Latest thoughts on the pressing issues of the day

I love inherently reproductive sex (AKA sex), children, life, the Universe, the fact that we're the first life here to have some understanding of how we got here, the Internet, amateur porn, oral sex, masturbation, Charlie Hebdo, and sticking it up the right royal ass of all censors and freedom hating cult members, and their dumbass leftist apologists, including cult members of Islam.

I dislike Mormon leaders Oaks, Spencer Kimball, Mark E. Peterson, and Boyd Packer.

I enjoy Duck Dynasty. 

I like Oscar Wilde, Stephen Fry, and other service oriented and/or highly-artistically-usefully gays.

I don't like and am highly wary of wastrel angel reading bipolar gays who readily befriend convicted pedophiles after they're been released from prison.

I hate doctors who circumcise boys or girls, and Muslims and Jews who continue to genitally rape their own children . Also I hate idiot secular apologists for barbaric religious practices, and John Harvey Kellogg and his legacy in medical pseudoscience.

I like Thunderf00t. I hate Skepchick and all her Atheism-Plus related ultra-retarded cohorts.

I highly admire Christopher Hitchens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and I like Pat Condell. 

I loath Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Scott Atran, and Reza Aslan.

I get nauseous about Unitarian Universalists who claim Mohamed was an advocate for social justice. At one highly illustrative congregation these same people also readily elected a freakish hideously-ugly man-woman-it to be their priest. 

Many humanist and Unitarian groups are seas of gray hair. The hippie-worshipers of all things "childfree."

I dislike dogmatism on the left more than I dislike dogmatism on the right. Both are bad but leftist dogmatism is worse.

I was raised as a liberal. I voted for Obama twice. But I can now see more clearly key fundamental flaws in current liberalism. The near entirety of the current cultural left is failing everyone. They are clueless regarding Islam and abusive cultures. They want to be "childfree," and have inherently non-reproductive "sex" with everyone in every possible combination. They want to actively deny 13.8 billion years of evolutionary history by subverting and denying what sex is and how we all got here - deny and be traitors to their own personal history. 13.8 billion years of evolution by natural selection and 1.2 billion years of sex - and then came the petty "childfree" vain narcissistic wastrels - traitors to the evolutionary and sexual history that brought us here.

It's quite true that there is only one type of "sex" in the human animal, the type which inherently leads to reproduction, and by extension only one type of real marriage. 

But gays are gay I admit. Let's just hope more gay people learn to draw Mohamed.

Why are the champions of gay, "minority," "race," and women's "rights" sucked into Margaret Sanger's and Gloria Steinem's kool-aid, so clueless about Islam? 

If the left is so fundamentally clueless about the root causes of the abuses in Islam are they also clueless about feminism, gay rights, race relations and rights, affirmative action, social justice, and socialism in general?

Is being an idiot about Islam an indication of more widespread memetic disease and intellectual malfunction? 

I believe we can at this point question the validity of their *whole* project perhaps. The liberal permissive hippie project - apparently leads to kissing the ass of Mohamed.

Maybe the Libertarians really are more right. Yes Ayn Rand was a complete fool and idiot. But in general look across the cultural landscape to see exactly who (!) is on the side of Charlie  Hebdo! It's not the UUs. It's not the secular left as shown on MSNBC, the BBC, the PBS Newshour, or the New York Times. 

Look closely. 

Who exactly champions the right to offend religious sensitivities of Muslins? Who loves Charlie Hebdo's very valuable art - who on the cultural landscape?

Not the secular left. Yes the secular right. And also the religious right have some useful agreement with the value of Hebdo's work regarding Islam.

The left, as perfectly exemplified by UU congregations, is obsessed about gay rights and the rights of women to have "sex" without reproduction. The rights of "minorities" to be worshiped and have their collective asses kissed. And they believe Mohamed was an advocate for social justice, even though the complete opposite is true.  

The Hebdo murders was a 9/11 for art. A wake up call. 

Much of the cultural left is engaged in slow motion suicide. 

I'm moving toward being more of a single issue voter. I now care less about disparaging believers in the Bible. Islam is such a huge threat that it must be fought on all levels. Not everything is equal. Not all cultures are of equal value. 

Even the much-worshiped "Native Americans" abuse their own kids when they are allowed by Canadian courts to deny life saving leukemia cancer treatment to their kids for religious reasons. 

Political correctness trumps children's lives in ultra-PC Canada.

So again I'm moving right, happily toward Christopher Hitchens and Pat Condell. 

Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Honesty. Moving forward. Survival. Preserving the Reformation and Enlightenment. The current-left are traitors to all.

Amerindian Culture condemns an 11 year old to death, today, now, in 2014

Should an 11 year old American Indian with leukemia be condemned to death, because  of the new age raw food eating modern medical science denying "aboriginal" beliefs of her parents? When self hating leftist hipsters in Florida and Canada do it it's not child abuse, right?

Is this a triumph for "native" "aboriginal" rights?

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5028666-aboriginal-girl-who-refused-chemo-is-critically-ill/

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/11/17/an-ontario-court-dooms-a-first-nations-girl-with-cancer/

The savages are not so noble after all.

More info on the term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage

Pinker on the general issue & other leftist denial of human nature:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate

A related book found:
War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage
http://www.amazon.com/War-Before-Civilization-Peaceful-Savage/dp/0195119126

In my view Canada has become oh so very politically correct, and enmeshed in liberal self hate, that they cannot help but let this 11 year old "noble savage" die of leukemia.

My own further views on so-called "natives:"

American Indians: No group of humans are uniquely more noble
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/03/american-indians-no-group-of-humans-are.html

Noble Savages? Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez, Wikileaks, Bolivia, Amerindians (American Indians), and so on.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/07/noble-savages-edward-snowden-julian.html

Leaders in the Amerindian community are furthering past abuse by  whitey by such actions. Taking the sword from the whites of the past, holding it in their own hands, and using it themselves on their own children.

Federal Appeals Court: Gays Have Right to Marry, And Everyone Has AIDS!

Federal Appeals Court: Gays Have Right to Marry
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/court-utah-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional-24298290

And everyone has AIDS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StPTCo5qk8E

The extreme naivete of Unitarian Universalism, expressed yet again by having one of their churches headed up by a freakish extreme outlier:

http://archive.sltrib.com/images/2009/0619/gayunitarian_0620~3.jpg

...a particularly & acutely unattractive woman to man experiment.

How else UUs are naive:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-new-creed-of-unitarian-universalism.html

Heard that Mohamed was an advocate for social justice crap at the SVUUS.

This guy is welcomed into the gay community:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695261750/Secret-shame-Predator-was-coach-Scout-chief.html?pg=all

Gay "marriage" is a key indicator of how the left is in near complete denial of human nature, and evolutionary history.

It's still Duck Dynasty Pride Month:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/06/duck-dynasty-pride-month.html

And with the passing of Christopher, his brother Peter is becoming more appealing every day, even if he himself doesn't accurately identify where his own morals come from:

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/06/im-in-hitchens-camp-christopher-before.html

Daniel Dennett's dangerous idea is one key: Religion is a natural phonomenon. Thus fully natural & useful human morality exists within religion.

We need protection from the pitfalls of human nature. Protection from outliers. Yes religion & culture help manage all this, for very natural & reasonable & rational & evolutionary reasons. An evolutionary response to how evolution has set us up.

So, judges can be incredibly naive. Even conservative ones. Outliers naturally come about. But they need to be a.) classified & identified for what they are, and b.) curtailed when they're destructive or dangerous. Not forcibly treated as "equal" in all venues IMO. For example maybe a child needs a mommy & daddy, ideally, for it's own best welfare & development - as a normal non-outlier child. Can the left (& libertarians) question their own presuppositions? Are they in denial about human nature also? I have observed that they are.

