It's a curmudgeon's life

It's my 100th post and it's about Sex!

2012-02-12T12:25:00.001-07:00

.... No this is not a Penthouse Forum post. Your not going to find out anything about my secret sexual desires or what I like to do in the privacy of my own room. It is about my disgust with the current attacks on the availability of healthy sexual information to our children. The Utah Legislature is in session. 45 days of the year the Utah Legislature does everything they can to act in their own interest and against the interest of the Utah population.

Gayle Ruzicka - The very face of Evil

Representative Bill Wright (R) introduced HB 363 on the docket with the intent of banning all discussion of contraception, homosexuality and sexual practices from the public school health and sex eduction programs. This should be seen as an assault on our children because it is exactly that! Even the BYU Health Services Department has come out against this bill.

Cougar Hall, assistant professor and school health adviser at Brigham Young University told the committee that Utah current law is very conservative. He said he supports abstinence education 100 percent, but there needs to be some information out there for students at risk.

"It is immoral to withhold life-saving information from segments of our population because it doesn't fit our value system," Hall said.~ Deseret News

Bill Wright used his granddaughter as a prop to defend his bill saying:

"She represents the innocence of those we are really talking about," Wright said. "This is not an important part of our curriculum. … It is just basically something out there that takes away from the character in our schools and takes away from the character of our students."

....

"I think we are intellectually dishonest when we teach pregnancy prevention in our classes and do not teach the only sure pregnancy prevention," Wright said.

My daughter Jessica (Liberal Blogger Kate) pointed out the misogyny in this tactic saying that only a girl could represent the innocence lost by sex. He did not bring in a grandson because using a young boy as a prop would not have the same effect.

Mr. Wright is a Dairy Farmer by trade. I don't say this to mock is chosen profession but to mock his credentials as a health educator or someone who would set health education policy. To this end, Mr. Wright is advocating withholding information from children and to rely on the failures of the past. Parents do not really educate their children about sex. Most of them are as qualified as Mr. Wright, or the woman with her hand up his back, Gayle Ruzicka; to provide real world sexual information to children. Just because you have had sex, does not make you an expert. Our children should be educated about their bodies and how they function mechanically and psychologically. Our goal for our children should be not just having safer sex but developing a healthy attitude toward sex. They will eventually have sex and we need to raise them in an environment where they can have good sex.

If you take Mr. Wright's comments and view them in the daylight your will realize how absurd they are. We teach math in progressive steps. Counting, Basic Addition, Subtraction and so on. We do not expect them to open up a Trigonometry book and start solving the problems. The same goes for their bodies. Bad sexual information leads to bad decisions and bad sex. I wish I had the information I know now when I was a teen and even in my 20's. I feel like I was robbed to some degree of many additional years of good sex. As much as I now know, I still find that I have some general misconceptions about sex. If I am left to educate my children on my own those misconceptions could be passed on as bad information.

We have progressed, as humans, beyond the bronze age but for some reason we continue to cling to attitudes and practices from that era. I don't know what Mr. Wright and the Puppet Master Ruzicka have to gain by denying quality information to children. Why is denying the truth a virtue? In response, I am linking two websites that are a great jumping off point for sexual information. The first is Go Ask Alice from Columbia University and the second is Kinsey Confidential from Indiana University. I think it is time somebody tells Gayle Ruzicka to shut up and sit down. Let's provide our children with good information with an acknowledgement that the older they get the less they need us and the more independent their decisions become.

Update

2011-12-27T21:39:00.003-07:00

I have been away for awhile. My friend Jeff pointed out that I have not posted since early November. My brother Shaun told me he is waiting for my next post. Well, I finished working on Pioneer Theatre's the Tempest; caught my homework up; worked Pioneer Theatre's Annie; finished two monster projects; got through finals week; and started designs for Le Belles-Soeurs. I finished a 17 hour semester with a 3.94.

I am working on a post that discusses religion and how it is detrimental to education. I have some nuggets from the LDS General Authorities about how public education is dangerous to belief. I have not completely realized the concept in my head and so it will be a day or so before I post. If you have any quotes, from any religious source, that disparage secular education feel free to point me in that direction.

In have been active on Facebook however. I engaged in debates as to the origin of masturbatory prohibitions in LDS Doctrine (there aren't any). I debated whether the LDS instruction manual discourages vasectomy or does it really prohibit it? More important does put the weight of the decision on untrained clergy[(Bishops) it does]. I was defended for calling a woman out on the war on Christmas crap that comes from Fox News. I added 7 Facebook Friends and lost 5... so I am up 2. I guess you can find the drama I engaged in on my Facebook page.

A Plea to My LDS and Religious Friends... Put Your Children Before Your Faith!

2011-11-06T09:22:00.000-07:00

I am going to broach a sensitive topic here.

I read a thread on LDS.net that has really troubled me. I am going to paste the young woman's original post here. This young lady's plea breaks my heart. Her suffering is obvious and needless. I am so disturbed by this girl suffering it has me on the edge of tears. The tragedy here is her religion will likely destroy her when in reality she has done nothing that is abnormal and to call it sinful shows the depraved nature of piety.

I have a rather sensitive topic that I would like advice on. I have been looking on this site, and other people have posted similar topics. If this is not appropriate then I will remove.

I am a girl, and I have a problem with Masturbation. I have been working with my Bishop, for almost 7 months and have not made a lot of progress. He is starting to get frustrated with me.

I've had an issue for around 4 years. I have read a lot of materials that are pornographic in nature(have not looked at visual much) and that is the reason, as well as a coping method.

This is the only sin in this manner that I have committed, I have not done anything with anyone. I am not very good at self-control and that is part of it as well.

I'm home schooled and do not have siblings living at home. I live in a fairly isolated area, and besides Seminary, I don't really have a lot of interaction with people besides my parents.

My parents have major issues in their marriage, there is not a lot of respect on either party's part, and they fight a lot of the time, really ripping into each other. It's not a very healthy environment for me and I get pushed and need to escape.

My bishop is fairly new, only being in the office for 9 months or so. He is also my families home teacher. I reported to him on a daily basis for 5 months, and have now gone to a weekly basis, with an extra report if I mess up. I meet with him around every 2-3 weeks for 15 minutes generally.

Before I started working with him, I had a problem about every day, every other day. The longest I went in the 3 1/2 years was a week without doing it. I read a lot of bad books during that time period.

Now, I can go 1-3 weeks. The longest I was able to go was 4 1/2 weeks, at which point I had an issue. I was making some progress until about the end of August, and then I started messing up more, but not back to where I was. I started listening to music that was a bit suggestive as well as reading things that were as well. I started backsliding big time.

I've now cut out the suggestive material 99%. I've been pretty clean on it for 2 weeks, but there were issues during that time anyway. When I am sick, or having my period, I would use this to distract, or in the case of cramps, it did actually help. I have times of the month when I'm a lot more likely to do it, so it depends.

When I started working with him, I made a lot more of an effort and then, well, I'm not. I'm not sure quite how to get back to the point of actually wanting to stop. My problem is that I also need some other type of outlet I can do to distract myself as a replacement.

I suffer from depression, worse some times and not quite as bad others. I've been suicidal and I still consider it sometimes.

At this point I am not taking the sacrament. My dad is like "Ok, it's time, you need to be done" but what I don't think he realizes is that for me it is an addiction and it's very hard to stop or want to stop. My goal is to go to college next year, so I am limited time wise.

With my bishop as far as he is concerned. He is a really decent man, and I have a lot of respect for him. Overall he has been very patient and understanding but it's been 7 months and no difference, or not much. He wants me to see a counselor and has brought it up in email 4 times as well as 1 time in a meeting.

I've told him no and he finally stopped talking about it after I asked him to. Is it needed for me to meet with him more often? This sunday will be the 3rd week and as far as I know I'm not meeting with him. He was out of town, so that's part of it.

How much should I expect from him, and what can I do so I can make progress? I have been reading a lot of church books, fasting once a week, and also sitting in the Temple Foyer for several hours while my Dad does work. I am making an effort but it's just not good enough it seems.

The problem here is she needs professional help. She needs it from an unbiased counselor who will treat her as an individual not a member of the faith. To be fair help has been suggested by her bishop; but, she needs counseling for depression not masturbation. The girl is in an impossible situation. She has no voice of reason in her circle of influence. Her parents' marriage is not healthy. The child his home schooled and segregated from her peers. She is caught in vicious and needless cycle guilt, repentance, denial and self loathing. This cycle could be broken by on adult in her sphere telling her, 'What you are doing is normal and is nobody's business but yours.'

I know your faith is important to you; but, there is a problem when the faith is deemed more important than the child. My plea is: if you are doing this to your child... please stop. There is plenty of evidence indicating masturbation is a normal part of development. It is healthy and serves a purpose. This uninspired policy stance will destroy this young lady. It has already destroyed many children before her. To ask children to deny their humanity in this manner is equal to making using the toilet a sin. It is a normal body function that hurts no one

In this case religious leaders who interject them selves into the personal intimate lives of the youth are wrong. There are countless examples of the leaders of faith being wrong. Change in your church comes from you. That is why the LDS Church changed the policy on blacks holding the priesthood. It was politically motivated and was causing a rift in the membership. Demand they revise their stance on this matter. Demand they stay our of the sexual development of your children. Ignore advice that comes from leaders who have a degree in law or business and not child development. Most importantly let your children know that you love them and there is nothing wrong with developing normal sexual awareness. Nurture your child not the misguided policies on sexuality. Put your child before your faith.

Existentialism V Infinite Gas Tank

2011-10-30T20:59:00.003-06:00

A philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will

I just filled my tank and I am completely bothered by the anticipation my tank is about to be empty. It doesn't matter that I just filled it. I take no delight in knowing I can go another 300 miles instead I am haunted by the fact the tank will soon be empty again. This obsession leads to changing the display so I don't have to watch the count down. I do however think about what that tank of gas will do, how far it will get me, and if I drive on the freeway vs. the city streets will the tank take me further.

Metaphorically, that gas tank represents my life. I have a limited time to experience life. The rules I abide by are rules I have learned through experience work for me. They are not rules that will benefit you nor will the same experiences or result in the same conclusion. There is no universally applied law when it comes to the individual choices we make. Sure you can drive on the freeway and get better mileage, but if the freeway feels unnerving it may not be worth the sacrifice.

The fuel was provided after the tank was created. It did not exist in essence before there was a vessel to carry it. The quality and length of the fuel is determined by the choices I make and when the tank is empty I stop. While this is not a perfect metaphor I think you can get the picture.

This is why I think religion is damaging and in many cases criminal in the way it expends our energy and asks to delay life as if were were idling. We have potential for experience and to take roads less traveled to find ourselves and to do it on our terms. There is a richness in this discovery that will lead to a genuine knowledge of who we are. We are being asked to delay those experiences or the deny ourselves those experiences for a journey that in all likelihood does not exist. In fact, in most cases it is so improbable that only elaborate rationalization and delusional thinking, prescribed by religious leaders, can convince us that we should delay our own personal grown in favor of adhering to their experiences. Our reward? ... an eternal tank of gas? Preposterous!

Media Messages, Cultural Misogyny, and the Lie of Modesty

2011-10-12T12:18:00.003-06:00

This video was making the rounds on my Facebook page this morning. Here is the longer version ( http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=2349117563337 ) I agree in part with the trailer's premise; I also think they are missing the mark here. I have long said that our girls need strong role models and the writer and I agree here. However I don't think the media is responsible for the objectification of our girls and women. I think the media represents or reflects our societal image of the role of women but they didn't create the image. Are they guilty of perpetuating the stereo type... sure but culturally we accept it.

In the early 1970's the series All in the Family aired an episode which portrayed our prejudices regarding male homosexuality. If we were to produce that same episode today it would not only be a flop but an outrage because our society has morphed. The fact that less than 30% of high power media positions are held by women has more to do with the persistent messages we give to our daughters in our homes than what we show on TV and in magazines. In fact I would postulate, as a whole, the objectification of women is born and nurtured in the misogyny of the conservative movement.

There is this morsel from the 2011 LDS Church's general relief society meeting:

I know that each of us has a vital and essential role as a daughter of God. He has bestowed upon His daughters divine attributes for the purpose of forwarding His work. God has entrusted women with the sacred work of bearing and rearing children. No other work is more important. It is a holy calling.

Our daughters have reached their potential when they have babies? There is no a call for them to be scientists, lawyers, or even doctors. In addition we give them more and more pressure to be modest; to cover their bodies; and to avoid being a "licked cupcake". It is that same line of thought that denigrates the female form to an object. We don't value the women for their potential we value them for the conditions of their bodies.

The above image was circulating on Facebook as well. If further illustrates the distorted view we have about what modesty and chastity means. I fully believe they are artificial markers by which we measure American women.

I think we need to acknowledge a couple of things. First, humans are sexual beings. Second, we will always find a way to sexualize each other. Third, when you cover breasts, put the curves of women under loose fitting clothing we will find a way to sexualize non sexual parts.

We will find ways to eroticize shoulders, ears, eyes, or hair length. The strong sexual drive we have is what propagates our species. It is natural.

What is unnatural is to assign rigid gender roles based upon contrived religious or social dogma. I am going to confess.... of all the women appearing in the above trailer, the one that I find most attractive is Rachael Maddow. Not because she is super sexy, not because she is a lesbian and I think lesbian sex is hot; but, because she is smart, articulate, educated, and accomplished. Sure, I find the images of the scantily clad women that are paraded on the trailer, out of context, titillating. Why would I not? I am a sexual being. However, I cannot say that I am attracted to any of the women. Our contemporary culture is replete with icons like Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears who appear to be attractive until you hear them speak.

Unfortunately, we perpetuate the myth that the media operates independent of our culture. We assume the media tells us what is normal. If we want to change the context in which our daughter's are developing their identities we need to do it from the very core. Abandon the idea that their lot is to be mothers. Motherhood is a choice; in as much, as going to medical school is. Stop placing artificial emphasis on modesty of dress. In cultures where women wear nothing but a loin cloth their body ceases to be an object of sexualization. We need to form our ideas of success in accomplishment not in puritanical ideals based upon a bronze age text. Our daughters are not the condition of their bodies but the condition of their minds. If that is what the whole film says... I agree... if not, it is another Bowling for Columbine.

Noise!

2011-10-11T20:34:00.000-06:00

Is it me? I have noticed that almost everybody on Facebook is talking but no one is listening. Few people even take time to acknowledge that anyone else has something to say. Everybody is talking over each other! I noticed this phenomenon over the last couple of weeks and it has been frustrating. I follow a few bloggers and really prefer to read their posts on my Google reader. The comments, in their comment sections, in many cases, result in real conversations (in print anyway).

I realize that Facebook is not the place to maintain real relationships. It is however a way to meet and reconnect. In some cases the interactions on either Facebook or in the Blogosphere can result in real human interactions. For example, this summer I went to dinner with Kiley from We Were Going to be Queens. I am good friends with Andrew from Hackman's Musings. One I knew before I was Facebook and blogging friends the other I recently met. When both a Facebook and real life relationship exists the interaction and empathy is richer. That does't mean that all Facebook interactions are superficial. I have several Facebook friends I have good interactions with whom I have never met.

I guess with my current school load I am feeling a bit disconnected from the daily interactions I had grown accustomed to with my peers. I am feeling a little more isolated and my hourly Facebook fix is not filling the void (like duh?).

Sexual Development In a Fishbowl - The Mormon Problem with Sex

2011-08-18T11:52:00.003-06:00

Over the last month, three articles regarding modesty or sex addiction have come to my attention. One was the Children's Friend article on modesty. The second was brought to my attention by my friend Thad and was linked in PostMormon.org. The article appeared on KSL.com and describes a mother's reasons for banning Barbie dolls from her home. The third article was this gem written by a marriage and family therapist from St. George.

It is well known that I consume and digest many things in the Mormon Culture of Utah. It is also well known that I am an open critic of the LDS Church's policies on sex and sexuality and the harm I perceive they do. This post is no exception.

First I will address briefly the Children's friend article. The mother has a four year old who is worried about modesty.... and the mother furthers the neurosis by giving her an undershirt to cover the bare shoulders under her sun dress. The mother then celebrates her four year-old's modesty. First of all there is no such thing as four year-old modesty. This is a self concept that has been imposed on the child and is not natural and circumvents the natural development of the child. As many posters have written already on this topic... shoulders and four year-olds are not sexy. However, when we engage in a practice of covering every inch of flesh; the net result is, we sexualize those portions of the body which normally wouldn't be sexy.

The next article was written by a mother who had taken the bold step of banning Barbie from her home. Not because of the unrealistic body image that Barbie represents for her daughters but because of the thoughts a naked pink silhouette would give to her sons.

Then one day my oldest son (a big second-grader at the time) came up to me with a half-naked Barbie doll in his hands and said to me sternly, "Mom, I don't think this is an appropriate toy." He had just had a fatherly talk with my husband about what is "appropriate" and what is "a poison worse than the black plague of death itself and should be avoided at all costs, lest it rot your mind like an unstoppable rebel force."

So first of all why would you be giving your 7/8 year old boy a talk about pornography? Why would you start him on the path of self flagellant guilt. Making him aware of his sexuality and giving shame to his natural development is not the sign of healthy family... it is the sign of a family who engages in cultish behavior.

I know for families of girls, Barbies are a lifeline, an institution even. But that is not my family. My daughters are surrounded by brothers. Hot-blooded, American boys who should not be put into tough, compromising spots every time they're rooting around the playroom on a quest to find that one LEGO piece to complete their set.

Again, it is the neurosis developed inside of the family that puts boys in the compromising position. Is it appropriate to make the female form responsible for the boys behavior? I believe we are sending the message that our daughters are objects and men are unable to control themselves.

And then there was this comment left on the now closed comment board:

Mickelle W.
posted 1 day ago
i personally hate seeing a naked barbie or ken doll laying on the floor of my house. but don't feel like it is fair to allow my son to have his boy toys if i am not going to allow my little girl to have hers. so when the dolls are purchased they become mine long enough to color on a leotard, or boxers depending on the sex of the doll. now who cares if my 7 year old son and all his macho boy friends take off the doll clothes in a front to get sisters goat. barbie remains modest, and mom remains un-bugged that their is a naked toy lying on the floor.

This brand of craziness does not breed children with healthy sexual identities. Is not the Barbie the appropriate metaphor for the Mormon view of women? She looks good without any capacity of enjoying sex. That is where this programming leads and culture is replete with examples.

The final article and the one that really spawned this post was the one written by Geoff Steurer. He discusses the talk he had with his father-in-law, 15 years ago, when he asked for his wife's hand in marriage. He said, now the internet is more prevalent, he believes father-in-laws should be asking their potential son-in-laws about potentially sexually addictive behavior.

I have no doubt that if I were to go through that same interview today, her father would more than likely include one more line of questioning. I imagine it would sound something like this:
“Pornography is such a common struggle for so many young men these days. Naturally, I worry that this is something you have struggled with as a teenager or young adult. Will you please describe your experience with pornography and how you’ve handled it?”

Geoff, is a therapist. They don't mind telling you that in the article. However what they don't tell you is that pornography addiction and sexual addiction are not recognized by the APA. He also does not tell you that masturbation is a normal sexual behavior. Use of pornography for that purpose is considered normal. Sexual addiction and pornography use at all, in LDS communities, is immediately assigned to addiction status even if the use is occasional and does not interfere with daily functioning.

If there isn’t a father in the home, then I still think it’s a good idea for the mother to have this conversation with the boyfriend. As awkward as it may seem to bring up this topic, I believe it’s even more awkward to deal with the potential aftermath if this issue surfaces later in marriage.

Please note that if you are personally struggling with an unresolved pornography problem, it will make it difficult, if not impossible, to counsel a future son-in-law about your concerns. You will feel like a phony and will either avoid the conversation all together, or minimize the seriousness of it as a way to protect yourself from the reality of your own struggles. If you have struggled with pornography and haven’t fully repented and recovered from the impact on your life, make sure that you’re actively working the same recovery process you would expect from this young man.

