Category: Gay and Lesbian


A Virginia man, who had “strong feelings” about those who do not treat homosexuals well, is accused of shooting the Family Research Council manager in the arm.  The shooting brought to light the Southern Poverty Law Center’s determination that the Family Research Council, also known as FRC, is a hate group due to misinformation and propaganda that directly sheds a negative and untrue light on homosexuality, bisexuality, and corrected gender individuals.  The designation, long under fire by the FRC and those that support them such as the AFA which I posted on earlier, is currently standing and the Southern Poverty Law Center has absolutely no intention of removing  it.  So the question remains, is the FRC a hate group and such a designation worthy of this organization?  Well let’s take the facts as they come from the FRC website.  On this website, you’ll find lots of information to peruse, also a lot of information about what the FRC stands for considering it’s notoriously conservative Chrstian extremist viewpoints.  Let’s review.

In a ten point article discussing the harm homosexual marriage will provide to people, which you can read here, or I can summarize for you generally also, the FRC statement on issues is discussion of a hateful if not prejudice nature.  Taxpayers (including businesses and consumers in short) would subsidize same sex couples by paying taxes that benefits them directly via government mandate should it come to that.   Point one goes on to say that Social Security benefits is the homosexual lobby’s biggest target because, heaven forbid, the spouse of a dead homosexual may get marriage benefits rightly theirs via government money.  Point two, Schools will teach that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones.  The article goes on to say that they are not because it may bring discussion about how two women can have vaginal penetration via a sex toy or dildo in schools as early as kindergarten which is strongly and morally not the homosexual lobby’s plan.  Thus misinformation is transmitted via this article and we’re only at POINT TWO, but nothing like the fact that private religious schools will have people attending them that do not subscribe to their particular faith introducing a kind of heathenism into the secular school, which is also not the point of the Lobby.  Point three, Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened.  Primarily due to the fact that somewhere in the bible homosexuality is outed as being “unnatural” and even though Jesus said nothing about it, the religious liberty that one cannot condone same sex marriage infringes directly on their right to be religiously endowed to persecute and exhibit prejudice related  to homosexuals, bisexuals and corrected gender people.  First, this would be severely unconstitutional and secondly, no one is asking them to bear with it and be okay with it.  They can oppose it all they want, just like the KKK currently opposes racial mixing and racial diversity and equality.  Point four, Fewer people would marry.  In the narrow wind tunnel that is the FRC view, fewer heterosexuals would seek out the designation as “married” because it is rendered meaningless by same sex marriage and equality.  Point five, Fewer people would remain monogamous and remain sexually faithful.  The  article then dispenses information on gay couples, who according to studies, are unable to keep it in their pants and thus the spread of AIDS and general mayhem supporting infidelity because of their relationships would eventually infect heterosexual couples that were minding their own business and suddenly caught the infidelity virus from those pesky gays.  Point six, Fewer people would remain married for a lifetime, is so remotely and generally uncivil that the article’s author sites other studies that are revealing that out of 156 gay couples, only a handful were together longer than 5 years.  Sadly, I know of many relationships of gay men that have lasted two decades or more, without any infidelity, without any kind of trust issues, and without divorce should they have been married for that period of time.  The absurdity of this study ridiculously twisted to respectively convert facts into misinformation is outstandingly ridiculous and laughable at best.  On to point seven, Fewer children would be raised by a father and a mother, with details on the fact that children would be raised by two moms or two dads and thus spell the end of the traditional mother father household.  Unfortunately, the author neglects that most of the children raised today are raised by either a single father or single mother and blended families on a whole are on the rise.  Again, misinformation designed to instigate fear, hatred, and prejudice viewpoints are encouraged.  Point eight, More children would grow up fatherless, without any real basis though spouting fanatically altered reports that children would not have fathers and that this hurts everyone is so insanely absurd, I may have suffered a stroke.   Point nine, The birthrate would fall, is another one that sadly has nothing to do with homosexual, bisexual or corrected gender relationships, but is presented in such a manner that one must surely expect that in order for a woman married to another woman is to get sperm from an unsuspecting donor being horrifically wrong or the option of adopting some seven million American children up for adoption might be a bad thing is directly misinformation dispensing.  The tenth and final point is Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow.  The very crux of this very point, and the article in brief summary, is that if one cannot control what his or her neighbor does in the privacy of their own home and that the demand for equality between all people is recognized and legitimized via federal, state, and constitutional amendment, the world as we know it will end and one should be afraid, very afraid.

The designation as a hate group is based on speech, production of information, propaganda manufacturing, misinformation, stating half truths as fact, and outright downright lies as sudden truth is exactly what has earned FRC this designation and will be the exact thing that maintains that designation on par with a list of cults and rather undercurrent contained ridicule based groups who manufacture hate on a broad scale is exactly what this organization is, by and large.  However, since the average American Christian conservative extremist reads fact from anything and believes that the internet and bible do not lie, perhaps the gullibility factor of the FRC and its influence among the moronic underbelly of America will eventually evolve into something other than a walking, talking idiot branded and hellbent on destroying the lives of innocent people engaging in their pursuit of happiness afforded to them by the United States of America Constitution.   You know, that thing that gives them the right to freedom of religion and speech in order to predetermine who gets to enjoy the benefits of marriage and who does not.

First, a video introduction.  Yes, they are short and I can brief you on them, too.   Here is one, another, and some more.   These are a mere sampling of the various tones and specifically prejudice, misdirected, misinformed and misplaced logical interludes precluding reasonable deduction and well informed rationality.   I really don’t need to produce more links to Mr. Fischer as most of his ranting madness is usually just as ugly as the four represented above.  Without fully understand fascism, Fischer easily calls Obama such when it serves his purposes to use shock and awe stupidity to degrade and erode rational intelligent deduction to put fear into unthinking masses that believe every word he utters.  Without fully understanding liberal political interests, Fischer blames shootings in a Sikh temple on what he calls “liberals” engaging in direct hateful speech designed to strike fear into the uninformed as if Liberals would ever entertain such a horrific idea while maintaining any degree of sanity.  Fischer in one clip goes on to note that Democrats want slavery, thus dishing out “goodies” to African Americans to garner votes.   He accuses the African American community of being on the Democratic platform in exchange for welfare and other government handouts, likening the government and Democratic party to a “methadone clinic” hand out addicts their due.  Not only is this speech hateful toward Democratic party members, it degrades African Americans as though they only want what they can get from a party Fischer describes as “Jim Crow, KKK, Duke” associated people without recognizing that there are good, observant, dedicated Christians of positive repute engage in the Democratic party.  To suggest African Americans are unable to think for themselves and survive on government handouts is more prejudice than Duke, KKK and Jim Crow laws could ever be.  The suggestion that “Big Gay” goes directly after “religious” and that there is no tolerance within the Equality Movement, that they are hateful and angry.  It’s this kind of fantastic hateful prejudice spewed from a generally intolerant laughable organization publicly by Bryan Fischer that one can easily imagine the rhetoric that flows from his mouth on a daily basis.