"Freaks Welcome Here." This is the key motto of the SVUUS, and of Unitarian Universalism / leftistism / atheism plus / most atheists groups. De facto.

But outliers won't inherit the Earth.

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/06/breeders-will-inherit-earth-problems.html

I agree with Adam Corolla on this point: "...I don’t want to be lying on my deathbed and realize gay marriage and legalization of marijuana is all I discussed the last half of my life..."

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/19/adam_carolla_where_are_all_the_jewish_roofers/

The UUs and their kin keep up the pressure.

Apartments? Ok. Jobs? Ok. Being funny? Yes please. Making art. Ok, good.

But raising kids? Not so fast.

When two John Thomases or two hoohaws can produce babies naturally, then there will be gay marriage.

Kids may well need a mommy & a daddy. 13.8 billion years of evolution by natural selection. Is that enough "proof?" Hey at least let's be skeptical of ripping children away form this long established fully natural non-outlier more-healthy norm, ok?

Even Dan Savage says that gay men are "pigs." Should two pigs raise a kid? Where's the naturally moderating force of a female human? The lesbian friends of the Dan-Savage-gay-couple? I don't think so.

Many gay "marriages" cheat:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

Is a cheatin' marriage a good healthy place to raise kids?

A fully rational response:
https://4simpsons.wordpress.com/tag/same-sex-marriage/

And more general fully rational & reasonable responses:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Seculars-Against-Same-Sex-Marriage/293011477509961

http://secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/marriage-is-masculinity-and-coverture/

http://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Its-Enemies-Confronting-Institutions/dp/1610170709

Gayness is not a race:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324/

Neither is Islam:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/08/islam-is-not-race-not-ethnicity-salt.html

Gayness is a side effect of how sex gets set up in humans. A side effect. Not a primary effect. The primary effect results in reproduction. Children come from reproduction.

Any oh so natural vegan, and Whole Foods shopper, should recognize the high value in raising children in a more natural & healthy way. And adopted kids should have an environment which most closely matches the natural & health way.

Not a single woman who has no intention of having a man around, knocking on the sperm bank door.

Not two men, or two women, knocking on the sperm bank or adoption agency doors.

Leftist denial of human nature & evolutionary history, all so they can claim to be protecting everyone's rights. What about the right of the majority to be protected from dangerous or destructive outliers? Indeed. We have that right too.

I'm in the Hitchens camp. Christopher before. Peter now. Leftist denial of human nature.

I'm in the Hitchens camp. Christopher before. Peter now.

It's what happens after starting a family with a socially conservative atheist from rural China. No Bibles there.

Peter Hitchens vs Dan Savage


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQY4BuYWD4s
Listening to the incredibly crass way Dan Savage conducts himself is revealing. One wonders if he even knows where babies come from?

The left is in denial about human nature. Built in by evolution by natural selection good human values. Active denial. Dangerous denial. Abusive denial.

Agreed the Mormon Church abuses people. But so does the other side. It's hard to hold onto basic good human values when you've been so severely lied to & deceived. Takes time to recover. And then to recover from recovery.

Both the left & right are in denial about human nature. Both are rather highly upset at the prospect of admitting that we are human, set up by evolution by natural selection, to have build in morality, and an apparent propensity or high susceptibility for mysticism. The right doesn't like admitting that we are evolved animals. The left doesn't like admitting that we are evolved animals with built in morality & evolved culture - culture which helps us avoid the pitfalls built into human nature. Religion (AKA culture - ref Daniel Dennett) is a fully natural effect of how we've evolved.

Outliers naturally come about. But they need to be a.) classified & identified for what they are, and b.) curtailed when they're destructive or dangerous. Not forcibly treated as "equal" in all venues IMO. For example maybe a child needs a mommy & daddy, ideally, for it's own best welfare & development - as a normal non-outlier child. Can the left (& libertarians) question their own presuppositions? Are they in denial about human nature also? I have observed that they are.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-political-brain/
http://www.michaelshermer.com/tag/confirmation-bias/

And back to Peter, he was a leftist, then he moved more right. Same with me, after I met a socially conservative completely-non-bibical atheist from rural China.

My legacy website, more reflective of my first state after leaving Mormonism (ultra left after being ultra right):http://corvus.freeshell.org

Current blog - reflective of my recovery from recovery, and finally growing up:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com

Breeders will inherit the Earth. Problems with "recovery" from religion.

Is there evidence for a god?

There's evidence that people believe in gods.

There's also evidence that they believe in them for fully natural reasons.

Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WhQ8bSvcHQ

My own experiential & observational evidence shows that when people leave their religions they can assume that the opposite position is healthy or correct. They can then fall right into a virtual pit.

It takes time to "settle" after leaving a religion - if people will settle. Sometimes they don't or can't.

I cannot force myself to believe in clear & apparent lies.

I realize that humans are set up to believe in lies as a means of survival, avoiding destructive behaviors, reproduction, happiness, and so on.

On the other hand, there's some religions which really do grind people down & abuse them.

The ultra-left is just as much a religion as the ultra-right.

Unquestionable dogma & doctrines. Heresy trials. Excommunication.

They also deny basic human nature. Ignoring what desert, African, and Chinese tribes do, while focusing in & only valuing what the "hippie" tribes do & advocate for. Desert-tribe-o-phobia. Non-hippie-tribe-o-phobia.

All of what I've observed first hand.

I try not to surrender to peer pressure. Right now I'm pushing pretty damn hard against peer pressure on the left, just to even consider that the middle or right may have some valid points on some issues. Fully natural fully reasonable points which help protect people. Protection from the pitfalls of human nature. Protection from outliers. Yes religion & culture help manage all this, for very natural & reasonable & rational reasons.

Additional people who helped me on my journey:

Steven Pinker. Daniel Dennett. Christopher Hitchens. Michael Shermer. Sam Harris. And now even Peter Hitchens.

Maybe all of these people are more socially liberal than I am. But all of them have been willing to speak the non-PC truth that questions confirmation bias & presuppositions on the left as well as the right. Anyway just fyi.

First hand observational experience came from having what was an Alice in Wonderland journey or theme park ride through a lot of what ultra-liberalism has to "offer," plus one to China where they're much more socially conservative (and yet no Bible), which all led me to conclude what I conclude today.

I can talk about evidence for this or that. But my main point & position is that religion is simply a way for humans to have a cushion or protective cocoon around fully natural morality. Protection. Survival. Reproduction. And when people leave that cocoon they can go right off a cliff.

Religion is culture. And most all cultures include some form of religion - some more lighter than others. But even your average atheist has de facto doctrine & dogma - political & social views they consider non-questionable.

Religion is such a natural phenomenon that many atheist groups are religions. Unquestionable political & social doctrines & dogma. Exclusion. Attacks against those who are skeptical of their doctrines & dogma. Heresy trials. Excommunication. This all happens readily within most atheist groups.

But the abusive part of atheist religion is how they deny human nature. The part of human nature that says "yes, we should be concerned about outlier behavior." The part of human nature that says "yes, we should value & promote life and normal inherently-reproductive families."

Those who fool themselves into believing that the childfree life / outlier-marriage life is in any way equal to non-outlier inherently reproductive marriage fall right in line with, what is frankly, slow motion suicide. And everyone should be against suicide in any form.

related book:
Decline & Fall: Europe’s Slow Motion Suicide
http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-Europes-Motion-Suicide/dp/1594032068

The low birth rate amongst people who've rejected a god shows how humanity is really only barely ready to not have gods. And in Europe all the childfree liberals are being overrun by humans in the Islam camp. The breeders will inherit the Earth, like it or not. And one place to step away from all this is China. Rural China, where they have very light religion, light ancestor worship, and yet more conservative values. No Bible. No Book of Mormon. How do they do it? They aren't caught up in "recovery" from bad bad religion, like much of the west is. They don't assume that the extreme opposite side is the "answer." And so on.

