Follow-up to my coming out of the closet (as an Atheist)

Note: for those reading this on Facebook, I have a link in FB that automatically copies any and ALL blog posts over to FB notes, this includes technical, personal, funny , geeky whatever. If you’d rather not see my blog posts in your feed let me know and I can specifically block you from seeing just the notes.

Recently a few people have expressed concern because I was talking more about my atheism and they worried that I might upset my brother, or that I was basically being like a petulant teenager and lashing out against religion to get attention since he was going the other way. That’s not the case, this posting is going to be my reaction to those comments, and maybe a way to explain myself better than I have previously.

I obviously was raised in a religiously divided home, my mother was Roman Catholic, and my father always stated his dogtags said NRP (No Religious Preference). Dad didn’t dislike religion, in fact he encouraged Adam and I to try and embrace it, so that we had the added strength to fallback upon. However, honestly as far back as I can remember I questioned religion and what I was taught in Sunday school and CCD. I tried to be the good church going boy to please the family, I even was an alter boy a few times, but it just never stuck for me.

In High School and some college I started to branch out and explore other religions, I went to church with a few different friends and family, including Lutherans, Mormon’s, and Jewish services. I read a number of religious tombs cover to cover including the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Quran, and a number of Zen (Buddhism) texts. During this time I also started to get more serious with Heather, and going to church (Catholic, same church I went to as a child) with her mostly because it was another way to spend time with her. It also didn’t hurt that it helped me get in good graces with her mom (Hi Marilyn.) Nothing seemed to feel like more than nice stories to me, nothing had a ring of truth.

Heather and I had a number of talks, and like my father, I decided that I had no religious preference (at the time I was calling myself Agnostic with Catholic leanings) but that I wanted to try and raise any children we had together Catholic so they could gain the strength and support that I’ve seen others get from faith.

Somewhere between there and last Summer I slipped from Agnostic to Atheist, but I didn’t voice it much simply because I was still unsure of myself when it came to this topic (look how often I’d changed) and because I didn’t want to hurt those close to me.

However when Adam joined the Seminary I started to really question my faith, and wonder, since others are so proud of what they believe, and if this truly IS what I believe than why should I have any more shame for my beliefs, or hide them any more than those with faith who claim something different?

I am not the type of Atheist who feels I must disprove religion to everyone else. I still hope Alex grows up and into SOME form of faith. If it’s Catholic great, if it’s Buddhist great, if he becomes at least the 3^rd generation of James males without faith so be it, he’s my son and I’ll love him if he decides he wants to worship a tomato plant.

All this said, I still consider myself open minded. If as Adam puts it, I get touched by God tomorrow, then I’ll take religion more to heart and embrace faith. I will always respect the good that religions of the world do, while shaking my head at the destruction done in their names. I will always respect and defend others rights to their beliefs, all I ask is that you respect my beliefs. I won’t try to convert you if you don’t try to convert me, deal?

The Atheist and the Priest

I've long had different religious beliefs than I was raised with. I was raised in a Catholic household and tried to be one, but it just never took. I used to say "I'm Agnostic at best or an Atheist at worst", but even that was to soften what I am for my family.

Today I'm basically coming all the way out of the religious closet. I am an Atheist. I've mentioned it to a few people recently, who seem to think that because of the way some Atheists try to constantly disprove religion that my brother and I would constantly be at odds. (For those who don't know my brother is studying to be a Catholic Priest, read his blog here.) I am nothing but proud of Adam. I don't agree with his beliefs, but I am exceptionally proud of the humanitarian things he's done, and the people he will help in his calling.

Just like the vast minority of Priests would never dream of abusing children, the Atheists that are obnoxious about proving everything religions do wrong are in my opinion a minority, and certainly do not represent all of us.

I will certainly continue going to church with Heather, for her and for Alex. I will go to services for Adam if I'm invited. I'm still debating how much I'll participate in the service however. I have had a brief talk with Adam, and as an Atheist my understanding is even though I took First Communion as a child, I am no longer supposed to take it. However, I worry about Alex when he reaches a point to notice that I'm not taking it. Is it better to then explain to him that I believe in other things and therefore choose not to to take communion, or should I "play the part" until he's old enough to have a serious discussion and make up his old mind?

