Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Why Should People Challenge Religion?

Because religion convinces people that they have the right, and indeed that it is absolutely necessary to their eternal salvation, to act like they have some "moral authority" appointed to them by God on high.

It also makes them believe they have a moral responsibility to "be their brothers keeper," which means they think they have a right and a duty to boss other people around, and dictate to them how they should live their lives. This is incredibly ironic, since it is Christians who are always complaining about how THEY are the ones who are being forced to accept OTHER people's beliefs. While they have a problem with the latter, they think they have a duty to the former.

Worse still, however, is that religion knowingly and deceptively conflates "truth" with"beliefs," even though the former is often the exact opposite of the latter. And from that single lie, all of religions other lies flow out into a society like a poison, enslaving people under a banner of "freedom," while convincing all who subscribe to it that they are 'like God, knowing good from evil" - just like the serpent in their own Bible promised they would.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

When a "belief" is your "Truth," Your Own Ideas become Your Only God

When a belief is your "truth" your own ideas become your one and only God.

Let us assume, for the moment, that the kind of God the Christians claim to exist, actually exists. If such an infinite and eternal, all powerful God did actually exist, we would still be left with a serious problem.

How would we be able to tell the difference between God, and our "beliefs" about God?

The only answers to such a question would still be simply a "belief" that we could discover and define the difference. But every attempt to do so, leads us only back deeper into our own mind, searching clumsily for an infinite perfection with a brain that is all too finite, fallible, and imperfect.

But we believe we can, even with all our imperfections and limitations, distinguish the difference between our "beliefs" about God, and God "himself." Such hubris would surely convince an actual "god" of just how in love with our own minds we really are.

Our trust is less in God, therefore, than in our ability to "believe" we can trust ourselves, whenever we claim we know with certainty what that difference would be.

The Immaculate Conception

Fr. Mike Schmitz  from Ascension Press posted another glaring lie to all those who love to embrace the lie of God as if Satan himself were selling it. 

He tried to explain that "the immaculate conception" referred to Mary, being conceived by her own parents through natural procreative means (i.e. sex) and that it did NOT refer to the Annunciation of Jesus.

Schmitz went on to explain that Mary, the mother of Jesus, received a special dispensation from God, so that she was exempted from having to contract the stain of original sin like everyone else. How sweet. 

God does NOT give the stain of original sin to Mary, but he gives it to everyone else. That's like a doctor who COULD choose NOT to give cancer to everyone, but decides to anyway, and only chooses NOT to give it to a select person here or there. 

Then why didn't God save all of the people he decided to brutally murder with the flood - including children, old people, cripples, and the mentally handicapped - just like he did Mary? Indeed, why kill almost all of humanity and only later decide to forgive humanity for its sins by killing his son instead? And if God is like a doctor who has the cure for what ails us all, but decides not to administer it to most of the patients he alone is responsible for creating "sick" in the first place, than how is "God" any different from Josef Mengele? 

Truly, Fr. Mike's willingness to serve lies (and thus the father of all lies) by deliberately misleading his "flock" with "beliefs" that he conflates with "truth" is a sin perhaps greater than all others. He should be ashamed of himself.

But "god" wouldn't ever be ashamed of himself. And as far as Fr. Mike is concerned, he must be god. 

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Why is Religion so Evil?

Religion claims to seek only 'the truth," and boasts about being the means by which people become moral. But it is exactly this claim to moral superiority that so often makes religion so evil.

Once you start with the idea that you are special because you have subscribed to a "belief," you have put yourself above those who you inherently suspect are inferior to you. It's a way the poor can feel spiritually superior to those who are financially superior to them. It's also how we come to believe we are so "full of grace" and divine knowledge of morality, that we feel justified in being filled with holy rage at those we deem to be "sinners!"

That is how the devil uses religion to convince those who are intoxicated by their own self righteousness, to kill homosexuals, atheists, liberals, other Christians, or even each other, indeed "the least of my brothers and sisters," as Jesus said, will all fall to those who love their "beliefs" and their own sense of self righteousness, far, far more than they love truth, or Jesus, or God, or morality.

But they will kill you if you try to suggest any of this is true. They are convinced, after all, that the devil has possessed everyone who does not believe as they do. And they are therefore terrified of spending eternity in hell for being deceived by Satan and his minions. So, to protect against such eternal torments, they would willingly torment anyone and everyone, for eternity if need be, just so they can ensure their own soul stays pure.

And they will do all of this, and kill everyone on the planet!, just so they can show "god" how much they "love" him, and just how much they are willing to do literally ANYTHING to prove they "believe." Because "believing," after all, is how you get a ticket to that willy wonka chocolate factory in the sky called heaven.

And who wouldn't murder the whole world to get a chance at eternity in heaven?

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Why Are Republicans Pro Life?

Most people don't realize that the Supreme Court has been in the hands of the Republican party since at least 1970! In fact, even in the landmark case of Roe v Wade that legalized abortion, SCOTUS was inhabited by 6 Republicans and 3 Democrats, and the vote was 7 to 2.

One of the reasons is that the Republican Party has absolutely ZERO desire to win on the abortion issue. And that's because abortion gives the GOP a clear focal point with potentially unlimited organizing power. And it's an even simpler message to sell than religion, since we are "pro-life." (if that was true, however, they wouldn't be actively trying to repeal healthcare for up to 30 million Americans, nor would they be so pro-gun, pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro welfare cuts, pro- social security cuts, pro- drone strikes, etc).

The Republican party officially became "pro-life" in 1976, thanks to Jesse Helms (R-NC). The only reason no serious challenge was brought within the party against its move to pro-life was because, at the time, the Republican party was divided about the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, "which was already under siege from prominent party members like Phyllis Shafly." If it had not been so busy attacking the ERA - with such dubious claims as it would "deny women's right to be supported by her husband" and it would "result in women being drafted into combat" - the Republican party would never have become pro-life."

Also, remember that Nixon had been seen as sabotaging Johnson's peace plan in Vietnam. And Republicans were ramping up the "Southern strategy" (which, while said to be an attempt to pander to racism in the south, was also an attempt to capitalize on deep seeded religious beliefs that rejected the "sexual revolution" and many of the ideas being advanced though feminism and "women's lib"), and trying to distance itself from the political hot potato that ended up in its lap of 60K dead U.S. soldiers in Vietnam. Since then, it has provided the perfect sheepskin to hide Reagan's contributions to the genocide of indigenous people in Guatemala (1981-1986) and numerous others acts of murder in Central America, including the assassination of Archbishop Romero in El Salvador.

 It has also proved to be an effective way of convincing Conservatives that "Democrats" are no different than the German Huns a century ago, who, in order to drum up hatred of all things German among Americans, were falsely reported in countless newspaper articles of "throwing babies in the air and catching them on their bayonets."

Monday, February 13, 2017

Senator Chris McDaniel & The Cult of Conservatism

Senator Chris McDaniel is a Republican who believes Trump should just ignore the Supreme Court.  

It is almost unbearably ironic that so many hardcore Conservatives would deride Obama as being a fascistic dictator, even though nearly every decision he made was checked or approved by a Republican congress, while at the same time claiming that Liberals are completely delusional for accusing Trump of being the exact same thing, even as they insist he can fire anyone who refuses to violate the Constitution and simply ignore the Supreme Court. That's when you know that politics is nothing but a secular religion, and that McDaniel is simply a gargoyle protruding off of the Church of Conservatism, through which the dark reign pours out.

The Cult of Conservatism: The Religion of Republicanism

Politics is simply a secular religion. In fact, Conservatism and Liberalism operate in the world of politics in much the same way that Christianity and Atheism work.

