The More I Learn About God, The More I Love My Dog

I’ve always loved animals. When I was about 7 or 8 years old, I used to rescue every critter that crossed my path, trying to save them from the cruel world. I was successful at bringing back to health some of them; but more often than not they died while in my care… I cried for every single one of the animals I was not able to “save” but that didn’t deterred me in my efforts to help them. I was born that way.

I was raised a Catholic, but my family didn’t go to church too often. My grandfather was a socialist atheist who offered me a different perspective from what was being hammered into my brain while I was attending catechism. My grandfather was very wise and didn’t push me into believing what he believed in; he subtlety gave me a different point of view.

My mother also played an important role in my upbringing; she allowed me to be myself even when she didn’t understand half of the things I was doing. Not once did she tried to deter me from my quest of saving every creature I thought need saving, including humans.

When I was about 10 years old or less, I found a mother and three little kids that were begging on the steps of the church I used to attend. I used to go alone, as my family didn’t enjoy attending church as I previously mentioned. Seeing this mother and her little kids, dirty, dressed in rags broke my heart. I couldn’t understand how people were walking out of church pass them as if they were invisible. This mother was asking for money to feed her kids so I went up to her and brought the whole family home for lunch. I asked my mother to sit them at our table, share our food with them and using our china and silverware. My mother did as I asked her, without a frown and with a big smile on her face. She made them feel welcomed and this poor mother was so grateful that to this day I remember her gratitude. After they left, my mother did reprimanded me, not for offered them food but because I sat them at our table and they – according to my mother – could have germs and she said she was sure they had lice and I could get “infected.” But she didn’t mind my altruistic inclinations; actually she was proud of them.

My stepfather loved to enrich my brain with books. He bought me every book he could find and loved to see me devouring the books he so happily found for me. I read every single one, from Sci-Fi to history books. I’m very thankful that he not only helped developed my brain, but he encouraged my appetite for learning.

When my grandfather passed away I was heartbroken as he and I were very close. But the thought of him going to hell tormented me. I went to see my priest and shared those dark and fearful thoughts with him, I was hoping he could comfort me and tell me that my grandfather was a good man and therefore, regardless of his religious views, he was going to go to heaven. To my surprise, he told me that unless he had accepted Jesus in his heart before he died, he was condemned for eternity to hell. I rejected this; I couldn’t accept that a good man, a righteous man was going to burn in hell for eternity. What type of arrogant, narcissist God was this that a good man was sent to hell while a criminal or murderer that “accepted Jesus in his heart” before dying was welcomed in heaven? So my search to prove the priest wrong began at the tender age of 11.

I read every theology book I could get my hands on, which was a difficult task since I lived in a Communist country… but I found them, hidden in some libraries or in my stepfather’s book collection. I read them all. The more I read, the more convinced I became that God was just a figment of the imagination; a reason to justify terrible things and a way to manipulate the weak and a method to control the masses.

I do believe in a force, a universal energy force; an energy that we all have within us. But the concept of a god that is there, judging everything, choosing and picking who is good and who is not, based on how much they adore him is nonsense.

Today, so many years later, I am agnostic tending into atheism. When I see what the religious right is doing to this country, when I see how hateful and pompous the religious institutions are and how they manipulate their congregation into crushing other’s rights, the more I am leaning into atheism… Throughout history many crimes against humanity have taken place and most, if not all, were inflicted on humanity in the name of God. It is happening to this day.

This is why after so much reading and after so many years have gone by, the more I learn about god... the more I love my dog.

   

Legislative Rape

“Legislative findings regarding abortion.—

(1) The Legislature acknowledges that all persons are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that first among these is their right to life.

(2) The Legislature finds that all human life comes from the Creator, has an inherent value that cannot be quantified by man, and begins at conception.

(3) The Legislature finds that the United States Constitution expresses no qualification for, or limitation on, the protection of human life by laws passed by state legislatures which regard human life as the most fundamental gift from God and deserving of paramount importance among all other unalienable rights expressed or implied in the United States Constitution.

(4) The Legislature finds that personal liberty is not a license to kill an innocent human life under any provision of the United States Constitution.

(5) The Legislature finds that once human life begins, there is a compelling state interest in protecting the natural course of its development from that moment through birth. Any act of a person detrimental to an unborn human life, when not necessary in defense of the life of the mother bearing such unborn life, which unnaturally terminates that unborn life, is a deprivation of that unborn child's unalienable right to life.”