Why I post

I made one of those vague, dramatic Facebook posts that we all see occasionally. I've never minded them because I figure the person posting them needed an outlet for venting and rather than screaming on the streets they decided to scream into cyberspace.

I didn't realize that there's a sub-set of the on-line population who apparently has to know the meaning behind every single post that scrolls across their twitter feed, or their facebook wall. Here's a hint, if you're one of those people, unfollow me. I don't post for anyones benefit but my own.

Just like the guy that first finds out he's going to be a new dad, when I'm happy I want to tell everyone my good news and may spout randomly to the world about my good fortune.

On the other hand, when a demon from my past that I thought I had, if not outright destroyed, at least beaten into submission and locked away for good is revealed to be on the lose then I'm going to bellow in rage at the world.

Some people will likely see this post targeting them because of the responses made on facebook. While it is asking them to reconsider how that person views vague posts, it's really pointed at everyone who THOUGHT how much they hate those vague posts. The vague post may not be a call for attention, it might simply be an outlet to rage at the world rather than screaming in the streets at 3 o'clock in the morning and getting arrested.

Are we there yet?

I recently read an article that set my mind reeling. I encourage you to go read the article and think for yourself, but basically it says that the US is in either a pre-fascist or all out fascist state right now.

The term fascist is thrown around a lot. There is even Godwin's law on debate circles of the internet that states the first person who compares the other debater to Hitler, a Nazi or a fascist automatically loses the argument because it is such an easy cop out.

That said fascism is more than a boogie-man. It is something to be guarded against and the previously mentioned article got me thinking, are we really on that slippery slope? Here's why I think we truly might be:

1. We are a country "by the people, for the people" in two wars the people don't want. I feel the war in Afghanistan was justified, and perhaps the Iraq war was at the time, however the Defector who convinced the White House of the WMD's has admitted he lied. I feel that if the people don't want a war, even if it is justified, then the politicians should follow the will of the people.

2. Our country is now locking people up for months on end without any form of trial.

3. Our elected officials have decided to attempt to remove civil liberties in some instances "for the good of the state"

Fascism is difficult to quantify because it is neither strictly Right or Left. It is first and foremost an authoritarian form of government. Fascism is usually seen as far right, but the economics are far left to create a large government that the citizens come to depend upon for everything.

A much better description of fascism is at Wikipedia and the more I read it the more I wonder, are we there yet, and if not, can we change course?

The one ring

There's a piece of jewelery that to me is a sign of my love for Heather more than any other. Most people would logically assume it was my wedding band. While that band is very important to me and is a sign of our love and commitment, it was “expected,” that is to say I picked the wedding band, I knew it was going to be given, and I knew when. This in no way diminishes the importance of my wedding band, but it was “proper” that I receive it when and how I did.

The most important jewelery to me is Heather's high school class ring that hangs on a simple 14 k gold chain around my neck where it's been ever since she gave it to me the summer after we started dating. This ring has only spent 1 night that I can recall off my neck, and that was when I had spinal surgery and due to blood lose couldn't ask for it.

Heather gave me her ring on a piece of string (that I wore it on until the string broke) when she was staying at UWL for upward bound over the summer. To me that was a sign that she felt about me the same way I felt about her.

Whenever I have to take off my jewelery (for x-rays or at the airport) this ring and chain are always the last thing I take off and the first I put back on. Whenever I feel lonely or am missing Heather I hold (and sometimes kiss) that ring and hope that somehow she knows I'm thinking about her at that moment.

Heather probably doesn't know that I'm writing this, and a few will think it's sappy, or not “manly” but my response is screw them. This is how I feel and I wanted to share it with the world.