Why we should have kids...

Why we should have kids...

One

http://youtu.be/nl5dlbCh8lY

Two

http://youtu.be/d4Ik1wj5bmU

Genes and memes if you can. If not, at least one. Survival. Not narcissism. Optimism. Progress. Life.

Can China inherit the Earth? Attention Atheists: Have More Kids!

Ok so anyway, speaking with less of my usual bone dry humor:

Yes I admit it's valuable to hear reactions to my suppositions.

More broadly I'm aware of the suicides directly caused by the Mormon Church with regard to the gay issue, and also at least one suicide connected with masturbation shaming.

So on first glance it's easy for me to be part of the Pride parade.

Damn. If it weren't for my uncle & nephew, I'd be there cheering maybe with my shirt off also, showing off my sexy man boobs to all the participants.

Oh well. Regardless of the opinions of one guy in bass ackward Utardia, humanity will move forward.

More kids. Have more kids. Attention, atheists: the religious are having many more kids than you. The Bible Beaters. The Mormons. The Islam people.

Can China inherit the Earth?

Not so bad of a proposition - in the long term. Communism will hopefully drop away more in the long term. The one child thing will probably eventually drop off.

No Mormonism. No Utah. No Catholicism. No Islam (not much). Light Buddhism. Not so bad. Good old fashioned family values (children first, elder respect, etc).

I'm trying not to step in the shit of Mormonism while also calling attention to a bit of poop I've seen on the other side. Difficult...

Heterosexual Kissing Leads to Life!

In response to hearing that a gay director is going to put his gay dick right into the faces of American families who watch his otherwise quite popular cartoon show "How to Train your Dragon," here's quotes from my thoughts on the issues at hand - as posted in an online forum dealing with exchanges idea & info between Mormons & non/ex-Mormons:

=================

----quote begins of posting 1:

Lame boring inane PC bullshit (such a film / franchise feeling the need to do such a thing).

May be child abuse.

By comparison, IF Mr. Rogers was gay, he should not have revealed that to his toddler audience, period.

My "fellows" on the left would claim that I don't even have a right to such an opinion.

But ultra PC directors feel the need to put gay dicks right in our faces.

Keep your Jesus off my penis cuts both ways.

Which otherwise sinking political/cultural boat can I jump to? Seems like both the leftie and rightie boats have some issues.

Maybe my own boat will float better. We'll see.

----quote begins of posting 2:

In response to someone who claimed we need to view everything as equal, I then wrote:

Hetero kissing leads to life.

Non-hetero leads to the opposite, in many ways, and by default.

Q. Do we need to make gay marriage & sex equal?

A. No. It will never be equal. Not so long as two men and/or two women cannot >naturally< make babies.

The whole concept of pushing for forced equality is incredibly abusive & wrong headed, and indicative of a greater problem with the liberal left.

Why is it harmful to expose children to the "strong possibility" of being gay? Because gayness is far less set in stone than the left will admit. Perhaps a bit more biological in *some* cases than the right will admit. But still, having children sucked into what is essentially a death cult (speaking frankly) is abusive.

Cartoons? Books for 2-9 year olds? Are you (ie: that is, the advocates that gayness be presented as "equal" to children) serious?

What if the presentation of gayness-as-equal to a kid robs them of a life in a normal marriage with kids? What if?

That ain't so bad - so says the liberal. The planet already has too many people already. Hey, the more people that become gay the better.

Now, you have to realize that my observations & views come after a LOT of observations of my own, at MANY liberal leftist social meetings, plus gay bars, plus gay parties, from perhaps 1995 through 2012.

Is exposure to the Stonewall agenda inherently abusive & damaging to children? I maintain it is. And I ain't a Mormon, nor a Catholic.

Rather, I'm a naturalist & science advocate who happens to maintain that 14.5 billion years of evolution, and the development of sexual reproduction with males & females being present counts for something - as it should.

Children sucked into the gay lifestyle may well be robbed of a life which could be more happy & productive.

Liberal heresy.

Oh, I'm just latching on to the beliefs I had in the past. I don't think so. It's not that simple.

Can I channel at least a bit of my wife's views on this issue, and work to intellectually stand up for how humans think who had ZERO exposure to Mormonism, Catholicism, and so on?

Anyway, yes there's gay people & there will continue to be.

I just advocate for the position that gay "marriage," or whatever you want to call it will NEVER be as valuable to humanity as normal straight marriage. That's it.

And comparisons to the banning of interracial marriage is not only a complete and utter non-sequitur, it's abusive and inane to even make such a comparison.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324/

"...Without the state’s cooperation and enforcement, there would have been no anti-miscegenation laws and there would be no same-sex marriage. The reason for this, writes libertarian economist Jennifer Roback Morse, is that 'marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government.' Hence, this explains its standing as an uncontroversial common law liberty. 'By contrast,' Morse goes on to write, 'same-sex 'marriage' is completely a creation of the state. Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple...'"

Quite so.

---

More apt responses from
http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-viking-in-how-to-train-your-dragon-2-revealed-i-love-the-idea-says-director-video-119910/

"Seriously? Putting this in a children's movie?" eb wrote on the EOnline blog. "I have absolutely no problem with any homosexual people but the way [it's] pushed down everyone's throats now [it's] getting out of hand."

"My very young kids love this franchise. However, this is not a conversation my wife and I are prepared to have yet. It's immensely frustrating that Hollywood feels complete autonomy to force these issues on our kids," another user agreed.

---

Additional related thoughts:

Family Values Atheism: Questioning liberal dogma -- the Gay Flag: Freaks Welcome Here -- questioning gay marriage -- secular reparative therapy (choosing to live straight)
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/family-values-atheism-questioning.html


----quote ends of posting 2:

After receiving several replies in an online forum, I drafted the following pointed reply:

----quote begins of posting 3:

One million posts. Can't you put your thoughts into a single post. Every point doesn't need to be in a separate post.

I only have two hands.

Were you drunk when you replied? Jonathan Brown?

LGBT rights today. Zoophile & NAMBLA tomorrow.

This JPAC guy does have a point...

























---

I waded through the load of shit you both put out. My goodness - a lot.

I can see why the religious look at the left and say: fuck, I ain't leaving my religion just to join up with those amoral fucks.

Quite so.

They have a good point.

Out of all the liberal smoke blowin', I did see one or two things worth responding to.

"You understand that homosexuality is found in pretty much all species on earth right?"

WGAF.

In "human nature" we also have: Zoophilia. Man-boy "love" (pedophilia). Sociopathy. Psychopathy. Schizophrenia. And so on.

Also, there happens to be biological roots behind whether a person likes Obamacare, or not. Whether they worship Ayn Rand, or not. And so on.

Just because something is natural, doesn't "make it right or useful."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Human males & females have babies. Marriage is about family & babies.

Hey, put your dick in ALL the assholes in the world, and you will NEVER produce a baby from that act.

Don't like that? Too bad.

If you're a lesbian, you may well dream of parthenogenesis.

Do you cheer when you hear about the supposed decline of the Y chromosome?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-17127617

http://wi.mit.edu/news/archive/2012/theory-rotting-y-chromosome-dealt-fatal-blow

---

God doesn't hate fags. But evolution by natural selection may have a few concerns about such activities, like it or not.

Liberals do have their heads right up their asses when it comes to equating gay marriage with normal regular long standing 14.5 billion year history marriage.

Right up their fucking asses. So, that's it.

Whoever the hell black atheists are?

Rich gay crackers w/no children commitments (of course!) are invading their neighborhoods & making the housing prices go up. No wonder they're more than a little upset.

Also, and here's the kicker for any liberal dumbshit:

Fully natural human morality exists in religion. In the Bible.

Now, as per my own ref. to the naturalistic fallacy, we do have to be careful. But on the other hand, the highly useful shaming (in some cases) that exists in human CULTURES, the shaming that helps us thrive and survive, some of that shaming IS valuable.

