When discussing the debate over Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, many misguided moral crusaders will cry fowl by claiming schools and universities are not hearing out alternative views. The most common alternative view they push is creationism/intelligent design (they're really the same thing). But these religiously motivated theories had been disproven long ago because they could never hold up under peer review and could not explain anywhere near the phenomenon that evolution explained. Since it is drawn from the annuls of bronze age mythology, it can't be tested or verified. It can't even be taken seriously. Only evolution has been able to explain the vast biodiversity of life on Earth. That is why no alternative is taught. But that doesn't mean there weren't any.

One alternative that most religious zealots never even mention is the evolutionary theory of Jean Baptiste Lemarck. His theory, which is similar to Darwin's, hypothesized that individuals of a species could gain attributes in their lifetime that would favor their survivability and hence pass them to their offspring. He called this 'aquired characteristics.' For example, if a man worked as a blacksmith most of his life and developed big, strong arms then under Lemarck's theory he would pass the trait of big strong arms to his offspring.

History of Jean Baptiste Lemarck (1744-1829)

This theory, which came before Darwin, was tested by science and eventually disproven by Mendal genetics. Darwin later got it right when he hypothesized that populations evolved, but not individuals. Lemarck was discredited, which is part of why he is rarely mentioned in science today. But what also goes unnoticed is how his work would later influence the debate over evolution.

One of the major arguments anti-evolution crusaders often make is that evolution is a slippery slope. Teaching it leads to some kind of degradation of morality. Their favorite tactics is to associate it with the likes of Hitler and Stalin, claiming they were fervent evolutionary supporters. But nothing could be further from the truth.

Stalin, who used many cruel reasons to justify his slaughter, was NOT a supporter of evolution. He and many others in the communist party believed in Lemarck. Soviet psuedo-scientist Tromfim Lysenko denounced evolution and Mendelian genetics as a capitalist myth. Stalin took this and in his propaganda promoted Lemarck, believing that using acquired characteristics and the proper conditioning of individuals in their totalitarian state they could create a new race he called homo soviticus (the ideal communist). Those that actually pushed evolution or 'Darwinism' as they called it were sent to the gulags. These ideas were later adopted by another Lemarck supporter, Mao Zedong for the same reason. So those that say they were ardent Darwinists do not check their facts.

Lemarck and Communism

Lysenkoism and Stalinist Russia

Hitler was another tyrant who liked the appeal of Lemarck's work. It fell much more in line with his radical ideology on racial superiority. Many erroneously say he favored Social Darwinism (a perversion of real evolution anyhow), but his ideas of conditioning his people and exterminating undesireables is much more in line with Lemarck.

Hitler and Lemarck

Now just because these tyrants favored Lemarck does not mean Lemarck deserves to be associated with them. It just shows that those attempting to discredit Darwin and evolution are not checking their facts. Even if evolution were used as justification by madmen and despots, that wouldn't make it any less true. But it isn't and it's ridiculuous to assert otherwise by linking it to undesirable figures in history. Lemarck like creationism/intelligent design have both been disproven by science. That is why evolution is accepted.

Does religion make people good or bad? It seems to be a question that has become far more pertinent in the age of global terrorism. Some argue certain religions make people more malevolent than others. A quick Google search on Islam will yield many websites arguing that it is a religion of violence. Other sites will say the same about Christianity, Judism, Hinduism, or pretty much any 'ism' for that matter. But little of this propaganda has any substance behind it. To answer the question as to whether religion makes someone good or bad, it's important to understand the factors.

First off, what determines how religious or non-religious someone is? Believers of many different faiths will give all sorts of answers. Some may say it is a tradition in their family. Some may say they had a genuine religious experience that drew them to a certain faith. Some may say their faith helps make them a better person. These are all interesting components to the argument, but it isn't evidence one way or another because it's purely anecdotal. To get a better idea of what determines one's religion, it's important to get a broader picture. As it turns out, evidence indicates that there's no godly forces driving people to particular religions. It's culture mostly that determines what religion someone follows.

Religious Affiliation and Cultural Inheritance: Study of Twins

In these studies, the environment one comes up in determines a great deal what they believe. So if someone is born into a Christian community in Texas, chances are they'll be a Christian. If someone is born in a strong Muslim community in the Middle East, chances are they'll be a Muslim. If they're born into a community that is strongly Jewish, chances are they'll be Jewish. There's nothing spiritually radical about it. It's simple social dynamics.

So if religion is mostly determined by environment or culture, what does that mean for a person's morality? The next point to consider in this question involves just how religious someone is. Regardless of what religion they're brought up in, how seriously they take it is important to consider when making a reasonable discussion. If religion is supposed to make someone more moral, than those who attend church services or religious rituals should have a strong correlation with crime. But research does not support this. According to empirical research, attending religious services has no effect on deviance.