Which begs the question:  Why is the organization he works for that calls itself the American Family Association, which should reflect family values and be relatively generally rated, be spewing such disgusting and terrible things in a medium where there might be a chance my child would hear such filth?  Because that’s how Fischer and the AFA chooses to fight it’s battles.  Allow me a moment to enlighten you fully on the organization that Chick-Fil-A gives money to in order to continue the battle against Equality for all.   In 1989, after a successful boycott campaign by the AFA, the store 7Eleven was forced to remove two monthly magazines that featured naked pictures of women which the AFA considered to be pornography.  Hoping to lead the campaign onward, the AFA then began to target Waldenbooks which, because they could, launched a counter movement for freedom of speech resulting in a lawsuit against the AFA.  Of course, the AFA put its frail hand upon its head and fainted on the Victorian couch of victimization, but suddenly stopped targeting Waldenbooks and associated publishing houses.  It got so ugly, Waldenbooks et al pressed RICO charges and everything was quickly settled out of court.  The AFA called on numerous occasions throughout the last 30 years have made attempts to call for a boycott of Disney for its annual “Gay Day” at the park that welcomes families and gays, lesbians, bisexuals and polysexuals.  They got nasty enough that they urged their followers to draw up against Disney, not buying movies or going to various Disney resorts, which failed so utterly that Disney thought that it hit a small drunk gnat on the roadway.   Probably the most heinous, terrible, unforgivable outrage ever perpetrated by the AFA was the release of the movie The Day They Kicked God Out of the Schools after the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007 that features God telling a student that the reason people are killed in schools is because God isn’t in schools anymore.  A gross and disgusting flicker of every single problem the AFA has with everything, espousing it as being taught by public schools which is not only a blatant lie, but an incredible testament to how far this organization will go to produce everything as someone else’s problem and everything as a sin.

Manipulation of facts, which is Bryan Fischer’s forte, along with a rather pitiful manipulation of propaganda in order to raise fear in those who are comfortable living in the insular created reality instead of the ones the rest of us are actively engaged in is not only shameful and terribly harmful, but it exceeds what should be considered as respectable behavior from an organization touting itself as a “family conscious” association.  What they are actually doing is an embarrassment to any real organization supportive of family structure, orientation, and closeness.  What the various dispensed propaganda suggests is that God would abandon anyone due to his presence being excluded in public schools.  I find taking a child to any religious outlet that teaches fear as a means to manipulate the young, developing minds of children to be nothing short of child abuse and constitutes parental right being relinquished of both parents regardless of religion.  Showing a child the movie produced by the AFA would suggest that God doesn’t help those in places that are secular because somehow he is unwanted there.  How cruel to suggest that God would, in any context of being, be that disgustingly fickle?  Obviously the AFA’s version of God is one that doesn’t care about his followers when they go to be missionaries in another country because that God is unwelcome there.  Really?  The absurdity of such a notion is so incredibly fatuous that it defies logic, undermines what God is supposed to project which is love, and again teaches impressionable children to live in a state of static fear that God won’t be there for them one day because of where they were and who they were near.

This is the association that Chick-Fil-A gives a donation to.  It should be appalling to anyone, believer or atheist, that such a hate group would be supported by anyone with even just one neuron in their head controlling breathing, heartbeat, and blinking.  Some Americans are just gullible.

 

 

On June 5, 2011 in Minnesota, CeCe McDonald and her friends were subjected to racist and hateful verbal attacks while passing a bar on their way to a local store.  CeCe was attacked by one of the women who announced she could “take them all on” who broke a bottle on her face causing an injury that required stitches on her cheek.  She was making an attempt to leave the scene by walking across the street when a man followed her.  Fearing for her life, CeCe defended herself against the man by stabbing him with a scissors.  The man later died.  She later received medical care, getting stitches on her cheek, and went two months in custody without a follow up appointment.   The prosecutor of the case, a man self proclaimed as the “Michael Jordan of prosecutors” ignored public interest to free CeCe and instead decided to prosecute “harder”.  Though the man she stabbed had a swastika on his chest, that fact was considered inadmissible evidence for the trial.  The prosecutor claimed it would incite undue anger at the victim of the crime.  Further, even though she defended herself with a weapon against someone who did not have one, the nature of the attack proceeding the stabbing, and the fact that violence had already injured her the prosecutor maintained his stance to convict her.  While I’m sure CeCe isn’t allowed to talk about the case, it seems to me from obvious deduction that a trial by jury could have easily resulted in a life sentence for murder.  Instead, Ms. McDonald took a plea agreement for second degree manslaughter which carries a prison term of 41 months.  What makes this case so very different is that CeCe McDonald is a corrected gender woman who was attacked after being called “nigger”, “chicks with dicks”,”faggot”, and it was suggested that CeCe dressed as she did so she could “rape” the man she eventually stabbed.

CeCe is serving her sentence in a men’s prison because her transition has not been completed.  While she and her supporters on a site dedicated to supporting CeCe are not interested in having her transferred to a female prison, most probably because her sentence is rather short, but are interested in having people who feel CeCe’s pain support her in prison by sending letters and books to her.  Guidelines for doing so can be found here.  The crux of the matter remains:  Would CeCe have incited the prosecutor’s wrath had she been a woman who needed not to transition?  Alas, that remains a mystery; however considering that a very obvious symbol tattooed on the victim’s chest was inadmissible and perhaps the nature of the dispute resulting in a violent confrontation should speak volumes to the public who may need information on the discrimination of corrected gender people, the plight that racism is alive and very well in America, and the hate gay, lesbian, bisexual, and polysexual people must endure in parts of America.  It is fair to note that this kind of discrimination goes on in backstreet and main street America every single day.  The results can be grim.  There are many who are unable to endure the prejudice of their communities when coming out who commit suicide every single day.  Such despair casts a shadow pall on all being created equal, the pursuit of happiness, and the rights to freedom afforded by the United States Constitution.