The above is part of the text of Bill HB 395 introduced by Florida Representative Van Zant and co-sponsored by Ahern; Baxley; Broxson; Gaetz; Grant; Ingram; La Rosa; Mayfield; Patronis; Perry; Pigman; Raburn; Stone in Florida's State Congress in an effort to ban abortion.

When Van Zant claims that “The Legislature acknowledges that all persons are endowed by their Creator,” he is assuming that every single legislator believes in God, this might or might not be true but since only 14 legislators, including Van Zant, are sponsoring this bill and there are 160 legislators in Florida State Congress we don't really know. He also assumes that all Legislators believe that life begins at conception, and we don’t know that either. On that same sentence, he mentions that life is amongst the first “unalienable rights” but makes no mention whatsoever about the pursue of happiness or liberty. It seems that we don’t have the freedom (liberty) to pursuit happiness if our happiness interferes with the Right Wingers’ point of view.

Van Zant claims that the Constitution of the United States “express no qualification for, or limitation on, the protection of human life by laws passes by state legislature which regard human life as the most fundamental gift from God and deserving of paramount importance among all other unalienable rights expressed or implied in the United States Constitution.” If such statement is true, why do we have the death penalty in the State of Florida and in many other States in the Union? Are we allowed to pick and choose who can die and who can’t? Is that life, if unwanted by society, a gift from "God" that we can get rid of but, if unwanted by the carrier (mother) then is a gift that must be kept? Who anointed these legislators with a direct line to Nature’s God?

There is only one instance where the word “LIFE” is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and that’s on Amendment V and in the Constitution you will find it on the last paragraph of Article III, Section 3, that’s the one and only instance.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The above text, which is engraved in all of our memories and which moves us because of its conviction, it’s not and it has never been part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or any other document other than the Declaration of Independence. I’m really surprised of how many legislators – who think they are so smart as to know exactly when life begins – do not know this and if they do, they are purposely misconstruing the sentence to confuse the ignorant people that cannot differentiate between The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.

The Declaration of Independence is a document that was written by the Founding Fathers enumerating the reasons why the colonies were severing their ties with England. The documents that gave the citizens of the new independent nation their unalienable rights were the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Neither one of these documents grants anyone the right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness; those are rights that we all want to have, but must be obtained by each individual and not provided by the government. In other words, it’s a right that we must earn and fight for. Government must not obstruct, deny, interfere or prohibit a person from obtaining them but it is not up to the government to dictate what life, liberty or happiness means for each and every individual of this or any other country. Government must not impose on each individual their perception of liberty or happiness as each and every person on this planet has a different vision of what this might be. And government should not impose their religious views on the people.

Van Zant persists in claiming that personal liberty is part of the Constitution and decided to add that such personal liberty does not gives anyone license to kill an innocent human life under any provision of the Constitution. He is right, because nowhere in the Constitution are any of these words mentioned, neither is the distinction of “innocent” mentioned in any of the historical documents mentioned above. If such words were part of any of these documents, then the government of the United States and some of the States of this great nation of ours have been ignoring it when they, to this very day, continue to sentence people to death – and we all know that not every human being that has been killed by the States were guilty of any crime… DNA has proven this repeatedly.

Van Zant fails to accept and recognize that there is a separation of Church and State; if he wants to preach… I suggest he does that at his church and leave the rest of us alone.

“The Legislature finds that once human life begins, there is a compelling state interest in protecting the natural course of its development from that moment through birth. Any act of a person detrimental to an unborn human life, when not necessary in defense of the life of the mother bearing such unborn life, which unnaturally terminates that unborn life, is a deprivation of that unborn child's unalienable right to life.”

That sentence is the most truthful sentence throughout the bill. It clearly says and mentions what is sacred for people like Van Zant: The Embryo. It says clearly that their interest is protecting the natural course of “its development from that moment (fertilization/conception) through birth,” the Right Wing stops caring once the fetus is born. Their focus of interest is the fetus while it’s in the womb, because it is that fetus that allows these sexually obsessed men to feel superior by imposing, controlling and subjugating women to their power. It’s legislative rape, the ONLY rape where there will never be a risk of getting pregnant by the rapist, but where a woman gets raped by a mob hiding behind the safety of Congress; a rape perpetrated in the name of god.