Does Religion Effect Criminality?

Again, community and culture played a large part. In communites like Mormon or tight nit religious communities in smaller more isolated areas, low levels of deviance were associated with strong social pressures and peer groups that dissuaded such activities. This is further supported by the religious affiliation of the prison population. If one religion led to more deviance than others, then it should reflect in theose in jail. But it doesn't. According to the Justice Department, the religious affiliation of inmates has no particular leanings towards one faith or another.

Prison Incarceration and Religious Affiliation

So if religion doesn't have an effect on one's morality, what does? Is there any research indicating one factor over another? As it turns out, crime rates do have a negative correlation with something: education. Various studies into crime rates have shown that the more educated a population is, the less crime there is. In America, this is well documented:

Education and Public Safety

Education as Crime Prevention

So with this knowledge in mind, what is more reasonable to promote? Religion or education? Religion, it seems, does not offer a correlative effect between how deviant a person is. Education does offer a correlative effect. So logically, education wins out. This is not to say religion has no benefits. But those promoted social demigods has no merit. It offers a much more reasonable explanation when one considers why countries in Western Europe and Japan have such a low rate of deviance. Their education level is far greater compared to that of America, which has a very inefficient government-run heavily unionized system that does not provide adaquet resources for students.

There was one other effect education had that may explain why some don't want to promote it over religion. It turns out that as one becomes more educated, they become less religious.

Education and Religion

So regardless of what one thinks about the merits of religion, it does not seem to make someone more moral and less deviant. There are other factors to consider such as socio-economic status, which often goes along with the environmental aspect that often determines religious leanings. But the research is clear. Good education makes for good people. Religion can be part of the process, but it does not pull the same weight.

Over two years ago, ABC's John Stossel did a 20/20 special on education called "Stupid in America." The title was thought to be a little extreme, but it was later revealed to be entirely appropriate when dealing with education policy in America. But it isn't just referring to the students who continually rank lower than the rest of the Western world on standardized tests. More so, "Stupid in America" reflects the failure and outright arrogance of the system itself.

Stupid In America

But as hard hitting an assessment this program is, it is only recently that some of the dirty secrets of public schooling has come to light. This past week, the Associated Press did a story on the infamous 'rubber rooms' first described in the 20/20 special. In these rooms, troubled teachers are placed in rooms where they just sit around and do nothing all day and still collect their full salary. Why are they there? The reasons vary. Some are there due to insubordination on the job while others are there for serious offences like sexually harassing students. While such behavior would earn a quick firing in any other job, it doesn't work that way in a public government run school system that is heavily unionized. Because of union contracts, these teachers CAN'T be fired so in order to keep them from the students, the system just puts them away and keeps paying them until they can go through all the messy bureaucracy it takes to fire them.

700 Teachers Paid To Do Nothing

This is government programs at their worst. Never in the private sector would something like this be allowed. Any company that put troubled employess in these situations and kept paying them would go out of business in short order. It is only through a government run system where taxpayer dollars flow freely through endless bureaucracy that these egregious practices can propogate.

But despite this story and the two-year-old special done on 20/20, there is no serious talk to change the system. Barack Obama has talked about making education affordable and available to all people, but he has offered no substantive solutions on doing so. He has not talked about allowing private schooling to grow (even though he sends his own kids to private school) and he has not talked about taking on the teachers unions. In other words, these rubber rooms will be here to stay.

Now as someone with public school still fresh in my memory, I can attest how lousy it is. I was lucky to attend a fairly nice school in a good community, but it still felt like a government run internment center for teenagers and youths. I never got the sense that people wanted to be there, let alone enjoyed being there. But the worst part was the feeling of powerlessness and the total lack of choice. Nobody was allowed to really take control of their educational pursuit. Everybody had to jump through the same hoops. It was only when I got to the more open environments of college and the workplace that I learned so much more. To this day I see much of my public school career as mostly a waste of time.

In a free society where the government is limited by law, these sorts of endeavors are an affront to freedom. The government should not be in the business of education. It is in the business of protecting rights. Time and again the system's failures are exposed. But government continues to drag its feet, avoiding any real change in favor of bureaucrats.

It has often been said that it is impossible for a society to have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. Therefore, it is the responsibility of a free secular state to actively avoid religious discourse in public places. This seems contrary to the notion of free speech, another pillar of the free society that the free secular state is responsible for protecting. So at which point does one intersect with the other? Where do the lines form?

The answer is simple. There are no lines.

Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are the same thing. They are two sides of the same coin. The freedom to express one's religion in any way they see fit is no different than the freedom of one's right to speak out. The same rights and responsibilities apply. So long as it is peaceful, not obstructing the life, liberty, and property of another individual, it is entirely protected by the free society. But some do not make this distinction. Some consider religious expression to be it's own category of expression and thus the state needs special powers to police it. This has led to an erosion of the ideals of freedom espoused by the founding fathers.

Take for instances the famous court cases McCollum vs. Board of Education Dist. 71 that banned religious instruction in public schools or the Engel v. Vitale case that banned prayer in public schools. These cases all used the same reasoning to ban religious displays. It violated the establishment clause of the constitution which states that the government cannot support any one religion over the other no matter how dominant it may be. It's a good principle for a secular state, but in these cases it was pushed beyond the limits into the realm of censorship. There's no way around it. By banning discussion of religion in schools, that is censorship. It may offend atheists at times, but in this country there is no right not to be offended.

Take a step back from these cases and approach them reasonably. Was the government acting through force? Did beauracrats on local, state, or federal levels impose the teaching of religion or prayer in the schools directly? Or was it something that was decided by the school itself or the local parents? If it is the case that the government is directly forcing schools to teach or condone specific religious themes over another, then that is unconstitutional. But in many of these cases, it was the schools themselves and the communities that wanted these religious themes in their schools. And why shouldn't they be allowed? So long as nobody is forcing them and it is done peacefully, what right do the courts have to force them to stop? In the strictest constitutional sense, they don't.

So what about the atheists or the non-believers like myself that go to these schools? Well so long as the schools do not force prayer and teaching on the students, there should not be a problem. If school officials were doing this to atheists as a form of harassment, that would be a violation of rights and the courts do have a right to punish those who do this. But to make a vast, broad judgment that bans these practices across the board is an abuse of power and an affront to the free society.

But it isn't just non-believers who abuse these privlidges. Religous groups are just as guilty. The best case has to do with creationism. Take cases like Edwards v. Aguillard that overruled a law in Louisiana forcing schools to teach creationism alongside evolution. The key aspect of the law was force. Schools had to push creationism by law. And not just any creationism like that of Native American or Hindu stories. They had to push the strict interpretation of Genesis in a science classroom. This was a clear case of the government using force to favor one religous group over another. As such, it is unconstitutional because it abuses the powers of the state. It was later verified again in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case in 2003 that banned the teaching of intelligent design for the same reasons.

Now how is this not censorship? It's simple when one takes context into account. Creationism was being pushed in science classes as an alternative viewpoint of the truth. But in a free society, certain ideas cannot be propped up by the government just because certain groups really believe in them. Creationism and Intelligent Design failed in the marketplace of idea. They were proven to be false by science and as such, they were dropped from science classrooms. But certain religous groups didn't like that. So to make up for the fact that their dogma was not verified by science, they got the government to force it upon the people. That use of force is a clear violation of liberty, religous and non-religious alike. Now if creation stories were taught in a religious class or in literature, that's a different story because that's a different context. So long as the state doesn't force this upon students as truth, then it is perfectly fine in a school.

The Founding Fathers were for freedom and religous liberty equally. The idea of a free society harkoning back to the enlightenment was that free expression and the free exchange of ideas allows ideas and beliefs to stand on their own merits. So if certain ideas like creationism do not stand enough on their merits, they are rejected. As such, the government cannot prop certain ideas up over others. When it comes to religious, the key is for the state to stay out of the affairs of the chruch and allow religious groups to thrive on their own merits. If one is more dominant than others, let them be dominent so long as they can persuade their people that they are a good group to be a part of. And if they wish to leave that group, let them. So long as force is not involved, the freedom to practice any religious or no religion at all is warrented in a free society.

As an atheist, most assume I am for eliminating religion from society. I'm not. I am an ardent believer in allowing people to follow their own spiritual path. If some wish to be Christians, that's okay. If some wish to be Muslim, that's okay too. If some wish to worship Satan, that's just as valid. So long as none of these groups harass me or force me to take part in their customs, I'm okay with it. The free society comes before my own spiritual beliefs or lack thereof. I am and always have been for a free society where the state does not interfere with the church and people and communities are allowed to follow their own path.

It's an age-old mantra. You can't prove a negative. Reasonable people engaging in reasonable debates understand this. Irrational people engaging in baseless propaganda do not. Unfortunately, it's the irrational people in power throughout government and religion that abandon reason and spew nonsense to the masses with no basis in fact. This is all well and good in a free society. The problem is, uneducated and uninformed people believe it can lead to destructive policies.

First off, the idea of proving a negative isn't so clear cut. While the mantra is true for the most part, in a strictly philosophical sense it is in fact possible to prove a negative. But it is only possible when the claim is falsifiable. For instance, if someone asks a random person to prove that there isn't a rat in their left pocket, the person can prove that by reaching into their pocket and showing that there is nothing there. The claim stated was falsifiable, meaning it could be disproved.