The argument runs long that being gay, lesbian, bisexual, polysexual and corrected gender is “abhorrent” in the eyes of their chosen “God”.   Equality for them is denied because they believe marriage should be between “one man and one woman”.   The very best example of bigotry and hatred was Huckabee’s Support Chick-Fil-A Day, which pointed in the face of every citizen of America and showed them you must conform to the majority’s narrow view of what you have the right to do in your own life.  It didn’t succeed in making me back down from supporting my sisters and brothers equality.  What it did do was prove that prejudice is alive and well in the US.   It proved that we had not come very far from our days of segregation, disallowing women to vote, and being shackled by others who hate with a righteous fervor.   A black woman going to school brought great anger in communities long ago and still do in some areas today.  A woman, who has every right to walk down the street with whomever she wishes and regardless of whether she was born a woman or not, is still not safe in America.   It’s a shame that our corrected gender sisters and brothers must contend with such danger every single day, much less our gay, lesbian, bisexual and polysexual ones too, because somewhere there is always someone willing to kill another person they view as a sinner, pervert, or enemy of the societal norms they are unwilling to evolve above.

I would like to take a moment to ask you to send an appropriate message to CeCe, using the guidelines provided, to let her know that she has many more sisters and brothers than she originally thought.  I can’t even imagine how terrible it is for her in prison around predators waiting for her moment of weakness.  I can’t imagine what it must be like to made to feel sorry for one’s pursuit of happiness, to be afraid every day that this could be the time I could be attacked, and that loneliness that surely comes from being confined like an animal.  The current state of our prison systems do not afford the luxury of rehabilitation, but instead offer new and painful ways to remain a criminal by forcing gang affiliation through which crimes are committed.  The perpetuation of criminal behavior in prison serves as another training ground to permit the criminal to achieve new and better crimes.  Some prisons, such as the one in Miami Dade, Florida, where rats and disgusting conditions subject prisoners to all kinds of bacterial infections.   How responsible are we as a nation to throw people away and expect them to pull themselves out of the trash can when we keep them in there?  We put the lid on the trash can and put it out of sight and mind.   I agree that some criminals are lifelong criminals, they do deserve life sentences in prison, but they also deserves some tool that may help them grow into a productive member of society.

Write CeCe and show our girl some LOVE!

 

 

 

There are fundamentals of business management that anyone running a corporation that is successful should know, especially a corporation like Chick-Fil-A and JC Penney.  To be successful, competitive and relevant any wise CEO knows that there are five major necessities to keep it all going.  1) Cash flow.  2) New Ideas.  3) Marketing.  4) Strong production.  5)Branding.   All these things are also symbiotic, too.  It’s important that you have cash flow which you must spend for good marketing in order to keep the brand relevant and attractive.  Keeping employees happy with cash flow leads to strong production, no matter what that business is.  From a restaurant to a tee shirt factory, happy employees means good products which leads to cash flow and possibly new ideas.  Marketing a product in a popular way, such as stock for stores that sell products not built or produced by them like a furniture store, defines the brand or the brand of store.   New ideas keeps the brand going, along with knowledge of marketing audience, so it’s important to have a strategy that hits the most people who will be buying your brand.  It’s a cycle of development, keeping the products relevant to supply and demand.  If there isn’t strong production, there’s no supply to equal demand for products or store stock.

There are five standard things that support the company’s five major necessities.  1) Customer service.  2) Productive salespeople and literature.  3) Community activity and community outreach programs.  4) Public visage or reputation.  5) Location (Website, store location, product availability, et al.)   Without these supports, companies often falter.  It’s often annoying when you get someone on the line for customer service and you can’t understand them and/or they can’t understand you.  Communication of a corporation (especially banks) representative is very important, that means appearance, too.   If the salesperson you are talking to is unclean, unkempt, disheveled and has poor knowledge of the products and what those products do the communication to the potential client and customer becomes a problem.   If customer service is aloof, unwilling to tackle problems or resolve issues and fails to deliver an equitable solution in order to maintain its client and customer base, the company winds up like Packard Bell…a distant memory.   If the company catalog, specifications literature, and/or product description fails to communicate clearly, easily, effectively and thoroughly, the chance of anyone paying attention to that product and products is slim.   When a corporation or company affects the community, like donating viable food to food banks or sponsoring the local fair et cetera, it should create a non-political bond with clients and customers that does not put that company on the cusp of decisive issues within communities.   It should never take an action that causes it harm with half or more of the target and current clients and customers.  Though sometimes, throughout the decades, there have been organized smearing campaigns.  A perfect example of this is what happened to Proctor and Gamble in the 80’s.   Due to its crescent moon and stars, and probably one or more upset former employees or customers, the rumor in conservative circles defined the company as Satanic as the ridiculous notion of “backward masking” (For those younger readers, backward masking was the usage of subliminal messages recorded backwards on albums of heavy metal music and The Beatles that can only be heard by playing the music backward.  This involved moving your record player backwards while the stylus was on the vinyl record.  I know, positively primitive, right?) and other 80’s scares like Satanic rituals occurring at day care centers leading to the witch hunt of workers who enchanted children via pedophilia littered ritual.  (Started by the tripe printed in a book called “Michelle Remembers” which has been proven to be false.)   A quick misstep by companies currently walking the razor edge of political views or hot-topic issues (equality for marriage, abortion, and other topics that strike emotional or public opinion chords could easily result in ruination, the boycott of the company’s products, and outright failure to maintain reliable clients and customers who may have longevity with the company often referred to as reliable income (income that a company supposes will continue because they’ve used that particular product forever).  Not only that, but a company that has shareholders may experience a sharp drop in value of shares resulting in loss of shares held by people that company has struggled to maintain.  Loss in share value also results in poor revenue, but that’s a subject for Economics 102, a future post that muddies the impact of Management Style.