Of Values and Vaginas… or is it the Value of Vaginas?

As I have been doing, I am continuing reviewing Mitt Romney’s “issues” as cited in his website, I will give my opinion of his comments about “Values.” This section is extensive and I will break it in three sections, today I will review the first section of those values: “Abortion”

We all know that there is not one single Republican candidate that is openly pro-choice; even if personally they might sympathize or agree with the pro-choice movement they will never say this publicly because that would represent the end of their political career. I do believe that Romney is truthful when he says he is pro-life and I applaud him for it. However, Romney claims that “almost all Americans recognize that abortion is a problem.” I do not agree, at least not completely. I agree abortion is a problem but I think that when he refers to “all Americans” he means his base, since this issue has been a constant battle between the parties and groups. Romney believes that people of “both political parties” know that more than a million abortions a year cannot “be squared with a good heart” and perhaps he is right but, are those “all Americans” ready to offer and approve an economical and financial support to the millions of babies that would be born if the mothers wouldn’t end an unwanted pregnancy? I seriously doubt it. There is nothing more sacred to a Republican than a fetus but a child that is alive should never be a burden to society. They believe that the mother should deal with it after all no one told her to open her legs, “she should have held an aspirin between her knees” instead of being so irresponsible, they would say.

On the same subject, Romney says that he believes life begins at conception and that he wants the laws of this country to reflect his views. He proposes that the next step to right what he believes is wrong is to overturn Roe v. Wade because that law was the result of “judicial activism” and the decision to decide if an abortion should or should not be legal should be left to the people and not unelected judges. The problem I find with his opinion and that of pro-lifers is that they want the law to change based on their own opinion and views in complete disregard to the opinions, views and rights of the opposition. Abortions have been performed since the beginning of time when a woman decided not to have a child and did everything possible to end that unwanted pregnancy. Terminating a pregnancy in a safe environment by a professional will only serve to prevent losing two lives instead of only one. The only reason pro-lifers are against a woman having an abortion is because it is against their religious believes, nothing else. These same people have no problem enforcing and supporting the death penalty and some of them couldn’t care less about human life; we have seen too often in the news how they are willing to kill practicing abortion doctors, their staff and the women who go to their offices seeking professional help to end a pregnancy. Making abortions legal and accessible to any woman that needs one should not be based on religious views; if your religion and beliefs prevent you from having an abortion then don’t have one. Is your religious belief that by having an abortion a person is committing a capital sin? Let them burn in hell. If you don’t agree or approve of terminating a pregnancy, no one will force you to have one however, if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, then you are imposing your personal and religious beliefs upon the rest of the nation. The law should never be based on religious beliefs and personal views; that is what churches are there for.

If elected, Mitt Romney will also promote health care workers to “follow their conscience” instead of the Hippocratic Oath; allowing them to refuse performing an abortion if they personally don’t agree with this practice. I don’t really have a problem with this; after all, I think that if you are a neurosurgeon you will never have to perform an abortion. If you, on the other hand, are an OBGYN you probably can perform abortions but I doubt you will be forced to perform an abortion. If there is such a probability, I believe we have enough religious hospitals in this country where these doctors can work at and of course, most OBGYNs have their own private practice. 

Mitt will also revoke funding for abortion advocates such as Planned Parenthood. I truly hope that means that he will support increasing the funds for Medicaid, Food stamps, HUD and Welfare so the millions of children that will be born into impoverished homes can at least go to a doctor and have decent nutrients as they grow up. But we know that will never happen, republicans are against abortions but they are also against supporting what in their opinion are social “parasites” living off the system.

But he is not content with controlling the vaginas of American women, oh no! He proposes that America should expand their vaginal obsession to China. Who on earth does the Chinese government think they are restricting women from having another 20 million babies in an already over-populated country? How dare China impose any control over their population? They should be like us, imposing control over the American vaginas to force them to keep popping kids as if raising children and providing them with a decent life was free! I must ask you… what is Romney’s obsession with China? Is this a tactic he would use if (may the Spaghetti Monster have mercy on us!) he becomes President to evade paying our debt to China?