Proving a negative with reason: Evolving Thought

Other claims made in this context are a lot more complicated and more often then not, they are impossible to prove. Many of the claims come across every day and are used as arguments. These include questions such as:

You can't prove Obama's stimulus package didn't help the economy.

You can't prove banks and customers didn't know the loans they were giving out were bogus.

You can't prove the drug war didn't contribute to the violence in Mexico.

You can't prove that god doesn't exist.

You can't prove that Jesus Christ wasn't the son of god.

You can't prove creationism didn't happen.

You can't prove homosexuality isn't a choice.

You can't prove gay marriage won't harm society.

You can't prove abortion isn't murder.

Every one of these claims has the same fallacy. Proving something isn't present just isn't reasonable. This is because proving negatives require that the entire domain of the argument is understandable, measurable, and verifiable. It must fit the test of falsification. But the breadth of these matters is beyond falsification because it is impossible to verify facts with esoteric and intangible factors.

That is why rational people making rational arguments ask that those making the claim prove it. Their mantra is positive claims require positive evidence (evidence that something is present). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Making the claim that a certain bill from the president did improve the economy can be verified by quantitatively measuring the changes of the economy in conjunction with the changes of the bill and verifying that there was a causal relationship. That is purely reasonable. The problem is, most people in the news and in politics don't do this. Obama famously said "We can't afford to do nothing." It is a negative claim that isn't verifiable, but most people didn't understand that and nothing could be done to stop it.

The same issues emerge in religion. Believers often put the burden of proof on the non-believers, saying they are the ones who have to prove their invisible deity doesn't exist. But the same fallacy applies. Richard Dawkins made the same argument by claiming you can't prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun. That is why reasonable people say unless you can prove there is a teapot there, then they don't believe it. It is the believers that are making the claim that there is a deity present, but they offer proof of it. They rely on other fallacies like anecdotal evidence, emotional appeals, and religious texts they allege were divinely inspired. None of this is proof. That is why it is assumed on faith. In a strictly reasonable context, it is impossible to prove any deity. One can only have faith that the deity is there. But too often people equate faith with truth or fact. It isn't. It is an unprovable claim that too many people avoid and pass off as truth and those who do not understand reason are prone to accept it.

Fearmongering, propaganda, and moral panics all emerge from irrational rhetoric. Religion and government use it all the time and so does the media because in many ways, it's easier than checking facts. In a free society people are free to believe, behave, and carry themselves as they wish so long as they do not impose on others. But to defend these freedoms, there needs to be rational policy with reasonable people. So long as religion and government stand in the way, the free society will constantly be challenged. And reason is the best weapon against nonsense.

A lot has been said about the abortion debate in wake of the murder of Dr. George Tiller. Pro-life and pro-choice advocates alike have latched onto it as a means to serve their agenda. Pro-choice groups condemn the pro-lifers for fostering men like Scott Roeder who use violence to spread their beliefs. It is in a sense the epitome of hypocracy. Roeder hated Tiller because he thought he was a murderer, so he became a murderer himself. It runs completely opposite of the very term 'pro-life.' But that's a term Roeder didn't take seriously. But Pro-life groups aren't dissuaded. They have continually brushed off men like Roeder as "A fruit and a lunitic" so says the head of Operation Rescue, a radical pro-life organization. The same people who brush it off use Roeder as a warning to say "See! This is what happens when you let something like abortion to propagate!" Of course, neither side offers anything pragmatic to the argument.

When it comes to an emotional issue like abortion, there is little room for common ground. Pro-life and Pro-choice groups are notoriously stubborn, using whatever reason they can to justify their beliefs. Pro-lifers use religion, which is also hypocritical because the god of the bible is NOT pro-life. In the chapter of Exodus god murders every first born in Egypt and they were not fetuses. They were already alive. So it's rediculous to assert that pro-life is endorsed by god. Pro-choice groups use the notion of personal freedom, in as such that women own their bodies. But they negate to mention that a fetus isn't 'their' body. It's the body of another being, one that may not be fully developed but still a being. And they'll avoid that notion at all costs.

On issues like this when neither side shows any signs of using logic, it's often helpful to look at it from a different perspective. Take someone like famous comedian George Carlin, who never claimed to be an expert in any field, but makes a valid point in one of his famous HBO skits. He focuses on consistency. He asks questions like "Why is it that pro-life groups are so concerned about a fetus before it's born, but not afterwards?" He also calls Pro-lifers out by asking "If you're so concerned about these single mothers, why aren't you volunteering your wombs to have these kids?" It's put in a humorous context, but there is an underlying point here. Pro-lifers are so focused on calling out the evils of abortion, but they don't offer any alternatives. They only favor people being abstinent or putting the child up for adoption. But as research has shown along with human nature, this is not possible nor is it pragmatic.