Does anyone see this as a boundary issue?

Discussion Points:
Tell me about your experience with pornography over your lifetime.
Is there a history of pornography use in your immediate or extended family?
How do you define pornography?
How have you healed from the impact of pornography on your life?
Who helped you overcome your problems with pornography?
How do you currently protect yourself from pornography?
Have you ever wanted to stop viewing pornography, but couldn’t?

I know what I would have and would still tell my father-in-law if this came up... 'it is none of your business!'

Under his bullet point red flags the author says to worry if:

He insists that he’s never even seen pornography and appears “too perfect” in his responses. Recognize that even though he may not have seen hardcore pornography, we live in a culture saturated with pornographic images. If he acts like he doesn’t notice or isn’t affected by those, you need to be concerned. Every man should acknowledge the occasional pull from images that are designed to draw our attention and entice us.

The author is turning windmills into dragons. He has to convince you that your normal sexual feelings and compulsions are abnormal. So if you are looking at the Victoria Secret Catalogue or the underwear section of the JcPenny Catalogue you are on the "slippery slope." The problem with the author's stance here; is it is out of sync with contemporary thought on the issues of sexual development. The migration to pornography may be more normal than the dogmatic abstinence of everything sexual.

It occurred to me, as I read the last article, growing up Mormon, especially in Utah, that you develop sexually in a fishbowl. From the beginning, we have over protective and ill informed mothers inserting themselves into our sexuality. If it is not the constant and unhealthy messages of modesty, it is interest in what we do in our private exploration. We have Bishops, Stake Presidents and now future father-in-laws, asking us about our sexual habits as if they had a personal investment in it. Mormons like to create distance between the practices of the FLDS and find the recent revelations that Jeffs engaged in sex in the temple with his brides in front of the witnesses disturbing. Are they really that far removed from engaging in that type of voyeurism when they insert themselves into every aspect of, not only their children's, but every member's sexual practices? Not just every member but also members of the unaffiliated community.

I have seen appropriately dressed females chastised for wearing clothing, that covers all of the appropriate regions, because they might be provocative or the are wearing fishnets and shorts. I have had mother's assert that they would not allow their son's to engage in a stage kiss; because, they wanted their son's first kiss to be with the woman he was going to marry. I have heard lectures of modesty given to unaffiliated girls who were also prepubescent and I have seen third parties put into a position of monitoring adult behavior to prevent any potential for adultery.

The Mormon obsession with sex is not healthy. I have seen it cripple marriages and more importantly the healthy development of sexual attitudes and identities in children. Instead of the fishbowl mentality it is time members tell everyone outside of their marriage "it is none of your business". It is also time that we allow our children to develop sexually and to explore their bodies in a safe and nurturing environment that acknowledges that sex and sexual development are deeply personal and you are allowed to get aroused and deal with that arousal in a healthy, private, and pro-social way. It is time we tell those loud and uniformed voices that what they are doing with their children is abusive and needs to stop.

Religious Debate... Where is your evidence?

2011-08-06T21:35:00.002-06:00

A few days ago I linked this article from Not Very Useful Truths blog. The author posted based upon a post placed by Kiley at We Were Going to be Queens. This post resulted in, at last count, a 93 entry Facebook debate on my wall. It was a debate that was brought to me not one I sought out.

I enjoy, for the most part, Facebook debates about religion and especially Mormonism. This debate was no exception. However when engaging in an "intellectual" debate one would assume that presentation of evidence that was objective, peer reviewed and or based upon accepted scientific principles would be enough to receive an acknowledgement that the facts in the argument simply do not support the belief structure. Not when debating religion in general and especially, in this case, Mormonism.

The debate started of simply enough with an assertion that the doctrine was misunderstood. When probed for proof the proof offered simply did not support the argument. I certainly do not think of the LDS church, as a whole, is a force for good. I don't think their stands on homosexuality, sexuality in general, and specifically as it pertains to the development of sexual identity in our children is a force for good. I asserted in the argument that a church ran lawyers and MBAs cannot possibly run a church that is anything other than a corporation who looks out after its corporate interest first.

When the debate turned to the origin of the church and the lack of historical evidence that any of the claims are true; the debate turned interesting. One of the participants in the debate, a medical practitioner, denied the validity of universally applied DNA testing methods. He also denied that science has the ability to track the migration of populations based upon DNA. Even though the Human Genome Project has provided enough information that we can track the migratory patterns of humans and determine through genetics where your tribe migrated from. This is useful in the argument against the idea members of the so called Nation of Israel migrated to the Americas in 600 bce. It also disproves the assertion the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. What we know and now accept as fact is the human species originated in Africa. Not the Americas. The research has been published and peer reviewed. The National Geographic Society published the finding and produced the documentary The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey. When presented with the evidence this was the reaction:

Yeah right! And who's to say they're right or wrong? Their colleagues. I love so-called science that no one can prove or disprove. "This rock is 30 Billion years old". Who can refute it? I say it's 300 Billion years old! Wait, are we talking the age of it's creation, or the big bang formation of matter, in that case the rock is 600 trillion years old! Woah mama! These guys can throw around numbers with the best of them.

Wow, they disproved the garden of Eden was in Missouri? That's amazing! Oh the wisdom of men. They're so sure about things until another discovery comes along and disproved the whole notion.

I am not a fan of everything under the umbrella of "science". I am more a fan of applied science. You know, science that can actually be tested. The migration patterns of humans makes for good academic fodder, but there no way of testing thest theories.

(he hasn't seen the documentary but is willing to dismiss it outright)

The fact that years of science education and critical analysis training cannot break down the two decades of prior religious indoctrination is concerning. I think this graphic illustrates the discussion well.

I struggle to understand why, given the evidence, people of science trained in critical thought can find themselves sitting in pews of any religious order and especially orders that have assertions that are so easy to disprove such as Scientology and Mormonism. They invest 10s of thousands of dollars in tithes, offerings, and service hours to these organizations who sit at the fringe of intellectual thought.

So here is my challenge. If you come to my blog or Facebook page with assertions your religion is true. Prove it! Not with articles from the Ensign, FAIR, FARMS, The Catholic League, The Watchtower etc., but with peer reviewed scientific studies that have been published in secular scientific journals. Your doctrinal claims mean nothing without objective evidence to back it up. I have yet to see one ounce of credible evidence that any of the claims of Mormonism are based in fact. No migration. No great civilizations. No golden plates. However there is a great deal of evidence that disproves the migration, Eden in Missouri, the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. When added to the historically factual accounts of the miserable characters of both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young it makes it a hard pill to swallow. So if you feel the need to defend your faith from people like me... first bring your evidence.

But before you do you might want to brush up on you logical fallacies:

.
.

... and I Like to Jog Naked

2011-07-25T19:32:00.005-06:00

I have struggled with how to approach this topic or if I should even discuss it. We held my Mother's funeral on July 20th. It was kind of non-traditional for Utah. There was a small private viewing held for her close friends and family who could not be with her when she died. Her children, including myself, did not attend the viewing because we said our goodbyes at her bedside as she struggled with the disease and and eventually died. We did not need that part of closure. We held the service at graveside.

I look at funerals somewhat differently than my religious friends and family do. I don't believe that my loved ones are on the other side waiting for me. There is simply no evidence this is the case. So, the funeral is my last opportunity to publicly memorialize my loved ones memory.

My mother had 4 children. 3 are atheists. My youngest sister is a practicing Mormon. There had been quite a bit of discussion between my siblings and I, with my mother's input ,as to how we would proceed after her death. Her wishes were met as were ours. No one's voice was drowned out and the discussion was civil and all sides were represented. The plan was: My mother would be buried in a pink dress with her mother's ring. She made it clear she did not want to be cremated. She did not care if the coffin was expensive. She did not want the service in a church. She did not believe the Mormons had the corner on god and found them to be pushy and judgmental and she did not want her children to be lectured. If the weather was warm she wanted to service to be graveside. If the weather was cold she wanted us to have it indoors so those who came to pay respects would not be cold. She did not want a viewing if we did not want to hold one. We would not pray at the graveside and there would be no official religious representation.

When we met with the funeral director we outlined what we wanted to have happen and he was extremely helpful in assisting us in meeting those requests. His compassion and sensitivity were a noted quality and we enjoyed, as much as you can, his assistance and would recommend his company without hesitation. During our conversations it was clear that there would not be a religious rite of any kind for this funeral. My mother's sister asked if they could hold a family prayer at the viewing as they closed the casket. It was made clear that we did not have a problem with the prayer (we wouldn't be there after all) if it made them feel better but there would be none graveside.

The service was successful. I conducted. There was a musical number sung by my daughter Jessica and my sister-in-law Jennifer. My Aunt Nene read a beautiful poem she wrote for my mother. I made opening remarks followed by an open mic and concluded with closing remarks offered by me again. I operated in the capacity that my siblings had requested and expected me to. By all accounts, the service was beautiful simple and was exactly the type of service my mother wanted.

My Mother's Siblings and their families at her funeral 07/20/2011

So curmudgeon what is the issue?

We had three guests at our little secular funeral who found it necessary to use the open mic as an opportunity to bear their testimonies. They could not stand the fact we were fine without the mention of the Mormon church or Jesus Christ, the plan of salvation, or even god. Additionally, the hearse driver pulled me aside. He told me that he had heard that there might be an anti-religion sentiment to our service. He told me that he was happy to see that no one was forced out of their beliefs. He thought it would have been wrong to not allow people to speak. My mother's siblings attended the funeral in their Wrangler's. They were dressed informally. I was dressed in a black suit, white shirt, and red and black tie. The hearse driver mistook me for the out voted religious minority at the service. He made a broad assumption that I was a "member of the church" and about shit when he realized he was talking to one of the "angry militant atheists". I was gracious and let him and the other's say their peace. I didn't attempt to stop them. I was non confrontational.

During this process many people have expressed their condolences and a few have had to add that they know my mother is in a better place, is watching down on me, is with her relatives, or is comforting someone else who is recently deceased. As people would offer their religious views including the afterlife while offering their condolences I found myself turning them off or going somewhere else in my head until they were done while graciously accepting their kindness. I don't understand why there is an imperative for them to share those things with people who do not want them. I don't share my atheism unless it is solicited.

My point of this writing is to illustrate how unwanted religious expression is really a two way street. Imagine, if you will, if I were attending a Mormon funeral and told the guests at the funeral that this is it. Your loved one is going to rot in the ground and you will never seen them again. While this is what I believe I have never shared it during a persons most painful or emotional times. What if I made a point of telling them that they can pray their lives away but there is no one there to hear them. Would any of those conversations give comfort to a hurting human? No! Neither do expressions of faith to an atheist. My father-in-law put this in perspective to one of my wife's siblings. He told them, 'you need to understand for Kevin this is it. There is no more and he will never see his mother again.' That was an appropriate acknowledgement of what I believed. He did not offer faith promoting insights to me instead he cried with us and gave us incredible emotional support.

I have said it before, unsolicited expressions of faith are icky. Faith, like your bedroom habits, should be shared when solicited and with like minded people.... otherwise keep them to yourself.

I think the next time someone offers an unsolicited and otherwise inappropriate expression of faith to me my response is going to be... " ...and I like to jog naked." Well, as long as were sharing inappropriate information....

My Mother's Obituary

2011-07-17T19:58:00.002-06:00

This will appear in the Salt Lake Tribune on July, 19. The funeral is July 20, 2011

Brenda Lynn (Young) Dudley

07/18/1945-07/15/2011

Our mother, Brenda Lynn (Young) Dudley, died on 07/15/2011 from a long struggle with Emphysema (COPD) and Post-Polio syndrome. She was surrounded by family. Brenda was born July, 18, 1945 to Kenneth James Young and Melva (Kinser) Young in Newport, Rhode Island. She grew up in Utah and spent her happiest years with her Grandpa and Grandma Kinser in Springville, UT. She contracted polio between the ages of 5 or 6. While the illness left her with residual physical impairments it did not affect her spirit or capacity for love. She met and married Parley Elton Dudley in 1964. This union produced four children. They were divorced in 1994. She also parented several foster children and almost everybody she met. Our mother was a champion of her children who was satisfied living vicariously through her children. She put her children first and was always first to hold their hands when they were sick and to parade their accomplishments for the world to see. She loved each of her 12 grandchildren and wanted them to have the world. She is preceded in death by her parents and triplet brothers Ken, Kent and Brent. She is survived by her four children Kevin (Lisa) Dudley, Shelly (Anis) Aoude, Kimberley (Kyle) Walker and Shaun (Jennifer) Dudley. The family would like to extend special thanks to Jeff Abbott, her nurse, and to Lisa Dudley, her daughter-in-law, who both provided extra care and tenderness to our mother and the family in her final days. She will be interred at the Herriman City Cemetery (12465 S. 6000 W. Herriman, UT) after a graveside service on July 20, 2011 at 11:00. Flowers should be sent to Premier Mortuary Services 7043 Commerce Park Drive, SLC UT 84047

Her Fight is Over

2011-07-16T13:56:00.000-06:00

Brenda Lynn (Young) Dudley

July 18, 1945-July 15, 2011

Taken 07/14/2011

My mother died last night from a long illness that included emphysema (COPD) and Post Polio Syndrome. She had been on hospice for 4 months and had made the decision that reality of death was preferable to continued hospitalization. This was was not a decision that we were initially very excited about. However she lived alone, was in pain everyday and fought for every breath. This was her decision, as difficult as it was to face, we respected it.

My Mother contracted polio when she was a little girl. She was initially left without the ability to walk. While she regained her ability to walk, she was left with one leg that grew shorter than the other. This and her post polio syndrome contributed to her degenerative disk disorder and the resulting pain. She became ill during the United States' polio epidemic of the late 40's and early 50's. Her illness occurred before the vaccine was available. She was always a vaccine supporter because she experienced, first hand, the devastating results of a now preventable illness.

With her declining health and increasingly frail condition came increased demands on my siblings and me. I am personally grateful for the opportunity to serve her for those months. I spent time with her that was invaluable. Sometimes my other responsibilities kept me away for a couple of days and It was so nice to visit her and hear her say, "I have missed you so much!" When I would arrive in the evenings to help her settle in for the night; I would ask her if she had taken her evening medication. She would frequently tell me, "No, I waited to take them because they make me so tired. I wanted to be able to visit with you." On Monday, I was sitting with her, reading on my iPhone not saying a word. She was drifting in and out of sleep and I asked her if she wanted me to give her her pills and let her sleep. She said, "I'm not sleeping I am listening to you read." When I would finally put her breathing mask on her she would tell me, "Looks like the party is over."

Her time on hospice was a trial for us all. I walked in to find her unconscious and on the floor. I found her passed out while sitting in the bathroom. She was found a couple of times in the last few weeks without her O2 on. These times were equally as painful as her death. I have cried for what I was loosing and for what I already had lost. Those tears have been shed over several months. I learned that there is an indescribable beauty in putting someone other than yourself first. I found comfort in giving comfort, cooking, listening and loving her for who she was. I experienced some of the sweetest moments of my life by being patient and just sitting by her bedside. She engaged her last months with humor and wit.

I know that my mother was proud of me and loved me. She told the entire world and never forgot to tell me. She would fight to attend the plays I did and my recent graduation form SLCC even though it meant she was in excruciating pain. She loved my children and always spoke highly of them. She also loved my beautiful wife Lisa and frequently told me she thought she was the sweetest woman.

Her fight is now over. It went quickly. I had a brief conversation with her yesterday morning over the phone. The same afternoon she was struggling to breathe and by 7:40 pm it was over. I miss her already.

If it is not true... It is not useful!

2011-07-11T08:28:00.004-06:00

There is a common theme in both the Mormon and Post-Mormon communities and it is couched in the "truth." What I have come to learn in both is that the real definition of truth carries a different values. I asked the following question on Facebook a couple of weeks ago:

"Have you ever honestly asked yourself what if it's not true?"

It was a simple, albeit leading, question and yes it was designed to 'poke the bear'. In the social media era of Facebook those of us who have faithful friends of the LDS Church are frequently graced with testimonies of faith and the assertion that they "know the Church and the Gospel is true." These messages invade the inbox of my email as well as appear on the on the news feed of my Facebook page. So with out specifically calling out posters I asked the question. I really just wanted to know what is their basis for belief.

As a young teen I realized there were logical problems with the doctrine of the LDS church. The recent advent of the Internet and the ease in sharing information in the great information age gives the average seeker access to Mormon history. The push back, in the advent of easier access to information, by the 15 leaders of the church has been to obfuscate the definition of truth. Even prior to the internet the value of a full education was discredited as Boyd K. Packer told a group of Church Educators(edited to correct mischaracterization):

“There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.
Some things that are true are not very useful.
That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith — particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith — places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities."

So unless the teacher repents for telling the truth he will not obtain his highest degree of glory. In fact telling the truth is not about the real history or facts it is about undying adoration of those who founded and lead. There has been much progress made in the realm DNA research which has fully disproved Joseph Smith's claim that the Lamanites were descendants of Jewish or Israelites migrants. The lack of archaeological evidence that any of the great civilizations existed and battles ever occurred where Joseph Smith or the subsequent prophets of the church claim further diminished the claims of the restoration. But the real history of the world, and physics, and our understanding of how the natural world works not only diminishes the claims of Mormonism but of Christianity as well. In fact the scholars have enough information to deconstruct the entire Bible and the Koran. An understanding that not only challenges the divine origin of the LDS triple combination but relegates it to the lowly status of fictional literature and in the case of the Book of Mormon; poorly written fictional literature.

So back to my original Facebook post... I was asked:

Have you ever asked yourself what if it IS true?

To which I responded:

I, at one point, thought it was. However, there is overwhelming evidence that says it is not... and none.... none that points to it being true. So yes I asked and the answer was provided in the facts.

And the inquirer replied:

Most people can skew facts and data to prove what they want them to prove, so I will go with those fuzzy things called intuition and experiences that only prove something to the person who experiences them.

That reply is the result that Boyd K. Packer et. al. was hoping for. By making truth seem ethereal many faithful members can engage in inane justification of the lack of evidence and more importantly the overwhelming damning evidence that proves the church's claims are not true.

It is in this debate that I struggle with the gist of the Mormon Stories conference recently held in Salt Lake. The idea that you can be at odds or just not believe in the teachings of the church but still want to participate in the weekly religious services and to attend the temple. If the plan of salvation and the plagiarized three degrees of glory are not based upon verifiable principles then why would you subject yourself to the droning sermons of sacrament meeting. If the church was founded upon a false book why would you go through temple rituals that have no real world meaning? They lead to nothing! There is a reality that much of the church's doctrine is harmful to the self esteem and self worth of its members. So I question why you would pay tithes to continue temple admission? I know many members who pay thousands and some tens of thousands to tithing and offerings each year. If it costs you that much wouldn't you want to know the truth? Once you know the truth why would you continue to participate?

Sophia!..... You're Blowing It!

2011-07-06T19:50:00.001-06:00

I was sitting on my front porch last night watching a group of kids play in the park across the street and watching the quiet evening bustle of my neighborhood. The children had been in the park for well over an hour. It was about 8:30. The children were playing of the playground equipment and getting into the kind of mischief that children do in a park. The oldest was about eight and there were a couple of others that were as young as 4. A dark haired stout mother in her early 30's rounded the corner saw her children in the park and yelled, "Sophia! What did I tell you. Where are your brother and sister. You are blowing it. I cannot believe how badly you are blowing it! You are about to be baptized! You know better and you are blowing it!

So from what I can gather by this exchange is that the mother had no idea where her children ages 8-ish 6-ish and 4-ish were. She had lost track of them for over an hour. I know because that's how long I had been on my porch drinking a beer and sketching the homes across the street with the temple in the background and listening to the children's banter. What struck me odd about the entire exchange was was the fact that the mother blamed the eight year-old because the mother had no idea where the children were. The eight year old was expected to be accountable for her siblings well being. However the idea that baptism was being used as a hammer I not only found odd but abusive.