Romney closes the “Abortion Value” (didn’t know abortion was a “Value”) by saying: “Americans have the moral duty to uphold the sanctity of life and protect the weakest, most vulnerable and most innocent among us. As president, Mitt will ensure that American laws reflect American’s values of preserving life at home and abroad.” I have to laugh at this because they are NOT protecting the weakest “among us” since an embryo is not among us and those same ideals and sanctity do not extend to the fetus once it has passed (alive) through the birth canal. Mitt is a vagina freak, who probably would love to have many vaginas at his service.

Vaginas of America, Unite in defeating the Republican Party that wishes to control you since they can’t have you! Tightly close those legs, open your mind wide and move those facial lips… Give them a piece of your mind the next time you hear them deciding what you can do with your own vagina!

Jesus, Christianity and the Spaghetti Monster

Has anyone ever wondered why there is so much hatred in a nation where the majority of the citizens are so-called Christians? You know the kind, those that are constantly quoting the Bible and have the name of Jesus, God or Amen in almost all their sentences. The nuttier they are, the more Christian they turn out to be and usually, the most hateful.

They hate almost everything: health care for all, equal rights, women’s rights, lesbian and gay rights and almost everything that has a right in it except, of course, their political party (Republican) which is typically called the Right and, their religious rights; theirs not everyone else. These people that are always with Jesus on their lips are the first ones to trash and bash a guy named Jesus because he is an immigrant. They are the first ones to cry that the rest of the people that do not share their faith or people of no faith, are imposing their beliefs or opinions on them. However, they see nothing wrong with forcing kids in a public school, a school that is funded by the taxes of all Americans regardless of their religious, sexual orientation, gender or race, to have prayers as part of their education. These are the ones that reject science and would prefer not to have evolution taught in schools and have demanded, on several occasions, to have creationism taught as well if they are to accept evolution to be imparted. The same people that today are trying, and in many States succeeding, to reverse Roe vs. Wade and forcing their opinion regarding what a woman can do with her uterus. This group is attacking all the advances women have acquired through years of fighting against a male chauvinistic society that has obstructed them every step of the way. Now, these people want to go back to the dark ages and take every one of us with them!

Ever since the first Mega-church was erected back in the 1980s we have seen an increasing number of fanatics. I am beginning to think that all the “wild and crazy” stuff that took place in the ‘60s and ‘70s yielded as a result a bunch of fried-brained, morally depleted, spiritually empty group of people that, once the hippie communes were dismantled, had no place to go for guidance. Having always followed the herd, they flocked like turkeys to churches in search of solace, sort of a spiritual dry-cleaning. These people fell prey of some group of men that saw the opportunity and grabbed it. These ministries created shows where they fooled the followers by arranging for people to be healed by the “minister” and if paraplegic, they walked for the first time in front of the congregation; or by having people tell stories of how a terminally ill family member or themselves were miraculously cured by the “minister.” With these tricks-of-the-trade, these congregations amassed millions of dollars and with the power that money generates, they grew bigger by venturing into radio, television, building bigger churches, building schools and Universities, hospitals and almost every other type of institution where they had the upper hand to indoctrinate the people… especially when they were very young and therefore, more moldable. Oral Roberts and Bill Graham were the pioneers of this new religious trend; it is them we should thank for converting this country into the religious craze we are witnessing now. These two men claimed to have a direct connection with God; God would speak directly to them and instructed them on what needed to be done, it seems that God changed the gospels for them so that being filthy rich was a good thing and not a sin. Out the window went the famous teachings: “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:23-24.

Conveniently, God told these two men and others that followed that it was OK to be rich and being as pious as they are, they followed God’s instructions. Billy Graham lives in his own private mountain, behind huge gates and has a huge fortune. No one knows for certain because Graham has never made his income tax public, I guess it is a source of embarrassment to have so much wealth and still be asking the congregation for money. Oral Roberts also amassed great wealth; he even had his own private jet. It pays to preach!

It was men such as Oral Roberts and Billy Graham that during a span of over 50 years they indoctrinated the masses through radio, television, Universities and at the Mega Churches to hate everything and anything that it was not in accordance to their Ministries. This country went from austerity to liberalism and now is back to austerity in less than 50 years. These opposed and contradicting views, one after the other, is not a common occurrence and it can only happen with indoctrination.

