, aren't we?

Random Rants

I was watching basketball with one of my kids. He asked why all the players were black. In my mind the answers were all stereotypes: Blacks are better athletes. Basketball is a route blacks take to become rich. blah, blah, blah. I ended up not saying anything other than to root for the team but my wife had what I think is the correct answer: "That's the team the coach chose to put out there." I bow to her wisdom.

Over heard some co-workers discussing "The Passion" and how accurate and amazing it was - how it was so incredible that Jesus gave up his life for their sins. How can they know how accurate it was if the writers of the New Testament weren't there AND wrote many years after the supposed incident AND Gibson worked off of interpretations (of interpretations of...) AND the scriptures were written and rewritten to serve a political function in the new and growing Christian Church AND the mechanisms the early Christians Leaders employed to support claims of validity could arguably be applied to support calims of validity for Mormomism and Islam. What Gibson has done is give the Church another tool for them to exploit and in the process make scads of money. He could feed quite a bit of homeless with 200 million dollars but he'll likely film a sequel, this time about the Resurrection. Hey Mel, how about a film about the Spanish Inquisition and the violence the Christians meted out?

Consider this: Your country has been invaded by the Romans. Your religion and your life exist as a whim. You try to maintain your routines, your prayers, your way of life. And then some one starts raising dissension. Did Jesus get what was coming to him - perhaps. We don't know. No one knows. However if I went to my neighborhood church and started preaching Atheism, started turning over tables, I'd be lucky if getting arrested was the worst that happened to me. I'd likely get my ass kicked or get lynched. While I was being lynched if I started saying that I was dying for everyone's sins would someone start a religion based on me? Didn't think so.

Papa's Got A Brand New God

My problem with an overall deity is that he's usually portrayed as male, though - wink, wink - the religious leaders say he's gender neutral but for convenience (and tradition) they stick to the male identity. I don't buy it. I'll make my God in an image palatable to me.

I want my God to be a her. I admit it - I'm a male, a hormone-ridden, brain-between-the-legs, oink-oink, male. If I'm going to spend the rest of my life praying to a God she better be worth praying to and darn pleasing to the eye. So, yes, my God will be an eye-full, not in the anime style but more Frank Frazetta or Hildebrandt Brothers style. My God would be beautiful, competent, strong, yet accessible and nuturing.

Wait a minute! That sounds like my wife. No wonder I worship her.