Christians often "believe" in god that can neither be proven to exist nor disproved. Atheists on the other hand are more skeptical of simply accepting a story that seems only to benefit those selling it and that, even if it made people "better," as it's adherents so often insist, it does not mean it is therefore "true."

Christians likewise doubt every other system of "beliefs" but their own; "beliefs" which they feel are so sacred, and so absolutely necessary to believe in to maintain order in the world, that such "beliefs" could not possibly have come from their own mind. They hold their "beliefs" to be so God like, in fact, that they conclude they must indeed have come from a God.

In a sense, this is where the split from reality begins, as the atom of their idea sets off a chain reaction that then ignites every other thought, which each one falling like a domino that proves this "belief" to be true.

As others have often point out, of the say 3000 different Gods that exist, Christians doubt them all their own. And of the 40,000 different versions of Christianity that exists, Christians tend to doubt all 39,999 of them, but their own. Atheists, however, are bold enough to just go one  God and one more version of Christianity further.

Conservatism in America has almost always been steeped in Christianity, relying on its sense of authority and duty and obedience, while Liberalism has always been more like atheism, more democratic, egalitarian, and free.

Conservatives seen liberalism the same way Christians see atheism. But theists have no moral canon or bible they feel they must live up to be qualify as an atheist. If Ted Bundy was an atheist, for example, his crimes offend human decency and what we would call "morality," but they are not failing to live up to some standard of perfection that was summed up the story of human-super atheists, that all atheists must aspire to be like to qualify as atheists.

So to with Liberals, sort of. It's different for Liberals in that they tend to espouse their views of equality and love, etc, as being part of their Liberal ideology. And as many Liberals fail to live us to this standard as Christians fail to live up live up to the stands they claim they believe in.That is to say, everyone is still human, at the bottom of all our "beliefs" and ideas.

But an articles came out recently that illustrates the nature of how Conservatism works just like a religion.

As study done by the "Congressional Research Service, the completely non-partisan arm of the Library of Congress that has been advising Congress—and only Congress—on matters of policy and law for nearly a century, produces a research study that finds absolutely no correlation between the top tax rates and economic growth, thereby destroying a key tenet of conservative economic theory.." (Link below.)

Yet the "belief" that tax cuts to the rich DO produce an economic benefit to the economy is one rich people have sold to their Conservative acolytes, even though believing such an idea has only ever harmed them.

Worse, however, is that this finding will absolutely NOT change anyone's mind about their "beliefs" in their Conservatism (Liberalism often works the exactly same way, as atheism does to Catholicism).

But it's at the point that we decide that we will NOT consider if perhaps our own ideas, our own viewpoint, which is almost always associated with some set of "beliefs" that we may or may not be aware of, and which we may feel a dire NEED to defend and hold on to, ..... it's at THAT point, that we know we have decided to stop thinking for ourselves, and just allowed our "beliefs" to drive us around like Miss Daisy.

And now I have to write why Liberalism, like atheism, can devolve into just a system of beliefs as well, who's underlying assumptions we may equally forget to question, and who's tenets we depart from  wildly when it suits our fancy.


Saturday, February 11, 2017

Religion: Freedom Through Slavery to the Law

Jesus once said that "the law was made to serve man, not man to serve the law." But today, the problem with religion is that it is convinced it's the other way around.

Religion first tries to make sense of the world using the "law," and only later tries to make sense of the "law" after finally accepting reality itself, which always confounds such "laws." Worse, however, is that religion often tries to claim it alone has the authority to define what that law is, even though it gets it wrong almost all of the time.

The things that religion gets "right," however, are certainly not "right" because religion says so, or even because "god" says so, but because we all collectively agree they are right. We can collectively say that murder is wrong and immoral, for example, even though it seems far too many of us accept that murder performed on a large enough scale, especially for God (or by God) and Country, is decidedly right and moral. (Hopefully, humanity will live long enough to see our sense of proportions change for the better, although of late, it seems that sense has only changed for the worse.)

And whenever people challenge the law, they are crucified by those who claim to be the only ones who have the right to make such challenges - which of course they would never do, because that would be blasphemous.  And the last one who was ever murdered for such blasphemy toward their own religion was in fact the first and most famous to do so, their own savior and founder, Jesus Christ.

And anyone who would try and follow in "His" footsteps, by picking up their cross and challenging the mistakes of their OWN religion, as Christ did, only ever confuses themselves for being Jesus Christ. Hence they are most assuredly lunatics! For only Christ himself would dare do such a thing, which is how we know he was most decidedly NOT a lunatic!

What we do know is that Christ came to earth to found a whole new religion from the one he knew damn well would damn him to a sabbatical in hell for three days, so he could set up a brand new religion who's moral standing would be able to withstand any number of pedophiles, murders and rapists it may produce or protect.

But even as its own house is in such disorder, it assures the masses that it defends the "law" for God's sake alone, even as it is breaking all of them to survive. What they should do, if they had the honest courage of Christ or any real faith in their "God," is drop the narrative that they cling to so desperately, from which they, like all religions, depend on for their branding, and  focus exclusively on the only moral law that has ever mattered to anyone and everyone - the law of empathy.

And not empathy that one has to their ideals about what constitutes the right sexual or gender identification, for fear that the devil creeps into our souls through the window of our sexual deviations (as if the further the deviation  the more open the window), but one that accepts the true humility of knowing that they - as the Bible repeats continually - have no greater or lesser knowledge of truth and certainty than anyone else.

Anything less than that, is simply an attempt by one person or people, to play god.


Religion: Exchanging the Garden of Truth for the Apple of a Belief

Religion is basically a combination of three things: 1) ideas about morality, 2) a completely unverifiable story of a "superman" who bears a message from a "God" (sometimes "gods") about how we can win the lottery of eternal life and  3) an elaborate mix of historical events, ideas, and philosophies. The third component is always interpreted and used for the single purpose of convincing people that they must believe in that 'completely unverifiable story' (and indeed force others to believe it as well) in order to be "truly moral," and thereby get into heaven for all time. (Many of them feel a disdainful "fuck em!" for anyone who, out of their own "ignorance," ends up burning in hell for all time. "Praise Jesus!")

Hence, the only thing that is unique to any one religion is just the story. But even the stories are simply adaptations of other stories that came before, like Horus, Buddha, Mithra, Krishna and Osiris.

But religion has traded its "morality" for it's story in Christ. And by doing so, has confused it's ideas about what it means to act like a mythological man-God, with being "moral." As if anything that you do in pursuit of the former is defined as the latter. But it isn't.

In this same way, religion has yoked our minds to it's narratives and beliefs,  like a cow to a plowshare. And like that plowshare, we struggle to move through life by dragging it along with us, milling and scaring the soil behind as we go, and justify it by believing we are sowing seeds. But those seeds come from the apple that Adam and Eve are said to have eaten in the Garden of Eden. The lie that came from that apple is that religion is a kind of Rumpelstiltskin, that can turn "beliefs" into "absolute truth." And that by accepting this, and "believing" whatever the religion or "church" says thereafter, a person will live in paradise forever and ever.

 By deliberately and continually misleading people by conflating it's narrative based "beliefs" as representing the necessary foundation stone to all "absolute moral truth" - even though these two are so often complete opposites to each other - religions first lies to us, and then convince us that everything else they are saying is "absolutely true, and must be accepted as such to have any hope of living forever"( Even though such willingness to simply "believe this" alone does not guarantee a person will make it to heaven; it's only the first step.See Footnote below.)

A "belief," in simplest terms, is not necessarily the same as "the truth," and in fact are often quite in conflict. The debate between a heliocentric solar system and a geocentric "belief system" is just one example, with slavery and ideas about sexuality being others. So what's the difference regarding religion? We can find the answer to that in religion itself.