I distinctly remember being eight and discussion around what it meant to be baptized. I understood that without the membership in the church and having my sins washed away it meant that I could not get into the top level of heaven. If Sophia understands the same thing what her mother did to herself esteem is unforgivable. I personally don't think an 8 year old has the cognition to comprehend what that commitment means nor do they have the ability to discern truth from fantasy. Sophia still likely believes in the magic of Santa Claus and is no more able to determine if Santa is true than she has the ability to determine if Joseph Smith was a prophet or if any of the tenets of the LDS church have even the remotest possibility of being true.

Sophia is not old enough to be responsible for her siblings nor is she old enough to sort through the baggage given to her by her mother and determine the difference between upsetting her mother and myth that that behavior will lead her to hell. Her mother does know and used this tool as a weapon to gain compliance. It was shameful and one of the worse things I have seen exhibited by a parent.

Self Reflection: an Evaluation of why I choose to blog

2011-06-30T08:56:00.002-06:00

While I have read my favorite blogs for the last 6 weeks, I have been absent and I haven't written anything new. I am acutely aware that there are those who are upset by what I write and disagreement turns to easily offense in the social media arena. My blog has a disclaimer and an acknowledgement that what I write is for me and not for everyone. I do write with that in mind, but I also write with the blog followers in mind.

I started blogging to process my frustration with living in Utah and being surrounded by the LDS religion and not really having an in-group or community to identify with. Blogging allowed me to say things that I could not say "in polite company" or to voice an opinion and request feedback that was not encouraged in the circles in which I ran.

So, for nearly three years I have written about topics that interest me including religion, alternative medicine, politics, and my family. I have pushed some buttons and lost some superficial Facebook friends over my writings. I have asked myself if it is worth stirring up controversy. I have many friends who are religious or into alternative medicine, or conservative politically who I would hate to intentionally offend. At the same time, my thoughts on the topics listed are part of my personality. They are what make up who I am. Is expressing them really any different that posting my testimony or linking an article to alternative medicine or endorsing the latest Mormon Presidential candidate. I have come to the conclusion that they are not.

During the last 6 weeks two notable events occurred related to my blogging. The first was a Facebook message from someone whom I was remotely aware related to some of the things I post. They stated they appreciated what I write and what I post. It gave them a sense of community in a community that they felt like they were pushed to the fringe and my postings let them know that they were okay.

The second was meeting and working with a young adult person who found me and the theatre company I help run through a posting I had made on a bulletin board. I broadened my community and the young person theirs in an environment that was safe for idea exchange. It was a meeting and an experience that might not have occurred if I wasn't active in social media.

I don't suggest that I, by myself, serve an incredibly important purpose in the world and that my little blog is a reflection of that important work. As a blogger, I do however participate in a community that is bigger than my South Jordan neighborhood. Blogging has given me more rewards than pain and as a result I will continue to blog about religion (because I think it is harmful to humans)... Alternative Medicine (because I think it is harmful to Humans) and any other topic that I find interesting... because the things that swim in my head are part of my humanity.

Hard to Believe She's 21

2011-05-10T10:49:00.001-06:00

Jessica as Helena

May, 10 1990, we were blessed... cursed?.... no blessed! with a baby girl. She came about 6 o'clock in the morning and was one of Lisa's quickest deliveries. We named her Jessica Anne because her dad loved that name for a girl. We gave her that name despite my mother's objections. Apparently my mother had worked with a disabled girl named Jessica who had less than desirable habits. I knew the name Jessica from Shakespeare and loved assertive, smart and competent character in the Merchant of Venice. Anne is Lisa's middle name. It is also a family name and a salute to her grandmother Valerie Anne Green. She is the only child that has been named after a family member.

Jessica's High School Graduation

Jessica's personality was evident from her earliest years. She was strong willed; earning the nick name Kate.... another Shakespeare reference. She was compassionate and very moral. At three, we traveled to Boston for my sister's wedding. We flew in June after her birthday. We hadn't purchased a ticket for her because she could ride on our laps at the time. However the airline had a policy that two year olds could ride on laps not three year olds. We tried to convince Jessica that her birthday was in August in the event she was asked. She was not willing to play at all, "No Daddy! No Saugust... I'm May!" When she was in second grade when she came home from school. I asked her how her day was. She immediately started crying. I asked her what was wrong and she said, "I think I cheated. I was taking a test today and I looked up and saw the answer on my friends paper."

Jessica as Kelsey in HSM

I have enjoyed being Jessica's dad because she let's me be a dad. I enjoyed coaching her competition soccer teams. I have enjoyed participating in theatre with her and directing her in a Midsummer Nights's Dream (not a coincidence it was a Shakespeare show). Jessica is not only a beautiful girl in her appearance but a beauty in the deepest recesses of her being. She has grown into the woman that I always hoped she would be. She is now headed to college with a focus on attending Northwestern University in Chicago in a couple of years.

Happy birthday Jessica.

Your dad is proud of you and loves you!

Grace & College Graduation

2011-05-06T13:26:00.004-06:00

Yesterday, May 5th, 2011, I had the pleasure of graduating from Salt Lake Community College with an Associate of Science degree. It took me 14 years, but I did it. However, as sweet as it was, there were two highlights to that experience that touched me.

The first: my mother was able to attend. She is in the advanced stages of emphysema which has wrecked her body. My wife, my sister, and I worked all week to make sure she would be in a condition good enough to attend. My mother was determined, no matter how much pain she was in or how short of breath she was, to attend. For my mother the three hours it took from the time she left her house until she saw me walk was excruciating but it wouldn't prevent her from seeing her son graduate. Even as an adult, it is so nice to bask in the pride of an approving parent.

I do know that I could not have accomplished what did had I not had someone like my mother who believed in me or like my beautiful wife Lisa who not only believed in me but gave me all the support a spouse could possibly muster. I had a cheering section in the audience in my sister Shelly, my father-in-law William Green, and my 5 children. If felt so good to model what I had been preaching for the last 24 years.

The second was probably the most surprising when you consider my former career. I had a 10:00 am biology class. The first day of class this short wiry 30 something man sat next to me. He had a longer beard, smelled of cigarette smoke, and opened his thermos to pour his coffee. My law enforcement instincts told me that he was 'from the other side of the tracks'. It came up in conversation that I was a retired parole officer. He immediately said, "Oh. Do you know Scott Richards?" I told him I did and that I had just left a job where Scott and I were on the same unit. He then said, "He was my probation officer 12 years ago. If you talk to him tell him Jordan says hi." I knew it!

If that is where the conversation ended the story would be relatively uninteresting but typical for law enforcement/felon interaction. Jordan and I continued to talk through semester. He decided he would walk for graduation. At first, he didn't think it would be a big deal. It is after all just an associates degree. I had a similar opinion. He though it would be beneficial for his kids to see what he had accomplished. I could see his point.

Jordan's study habits were excellent. He got one of the two 100% tests during the semester. I had the other one. He was a peer note taker and took notes for the guy I mentioned in my article What We Do Not Teach. He also volunteered at the Decker Lake Facility for juveniles as a mentor. During the semester I started to really like Jordan. I liked his focus and his humility. He gave back to the community and had a drive for excellence. When he picked up his cap and gown they gave him his honor cords for his 3.8+ GPA.

I looked for Jordan while we were lining up for graduation. He also looked for me. He was the only person I knew out of the 1,000 or so graduates. We stood in line and discussed what was next. I was off to the University of Utah for the summer semester. Jordan would start at the U in the fall. My major: fine arts. Jordan's major: forensic anthropology. We celebrated our mutual "A's" in biology. I was impressed by Jordan. I was proud of what he accomplished and was humbled to graduate with him as his peer. Jordan represented, I think, the concept of grace.

You Know Were You Can Put Your Passive-aggressive Flag!!!

2011-04-30T16:18:00.000-06:00

I am sure it is well known to the readers of the blog how I think of fundamentalist thinking. Today is no exception. The strangest thing happened today. We live in an upscale neighborhood by the Oquirrh Mountain Temple in Daybreak, South Jordan, UT. We moved into this home about 8 months ago. The house has a flag pole. It had a flag on it with tattered edges. We replaced that flag with our own. The flag has not weathered the winter sun well. It became tattered and faded and bound itself around the flag pole.

I was sitting in my office proofing a paper that my lovely wife had written. I saw a shadow flash across the blinds of the window that faces the porch. There was a thump like a package had been delivered at the front door but no knock at the door and no door bell. I have been waiting for a text book that was supposed to be delivered today and I assumed that was it. I did not immediately get up and go to the door instead I continued to proof the paper. Several minutes later I got up and went to the door. There was a package on the door step. I was a distinctive red white and blue box. I opened it and found our tattered flag inside with an advertisement to have the flag repaired and the care and proper handling instructions for the American flag. There was a new flag on the pole.

Oh how nice right? Wrong! Passive-aggressive self-righteous behavior is never nice. I am aware that some people wear their patriotism on their sleeve and know in their heart that this is the greatest country in the world! I know to them our tattered flag is an insult to their patriotism. Such an insult that they were spurred into action to replace our flag and to rub our noses in their patriotism. This chicken shit act of anonymously replacing our flag, coming on to our property, and self-righteously depositing our tattered flag on the porch with "protocol" instructions doesn't make you a patriot it makes you an ugly-American.

Ugly American is an epithet used to refer to perceptions of loud, arrogant, demeaning, thoughtless and ethnocentric behavior of American citizens mainly abroad, but also at home.

As we have walked in our front door over the last 6 weeks or so, we have been aware that the flag needed to come down. We have had a couple of conversations about that. However, with the demands of our family, my school load, and the extra care my ill mother has taken..... the condition of that flag has ranked last on my priorities.

You might be tempted to say that nice neighbor did you a favor. They didn't! My wife has been humiliated by the thoughtless act. She has told me that our next move will take us out of Daybreak and out of South Jordan. She stated unequivocally that she hates living here. She cried for the better part of an hour. She already felt like a misfit because was we don't assimilate into the local culture. This was the straw.

The American flag is not a sacred symbol to me and I refuse to bestow a piece of cloth with any amount of adoration. I am not a chest thumping patriot. I don't think that America is beyond reproach. I think there are several other countries I could live in and thrive in. I am as much as a citizen of the world and humanity as I am an American. I won't ever say if you live in America you had better learn goddamn English. I don't give members of the military extra respect because they served the "country". I served the country for 25 years domestically as a police officer. I have been shot at, physically assaulted and willing put myself in harms way to protect the very thing that was taken from my wife today.... the right to live peacefully the way she chooses.

I don't know who was responsible because they didn't have the personal integrity to knock on my door. The net result of their action is that my wife feels more isolated than ever. I personally resent their fundamental patriotism and would have no problem telling them that to their face!

If You are an Anti-vaxer You Are at the Root of this Outbreak

2011-04-26T18:29:00.001-06:00

I attend Salt Lake Community College where we received this email:

IMPORTANT

SLCC Measles Exposure Notice

On April 11th, 2011 you were potentially exposed to a person who was infectious with measles. This exposure occurred at the Nicholas Kristof presentation, held at the Salt Lake Community College (SLCC) South City Campus.

In an effort to help reduce the possibility of spreading the measles to others, the Utah Department of Health (UDOH) is requesting that you as a recipient of this email contact the Utah Department of Health at 801-538-6191 if you begin experience signs and symptoms of measles.

Signs of symptoms of measles include: (People generally become ill from measles 7-18 days after exposure to the virus)
Fever of 101 degrees or higher
Cough
Runny nose
Red, watery eyes
Rash (The rash usually occurs about 14 days after exposure and begins at the hairline and spreads to cover the face, trunk and arms.)
Sensitivity to light (symptom for some people)

Additional important information regarding measles:
If you develop symptoms of measles, please contact your healthcare provider immediately. Call ahead before visiting your healthcare provider or any medical facility so precautions can be taken to avoid potential exposure to other patients.
Measles is very contagious, 90% of people exposed to measles who have not been vaccinated against measles will get measles.
Measles is spread by close contact with an infected person. Just being in the same room as an infected person can be enough for a person to get infected with measles, even after the infected person has left the room. The measles virus can live on surfaces for up to 2 hours.
If you have never received a MMR vaccine or only one dose of the MMR vaccine it is strongly recommended a first or second dose of MMR vaccine immediately.
If there are people in your home who are not completely immunized, it is strongly recommended that they receive their first or second dose of MMR immediately.
If you have had prior measles illness you are protected and need not do anything.
Additional information on measles can be found at www.cdc.gov/measles

Utah Department of Health
Office of Epidemiology
PO Box 142104
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2104
801.538.6191
801.538.9923 (fax)

To report a disease or outbreak
1-888-EPI-UTAH

This outbreak coincides with an outbreak on the eastside of Salt Lake County in the Granite School District. According to a study outlined in the Journal of American Academy of Pediatrics parents who are most likely to skip vaccines are mothers who are educated, white, with above average incomes. The Oprah generation who get their medical advise from Dr. Oz, Deepak Choprah, and Dr. Phil. The same parents who bought off on the Wakefield study and who continue to practice this dangerous abstinence.

Because of the MMR vaccine learning and physical disabilities such as congenital and acquired deafness have a much lower incidence. If you are a teen or young mother who was not immunized and you get rubella there is a 60% likelihood your child will be deaf. If your infant gets the measles there in a likelihood they will suffer from hearing loss. There is NO chance they will get autism. None. ZERO.

Fundamental thinking is bad for humans with or without a god! If you deny your child vaccines against childhood diseases like measles, mumps, rubella, polio and pertussis you should not only not be allowed to keep your children but you should be voted off the island as well. You have no business endangering your children or the herd. In exercising your right to abstain you impair their right to life and happiness.

What We Do Not Teach

2011-04-06T22:06:00.001-06:00

I have not posted in over a month. I know that is no way to keep a readership nor is it keeping the goals that I set at the beginning of the the year. I know that you are wondering 'what happened to curmudgeon?' Okay I know that I am not really weighing on your minds but I like to have my own fantasies.

In January I made a radical change in my life. I ended my 25 year career with the State of Utah. I retired 5 years prior. I was double dipping in a job that really met none of my needs much less contributed to happiness. After my friends Matt's suicide and some other financial trials I reevaluated my priorities and decided it was time to make a radical change and to live out my remaining 30+ years pursuing life instead of money. I reentered Salt Lake Community College taking 17 credit hours to complete my Associates Degree in General Studies. I will graduate in May. I will return to the University of Utah mid May to work on my bachelors degree in Theatre Performing Arts Design. Once completed I will follow that up with masters in education. I can complete half of the M.Ed. while an undergrad.

So the title of this post is "The Things We Do Not Teach." At the community college I have taken two courses this semester that have been wrapped into the conservative fabric of this state. The first is Human Biology. In Human Biology we discussed, as we should, evolution. I was a bit disturbed by the fact that when it came to discussing Macro Evolution the instructor stated we would be skirting the topic so that those who believed in a higher power would not have that belief challenged. There is one person in the class who noted the text book is not as sensitive and directly discusses macro evolution. This is a guy who has made jokes about democrats being parasites in the class when we discussed the immune response system. He also accepts state offered and paid for assistance in the form of a note taker as provided by IDEA. A Democrat supplied program. I found it frustrating that we are in a class full of adults and we have to skirt the topic of evolution because, although there is plenty of evidence supporting evolution, it might offend someone's fantasy about a god created earth. In fact there is more evidence for evolution than there is for a god. We are adults. Provide the evidence and the data in an objective matter and let us make the conclusions from that. If you want to entertain the idea of a god at a collegiate level take philosophy .

The second topic that bothered me was in my Human Sexuality Course. When we talked about sexual satisfaction and guilt we were told we could not discuss religion in that context. Now I agree that we should not bash religion in the context because there is some evidence religion contributes to delay of risky sexual habits in teens. There is also the evidence that practices like teen sex and masturbation are normal natural processes in sexual development and the religious programing can be harmful in the healthy development of adult sexual experiences. Religion in this case became the 1,000 pound gorilla in the room. Again, we are adults. We can handle the truth in an evidence and socially responsible conversation regarding the entire spectrum of the topic of sex and human sexuality.

I have to say as a whole these courses have been exceptional. I have enjoyed the instructors and their approaches to the topics. I just think in a higher education institution the truth should be discussed as supported by evidence in classes that demand it.

Piety Creates a Marketplace of Ignorance

2011-02-28T12:58:00.000-07:00

The covered Cosmopolitan (left) is a common sight here in conservative Utah. This was was photographed with my iPhone at our South Jordan Harmon's grocery store. I really enjoy our Harmon's grocery (as much as you can a grocery store) They have friendly employees and the store is clean.... for the most part. They have a good selection of produce and meat in general. I struggle to understand why a market that is open 7 days a week and only closes on Christmas is willing to pander to religious fundamentalism and to cave to the "morally" outraged prudes who push this type censorship and control. The reality is that the magazine covers on Cosmopolitan and Fitness magazines as well as the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition do not show anything that you will not see if you go the pool, dancing at a night club or on the patrons shopping inside your Harmon's. Yet we have the 'Coalition for Decency' determining at what lengths we have to go to see the bylines of those covers because they might be surrounding some cleavage.

So we cover this magazine because we are afraid someones's husband may think that Lea Michelle is the standard by which we judge what is sexy or because her cleavage might be titillating to little Johnny increasing the likelihood that he may explore his sexuality while he is alone.

Of Course there is the argument what is being shown is not real and it gives our daughters and women in the community a standard that is unattainable. While I agree that may be the case are we doing anyone a service? However we don't think much about breast augmentation which is as common in Utah as it is anywhere else in the country. When you cover it up you also close off the opportunity for any type of healthy discussion. Discussions like 'your realize that the cover has in all likelihood been airbrushed and she doesn't look like that in real life?' 'Do your think that is a shirt or dress you could wear and feel comfortable in?' 'Do you think the views about sexuality that are discussed on the cover of that magazine are healthy representations of what sex is about?'

I am the father of 5 kids: three boys; 23, 19 ,13 and two girls 20, and 11. The conversations that went on in my home over the weekend included questions about anatomy: 'What is a clitoris.... what is a douche for?'; A statement: 'Just because a girl likes anal sex doesn't mean she isn't a nice girl'; and concerns about pornography use by underage children. As adults my wife and I could have brushed the topics under the rug or overreacted making discussion impossible or we could do what we did and address topics head on in a non-threatening educational way that quenches the curiosity and leaves the child feeling empowered to control their own sexual identity and destiny. The STD rates are increasing in Utah. Teenage pregnancy is on the rise again. Sexual dysfunction inside of marriage is high. It certainly is not because information and attitudes about sex are free flowing. It is because we have restricted the information and attempt to create a taboo around sex and sexuality.

How Legislated Hate Gets a Pass in Religious Communities

2011-02-06T19:51:00.002-07:00

Two days ago I posted my commentary on Lavar Christensen's proposed HB 270. While I still mean everything I said in that post it has come to my attention I may have been distracted by the shiny keys being jangled. It appears this is one of three bills designed to not directly, but in a round about way, void the progress made by local municipalities to give equal protection to homosexuals or any other fringe group not specifically protected by the federal anti discrimination laws.

This article written by Peg McEntee outlines what she call may be unintended consequences of the HB 109, HB 270 and HB 182.

McEntee: Unintended consequences in “one man, one woman” bill

Given the way the Utah Legislature works, there is no such thing as an unintended consequence when it comes to piety. Mr. Christensen has put together a strategy to very callously strip away any inroads we have made toward equality and to affording all of our citizens equal protection under the law no matter what they believe religiously or who they love sexually. What he will be successful in accomplishing is the further insulation religious bigots from consequences for their actions.

For some reason, Christensen finds it necessary to beef up protections for “religious liberty and freedom of conscience” that already exist in the Utah and U.S. constitutions.
But at what point does religious liberty collide with more secular protections against racial, gender or any other manner of discrimination?
Your religious principles allow you to refuse restaurant service to a person of color? You object to a woman with children working outside the home, so you won’t hire her? You won’t rent an apartment to two single women or men because their possible sexual orientation might be an affront to your faith?
Christensen has an answer: “The free exercise of religious liberty is a recognized exemption to otherwise generally applicable laws and a valid defense to claims of discrimination by others.”