The Pro-choice crowd makes similar emotional appeals, linking abortion to feminism. It's true that most of the people in power making these decisions on abortion are men, who will never be faced with this issue. These men are driven by ideology and partisen politics, not reason or logic. They will heed emotional appeals from women claiming this is an afront to women's rights. But this is deflecting the argument, saying anybody who is against abortion is against women. This is simply not true. It makes the same stereotypes as the Pro-lifers.

So how does one wade through the emotional appeals and find a reasonable context for abortion? Well the argument comes down to when is having an abortion killing a human life? It can't come at conception because not every fertilized egg gets implanted. To call that an abortion would be unreasonable because any woman who ever had that happen would be guilty of it. Then there's the argument that as soon as the fetus is viable outside the womb, it is a person. But this has some problems too. In the realm of medical science, advances are making it possible for infants to survive outside the womb after shorter and shorter periods of gestation. Some scientists foresee a day when they have the means to save a child no matter what stage it's at during a pregnancy. It's called ectogenesis and it would severely affect the nature of the abortion debate if fetus viability is a consideration. It would have a lot of cultural impacts too because it could negate the very need for a woman to go through pregnancy to have a child. But that's another issue. For more information on ectogenesis, check out the following link:

Ectogenesis

So what criteria would be most reasonable for this issue? Going back to Geroge Carlin, consistancy is the key. So if reason is going to look at where life begins, it should also consider where life ends. All medical professionals agree. A person is declared dead after brain activity ceases. One can revive a heart, but not a brain. Some cells may still be alive in a body, but without brain activity is is dead. So if that's how death is measured, logic would assume that life should be measured the same way. So when a fetus develops brain activity, it should be considered a person. This happens later than Pro-lifers would like and earlier than Pro-choice advocates would like. According to research, a fetus develops brain activity around the 8th week or 2nd month of pregnancy. And higher functions like consciousness don't develop until around the 13th week.

Stages of Development

With this in mind, abortion would not be murder if it occurs before this time. Luckily, most abortions occur well before it. According to research done by the Guttmacher Institute 89 percent of abortions occur before the 12th week of gestation. 61.3 percent occur before the 8th week.

Facts About Abortion

So the vast majority of abortions would still be allowable by this standard. But all those afterwards would face strict limits because it would then legally be dealing with another person.

It is neither a compromise nor a solution. It is simply approaching the abortion issue from outside the fervent emotional pleas of advocacy groups. It is possible to use reason for debates such as abortion. When emotion is injected, people like George Tiller face grave harm and people like Scott Roeder take their views to extremes. It is difficult at times to distance one's self from emotion. But when it comes to policy and justice in a free society, reason offers the best hope.

Before the founding of the American Republic, it was unheard of for a country not to have an official religion. The founding fathers sought to set themselves apart from the tyranny and autocracy of European powers at the time by leaving their new country open for any religion, regardless of how great a majority it may be in the populace, to thrive and benefit from equal protection under the law. It is one of the reasons why so religious groups like muslims, jews, catholics, and buddhists have been able to come to America and enjoy the success wrought by freedom and liberty.

But in the era of political correctness, religious liberty is being continually contorted in ways that go against the very principles of freedom. Recently, Townhall columnist Chuck Norris reported on a situation that would have been laughable if it weren't true:

Got your permit to study the Bible?

The event was a real headscratcher. David and Mary Jones were visited by a county code enforcement officer on April 10 (Good Friday) after receiving a complaint about their Christian gatherings, which included only around 15 people. After hearing they did things such as pray, read scripture, and discuss spiritual matters they were given a cease and desist order. That's worth repeating. An official of law enforcement told two people with the same legal rights as everyone else to cease and desist their religious gatherings.

That's not the only incident of it's kind. On June 3rd the Associated Press reported that a Pennsylvania court ruled 2-1 that a Kindergartner's mother cannot read the bible for show-and-tell, even if it is her favorite book.

In wake of the recent controversy over Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame, a lot has been said about religious issues concerning the abortion debate, the state of Christianity, and religion in general. It's hard to imagine how the speech would have been controversial if religion wasn't a factor. The staunch pro-life position of Notre Dame is strongly tied to the Roman Catholic faith. It would be difficult to contemplate such a strong position without the dogma of religion behind it.

Religion is capable of bringing out good in humanity, but it also does more to divide people than almost any other force. Terrorism, prejudice, and bigotry have often had religious motivations. While religion may not be the cause, it certainly doesn't help. Religon is, regardless of what many zealots say, a product of man. And as such, it is prone to man's flaws. Common ground is hard to come by in that context. Understanding it even harder.

