My pharmacy has a conspicuously located sign - as I'm sure all Murrican pharmacies do - that lays out the penalties for buying pseudoephedrine in ways the Feds deem unacceptable. 'Cause Meth. People in trailer parks everywhere must be feelin' the love.

Captain Obvious sez the Feds create false monsters they can slay to distract us from their corruption and dysfunction, or at least to pander to their constituencies.

I think the intrusion into our brains, bodies and crotches is driven by fundamentalist Christianity. Religion is a blight I hope to see eradicated in my lifetime, but I don't think people give up their stupidity that easily.

America is still a great country, blah, blah, blah. Seriously, aside from the cloud of despair and paranoia in our culture, I think it's true. But I would love to taste life in Europe, particularly in Scandinavia, where they seem to reject Bullshit.

I'm afraid you are way off base on religion being the source of authoritarian impulses DaveG. Religion can make a good shield, but the busy bodies and the tin pot dictators will use whatever is at hand to justify their impulse to control. The US is a largely Christian nation so that is a handy shield here. But look at non-Christian nations and you see the exact same actions and justifications. In many ways Europe is very secular. And the laws on what you can eat, how much it will cost, who can own a business, ... are not justified by religion. Instead they say 'Its for your own good' or 'Think of the children'. And European laws are far more confining than the US.

@DaveG,

Better go visit quick 'cause there may be some future changes in the definition of "Bullshit".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/10636279/Have-Swedens-permissive-parents-given-birth-to-a-generation-of-monsters.html

Ben,

That's even worse, if killing off religion won't end bullshit.

Ben,

That's even worse, if killing off religion won't end bullshit.

Posted by: DaveG at September 5, 2014 6:45 AM

Religion never gets killed off. It just morphs into another focus. Look at all the global warming bullshit.

And the GMO and anti vaccine hysteria.

Individuals' lives and bodies belong to them, not to the government.

Silly libertarian. YOU BELONG TO THE COLLECTIVE, BODY AND SOUL. UNTIL YOU ARE NO LONGER USEFUL. At that point, take the red pill.

I think the intrusion into our brains, bodies and crotches is driven by fundamentalist Christianity.

Now that there is weapons grade bovine scatology. You know who is doing that to you? it is the Progressive movement.

Now that they have passed comprehensive health care reform, at some point they will be able to regulate what you ingest because it bends the health care cost curve down. They may also get it in their heads to regulate other behaviours of yours: no sky diving, no rock climbing, no screwing around.

And they'll do it cheerfully, because they hold you as an individual in contempt. Ya see, you're too...stupid...to chart your own course. You didn't go to the right schools, have the right friends or make the right choices, so they'll have to make them for you. For your own good.

They're trying to make Utopia. And they'll drag you there, kicking and screaming if necessary.

Look at all the global warming bullshit. And the GMO and anti vaccine hysteria.

Funny you mention GMO and global warming.

I saw a story where the author argued that if we genetically modified humans to be smaller, then we wouldn't need as much food, space, etc, and our contribution to global warming would be lessened.

My comment was: this person probably will raise holy hell if you try to feed him/her some GM food.

I R A,

Your explanation is uglier than mine. Religion is such weapons-grade bullshit and stupidity that it must (I sincerely hope) die off in the next generation or two. Our reality is not so terrible that twisted fantasies are preferable.

Your actors may be evil but I doubt they're stupid.

" Look at all the global warming bullshit. "

I'm sure you mean the "Al Gore carbon credit scam bullshit" and not the "I've decided to ignore the peer-reviewed studies of rising temperatures and changing weather patterns and NASA photos of the vanishing Arctic ice" bullshit.

DaveG,

Religion is not the problem and it has been a partial solution. At the core of most lasting religions are a set of basic rights and responsibilities that cannot be taken away or modified by anyone. God made these rules, and since you can't go ask god for an exception those are the rules. God doesn't really have to exist for this to work but an absent god is a good way to say the rules are permanent and the latest pretty face can't change them. I also set the condition of long lasting because then you have a darwinian survival of the fittest values effect over time. Value system that don't work get weeded out and vanish.

While this doesn't restrain the worst among us historically it frees the least among us to say no. The king or president is not the highest authority. And when they violate those social mores people rise up to depose them.

The greatest tragedies and genocides of the 20th century came from strongly atheist nations.

I'm sure you mean the "Al Gore carbon credit scam bullshit" and not the "I've decided to ignore the peer-reviewed studies of rising temperatures and changing weather patterns and NASA photos of the vanishing Arctic ice" bullshit.

Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 5, 2014 9:42 AM

This vanishing arctic ice?

http://www.newsmax.com/SciTech/north-pole-ice-cap/2014/08/31/id/591899/

Ben,

Are you saying people desire an Omnipotent Giver Of Rules, whether or not they believe It exists?