So if you believe that Black Americans are inferior based upon religious dogma you are free to exercise that here in Utah without consequence. If you want to deny housing, in Salt Lake City, to homosexuals, where the denial would be illegal you are free to do so under his additional religious expression. If you want to refuse to teach principles in the class room that have been proven by science you are free to do so.

Equally disturbing is his amendment to 13-8-6 makes a law that violates "public policy" unenforceable. If paired with HB 270 it makes it so the no fault divorce option may be unavailable to couples who fall out of love and don't want a long messy divorce. It further prevents gay adoption, marriage, and perpetuates legally protected discrimination when paired HB 109.

As an outspoken Militant Atheist the idea that religion needs additional protection is absurd. You have the right to practice what you will as long as you don't injure someone else in the process. Denying someone housing based upon what they might do in their bedroom is causing injury. Denying a child a loving parent because that parent loves someone of the same sex is injurious. But it is not just on the gay rights front that this is dangerous. It is single mothers, unmarried couples, and potentially mixed race couples that will run afoul of the cleverly disguised trifecta of hate proposed by Rep. Christensen.

There is a question that often runs in atheist circles: "Do we have to show tolerance to that which is intolerant?" Does religion deserve the respect it demands and that is constitutionally protected? More importantly, does it deserve additional protections that alters the playing field and gives it a "better than" status. I submit the answer to the above questions is no.... not when it uses it protections to force the rest of us to live in its shadow and harms any member of our populous in the name of its distorted world view. Mr. Christensen is using his piety to influence public policy even though the result will ultimately be harmful to our society. Unfortunately most Utahn's will nod their heads in agreement or are too busy watching the Super Bowl or American Idol to pick up a local news paper to educate themselves the impact of the legislation. We know we want a democratic republic but we are unwilling to participate in the process.

Write you local Representative and Senator and let them know you find this group of bills unconscionable. Let's give no public forum for hate.

Who says you get to define the family Mr. Christensen

2011-02-04T23:03:00.004-07:00

A couple of days ago the local Salt Lake City questioned Rep. Lavar Christensen (R) about House Bill 270. This was his response if you can call it that....

Here is the bill:

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:

Section 1. Section 30-1-4.2 is enacted to read:
30-1-4.2. Public policy in support of family.

(1) The institution of marriage and family, consisting of the legal union of a man and a woman and children conceived and born to, or adopted by, the married couple as father and mother, is the fundamental unit of society and the optimum environment in which to nurture and raise a child.

Sure.... when the marriage works and both parents love each other and when there is sufficient money and education and when the rainbow touches ground where the unicorns walk. But what about those equally beautiful alternatives. When two people love each other and they are same sexed? What about the times when the traditional family mode does not work?

This is a public policy statement. That means the rules the agencies provide services under are free to dismiss the alternative lifestyles people may choose. That is why this is more concerning than the typical non binding resolutions that the Utah State Righteouslature passes. Additionally, let's acknowledge that this law only restricts the legal union to a man and a woman here on earth.... not in the three kingdoms of glory where polygamy is still practiced and polygamous marriages are still sanctioned and sealed for eternity in the temples of the lord and this is where the hypocrisy lies.

(2) Marriage and family predate all governments and are supported by and consistent with the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, the Creator and Supreme Judge of the World, affirmed in the nation's founding Declaration of Independence.

This is where the law runs completely off the tracks constitutionally. You cannot canonize the existence of any god in state law. It violates the separation clause of the Constitution. Nor can you claim a creator exists in the natural law without proof.

Marriage and family do not predate any goverments. Marriage by definition is: "The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." Whether controlled by religious or legal expression the institution was established by a governance. The government may have been religious dogma or secular laws but it is a government none-the-less. Before the establishment of governments (either religious or secular) there was no legitimate basis for marriage. This clause as a policy statement represents logical fallacy and a supposition that there is really a God and that he give two hoots in hell what we do.

Finally, when will creationists stop using the Declaration of Independence as a basis for our governance. The declaration was the document that plunged the new American Society into chaos. It did not establish an interim government and was not meant to. It merely vented our grievances to the dictator that oppressed us and was really today's version of a middle finger. The Confederate Papers where the first for of governance and they were replaced by our secular constitution that says nothing about a god.

(3) Marriage represents the legal sanction and approval of society and is essential to ordered liberty and public virtue.

The bold highlight is what this is really about. However our constitution is designed to protect even those who are minorities. That is why Utah and it's predominant religion has survived. Because if it was subject to the approval of society it would have never been able to thrive. As a legal sanction, one that is the be mediated by our courts, it must be a secular exercise. In fact, the marriages provided justices of the peace are equally binding as those performed in a church and the only thing that makes a marriage binding is the marriage license signed by both parties. Not the ritual.

The claim that marriage is essential to ordered liberty falls flat when you consider that 50% of all marriages fail. Of the 50% that survive it is unlikely that all are "happy".

(4) Procreation within marriage links generations and is fundamental to the perpetuity of humanity.

Linking generations has nothing to do with the perpetuity of humanity. Procreation does.... but our humanity is not determined by our ability to procreate or our attachment to a ritual that was developed to lay claim to property. It is determined by our ability to engage in compassion and nurture and care for all members of our species without prejudice based upon tribal bonds. Marriage does not serve all of the species nor should it bind two people who no longer desire to be together.

(5) (a) Families anchored by both a father and a mother, fidelity within marriage, and enduring devotion to the covenants and responsibilities of marriage are the desired norm.

Until it no longer works for both parties.

(b) Cultures and societies where laws, practices, and public policies protect, preserve, and promote such enduring and time-honored family values and principles are happiest,healthiest, and most stable.

Show me how this is true... besides you say it true. Cultures and societies who value each and every individual no matter what their orientation, isn't that what this is really about, are the happiest and healthiest and most stable. Cultures who look critically at religion and it's claims are happiest and healthiest. Cultures who have an evidence base not superstition and supposition are really exercising the time-honored tradition of using our intelligence to further the species.

(6) The furtherance and protection of order and public morality are legitimate and substantial government interests.

Marriage does not protect the public morality. In fact before we declare it does please define "Public Morality." The idea of public morality is an intrusion on the individual in this context. We are not talking about public sex, public nudity, or public sacrifice. We are talking about giving everyone the same rights and acknowledging that homosexuality is no more prevalent now that it has been historically and there is significant evidence that it has a genetic component. Truth is at the center of our substantial government interest not the nonsense contained in this bill.

(7) To the extent social problems arise that adversely affect the desired optimum family condition, such as the dissolution of marriage, crime, poverty, immorality, violence, and other conditions that place added responsibilities on individuals and communities through publicly funded and administered social programs and government services, laws and regulations shall be carefully scrutinized to determine how they impact the family and the protection of children.

We already have public policy and laws that deal with violence and immorality as it applies to a child that cannot consent. We do not need the government to determine what is immoral between consenting adults. It is foolish to declare society as a victim where there is no proof this is the case. An unwed parent reproducing has no greater effect on society than a married couple reproducing 8, 9, 10 times without the ability to support the child they bring into the world. One is not more sacred or more moral than the other. Unless we are willing to control when and how all people reproduce this statement has all the vibrato of a one handed golf clap. If you are serious about improving marriage as an institution then promote sex education that discusses, frankly how babies are made and how to prevent them and how to best engage in a relationship with another human that reflects the real world not your ideal version of it.

In this paragraph the item of most concern is the alluding to controlling the dissolution of marriage. The representative even alludes to this in his interview. He doesn't want no fault divorces. To bind two people together, when one does not what to be in the relationship, assigns the disaffected person to the role of property. That is immoral.

(8) (a) The laws of the state shall, to the fullest extent possible, strengthen, safeguard, and sustain families.

Again..... sex education... comprehensive sex eduction required in middle school and all 4 years of high school.

(b) They shall respect and promote the essential and complementary roles of both a father and a mother and uphold this public policy for the greatest public good.

The greatest public good comes from respecting the individual and in helping them reach their potential. Not by dogmatic laws that are designed to strip the rights of a valuable class of our species. Mr. Christensen this law is immoral and indefensible. Come to us with the specific studies that support your claim, not sound bites from the last General Conference. You have failed to do your due diligence. You were asked to provide justification for this bill by the reporter. Start by answering the questions and providing the proof and then draft a bill supported by evidence. Your personal morality may work for you but it does not work for anybody else.

(Cue the unicorns)

Atheism V Mormonism- A note to Daniel C. Peterson

2011-01-28T00:15:00.000-07:00

Double Talk

Atheists have been the subject of a couple of high profile articles in the Deseret News Mormon Times Section. The most recent article was by Daniel Peterson.

Trying to make their view seem merely a minor logical extension of my own, several atheistic acquaintances have assured me that there is little difference between us: They just happen to disbelieve in one more god than I do.

Mr. Peterson, We are not trying to make our beliefs a logical extension to yours we are just pointing out that you do not believe the other religions manifestation of god is equal to yours and in fact you have been taught they are false.

They seem to imagine that being a Latter-day Saint entails rejecting all non-Mormon religious experiences and disbelieving every doctrine of every other faith. This, however, is not true.

You are guilty of revisionist history. The official record shows:

Joseph Smith said, "My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt . . ." (Joseph Smith, "History of the Church, Vol. 1, page 5-6.)

And scripture says this:

The Book of Mormon says, "And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth" (1 Nephi 14:10).

Given that. How can you justify saying this:

When Joseph Smith learned that the then-existing Christian churches were corrupt, that didn't mean that they were totally wrong. To say that something is "corrupt" means that it has been damaged. We speak of "corrupted texts" or "corrupted files," intending to say that they have been infected or tainted — not that their original content has been replaced by something completely different.

In fact, many mainstream Christian doctrines were and are substantially correct. There is indeed a God. He has a divine Son who came to earth, atoned for our sins, rose again on the third day and now sits at the right hand of his Father. Those who taught prayer, preached of the Savior and translated the New Testament during the centuries between the early apostles and the Restoration preserved and transmitted many central gospel truths.

But what about non-Christians? Do they worship false gods?

Jews certainly don't. Believing Jews accept the Old Testament, venerating the God who brought Israel out of Egypt, spoke through the prophet Isaiah and was proclaimed by Jesus (a Palestinian Jew).

According to Brigham Young they do:

"I would rather undertake to convert five thousand Lamanites , than to convert one of those poor miserable creatures whose fathers killed the savior... Yes, I would rather undertake to convert the devil himself, if it were possible... I would say, leave them, and come home, the Lord does not require you to stay there, for they must suffer and be damned... [L]eave them to live and die in their sins and ignorance... [T]hey take pleasure in their wickedness..." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 143, 1854)

But what of Islam? Isn't "Allah" a false god? No. According to the Qur'an, Allah created the earth in six days, placed Adam and Eve in Eden, and then inspired prophets like Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Sound familiar?

"Allah" is simply the Arabic equivalent of English "God," related to the Hebrew "Elohim." Moreover, Allah is the God not only of Muslims but of all Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews. "In the beginning, (Allah) created the heavens and the earth," reads Arabic Genesis. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (Allah), and the Word was (Allah)," says the Arabic version of John 1:1. "We believe in (Allah), the Eternal Father," says the first Article of Faith in Arabic, "and in his Son, Jesus Christ."

Muslims, Christians and Jews disagree about God, but that doesn't create numerically different gods. My neighbor regards Senator Foghorn as the greatest orator since Daniel Webster; I think he's a noxious windbag. But there is, mercifully, only one Senator Foghorn. Our different opinions don't spawn multiple senators.

There has been less said about Muslims. But much has been said about dark skinned people and people of other races. In fact while not officially supported by the official doctrine since the late 70's it is still supported in attitude among a significant number of members.

But what of the non-Abrahamic religions? Are they too far wrong? It seems presumptuous to declare that mistaken but sincere devotion means nothing to our loving Father in Heaven.

In fact, Christians have been quite willing over the centuries to equate Zeus, the supreme ruler and father of the Greek Gods (the Romans' Jupiter or Jove), with the God of Christian belief. Shakespeare's Juliet chides Romeo from her balcony with a close paraphrase of the pagan Roman poet Ovid: "At lovers' perjuries, they say, Jove laughs." The great medieval Christian poet Dante says that it was Jove who died on the cross ("Purgatorio" 6:118-119).

When the apostle Paul, preaching on Mars Hill, sought to connect with the pagan Athenians (Acts 17:24-28), he identified Zeus with Israel's God: "For in him we live and move and have our being," he taught, quoting the words about Zeus of a sixth-century B.C. Cretan philosopher. "As some of your own poets have said," he continued, citing a third-century B.C. philosopher's verse about Zeus, "'we are his offspring.'"

In the final volume of C.S. Lewis' "Chronicles of Narnia," a Calormene soldier named Emeth (= Hebrew "truth") has been a sincere worshiper of the false god Tash all of his life. When, at the end, he meets Aslan and recognizes the true God, he expects severe punishment. But Aslan graciously reassures him that "all the service thou hast done to Tash, I accept as service done to me," explaining that, although Emeth had been unaware of it, his honest devotion was actually to Aslan, rather than to Tash. "No service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him."

The last three quotes paragraphs are comical at best. Mr. Peterson you are quoting works of fiction as a support for your argument. The worlds of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and the works of Dante were fantasies. The world of C.S Lewis' Narnia did not exist and Zeus according to common theological thought was nothing more than an invention of the men who worshiped him.

God's sheep recognize his voice, even when it's in a different language or imperfectly heard. They follow him as best they can and will not lose their reward.

If this last paragraph is true then the plan a salvation is a hoax. The time and service you demand from followers is a hoax. Baptism for the dead is a hoax. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim the as atheists we are wrong and rally the other folks of faith together telling them that you were just kidding about the whole abomination thing.

Here is the reality Mr. Peterson; as we look at the history of the LDS Church with a critical eye the claims made and promises offered appear to be absurdities. The men who made those claims were even more suspect in character. We spent years searching for comfort in the plan of salvation and when we discovered the church was not what it purports to be we left. Not only was our faith no longer in tact but neither was our ability to believe in any god. Through further investigation we discovered the claims of Islam, Christianity, and Jewish faiths were equally suspect. We believe in one less god than you do. You do not hold the gods of other faiths in the same regard as you do your own. They are not minor doctrinal issues but major chasms in which your members have been taught they are better than the others and they have the only plan of salvation. The rest are "Whores of the Earth."

Somethings are Slow to Change

2011-01-16T21:53:00.002-07:00

Every once in awhile you see something that will haunt your existence for good or bad. Last night I saw Spring Awakening at Kingsbury Hall. I have not been able to get this show out of my head. It was a truly fresh and amazing experience. It was here in Utah for a limited three show engagement. I was surprised by the fact the theatre was not sold out. It has a rockus sound track that is raw and edgy and beautiful all at the same time. It was this show that launched Lea Michele's (Glee) career.

The show explores 'coming of age' at the end of the 19th century in Germany. This original play by Frank Wedekind was written between 1891 and 1900. It has long been a censored and banned play because of its frank discussion of teen sexuality and the consequences of of ignoring their natural curiosity and failing to provide them with the information they need to make good choices.

Spring Awakening was updated and set to music by Steven Sater and Duncan Sheik. It boldly deals with all aspects of teen life and sexuality from the pressures that school brings added with the awakening of sexual desire. This show touches on all of it from masturbation, academic pressures, sex in the religious context, sexual and physical abuse, homosexuality, sex for the first time and teen pregnancy. The musical is largely a tragedy displaying the effects of ignorance, piety and ambition on our youth. The devices of language, simulated masturbation and nudity are boldly appropriately integrated in this production.

The Wikipedia article does a good job of summarizing the plot

For me this show is a mirrored representation of the culture we all still live in with little progress on the public discussion of how we educate our children about sex and it consequences. I saw this show with my wife and my 20 year-old daughter. During intermission she told me, "Dad theses are the conversations we have today." Unfortunately the topic will keep the pious and fundamentally inclined away from the production and if they were to see it the open representation of our culture will prevent them from hearing the message. For parents the message is: When we deny our children information and understanding on the topic of sex it leads to disaster and we are ultimately responsible for the tragedy that results.

The Apple Fell Close to The Tree

2011-01-11T08:37:00.000-07:00

My beautiful daughter Jessica has started a new blog. According to her she will write about feminism, fashion, theatre, growing up in a non-Mormon in Utah, and whatever else she chooses. I have written about her in my blog and she now moving into the 20 somethings and she feels like she has something to share.

Her blog name is Kate the Cursed; which I used to call her when she exhibited a strangely fierce independence as a young girl. I hope the followers of this blog will welcome her into the blogging community.

Attacking Beliefs.... When Does One Cross into Incivility?

2011-01-09T22:10:00.001-07:00

I know there is a bunch of attention in the blog-o-sphere regarding the Arizona Congresswoman Shooting. There has been a bunch of discussion regarding the power of words. I feel like this has been well addressed by my friend Andrew Hackman at Hackman's Musings. I am not going to rehash the obvious outrage to the senseless violence that occurred in Arizona. This has been contemporary to a couple of conversations I have engaged in on Facebook.

I have noted that tone and context are somewhat subjective in prior posts. While the writer does have the ability to guide the tone and context in any piece whether you find it funny, offensive, believe it to be true or false depends on your own filters and experience that makes up those filters. I posted two PZ Myers' links.... here and here. The first post was an opinion piece written by Myers and posted on his blog. I happen to agree with the content of the topic however it did result in the following conversation on Facebook:

Face Book User: Kevin? You do realize that by pasting and applauding these inane rantings you become the exact person you rail against day after day; right? Myers "thoughts" are equivalent to an atheist "Chick Tract".
January 2 at 10:06pm ·
Kevin Dudley I love PZ and I agree with this post. If you can give an example as to why he is wrong... I would be happy to discuss that.
January 2 at 10:09pm ·
another user: I'm with you, Kevin.
January 2 at 10:13pm ·
Face Book User I know you love him, Kevin, it's rather obvious. His errors are legion, he's the atheist equivalent of Kirk Cameron.
January 2 at 10:13pm ·
Kevin Dudley I disagree. He is a biologist who has a pretty good understanding of how life begins and evolves. Kirk Cameron is an actor (has been) who knows nothing and pretends to know something. If I have to bank my future on someone it will be the likes of PZ and not the likes of Cameron or any other theist.
January 2 at 10:17pm ·
Face Book User

Well . . . 1) If Myers is correct, you have no "future". 2) Kirk Cameron is an actor . . . much like someone else I know . . . yet that someone else has the intellectual ability and educational background to judge Myers understanding of how life begins as , "pretty good"? Seems like a stretch to me, that is unless a certain someone has a biology degree I don't know about. Why should I believe one actor over another, Kevin? 3) Myers uses oversimplifications and bombastic language designed for the pulpit, he's not "setting anyone straight" he's building strawmen and hacking them down in front of a friendly crowd . . . much like Cameron and Comfort.

January 2 at 10:35pm ·
Kevin Dudley
PZ states and accurately that there is no evidence for the existence for god. I have plenty of future without a God. There is absolutely no evidence that there is more after you die and the threat of hell does not govern my actions. Myers has and is willing to debate his stance with any theist. He does not just play to a friendly audience. This post was merely an expression of opinion but he has posted many others with evidence, citations, and peer reviewed research. What has the theist community put out? What is the evidence for God. I dare say there is none. Just because it is not explainable does not mean god did it.

Myers, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Barker are all men that I agree with and will stand on their court any day. Unless there is evidence to the contrary presented, I believe God and all Gods are myths. They deserve no more consideration than Santa Claus.