Not everything is equal. The LDC maintains it is.

Good job. In 100 years you may not have left any speck on the Great Mandala. But, in the de facto apparent dreams of all liberals, at least NAMBLA group members and Zoophiles will be able to marry, along with the LGBT crowd.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/787617/posts

NOT so distant a connection as you might think, leftie liberal with your head in the sand.

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/response-to-site-claims-attack-by-lds.html

And again, I fucking like Obamacare. Yes, Ayn Rand was a dumbshit.

BUT, Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist & so on.

So, the Blacks in America who're concerned about this negative abusive part of cracker culture do have a point.

----quote begins of posting 4:

Further:

In response to "14.5 billion years of marriage? Don't think it was your idea of marriage for that long," I replied:

The number has gone up & down a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

13.8 - 4.54 = 9.26 billion just to get our Earth going, with the more rare elements coming from exploded stars.

Another 2 to 3 billion to get sexual reproduction.

60 MYBP (million years before present) for primates

20 MYBP for great apes

2.5 MYBP for the homo genus

200,000 years before present for the first anatomically modern humans

And 10 to 40 years ago for the assumption that gay "marriage" is equal to straight normal regular marriage.

We may as well consider this *assumption* to be a side-effect of how human neural networks can go "right off the rails," as with any religion.

Maybe some day, two vaginas, or two dicks, will produce children.

Hey it happens in other animals, moving back, and speaking generally about asexual reproduction.

Crafty lesbians are finding a way to get sperm into their hoohaws, by hook or by crook. I suppose one can admit that such an action is also "natural," since all actions by humans are by default natural.

Whatever.

I just think there's value in advocacy for honoring long standing history, and with taking a step back.

Completely discounting the shaming propensities that exist in ALL human cultures is a wrong headed & destructive response.

Can liberals accept that children may, ideally, need a mommy & a daddy?

Marry if you want (as a gay). But, don't so easily discount what evolution by natural selection may have instilled into the brain of a child some naive judge may have allowed into your home.

Atheists Brainwashed By the Homosexual Agenda / Stonewall Centers - August 2013

From August 2013:

Atheist groups and members of those groups ARE being brainwashed by the homosexual agenda, as taught inside the Stonewall Centers. Inside each Stonewall center is a set of dogmas, and books there to back up those dogmas. If you question their dogmas they'll boot you out. You're not allowed to question their core dogmas. Just another Church. Atheists are being chumps and fools - just like any person brain washed by any other religion.

Secular positions against gay marriage - some links found...

In these articles when they say "the state" I would replace that with "the community." "The state" is a bit too strong of a term for me. Humans exist in communities, and they do get to set their own community rules.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=174431302683586&id=174427829350600

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/public_interest/detail/the-liberal-case-against-gay-marriage

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/20/174848127/severing-love-from-diapers-gay-marriage-opponents-make-their-case

This whole deal has been an incredible eye opener.

Step back far enough from a position and you may well find yourself in the weeds of a Stonewall Center. This is exactly what's happened with atheist groups. And by "atheist group" we may as well call many of them "Leftist" groups, because it's very difficult to distinguish between their agendas and that of the social left in America: the assumption that everything is equal, and that everyone and all "lifestyles" are deserving of "equal rights" and equal respect. These are their dogmas. Question them, and they'll boot you - like any church would.

If your kids get sucked into a homosexual brain washing center AKA a Stonewall Center, or the gay culture generally, here is what they'll be exposed to: a.) a petty stunted life, and one which inherently leads to no children, no future - just petty vain childish play for all of their life; b.) exposure either directly to pedophilia (sex with underage people), or apology for such; c.) drugs (drug use is higher among gays); d.) deadly diseases (AIDS, other deadly STDs, etc.), and again e.) no ready opportunity to have real flesh & blood children of your own - to reproduce in a normal healthy natural way. YES, THIS MEANS SOMETHING AND IS IMPORTANT!

So we have underage sex & sex abuse. Drugs. AIDS. No naturally born children of your own. A stunted petty childish life. Brainwashing type teaching that being "gay" should be "equal." Well, it ain't. It never was, and by hell it never will be.

Atheists are, sadly, and en masse, jumping out of one church straight into the hands of another - but perhaps into a WORSE one, one which is far more damaging.

American Atheists - this group has done this.

Center For Inquiry - this group also.

Atheist Community of Austin - yep.

Several atheists go to Unitarian Universalist meetings, and such meetings are brain washing centers for the liberal death cult (eg; Having children is of less value, and acceptance of the homosexual  agenda via rainbow flag flying & worse).

The liberal deal cult (LDC) meme set infects all these groups. Samples of ideas from this meme set: 1.) Overpopulation & concerns about the environment means you should not have any kids of your own. 2.) Single parents raise kids just as good as two parent homes. 3.) Homosexual couples raise kids just as good. 4.) Human reproduction is now of little value, and if a person "chooses" to be a virtual zero on the Great Mandala, that's no problem. It's their choice.

Not all choices are of equal value, nor should all choices be supported equally by the community. That's one bottom line. And dare I say, advocacy for real flesh & blood reproduction is by f another - a good one, a worthwhile one, one worth advocating for and fighting for. YOU wouldn't be here without straight sex, straight pride, straight relationships (eg: normal human relationships) - even if your current views are rather traitorous in response.

August 14, 2013 - 7:33am

more info and links:

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013_08_01_archive.html
and
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/

Latest thoughts on homosexuality & gay marriage - as of April 26, 2014

On facebook I found the following image:



Point three is valid.

All the other points are either purposefully wrong, stupid, or lies.

Hey, whomever created that image with collections of mostly outrageously untrue & abusive quotes, seeing stuff like that pushes people like me ever more into the pro-gay-marriage camp.

I have examined both sides, or is it three sides?

A gay uncle who died of AIDS leaving his straight family with no father.

A gay nephew who leads an incredibly petty & shallow life.

On the other hand I very much appreciate the work of people like Stephen Fry and Oscar Wilde. I also have seen first hand how some gay people are much more service oriented, and who appear to have their heads screwed on much more than my Angel Reading Boy Chasing Convicted Pedophile Friend Accepting gay nephew.

There are atheists who agree with concerns about homosexuality:

Black Atheists of Atlanta

Greek Culture - Black Atheist Of Atlanta - 05-23-11:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFXwgPLW378

Gay Zeus & Ganymede - Black Atheist Of Atlanta - 08-08-11

Part 1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfpQaUwIqbQ

Part 2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFnAlsrj9zA

Part 3:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5nqwrFck58

------------------
Is Homosexuality Destructive For The Black Family?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kka3ECinb6M
------------------

However I don't believe they'd agree with too many more points than point three on your photo.

Serial killers? That is destructive abusive bullshit, no question.

"Consider the source." This phrase is pushing me more & more toward the pro-gay camp. Now, I do still believe ALL sides need to be questioned. Unlike some I AM willing to at least listen to the few seculars who are either socially moderate or conservative.

As we know, it's not the number of people who believe in something, it's whether the ideas are actually valid or not.

A recent post of mine:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/03/listening-to-narth-guy-issues-more.html

What you'll find on my blog is the playing out of a tension between several forces. The ultra-pro-gay-everything-else-be-damned position within the secular community, and the built-in desire to be more, well, pro-reproduction & pro-family.

Having gone to China & having a Chinese wife has given me a wider perspective.

And previous related thoughts:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/family-values-atheism-paths-to.html

and also check the long list at:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/homosexuality

Again my experiences with my own gay nephew have influenced my views (and having a gay uncle who died of AIDS leaving his straight family with no father). But, on the other hand, there's this very nice man who helps keep our birds while we go on vacation. A service oriented guy who spends his life helping others. He's not a petty kook like my nephew. The guy is softening my view. So I'm perhaps somewhere in between the Black Atheists of Atlanta and the left at this point - on that issue. And the image you posted is pushing me further left still.