The story of Adam and Eve being seduced into eating from the tree of knowledge by a serpent in the Garden of Eden, and by doing so thus disobeying God's command not to eat from that tree alone, can actually be used to explain what religion actually is. Religion is the apple that serpent tricked them into eating. It is the "belief" that they obtained when they ate that apple (the apple being simply a seductive story that they swallowed hook, line and sinker), which lead some of them to think their own "beliefs" are actually spoken eternal absolute "truths" whispered unmistakably to all, but only those with special kinds of "sacred souls," which operate like a finely tuned tuning-fork for truth, (the soul being another "invention" of religion that can not be proved or disproved) can hear it better than others.

This sacredly tuned soul allows such "believers" to determine 2+2=5, or whatever else their sacred "book" tells them they must believe, or thrown into an eternal hell. They reject reality for what it is, untamed and beyond all comprehension as to its "meaning" - for giving things "meaning" may be a singularly human exercise, developed more for survival and forming liaisons than for discerning the radio signal of an alien yet immaterial "super being" who created the universe as a high school science project - and instead anchor their ideas and their sanity to a "belief" that makes life so much more "meaningful" by accepting it.

Like Vanilla Sky, with Tom Cruise, it is "The Lucid Dream," which is why we bow our heads and close our eyes to interact with it. In that dream, all of the problems in the world simply come down to "beliefs," because that is what their entire world boils down to, at the bottom of everything else. They "need" quite desperately for their ideas to be "true," for them to have any meaning in their life, and to alleviate the pure "hell" of feeling like life is just lonely brutish and short, and then it's over.

And even though the atheist may simply "believe" that nothing comes after we die (at least in any conscious sense, anyway) they cannot prove that any more than the Christian or Muslim can prove their own stories are the absolute truth of what happens after we die, or any infinite number of other guesses that are impossible to imagine.

What we do know, however, is that Christians need their "belief" to be accepted by everyone else, for them to feel better about everything in the world. In their mind, if everyone was Christian, there's be less wars and other problems in the world in general, even though Christian nations have probably been more warlike and engaged in more war that any other "nations" that have ever existed (certainly this is true, if we are just going by pure numbers, given our population explosion and the relatively short time for different religious beliefs).

Yet no evidence based in reality, or biology, or astrophysics like the higgs-boson, or any of the pedophiles or horrors committed by the church, could ever dislodge this most essential and absolute necessity for how they understand anything and everything at all - and that boils down to insisting that their "belief" is the same thing as "truth."

And in this way, the garden of truths around us, for which we have only ever been tasked with the single mission of understanding it on its terms alone, not our own, according to its design, not the meanings we design for it, is lost to the apple of a belief that only hides "truth" by claiming it alone defines what is true.

FOOTNOTE: A person may still need to be willing to die for the idea that his "belief" is absolutely and undeniably "true," to get any kind of "guarantee" of getting into Heaven (and the worse the ordeal for such a believer, the more likely they are to believe it all the more, ironically enough). But this is simply placating their delusion,  for the guarantees of martyrdom to the "true believer" is often a sirens song, one that lures a person to sacrifice them self for the love of their "god" (which, ironically enough is exactly how the Charles Manson family member who engaged in the brutal murders of the Tates and LaBiancas in 1969, Patricia Krenwinkle, described her own experience with Manson), that always proves too seductive to resist to those who "will do anything for love."

Racism & Religion: Biology vs Beliefs

"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession"
1 Pet 2:9.

Racism is a religion based on a belief in the superiority of one's race over all other races, even though there is no such thing, biologically speaking, of "race." As such, racism is perhaps the perfect means of illustrating the difference between how the world is and how we "believe" it to be.

There has always been forces that, like a heart, contract and expand both our mind and our biology. We huddle together with those who look like us, and think like us, out of fear of those we often fail to understand and see as 'different'. To feel more secure, but also to exploit our differences for economic gain by the powerful few, we were all divided into races and ethnicities, so we could all be ranked in accord with our particular differences for performing different tasks. 

And as economic times become more desperate, our tendency to cling more and more to those who think and look like us, and believe such oversimplified narratives more and more. And the difference between racism and the human race helps to explain why this is not only our biggest problem, but why our "beliefs" are actually responsible for killing us all.

The difference between biology and our beliefs is that we know, for a fact, that we are improved by the diversity of our biological make up over the long term, in the same way we know that all creativity and genius necessarily depends on, and comes from, a greater diversity of ideas and understandings, while our "beliefs" about religion and racism both teach us to seek "salvation" through the homogenization of both our body and our mind.

For our "beliefs" to be pure, in other words, we should guard agaisnt all other ideas that we may perceive to challenge our beliefs, which is why the Church has long held onto ideas of blasphemy and heresy, for example. So to, racism seeks to "purify" a particular "race" by excluding diversity. And both do so out of a desire to reach the pinnacle of  biological and spiritual "perfection," which was of course (for many anyway) culminated in the man called Jesus Christ, who was the "perfect" human as well as spiritually perfect (ie. beliefs) because he was also God.
In this way, religion actually builds and capitalizes on fears by always promoting the idea that "diversity" is the ultimate "evil," and homogenization is the ultimate "good", even though all research shows that both our ability to empathize and to survive depend exclusively on our ability to overcome the fear that leads to homogenization so that our diversity will can save us by making us stronger biologically and more creative in solving the growing numbers of problems we face intellectually.

At the bottom of everything is a contest between empathy and survival, only the religion of economics has succeeded in convincing us that these two things are opposites, and indeed enemies of each other,  when in fact they are the same thing, and that without the one, we cannot hope to achieve the other.

Friday, February 10, 2017

How Capitalism Is About Killing the Poor

Capitalism is a religion. That's all it is. It is thought of as simply a way of organizing and running your economy, but it can only ever end up killing the "unchosen."And the "chosen" are the ones who were given great wealth, by God, or course. And they, like Abraham, are only too happy to sacrifice a world of Isaacs, if that is what their God of money commands.

Look at the EpiPen ad AIDS medication controversy, when Mylan raised the price over 500% and Martin Shkreli jacked up the prices of AIDS meds, just because they could, not because they needed to make bigger profits. And look at the 70 fold price increase on a drug treatment for Muscular Dystrophy, charging $89,000.00 per year. For Spinal Muscular atrophy, they charge $750,000 for first year and $300K thereafter.

In this way, capitalism sells long life the way the Catholic Church once sold salvation through indulgences. Both are highly respected and adored by the other, despite Jesus overturning the money lenders tables in the Church. We are all so selective in the perspective we choose to call "the right one." Indeed, we pick out our perspectives like a young girl picking a pair of shoes.'

But as the demand to serve Moloch of money on Wall Street grows more powerful than any other force on planet earth, for it owns everything and everyone through debt, so the ever greater need to service the interest payments that Moloch demands as homage becomes.  And to always increase that wealth, those same people offer it to the Financial Firms who, like Rumpelstiltskin, turn it all into more money, out of nothing.

Put another way, by making money from interest and speculation, rich people literally just buy more money. They don't produce anything, and they don't in anyway add to a society, except that they are able to buy more stuff. And this ability to buy more stuff (which has been confused for actually making more stuff - but the financial firms do not "make" anything, but money, from money), is seen as their money "trickling down" into the economy, like the crumbs from the rich man's table to Lazarus.

And Religion is the lie that conditions people to accept that their misery here today will be rewarded later, after they die, in heaven, by a God who is so proud of you for shutting up and doing exactly as your told your whole life. 