Recently, I came across an essay written by a man named Tom Hart. I feel it does a great job of describing the issue of religion being subject to the whims of man. It also leaves room for hope.

Do not blame God for man's mistakes". These simple words add up to one of the most profound statements I've ever read. It was scrawled on a bathroom wall of the university I attended. For some reason this statement has stayed in the back my mind for many years. Gradually, over time, it has led me to ask questions and I have spent years attempting to find the answers. What ARE man's mistakes that we blame God for? You can decide for yourself and follow your own path to see what it means to you, but it has lead me to seek answers about my religious beliefs. I have come to the conclusion that organized religion may very well be the biggest mistake that God is being blamed for. I will present arguments in an attempt to show you why I feel this way.

God did not create even one of the many religions we have, men did. Each founder of a particular religion looked within themselves and saw God, and interpreted what they saw as a revelation of how to live and worship him. They were then able to convince others into believing that THEY alone had God's undivided attention and that everyone should believe as they do; BUT just because someone says, "God told me how to worship him", doesn't make it so. Each person who claims to have been given "the word" from God, interpreted their revelations according to their own subjective beliefs. For all we know each may have been given the exact same message, but interpreted it differently OR no message at all. Therefore, it doesn't make these so-called prophets right, or divinely inspired, it just makes them great salesmen. Each religion has had a great salesman.

God may be the biggest jokester of all time. He has allowed man to create a multitude of ways to worship him. He has allowed us to form and then change religions as we see fit, never interfering with what or how it is being taught. Most religions claim to be inspired by the same God. Many religions say, "my religion is the only TRUE religion" and the more fanatical religions say, "God will punish you if you don't believe in what I believe in". I do not see how anyone who knows there is a God could truly believe that he would damn the majority of the population of this world to purgatory automatically. Therefore, it is impossible for me to believe that there is only one true religion. If so, then most of us are going straight to Hell.

It is my opinion that Our God is tolerant of all religions. He doesn't care that humans have devised so many ways to worship him. He is tolerant of our foolishness and the disparate ways we've created to worship him. We are human after all and as most religions agree upon, flawed. What he does care about are those things that unite all religions. It is sad that we don't put more emphasis on these things and not the differences.

Most people desperately want to believe in something, even if that something is to believe in nothing. As a species we constantly try to find something, anything that will explain human existence, why we are here, and our place in it; but it must be tangible for us to accept it. We are social beings and must be able to see it, touch it, and be a part of it in order to believe in it. Organized religion fills that need. Just believing in, and talking to, God does not. It's lonely when it?s just you and God. He doesn't say a lot and requires you to do all the talking. He exists only as a metaphysical being. God requires absolute belief in him without ever giving you a chance to scientifically prove or disprove his existence. That's hard to sustain for any one person without the support and fellowship of others. Thus, we organize ourselves into groups of like-minded individuals, who have basically the same beliefs, and call it a religion.

The majority of people never actually chose their own religion. It was chosen for them by the simple act of being born. I have no doubt that:

	If I was born in a Israel I would probably be Jewish, OR
	If I was born in Utah I would probably be a Mormon, OR
	If I was born in the Middle East I would probably be a Muslim.

For the majority of us, religion is not a choice, it is a birthright. I apologize to that small percentage of you who have actively chosen your religion because it fits your beliefs. You've obviously searched until you found a religion that, as closely as possible, fits your spiritual needs. That works for me too, but unfortunately, we are in the minority and as of this point in my life, I have not found that religion.

Please don't get the wrong idea. I respect all non-fanatical religions and those people who believe in them. I truly believe that all religions have something worthwhile to teach, but each of us ultimately decides what we will believe in and what we will not. It doesn't matter what religion you are a part of, I guarantee that there are certain tenets of your religion that you disagree with. That's because YOUR beliefs are subjective and are actually only between you and God, and no one else. The religion you are a part of simply fore fills MOST of your spiritual needs, but not all. It is just comforting being in an organized religion where we know that everyone who honestly adheres to most of our religion's beliefs will be blessed and allowed into heaven. In the end though, you will answer to God, not your religion, for your beliefs.

I have been to services in many places of worship. In each, I try to come away with the same thing: some new thought or idea that will help me understand God better and be a better person toward others. I understand that I do not have all the answers and never will, but I also understand that neither does anyone else. And while I may disagree with various religions on a number of points they adamantly believe in, they may have an answer to just one of the questions that I have been searching for, or either raise a question that I have never thought of . That makes every religion relevant. But regardless of what is said, it is ME who internalizes what is being taught during a sermon. I will subjectively believe what is taught and add that knowledge to MY belief system, use it to reinforce beliefs that I already have, or I will reject it. Even if you are a member of a particular religion, you do the same thing. All of us only accept those teachings that fit within our own personal belief system. We discard the rest. Therefore your religion is ultimately between you and God and concerns no one else. The answers I find are only relevant to me and help me along the path to a better understanding of God.