Children may really NEED both a mommy & a daddy. You ARE selling yourself short if you don't have kids. These two points may be true, regardless of how much hand wringing the left may do. But, on the other hand, the right is completely unhinged (as per what's in that fucking image you posted). So the right is completely wrong & lying about the issue also. The bottom line is that I'm not going to be tied to either side, not until more evidence is in. And if the evidence shows that children DO need a mommy & a daddy, then we should accept that evidence, period.

report on visit to American Atheists convention in Salt Lake City, April 2014

Report of visit to the Hilton on Friday 4-18-2014: Having not paid the requisite $300, we didn't have badges on. We walked around the cocktail hour socializers on the 2nd floor for about 5 minutes. Didn't see anyone we knew, except one person who didn't recognize us.

Didn't see any youtube celebrities.

Didn't see the bible beating protestors outside - they must have arrived later.

We also walked quickly through Comic Con down the street. No one checked for a pass, perhaps because I had my son in arm. We breezed through quickly and only spent about 1 minute inside a hall just seeing the overall layout. Overall it looked like a fun affair.

We thought the atheists would have even more fun it they visited the Salt Palace & Comic Con.

I imagine that attending national atheist conventions is an interesting experience. You get to see a few youtube celebs who you'd never otherwise see. You'll never see them again, and they'll never see you again. You'll also probably never see again 99% of the other people.

Not many kids present, if any, but we were only there for 5 minutes though that's also true.

In any case secular groups need to become more welcoming to having kids present at their meetings, if they expect more religious people to join up. I for one resent the Unitarian Universalist model of sending your kids away to some basement room while the adults stay behind, and that model should not be mirrored by secular / humanist / atheist groups, especially not in Utah.

http://www.atheists.org/convention2014/

"American Atheists fights to protect the absolute separation of religion from government and raise the profile of atheism in the public discourse."

"...unless you post a link to your own blog on our FB page - then you've gone too far. You're engaging in 'self promotion' by posting a link to your own blog, and we here at American Atheists cannot tolerate having speech present from others - speech which detracts from US!" ...reasonable paraphrasing & interpretation of their response.

Whatever. Just goes to know Groucho Marx said it best: I don't wish to belong to any group that would have me as a member.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Groucho_Marx

p.s. The policy at
http://www.atheists.org/convention2014/code-of-conduct
where they state "...This convention welcomes families with children and expects all participants to treat these families with courtesy and respect..."

Damn. That's a better statement than what the Exmormon Foundation stated on their website for their convention this year:

"...Due to the nature of the conference presentations and the serving of alcohol during the evenings, we have established a strict policy that no children are allowed except for nursing infants. In addition, since the presentations are recorded for our website, it's important that we control the ambient noise during the recordings. If you have any questions about this policy, please contact the Conference Chairman..."

http://web.archive.org/web/20130730052521/http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/conference2013.html

Hmmm. At least American Atheists states that their convention is supposed to be family friendly. That's a lot better stance than what the Exmormon Foundation does!

Why would a foundation meant to support former Mormons actively exclude those with children from attending? Strange, especially since in Mormon meetings they don't send their children away to some back room - during the main meeting, unlike some religions.

But, American Atheists is still too controlling on their own FB page. So no one's perfect.

Ukraine; sex should result in children; atheist religion; capitol building should be open

On Ukraine & Russia: Russia is lying.

About Jian Ghomeshi & Terry Gross: the childless-gay interviews of public radio.

The way you love does matter.

If you love the wrong way you might just get AIDS, die, and leave your straight family with no father.

You can have abuses on both sides.

Atheists of Utah: one big problem with this group is that the focal point for their activities is attending the yearly gay pride festival in Salt Lake.

Regarding human sexuality: Unless kids come along naturally, you can end up with a life that goes nowhere.

Inherently non-reproductive sexuality does, in the long term, go nowhere.

To my fellow atheists & naturalists: will you try to eject me from your de facto church?

I can see why Tom in Portland went back to evangelical Christianity. Poor dating prospects in the secular groups, which are usually highly populated by gay fat women with strange hair.

Having kids is a good thing.

We need to reform atheist groups: extracting such groups from the dogmatism of the left.

Currently if you don't adhere to the ultra-liberal agenda you will undergo a heresy & excommunication trial in many secular / atheist / naturalist groups.

Regarding the GCHQ spying on the intimate activities of people who use Yahoo Messenger to have webcam chats: That does go too far. Gathering connection to connection data into a large database is one thing. But keeping content data, and being able to watch en-masse webcam chats by regular people, without court approval for each search of actual content does go too far.

The U.S. Capitol Building should be returned to the people, for open walking around. Right now it is most definitely not a "temple of freedom." Perhaps the Congress can go work elsewhere, and have the building returned to the people. An initial security scan is ok at the door. But after that people should be free to walk around the building. Until then, it is not, nor will it ever be, a "temple of freedom" as is claimed in the current mandatory film they show to all visitors at present.

Commentary on pronunciation issues with English. John Boehner's last name should be pronounced boner, not bayner. English is English. Pakistan is Pakistan, not Paaaakaaastaaaaan. It's France, not Fronce. It's Mexico, not Mehico. And so on. English is English. If Mr. Boner wants people to pronounced his name as Bayner then he should change the spelling of his last name.

On NPR - National Politically Correct Radio

2-27-2014 7:30am 3:23pm

Miley Cyrus and Breastfeeding: Don't censor either!

Part of an image shared on facebook in response to the Miley Cyrus incident:

The original facebook poster added words on the bottom of the image stating how they were outraged that the picture on the right was reportedly sometimes censored on facebook, and yet the image on the left was widely shared with no problem.

Well, facebook is no panacea. Here's my response though to both photos being combined and posted together:

Hey liberal: The first picture leads to the second picture - and it should!

Hey conservative: Don't be afraid of either picture!

I only barely knew about the VMA's before hearing about the incident on the BBC.

The apparent wildness of sex leads to the beauty of a child. Whodathunkit. It's not one or the other - it's both intertwined.

We apparently need sex ed for both sides of the social & political spectrum...

Hey liberals: have kids - it's a good thing!

Hey conservatives: Sex is fun, and it should be. Sex can free you from your made up gods. And: don't be too hung about about masturbation or oral sex. And if you're a Mormon woman, stop wearing your garnments during sex.

Ok...

Miley Cyrus, You go girl!

In the wake of the reaction to Miley Cyrus's recent performance at the VMA's, here's my response:

You go girl!

Performance: http://goo.gl/l2jjVy

Reaction:
https://www.google.com/search?q=miley+cyrus+reaction

Mika Brzezinski's idiotic, myopic, and petty response:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7cDq8ajWYA

The Young Turks more reasonable response:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy4y0C4GmYU

Miley Cyrus is sexual -- get over it
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/26/opinion/schwartz-miley-cyrus/

Racist? Hardly. Ultra-lefties are some of the most racist people you'll ever meet.

Miley Cyrus & Robin Thicke: white women & men can jump after all. We're not all like Napoleon Dynamite.

Is Hannah Montana dead? Hardly. When a girl grows up into a woman & discovers what her coochie can do, she can put behind her the black & white saccharin false niceties of the past. The world of Disney is false, fake, saccharin, a lie, and a deception. Fun for a while, but still false & fake.

No wonder the girl did what she did, growing up and working as a Disney kid. And good on her! Remember the film Pleasantville, when people turned from being black & white into color? That's what happens when a human comes of age. Realizing the power, majesty, and wonder of what you've got right between your legs - that's the key question of your & all our lives. What will you do with that power?

So, in the short term, Miley can & should shake her booty and her coochie around all she wants. In the long term, I hope that she settles down & has kids. I hope that she doesn't get sucked into the selfish dead end childless culture on the left.