January 2 at 10:58pm ·
One of My Children: Personally I'm willing to ignore Kirk because his conversion was based entirely on Pascal's wager. A line of thought filled with so many fallacies as to be laughable. If that's the best he could reason, find evidence, and sort information, then he truly isn't qualified to provide 'truth'. PZ Myers actually has education in his field and provides evidence. I'm willing to take a biology professors word on biology and science. Call me crazy.
January 2 at 11:54pm ·
Face Book User

Kevin? I have nowhere declared that your behavior should take into account future punishment, I have not attacked your worldview at all. I'm very sure that you came to your intellectual holdings through reasoned clarity. I have not claimed that just because something is not understandable = therefore - God. All I have said is that Myers is a very poor spokesmodel for atheism. Having read dozens of books on the subject, been to many lectures and explored countless discussions in the atheist/theist arena, it's safe for me to declare Myers rantings as buffoonery. Agreeing with someone does not mean that they are good representatives of a given cause . . . agreed?

January 3 at 5:55am ·
Kevin Dudley Agreed and not agreed. I don't see him the same way you do. Maybe it is because we use different filters

The second post was much more terse:

facebook Friend II
And I suppose we should stop eating in restaurants out of fear that the kitchen crew forgot to wash their hands?

The fear of exposure in this instance came from a person distributing the wafers, not parishioners drinking from a common chalice. Please do your homework and check your sources before proceding to malign what we already know you don't believe. You demand that of your dissenters, right? http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/ny-church-delivers-hepatitis-a-scare-12536232

Partaking of the chalice is optional since Catholics believe the fullness of Christ exists in the wafer alone. Catholics who don't want to "swap fluids" already have the option of abstaining. In this case, clearly, it was stupid for an ill person with unclean hands to distribute Communion. As a Communion Minister at my own parish, we can't/don't serve when ill; we always thoroughly wash and sanitize our hands before serving; and during the swine flu scare last year, the diocese removed the common chalice and the holy water from the common fonts.

Now that I've said my peace, I'll go back to observing my "silly rituals."

January 4 at 8:41pm · · 1 person
Facebook user PWND
January 5 at 8:54am ·
Good Friend:
I was going to post a reply yesterday but decided to wait and think it over. Facebook Friend II has done a wonderful job of posting some of my original thoughts about homework and maligning.
You know I am not one to believe in "God" as ascribed in organized religion. I respect your convictions and enjoy for the most part reading your well thought out discussions.
However, this current thread smacks of Tea Party, Palin, Right Wing playground tactics used to dehumanize. Disingenuous and totally unexpected from you to resort to name calling while trying to express your view.

January 5 at 9:05am ·
Kevin Dudley
The CNN link to the article does not discuss the delivery method. Does your minister require the use of food service gloves? What percentage of your parish shares from the same chalis?

While I will acknowledge PZ Myers made an assumption it was a natural assumption considering the traditionally practiced ritual and again the CNN article did not discuss the delivery method.

In the broader context in the name of religious freedom Rabbis in New York have recently been under fire for performing circumcisions in a method that exposes the infant to mouth to genital contact. Many infants have contacted hep infections and staff infections for what? An imaginary or unprovable claim of salvation?

In other communities in America women/ girls are forced in to marriages (many plural). All in the name of ritual and tradition. The point of my link is that religion is not benign.

I appreciate your passionate rebuttal however and I am aware of where you stand on matters of your faith.

.... Hey Facebook user.

January 5 at 9:09am ·
Kevin Dudley Good Friend, point received.
January 5 at 9:23am ·
facebook Friend II

Kevin, did you click on the ABC News link I provided? It clarifies that it was the wafer and not the chalice that was the problem. PZ Myers had made reference to the chalice.

No, my particular parish does not require food service gloves. I don't know of any parish that does. We take other precautions prior to serving, though.

We have five chalices at each Sunday Mass: the priest drinks from the main one at the altar; the extra ministers use the other four to serve a section of the congregation. I would say it's about 50-50 in each section as to who partakes and who doesn't. Many of the older generation doesn't drink from the chalice because they weren't brought up to do so. Having the laity receive from the chalice wasn't the norm prior to the church reforms in the 1960's. Many children don't drink from the chalice because they don't like the taste. Diabetics often refrain as well. Anyone who is concerned about the spread of disease has the right to refrain from either the wafer or the chalice. It's that simple.

I've always known that you don't believe in God and are not religious. I can respect that. I always enjoyed our thought-provoking conversations when we worked together. I am struggling to understand, though, why the philosophical position of atheist ... of saying to oneself "I don't believe in God" ... spills over into attacks on people who do. Yes, I've read your disclaimers that what you post is not particularly faith-promoting and that it's not about other people. I get it; you're articulating your views. I just didn't anticipate that "not faith-promoting" = "faith-attacking" so much of the time. My mistake, I guess. As someone who does believe, reading or skimming through the frequent insults becomes tedious and maddening.

January 5 at 7:41pm · · 1 person
Kevin Dudley
facebook Friend II, I will acknowledge that the word I used, "silly", was harsh and the speed to post the article was rash. However CNN was a reliable source for the article.

My question is how do you draw the line between challenging religion attacking it. It is my experience if you draw a line between a piece of doctrine and its absurdity you are considered an attacker by a theist. Help me understand where than line exists.

January 5 at 7:52pm ·
Facebook user

facebook friend II has articulated very well what I was getting at the other day, Kevin. I'll add my .02. PZ is a purveyor of a particular flavor of bombast that is exceedingly distasteful to a great many on both sides of the aisle. He is quick to ridicule and harsh in his technique, he seeks not to foster understanding but rather play a game of one-upsmanship against those who believe. When I read any text authored by Meyers or his ilk I'm instantly jaded and read his thoughts from a completely defensive posture. Facebooking his blog as often as you do serves to label you a member of his camp. That's not the Kevin I know.

January 5 at 8:09pm · · 1 person
Facebook Friend II
CNN was a reliable source; however, you posted it via PZ Myers blog. His language framing the article was inaccurate. His bias compromised the accuracy.

You posted awhile ago on your own blog that the tone of a written piece is subjective in the mind of the reader. I disagree. Tone is a function of a writer's word choice. If it weren't, we couldn't distinguish between seriousness, hyberbole, humor, sarcasm, irony, farce, or other literary constructions. To answer your question with a question: why does a question about a religious doctrine or discipline have to come loaded with insults? Raising a question about religion isn't offensive. Saying that you disagree with a doctrine isn't offensive. Saying that you think a doctrine is absurd isn't offensive. Attacking the people who practice it is. Maybe it's a difference between a discussion of the ideas and maligning the people who freely choose to participate in them.

("Silly" really isn't the harshest word you could have used; I've seen worse in PZ Myer's blog. You use him a lot as a source.)

I admit, now, I might not have put it up had I looked at the details of the situation and I believe the PZ made a rush to condemn Catholics. I also enjoy the friendships of the folks that entered into the Facebook conversation on the two posts. I also learned from the conversation that occurred as a result of the posts.

PZ Myer's is nearly as prominent in the atheist community as Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris. He has a Phd and is a prominent speaker on the atheist circuit. When I post from him it is not with the intent to offend but because he articulates my views and I see him as an authority in many of the topics he posts on including the creation debate and the origins of life. He is a professor and well regarded in the scientific community. He is also a militant atheist who calls the religious establishment on their crap.

The the question becomes when is one attacking someones beliefs. In what ways and in what situations is it appropriate challenge someone's beliefs. Is the direct and sometimes terse statement of your beliefs an attack? Is there anyway to walk the line in the middle and still make it clear that you think that someone is full of crap. I think in light of the recent violence in Arizona and the resulting calls for civility (which apparently have been ignored) it is a good time to evaluate our interactions. Do we know the difference between asserting a well researched opinion and ginning up the masses. Is someone right only because you agree with them?

Blogging into the New Decade

2010-12-31T13:01:00.000-07:00

Here we are at the close of 2010. I have completed my second full year as a blogger. Last year I noted my progress and reflected on the fruits of blogging. This post is a continuation of that tradition.

I closed out last year with a total of 9 public followers. I am now up to 30 public followers by the blogger counter and 8 through networked blogs. Three of those are duplicates from the blogger counter. So I now have a net of 35 public followers. I have found my blog linked on other sites that are not in my public counter.

Last year I posted 27 times this year 45 (including this entry) My topics of interest have been consistent: politics, religion and living in Utah. I have had a couple of posts that have stimulated robust conversations. I have seen many more of my posts linked in the Sunday in Outer Blogness feature at Main Street Plaza which I have found flattering.

My blog has received over 5000 page views and 140 comments.

My goals for blogging in the coming year are:

Post with more frequency
Post with relevance
Continue the "Children are the Challenge" series
Attempt to stimulate thoughtful discussion on posts I submit

While my blog does not have a universal appeal here in Utah or among many folks who hold very fundamental beliefs either politically or religiously; I hope to expand the reader base. I prefer a diverse audience because it brings great discussion. However, I will not likely tone down my rhetoric in that vein. I am however willing to facilitate discussion and to have conversations regarding what I post in hopes that discussion brings understanding and in some cases may sway my opinion on the matter.

Here's to the adventures that 2011 will bring!

Charity... what is your position... can you admit it?

2010-12-21T19:17:00.001-07:00

If you really want to find out what people believe you look at how they behave and not what they say.~Roger Nygard

www.colbertnation.com

The above video clip has got a bit of attention on facebook this week. My liberal theist friends have posted it and some have alluded to the fact that Colbert's comments are almost prophetic. My conservative theist friends have been outraged at the audacity of Colbert to poke fun at them and to take the New Testament out of context.

The Christmas season brings out two polls on the questions of how we deal with the poor and sick and less fortunate. Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol is the standard by which we measure a person's commitment to the season. You are either a Tiny Tim/Bob Cratchit or and Ebeneezer Scrooge. Nobody wants to be seen as a Scrooge during this season and so there is a bunch of talk about Christian principles and keeping Christ in the season..... while arguing that our government has no business using tax dollars to look after the general welfare of the American populous. After all, the government cannot tell who is faking it and who really needs the help.

One of my favorite quotes from the Dickens' classic is the result of the dialog between Scrooge and his Nephew Fred. Fred optimistically states why he loves the Christmas season.:

..and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys.

Immediately, as Fred exits the office Scrooge is met by two solicitors. Both, in contemporary terms, bleeding heart liberals:

"Scrooge and Marley's, I believe," said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list. "Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr. Scrooge, or Mr. Marley?"

"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavoring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"

"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

"You wish to be anonymous?"

"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that."

"But you might know it," observed the gentleman.

"It's not my business," Scrooge returned. "It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!"

The section in bold came to mind as I engaged in a debate with a facebook friend who did not find the Colbert video funny. This is the end of the discussion:

Him:.....

You love to put groups of people into boxes and summarily dismiss the entire box, and that is just wrong. I know many liberals and many conservatives that give of their time and money to help people. I think if you gave them the chance to do the bulk of what is needed to help people who are underprivileged, they would surprise you. There is no one category of people who need help. Every person has a different reason, a different trial or problem. Some are self inflicted, some are not. Some people are truly helpless, others are simply irresponsible. The government doesn't distinguish between the two.

December 17 at 3:57pm ·
Me: ‎"Some people are truly helpless, others are simply irresponsible. The government doesn't distinguish between the two."

And based upon the Christian Dogma who is the one who is qualified to make that determination?
December 17 at 4:04pm ·
Him: Only somebody who develops a personal relationship with the person in need. True charity involves giving yourself to serve others and listen and learn, not just give money.

The problem as I see it is that as Americans we are spoiled children of privilege and as Scrooge says: "It is not my business." So who's business is it?

My mother is dying of emphysema. She is in the very advanced stages and is in incredibly poor health. She also suffers from Post Polio Syndrome. She struggles to breathe and is in constant pain. One of the conditions she did to herself. In fact she still smokes with the O2 turned all the way up. The other she is a victim of. She dedicated 30 years to raising her children and did the best she could with the tools she had. While we do what we can for her including grocery shopping, taking her meals, and getting her to the doctor; we are of humble means and cannot pay for her care. She was on a medical retirement for 10 years and now is on social security and a meager pension.

While I agree with my friend that charity, true charity requires a personal touch, I also think it is unrealistic and impossible for everyone. I pay into Social Security, I pay income and sales taxes and while it is not my favorite thing to spend my money on; I recognize it is necessary. My Mother has us. Many others have no one and the only care they get is the care Medicare of Medicaid covers. Whether you are homeless by your own choice or because of mental illness; whether you liver is failing from alcoholism or NASH; whether you have lung cancer from smoking or working in asbestos; you deserve the best care you can get and to be comfortable on your way to returning to health or in my mother's case as you prepare to die. If you want to question where the money goes and who deserves it ask yourself who really profits from defrauding the government. The answer lies in the lobbyists and the capitalist who exploit the system to the tune of billions. Not the poor who benefit from the programs and exaggerate their conditions to get a few more dollars to live on.

It's time this "Christian Nation" put its money and compassion where its mouth is.... or acknowledge you are hypocrites and just don't want to do it!

Should we Limit Expression that Causes the Rabid Right to Get their Panties in a Wad.

2010-12-09T20:53:00.001-07:00

I had a brief (no pun intended) conversation with my Facebook friend Thomas on the fact that there are few American Artists who's work is compelling, edgy, and that tells a story. In fact, the object of that conversation is posted below:

I responded to the post with this comment:

If we had artists like this they would be censored and their works hidden from public view. Maybe not at the hands of the government but by way of right wing hysteria.

And the following morning this story is featured on Fox 13:

This is exactly the same "Right Wing Hysteria" I was talking about. I remember, while I was a college student, the Salt Lake City Public Library had some nude paintings on display. The ridiculous outcry was all over the news including one mother who was completely distraught because her little boy was having nightmares over the paintings. The ilk of the Knitting Needle Mafia have instituted plastic covers for magazines in our grocery stores to censor what they deem inappropriate material.

There is the rub... it is what they deem inappropriate. As the video indicates the law is clear as to what can be determined pornographic and a woman wearing the equivalent of a bikini is does not rise to that level. Nor does the word SEX on the cover of Cosmopolitan.

So it is the ads in the mall, the magazines in grocery store and what is next the art in our museums...

I enjoyed the hosts final comment:

I don't think it is up to anyone to tell me what art I am and am not allowed to see.

The point of this post is that if we allow the fundies, the pious, the superstitious, and the rabid right to control the media they also control the message. Watch this video that discusses the outrage over the Atheist bus ads in Fort Worth Texas. Note how fauxrage over the freedom of expression will drown out a minorities message:

The bus system will likely stop carrying this type of ad and the Mayor of Fort Worth has threatened to change the makeup of the board if they don't agree with him. They take away an outlet for those who are non religious to engage in what is really a benign and in offensive message.

John F. Kennedy said:

The artist, however faithful to his personal vision of reality, becomes the last champion of the individual mind and sensibility against an intrusive society and an officious state. The great artist is thus a solitary figure.....

If sometimes our great artists have been the most critical of our society, it is because their sensitivity and their concern for justice, which must motivate any true artist, makes him aware that our Nation falls short of its highest potential. I see little of more importance to the future of our country and our civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist.

If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him. We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth.

And as such we should resist restrictions of expression whether the art is commercial, the art is edgy, or the art is just beautiful. Restrictions of expressions of points of view that are not your own is tyrannical. This is certainly not what the First Amendment is about. But if you are a fundamentalist I guess the First Amendment was inspired by God to protect your point of view only.

"...well they were acting as men."

2010-11-29T14:37:00.000-07:00

In 1983 I worked on the Pioneer Theatre Company's production of Amadeus. One of my favorite parts of this show was when Salieri realizes that his life dedicated to religion and the celebration of god through his music did not earn him the position of god's favorite composer. Instead that honor went to Mozart.

"I was suddenly frightened. It seemed to me that I heard the voice of God–and that it issued from a creature whose own voice I had also heard–and it was the voice of an obscene child."~ Peter Schaefer's Amadeus.

But Mozart was not really god's instrument he was a man like any other with a gift or a natural born and cultivated talent. To Salieri the fact that his flawed man was so talented was a slap in the face and cause for a declaration for war against god and a quest to silence his instrument.

I was reminded of this story as I read the Salt Lake Tribunes article on Ezra Taft Benson. The article pointed out how one of the LDS church's more colorful figures was deeply flawed. For those of us who are now on the outside this was no surprise. His follies have been documented his grandson and it is well known that he is the one character in Utah that is responsible for our single party system of government.

Benson was not the first colorfully flawed religious leader where there was a belief that his position/authority/talents were god given. In LDS lore there are the characters of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Smith was a know treasure hunter, philanderer/polyandrous man who criminally destroyed a printing press and started a couple of rebellions and then died in a shoot out while attempting to escape from jail. Young was a racist polygamist with a thirst for blood atonement who is credited with the orders/environment that resulted in the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

It is not just LDS leaders who are flawed and leave as their legacy scandals. The Catholic Church has a rich history of scandals which include the Spanish Inquisition, incest, and organized crime. The Evangelicals have Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Robert Tilton, and Kent Hovind. The list includes extra marital affairs, tax evasion, homosexual relationships and fraud.

If you ask the faithful they will excuse the behavior of these supposed men of god. The will say when they are doing good in the world it was inspired of god. What about their less inspiring moments? Well... they were not acting as prophets or men of god. They were acting as men.

Which is exactly my point. In each case these supposed men of god rose to power by making claims they could not prove. They maintained power through manipulation and either lost power through scandal or their fraud became apparent after their death. It takes incredible mental gymnastics to engage in the cognitive dissonance that is required to follow these leaders or to believe their works are inspired once you know how flawed they are in character. Yet the faithful write checks, invest time and energy and bet their salvation on the word of men. Even if that man is "the voice of an obscene child."

Capitalists not Atheist are Ruining Christmas

2010-11-27T12:15:00.005-07:00

I found this interesting and it first came to my attention while I was watching the morning news yesterday. The Fox 13 Utah news commentator opened the story by saying... "Meanwhile Atheist are Trying to Ruin Christmas." Atheists cannot be held responsible for the ruining of Christmas. This was already done by 3am openings at WalMart and our American Lust for stuff at the expense of our own financial health.

As an LDS kid growing up there was a certain magic about the holidays. As an atheist adult there is little joy in the financial and social expectations of the season.

I don't believe in the Myth of Christ and the season holds no special spiritual significance. As a young parent there was still some magic but as my kids get older and it is apparent they have more than everything they need the shopping portion of the Holiday has become a burden.

Not only do I support the billboard but I think it is time eliminate the government observance of this holiday and the tacit support of the religious buy fest that goes along with it. Open the government, post offices and banks on the 25th of December. Unless it falls on a Saturday or Sunday. The religious will support and celebrate their holiday regardless. However the artificial economy that is built around this religious holiday is a wink and a nod to Christianity and the myths surround its inception.

Thank You for 24 Beautiful Years

2010-11-21T13:53:00.000-07:00

24 years ago I married my high school sweet heart. We were expecting our first of five children. We were young, naive, and thought we loved each other. We have been through hardships and good times and experienced personal growth that has sometimes been painful. There has always been one constant... we've had each other.

I look forward to each day that I spend with her. While I don't believe there is only one love for each person and that we have an eternal commitment I find the commitment I have made to her to be very rewarding and one that I am satisfied with. It is in part because of her that I am the man I am today and with her I will be an even better man tomorrow and next year. Thank you Lisa for a lovely 24 years and it is with optimism that I look forward to 24 more. As long as you'll have me I am yours!

Not a War on Christmas... but a war anyway!

2010-11-13T21:15:00.000-07:00

The Holiday Season is rocketing toward us again. American's are going to spend billions on holiday decor, food, electronics, and toys. I like somethings about the holiday season. I like to decorate my house. I love to cook for and to entertain family and friends for the holidays. But I hate the financial pressure that we feel during the holiday season.

I have had a couple of friends post a video speculating on what Jesus would buy for Christmas in a call to take commercialism out of the Christmas Holiday. I suggest we take it one step further and take business to task during the Christmas season. There is no reason to support the capitalists if they are not going to care for the American Consumer, their employees, and the country we all live in.

In the 1950's Americans worked for employers who would offer generous benefit and retirement packages. They offered education benefits to workers and their families. In short the American companies invested in their workers and their country and as a result those same companies enjoyed a productive work force that put the US economy at the top. There is a reality that this golden age of the American economy came in part from pressure put on employers by labor unions but we had a healthy middle class.