To limit oneself to a set of answers that a single religion can offer is to limit the available answers. The answers to all our questions are out there. They will be found by fitting the pieces of the puzzle together. No one religion has all the answers and as long as we refuse to look for answers anywhere except in our own religion we will never find them.

I personally believe that religion has nothing to do with books, or prophets, or religious leaders, or houses of worship. Those were ALL created by men according to their own beliefs, not by God. We believe in these things because they ultimately match our own personal, subjective, beliefs. Each religion has followers because of each individuals ability to look within themselves and match their own beliefs against the religion they follow. Therefore, my beliefs are just between me and God. The religion I choose to follow is secondary. In the end, I will answer to him, not because of which church I went to, but because of the type of person I was during my life and how I treated others while I was here. It is what resides within me and makes me who I am that will determine whether God will look at me favorably or not. It is the search for answers to the moral questions I have, and how I use the answers that I add to MY belief system that is important. I refuse to limit myself to the answers that only one religion can supply. I am the owner of my own beliefs and God will be the judge of whether I am right or wrong, as he will with us all.

Organized religions do not unite us, they divide us. They segregate one group from another. You can argue the truthfulness of your religion all you want to, but you'll only alienate others who honestly believe in the truthfulness of theirs. Organized religions, regardless of their good intentions, have caused hate, mistrust and in extreme cases death and destruction. "Believe in what I believe in, because if you don't God will not love you and you will go straight to Hell". Think about it, God can not want that. That can not be God's plan for us to worship him. I can not believe that a loving God would not tell us which religion is the "true" religion, but then condemn us to eternal damnation if we guess wrong. No one religion or person has ever had an absolute control over right and wrong or absolute knowledge of the REAL truth.

In most Blogs and articles on religion, many people will argue religious points of view by quoting scripture from their own religion as absolute proof of a point, or will quote history as defined by their particular religious texts. These arguments are absolute truisms to those who believe in them, but are meaningless to those whose religion teaches a different, or even opposing, point of view. Teachings of any religion, that are specific to that religion, will never settle an issue or unite anyone. Therefore, the only test that can be applied to a religion to determine whether it is "the true religion" is whether its tenets resonate as the truth to everyone. It will be one that's inclusive to all.

The good news is that there is a religion that we are all already apart of. We just don't accept it and use it as a tool to unite us spiritually. It doesn?t have a name. It shouldn?t. To give it a name would just throw it into the pot with all the others. If it was ever formalized and put into that pot, I wouldn't join it. It is personal and concerns no one else but me and God. It is a religion of actions and not just words. It demands no place of worship, religious texts, or men who claim to know more about it than I do. It is within me. I know more about it than anyone else ever could. I alone am responsible for finding the answers to the questions I have about it. The answers I do find may be relevant to me, and no one else.

If we pray to God, we don?t pray for Baptist things, or Jewish things, or Muslin things, or Catholic things. We ALL pray to our God for the exact same things regardless of our organized religious differences. We pray for God to protect our families, our friends, our neighbors, our country, peace on earth, an end to the pain and suffering of others, for food to feed the starving, that God may grant us peace within ourselves, and to give us an understanding of exactly what kind of person he wants us to be. Among many others, these are the important things and the things we have in common that should unite us. These things can not be made into an organized religion but, none-the-less, unite us. It is OUR conversations with God that unite us ALL. Even though it is a personal conversation between each of us and God, it is the same conversation. We leave religion behind when we pray to God.

Each of us has within ourselves the ultimate religion, and it is the same. It should unite us, but doesn?t because we?d rather give it a name, write books about it, build places to go to worship it, and create deities of those men who say they know more about it than we do. How can anyone say that the very things that keep us apart will ever unite us. Organized religion does just that and always will. The goal of a true religion should be to work toward peace within ourselves and harmony with others. It should consist of the things that bind us all together, not tear us apart. Only when we recognize this, will there ever be a true religion.

It is my belief that there is only one God. He is called by many names and worshiped in many ways by different religions, BUT he will judge each of us using the exact same criteria that will not be based upon any particular religion's beliefs. It will be based upon our relationships with each other and the type of lives we lived. Until everyone recognizes that each of us contains the true religion within ourselves, because it unites us all as one with God, we will never have peace within ourselves or with each other. These are the things that God will ultimately judge us by. So worship God as your heart tells you to and search for the answers you need to satisfy the questions you have, but please "Do not blame God for man's mistakes".