No, she isn't a tramp or a slut or a whore. She's yet another female human who's come of age, and discovered the world isn't what Disney claimed at all, nor should it be.

Don't kiss the ass of some made up god or preacher! You've got all the power you need in YOU to move forward - right between your legs. What you do with that power in the long term is the key question...

Further thoughts:
Families Can Be Together Forever... Through Evolution!
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/families-can-be-together-forever.html

Atheism & having kids: the right to choose to be a zero
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2011/11/atheism-having-kids-right-to-choose-to.html

8-30-2013 7:41am

Yelena Isinbayeva - You Go Girl! -- Questioning Hippie Dogma.

On the film "Plan 10 From Outer Space."

Thoughts on Yelena Isinbayeva: you go girl! Thanks!

News reference: "Russian pole vault champ Yelena Isinbayeva condemns homosexuality, supports new anti-gay law"
http://goo.gl/0dQPXO

Related comments about Yelena's actions:

Courageous. Wonderful. Thanks Yelena and Russia. The same could be said of China perhaps - a similar cultural & very *human* understanding of the situation.

Children are, after all, the future, and a couple who can naturally have them together is of most value...

Calls for "shame on Yelena" you'll notice, are coming from the de-facto religion of the cultural left in the West. They have their own dogmatic religion, heresy trials, witch hunts, elders, and core unquestionable dogmas. But theirs is a religion (culture - meme set) which doesn't value life. Instead they dogmatically value relativism. But not everything is equal.

Thanks Russia. Thanks China. And thanks to many black people in America who also have the courageous view that we should be valuing life by honoring where it comes from, honoring how we all got here in the first place, and valuing the fact that children are our only path to real flesh & blood immortality.

---end of quote

Nationally led atheist (humanist, naturalist, Unitarian Universalist) groups tend to be centered around the political and social ideology of their leadership.

Questioning the dominant paradigm - isn't that what rock music was supposed to be about?

Can we question the new dominant paradigm in the west: Hippie Dogma.

Here are some hippie dogmas worth questioning:

Hippie dogma number 1: Whatever you do is up to you - it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Hippie dogma number 2: All cultures are equal. You cannot question another person's culture.

Hippie dogma number 3: The "native" people are very noble indeed.

When you grow up, you can realize that all the hippie dogma is a bunch of bullshit - 80% of it. 20% is ok.

Compassion for your fellow man is ok, & trying to keep people from having to go to church just so they can get a meal - yes that's ok too.

I like art museums, pretty rocks, and incense. But poor & religious people should be able to have as many kids as they damn well please. Don't let hippie dogma make YOU a zero or a near zero on the great mandala!

8-20-13 731am

More info:

advocacy for having children:
http://goo.gl/BVCy4u
and
http://goo.gl/rCtjTm

American Indians: No group of humans are uniquely more noble
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/03/american-indians-no-group-of-humans-are.html

Thoughts on hyphenated Americans, racism, and cynicism
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/08/thoughts-on-hyphenated-americans-racism.html

Family Values Atheism: path to immortality: children; religion is a natural phenomenon - it cuts both ways; thanks black atheists of Atlanta

Family Values Atheism:

Religion is a natural phenomenon - it cuts both ways

The dogmas of a religion can actually be natural

Concern about non-reproductive sex can be natural

Maybe a children need a mommy & a daddy

Maybe if you spend your life in a non-reproductive hole you'll be unhappy as a result

Why I've become more socially conservative: several years of observation of the gay community.

Thanks black atheists of Atlanta, for introducing some much needed skepticism into the "atheist movement."

Bad ideas & dogma can come from anywhere, including the left.

On the left we have dogma, elders, inquisitions, heresy trials, and witch hunts.

Go question liberal dogma in a group of liberals and see what happens.

Excommunication trials - only in Mormonism? No, liberals will happily do these as well.

The only real immortality we can ever experience comes via having children. I'm for questioning liberal dogma that draws us away from that. True & honest & enlightened naturalism, atheism, and humanism means this to me.

Can we open a "Friends of the Black Atheists of Atlanta" branch here?

Maybe if you work to be an ex-gay, maybe that's a good thing. Since I spend several years closely observing gay culture, I feel the need to mention this. Also ready heresy trials will quickly happen if you question this key liberal dogma point.

http://narth.com
http://pfox.org/default.html

Without god is everything permitted? If you listen to the liberals you might think so. But no, we're talking about humans. Humans have built in morality. Without god not everything is permitted - even if the liberals might think so, or act like this is true.

If you force yourself to believe a certain thing - a more deep part of human nature, that can make you unhappy. And being in a dead-end non-reproductive loop can, indeed, make you and everyone unhappy.

Tying into 14 billion years of evolution, directly, by having children is of value. Immortality - great value. More valuable than chasing your tail all your life, and trying to force others to state that your "choice" is just as valuable as any other choice.

Not all things are equal. Not all choices are worthy of respect.

Family values atheism - thanks black Atheists of Atlanta for reminding us that it's possible to have these words exist together. And, we can also thank the people in other countries who aren't members of the American-liberal-dogmatic church - people who may value family over forced relativism. How's that for naturalism & humanism? Examining what people *actually do* and making note that sometimes there's damn good reasons for stigma to be assigned to certain activities. A very hard thing for an ex-religionist to realize.

If you're not careful, a liberal-dogma-questioning epiphany may cause you, Mr. & Mrs. Leftie, to be subjected to a liberal heresy trial. But, you jumped out of one church, you may as well be prepared to jump out of another.

Free speech. Free thought. Freedom from religion, on the right and on the left. And thankfully we're human, so without god not everything is permitted - even if the lefties may de facto act like it is.

8-16-2013 7:38am

response to: The Childfree Life - When Having It All Means Not HavingChildren, in Time Magazine

Recently the following article was published in Time magazine online in August, 2013:

Having It All Without Having Children
The American birthrate is at a record low. What happens when having it all means not having children?

As an atheist I've heard some of my fellows complain about people who have too many kids. And my own sister has "chosen" to not have them. I think this is a memetic disease of the left. Here's my response, to atheists, and to anyone who "chooses" to not have children:

Atheism & having kids: the right to choose to be a zero

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2011/11/atheism-having-kids-right-to-choose-to.html

Should Atheists be trying to have more children?

I would answer a strong yes. Here's quotes from another blogger who also agrees:

"...Having children consciously, in full awareness of the insanity of the leap you are taking is a revolutionary act. It can be compared to picking up a weapon and walking on to a battle field. Sure, there are far more idiots that are willing to become soldiers, but when an educated individual chooses to take a stand it is very different. One who chooses to fight in full understanding is not a soldier but rather a warrior..."

"...Intelligence is a virtue but is it worthless without bravery. If you have brains and have a sense of what this world needs, then have children. Otherwise you have no one to blame but yourself when you find yourself old and infirm, surrounded by blithering morons."

Relative to overpopulation: There will be a natural curve limiting to exponential growth, and those limits will occur more on the uneducated ends of the curve, not so much in places where highly educated atheists tends to live. Science, technology, and education about both can help to save things.

Relative to whether it's stupid for someone to have 8 or 11 kids: Was it stupid for them to pass on their genes & memes more easily to a wide group of people? Transmitting memes is of value, but there's something about a living breathing human that doesn't quite compare to a book or computer. Their right to choose is the mirror of your right to choose not to. The drunk bums in my own family who were in the end zeros both genetically & memetically - their wasted lives show that sometimes there really is value in doing what comes natural.

There's a certain anti-having-kids ideology from the 1960s and 70s which continues today, and it goes something like this: Because there's overpopulation in third world countries that means I should have no kids myself. It's a false analogy, and it's about the same type of thing as saying that one should eat one's peas because of starving children elsewhere. This ideology robs people of a key part of life: reproduction! Yes that's right, having kids. It's not all about you. Biology & evolution will have the last laugh.

