What Do You Care?

  I preface this entry by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with the victims and families of Aurora, Colorado. This is written with the utmost respect for the citizens and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.


  Before I deleted my Facebook account I posted that I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons such as the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. Seen here. Naturally, that post inspired a lot of feedback. There were many comments of agreement but many, many more that were challenging at best, hostile at the worst.

  Obviously, most of these types of comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. These comments persist despite the fact that these massacres are recurring and regardless of the thousands of Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence. These commentators fail to even consider the value of some kind of control as to what type of weapon is put into the hands of everyday civilians.

  Most people from this school of thought cite patriotism as their excuse. "True patriotism" means supporting the Constitution adamantly and completely according to them. The Constitution says that citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. Now, I'm no constitutional scholar so let's look at the document itself:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

  So the "patriots" are correct when they say that gun ownership is constitutional. They are just leaving out the "if you're in a well-regulated militia" part. Alexander Hamilton had this to say on the subject:

  "A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss." Concerning The Militia. From the Daily Advertiser. Thursday, January 10th, 1788.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as the following.
Militia: 1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency.
          1b : a body of citizens organized for military service.
          2  : the whole body of able-bodied citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.


  So now I'm wondering, are these gun advocates who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment all members of well-regulated militias? If I had to guess, I'd say for the vast majority the answer is no.

  The feedback that I got from seemingly intelligent people on Facebook were things like: "Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes." Or "Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?" And my favorite, "Gun control makes gun violence worse. Criminals will still get guns."

  I really wish that right after they had hit send, they would take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. Here I quote the late, great Burgess Meridith, "Well, you can wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which gets filled first."  I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Does it fire more rounds without having reload as often? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff. It's designed to achieve maximum carnage. Not really what comes to mind when I think of tomatoes and sports cars.

  Let us now consider the beliefs/statements of politicians from the extreme right, especially the Tea Party. These are the men and women who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen. They believe that the forces of evil(aka Obama) are at play, planning to take over this nation. These are the folks who are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn't see it should just sit back and be labeled a moron myself, shut up, and go away.

  Amazingly, I actually have a minor agreement with them. I, and they, believe that there are evil forces at play in our government. These forces are called absolutists -- the kind of ideologues from both sides. Most from the far right swear their allegiances to unelected officials that regardless of national interests/security, or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. They are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. They are to obstruct every possible act of governance-- even the ones that they support or initiate. Their political and social goal is to marginalize the other side. In doing so, the absolute right vilifies and isolates the other side with the hope that they will surrender, go away- or die out.

  These same people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street to take our guns and enslave our citizens. As long as this only happens to liberals, homosexuals and democrats, there is no problem for them. However, if they try it with anyone else - it's going to be "arms-ageddon" and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military grade arsenal to show the evil forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people actually think that they meet the criteria for a "militia". Well, they don't... at least not a constitutional one. If it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people actually believe that they would win! That's why they have to "take our country back". From whom? From anyone who doesn't look like them, think like them, or see the world like them? They are the ones with the only truth and everyone else is a threat. Ever heard of a terrorist that didn't believe that?

  Then there are the people who say to me that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and his head to toe Kevlar protection might have given him a pretty sizable advantage. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic movie without training or planning? I'm thinking that scenario would have produce even more victims.

  Lastly, for the well-intended realists that say that people like this maniac would get these weapons even if we regulated them. They may be right, but he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. If regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources. Sources that could possibly be traced, watched, or overseen. He would have had to have gone deeper online and those transactions would have been monitored. "Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and Kevlar - plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out." None of this will happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.

  There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia. These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands, and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders, or people who don't agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak havoc and mayhem on innocent people. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves against intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on massive scales.

  My question for these people is a simple. Why do you continue to support these weapons? Why not at least agree to sit with reasonable people from both sides? Let's ask the tough questions, look at hard statistics, and possibly make some compromises for the greater good. Mothers, fathers, and children should not be slaughtered quite so easily by these monsters. It wouldn't hurt to try. I know it would be a lot less painless than what happened in that movie theater in Aurora. We will not prevent every tragedy and we cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just anyone.

I really believe if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. If they are willing to force others to "pry it from my cold, dead hand", then they are probably planning on using them on people. This is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.

  In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you. Tell them what they mean to you. In the early morning hours of July 20th, 2012, a lot of sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and friends went to the movies and tonight their families are without them.

See you Sunday.

  
   

  This "unholy trinity" of dirty A words seem to be thrown around a lot these days by the believer and non-believer alike. On the internet and in casual conversations with friends I am noticing more and more that most people still don't know the differences between the three. One notices when reading the definitions of these terms that all three are closely related, but actually three different things. In other words, they are three different answers to three different questions. In my first blog I would like to clear up this confusion as best I can. Let's take a look at those definitions before I get into the meat of this entry.
   