You can view the essay here: God's God

In the age of the internet, it's possible to get information from a wide variety of sources. Unfortunately, in an environment of free speech and open dialogue, it's easy for bias, skewed, and irrational sources to propagate and spread irrational messages to gullible minds. In a previous post, I highlighted the importance of objectivity and the issues surrounding bias. The internet is ripe with instances of irrational bias that spew propaganda as if it were objective. One of the most egregious and overt examples is the website Conservapedia.

Conservapedia was founded in 2006 by Andy Schlafy, son of famed conservative activist Phyllis Schlafy. He modeled his site after Wikipedia, the most well-known online encyclopedia of it's kind, only he structured it with a clear conservative bias. They make the bold claim in their about page that all other sources have been corrupted by liberal bias. It is even overtly stated:

"No other encyclopedia resource on the internet is free of corruption by liberal untruths."

Immediately, the message is clear. Conservapedia is bias and appeals to conspiracy to convince vistors of it's message. It unapologetically denounces atheism, homosexuality, evolution, and champions Christianity as if it has any more authority than other faiths. It does so in a way that is so laughably and reprehensibly arrogant that it destroys any credibility it may have to real conservatism. Real conservatism is founded on individual freedom and liberty. But that seems to be lost on conservapedia as every entry is not only heavily edited, they're also completely frozen to prevent further tampering. This means that if an entry is every disproved, it can't be corrected. Wikipedia and reason aren't like that. And it shows in various areas.

Take for instance their atheism page. As of June 7 2008 they changed the page a total of 115 times, but after that date the page was locked to prevent further editing. On this page they make a huge link between atheism and evolution, which if anybody had done even the most basic of research would have found to be bogtus. Evolution isn't linked to atheism anymore than it's linked to Christianity. Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning it makes absolutely no statement on the supernatural, including god. It can neither prove nor disprove any religion. Then there's the section that links atheism and mass murder. They will gladly point out the mass murders of Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot as instances of atheism, but they don't even acknowledge that Christianity is also responsible for mass murder (which is completely untrue). The crusades, the inquisition, and the witch hunts have caused millions upon millions of deaths both directly and indirectly over the centuries. But do they mention this? Of course not.

Then there's the evolution page, which coincidently has a section on mass murder as well. Again, Conservapedia tries to link Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot to evolution as it does atheism. But again, they present no direct evidence to it. They even ignore the fact that Hitler was a Catholic and a creationist. All these despots despised evolution. They prefered the ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, a pre-cursor to Darwin who believed in the concept of acquired traits (ie a blacksmith developing a small arm in his lifetime passing that trait along to his son). They found this far more favorable because it supported their ideas of creating a new race to dominate those they deemed inferior, which has everything to do with racism and nothing to do with evolution. But Conservapedia doens't make this distinction. Why would they? It doesn't support their agenda to stand against liberals, atheists, and anybody who doesn't believe as they do. If anybody even did the most basic of fact checking, they would see how wrong their positions are.

Then there's the way they try to refute evolution. First they say it's a controversial theory in science. That's wrong. Over 95 percent of scientists accept it. Only about half the population in America accepts it, but that has no bearing on its validity. Nearly all those who reject evolution do so because they do not understand it or the scientific method. They do what Conservapedia does and accept pre-assumed conclusions. That cannot be done in science. Evidence must be followed to a conclusion. Then they say no clear transitional forms have been found. This is completely false. There have been countless transitional forms found documenting dinosaurs to bird evolution, primate to human evolution, and fish to tetrapod evolution. But Conservapedia doesn't give this any creedence. They brush it off only as 'microevolution' and not 'macroevolution,' two terms which are utterly arbitrary. They basically say it's possible to walk 20 feet, but not 20 miles.

Other sections involving abortion, homosexuality, liberalism, science, the enlightenment, the bible, history, Islam, poltics, feminism, media, and pretty much any other hot-button issue all share the same story. They are utterly skewed to push a conservative Christian viewpoint. They offer no counter arguments. They accept no criticism. Pages have been locked to disallow people from correcting mistakes or updating information. It is completley contrarian to true conservatism, which advocates free speech and individual liberty. But to them the only liberty that matters is the liberty they take to make their point.

What makes Conservapedia so egregeous is the overt nature in which it presents itself. The site is clear. It presents only information from the conservative Christian perspective. Yet it still presents itself as the 'true source' unbiased by liberalism. But it is propoganda, pure and simple. People who get their information there will only get a bias perspective and the danger of this is that it will only reinforce the views of like-minded people and make them even more closed off from dissenting opinions. It is a dangerous tactic in any society, skewing information to further reinforce stereotypes and bigotry.

In the end Conserapedia is not an expression of true conservatism. It is a perversion.