Just because resources are scarce in third world countries doesn't mean you shouldn't have kids. Have them, have as many as you want (!), but teach your kids the value of science and the value of continuing The Enlightenment.

After my mother died I gave a talk at her funeral, at a Mormon (LDS) meeting house, while still being an atheist (whodathunkit). Here's a relevant excerpt:

---quote begins

As far as I can tell, relative to our position in the Universe, we're rather like some moss growing on the top of a mountain.

As moss we're very intelligent. And maybe some day, being the smart green moss that we are, maybe we'll find a way to extract ourselves from the mountain top.

In a few years our lone peak which is the only place we can live is going to get scorched. And we happen to be so smart in fact that we have predicted the future scorching.

So if we are very lucky & very smart indeed, our science & technology may save us.

Or perhaps we'll fade away to dust like most life has on the mountain.

It's either the sky god or the volcano god, or the real truth about our rather humble state

Noble & beautiful, yes, but if we're going to make it in the long term at least a few of us have to take a longer view.

There is no Christian Armageddon waiting. But in about 500 million years our Sun will be 10% brighter thereby causing the oceans boil off. So our descendants either need to re-engineer the Sun by then, or get us off of this rock. And we've only known about this for ten or so years. And there are other huge risks to our survival.

What we teach our children about science may save humanity.

There's no heaven or hell. But that means we have an added responsibility to care for what we have here. To make this life here & now into a heaven or a hell.

We are related to other animals. We are animals, and our morals come from a combination of genetics and socialization. Whether such a fact is good or bad, it doesn't matter. That's simply the way it is.

Being concerned about legacy is an issue. Who will care that you lived in 100 years? Make a contribution. Be a great artist or a great scientist or have kids. And if you have kids, teach them the value cutting edge art and science, and of the value of taking the proverbial red pill as from the film The Matrix.

---quote ends

So yes, as either an atheist or an ultra-leftie, you do have the right to "choose to be a zero," but that doesn't mean you deserve more respect. You rather deserve a lot less. And in the end, you'll get what you want - death, and a lack of access to the only real flesh & blood immortality we will ever experience.

8-1-2013

Exmormon Foundation: discriminating against children & their parents

Below are copies of post & replies in connection with a related post on here entitled Atheist Family Values: Attention Exmormon Foundation: humans have children. And more on presuppositional apolegetics.

Original post on 7/5/2013 on the exmormon email discussion group on yahoogroups:

Now that I actually have a child I'm finding that some secular  advocacy
groups either are actively not child friendly, or they are  passively so (by
inaction or just not thinking things  through).

Related blog post: http://goo.gl/4f1L2

Jonathan

Reply received from the vice president of the Exmormon Foundation:

On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 13:34:29 -0400 (EDT), Sue wrote:

>Jonathan -- if you will read carefully our position on children at the 
>Conference, I think you will find that it's pretty reasonable.  Because  we
>film and record the talks, and extraneous noise can seriously  affect that
>filming, we cannot have toddlers and older children in the  room.  We all have
>experienced times at other events (including Sac.  Mtg.!!)  when the noise
>from children has compromised a speaker.  The  serving of alcohol is another
>reason.  Nursing babies are allowed.
>
>Sue

----end of quote

And here's my reply as of July 14, 2013:


----quote beings

Howdy,

I'm aware of the reasoning behind the "strict no child policy" and I believe it's fundamentally flawed, for the following reasons:

1. Having people show up is more important than creating what some might perceive as youtube friendly multimedia presentations or podcasts.

2. Having a no child policy is discriminatory. In apartments, housing, work, and at exmormon conferences - and for the same reasons. It simply seeks to pretend and hope like a certain segment of the population does not exist, and should stay away.

3. Humans have children. Atheists & exmormons should have more of them and they should be encouraged to do so. Having a "strict no child policy" serves to directly counter that noble and highly valuable goal.

4. Children are part of life and part of valuing life, and they are the ones who will help us move forward.

So, when I was a 365 pound single guy with thick glasses living in my parent's basement, yes, policies which bar children didn't much affect me. When Steve Clark of Latter-Day Lampoon / the Salamander Society was running the Salt Lake conferences I don't believe he had a no child policy. But in any case, I've moved on from "needing" to have an association with a group which labels itself as "exmormon" per se. Naturalist. Humanist. Atheist. Skeptic. Enlightenment Values Advocate. These are a few of my favorite things. "Exmormon" is a bit too myopic, limited in scope.

It's unfortunate that participants in the current exmo conferences are little more than props in a presentation primarily targeted at the Internet.

I've seen groups go down hill before. A pet bird club in Salt Lake (Avicultural Society of Utah) was run into the ground by an overly controlling president. The other club here continues ok. Atheist groups have has similar splits and shenanigans, in Salt Lake, Portland, and Texas.

I guess the bottom line is that, if you're going to continue with this no child policy, you'll end up turning advocates into adversaries. So, as of this time I'm against support for attendance at the Exmormon Foundation conferences, and I suggest that other people also not support attendance. Instead, I'd suggest that people either attend local secular advocacy groups, or start a secular advocacy group of your own. But, if you really don't like children at your events, consider the morality of also excluding blacks, gays, and Mexicans from your events as well while you do so. As you pan your camera across the audience you'd perhaps want to ensure that no non-European faces appear, so as to not upset anyone - just as some people don't want to upset their youtube presentations with the presence of children.

I make this point just to remind people what category of activity discrimination against people with children fits into. Having a "strict no child policy" is in the same category as a strict no black person policy, a strict no gay person policy, and a strict no Mexican person policy.

Real people who show up are the most important.

I realize that in ultra-social-liberal culture there is the view that people should have less or no children. I don't agree with that view, and I think it's not only misguided it's destructive.

A child and his parents being present is more important than the audio quality on your online podcast.

A child and her parents being present is more important than whether you have a personal distaste for children.

A child and his parents being present is more important than whether people on youtube can hear 100% of what's being said by a speaker. Flesh & blood people who show up are the most important, and if they are not, then they are merely your unwary props.

We, who left the Mormon Church, are not your props. We're humans, and humans have babies.

So, don't get stuck in cults of personalities. That's one key thing we've learned. If you encounter a group with an overly controlling president, then don't spend too much time with that group. Be honest in what you say. Maybe found a group of your own. Find like minded people. That's my advise to people who leave the Mormon Church.

Not everything that happened in the Church was bad. Children are good and should be valued. A "strict no child policy" does not value them, nor does it honor the fact that humans have them.

I know you've done a lot of good work in the past. And when I was a fat bast*** virgin with thick glasses living in my parents basement, I didn't really think about "hey, where's the kids?" at the exmo conferences. But, now that I'm 100 pounds lighter, have a wife and a kid, and am living a more normal life I can now see the more true situation.

A group that meets in Salt Lake should have Salt Lake roots. And no group should have the right to discriminate against people with kids. It should be illegal, just as it is illegal to discriminate against black people, gay people, and etc.

Sincerely,

Jonathan

The importance of having "kid friendly" events as a rule rather than an exception in atheist & exmormon groups

Content:

1. Original open letter.

2. Original video (below).

3. Addendum added after I received a response from one of the groups involved.

4. Addendum video (also below)
5. Previous blog post (separate page).
6. Remaining concerns of note:

          A. The following Exmormon Foundation policy statement:

"...Due to the nature of the conference presentations and the serving of alcohol during the evenings, we have established a strict policy that no children are allowed except for nursing infants..."

B. Working to ensure that kids are welcome within the relevant groups I may be a part of, and perhaps starting groups or events of my own as needed.