This ponzi scheme allows for the pooling of untold trillions among very few, by convincing people that they are the very heart of the American economy, when they are in fact a cancer hollowing it out. Like the movie Alien, the financial sector has crawled into the chest of the American economy, and gestated by feeding off of its host, killing the host in the process. But we worship that capitalism nevertheless, like a golden calf, trusting it will lead us out of the desert of our discontent. And anyone who challenges the "truth" of the religion of capitalism, will be met with cries of "crucify him."

The rich are our only "gods", and they convince us all that we are the demons, the sinners, the damned. In fact, 8 people today now own 50% of the world's wealth. THEY can afford any price tag for healthcare. They are the Capital in the Hunger Games. They are the "giants" described in the Bible. They are "gods, who kill us for their sport."

And now the levers of power have been handed over to them in the hope that one of "them" will save all of us. He is a free market Messiah. But even if he helps things in the short term, Capitalism will eventually smother the whole world in this way, like a serpent does to its prey.    

In fact, it already is. 

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

How Racism Illustrates the Fatal Flaw of Religion

Racism is simply a religion based on the superiority of one's own race, the same way "theistic" religions are based on the superiority of one's own spirituality. Religion is based on having "faith" in what we cannot see or know. As such, racism provides the perfect example of how religion forces people to accept that 2+2=5, simply because "God" says so, and for absolutely no other reason. And if you dare to challenge that, you'll be sent to hell.

Racism believes in three things that science proves are not true. The first is the idea that "race" is a real thing. But it isn't. Race is a term that was made up for the sole purpose of dividing people into categories, as we have a habit of doing, but it has been proven that no such thing as "different races" is actually real.

That doesn't matter to the hard core racists, however, who are convinced they know better, and usually because they got all of their knowledge about "race" from reading the Bible, and having faith in the Christian God. After all, is there such a thing as an atheist racist?

The second thing racists believe is that different races can be compared, and categorized from best to worst, even though the differences between people in different parts of the world have been shown to be simply the result of environment. Hence while white Europeans who came to North America had developed immunity to the diseases they could catch from their own live stock, the Native Americans who had never lived around such animals were susceptible to such diseases. But when those same Europeans went to colonize Africa, this was reversed, for it was they who were susceptible to the diseases of the animals native to Africa, and not the native Africans.

But again, this is history that is rejected mostly because it is not known by the racist, and mostly because it has not been written in their Bible.

Third, our DNA proves that there is no such thing as a "pure race," since we are all mixed with each other, tracing back to the beginning of human existence. Indeed, written in our DNA is the evidence of a long history of interactions between peoples from all over the world, throughout history.

But the avowed racist does not care about the science that disproves their beliefs in racism. They only believe what they can so plainly see. They are only Doubting Thomas when it comes to anything that happens to be true, not to what they "feel" in their bones must be true about the superiority of their own race.

Racists are people who basically deny everything, but their own superiority of course. Denying things IS a form of superiority, as if to show you're too smart to fall for that! In fact, they are the kind of people who can look at all of the chemicals being pumped into the water, air, and food we intake, and deny that we are being poisoned purely for the profit of America's great corporations! Even though we so clearly are.

Yet despite these three facts, racists choose to believe in their own interpretation of the Bible, to support their religion of racism. Or to put another way, while science may not have yet disproven the existence of God, it has disproven the existence of a "pure, biologically superior race." But that hasn't done a thing to stop racists from believing it anyway.

And if science every found proof that there is no god, as Christians they would do the same thing. 

This would no doubt be the same for religious believers even if science disproved the existence of God. And in this way, despite science proving that 2+2=4, religious believers and racists insist that God proves that 2+2=5.

Contemplating Jesus

I noticed a picture of Jesus on the desk of a co-worker recently and couldn't help but wonder what the point of such a picture was.

The crucifix is a gruesome depiction of the brutal murder of an alleged "god-man," that is supposed to strike both horror into any good Christian as well as happiness for the fact that Jesus was so brutally murdered for the sake of our own miserable souls. And out of this truly macabre mix of horror and happiness, we are supposed to feel love for the lunatic who allowed himself to die a miserable death, just so we could be "free" from sin.

Never the fact that no one was ever actually "freed" from anything, or that Christians have often run amuck in the world practicing a religion that looks like it came more from Charles Manson than Jesus Christ. Indeed, is there a single Aryan or Nazi who has ever lived that did NOT identify as being a Christian?

Nor have I ever seen a person who keeps a picture of Jesus that does not resemble their own ethnicity. I'm sure it happens, in those countries that the US has conquered and colonized for example, but it is probably pretty rare.

Yet we are still left to wonder what the point of the picture is exactly. Does it make us feel more contrite? More humble? More reverent or forgiving? For the sake of argument, let us assume that it does do all of these things (I actually think it not only does NONE of these things, but in fact only makes it impossible for ANYONE who claims to be a Christian to ever even practice such things).

But for everything it DOES, does it not simultaneously create an opposite revulsion for anything that is contrary to it?

If you had never been taught to believe that Bible can show the divine morality of racism and slavery, for example, or to truly passionately HATE  all those who engage in what you alone may define as "fornication" and "perversion," especially those god damned homosexuals!!! Would the world NOT be a better place?

Is it not the TEACHING of such hatreds and fears that create far, far more evil in the world, than that we should simply accept that people are simply different?

Is it not simply the means by which men try to pretend they have a special knowledge they know damn well they most definitely do NOT have, but pretend they do nevertheless, just so they can obtain power and hold positions of authority over others? True, they may actually "believe" they are helping "save souls," but that would be exactly what Satan would WANT them to belive they were doing, in persecuting all those who they feel are morally corrupt.

After all, if YOU were the devil, wouldn't convincing people that they were "like God, knowing right from wrong," be the easiest way to convince people to commit ever sin and inflict every suffering on others conceivable? Is that not EXACTLY what religion has been used for? And is that not EXACTLY what the serpent promised in the garden of Eden?

Economics, Jobs, & Racism

Economics is the means by which charlatans turn a pseudo-science based on the adoration of numbers, into a belief system promising salvation and prosperity to all. It's a giant lie, in other words, that is used to mislead people while justifying the worst horrors it can create.

This is exactly like the Christian God, when you think about it. If there are floods or inquisitions,  it's only because God loves you so much he wants to murder us all. So, economics is the belief that hard times require hard measures, unless you're a Conservative Republican who apparently thinks you can have everything you want, as much as you want. And if anyone ever tries to suggest otherwise, you answer with your guns (unless it's a priest, then you'll do whatever they say).

This religion of economics is based on creating jobs, the bread of life. It doesn't matter what the jobs are, just as long as there's plenty of them, and they pay enough to allow us all to consume more and more. If we are all working at Auschwitz or building bombs to drop on people on the other side of the world (for whatever bogus reason we can convince people to be angry about), that's just fine. We don't care who we are working to kill with our jobs, we only care about having jobs in the first place.

Economics is the means by which lab technicians manipulate the environment by constricting the amount of money and jobs in society, which allows the hardships that always follow to be blamed on racism and homosexuals, of course.

If you're trying to figure out why America is falling apart, just ask a Catholic priest or Phil Roberston, and they'll tell you it's clearly because of atheists, liberals, homosexuals, and anyone else they may detest and think of as suffering from some from of mental handicap.

That's how god is, as far as they are concerned. If the nut jobs are not kept in line by a strict bull whip understanding about God and his god damn moral laws - for fuck sake! - God punishes the whole god damn country for it! It's as natural and as immutable as physics - for fuck sake!

If you point out that Conservative AND Liberal Politicians have been using the false paradigm of "conservative / liberal" to mutually destroy the planet, rob the world, and enrich themselves, and always with God and Christ on their lips, they'll tell you you're clearly insane. Thank God.