In the early 1980's Reagan "busted" the unions and American's have had to work more hours to maintain the same comparative quality of life. Fast forward to 2010 and the middle class is disappearing. Jobs are being outsourced to third world countries and employees have smaller benefit packages while the companies profits are being posted at record rates.

So back to the holidays. Every year we engage in a tradition of shopping till we drop. Many of us spend money we don't have to subsidize this ideal that it is better to give than to receive. Every year we hear of those needy children who without our help won't enjoy a Christmas. The money comes out of our bank accounts and into the accounts of corporations who treat their employees like chattel.

So here is my suggestion. Find a new holiday tradition that does not require money and if it does spend it on something you couldn't do without anyway... like a meal a week that is special for each member of the family. Find an opportunity to host extended family and share a meal. Say no to Christmas gifts you can't afford and make those types of purchases through out the year as your resources allow. Thin out your closets and make donations to local charities if not in money with your time and energy. Tell you children that the 25th of December entitlement is an illusion and there are ways enjoy the rich traditions of Christmas without it being about gifts and transferring money from our accounts to the corporate accounts. We need to learn to do what the large US corporations have done during this last recession and hoard our resources. If you can meet the needs of your family.... look for a charity to support. Instead of spending money save it for opportunities to better your or your family's existence. Put you money in to a tax deferred college savings plan.

This is not my atheist war on Christmas... it is my war on capitalism! Now if I can just convince my wife....

Goodbye

2010-11-09T19:28:00.001-07:00

Matthew Jewkes

February 20, 1969 ~ November 5, 2010

I have worked in government for 25 years and and a little over 80% of that time has been in law enforcement. During my time as a state employee I have met and worked with hundreds of people. Few leave a lasting impression and even fewer get into my heart. Today I learned that my friend Matt Jewkes died on Nov. 5th. He was one of those who made it into my heart.

I met Matt in 1998 when I was assigned to the Salt Lake Area Gang Project as a Metro Gang Detective. Matt was one of those guys who was easy to get to know. He had an affinity for talking your ear off but was such a genuine and caring person you would look forward to it. We would rotate partners in the gang unit and I personally loved riding with Matt. We got into a few situations together but for the most part our duty was an exercise in surviving the tedium of a 10 shift especially when the weather was cold and it was 2:00 am.

This is what I learned about Matt. He had been married twice to the same woman. The first time he married her in the LDS temple. They divorced and remarried a little while later. Matt declined to remarry in the temple because for some reason the whole religion thing was not for him. Yet he believed there was something out there.

A couple of years before Matt went to the gang unit he responded to a Taco Bell robbery. He confronted the bad guy as he came out and during a scuffle the bad guy took Matt's gun. Matt was knocked to the ground and the bad guy pointed the gun and pulled the trigger. For some reason it failed to fire and Matt believed there was some kind of guardian angel or divine intervention that kept him from dying. He did not know what form it took or if any religion had it right but he thought is was unexplainable and worthy of pondering.

Matt loved his son Mason with every inch of his being. When he divorced his wife the second time because she had become addicted to pain killers and had resorted to stealing them and forging prescriptions he took custody of Mason and was very concerned that Mason grow up in healthy environment and really looked to his parents as examples.

Based upon some of our conversations the divorce and the Taco Bell incident changed Matt considerably. He realized how mortal he was and how tentative his happiness was. Matt had always wanted to be a police officer and he found that he knew nothing else but it seemed to be eating him from the inside out. He had a big heart and always seemed to have plenty to share with others but he also had a way of feeling the pain other's felt and would frequently tell me ".... I don't know Kevman." , as he tried to make sense of it. I watched Matt as we would wade through the dark culture of gangs and crime desperately try to make it make sense. He was troubled by the human casualties we dealt with on a daily basis. Those casualties included teens who seemed to be throwing their lives away, kids who lived in filth and young men with potential who didn't know what to do with. Matt would respond to all of this outwardly like many cops do but not very convincingly.

Matt loved the rock Group Kiss especially but also the entire heavy metal genre. He burned several disks for me. Some of which I threw out a couple of weeks ago because it was not my kind of music and I hadn't listened to them in 10 years.

Matt was afraid of dogs. I really could appreciate this because I had a certain fear of them as well. That's what made his application to and acceptance in the K-9 unit brow raising. He applied himself to that assignment and worked hard. He eventually overcame his fear of dogs. My kids loved when he brought his K-9 Tyger over.

Matt dated several women and married one and divorced her soon after. He seemed to always weigh those relationships based upon his need provided a positive environment for Mason and whether they met his mother's approval. He did not settle on one long term but he remained friends with most after they stopped dating.

Matt admitted to me that he had been struggling with depression and things did not seem to be getting better. He had sought a counselor and started medication. The law enforcement community is fairly close but on a special unit like the gang unit you are a bunch of 5th grade school buddies who get in to mischief together and tease each other. There was a stigma and still is to some degree about admitting a flaw like suffering from depression and taking medication to control it. Matt was sensitive to that.

We both left the gang unit in 2001 right after 9-11. Matt and I kept in touch for the first couple of years after leaving but as people often do we drifted apart. A little while ago his first wife Mindy died and it was believed it was the result of her drug addiction. I found the obituary in the paper. I called Matt and he apologized, "I guess I should have called ya Kevman." He was struggling to make sense of it all. He was very concerned about how Mason would adapt. I spoke to Matt one other time after that. He was in a conflict with the school district over a recent incident with Mason in school.

Kiss was here in concert this last summer. I thought I should call Matt then and see if he was going and more importantly to have him over for dinner. I got busy and as it often happens I didn't make the call. I have thought of Matt a couple of other times and as recently as of a couple of weeks ago I thought about inviting him over for dinner... but alas I didn't.

I didn't realize things had gotten that bad for him. I will really miss Matt. I loved him like a brother and he was one of my favorite people. He will be missed.

Facts Don't Hurt.... Dogma Does-The Continuing Same Sex Debate

2010-11-05T12:20:00.000-06:00

I am not known for keeping my opinions tight to the vest and this post will be no exception. Today the Salt Lake Tribune published an article which included a poll on whether Utahns believed same sex attraction could be changed. Sadly but not surprising 44% believe same sex attraction can be changed. This poll reflects the conservative nature of Utah. One might say 'nothing to see here... move on.' However when broken down by political party and religious affiliation and set against the backdrop of the recent Boyd K. Packer speech at the LDS General Conference all of the noise that has gone on as a result and it becomes concerning.

Okay Curmudgeon this is old news what is the big deal? The big deal is that in Utah, and nationally where there is a conservative religious base we continue to ignore what science has provided in the form of evidence. Study after study has shown that there is a genetic component to homosexuality yet we keep hearing statements like 'I don't believe that.' Dammit! it is not like the mythological god you cling to..... there is evidence that shows there is a genetic component. 'Science changes it's mind all the time.' Yes it does and that is the beauty of science. When the facts and figures do not bear out science re-examines it positions and based upon the truth born out by the evidence the position may change. However religion is generally not guilty of the same introspection.

So as the result of religious dogma that has in most cases been disproved we make judgments regarding someones worth. This today is tantamount to throwing women into a lake to see if they float to determine if they are witches.

“The attractions don’t change,” said Lisa Diamond, a psychology professor and sexuality researcher at the University of Utah. “It is disheartening to me that there is such a discrepancy between what is not even an issue anymore in the scientific community and this obvious ambiguity in public opinion.”

Last year, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution warning mental health professionals not to tell clients they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments. No solid evidence exists that such efforts work, the APA said after an extensive research review. And some studies suggest a potential for harm, including depression and suicidal tendencies.

Yet we continue to insist that through prayer, electroshock therapy, reparitive therapy, medication, and self deprivation that they can overcome same sex attraction. The reality is they cannot nor can they live a full and satisfying life. I thought this quote from the article was revealing:

But therapy can help people change their attitudes about their same-sex attractions or their behaviors, Diamond said.

I also think the person who can benefit from a little therapy is the pious. It is not the GLBT person who really needs to change their attitudes it is the 61% of conservatives who believe it is a choice that need to get some treatment and 55% of self identified Mormons who are backward on this belief.

“When people don’t accept the science, then there’s a perpetuation of a mythology that is unfortunate because it leads to discriminatory personal attitudes and it leads to justification for social inequality,” said Bill Bradshaw, a molecular biologist and professor emeritus at Brigham Young University.

A vast number of scientific studies in biology, biochemistry and neuroscience, he said, indicate that sexual orientation is biologically “programmed” in human beings.

“I’m convinced by these data that homosexuality is inborn. It is innate,” said Bradshaw, a former LDS mission president and co-chairman of Family Fellowship, a support group for LDS parents of gay children. “It’s true that there are those who dispute that conclusion. I think it’s fair to say that, in the LDS community, the sentiment for a long time has been that gay and lesbian and bisexual and transgender persons should make an effort to change.”

The reason this is and continues to be an issue for me is because of attitudes that are exposed in the following YouTube video. While I generally agree with the way the poster exposes quotes from the LDS General Authorities I also feel that he was too abrasive at the end of the video and as a result may turn people off.

As long as we use a spiritual hammer and tell our children that they are immoral and better off dead the number of teen suicides in Utah will continue to be disproportionately high. The problem lies in the dogma of piety not the truth that same gender attraction is normal and no less beautiful than heterosexual attraction.

Sometimes a New Adventure!

2010-11-04T22:33:00.000-06:00

A little more than two years ago I helped co-found a production company that produces community theatre productions in South Jordan, Utah. I have either built or designed and built 11 consecutive sets and technical directed every show. For me this has been a dream come true. I interrupted my college education to work and to raise a family. I attended the University of Utah as a production and design major and had dreams of making theatre a full time career. 25 years later I made a career out of law enforcement.... how did that happen?

The other co-founder of our production company is a jr. high school theatre teacher at a local charter school. She left for a two week vacation and needed a substitute teacher for her crew class. So today I took a half day off and taught her technical theatre class. Today's lesson was on set modeling. I spent a couple of hours over the last couple of days putting together materials for the lesson and was very excited to share with 13 and 14 year-olds the process that I go through to design a set. Many of them have seen my sets and had a point of reference for the discussion. Over the next 6 periods we will build models based upon their concepts for the production of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.

I was kind of struck by the fact that several of the kids seemed to be less excited about the subject matter and seemed to be just taking up space. It is my challenge to get them all excited about this unit and to find the designer inside.

As a whole the class was successful and I am looking forward to teaching again.

The Things We Say! It's up for Discussion!

2010-10-26T20:56:00.000-06:00

This might be a continuation of my last post. There are several sayings that have their root in religious piety that are real conversation enders. Primarily because they have no quick retort nor is it considered in good form to answer them in a contrary manner. I have heard several of those this week and wanted to discuss a couple here.

"God will never give you more than you can handle.": This is a response to many of life's challenges including cancer victims and has been recently used in response to those who feel like they have been born gay and it is too much to be asked to stay abstinent. Some might considered it to be a benign and sometimes spiritual saying; however, I see it as a conversation ender and a statement that is dismissive and is absent of any empathy. If you are suffering and need to tell someone about it and they retort "God will never give you more than you can handle" how do you respond. If you on the giving end of this statement do you really want to share this persons pain? Do you recognize the absurdity of the statement?

Absurdity: If you are suffering from cancer and death is imminent, if you are a family member of the cancer victim, if you have lost a child, if your home has just burned down.... god is testing you. If you loose faith you fail the test. If the pain is too much and you blame god then the problem is yours because he knew you could handle it and you let him down. Conversely if you are wealthy and have had no real challenges in life then god must think you were weaker and would not be able to rise to the test. So you are punished for strength and rewarded for weakness?

"It wasn't in God's plan for you": If you have tried and worked your heart out and it still hasn't happened its because this guy had a different plan for you and failed to tell you. Again an opportunity missed to assuage the hurt feelings of someone who is in pain and demonstrate our humanity. Instead a dismissive remark that invokes piety and hurts someone who may really need empathy is offered. This was a common saying while I grew up and is kind of woven into the the idea that your existence on earth was preordained. Now there was also the idea that you had free agency and so if your life was preordained then you really didn't have free agency.

Absurdity: The saying brings into play two conflicting concepts. You are free, through agency, to chart your own course but if you fail it is because "it wasn't in God's plan for you." If you follow God's plan for you then you give up your agency. So it becomes "Your Mission if you Choose to Accept it" ?

"Pray like it is up to God, Work like it is up to you": This is my favorite saying from annals of pious belief because at least it is an acknowledgement that your dream will likely be realized by your own hard work not divine intervention.

Absurdity: I don't see this saying as absurd as much as I do the interpretation of it. I interpret it as an acknowledgement that there very well could be a possibility that there is not a god up there that is really involved. However, some may say that what you are asking for is too trivial to warrant intervention and therefore your success is up to you alone. God is too busy to help. So if you have cancer and you pray for a cure and that is not answered does that mean your life and your existence is too trivial for god to care about?

So the question is is there a saying that is thrown around your circles that you find absurd or that is a conversation stopper?

Words and Their Meaning

2010-10-22T12:22:00.002-06:00

Over the last several days I have given some thought to words and how we assign a value to them. Specifically how we define swear words or words that are offensive. George Carlin does a great and classic piece on the 7 words you cannot say on TV. He also is good at pointing out our own hypocrisy when it comes to making rules about what you can or cannot say. The video clip is below. If you are easily offended don’t click on play.

Living here in Morridor there are several other words that are swear words for no other reason that they are assigned that weight. My favorite Utah swear word is “Stupid”. I have seen the swift retribution of mothers to their children who use this word toward their siblings. The reaction is the same as is if they had used the “mother of all swear words”.

My second favorite swear word is “God” . The way I understand this rule: If you use “God” in any context except a direct conversation with God then it is a swear word. Here is where we have to engage in mental gymnastics to justify using the word in a manner that it is not offensive. You can say “thank God” because apparently this is an aside conversation with god. You can say, “this is why God Invented”, because apparently you are giving this ambiguous person credit in some sort of aside wink and nod. You obviously say "pray to God” and request his guidance because you are talking to god. However as soon as you say “Oh My God!” you are taking “the Lord’s name in vain!?!?” Now I thought gods name was Yahweh or Elohim if you subscribe to the Judeo-Christian texts. God is a title!... kind of like Dr. or Mr. or PHD. or MA is it not?

If you are a word like damn you are automatically a swear word because of your association with the infamous word god. Damn in Utah and its other form Dammit are immediately censored as gateway swear words. It starts with a damn and then progresses to a god damn and before long you will be saying Stupid! Absurd? Yes!

There is a reason we have developed language as humans. That reason is because we needed a way to communicate ideas. While some words in our language have terse meanings and they are abrupt and jarring when uttered… some times they are appropriate to the situation or to the context. Our abhorrence to using them sometimes gets in the way of ability to communicate. I worked with a nice lady who rarely would use any of the “7 Words You Can’t Say of TV”. She would say that sometimes there is no other word that is powerful enough to communicate the idea. That is why we see content on TV, in the movies, and in our other forms of literary expression using language that is colored, textured, and multidimensional.

This phenomenon is not limited to the use of swear words. We avoid using words that are appropriate in many contexts and are the proper descriptors to be offered. In my last post I noted how Doug Wright could not say the words Oral, Anal, or Vaginal Sex on his radio program. Why? They were the appropriate descriptors. Additionally, we fail to teach our children to use words that describe their body parts like penis or vagina. Instead we treat them as dirty words and in our inability to to get over our 5th grade reaction we inhibit their ability to communicate with their physicians or healthcare providers. We also inhibit their ability to have a healthy view of their bodies and in our effort to diffuse our own discomfort with the word we actually do harm to our children. Our reaction to words ultimately taints the real value that word as in our rich language.

I am not an advocate of using course language in all settings. I correct my children when they use language that is shocking or inappropriate for the situation but in Utah and in other fundamental communities in the United States; I think we have taken it too far. I am not sure why? I suspect that it is in part because of religious piety, in part because of political correctness and in part because we think that June and Ward Cleaver were normal representations of the American Family. To take away the texture of our language is to relegate us an artificial “Pleasantville” existence that is not representative of the American or Human experience. Dammit! Even Disney knows that!

The Questions should be asked.... when they are young and often as they grow

2010-10-19T23:35:00.000-06:00

I was in the car today at about 11:00am listening to Doug Wright on KSL. He brought this story up on his talk radio program and the engaged in an hour worth of faux outrage:

Sex Survey at D.C. School Sparks Controversy

A Washington, D.C., middle school is under fire after distributing a survey to seventh-graders asking both boys and girls about their sexual orientations and whether they knew how to put on a condom, among other sex-based questions.

The survey, developed by Metro TeenAIDS, a group dedicated to helping young people fight against HIV/AIDS, was intended to raise awareness of sexually transmitted diseases and teach the children how to avoid them,

I read the survey that is linked to the article. It is a little but direct it uses medical terms that Doug would not repeat on the air ie. oral, vaginal, or anal sex. It asked the kids if they knew how to get condoms and if they knew how to put one on themselves or their partners. I did not see anything in the article that my children who live in a nice middle class conservative suburban neighborhood didn't already have some knowledge about. This survey was given to 7th graders. Some kids where as young as 11. I didn't get the outrage because these were similar to the questions my LDS Bishop asked when I was 12. The same Bishop that asked theses questions of my sister when she was 11 and who described the act of masturbation to my younger sister when she was 12.

There was a minor screw up.... they forgot to send the opt out letter home the day before the test.

Okay that was a screw up but there is a reality, to quote a line from the movie Fame "The kids in my neighborhood are into sex much earlier.... about 6am." There is a reality that inner city neighborhood children are exposed to sex much earlier in their lives. There is something about growing up poor in a neighborhood without parental supervision, where drug abuse is high and education is low that causes that dynamic. I knew a young woman who grew up in inner city Chicago. She reported she had consensual sex for the first time when she was 8.

So caller after caller called and expressed their outrage and many said this discussion belongs in the home. But the comment that floored me was the one who said this conversation belonged in the home and maybe with their religious leader ( in Utah that translates to "the Bishop") but this conversation should not have occurred in a health class, with a trained health teacher, because the school is 16 times more likely to have students engage in risk behavior. REALLY? a Bishop is more qualified to ask theses questions than trained aids workers?

The reason we need comprehensive sex education in this state and early is because we are at risk of having stats similar to Washington DC. Conservatives like to tell us there is consequences to behavior.... when your child is dying of aids that was preventable not only are they responsible but so are you for denying them information that could have saved their lives. Instead we opt to pretend that a parent with no formal training has any real expertise to teach the child and that they will. Once they have the disease all the prayers, blessings, or voodoo will do nothing to save them.

Bullying is not just perpetrated by the kids on the playground

2010-10-18T00:19:00.000-06:00

There has been much said about the recent rash of gay teen suicides that have been caused in part by peer bullying. The attention has resulted in of hundreds of links offered in Facebook and countless comments posted on Facebook, blogs, and other networked social media sites. In Utah this attention crescendoed with the ill-timed and foolishly worded address given by Boyd K. Packer in the LDS general conference.

I think it is a shame that the attention is solely focused on bullying; because, the image that we as Americans have is limited to the school yard bully. Bullying is only effective if the attacks on the child/teen have the effect of making them feel isolated, worthless, and without an ally. The problem here is much deeper than just a school yard bully and it extends beyond homosexuality.

Andrew Hackman wrote in his blog: "Your attitudes will be reflected and amplified in your children."

What does the child do when his peers attitudes are reflected in the attitudes of his own parents, religion, religious leaders, and community. This has been my point in the Facebook debates. In Utah the LDS culture dominates on matters of public policy. I have seen the most hateful and insensitive remarks come from purported temple recommend holding members regarding the "sinner" they see in a homosexual who lives his or her life in a full and meaning way including intimate same gender relationships. They quote scripture, their "prophets", and make arguments that are writhe with logical fallacies all in an attempt to be in lock step with their doctrine.