So, let’s look at the recent Chick-Fil-A support day, not funded or directed by the corporation’s representative, but Mike Huckabee.  Thousands of people came to eat there because the company president supports a opinion hotbed organization directly against marriage equality for all people, the American Family Association.   Donations by the company to this organization damaged their view in the eyes of many people that want marriage equality.  The political nature of the argument for equality placed them in a precarious position.   The emotional hotbed it creates angered many people who enjoyed the product, I never ate there because I found the food greasy and under-seasoned, for a very long time and are now faced with making a decision to patronize the place or boycott it.  (It should be noted also that the beating of a corrected gender woman at a McDonald’s resulting in the firing of the person who took the video and not those who failed to intervene and stop it created a boycott that dented company earnings until the apathetic customer base decided to return.)   The average customer does not enjoy making a decision not to patronize a business based solely on the actions of ONE person, often the short-lived boycott hurts for a while until others decide to return.   Customers don’t like painful decisions and most make reactionary judgments due primarily to the nature of the reason for doing it.

However, this is a capitalistic economy where thousands and thousands of corporations donate money to organizations that may be questionable to a large percentage of its client and customer base.  More often than not, acknowledgement of such donations, including those to political candidates are generally buried in the “boring” section of the financial report they are required to supply to shareholders, the average shareholder may never even get to that part.  With the need of conservative extremists to wield their power and influence in order to prove to they are a force to be reckoned with and the need for insertion of theocratic ideals into the mainstream business and political realm, they certainly do make an effective bloc.  However, those interested in supporting equality issues are usually apathetic and therefore unwilling to show up in an equal bloc as revolutionary as the conservative extremist.   The fight back is rather slow if at all affecting bottom lines and branding popularity.   (When the contention of hanging chads and voter problems plagued the election of Bush over Gore the riot in the streets of America that should have happened failed to occur strongly due to apathetic public.)  JC Penney, who chose Ellen Degeneres as the spokesperson and marketing face of their store, a contingent of angry conservative extremists called One Million Moms screamed in protest.  When popularity and propulsion for the boycott failed, they called off their attack.  This is primarily due to the fact a majority of the public loves Ellen and her daytime show where a dancing audience has a grand old time with personality filled guests and gifts.   The JC Penney Marketing department had a good flow of research that produced positive results for a new and successful campaign.   Another good example of well planned branding was on Michael Phelps, who was pictured with a bong and slammed by media for being a marijuana user experienced a short burst of sponsors dropping him but really didn’t dent his reputation for long.  In fact, his popularity swooned when he competed in swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics and won golds for the USA.  People still cheered for him, regardless of a media frenzy on a picture.  Subway decided he was a reliable brand to use for their marketing and because of great research, it worked as an effective marketing campaign.

The matter at hand is, if a company desires less questionable hotbed reactions to their bottom line, they should probably stay out of politics and smear campaigns.  Instead of donating to representatives in political offices, it would be a wiser campaign to sponsor local sports, fairs, and food banks.   They should pick their brand representatives in marketing campaigns that results in income and not the issue of the decade that keeps both sides in a state of static boycott.   It should be especially noted that the president is not always a representative of the entire chain, that that representative may have as many functioning neurons as Dan Quayle and the rest of the employees are LGBTQP (the “P” is for polysexual people) teenagers hoping for a quick McJob to pass the summer by.  Either way, if you feel strongly one way or another way on the Chick-Fil-A debacle, it’s up to you where you spend your money.  If the way the company spends its money offends you, by all means let your money do the talking.  Stick to it.    To us LGBTQP people, it is a serious matter that requires our action lest one day we are forced to drink from homosexual labeled fountains or are divided from contact with the straight public.  It could happen, like Bush gained the Presidency over a tainted election and no one rioted.

 

 

 

Just days ago, President Obama announced his support of same sex marriage much to the chagrin of voters and Americans opposing equal rights for LGBT people. Many point to the convenience of “coming out” in an election year, the possible strategic nature of such an announcement, and accuse him of pandering to liberals and left leaning voters in order to attempt to secure their vote. Opinions zip around the internet and news organizations based primarily on speculation as really no one has the telepathic ability to determine why it happened now as opposed to earlier or later. Plenty of opponents and conservatives rally around Romney’s response that marriage should remain between one man and one woman, causing a huge debate via media outlets and mediums such as radio, YouTube, and pulpits to deliver messages of tolerance and intolerance even after North Carolina recently enacted Amendment One that defines marriage. It makes for great ratings with plenty of sensationalism and fact manipulating on both sides of the debate, which is neither helpful or productive. So, it begs the question: What now?

For some it’s a game changer, affecting their vote either for or against Obama based upon personal opinion and moralistic values. For others it makes no difference, neither swaying or influencing how their vote is to be cast. Agreed, the topic is hot and pushes buttons. Tempers can flare and sear, with some claiming parallels between the civil rights movement for blacks in the 60’s while others claim such determination insults blacks and revered civil rights activists of that era. The fact remains that, without lacking similarities, the civil rights of the LGBT community is subject to the same evolution of moralistic compass and values that the dissolution of segregation created. Even now, some forty years later, there are those who struggle against the acceptance that people of color (no matter which color that is) are entitled the exact same rights as any peer. The same can be said about the feminist movement, too; without ignoring strong parallels and the failure of others to evolve into acceptance of this. However many scripture quotes condemning any type of homosexuality regardless of the belief system fail to produce the necessary evolutionary process that will ensure that faith would survive beyond this decade or future centuries. However the common influence of new ideas that everyone actually might be created equally has grown exponentially from the 60’s but remains selective in popular conservative and right wing views to only heterosexual couples.

Siting religious and dogmatically dispensed morality straight out of religious doctrine and text fails to fully encompass unconditional love that is the basis of god-follower relationships. Insertion of fear triggers in order to control and manipulate lives to benefit or profit monetarily, socially, or culturally is a human creation not a divine one regardless of the texts’ content and delivery. Fear that exists in a relationship is not a relationship, regardless whether it’s god or an intimate relationship with a friend, mate, sibling, parent, spouse or potential spouse. It isn’t just about one’s orientation, it’s about one’s ability to accept just what unconditional love is and moving on that instead of wearing dogmatic blinders. It’s that mindset that violence based on the necessity of punishment isn’t punishment, it’s abuse. It’s that mindset that has to evolve and grow before people can move from self-righteous god fearer (no matter what that dogmatic principle is) to righteous god loving unconditional lover.