Ferries & The Bondage of Beliefs

Religion grows by enslaving people in the belief that they are "free" by submitting to the authority of a Church that has been sent to humanity by an omnipotent God. Since there is no evidence to prove such a "belief," however, it can never be disproven either.

Ask someone to "prove" such a God exists, and they may respond by telling you to prove he does not. Of course, this is like starting with the assumption that anyone who "believes" this is completely insane, and when they claim this is not true, you tell them to "prove you are not completely insane."

Of course, they can't, at least not to anyone's satisfaction but their own. That's the problem with starting with a belief, you cannot disprove it, no matter the evidence. If every priest in the Catholic church was an admitted Nazi pedophile who murdered old women and drank their blood, this would not deter a single "true believing" Catholic who was convinced that such ubiquitous evil was simply proof that God was more real than ever.

But beyond this bondage of needing to believe a particular story of God in order to feel right, just, good, moral, holy, special, enlightened, affirmed, pure, righteous, and all the rest, is the inability to appreciate anything in the universe WITHOUT THE STORY!

In other words, people who believe in God the most, clearly suffer from an almost crippling form of existential meaningless, for which only the placebo of God can cure. Without this story of God, in other words, they would all be quite insane with the thought that the world had no meaning at all.

Such a thought is pure hell and torment for those who NEED god to exist, in order to feel RIGHT about telling everyone how to live their lives, and what constitute "moral behavior," and so on.

For them, as someone once said, it is not enough that a garden may be beautiful in its own right, they need to believe in the existence of magical ferries, who clearly made the garden just for them, a garden which is just a foreshadow of a much greater everlasting garden awaiting them in the hereafter, in order to appreciate the garden.

Without such "beliefs," the garden is quite ugly to them. Indeed, without such beliefs, the most beautiful garden of all would appear to them as having no more meaning, and hardly any more beauty, than a garbage dump filled with corpses, rats and lice.

That's not something to brag about. But to them, apparently, it really is. In the legendary words of their free market messiah, Donald Drumpf - "sad."

The Religion of Racism

Religions have always been about nothing but a kind of spiritual racism, where a person believes their religion makes their own spirit/soul more pure than some else. Racism is the same thing, of course, only biologically speaking. And both come down to blood.

Jesus shed his holy blood for Christians, just so he could forgive the whole world for murdering him (which his own father enticed the world to do, of course). Without the willingness of people to slaughter the lamb of God, in other words, humanity would never have purified itself.

Jesus, in this respect, is simply the lamb of God, but it's Sanhedrin who are essentially playing the role of Abraham in being willing to murder Jesus for God, like he did Isaac. And in the same way that religion makes killing people - from Isaac to Christ - a truly holy experience, so spilling blood for racial purity is no different.

Indeed, racism has always coincided with religion, since the two have always been two sides of the same coin. In truth, however, blood lines have never been "pure" in any sense, any more than any "religion" has ever been more "moral" than any other.

What both religion and racism have in common though, which makes them simply reflections of each other, is the ability to delude people with the belief that they are somehow more "pure" - either spiritually or racially, or both - than everyone else in the world.

This delusion then has the effect of convincing such people of the exact opposite of reality itself. Instead of being able to admit to themselves that they are under the delusion that they are truly "special" because they belong to a certain race or religion, they actually come to believe that being part of the "truth faith" or "pure race" only makes them humble to be so fortunate.

But the delusions don't stop there, of course, that is only where they begin. From there, religion and racism weave a tapestry of delusions into the mind of those who have been seduced by the apple of such lies, and by so doing, convince all those who have eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge that they are like God, knowing right from wrong.

And the serpent has the last laugh.    

Thursday, February 2, 2017

Martyrdom: The Greatest Paradox or Hypocrisy?

The philosopher Bertrand Russell put it quite plainly, when he said "I would never die for my beliefs, because I might be wrong."

That simple idea, expressed by an avowed atheist, confounds all of Christianity to it's core. Why?

Because Christianity claims to be a religion that makes people "humble." But refusing to consider that your "beliefs" are not the undeniable, absolute "truth" of God, even unto death, is not an act of humility but of extreme hubris. It asserts "I am right! And by God I will not change my mind, no matter what evidence you provide. I would rather die instead!"

This is the temper tantrum of the most obstinate child imaginable.

On the other hand, I want to also admit that I can see where the "humility" comes in. But it is NOT humility practiced by many Christians. Take Father Kolbe for example.  According to Wikipedia:

Fr. Maximilian Maria Kolbe, was a Polish friar who volunteered to die in place of a stranger in the German death camp of Auschwitz.

That's an act of extreme selflessness, even if it was done in the selfish pursuit of pleasing God and winning heaven. But, joking aside, the humility to accept someone else's cross, someone else's death, is equally one of extreme humility. To willingly go, like a lamb to slaughter, and lay one's life done for another, a stranger at that, is arguably the epitome of humility as well.

So which is it? Is martyrdom an extreme act of humility or spiritual hubris?

In truth, it's not easy to tell, and it may even be impossible to fully disentangle to two from each other, so complicated is the question and so fickle is the mind that asks it.

But what we can know, however, is that there is a universe of difference between loving an idea so much, and by extension, all others via that idea, can be a kind of ultimate humility. While to die for an idea, for no other reason than that you believe the "idea" itself has some special power to transform people, or that your own obstinate refusal to bend on how absolutely "true" you believe that idea to be, can also be an extreme act of spiritual pride as well.

Beliefs are not "truth," however, which is why I think to die for a belief alone is pure insanity and the very opposite of humility (although it may take guts, it's still insane) while to die to save others, whether because you "believe" your Religion leads you to such a conclusion or because you have no religion but to help even the most wretched of humanity, regardless of whether you personally think they deserve it, may be the greatest act of humility of all.

So in short, I guess it's a little of both, depending on how you look at it. "And the powerful play goes on..."

Father Mike's Omniscience About Transgenderism

The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between how nature works and how people think.
Gregory Batson

If my perception doesn't match up with reality, it's not reality that has to change, it's my perception.  
Fr. Mike Schmitz

Despite the ever growing mountain of evidence about the nature of transgenderism, Fr. Mike Schmitz simply refuses to change his perception. And that's because his "perception," is not only based on nothing but his "beliefs," but because selling those "beliefs" is his one and only job! The problem, if he were truly trying to follow in the footsteps of Christ, is he would stop trying to sell people what he "believes" is the truth, and he would try to actually start trying to FIND THE TRUTH instead. 

NOT DOING SO, however, is simply an act of his own spiritual pride, and nothing else.


Probably because they like to keep things simple, even when the world is anything but. It makes them feel better.

There is a joke about a drowning man who refused to be saved by a boat, then a helicopter, and even a submarine. After he drowned, he asked God "why didn't you save me?" To which God replied, "Jesus! I sent you a boat, a helicopter, and even a damn submarine! What the hell else did I need to do to show you I was trying to save you?"

Like the drowning man, Christians tend to be so focused on their "beliefs" about things, that they ignore the evidence that God sends to them from everywhere, even evidence that's as obvious as a boat, a helicopter, and a submarine. And also like the drowning man, Christians are so blinded by their "belief" in God, that they choose to deny the evidence that God has sent them about the nature of transgenderism.

The reason Christians ignore and even deny the evidence about the truth regarding transgenderism is because they prefer the comfort of their overly simple beliefs in a world that, thanks to an explosion of technology and understanding, is only getting more confusing by the second.