Again I point to a brilliantly written piece by Andrew Hackman:

Objecting to homosexuality, I believe, cannot be a universal moral. It is a religious conviction. I think for something to be considered a universal moral, and not merely a religious position, it has to be amenable to all faiths... and those without a faith. The bible says murder is wrong (although it acts it out more as a guideline than a rule) but I could also make a non-religious arguement as to why it is good for humanity to follow that position. On the contrary, I have yet to hear a valid argument against homosexuality that did not come back to a religious point and/or that individual's personal "ick" factor with homosexuality.

I concur with Andrews stance on this matter but take it a step further in that I have to question why you would hold the texts of any religion and the texts specifically of Christianity and Mormonism (they are the texts that I have some experience with) as a supreme word given their flaws. Many religious scholars will tell you that the texts are not historical and the events and people are not actual but allegorical. So based upon a myth we will throw away or relationships with actual people for salvation that is not likely real now matter how nice it sounds.

I have seen first hand the mistreatment of a child who diverges from their parents religious world view. Whether it is a homosexual teen who comes out of the closet or a heterosexual teen or young adult who engages in the very natural act of premarital sex. The child who chooses not to go on a mission or the child who has the audacity to leave the family's church. The messages delivered to that young and inexperienced human is : If you continue on this course your are going to hell. You are no longer worthy of your heavenly father's protection or mine.

The bullying is not just from their peers but from their religious leaders and sadly form their family members. I have seen this first hand because it has happened to me and to my spouse. It is a guilt that takes years to repair and for some the on relief from it comes in the form of drug abuse or from the last desperate act of suicide.

I cannot figure out why we choose to chase a myth developed from contrived man made religious dogma while we throw away the amazing relationships with our children/youth and adult citizens who exercise their freedom and engage in age appropriate consensual relationships that are natural and normal.

I think the question here is does your loved one have a place to go for comfort and are you providing it or are you pushing them to their last desperate solution through your piety and inflexible adherence to doctrine?

Yellow Journalism is Alive and Well in Utah!

2010-09-19T23:42:00.000-06:00

What happens when a religious power house has control of several dominate media outlets in a market and then declares it will produce news in a manner consistent with the faith's belief system and then edits comments on the comment boards of its paper and closes comment boards on its television news site and combines the staff of both its Television outlets and its newspaper... You get crap like this: Society paying price for pornography use

Bruce Lindsay appears to be hosting a three part segment on the trappings of pornography use and its detriment to society presented as an investigative journalism piece(for some reason KSL pulled the video for this segment). The reality is that Deseret Media company has launched a new initiative called Out in the Light and the Bruce Lindsay's Sunday Edition in this case is being used as a "journalism" source to bring attention to the illness of pornography addiction and the harm it does to families.

Yellow Journalism:

Yellow journalism or the yellow press is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension "Yellow Journalism" is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.~Wikipedia

Here is the problem with this "news" source: The station, KSL, is owned by the LDS Church. The two experts cited in the news story both have something to gain or loose by their endorsement of lack of endorsement. Dr. Rory Reid is a graduate of BYU and is associated with one of two of the counseling firms that have links to the Out in the Light website. Dr. Liz Hale, while a licensed therapist, is an employee of the the Church Owned KSL. At no time is the disclosure made

Here is the problem with the topic: The American Psychological Association does not recognize sex addiction or pornography addiction as diagnosable disorders. Dr. Reid must know this because on his website he indicates a specialization in "hypersexual behavior and pornography dependence". Hyper-sexual behavior is not in and of its self a disorder but a symptom of some compulsive disorders including bi-polar disorder.

There is a link to LDS biases with regard to sex and sexuality and what is considered normal. The LDS church, while not unique in its doctrinal approach to sex, considers pornography use a sin worthy of revoking a temple recommend. With out the recommend the wife now fears that her "eternal family" is in jeopardy. This can and has caused a strong emotional reaction. While in general the APA views pornography use inside the marriage and as a tool to facilitate arousal for an individual as normal; there is no such concession for the LDS faithful. It is considered repugnant. This can create a double bind for the person who finds him/herself engaged in normal expressions of sexuality which is denied by doctrine. The resulting cognitive dissonance over time may lead to mental health problems.

So in the case of the story referenced above.... the "story" is an infomercial that is meant to solve a problem... that is only a problem because they made it a problem. I think if fits the definition of Yellow Journalism.

Your child's desire to learn is the key to a good education... with innovation!

2010-09-18T09:49:00.000-06:00

A Facebook friend (Staci Baker Centini) posted this TED talk by Sugata Mitra. Sugata stated one obvious fact in that he asserts the best teachers do not want to teach where they are need most. However it was the exploration of the third world (or inner city if your in America) child's natural curiosity that led to the discovery that children want to learn and if you spark the interest the teacher and their credentials are irrelevant.

I have seen the result this experiment in my own children. I was commenting to my lovely wife that our kids are not afraid of technology. They migrate to it and understand it. When computers were first introduced into my working environment I had to attend hours of classes to figure them out. My wife says she avoids some technology because she is afraid she will break it. My kids on the other hand quickly figured out how to make them work and how to find information. I was having a discussion about the "talk" with my oldest not to long ago. He is 23. He told me that his own curiosity on the subject made the "talk" irrelevant. Books from the dictionary, to biology and a Google search gave him the information he needed.

The above example however illustrates why the teacher is still critical to the learning process. "Using the method of the grandmother" children can learn to sort out what information is accurate and appropriate to the topic and to their age.

The hypothesis he comes to at the end of the talk is very provocative:

Education is a self organising system where learning is an emergent phenomenon.....

The question is: Is Sugata Mitra's hypothesis worth funding and is the innovation worth the risk?

I think it might be....

"What's Your Program Boy?"

2010-09-17T23:06:00.000-06:00

While I was working for the Department of Corrections I had an administrator frequently reminisce about the days he worked for Mayor Richard Daley in Chicago. He would frequently tell us that if we wanted to institute change we needed a plan. "... and Mayor Daley would say to me 'What's your program boy.'", he would say.

I have seen the nauseating countdown to the election for Tea Party Conservatives on Facebook. What I know is they are giddy with delight at the prospects that the conservative will return to power with their fundamentalists at the head. What I don't know is "What's the program?" I've heard the Fox spun tag lines and sound bites but what is really their program.

According to Wikipedia it is:

Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)
Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control carbon dioxide emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide. (72.20%)
Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)
Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%)
Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%)
Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)
Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%)
Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%)
Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)
Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend current temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%)

Okay that is simple enough.... But how and at what cost. Unfortunately the Tea Party members on the whole are less than astute and less than educated on what the net result of this agenda will be or if it is even possible. What we are seeing is "throw the baby out with the bath water" politics. The policies they propose will likely grind the economy to a halt.

I know! I have heard it ad nausea! The government is too big and there is nothing that the government can do that the private sector can't do better. I have yet to see a large road project, a school being built, a prison under construction, or civic center opened that is actually built by the government. For every government contract there is a capitalist exploiting the tax payer and fleecing the tax base. Those contractors are employing folks, paying wages that are then again taxed. The more people who pay into the system the lower the burden on you and I.

So while the contract points listed above sound nice what is the real cost to implement them. More importantly what is the "Program Boy"?

Discussion Group: Indoctrination is it Dangerous ~ What is your experience?

2010-08-19T19:55:00.000-06:00

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology.... It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2] As such it is used pejoratively, often in the context of political opinions, theology or religious dogma. ~ Wikipedia

I have noticed in some of my conversations recently how the level of indoctrination a person has experienced and holds on to effects their ability to engage in a discussion that requires critical evaluation. There seems to be a point where reason turns off and the programming takes over. Now I know that as an atheist my BS meter is probably set lower and my world view is skewed.

I wasn't always this way. As a Mormon youth I was guilty of saying some pretty crazy stuff out loud. Much of if I did not even give a second thought to until I got older and then I had the realization that maybe it wasn't reasonable and that is did not add up. Even shortly after I got married the little guilt feelings would haunt me. Not because I was doing anything wrong but because I had this programming.

I have not programmed or indoctrinated my children. If you know me you might find that hard to believe. While I openly speak out against religion I encourage them to ask questions to ponder the superstition and to reason through it. I also believe there is a big difference between education and indoctrination.

So my question is how do you view religious indoctrination. What has been your experience and do you think it has impaired your ability to look critically at your beliefs? Do you think it is dangerous to oneself, the country, or our society as a whole?

If you are praying for Christopher Hitchens Death ....... go *#&@ yourselves

2010-08-10T10:46:00.003-06:00

As you may be aware Christopher Hitchens is dying of esophageal cancer. He has been repeatedly asked if he will convert on his death bed. He says not and if a person in the body of Christopher Hitchens does he was not in his right mind.

When asked if he minded if people prayed for him he said he was flattered by those who prayed for him to get well and did not really care about those who prayed for him to die.

The Atlantic Journal has a different take:

I found this candid statement from the Atlantic Journal refreshing.

Thanks again to PZ Myers for bringing it to our attention.

Sexuality... Who Owns It?

2010-08-05T16:25:00.000-06:00

I cannot figure out what we have, as a human culture against, sex education. This video and the others like it that demonstrate mutilation of women to curb either their interest in sex of their attractiveness to the opposite sex represent the collective evil that we can do as a species to each other.

I know your thinking "now Curmudgeon, that does not happen in civilized societies like America." Yes it does. The same barbarous practices happen in secret here cloaked in religious ceremonies and under the guise of religious freedom. Additionally, we tolerate in the open ritualistic psychological abuse in the form religious dogma.

Our children are taught from the earliest ages to deny their sexuality. I was always taught that god made us sexual beings as a test to our faith and resolve to keeps his commandments. I was taught to push back every sexual thought and feeling as inappropriate and wicked. Of course abstinence was the key to a happy marriage and an eternal life.

The fact is that we have sexual feelings because humans are sexual beings. It is not wrong to act on those feelings as long as you understand the risks, you aren't hurting someone else, and the parties are consenting.

For some reason as a species we feel we have a need to own everyone's sexuality. In the name of superstition we have taught our daughters that their self-worth is wrapped up in the physical condition of their bodies(virginity) not their contribution society. We teach our boys and men to deny sexuality and to avoid engaging in even the most rudimentary and normal practices including masturbation. In India girls are raised to expect careers in brothels. In the Middle East they are forced to cover almost every inch of skin and in Africa are subject to mutilation. Boys in the Judeo-Christian areas of the world are subject to a now medically indefensible practice of circumcision.

In western cultures we put our men and women through reparative therapy to cure their homosexual tendencies in what usually amounts to a suppression of their selves and in many cases has resulted in depression and suicide. We operate on the assumption that based on our selective reading of the bible that homosexuality is a choice and a sin. We ignore scientific studies that indicate it is instead a naturally occurring variation in our genes.

I have struggled to come to grips with why we feel we need to be involved in everyone else's sexuality and it comes down to one thing.... control. We changed from a hunter gatherer society to an agricultural society about 10,000 years ago and property became definable including sexual property. It is also around that time we started forming religious dogma. This changed the way our society functioned and the practices discussed above became ritual with that dogma. As we awake from that haze as a culture and information flows so freely we need to realize we do not own anyone's sexuality.... but our own. It is in that realization that we will find healthy relationships and in that realization that we can guide our children to make choices that work for them in the most healthy manner.

Jesus was Prosperous and He wants you to be too..... oh yeah he had some fine clothes too!

2010-07-18T12:57:00.001-06:00

Okay I am sure that to evangelical Christians this is not a new sermon.

My wife and three of my kids left for an Idaho vacation on Thursday. On Friday I was rumbling around my quiet house and started flipping channels on the plasma. On one of the channels I cam across an evangelical minister was was preaching that Jesus was not poor; but rich beyond dreams. This was evidenced by his very expensive seamless coat that the Roman Guards coveted and bet on and that when he was born he did not just receive three small gifts of gold frankincense and myrrh but was endowed with three distinct caravans of the listed gifts setting him up for life. The preacher went on to offer the idea that "if you invest in things that will out last you... you will be prosperous too" as an interlacing of both spiritual and investment advice. Why is this not the Jesus I learned about in my ward house as a kid?

He was a charismatic man wearing a $150.00 shirt and preaching in a state of the art chapel with hundreds of thousands dollars worth of audio visual and theatrical equipment all funded by his congregation.... who were not prosperous enough to shop anywhere but Wal-Mart I am left asking... is this what happens when we tie religion to Republican Politics. You get a minister who looks and acts like a used car salesman spinning the republican agenda and because he is a "man of god" the congregation buys it and continues to vote for politicians who skim of the cream and leave masses with nothing!

Time to Bring Back Supply Side Jesus!

I was reading PZ Myers blog the same day and he posted the following article regarding the growing gap between the wealthy 1% and the rest of us. It has long been observed that middle class in America is shrinking. There is one major factor... no factories! The middle class labor force cuts into the profit margin of the corporation. The people of the US are worthy to buy their products, worthy to support their tax breaks but are not worthy of livable wage and benefits package. Third world labor markets work cheap and are easy to exploit. Why? No social justice! No governmental requirements for a living wage, reasonable work hours and reasonable and safe working conditions! It is not illegal immigrants who take our jobs it is countries like India and El Salvador.

This theme was continued in todays Salt Lake Tribune with Glenn Beck's continued assertion that Social Justice in Religions.... getting back to the core of Christianity is Marxist.

Beck’s “American Revival,” a combination of politics and stadium evangelism that promotional materials labeled a “fusion of entertainment and enlightenment,” is mostly about duty to God. And from the EnergySolutions Arena pulpit on Saturday, the TV and radio personality told roughly 5,000 ticketed fans it’s a duty requiring restoration of religion in public life.....

“There is a perversion of faith right now,” he said, “a wicked, wicked perversion. And it is all about social justice. It is all about collective salvation. It’s actually all about Marxism.”

Collective salvation, he said, is a liberal goal meant to force individuals into doing the right thing by taking wealth from them and spreading it to the needy. In his view, he said, salvation only comes when individuals accept God.....

“It’s time to be a patriot again,” he said. “We gotta defend religion and morality in the public sphere.”

Karen Newnam, 48, of West Jordan, said she came away inspired to be more involved politically, and to learn more about where candidates stand. She agreed with the premise that religion is the basis for good government.

“I think that’s what our Founding Fathers based our government on,” she said, “and it seems to have worked.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, led the crowd in the Pledge of Allegiance to start the day, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said an opening prayer.

Even the Utah conservative politicians are afraid to separate themselves for this ridiculous crap because as Bob Bennett learned if you appear rational you are not conservative enough! If you advocate for a clear separation of church and state or you believe that social justice means a healthier more compassionate society and you recognize that you cannot leave that the to good graces of humans.... you are a Marxist, Communist, or Socialist.

Unfortunately this is the only social justice that is acceptable the rabid religious right

I have long said that everything that is wrong with this world was created by organized religion... I will now temper that assertion with the following addition: "Everything that is wrong with this world was created by organized religion and greed!" If you are a greedy religious fundamentalist.... you are dangerous for this country!

If you believe this..... you will believe anything!

2010-06-24T23:24:00.002-06:00

Utah has a reputation for being the fraud capital of the country. There has been a correlation between the exploitation of the local beliefs and the predominate religion and the fraud. If you can show that you are a card carrying mormon (or you pretend to be) you can get into peoples wallets and manipulate their emotions based upon your connection to their belief system. I have found two examples of this manipulation in the last week.

The first was an amusing billboard and corresponding website for "LDS Agents". It seems that these capitalists have found a way to connect with Mormons around the country through real estate transactions. It is not that they are great real estate professionals that sets them apart it is the fact that they share a similar religious ideal and as a result they are more qualified to serve you in your home purchase. The premise is laughable however it must be an effective marketing tool to justify their overhead.

The second is a little more concerning. I was in our local grocery store and saw a poster on the community board for a conference on holistic living. I have been a vocal critic of alternative medicine for a while. This conference is called LDS holistic living. There seems to be an attempt to sell someone something based upon a common religious belief. While I say "sell" you might say "exploit" based upon a common religious belief.

I am always concerned about niche markets designed to prey upon religious people; because, the devout seem to be ripe to manipulation in many ways based upon their ability to suspend disbelief. They also have an admirable quality of wanting to believe in the inherent good in people....again leaving them ripe.

Of concern with the above listed organization is the list of speakers and the suspect level of expertise they have in their field. Included are Natropathic Physicians, Vaccination deniers, and yoga instructors all of which have taken on the suspect roles of encouraging the potential attendees to give up on traditional western medicine and practices in favor on unproven and in many cases dis-proven remedies.

Here are some facts. First not only is there no link to vaccinations and autism but it has been studied, published, and peer reviewed and proven not once but in at least three major medical studies. Second, there is no proof that organic food is better for you than commercially grown food. Third, there is no evidence that vitamin supplements, herbs, and Acai berries do anything but give you expensive strong smelling urine.

So why do I care? Because bad science results in attacks on our health. Not just the health of the person engaged in the "alternative" therapies but the health of the community as a whole. This is evidenced in the recent out break in pertussis discussed here: Follow the link article and view the video. For some reason I cannot get it to embed.

Pertussis is preventable but we are choosing snake oil over science. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence the vaccine deniers refuse to let go of their ill informed beliefs at the expense of our health, their children's health and even their own.

The problem as I see it is "snake oil" salesmen are exploiting a faithful people. They do not have to really quantify their claims and any real effect of their treatments is largely anecdotal. There is no causative correlation to their claims and the result their patients feel. In many cases the resulting confirmation bias is self deluding and the real underlying problem is at least temporarily denied. When allowed to go unchecked many of the underlying problems will be debilitating and some fatal.

The video below (originally posted by PZ Myers) has some language and it does not tread lightly on ones beliefs.

I just have one question to those who sell this.... when your child is in imminent jeopardy of dying... do you continue down the holistic path or do you seek the best doctor and highest trained specialist western medicine has to offer. Do you defer to faith alone or do you bring a scientist into the room?

The Tea Party Movement is for transparency! ...or is it?1?

2010-05-07T09:41:00.001-06:00

Pete Ashdown, Internet Entrepreneur and founder of X Mission put this up on Youtube. Okay, full disclosure... he is (says in a loud whisper) A Democrat! Apparently while campaigning for public office, taking donations from the public for his senate bid and lecturing us on the fabric of the Constitution and warning us it is under attack, Mike Lee's campaign wants to limit how the information gets out to the citizens and delegates who are likely to put him in a two way race for the US Senate. Ashdown is a voter and a potential constituant.

Now controlling the message is something amoral corporate machines do and something dictators do or something we would expect from , dare I say it... communism! It is not something that a candidate who supports liberty and free speech would engage in..... is it?

Come on GOP Delegates and Tea Party activists... call this man on his restrictions of speech and his lack of campaign transparency. This man and his campaign are engaged in hypocritical activities and will say and do almost anything to get elected and if you support this end justifies the means tactic you are no better than the elected officials you are railing against.

Special thanks to Glen Warchol for putting this up

Causal v Correlative

2010-04-21T00:12:00.001-06:00

There is a bunch of information available at our finger tips. Google and the spread of information around the web has been one of the major advancements of the spread of that information and... misinformation.

Years ago I took my kids to the pediatrician for a checkup. We discussed the importance of sleep, good diet and exercise. When I asserted that we gave our children multivitamins... there was a pause.... and he said that if the child gets a enough nutrition there was really no need for a supplement. I could tell by his interjection that he did not believe in supplements.

You can find anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness of vitamins, the acai berry, antioxidants and a whole host of other remedies for good health. I believe that is born out of our belief that we can substitute good healthy habits for a pill. However, when you carefully evaluate the information on the web you discover that the claims have not been evaluated by the FDA. So you now see there is correlative evidence or anecdotal evidence but not a casual link between what the positive effect and the supplement.

This all turns evil when the correlative evidence starts to taint things that are important to our society’s health such as vaccines. This weekend a friend posted an link to a natural health site claiming that a vaccine was dangerous. When I "snopes" the information I found the evidence was correlative not causal. Millions of doses had been given of the vaccine and about 500 people had claimed side effects and 32 people had died. However there was no direct link to the reported symptoms and or deaths. I believe correlative evidence requires a study on something as important as vaccines and other medications.