The frank absurdity that somehow homosexual relationship acceptance will lead to other perversions to being acceptable, such as bestiality or child molestation, echoes a fear of change that may lead to someone questioning their faith on a deeper level than surface scratching or even question their sexuality. The fact that that such a journey is so unimaginable to those fighting against marriage equality is telling of their inability to move beyond the idea that unconditional love is actually unconditional. The idea that there may not even be a god is an alien concept because of the tie of self worth and identity to a particular faith prevents free thought, true individuality and self esteem development that is self dependent and not religiously assigned.

I’ve also learned, in my lifetime, that the person speaking loudest against homosexuality is probably hiding or denying their own quest into the truth of their sexuality. It’s more important to conform into a predetermined life rather than live through the heart, being true to one’s self, or facing an ostracized familial or social relationship where self dependence and unknowns are more frightening than truth. When this happens, I am filled with a deep sadness because religion has destroyed that person beyond reasonable recognition and because that person is destroyed, they seek to destroy others.

The real issue of Obama supporting marriage equality is the inflexibility of others to evolve beyond predefined conditions and actually begin to think for themselves.

Just sayin’.

Linda Harvey, a social conservative, accuses gay men and lesbians of hating freedom, loving the east, hating Jesus Christ and his followers. In the description of the video is a link to hear the whole story if you so desire. I am not going to embed the entirety here as it is long, tedious, and full of misunderstanding. The failure to understand that there are gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and corrected gender people that love Jesus Christ enough to attend welcoming congregations and denominations whenever they can and remain active in church functions. Conservatives continue the bigoted campaign via YouTube, Facebook, websites, and protests grounded in the righteous indignation that these people should not have the same rights afforded to everyone by the US Constitution. Dissenters are quickly and efficiently declared “godless”, “freedom hating”, “sinners”, “perverts” and a myriad of colorful labels applied to the people who support equal rights and equal opportunities to end prejudice and hatred, bigotry and oppression, and judgments made by those that fail to understand.

As an atheist, I do not support attending any worship services of any kind. I am not intolerant of people who do, except those that actively use their tenets to wreak terror, bigotry, hatred and prejudice upon the fact I am a lesbian. The conservative agenda, which is to dominate all the aspects of American life and force their religious tenets upon all, is founded upon failure to understand and educate one’s self on the actual truths of homosexuality. They are unable to understand and unwilling to understand for the simple reasoning that it is written that it is “unnatural” and a “sin”, when there are many media outlets where the opposite is written. The foundation of their faith is a literary work full of lies, half-truths, ridiculous fairy tales, and improbabilities; which they consider to be infallible, yet other literary mediums produced by respected, well educated scientists, psychiatrists, and psychologists are disbelieved or ignored outright because of the failure to understand. Perhaps more accurately put: the unwillingness to understand, would be more applicable. That failure has evolved over the last two hundred years; failure to allow women to vote, failure to allow blacks to be considered human beings, failure to allow women the right to employment, failure to allow the right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term or not and now failure to allow gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and corrected gender people have one thing in common. Foundation for each was a bronze age book, that was more important than any other literature that could prove its answers as misleading, incorrect, and fantasy. Though one, who is observant and intelligent, would posit that granting the rights of women and blacks would have been example enough to evolve ancient morality codes within the document; this is not an actuality, instead, it is reason for subscribers to go underground with their incorrect, inappropriate ideals.

I do have a friend, who I love very dearly like a sister, who attends church, bible study, and church activities who is a lesbian. Her church is a welcoming congregation. While I am tolerant of her faith, she does like to praise god often for the ridiculous. I have witnessed attacks on her by conservatives who disagree that her “behavior” and “love of god” is misplaced. While I hold no faith, I do tolerate that she has the right to believe. I have defended her multiple times and will continue to defend her. It is their failure to understand that their deity would love and accept a lesbian is primitive, unattractive, and often laced with such abhorrent hatred that I cannot understand how they define themselves as observant Christians who love Jesus when they obviously have learned nothing from his teachings. The question is: Why do they fail to understand?

Three reasons. The first, there is a psychological need some people possess to remain superior and they use tools in order to prop up that superiority. Those people are using their religion to nurture the need, primarily because it is the most simplest prop to use. One who subscribes to this belief is exonerated from explanations that are logical, rational and reasonable for one’s position or righteousness. Others use the same religion as an excuse for inappropriate behavior, bigotry, prejudice, and violence to maintain that superiority complex.

The second reason is some people place value on societal acceptance of an assemblage. It is my opinion that early colonial Americans settling were without the structure of family upon arriving. The purpose of the church became a societal, familial unit. Compliance with the societal, familial unit provided by religion is necessary in order to preserve it, therefore hive-like behavior is expected of the membership and most tow the line lest they become vagrant. Of course, religious leaders manipulate the membership by perpetuating this unit, using societal consequences for nonconforming members that serves as an illustration of the punishment levied to prevent independent activity, thought, and values. The need for the unit to survive, which is the basest instinct of all beings, retards evolution from the primitive into the modern.

The third reason is that due to the insular nature of the unit, the strictest morals and tenets are employed as a means to keep adherents from developing independence from religion. The religious conservatives feel that the status quo they enjoy within the insular unit will be forced to evolve and control of the subscriber will be lost to ideas that “sinful” and “worldly” values and morals are more important than tenets and fairy tales. This fear propels the conservative ministers to apply the proper amount of fear to retain their superiority, societal unit, and insular, delusional surreality that supports them both monetarily and egotistically. Even their supported candidates for political office will parrot the fear-mongering in order gain popularity, thus achieving superiority. The cyclical nature of these three reasons are self sustaining, as there is very investment of time, effort and energy into maintaining righteous in the eyes of their fellow conservatives, control of the masses, and manipulation of minds. The conservatives expect this behavior and status quo from their leaders, no matter what they tout, as long as it is the popular opinion of the subscriber.

The failure to understand is based upon the dependent’s need to conform, is perpetuated by fear, and mired with ancient morals that no longer apply to the mature, independent, rational society around them. It could, quite possibly, be the most mournful waste of human intellect, kindness, and growth ever. As I have said countless times: Argue for your limitations and they are yours.