The world is bi polar in this sense, in that we crave ever simpler understandings in a world that is exploding in ever more complexity. But Jesus's claims that we must become like children to enter the kingdom of heaven is not an invitation to collectively prefer our "beliefs" about everything from Santa Clause to transgenderism to the truth. But that doesn't stop many Christians from needing, indeed even demanding, that their "beliefs" about transgenderism are "infallible" to what science has to say on the matter, even when such "beliefs" result in producing far, far more harm, hatred, and fear of the transgender community than anything science has to say about it.

Such "Christians" simply deny they have any responsibility for the fear and violence that their own "beliefs," which are  often so clearly contrary to an only  ever growing mountain of evidence, serve to animate in so many people, often out of fear for their own eternal souls.


Science and religion have had a rocky relationship for a while now. This is because there is a world of difference between "truth" and a "belief," for one is independent of anyone's recognition of it, while the other is entirely dependent upon, and wholly contained within, the mind of the "believer." Although there is a good deal of overlap between the two, they can also be diametrically opposed as well. From beliefs about witches, to slavery, and even an earth centered universe, humanity has always had to struggle with the difference between how nature works and how people think. And today, this difference can be seen in our ideas about transgenderism.  

I was reminded of all of this recently when I watched a video about Transgenderism on the Ascension Press Facebook page by a Catholic priest named Father Mike Schmitz. (see link at the bottom).

Like Pope Urban VIII, who got it wrong when he disagreed with Galileo’s claim that the Earth revolved around the Sun in 1616, so Fr. Mike likewise gets it wrong when he tries to explain ideas about transgenderism using only his religious perspective. The difference is that Pope Urban VIII was following the consensus among the scientific community at the time, while Fr. Mike simply ignores what science has to say about gender altogether. If Fr. Mike had considered science at all, however, he might well have discovered that the very people he claims are confused about their gender, are biologically identical to not only Adam and Eve, but even his own personal Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

But it should be said from the outset, that this is in no way intended to pass judgement, attack, or even condemn Father Mike, "or make him out to be a monster." Although his heart seems to be in the right place, and I am sure he only wants to "help" people who are suffering with their problems, he simply fails to realize just how much his own "beliefs" are the very thing needlessly causing much of that suffering, by warping his own sense of reality.  His religion, in other words, is the very thing that prevents him from seeing how his own "beliefs" about gender only contributes to the very suffering he wishes to alleviate.

Admitting such a thing, up to this point at least, has apparently proved to be too heavy of a cross for Fr. Mike to bear. So he lays that cross on the backs of others instead, and offers his sincere wish to remove it, if they would but accept that his beliefs about gender were true, and that the gender beliefs of those who identify as "transgender" were false.  Ironically enough, Fr. Mike’s own religious ideas about the virtues of martyrdom – which is the idea that the greatest virtue of all is to die for one's beliefs, rather than ever accept the possibility that such beliefs could simply be wrong – prevents Fr. Mike and countless other such Christians, from ever being able to humbly practice what they so proudly preach.

 And in this way, religion convinces them that they can only be made perfect through their unyielding and often inflexible "beliefs" about what constitutes perfection. 

While I am sure Fr. Mike only perceives himself to be a persecuted minority who works for the "truths" of Jesus Christ, in a world that may seem so hostile to such ideas, he seems to have overlooked the fact that feeling like a "persecuted minority" is exactly how everyone else on the planet feels as well; And perhaps none more so than those who identify as transgender. That's why "transgenderism" may be the perfect example for illustrating the difference between science and religion, and just how often our "beliefs" can be the complete opposite of what is "true."


In his video, Fr. Mike claims that transgenderism is simply a rejection of reality itself, by those who are suffering from some deep emotional or spiritual problems, who he compare to someone who thinks they are a dog. In truth, however, Fr. Mike is not only confusing a correlation for causation, he also appears to be the one rejecting reality, and in more ways than one. And in doing so, he ends up coloring people who are simply different with a kind of spiritual scarlet letter.  

When the only tool you have is the hammer of your religious beliefs, to borrow a phrase from Abraham Maslow, every problem you encounter is seen as spiritual nail. The last time the Church made this mistake, however, is when it decided to apply the Malleus Maleficarum, otherwise known as the “Hammer of Witches,” to all those that the Church believed had sold their soul to the devil.

The Malleus Maleficarum was used,” as Linguistic Archeologist, Edo Nyland explained, to reinforce and validate “Catholic beliefs” in witches, “which led to the prosecution, torture, and murder, of tens of thousands of innocent people.”[iii]  Nearly all of the accused where women, Nyland continues, and “consisted primarily of outcasts and other suspicious persons, including Jews, Poets, Gypsies” and “anyone who did not fit within the contemporary view of pious Christians.”[iv]

In this way, the hammer of religion allowed Christians to feel they were doing gods works, even as they were burning the “least of his children” at the stake. And today, that same hammer is being used to drive people into binary gender roles, while declaring that anyone who refuses to conform to those roles must be suffering from a mental or emotional problem.  This, however, is like Samuel Cartwright declaring in 1851 that, since the Bible clearly states that the black slave should be kept “in the position that we learn from the Scriptures he was intended to occupy, that is, the position of submission,” slaves should therefore be content to serve their masters. Any slave that runs away, Cartwright concluded, must therefore be suffering from a mental disease that he called “drapedomainia.”  

Fr. Mike's conclusion that anyone who identifies as transgender must be suffering from a mental problem is incredibly ironic, therefore, since it was his own Catholic Church that once "believed" that people who were actually suffering from real mental problems were witches. And that irony is only surpassed by the fact that he chose to compare transgenderism to his nephew pretending to be a dog, since only a few short centuries ago, it was Christians who believed that those they feared and labeled as "witches" possessed the power to turn themselves into dogs.  But I suppose there really is "nothing new under the Sun."

Although our collective understandings about "witches" and mental health have progressed a great deal since the sixteenth and seventeenth century, much like our understanding about slavery and our solar system, the Church's understanding about gender in general, and transgenderism in particular, has hardly budged a single inch in over two thousand years. So, like those who believed that the Bible supported slavery and the geocentric universe, perhaps it is the "belief" that gender is completely binary that is the problem, and not transgenderism, which may simply be an example of how nature really works.

Of the numerous ways in which Fr. Mike rejects reality out of a preference for his own religious “beliefs” about gender, four of the most obvious are his rejection of:

1.The science of genetics, which suggests, Adam, Eve,  Mary, Jesus, and were all potentially transgender, and even possibly God as well.
2.The chemical and environmental factors that contribute to gender
3.The sociological factors that shows how gender is achieved not assigned, and
4. And the anthropological evidence, which demonstrates how other cultures have seen transgenderism not as a problem, but as a sign of providence.
One thing we must understand about "gender," if we are to accept Fr. Mike's claims, is how it is determined, and to what extent it can be shaped, by our genetics. This is, by far, the most difficult obstacle for Fr. Mike to overcome, but he never even addresses it in his video. 

Aside from accepting the prospect that even his own personal lord and savior may have been transgender, Fr. Mike also ignores how his own God has clearly created 'transgender" people in the form of hermaphrodites, who are today referred to as "intersexed" individuals. Used to describe any person incompatible with the biological gender binary, the term "intersex" describes "a wide variety of combinations of what are considered male and female biology." Intersex people possess both the XX and the XY chromosomal pairs.  In botany, this term it is used to describe a flower that has both staminate (male, pollen-producing) and carpellate (female, ovule-producing) parts."