However, there has been recent studies on the MMR vaccine and the correlative evidence that it causes autism. The studies have all shown there is no causal link to autism and the vaccine. However there is still an army of crusaders who are holding on the debunked belief. This is discussed in the Skepchick Podcast: 05 Just the Vax: Are Vaccines Safe? .

You can Google and find anything that supports your opinion or your beliefs even if they are wrong. Michael Specter gives this TED talk and discusses the dangers or science denial.

I quoted Sara Mayhew two posts ago but I think her quote here is again applicable.

"If I could get the world to respond to one question, it would be: do we have the courage to let go of our beliefs in order to grab on to what is true?” ~Sara Mayhew

Curmudgeon Starts a New Arts Blog

2010-04-16T22:32:00.000-06:00

I have two big interest Arts and Skepticism (I have several moderate interests and a billion minor interests as well). I find myself sometimes concerned that those who know me as a theatre enthusiast will take offense to my skeptical blog. I also want folks to know me by my deeds not my thoughts or beliefs. I am not ashamed of my skepticism not will I stop blogging in the manner I have here. I just feel that a different topic requires a different venue.

So to feed my desire to discuss art and the Arts I have started a new blog. "Curmudgeon's Art Blog" is now up and running. You will find my latest endeavors with South Jordan Community Theatre, comments about shows I have seen recently, and new and events that affect the Arts in Utah and South Jordan.

Young and Wise

2010-04-14T14:12:00.003-06:00

"If I could get the world to respond to one question, it would be: do we have the courage to let go of our beliefs in order to grab on to what is true?” ~Sara Mayhew

.... are we seeing a corporation supporting skepticism?

Thanks to Rebecca Watson of Skepchick for putting this up!

45 And Counting

2010-03-29T22:06:00.003-06:00

I turned 45 on Saturday. For me it was a somewhat emotional day. Not because I had come to the sudden realization that half my life was over and I had accomplished nothing; Not because I was in the middle of a mid life crisis; not because my children broke my laptop computer.

The reality is that I really don't care for birthdays and especially my own. Every March 27th a "Kevin New Year" begins and the old one closes. Sometimes I stop to think about what I have accomplished in my life and it always seems to me that there is little to reflect upon.

This year was different. The run up to the day was as anyone would expect. Uneventful with probing questions from my wife as to what I wanted for my special day. They day before the first facebook notification came in wishing me a happy birthday. From that post and well in to the 28th there was a steady stream of birthday wishes.

Okay, I am aware that Facebook kind or makes it easy for folks to send birthday wishes and just because I get a few postings I shouldn't be deluded into thinking I am "popular". I wasn't. What did catch my attention was the occasional acknowledgement from the folks who I had some how influenced either from my blog, my careers, the theatre company I helped co-found, or the folks who are just my good friends and of course my lovely wife and my children.

I hope at 45 I am just at the beginning of leaving a small mark on the history of this planet. In the short term... it is good to have friends and so many of them. Thank you all for wishing me a happy birthday.... and it was.

Remodled the Blog--Rearranged the Furniture

2010-03-26T10:23:00.004-06:00

I moved things around and found a template more to my liking. For those of you on blogger they have a new tool. Blogger Template Designer is a draft or beta product but it is easy to use. Feel free to let me know what you think or what you might change. I'll feel free to accept or reject your ideas (it is my blog after all).

Discussion Topic--Are we born with God

2010-03-24T19:57:00.005-06:00

I have found recently, from all the noise on Facebook about the recent passage of the Health Care bill there has very little investigation of the issue beyond the bumper sticker rhetoric. I am looking to have a discussion. One where the topic is explored thoroughly with opposing view points in a respectful fashion. I thought I might start that discussion here with this topic:

Are We Born with God?

I have been confronted recently on both Facebook and here in this blog with peoples assertion of faith and the idea that I am a fool because I have none. As many know I started as a Christian (Mormon). I didn't have any real sense of what that meant until I was 8 or 9 and I was done with it at 16.

Here is what I think about the question for starters:

Religion is largely geographic. Where you live is will influence the religion you belong to.

"God" varies depending on location and historical period. The Judeo-Christian God was only known in a small region of the world until after the fall of Rome. Mono-thesism was not globally accepted until the beginning of the last milennium.

"God" in concept has to be taught.

This is meant to be a discussion not an argument/fight. You can give your opinion but be prepared to back it up with evidence/support for you opinion.

I am really interested in ideas and am hoping that most will participate.

Facebook friends follow the link to the original post and post comments on the blog.

Tribal Vs Family Values

2010-03-19T12:15:00.002-06:00

There is not a term that grates on me more than "Family Values" Not because I have anything against the family unit nor do I fail to value the family unit (I do come from one and have created one) but because it is a code word for hate, bigotry, narrow-mindedness, and self righteousness.

Indeed "family values" represents the doctrine of conservatism, and in this country the doctrine of Christian conservatism. It comes about under the sheep's clothing of providing public policy that supports and protects the family unit. It is against pornography, nudity, immodesty, vulgarity, evolution, global warming, and a myriad of other conservatives causes.

The "Family Values" caucus is responsible for absurd practices like covering legally distributed magazines in the local grocery stores because someone might become aroused by cleavage. Frankly, I think this brings more attention to the periodical and increases the likelihood that little Johnny with become titillated by the airbrushed bombshell on the cover. I find it concerning that we allow any group determine what is potentially offensive to others and the exert their brand of control on that stimulus. I personally think that if you cover the Sports Illustrated Swim Suit Edition or the Women's Fitness magazines because it sexualizes women; we should also cover Modern Bride...after all you know what they are about to do?

In addition to censorship they are also the ones who have lobbied against advertisements of The Gardasil Vaccine, open discussion in public school health classes of the use of condoms as a way to prevent disease and pregnancy to our teens even with our permission. They are first to push capitalism even as it leads to the demise of the family unit through increased work hours and reduced benefits for the parents charged with providing for the family and ultimately a meager retirement for the elderly. They are also the first to push out family members who have been born gay and are foolish enough to acknowledge it and to warn us against social justice.

On its face the "Family Values" unit appears to represent the "Values of Christ" but under the banter of family values celebrities Like Rush, Glen Beck, Dr. Laura, and Sean Hannity, the values of Jesus look more like this....

Unfortunately the family is not really well served by rigid doctrine. It allows no room for mistake, growth or progress. While engaged in pulpit pounding demanding that Americans engage in personal responsibility they fail to acknowledge that everyone is dealt a hand that is somewhat random and not everything is in your control. When those who are poor, liberal, or non-Christian make mistakes, or are dealt with an overwhelming hand, the family values caucus is the first to eviscerate the sinner. However when a man like Rush admits he is addicted to drugs, or like Kevin Garn admits he had an illegal sexual encounter...they are first to circle the wagons. They cannot even give the opposing side credit when they say something that makes sense. Ultimately this is not family values it is Tribal values and is not meant to benefit humanity but to defend the ways of tribe no matter how dysfunctional...

This video was brought to my attention by Leah Elliot of The Whore of All the Earth. It discuss how we are wired as humans in our decisions about what is moral:

I think it is interesting How Jonathon Haidt identifies the the characteristics that form the conservative and liberal moral identities. The two of the five assigned to liberals is Harm(protection) and Fairness. The two assigned to conservatives is Respect for Authority and In group Loyalty. The conservatives "family values", it would seem are about the tribe and keeping control. The liberal values are about valuing humanity and I think are a better fit for my family.

Social Justice 1937

2010-03-15T23:20:00.002-06:00

Man. Is there no one in town aware of social justice or industrial inequality?
Mr. Webb. Oh yes everybody is--somethin' terrible. Seems like they spend most of their time talking about who's rich and who's poor.
Man. (forcefully) Then why don't they do something about it?
Mr. Webb. (Tolerantly) Well, I dunno. I guess where all huntin' like everybody else for a way the diligent and sensible can rise to the top and the lazy and quarrelsome sink to the bottom. But it ain't easy to find. Meantime, we do all we can to take care of those who can't take care of themsleves and those who can we leave alone. Are there any other questions?

-Thorton Wilder Our Town

Simple Wisdom from a simpler time! Any Questions Mr. Beck?

I'll admit to being Anti-Mormon if you admit to being Anti-Reason

2010-03-05T12:22:00.006-07:00

anti-
a prefix meaning “against,” “opposite of,” “antiparticle of,” used in the formation of compound words (anticline); used freely in combination with elements of any origin (antibody; antifreeze; antiknock; antilepton).

The problem with using a definition as a broad brush to paint any group or person is that it leads to "binary thinking". More importantly it allows us to dismiss a segment of the population because we don't agree with them, or in the case of this article in today's Mormon Times, because what they say may not be faith promoting.

I agree with the writer on the following:

First of all, we shouldn't call people who simply don't believe in Mormonism "anti-Mormons." We should call them Catholics or Baptists or Muslims or atheists. People who ascribe themselves to faiths or philosophies that contradict Mormonism should not automatically be seen as antagonists. They should be credited with having their own beliefs.

Now, what about people who try to convert Latter-day Saints to their belief systems? Are they anti-Mormons?

No.

The believing Baptist who testifies of his church's doctrine to a Latter-day Saint is trying to do something he believes is constructive. Even if he attempts to point out supposed flaws in Mormon doctrine, if his genuine intent is to save a soul and he maintains a polite, rational tone, I don't think he deserves the anti-Mormon label. After all, should Mormon missionaries be considered anti-Catholics or anti-Protestants?

In the blog-o-sphere "tone" becomes subjective to reader and there is broad license to interpret that tone. My biggest concern with this writing is the permission to exclude from the conversation based upon perception without encouraging the reader to consider evidence, offer evidence of their own or to ask for clarification of meaning and intent.

The line, I believe, that separates non-Mormons from anti-Mormons is motivation. Anti-Mormons are people who put down Mormon beliefs, practices and people simply for the sake of destroying their faith. Not many anti-Mormons would admit that is their primary goal, of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't so.

I really think this is a trap. How is this interpreted? If you actively question doctrine and call people on what appears to be bigotry is that anti? When you confront the assertions that atheists are doing the work of Satan as offered by General Authorities is that Anti? When you question church history and the origins of doctrine is that Anti? Is it likely that the above examples will be interpreted as putting down Mormon beliefs for the sake of destroying their faith? Is a journey in reason and critical thinking likely to destroy faith.

For the most part, anti-Mormons should be ignored. But before that can happen, they have to be identified.

In my short tenure as a blogger I have come across as many "militant Mormons". I don't engage in combat blogging which means if I have made an assertion I have a source to back it up if you have a counter point of view I expect the same discipline. However my topics are pointed and not necessarily faith promoting. But I don't think that means I should be ignored (of course I don't that's why I am a blogger). I am of the opinion that the danger in the author's statements is a promotion of the tribalism that has proven to divide cultures in the past and which contiues to be a problem in Utah.

81 Words-The history of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM

2010-03-05T11:49:00.001-07:00

81 Words

I found this post very interesting. It is worth the time to listen.

"As a Thief in the Night" - The Utah Theocracy Regains Power

2010-02-28T11:46:00.007-07:00

For 4.25 years Utah enjoyed some progressive thought. Under Governor Jon M. Huntsman we saw a relaxing of our liquor laws and support for civil unions. If it weren't for his economic policies and the idea that the government could be run like a business....he would look like a Utah Democrat. Now by definition and actions a Utah Democrat looks like a Moderate Republican in any other state.

Huntsman's legacy was marred when he resigned to take the Ambassadorship in China and he left the state to Gary Herbert. Herbert, a not very smart mean spirited ultra conservative voice and lackey of the Eagle Forum. I know this sounds harsh but under Huntsman Gayle Ruzicka and the Eagle Forum had significantly reduced influence. However, Herbert, who would not have ever been elected governor, needs her support to win the special election this year.

Unfortunately, the rise of power for Herbert also means a rise to power for Gayle Ruzicka. Now you might think that the curmudgeon has lost his mind or that I am subscribing to conspiracy theories...Take a look at this video posted by Chino Blanco on his Youtube Channel:

I am not sure if the significance of this video occurred to Chino Blanco when he posted it but I watched with a knot in my stomach as I saw the obvious work of the Knitting Needle Mafia. My instincts were confirmed at 1:11 into the video when the evil Empress Darth Ruzicka approached the chair and was greeted with a two handed clasp or honor.

Okay, it is true that Utah's STD rates are lower than the national average but the current trend is a near doubling of cases or STD's over the last five years. It is so concerning that pediatricians and primary care physicians are speaking out. According to the Utah CDC teens are more likely to get chlamydia than the seasonal flu. Girls are infected at 2:1 ratio over boys. If we don't have educational intervention with measurable outcomes we will soon be chasing the trend.

According to Paul Rolly of the Salt Lake Tribune the whole sorted affair went down like this:

Ruzicka pulled out all stops last weekend to muster her Eagle Forum forces to pressure legislators to slam the door on Urquhart's sex education bill before it could ever rise to the level of public debate on its merits.

Thanks to Ruzicka's Eagle Forum, the bill died in the Senate Education Committee on Monday. Ruzicka and her minions didn't need persuasive argument to kill the bill. They didn't need facts. They didn't even need to be on the right side of the issue. All they needed was a tool to dig a grave in which to bury the bill. And the perfect tool they found was Sen. Curtis Bramble, R-Provo, chairman of the Education Committee.

Gayle Ruzicka is the mother of 12 children all of which were educated at home. I don't understand why she feels she has an obligation to tell me or any other parent how we can choose to have our children educated. Her track record as a parent is not spotless. She is not the shinning example of benevolence and love that we might look to for our leadership. The fact is she is a bigot who counts as her friends Senator Chris Buttars and Senator Curtis Bramble. None of which have ever been burdened with the facts, logic, critical thinking or a real desire to serve the interest of the Great State of Utah.

I am a believer that it is time to start standing up for reason. That is why I believe that more than complaining about topic on my blog it is time for a call to action. I encourage those who are ill-served by Senator Bramble to call for his resignation. I also suggest local formation of phone trees to get combat the knitting needle mafia and email's to your local representatives to let them know where you stand. Gayle Ruzicka has shown that a minority interest can get a disproportionate share of the influence by being the squeaky wheel. I am willing to stand up, to lobby, to support candidates who are willing to vote for issues based upon the facts not ideology. It is time for disciples of reason to come out of the shadows and take control from theologues in the legislature. This is not an event....it is a process...one if delayed represents further harm to our children and our citizens.

Who threatens which?

2010-02-24T20:37:00.008-07:00

sec·u·lar·ism /sek-yuh-luh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1.secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
2.the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.

Three articles in the last 10 days have appeared in the Deseret News Mormon Times telling readers that secularism is the greatest threat to religion, Mormonism, Catholicism, and life on the planet as we know it.

From the Feb.14th article Secularism is growing obstacle for Mormon Church:

An attorney for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints predicts secularism will be one of the most significant obstacles facing the LDS Church over the coming decade.

William F. Atkin, associate general counsel for the LDS Church, made the prognostication Saturday during an address at the 2010 J. Reuben Clark Law Society Conference on the University of Utah campus.

"When governments become neutral towards religion, we see less and less protection of religion and religious activities," he said. "Secularism in the world is neutral at best towards religions and hostile at worst. We're seeing more and more that it is hostile, not just neutral, towards religion." ....

...."We think there's going to be a tightening now of what kind of entities get tax-exempt status," Atkin said. "Maybe churches are no longer going to be viewed as such a positive influence in society -- therefore (maybe) they're not going to be granted tax-exempt status."

Abroad, secularism is manifesting itself in a wave of anti-discrimination measures in Europe that could, for example, prevent the LDS Church from requiring its employees to adhere to a basic level of personal worthiness and moral conduct.

"We're seeing more and more, particularly in Western Europe, the countries who are very secular are pushing anti-discrimination and not permitting any religious exclusions," he said.

From the Feb. 12th article Gay-marriage battle endangering religious voices - Elder Wickman:

SALT LAKE CITY -- As the battle over same-sex marriage winds its way through the federal courts, the fundamental right to voice religious beliefs in political debates is seriously endangered, said Elder Lance B. Wickman.

Elder Wickman, an attorney for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a member of the Quorum of the Seventy, made the remarks Thursday as part of the 2010 J. Reuben Clark Law Society Conference at the University of Utah.

"I believe that the greatest challenge faced by the church," Elder Wickman said, "is the challenge to religious liberty that is growing worldwide. ... A battle is looming over the effort to acquire civil social rights at the expense of civil religious rights. This battle, I believe, represents the acceleration of a disturbing slide downward in the law regarding the place of religion in the public square."
....

....Elder Wickman said Perry vs. Schwarzenegger portends to define not just marriage per se but the ground rules for all future political debate as well.

"Perry seeks a court declaration that, as a matter of law, religious views may not be used to justify the denial of a social civil right," he said. "Stated differently, they essentially claim that the voters, from whom all authority in a democracy flows, may not consider religious views and values when deciding these alleged social and cultural civil rights.

"These are serious allegations and represent an arrow directly at the heart not only of traditional marriage but at the place of religion and religious views in the political dialogue of this country."

From the Feb. 24th article MMO: Cardinal's speech set tone for LDS, Catholics:

Cardinal George's words built on that subtext.

"We can and should stand together as one in defense of religious liberty. In the coming years interreligious coalitions formed to defend the rights of conscience of individuals and religious institutions should become a vital bulwark against the tide of forces that work in our government and society that work to move religion to a purely private reality.

"At stake is whether the religious voice will be heard in the public square. Our collaborative efforts in this work may include common statements and court testimonies demonstrating principles that are constant with our religious beliefs."

He also said that Latter-day Saints cannot allow public expressions of faith to be relegated to private worship.

The three articles represent the opinions of two religions with abysmal civil rights track records. If left to their own devices not only would we ban gay marriage but we would prevent interracial marriage, keep abused spouses from divorcing their abusers and the progress made in the 60's and 70's civil rights movements would be undone. Unfortunately these regional oppressors are now calling themselves the victims of the neutrally intolerant secular society.

I believe in freedom of religion as much as I believe in freedom from religion. However, I also see religious beliefs similar to our private bedroom habits and believe they are best served when expressed with like minded willing participants not forced upon a nation. To a Catholic, the rituals are comforting; to someone on the outside they are perverse.

Religions, I think can and should serve their flocks. However when they reach out and use their wealth and influence to deny any portion of our society equal rights they should be pushed back and in the case of the LDS Church their tax exempt status should come under scrutiny.

William F. Atkin stated above "Maybe churches are no longer going to be viewed as such a positive influence in society -- therefore (maybe) they're not going to be granted tax-exempt status." If churches are not seen as such a positive influence in the world it is at their own hands. The self righteousness that comes from most pulpits including the LDS churches that puts religion before science, Quantitative measurable out comes behind superstition and hateful biases before compassionate policy should be shunned by our ever growing secular society.

It is religion that has spread propaganda such as the black man is descended from cane and is inferior, women are less than men because they caused Adam to fall, It is a sin to prevent pregnancy, and sex for whatever purpose is mired in sin. This propaganda has resulted in abuse, marginalization and horrible public policy whenever the religious entity has stuck its nose in the business of governing. So yes Mr. Atkin it is questionable as to whether churches are a positive influence in our society. I am with Christopher Hitchens in the belief that "Religion Poisons Everything."

Quote of the Day

2010-02-22T10:18:00.002-07:00

When I left Mormonism I considered myself still a Christian and attended a local Baptist church for about 18 months, but when I put to use the same critical thinking methodology that caused me to leave Mormonism, I had to leave behind Christianity and ultimately theism as well. Based on my experience, once you switch on critical thinking, at some point you have to switch it back off to some degree in order to remain a 'believer.' That is, after all, what being a believer means -- you set aside reason and just believe.

- Jeff Ricks

Question of the Day

2010-02-04T09:55:00.001-07:00

Is it OK for the stupid and gullible people to get worthless treatments, if they want?

PZ Myers