In American culture, sexual activity is considered to be “dirty” and subject is considered to be “taboo” in various conservative circles, including evangelical congregations. This seems to be a remnant of puritan past, yet sexual inappropriate behavior includes full-body hugs which are being replaced with “Christian side hugs”–a ridiculous and possibly the silliest definition of “sexual contact” I have seen in my entire life. However the function of sexual intercourse is to reproduce, which is correctly identified by conservatives. It is pleasurable also, for if it wasn’t, no one would willingly engage in sexual intercourse. For prudish and puritanical reasons, having sex without the reproduction initiative is sinful because it is “hedonistic” and “lustful” which is some of the reason why “Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed” in their fairytale tome of dimwitted if not nonsensical “morality”. Even pleasuring one’s self is sinful as it does not promote the whole “be fruitful and multiply” message repeated ad nauseam.

To those of us unfettered by religious dogmatic “morality” define “sexual contact” much differently. Hugs are not sexually suggestive, but an affectionate embrace between family members, children and friends regardless of sexual orientation. There is no hidden sexual agenda when embracing unless of course one’s hands linger down toward a respectable, attractive “honey” ass. Kisses that linger are displays of affection, not essentially sexual in nature. Making love to one’s sexual partner involves foreplay, oral sex, and sexual positions more pleasurable and fun than the default “missionary” position conservatives employ as being “pure and acceptable”. Lust to the unfettered is a wonderful thing that is explored and shared by two consenting adults. Masturbation teaches one what touches and motions pleasure one to delightful, shivering orgasm or relieves the the urge for sexual intercourse when a suitable partner is unavailable. There is no mysterious, ominous, gigantic thumb in the sky ready to smear us when we enjoy real sexual contact, sexual intercourse and sexual pleasure.

Perversions are defined by many Christians as homosexuality, sex before marriage, oral sex, anal sex, S & M, polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, swinging, wife swapping for sex, husband swapping for sex, voyeuristic pleasure, and almost all positions other than the missionary position mentioned above. To those unfettered by the constrictive definition of religious dogma consider sexual activity between consenting adults, yet are often accused of being sympathetic and understanding of sexual contact, sexual intercourse, and sexually inappropriate behavior between adults and children which is not only untrue, but serves as an insult. Many conservatives believe that the legality of same-sex marriage will usher in the legality of “poly” love, bestiality, and child molestation. They use fear and misinformation to keep their congregation in a hysterical state against that which they label “perverted”.

Why? For generations upon generations, the Christian dogma has controlled every aspect of people’s lives. From the prevention of using birth control to how one engages in sexual intercourse have all been directed by ministers, priests, and popes. Many people were satisfied to have their churches define life, love, and acceptable sexual behavior for them without any of them engaging in what was truly pleasurable for them. In the several last decades or so, the information technology improved drastically, bringing like-minded people together and shedding light on the knowledge that having sex is a natural thing, adult pornography is entertaining, and the evolution of morality also redefined for an individual what perversion actually is. It has become acceptable to have individual and independent thought, redefining morality with logical conclusions and reasonable, rational and responsible decisions on a secular scale instead of one fat with overbearing and fanatical religious commandments, busybody minsters, priests and popes enjoying a type of voyeurism, and prudish ideology that include nudity being “sinful” and “shameful”. There are churches and temples out there that have actually evolved with the modern world around them instead of clinging to some “dark age” mythology and Bronze Age “wisdom” scribbled by people looking for a way to manipulate and control while capitalizing on tithes and offerings.

The Christian conservative stranglehold on society is slipping away and they are in a panic state. If sexual intercourse can be redefined as morals evolve, more people will shirk off the yoke of dogmatic irrationality. They struggle against change because with change comes smaller and smaller audiences, smaller and smaller tithes, less and less Cadillacs and Mercades in the driveway, and no chance of regaining the necessary advantage over the people to keep them in the pews and dependent on the church to define and live their lives for them. The Sexual Revolution has made its mark and now The Information Age is making its mark. Religion unable to evolve will eventually be weeded out by natural selection as an unnecessary meme to promote the survival of the species. It may not come to pass in my lifetime, but soon a secular society will be more important than theocratic one. What a wonderful day that will be.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1427926

“Tax exemptions for churches are vitally important, because it doesn’t make sense to penalize organizations that help serve the community and that don’t exist for profit. That’s certainly true with this church,” Stanley argues. “The taxing authorities in this case determined that the facilities were not integral to a religious purpose of the church, but the government is ill equipped to determine what is and what isn’t a legitimate religious use.”–Eric Stanley of the ADF

Tax exemptions for church is not vitally important. It’s a business and should be treated like a business because: A) they pay their pastors to lead the church, B) church funds are raised by tenets that expressly force the parishioner to give 10% of their yearly income to the church, C) they continuously gift monies to lobbyist entities, legal entities, and political candidates in order to press Christian issues and morality on the public at large. In essence, the church does make money and spends that money on things that affect local, state and federal law while habitually protesting and paying for “tea party” transportation to protest events. Other “churches” (coughcoughcoughChurchofScientologycoughcoughcough) use their collected sums for the hiring of nuisance reporters, lawyers to litigate, private investigators, and equipment used to capture video to annoy perceived threats or trouble sources. Other churches use their money to manufacture tracts and other literature which serves as a product. They provide services for fees. That is, by the barest diction possible, the definition of a business, not a “not-for-profit” entity. By “divine decree”, Christians press their beliefs into state, local, and federal law as well as public school curriculum, feeling all the while that is their right to do so even though there are specific Constitutional amendments that divides church from the state. There’s more hypocrisy on the way:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1427884

Article: “The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently refused to address the constitutionality of James Corbett’s comments made in an Orange County high school regarding Christianity and creationism. In a lawsuit filed by Capistrano Valley High School student Chad Farnan and his parents regarding the statements, the court ruled that the teacher had the right to verbally attack Christianity in his advanced placement history class.”

“I think this is a perfect scenario for the court to be able to address a very serious question of hostility toward religion in the public school classroom in particular; and … as the court said, there are very few cases addressing hostility cases in the public school context.”–Robert Tyler, with the AFF.

The redefinition of the Freedom of Religion Amendment by Christians is that they are immune to criticism, “verbal attacks” and any kind of speech that sheds a negative connotation of their religion, thus “rightfully” limiting the Freedom of Speech Amendment. Yet, when their language is clearly bigoted against people who support LGBT rights, are LGBT people, support evolution, and are basing their conclusions that “creationism” is mythical on science; one is supposed to turn away and remain complacent to their oppression. One cannot challenge their opinions and outdated morality, because they feel that they are entitled to it and that it is immune to scrutiny for that is exactly what has been afforded them for last two thousand or more years. It is expected that atheist and other deists quietly respect their religious views while they are permitted to trumpet loudly against atheists and other deists for being sinful, unnatural, or blasphemous. Resistance against them is supposed to remain quiet, as they are the authority of all things “spiritual” and political, moral and just, and right and wrong; they hold all the answers to the “creation” and the universe, and they are the ones destined to rule the planet. All the while they ignore Jesus when he said that the meek shall inherit the earth. They are everything BUT meek.