But Fr. Mike’s God has left us more genetic breadcrumbs for discerning truth than this.
Most people have 23 pairs of chromosomes, for example, 22 of which are identical in both males and females, and are referred to as autosomes. The 23rd pair is the XY in boys, and the XX in girls. But just having an XY pair does not guarantee a person will be male. Instead, there is a gene in the Y chromosome called SRY that is largely responsible for determining if we become genetically male or female.   
Without the SRY gene, even babies with the XY chromosomes can develop into girls." One way we know about this important gene is that there are some rare cases where someone has two X's but also has an SRY gene. These are people who are female on a chromosomal level, but look male.  And there are cases where an XY person has an SRY that doesn't work or is missing. These people are male on a chromosomal level, but look female.

But even the SRY gene isn't enough.  There are lots of other genes needed to make a boy. As Jessica Profato of Stanford University pointed out:

This SRY gene starts a kind of "gene avalanche of turning on the 80 or so different genes necessary for turning a baby with XY chromosomes into a full fledged boy. …
If one of the genes is missing, the whole thing can come to a halt, and the person will “end up looking somewhere between a man and a woman.” and if the SRY gene is missing or doesn't work, then the avalanche won't start at all. The baby will develop as a girl.

One of the key jobs of SRY and its related genes is to get testosterone made so another gene - the AR gene - can do its job.  AR is responsible for making many of the parts of a boy that identify him as a boy. Sometimes, though, someone can get a copy of the AR gene that isn't working quite right.  Now the boy making process doesn't go all the way to the end.  This is called Androgen Insensitivity syndrome or AIS.

According to the National Library of Medicine at NIH:

Androgen insensitivity syndrome is a condition that affects sexual development before birth and during puberty. People with this condition are genetically male, with one X chromosome and one Y chromosome in each cell. Because their bodies are unable to respond to certain male sex hormones (called androgens), they may have mostly female external sex characteristics or signs of both male and female sexual development. (https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome)

So people with AIS have an X and a Y chromosome. They just don't make it all the way to being a boy because AR can't do its job.  The avalanche is slowed down or stopped early.  And the earlier it is stopped, the less like a traditional boy the person will look.

the result, accorind to Alice Drger, is that a  person can be born a girl  until she becomes a teenager and doesnt have her period, and they do some tests and discover that rather than having a uterous and ovaries, she actually has testies and a Y chromosome. YOu may think of them being male, but they really are not. 
Adnrogens... most women make and are sensitive its complicated..

boy had a life as a guy...who found out that he
congenital adrenal hypoplasia 
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) 
Most of these conditions involve excessive or deficient production of sex steroids and can alter development of primary or secondary sex characteristics in some affected infants, children, or adults
and it wasn't until he was 19, where he had developed medical problems from menstrating internally, that this became clear. 

Some people who have XX chromosomes develop what are called which is when you have ovarian tissue with testiculare tissue wrapped around.
An ovotestis is a gonad with both testicular and ovarian aspects.[1][2] In humans, ovotestes are an anatomical abnormality associated with gonadal dysgenesis.[3] In invertebrates that are normally hermaphroditic, such as most gastropods (snails and slugs) in the clade Eupulmonata, an ovotestis is a common feature of the reproductive anatomy.

Klinefelter syndrome (KS) also known as 47,XXY or XXY, is the set of symptoms that result from two or more X chromosomes in males.[1] The primary feature is sterility.[1] Often symptoms may be subtle and many people do not realize they are affected. Sometimes symptoms are more prominent and may include weaker muscles, greater height, poor coordination, less body hair, smaller genitals, breast growth, and less interest in sex.[2] Often it is only at puberty that these symptoms are noticed.

There are two types of AIS, partial and complete. People who have complete AIS are genetically boys (XY), but they have the physical characteristics of a girl. People who have partial AIS are also genetically boys (XY). They have some of the physical characteristics of a girl and some of a boy.

In addition to this, biologists today have concluded that, much like amoebas, human life began as hermaphrodites and only later evolved into “male” and “female” sexes.  Even in the first 6 weeks after conception, we are all essentially female or transgender, until the genetic triggers begin to work their magic. Such findings give us a whole new understand of the story of Eve being pulled from Adams's rib. But as it says in Mark 8:18 so many Christians  "have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear .... so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding." 

Hermaphrodites and different genetic and chromosomal amalgams of males and females, only prove that even though Fr. Mike proposes, God disposes, for what Fr. Mike chooses to simply "believe" about the nature of gender, is itself simply a rejection of the reality of gender. Instead, such Christians would rather drown in their own beliefs, like the joke about the man stuck on his rooftop during the flood. 

The man, confident that his God will answer his prayers to rescue him, says "No thank you," to first a row boat, than a motor boat, and lastly a helicopter. And when the man finally drowns as a result, he meets God and asks, " "I had faith in you but you didn't save me, you let me drown. I don't understand why!" To this God replied, "I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?" Like transgenderism, God could've equally replied, "Your drowned, because you clung more tightly to your "beliefs," than any willingness to try and understand what was right in front of you the whole time."


On the one hand, if we accept Fr. Mike’s suggestion that gender is a binary attribute that's tied directly to our sexual genetics, then the fact that Eve was created from Adam's rib, according to the Bible, means she would have inherited Adam's XY male chromosomes. That she is described in the Bible as a "female" therefore suggests she must have been a woman with the male XY chromosomal pairing - hence, transgender. Either that or Adam's chromosomes were already XX to begin with (which is the typical chromosomal pairing for females), in which case it was Adam who was transgender. And the fact that Jesus came from Mary without a biological father, hence only the female XX chromosomes would be expressed in Jesus on a biological level (since it is the father that determines if a child will become male), means Jesus being a male suggests that either he or Mary were therefore "transgender" as well. 
In fact, if we are all “made in God’s image,” and God is without gender, then it would make sense that even God might be “transgender,” since to denote such a "Being" as “male” implies the existence of a female. And if there is only “one God,” as Christians claim, than to suggest God is ‘our father,” only implies the existence of a God mother. As such, it makes far more sense to say that both Adam, Jesus, and even God  himself, are all transgender.  So who is the one failing to accept reality here - Fr. Mike and the Catholic Church, or the transgender community?

SECOND, In addition to ignoring the genetics of transgenderism, he also completely ignores the chemical and environmental factors that may contribute to it as well.  The "estrogen mimicker" nonylphenol, for example, is a chemical found in many of our products, including in our water, that mimics the female hormone estrogen. Studies have shown that fish exposed to nonylphenol under go a metamorphosis from male to female. Atrazine, yet another chemical that is used in pesticides sprayed on our food, has also been found to have similar gender morphing effect on frogs.

Fr. Mike assumes that a correlation between transgenderism and spiritual and/or psychological pain and suffering means that the latter is therefore causing the former. But how does Fr. Mike know that the pain and suffering of those who identify as transgender is not causing their transgenderism, which may be only genetically determined, but is instead caused by a society that treats those who are genetically different as if they were a bunch of spiritual lepers?


Who ever said that our gender was necessarily tied immutably to our sexual hardware? Sociologists, for example, have concluded that while a person's sex is something they are assigned genetically, a person's gender is something that they achieve socially - one is the hardware we are born with and the other a kind of operating system, programed through the interaction of an infinite number of genetic and environmental factors; including some of the things we have just explored.  But who ever said that a certain operating system can only be run on certain computers? Even Microsoft Windows runs on Macs these days, and vice versa!

But Fr. Mike simply ignores all of this, because, again, when all you have is the hammer of your own religion, every problem is seen as a spiritual nail.

FOURTH, Fr. Mike also chooses to ignore anthropology. Among indigenous Native American tribes, for example, transgender people were not seen as spiritually broken, but were considered to be people of medicine and were even considered by many to holy - even as "holy" as many may now see Fr. Mike - and where referred to as "two spirit people."  While a number of those tribes and nations lacked rigid binary gender role assignments, those that did considered there to be, not simply two genders, but at least four different genders: “feminine woman, masculine woman, feminine man, masculine man."