More Wikileaks

In my last post I talked about WikiLeaks while the case was still rather new, and very fluid. Since then a lot has changed (however not my opinion) and in discussing it with people I’ve come to realize that while many people know the name WikiLeaks, they don’t understand what it is or how it works. In the 1970’s the media did a good job of understanding and explaining what Watergate was and how it worked. In 2010 the mainstream media seems to be just as clueless as the politicians who are trying to shut down what is basically a new form of press.
Also Julian Assange has been accused of “rape” (I’ll get to why that’s in quotes in a moment) which is obviously a serious crime.
I’m going to try to do the media’s job for them and explain some of the facts in this case and let anyone who reads this form their own opinions. Lets start with the rape accusation.
The crime that WikiLeaks founder is accused of isn’t rape in the traditional sense that we have here in the US. In fact as far as I know Sweden is the ONLY country where what he is being accused of is a crime. Basically if a couple has consensual relations but the man does not use some form of barrier protection (i.e. a condom) the woman has up to 72 hours to claim rape, even if at the time of intercourse she agreed to the lack of protection (as she admitted happened in this case.) The woman who accused Assange of this case brought the charges, dropped them, then talked to a number of politicians and brought them a second time, all within that 72 hour period. I’m not going to claim it was a setup, but there are a number of people who would.
Now as for what WikiLeaks is. People seem to have this image of the staff of WikiLeaks poking around in the Pentagon digging through their desk drawers for things to release. They’re not. Basically it’s a website where anyone can anonymously upload/”leak” documents that the uploader has access to for whatever reason. It would be the same as if I created a fake Facebook account and released my companies secrets there, it may be a crime for me to steal that company info, but Facebook didn’t do anything wrong.
WikiLeaks specifically, and the internet in general is the future of the press. To censor or block them is to deny that the citizens have a right to information (again we get back to those pesky amendments to the Constitution about freedom of speech and freedom of the press.) Other than one being on the screen and one being on paper how is a website different from a newspaper? What is the definition of a journalist? Am I one for keeping a blog or do I need X amount of readers? If it’s a matter of the number of readers what is that number? Are small community newspapers that don’t reach that number then not covered by freedom of the press?
Also ask yourself, if the information published by WikiLeaks wasn’t from the US, but from China or Iran would you have as big a problem? If a country is doing something wrong, even if it’s your country, shouldn’t we know about it? In 2009 WikiLeaks was the first to report about a serious nuclear accident in Iran, which was then picked up by major news outlets, similar to the way the Monica Lewinski case was first released by Matt Drudge on the internet and then only later picked up by news outlets. This is the future, and while WikiLeaks may have an anti-US agenda, they also have a right to free speech and since there is no law against publishing classified materials, only in leaking them in the first place, they are not guilty of any crime and have not been accused of any at this time.

WIKILeaks

I'm torn over Wikileaks. I don't like that they may have compromised this countries reputation, and possibly even hurt it at the negotiating table. HOWEVER, I fully support them in their pursuit of the truth wherever it leads. Reporters (in the classic, Radio, TV, Newspaper sense) used to do that. Lately I see mouthpieces for both sides of the political agenda and very little investigative reporting being done by the "professionals."

"The freedom of the press" isn't just a catchy slogan, what is being done to shut down a whole website because of what amounts to a series of articles being released is equal to if Nixon tried to shut down every newspaper that reported on Watergate. Investigate the leaker, not the messenger. Ask yourself, how would Stalin, Hitler, Castro, or Napolean have responded to someone printing something that reflected their governments in a poor light, do we really want to emulate them?

The Spec 4 that released this current bout of information could have gone to a newspaper, started his own website, written a book, or taken it directly to a foreign government. He would have gotten in trouble if caught, but only the website would have been shut down or stopped.

Months after the first round of leaks (remember we've been here before and survived?) Defense Secretary Gates, who originally said informants were being killed in Afganistan, stated "There has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak."

So can we all please calm down with wanting the government to violate that whole pesky first amendment thing for a website and maybe remember that we are paying good money to go to the airport and get our fourth amendment violated? The latest there is agents are now being told to tell kids that the groping is a "game"