One cannot have their cake and eat it too when it comes to non-profit, tax exempt church designation. You affect politics, lawmaking, and public school curriculum using money donated by your parishioners; you are litigious actively to press ancient, obsolete morality and tenets using funds “donated” that are in fact mandated by doctrine; you produce products such as tracts and the “holy bible’s” multiple ridiculous translations to be consumed by the parishioner as well as the subtle “push” for others to follow your creeds, doctrine, and tenets; you hire expensive lawyers to forward your agenda; you place countless advertisements on television, internet sites, radio, and other media outlets for your church’s services; and you are quick to manufacture ridiculous websites that plea for money to keep whatever Christian organization you use to forward your agenda as well as using media to manipulate minds unwilling to research the truth in your articles written to sensationalize the subject of the day, week, month and year. Any business you can point to in America does exactly the same thing. If it walks like a duck, quacks, and has physical characteristics of a duck, it is a duck. What was the comment? I know: “You can put lipstick on a pig and it’s still a pig.” It applies here.

Churches do not stay out of the business of the state, they do not recognize the division between church and state, and they constantly overstep boundaries set up by those who do not wish to be oppressed by a theocracy to preserve the secular nature of state and federal laws, mandates, or Constitutional freedoms. Some are supportive of Dominionism, which is a nice way to describe a theocracy, though they have since jumped off the wagon when the average public found out about it. They want all laws to reflect the laws of the Bible, even though the whole of the biblical law is ignored by most. Now that they have their corporations protected from their obligation to pay taxes, the use their funds to keep “the little engine that could” of Christian Right Wing oppression, bigotry, and prejudice chugging up the one of the various “Mountains” they choose to take over. (I will make a post later today explaining Dominionism to you in short form.) Acting like a corporate duck immune to taxation, the abuse of the separation of church and state is so violated by the Right Wing is so egregious even the layman can see it, feel it, and know it because their rights are slowly being eroded away in favor of the biblical “cherry picking” morality and law set forth by the “imaginary friend” of millions of people. Not only is it ridiculous, it is a frightening concept to imagine life under the thumb of this type of religion’s oppressive thumb.

The Moral of This Post: Be very careful who you vote for and churches are businesses not charitable non-profit tax exempting entities.

Read and decide for yourself. (IMPORTANT NOTE: The Independent Scientology movement as well as the Free Zone have all welcomed me and my wife to their fold and has never said homosexuality was an aberration. EVER.)

“The sexual pervert (and by this term Dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all forms of deviation in Dynamic Two such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism, etc., and all down the catalog of Ellis and Krafft-Ebing) is actually quite ill physically. Perversion as an illness has so many manifestations that it must be spread through the entire gamut of classes…He is very far from culpable for his condition, but he is also so far from normal and so extremely dangerous to society that the tolerance of perversion is as thoroughly bad for society as punishment for it…Hence the pervert, containing hundreds and hundreds of vicious engrams, has had little choice between being dead and being a pervert. But with an effective science to handle the problem, a society which would continue to endure perversion and all its sad and sordid effects doesn’t deserve to survive.” Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Pages 125-126

Email: “Dear (name removed) , Thank you for your question. What it says in Dianetics is what it says – it is what the author says. However I also want to let you know our views on Homosexuality. The fundamental belief of Scientology is that man is a spiritual being and lives lifetime after lifetime. Our views are all based on that principle of Scientology and not on the sexual orientation of a person’s body or the body itself. Because of this, sexuality is not widely debated in Scientology and we do not participate in the public debate about sexual orientation. We also do not discriminate against parishioners because of their sexual orientation. All who seek spiritual enlightenment are welcome. By way of a longer answer, in Scientology we know that be increasing a person’s spiritual awareness, by increasing his ethics level, he will then make decisions that are more beneficial to all. As an individual progresses in Scientology he increasingly thinks and acts in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number, rather than just for himself, and he learns for himself that the more responsible his decisions are the better and happier life becomes. He learns that there are wrong ways to go about things and right ways to go about things. This is what Scientology addresses. We do not hold that moral choices can be enforced by dictate or decree. We hold that the condition of the individual can improve so he makes the right decisions. The Scientology marriage ceremony is traditional and addresses a union between a man and a woman. In today’s liberal society, the Church encourages ethical relationships. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, (name removed)”

Paul Haggis Letter To Tommy Davis (Exerpts) “Tommy, As you know, for ten months now I have been writing to ask you to make a public statement denouncing the actions of the Church of Scientology of San Diego. Their public sponsorship of Proposition 8, a hate-filled legislation that succeeded in taking away the civil rights of gay and lesbian citizens of California – rights that were granted them by the Supreme Court of our state – shames us…I called and wrote and implored you, as the official spokesman of the church, to condemn their actions. I told you I could not, in good conscience, be a member of an organization where gay-bashing was tolerated. In that first conversation, back at the end of October of last year, you told me you were horrified, that you would get to the bottom of it and “heads would roll.” You promised action. Ten months passed. No action was forthcoming. The best you offered was a weak and carefully worded press release, which praised the church’s human rights record and took no responsibility. Even that, you decided not to publish.The church’s refusal to denounce the actions of these bigots, hypocrites and homophobes is cowardly. I can think of no other word. Silence is consent, Tommy. I refuse to consent…But I reached a point several weeks ago where I no longer knew what to think. You had allowed our name to be allied with the worst elements of the Christian Right. In order to contain a potential ‘PR flap’ you allowed our sponsorship of Proposition 8 to stand. Despite all the church’s words about promoting freedom and human rights, its name is now in the public record alongside those who promote bigotry and intolerance, homophobia and fear…The fact that the Mormon Church drew all the fire, that no one noticed, doesn’t matter. I noticed. And I felt sick. I wondered how the church could, in good conscience, through the action of a few and then the inaction of its leadership, support a bill that strips a group of its civil rights…And in it I saw you deny the church’s policy of disconnection. You said straight-out there was no such policy, that it did not exist. I was shocked. We all know this policy exists. I didn’t have to search for verification – I didn’t have to look any further than my own home…To see you lie so easily, I am afraid I had to ask myself: what else are you lying about?…You even felt free to publish secrets from the confessional in Freedom Magazine – you just stopped short of labeling them as such, probably because you knew Scientologists would be horrified, knowing you so easily broke a sacred vow of trust with your parishioners. How dare you use private information in order to label someone an “adulteress?” You took Amy Scobee’s most intimate admissions about her sexual life and passed them onto the press and then smeared them all over the pages your newsletter! I do not know the woman, but no matter what she said or did, this is the woman who joined the Sea Org at 16! She ran the entire celebrity center network, and was a loyal senior executive of the church for what, 20 years? You want to rebut her accusations, do it, and do it in the strongest terms possible – but that kind of character assassination is unconscionable…Frankly, I had to look no further than your refusal to denounce the church’s anti-gay stance, and the indefensible actions, and inactions, of those who condone this behavior within the organization. I am only ashamed that I waited this many months to act. I hereby resign my membership in the Church of Scientology.”