Trying to understand transgenderism by simply ignoring the four ideas just outlined above, however, is a bit like an atheist trying to understand Fr. Mike's Catholicism, while simply ignoring the four gospels of the New Testament. 

Don’t get me wrong: Fr. Mike seems like a genuinely nice guy with his heart in the right place. He just never seems to notice that the cross shaped beam in his own eye comes from his own "beliefs," and that the mote he thinks he sees in other people's eyes is really just a projection of the beliefs in his own. That's why, as someone once pointed out, we see things not as they are, but as we are. Put another way, Fr. Mike's attempts to remove the mote he thinks he sees in someone else's eye, may only result in him crucifying such people to the plank in his own.

That's why the biggest causes of suffering for those who identify as transgender, is often only those people who believe there is something wrong with transgenderism in the first place, especially when such people feel they have a moral obligation to force or coerce transgender people to conform to the binary gender roles that Christians demand we must occupy. But this is like demanding that all clothes should be clearly demarcated as male or female, or even hair cuts. In short, the thing most wrong with those who identify as transgender is often all those who identify as Christian.

And this is because, rather than accepting how nature actually works on its own terms, getting people to accept and conform to his own "beliefs" about gender is how Fr. Mike and other Christians ensure they can get into Heaven.  But as we all know only too well, simply believing something doesn't make it true. And if Fr. Mike thinks that people are simply confused about their gender, it might be because he has confused his “beliefs” about gender, for the truth.  


In his work, De Genisi ad litteram (The Literal Meaning of Genesis) the great Christian theologian, St. Augustine of Hippo, talked about the grave dangers posed to Christianity itself by necessarily conflating "beliefs" for "truth," by failing to ground scriptural understand in contemporary scientific understanding, rather than in what we just choose to "believe.” And even though Pope Urban VIII got it wrong, at least he was following Augustine's advice, and trying to understand the universe in light of the accepted scientific understanding  of the time.

 While St. Augustine would've understood Urban's mistake, he most likely would've condemned the kind of conclusions offered by Fr. Mike as “offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk” about.  Augustine said it was even worse to hear a Christian claim “that what he is saying is based on Scripture.”  As such, he warned Christians “to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.” As Augustine went on to explain:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”“
’(1 Timothy 1:7)

Rather than consider transgenderism in the light of scientific understanding, however, Fr. Mike simply concludes that such people are confused by their own pain and suffering. What he fails to mention is that most people turn to Fr. Mike's very own religion because of their own pain and suffering; suffering which Christianity turns into a sacramental virtue. Pain and suffering, in other words, causes far more people to believe in a God and the particular brand of religion Fr. Mike is selling, than it has ever caused people confusion about their gender. Using Fr. Mike's reason, one could even make the argument that Catholicism is just as much of a mental condition caused by pain and suffering as "transgenderism."

But Fr. Mike never addresses any of this, nor does he address the fact that his own "beliefs" about gender may be only contributing to the very suffering he claims to be trying to alleviate, and by so doing, he may end up only hiding the very "truth" he claims his religious "beliefs" are always trying to find and defend.

The only question then is whether picking up the cross and following in the footsteps of Christ means getting all those who may make us uncomfortable to change who they are, so that they will make us more comfortable by conforming to our "beliefs," or whether we must be willing to change our own beliefs, however uncomfortable it may be for us to do so, in order that we may better understand the truth that the world is trying to tell us.

But rather than change our beliefs, most of us would rather make ourselves feel better by "believing" we are giving the cross that comes from refusing to surrender our own beliefs, no matter how seemingly incompatible they may be with reality itself, to God.  In doing so, we are only laying that  cross on the backs of others to carry, and forcing them to accept our "beliefs" rather than us accepting them for who "God" (or the universe, or whatever) intended them to be. Those “beliefs” make it so easy for Fr. Mike teach whatever he wants to about transgenderism, but they also prevent him from learning a single thing about the truth about what it means to be transgender.


Despite all of this, one thing is perfectly clear - Not a single thing mentioned here will lead Fr. Mike or the vast majority of Christians for that matter, to consider for a single second that their "beliefs" about gender could ever EVER be wrong!  And that's because, as research has shown repeatedly, facts do very little to changes people's minds about anything - ever! 

And without question, since religion works exclusively be fostering deep emotional addiction and dependence, the true miracle of a religious belief is it's ability to become completely impervious to all facts, all evidence, and all rational thought.

The mustard seed of faith, in other words, can always be used to remove any mountain of evidence from rational consideration, simply by denying all of it.  And the blessings that a confirmation bias bestow on the mind of the believer in the form of a dopamine induced euphoria, is an addiction much too powerful to ever be overcome with any Everest of evidence or reasoning.

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell because the fool is "believes" their "beliefs" make them a genius, while the genius knows that "truth" always proves us all to be a fool.

What the “believer” perceives to be the “holy spirit” convincing them that it is better to die rather than to ever reconsider their position, is actually just the euphoria produced by the dopamine release they enjoy from proving to themselves just how right they are in refusing to consider they could ever be wrong. And while seeking “truth” requires a willingness to humbly admit our limitations and imperfections, a belief demands that we have no "truths" before it.

So we don't, because there is no heaven as pleasurable as feeling we are right, and no hell more painful than having to admit we could ever be wrong

Like an iceberg, 90% of such beliefs about gender are based on a fear of maintaining a comfort zone, and that, if clear lines of gender demarcation become increasingly blurred, life for them will begin to feel ever more  like an acid experiment gone wrong, and souls may end up roasting like chestnuts on an eternal fire. 

So let’s face it - there is no amount of evidence in the universe that could ever overcome that kind of fear. In fact, if Jesus tried to convince them otherwise by showing up in drag, they’d be the ones screaming “crucify him! Crucify him!"  

On the other hand, “believers” are as inseparable from how they identify with their “beliefs” as they are inseparable from how they identify with their own gender. 

But simply believing something, doesn’t make it true. Nor is it true to claim that the world is improved by starting with the assumption that gender is necessarily a black and white issue, and that all of the problems in the world are the result of anyone who fails to agree.

 A "belief," after all, only wants to be right, and even loved and worshiped as “true,” while the “truth” is wholly indifferent to whether anyone “believes” or acknowledges it as true.  One is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury that struts and frets its hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more, while the other is as silent yet as obvious as the stage itself. One revels in the joy of being wrong, because each admission of error inches us ever closer to the truth, while the other only exalts in the euphoria of always feeling right. One is seduced by an apple that convinces us we are "like God, knowing right from wrong," while the other delights in always learning from the garden of everything around us, and keeps us humble, by always reminding that we are only human.
  And we do this rather than accepting how nature actually works on its own terms, in order to get people to accept and conform to our own "beliefs" about gender. Doing so is how Fr. Mike and other Christians ensure the world will not fall off its moral axis due to the blurring of gender lines. It's also how they ensure they can get into Heaven, by keeping everyone in line with how they see gender, even if their own "God" has only ever tried to show them something else.  

I only wish Fr. Mike Schmitz would work on removing plank in his own eye, instead of the mote he thinks he sees in the eyes of those who identify as transgender. Because that plank, is the cross upon which he crucifies both Christ and “truth” whenever he assumes to know the mind of God, and his "beliefs" about gender are the nails.

And to the transgender community, as Christ said on the cross, all I can say of those “Christians” who believe what Fr. Mike believes is “forgive them – for they know not what they do.”




[i]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum
[ii]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_hunts
[iii]. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienciareal/cienciareal12.htm
[iv]. Id.

Religion is a disease masquerading as it’s own cure.