  Agnostic (from Ancient Greek (a-) "without", and (gnōsis) "knowledge") when defined in it's most strict sense, is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist. The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, known as "Darwin's Bulldog" for his support of Darwin's theory of evolution, coined the term in 1869 during a speech to the Metaphysical Society when describing his philosophy which rejects any claims of mystical or spiritual knowledge. Huxley, however, was not the first to have promoted agnostic points of view. Others who have written on the subject before him include: Protagoras, a 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher, and the Nasadiya Sukta creation myth in the Rig Veda, an ancient Sanskrit text. Huxley viewed agnosticism as a method of skeptical, evidence-based inquiry rather than as an actual creed. Huxley once said, "Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle...Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable." In short, the agnostic's answer is: "I don't know for sure."
  Atheist (from Ancient Greek (atheos), meaning "without god(s)") was a term given to describe those who were believed to reject the gods worshiped by society at large. With the spread of "The Enlightenment", free thought, skeptical inquiry, and the increase in criticism of religion, the term became more well defined. Karen Armstrong writes that, "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist." In the middle of the seventeenth century it was still assumed that it was impossible not to believe in God. The very first people to identify themselves as "atheists" lived in the 18th century, specifically denouncing the monotheistic Abrahamic god of the Pentateuch, the Bible, and the Koran. Speaking in a broad sense, atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. When speaking in a more narrow sense, it is more specifically the stance that there are no deities. More generally, atheism is just the absence of belief that deities exist at all. Today in Western society the term "atheism" simply means a "disbelief in God"

  Starting to see something like evolution here?

  Anti-theist (from Ancient Greek (anti-) and (theismos) is an active opposition to theism. The Oxford English Dictionary defines an anti theist as: "One OPPOSED to belief in the existence of a god." An anti-theist may be opposed to one, multiple, or any gods. Anti-theism is a label for those who take the position that religion is a poison to everything in society. The late Christopher Hitchens gives a great example of this sentiment in his book, Letters to a Young Contrarian. He writes, "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an anti-theist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful." French Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain described it as "an active struggle against everything that reminds us of God." Basically an anti-theist celebrates the notion that there is no deity or deities that watch over us and monitor our every action, mental and physical. No interruption of the laws of nature and the universe by any super natural being.
  Now that we have that cleared up, let's put all this together. Like I pointed out before, agnosticism deals with the question, "Is there a god(s)?" The agnostic's answer would be, "I don't know because we can never know with 100% certainty." So in that sense I am an agnostic. I come from the school of "I don't know!"  On the other hand, atheism deals with the question, "Do you believe in god(s)?" To which the atheist's answer would be something like, "No, because I do not see any compelling evidence to support that claim." Which makes me an atheist also. Which now takes me back to the agnostic's question again. If you're answer is, "I don't know...", your answer is pretty much "NO."
  The anti-theist's position can be a lonely one since technically you can believe in god(s) while still opposing them. The same can be said about the atheist. I know many atheist and agnostics who, while not being able to regain their faith because of the mounds of evidence that stares at them directly in the face, in many ways miss or in someway wish it to remain true for consolation. In other words they wish they had never had their eyes opened and the veil removed. But we're seeing more and more the younger generations starting to see through the facade of the priest, pastors, mullahs, and clerics. New polls are showing that 80% of people under 30 in the United States now "doubt the existence of god." In places like Iran and other countries in the Middle East we are seeing the younger generation starting to rise up against their oppressive theocratic governments. Not to mention the new discoveries in science that we learn about everyday. Personally, I see myself as all three "A" words. Agnostic, because I don't know. Atheist, because all the available evidence points to no god(s). And most of all, anti-theist, because I am opposed to and deny the existence of god(s). Not to mention relieved as well! I have no desire to live in a celestial North Korea.
  To conclude, I'm not calling for the death of all religion. In fact, if our government was trying to outlaw religion, I'd speak out against it. People often ask me, "If you're an atheist, why do you care?", "You talk about God and religion more than most believers I know." The reason I'm so fascinated with religion is because it's our first version of the truth. It's our first attempt as a species to understand the world around us. When we didn't know that we lived on a spherical planet and that it revolved around the sun instead of the other way around. We didn't know that there were micro-organisms that caused diseases. We couldn't explain natural phenomenon like tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes,tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions. We attributed human pain and suffering to sin, curses, demons, and if nothing else, just God's divine plan. Religion comes from a time when we didn't know anything! It's also our first attempt at philosophy and morality. Also our first attempt at healthcare. But with all that said, because it is our first, it is our worst. We now have much better and more elegant explanations for all these things. More is still coming in everyday! We have solved so many mysteries. No longer can we say, "We don't know, therefor God did it." Yet some still wish to live in that impenetrable bubble that forbids us to think and denies us the knowledge to progress. Where once religion probably might have been an aide to our survival; it has now become a great peril to our continued ability to live as a civilized species. Oh, how wondrous are the photos that the Hubble telescope have given us. Just think of Galileo, Einstein, and Darwin, AND Hawking. Think of how much more elegant and persuasive they are. Or, just contemplate a black hole for as long as you can. How much more awe inspiring are all of these things than the idea of the burning bush or turning water into wine or walking on water. I'm not calling for anyone to denounce their religion and I'm damn sure not trying to convert anyone. What I am calling for is more outspoken, unapologetic atheists and agnostics to make themselves known. Let's let the world know that we are "Good without God!" There must be a more concerted rise of secularism and reason in the 21st century.
  I leave you with my favorite verse from the Bible. A verse from the epistle of Saul of Tarsus, later known as "Saint Paul," to the Philippians (chapter 4, verse 8):
  "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report: if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."