There are no gods, so if you're implying that rejecting Him caused those atrocities, you're way off the mark.

Atheists are people who, among other things, don't need a Magic Sky Daddy to tell them how to behave well.

"Are you saying people desire an Omnipotent Giver Of Rules, whether or not they believe It exists?"

People desire order, predictability, and certainty about things that are unknowable.

Their emotional health often depends on letting go of things they cannot control, and a belief in a higher power helps many people do that.

If you look at what most religions define as "sin". It is those behaviors that hurt the functioning of the community, and your relationships with other people in it.

Religion at its best,brings a set of cultural and social norms, that allow people to live together in reasonably civilized society.

At its worst, it organizes people to do extremely evil things because of a unified belief in a just cause, much like all the other non religious *isms*

And no, I am not a believer, but like many people I accept many religious traditions, and axioms as good rules to live by.

Your values don't spring full form from some sort of innate genetic code you are born with.

Whether you want to admit it or not, they have been shaped to a large extent by Judeo Christian philosophy and morals.

You can be a trite as you want about a "sky daddy". But if the only reason, you are not raping, murdering, and robbing banks, is because you don't think you can get away with it, you are essentially a sociopath.

Check the history DaveG. Atheist China and Russia caused mass genocide and suffering. Moral relativism typically leads to the most basic system of values, i.e. might makes right. And when might makes right there is nothing wrong with killing a few million people. Atheism doesn't make you a good person any more than xtiain, budist, ... does.

Also, I never said anything about people desiring a god. I described a system of darwinian value selection. Of which one way to keep values constant was ascribing those values to an absent authority figure. God is one good example. A long dead king or nationalism are others that have historically worked.

On a slightly humorous side note, atheism doesn't conflict with the Decalogue, which is the basis of judeo-christian law.

If you look at what most religions define as "sin".

Like ice cream sodas on sunday, rock music, or miscegenation

Moral relativism typically leads to the most basic system of values, i.e. might makes right.

I got some bad news for you, Ben, that is the ONLY system of values this race called man has ever practiced

Bull Lujlp. And a perfect example is why don't I kill you? If the only thing keeping me from slaughtering those who annoy me is the police I've got some bad news for you. I can get away with it. Most serial killers are never caught. And what about those with political power? Obama obviously doesn't like republicans. Why doesn't he round them up and toss them in the gas chambers? Hitler, Stalin, and Mao certainly did.

But might makes right is the lowest common denominator of values. It requires some level of cooperation to build a more sophisticated system.

Ben the reason you dont is the police, the reason the police exist is becuase the majority want them to exist

It is the might of the majority forcing law and order.

It still boils down to might makes right, even if it an aggregate of the majorities individual mights

I hate to break it to you Lujlp, but only stupid murderers get caught. And there is nothing the police will do to stop me. Same with robbing or raping and most other crimes. For one thing, there are too few police to manage that many people.

Hence the castle doctrine in many states. :-}

How force is used is at the heart of most any value system. But might makes right is not the only way to regulate force. Most societies lay out rules for how force can be used and when rules are transgressed they use that force. But this is not the same as anarchy.

Ben, I'm an atheist, and I strive to be moral because I want to. End of story.

It's all the lying, duplicity and all-around bullshit that only religion can bring that I object to.

I don't understand your point about moral relativism, nor do I care because I hold myself to a higher standard than the human monsters you mention did.

You are also the stereotypical atheist DaveG. Arrogant and willfully ignorant. I wish you well.

Ben,

Fuck you. You don't know me.

You really put a smile on my face with the final insult. That is the stereotype to a T.

Just for reference sake, this is a piece about the push to outlaw recreational drug use. You immediately complained about religion being behind it. Since this is about the US I assume you mean the various xtian flavors. There are only two prohibitions against recreational drug use in the bible and only one could apply here.
1. Follow the local law as long as it doesn't conflict with religious law.
2. Take care of yourself both physically and mentally.

Given the fairly sound scientific data on marijuana and pain relief the only devout course would appear to be to push for legalization while not using personally.

Several of us pointed out your desires for a freer home in Europe were not realistic. You responded with an anti-christian slur and reiterated your anti-religion position. And today you proclaimed your difficulty understanding what I said and said you don't want to understand it. I.e. willfully ignorant.

The only way to build on the stereotype is an out of context anti-religious reference. A few years back Galileo was common. Today I usually hear pope Hitler references. I'd like to hear a pope Innocent one some day. Most of them were quite the bastards. I don't think most innocent people would choose to be called Pope Innocent.

Incidentally the well wishes and the smile are quite sincere. You've given me quite the case of nostalgia and home sickness.

"Ben, I'm an atheist, and I strive to be moral because I want to. End of story."