C. Unitarian Universalism churches i.) requiring that children go away during their main meetings, ii.) being apologists for Mohamed & Islam, and iii.) having taboos against being critical of wacky New Age / Pagan type ideas (the freedom to believe - in bullshit). Believing bullshit is a time waster, whether you believe in Jesus, Thor, Zeus, or in homeopathy, the wacky woo woo of Depak Chopra, crystals, or in The Secret.

-------------------

(2.) First video:

(4.) Second video:

(1.) Original open letter:

An open letter to atheist & ex-Mormon groups, on the issue of whether children are welcome at your events or not: [I did receive a further response from a relevant atheist group - click here to read my reply.]

Speaking frankly, I have no use for events which aren't "kid friendly." Family isn't a dirty word. Funny how people can embrace "Pride" and then jump straight on to having "kids around" as an "exception" rather than a rule. Where's the pride parade for straight people with kids? Maybe we deserve one too.

I never really thought about this issue until I had a kid myself. Pretty much the only "events" I *might* consider attending without my kid are these:

1. A gay bar I have been to before, with my gay nephew - if he happens to come to town and decides to pay a visit to my house & asks me to go there for a short visit to the bar & I decide to say yes.

2. The very occasional (officially rated as, & not merely "unrated") NC-17 film that is economically viable enough to actually be shown, and that's worth watching - a perhaps once every 20 year occurrence.

Other than that, from ex-Mormon meetings to atheist ones to church meetings, if my kid isn't welcome to sit beside me while I'm present, then neither am I. My family is more important than your little meetings - speaking frankly...

"...Due to the nature of the conference presentations and the serving of alcohol during the evenings, we have established a strict policy that no children are allowed except for nursing infants..."

...as quoted from an exmormon conference website. But more recently I've encountered a similar de facto prohibition on admitting that I have a child in connection with an atheist semi-annual party at which elections were to be voted on. Well, I guess I won't be running in that election, right? I've got a kid after all, and the crazy meeting where they'll be doing the voting doesn't seem to be kid friendly. What's up with that?

Let me say here as a side note that the organizers of these various groups do work very hard, and deserve a lot of credit for helping a lot of people. But, on the other hand, my son takes precedence over even these otherwise hard working people. It's just that they don't (yet) realize what it means to be fully inclusive.

If you wish to be inclusive of "gay issues" then you also need to be inclusive of "straight ones," and of people who, yes, have children. And, from what I've been told, gay and bi people sometimes have kids also.

Does the right wing get to hijack and use-solely the word "family?" I don't think so. But the "left" doesn't either.

I'm not really into the self-hatred of the left or the right. Yes, family is a good thing and it should be supported and promoted. And social groups which are supporting people recovering from religion & people who're finding new ways to live after leaving religion should take into account that humans actually engage in sexual reproduction...

I don't leave home without my genitals attached - as Mormons would have preferred. And, I should not be required to leave home without my new son - or to keep him hidden away just for the privilege of socializing with fellows who are supposedly on a similar life path.

Children sometimes make a bit of noise. Yes, I'm willing to take them out temporarily if they're screaming. But the occasional child-originated outburst should be well tolerated in any group which is supposedly trying to be "welcoming" and "inclusive."

Also, I agree that there is a need for singles events & singles type dances in atheist & ex-mormon groups. That's fine. But, as for alcohol, remember that alcohol is also served at pubs, and pubs do not exclude children.

So anyway unless your event is somehow exactly the same as the singular gay bar my nephew may or may not ever invite me to visit again, or is similar to a loud dive-bar (a largely unhealthy atmosphere for anyone which I suggest you not try to emulate regardless), don't expect me to hide my children away...  Occasional "singles" events may be ok, which are designed for single people to meet each other. But sometimes single people have kids also.

Jonathan

-------

Related post:
Regarding the group Atheists of Utah, suggestions posted June 12, 2013

postscript: After leaving Mormonism I searched for new groups to associate with. The groups mentioned above represent at least three I've tried so far. Nothing is absolutely cut & dry and I realize that anyone can start a group. But this is just something I've noticed after a.) leaving Mormonism, and now b.) having a kid.

In the old days the exmo conferences were more laid back. But I was shocked to see the more recent restrictions on kids - strange. The Unitarians can only tolerate kids at their meetings for the first few minutes. Why? What if I don't want my kid to be shuffled away to some other room, and what if I think all the kids should stay with their parents?

Also separately UUism is I've found not really friendly to Enlightenment values, since they embrace the "freedom to believe - in bullshit" via embracing paganism/fluff-a-muff-crazy-unfounded-views and they have a taboo against being critical of views which are otherwise crazy.

Well, anyway, I do have suspicions on exactly why things are the way they are. Discrimination against people who have kids - yes, it exists, apparently. And apparently those of us with kids have to fight for our rights to "come out" as straight people with kids as well...

 ===============================

(4.) June 13, 2013 10:45PM addendum:

I received a more cogent response from the president of Atheists of Utah regarding my concerns in this & the previous blog post. Here is what I have posted in reply:

---quote begins

Greetings,

<clip>

>I couldn't find any such post on any of our
>online presence locations. I saw you post this at
>several locations, but no "copy" of your blog post.

There was an original copy which I then deleted once it was copied in total to my blog, and then a link to the post was posted for convenience & consolidation.

The original queries which caused the original first concerns were posted in the announcement for the party itself. Regarding the discouragement of the attendance of children, as far as I could tell at least one board member and another attendee recommended (in rather strong terms) that children not attend - in the specific announcement area for the meeting. Then I heard nothing from anyone else, and no further feedback until now.

<clip>

The wheelbarrow is perhaps indicative of the target audience for the meeting in question. I had forgotten about Joel starting the wheelbarrow thing - perhaps once the meetings were moved to Richard T.’s house. Back when they were still at Joel’s house I don’t think such a thing was occurring.  Clearly there’s a need to attract college age fratsters to atheist meetings (seriously & not in jest). They have a lot of dynamic energy worth tapping into.

Regarding music we never heard back whether there would be music at this particular party. But for us it’s a moot point at this point.

<clip>

>Most of the members in the group have children of various ages.
>There are only a few of the more than 150 of our gatherings where the exclusion
>of children is explicitly stated.

In the wake of my previous chats with people about these issues I came away with the impression that it was only the “ice cream socials” which were really welcoming for children.

<clip>

>It is always stated explicitly in the event description
>if it is recommended that children do not attend. For all other events,
>children are implicitly welcome.

Regarding group and committee suggestions, I’ll consider which options would be most fruitful. There’s certainly room to grow in either direction.

Well, in this case I don’t wish to impede anyone’s ability to have a raging good time with fellow youngsters without the perceived impediments or impositions the presence of a child may pose, since it was rather strongly previously made clear to me by others in the related forums that for the event in question that children not attend.

I realize the main announcement didn’t explicitly exclude kids, but like I say later conversations, which weren't merely completely unofficial (to my perception) made it clear to me that it would be unusual and not advisable to bring kids to this particular event.

Like I say there is a need for such events which are young-person-party-animal-wild-man-and-woman focused, so by all means have fun at the party - all those people who want to hook up with some hot atheist chick or dude. Just remember what may happen if you do:

http://goo.gl/pr2mi

I’ll see about amending my text & video blogs appropriately in response, now that I’ve finally received a more official response. I’m glad that you were finally able to get back. In this case I still believe the party in question is really more of one intended for young people to get more than a bit tipsy so that they can more effectively meet each other. And I shall take the advice of others and keep our son home. He’s too young for a baby sitter.

At the very least we’ll work on announcing events which may be of value to those with youngsters... Here’s some related ideas I found:
http://www.meetup.com/cfi-sfn/

So by all means attend & have fun. We'll just stay home with our young kid - that's all...

Our kid is too young for a baby sitter. But to tell you the truth I wasn't just concerned about this group. There's another group which does have a more explicit "no kids" policy which is quite a bummer. So the conversation here was kind of a tipping point, for what it's worth.

J

---end of quote of addendum to Atheists of Utah.