So there you have it. Tommy obviously has interesting ideas of what “ethical relationships” might be, but carefully worded his response to Paul Haggis with the telling ring of silence. Do you really want to be a part of an organization that if you piss them off, they will publish your auditing records for the whole world to see? Do you really want that for yourself?

Link to Paul Haggis full letter of resignation: http://www.scientology-cult.com/declarations-of-independence/59-paul-haggis/158-paul-haggis-resigns-from-church-of-scientology.html

un·nat·u·ral (n-nchr-l) adj. 1. In violation of a natural law. 2. Inconsistent with an individual pattern or custom. 3. Deviating from a behavioral or social norm: an unnatural attachment. 4. Contrived or constrained; artificial: smiled in an unnatural manner. 5. In violation of natural feelings; inhuman.

nat·u·ral [nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl] adjective 1. existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge. 2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process. 3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty. 4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments. 5. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land. 6. growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation. 7.having undergone little or no processing and containing no chemical additives: natural food; natural ingredients. Compare organic ( def. 11 ). 8. having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc. 9. of, pertaining to, or proper to the nature or essential constitution: natural ability. 10. proper to the circumstances of the case: a natural result of his greed. 11. free from affectation or constraint: a natural manner. 12. arising easily or spontaneously: a natural courtesy to strangers. 13. consonant with the nature or character of. 14. in accordance with the nature of things: It was natural that he should hit back. 15. based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind: natural justice. 16. in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not nusual or exceptional. 17. happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, etc. 18. related only by birth; of no legal relationship; illegitimate: a natural son. 19. related by blood rather than by adoption. 20. based on what is learned from nature rather than on revelation. 21. true to or closely imitating nature: a natural representation. 22. unenlightened or unregenerate: the natural man. 23. being such by nature; born such: a natural fool. 24. Music a. neither sharp nor flat. b. changed in pitch by the sign ♮. 25. not treated, tanned, refined, etc.; in its original or raw state: natural wood; natural cowhide. 26. (of a horn or trumpet) having neither side holes nor valves. 27. not tinted or colored; undyed. 28. having a pale tannish or grayish-yellow color, as many woods and untreated animal skins. 29. Cards a. being a card other than a wild card or joker. b. (of a set or sequence of cards) containing no wild cards. 30. having or showing feelings, as affection, gratitude, or kindness, considered part of basic human nature. 31. afro ( def. 1 )

At no point in either of these definitions, is listed homosexuality. Homosexuality is not exhibited in either definition, nor is it alluded to if one were to take the definitions without applying biblical, Qur’anic, or other religious text manufactured principals. If one, being independent in cerebration, applies this cognition to the definitions the realistic application of genuine human behavior and processes; homosexuality as a deviancy listed by the commentator would be unacceptable. Moralistic compilation did not manifest solely in the religious volumes, but evolved from the need of the survival of the clan as an intact and functional unit. Religion was created formulated to explain the unexplainable in order to define the nature around them, manipulate and control the masses for financial, societal and political gain, and to instill safeguards that would insulate the religion from expanding into modernistic values and morals in an attempt to insure it’s survival. Religion that is inflexible is the murderer of independent thought as it directly requires adherents to apply moralistic values that are contrary to natural ones developed by years of tribal evolution and necessity. It introduces unnatural moralistic values and ideals that fit only the demands and functionality of the religion and to guarantee its survival among the generation next. It is, if you will, a self-perpetuating destruction of evolution into scientific interpretation of mysteries once considered inexplicable. Science is the murderer of religion, dispelling the myths of religious tomes and introducing exegesis.

Morals are not birthed by religious texts. It would be imbecilic to imply that is does, ignoring the scientific verisimilitude while ferociously coherent to obsolete moralistic values. The knowledge that breeds intellect and proper deductive qualities is directly incompatible with religion. Information and instruction into the process that dissolves religious profanity and surrealistic idiocy is met with scorn, accusations of “evil” ulterior motives, and general resistance cited through religious text. Religion disputes modern, proven theories because its evolution is contrary to its survival. Evolving beyond Bronze Age ideals, morals, and tenets spells the death of deities and their troublesome dogma is impossible because being complacent is required by religion. inflexibility, insular societal relationships, deference to the divine, and inaction supported by the “action” of “prayer” breeds a sort of status quo that discharges the action necessary to evolve. Change is viewed as “sinful” and “godless”. The fear-mongering tenets prevent one from independent thought because that undermines the necessary survival techniques of religion. “Hell” is directly designed to be the consequence for actions that explain that the earth is not flat, the universe does not orbit earth, the creation theory posed by texts is ridiculous. That fear is so engrained that one still experiences fear of “Hell” even after disbelief in deities is achieved. When one graduates to the realization that such a place is nonexistent, one’s apprehension dissolves into nothingness.

If one would pontificate less and subtract the entanglements of religious “morality”, evolution into a freethinking society would be simplified. The priority of the church body is to survive and it cannot survive in a environment that is knowledgeable and reasonable, competent and questioning, and logical and rational. The mysteries, folklore, and utopian promises of religion is no longer a feasible option when all its persuasiveness is discredited and debunked by sagacity. To wit: all it takes is several hours time and good a search engine to find out that the truth really does set one free.