Define *moral*. And what value system do you think your moral code comes from?

Whether you believe in God or not. Your moral values most likely come straight out of Judeo Christian religion and philosophy which is the bedrock of Western Civilization.

Do Muslims share these values? And have the same moral code?

Well no, and therein lies one hell of a problem.

Ben,

Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

Isab, spare me.

Whence the idea that JudeoChristianity is the only game in town? Here are some other cultures with fine ethical bases:

(Short answer: every human culture, ever)

Inuit
Norse
Chinese
African
Aztec (I'm not impressed with the ritual sacrifice, tho)
Maori

Throughout time, people have travelled afar to fuck over less advanced cultures for God and Money, and no-one has done it on a grander scale than White English-speaking Christians.

Ben,

Our Federal Government thinks they should control what, and whom, we put in our bodies. Much of that impetus comes from Christian thought - Congress pandering to its constituents. Right-to-life, anyone?

Call me ignorant, but why do you have such a hard time with this simple concept? The USA is sliding toward theocracy.

Isab,

In my Western-centered view, Christians are the biggest liars you'll find anywhere. There are parts of Muslim culture too poisonous to tolerate, but at least they own it.

Because you are wrong DaveG. You have asserted a hypothesis and failed to support it.

Your list of cultures is not one. African and Chinese are not cultures, they are locations. And the existence of non-judeo-christian cultures doesn't disprove that judeo-christian values are at the basis of western cultures.

You now claim the US is sliding towards theocracy. Please back this up with some objective facts. While the US population continues to go up church/synagogue/... attendance has continued to drop. And this is not a new trend. It has been going on for over 60 years.

Ben,

Happily, you provided the fact that best counteracts my theocracy argument: dropping church attendance. If that one indicator rules the future, I can rest easily knowing religion will die a deserved death, perhaps in my lifetime.

How very precious of you. Chinese IS a culture - many, in place and time, and Africa is a place - with many cultures.

I don't have to disprove anything. You need to prove that JC values are [at the][sic] basis of western cultures. Don't bother: you won't believe me when I claim that much of what's in the Bible was "borrowed" from other cultures. I happily concede the point that your conclusion is the most obvious one, given the preponderence of Js and Cs in the west, but first we would have to agree on a strict definition of what JC values are and aren't. Let's agree to disagree.

I can't prove we're moving toward theocracy - what would be the test for that? - but it's clear to me that certain factions would love to see that - there are enough delusional Christian cranks around. If that's not evidence enough for you, we need not discuss it further.

Google "MRFF" and "Dominionist Christianity" to see how the wingnuts are over-running our military. You'll come back and say that I'm a conspiracy theorist. I don't ask Mikey Weinstein to prove his case; I just have confidence in the man himself, and his website has enough hatemail from "Christians" to suggest he's on to something.

It is unlikely that Christianity will die off in your lifetime. But in Europe it has certainly hit a low point. After the baby boomers die off in the US there may actually be a revival of Christianity. The drop in church attendance largely coincides with that generation and devout christians have much larger families. So they may breed their way back up.

There have been several far eastern cultures and there are many cultures and religions in Africa. So that may match with Inuit in your list, which is actually several different groups, but it does not match Norse, Aztec, or Maori. Those are specific groups while the others are better characterized as geographic regions.

I would be far more offended if you claimed there was only one version of the bible and it didn't borrow from various cultures. I can't agree to disagree because we agree. The bible was also originally compiled and periodically rewritten by committee. And beyond just the bible many Christian traditions are 'pagan' in origin. Jesus was not born on December 25th. A best guess is he was born in the summer around 6BC. Christmas is celebrated in December to co-opt the roman saturnalia. Similarly with Easter. There is also nothing of scriptural significance about Rome. The only reason the Vatican is based there is due to Genghis Khan.

You are right about the Christian domination of the armed forces. That is certainly the most likely path to a theocratic America. But the existence of Christian cranks is not significant. There have always been cranks of many different persuasions. There are plenty of atheist cranks along with Islamic, Buddhist, Shintoist, ... I rate the US armed forces as largely loyal to the nation first, but things like that are opinion. The only way to prove them right or wrong is to wait and see what happens.

"I would be far more offended if you claimed there was only one version of the bible and it didn't borrow from various cultures."

Why would that matter to you? You weren't explicit, but I assume you're also an atheist.

I think of the Bible as a way-too-long collection of morality tales and victim porn, and an anomaly in that Christians and Jews genuflect to the Main Character, Who, based on what's written there, is possibly The Most Evil Person in History. His Son was a righteous dude, tho.

If I could speak with the Authors, I would say "Is that the best you can do?" The thing is such a slog. So many other religions had gods who were interesting people doing interesting things. Zeus was a man-whore, but never boring.

I question the mindset of those who elevate such hack literature, initiated by desert tribespeople, to a central point in their lives. But since it's a universal human trait, I try - and gleefully fail - not to be too heavy-handed about it. I was lucky that my parents didn't serve me the kool-aid when I was a child.

"I would be far more offended if you claimed there was only one version of the bible and it didn't borrow from various cultures."

I wouldn't say that because I know it's not true. Do you know (of) people who would make that claim? I don't have any specific facts to prove my position, but apparently we share the position so I don't have to.

Knowing human nature, with no facts or evidence on the table, which scenario is more likely:
1) Holy Book is written, and possibly added to but never modified, with no cross-cultural contamination,
or
2) not?
Although I can see why clergy throughout the ages would try to keep it "pure". That Book gave / gives them amazing power of their flocks.

...power over...

DaveG, I am a devout Christian of the Episcopalian variety. Also known as the Church of England. They kinda needed a new name after the revolutionary war here in the states.

There are many people who like to claim there is only one version of the bible and that god more or less came to earth and penned the whole thing by himself. They are usually baptist or pentecostal in flavoring. Both groups reject centralized authority, so they can vary tremendously from group to group. It is an especially ridiculous claim when you can go into any bible store (yes they exist) and they will ask you which version you want.

And most of the bible has changed minimally for ~1500 years. The old testament section was unchanged for a much longer period. The ancient Jews were incredibly anal about that. The oldest incomplete Torah I know of was ~2500 years old and matched the modern Torah word for word. But even that doesn't protect you from linguistic drift. If I give you 30 talents of silver how much is that? Another classic one is about a rich man riding a camel through the eye of a needle. This has nothing to do with sewing but is instead referring to the back door into a walled city.

Many of these linguistic drifts have even been encouraged by the priesthood. The prime example being decalogue number 4, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain". Most people think this is about cussing. In reality this is the priests sin. It means don't claim god said something when he didn't. Since only a priest has reason to say what god did and did not say this really only applies to them. Cussing may be rude but it is not biblical prohibited.

Interestingly literacy has been a major problem for a corrupt priesthood. Back when they had orgy and drug parties in the Vatican (~1500) just about only priests could read. When you are the only one who can read the magic book you can claim it says anything you want. Islam has much this same problem in the middle east and southeast asia today.

I must add I am surprised you are a second+ generation atheist. You've come across as 'more catholic than the pope' so to speak, which is more common in first generation types of all flavors. There is rarely someone more devout than one who has changed sides.

Ben, thanks for not taking my withering attack on religion personally.

I'm more of a Gen 1.5 atheist. I was raised Unitarian, and I identified as one, but not enough to make a habit of attending with regularity.

My ex-wife was Protestant when we married, and when she converted to Catholicism and insisted our kids be Catholic, to which I meekly acquiesced, I was immersed in so much Catholicism that it drove me straight back to my loving, God-free childhood home.

UUs are free to be theists, deists, or whateverists, but it's rare to find any straight-up Christians. If they were, they wouldn't be hanging with us.

Other than the RCC's record of global evil, the part that drove a wedge in my marriage was that the parishioners were inert in the face of so much bad behavior, particularly at the parish level. Not even evil stuff: just disrespectful, like the clergy openly raiding the children's school funds.

To be fair, both my kids went to a Catholic HS where the culture was so positive I could hardly believe it.

Like I said, conversionists are more catholic than the pope. And in your ex-wife's case quite literally.

Usually for someone to change religions there has to be something quite wrong in their lives. In your case it sounds like a hypocritical and possibly criminal church and a bad home life. I couldn't even guess why your ex changed. Unfortunately a change of faith rarely fixes the underlying problem. So conversionists often continue their extreme behavior for quite a while afterwards.

A good metaphor is drinking. Many people can drink in moderation with no ill effect. And it can even provide health benefits. But drunks drink to excess, damaging themselves and others. Typically there is an underlying problem they are self medicating away. But the alcohol isn't really helping. Your ex sounds drunk on religion.

I doubt you know much about Episcopalians. I'm not knocking you. There really is no reason for you to know the umpteen million flavors of Christianity out there. But functionally we are Catholics without the pope. There are many good Catholics out there and many good Catholic churches. But sadly there are also horrible ones. And just like 90% of IRS agents are good people just trying to do their jobs, if you get one of the bad ones it is an experience you will never forget.

Again I wish you well. And please don't go converting on my behalf. You'll get me in trouble. ;->

Oh, and if you wanted to tweak the ex's tail you might ask her why the pope has an upside down cross carved in his chair.

While pop culture has used the upside down cross as a sign of the devil it has historically been the sign of the pope. It is in reference to the 'first' pope who asked to be crucified upside down since he didn't feel worth of dying the same way as Jesus.