It is sad that today these people hate everything that not long ago they defended and fought for: civil rights, women rights and freedom. The same people that in the 60s proudly carried signs claiming “Make Love not War” or “Peace and Love” are now the same that proudly display their guns, bomb a clinic or kill a doctor, of course, they claim they are doing God’s work. These people want to see Jesus, the poor Mexican farmer, be deported to Mexico. They are very humane and loving!

Which brings me to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That is a God I can believe in. He is not judgmental and you can have him anyway you like: al dente, soft and even raw, white, green, red or pink. Can have Him cold or hot, spicy or not. Does not cost much to have it in your pantry and it will feed the masses for almost nothing and He will accept you regardless of race, gender, age or financial status. He serves to the rich and the poor and belongs to the world. He doesn’t judge you, you judge him. That is my kind of God… Hail to the FSM!

Can someone pass Santorum a bucket?

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

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.”

- John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Greater Houston Ministerial Association, September 12, 1960

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

Back in December 4th, 2010, Rick Santorum publicly rejected the separation of Church and State in a speech delivered at the St. Thomas More College of Liberal Art’s Symposium, referring to John F. Kennedy’s famous speech delivered on September 12, 1960. Recently when CBS host, George Stephanopoulos, asked Santorum about his speech, Santorum went as far as to say that he felt like throwing up when he first read Kennedy's famous speech script. Apparently, the reason for this repulsion was that John F. Kennedy (a Senator running for President at the time) stated in front of a Protestant congregation that his Catholicism was not going to be an impediment in his Presidency because he firmly believed in Separation of Church and State. It seems that Santorum has a "weak" stomach and even weaker intelligence.

Santorum said that “Kennedy chose not just to dispel fear, he chose to expel faith.” He went as far as to affirm that there was no separation of Church and State, “The idea of strict or absolute separation of church and state is not and never was the American model. It’s a model used in countries like France and until recently Turkey, but it found little support in America until it was introduced into the public discourse by Justice Hugo Black in the case of Everson v. The Board of Education in 1947.” It is not only sad but shameful that a person, any person, running for the highest position of the United States to be so misinformed and to know so little about the history of the country he or she is seeking to represent. It is his complete and utter ignorance about the history of this great nation that might have urged him to say that “the First Amendment was designed to protect churches from the government and nothing more.” How can a person be so ignorant and misinformed and be running for President? That is beyond my comprehension.

For those of you that might agree with his point of views, I have to implore you to read the history of this great country. I do know that most of you hate history and therefore don’t bother to read it and prefer just to repeat what others say, as long as you agree with it; but history has been written so we don’t repeat the same mistakes, for future generations to know what, why and how it happened and for all of us to understand it.

To begin with, many affirm that this nation was founded by Christians and that is not entirely true. Not all the Founding Fathers were Christians; actually, the majority were Deists. I will not try to proof or disproof this since that will lead us nowhere. However, the idea that they wanted to have religion as part of our way of government it’s completely false, quite contrary, they made sure to keep Church and State separate and I will try to prove this, not with my opinion which is just as good as yours, but with facts.

What John F. Kennedy said back in 1960 was and still is completely correct. Our Founding Fathers wanted the separation of Church and State – after all, the Separatist Pilgrims came to this country fleeing from England escaping religious persecution from the Church of England. That is the first unsubstantial proof; the Pilgrims were seeking religious freedom, from a Church not a government. When the Founding Fathers wrote Article VI of the Constitution stating that “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” I am certain that they were reinforcing that religion shouldn’t be part of or a requirement to hold a position in government. Actually, nowhere in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or any other document drafted by the Founding Fathers you will see that the Bible was needed to take the Oath or Affirmation; actually not all presidents have used a bible  when taking the oath and the above article is the only mention of religion in the Original Constitution. You will think that if religion was that important for the Founding Fathers they would have mentioned religion or God more often, but they didn’t. Further, this separation is ratified by the First Amendment (adopted on December 15, 1791 and the one Santorum mentioned and used to reinforce his opinion) which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” It is unbelievable that Santorum interprets this Amendment as the Church being protected from government but not the other way around. This Amendment is clearly separating the two, government can’t enforce a religion because we are free to worship as we wish, hence, government can’t worship, can’t be affiliated, associated or related to any religion. It is extremely difficult for me to understand why Santorum or the extreme religious people of this country can’t understand something as simple as this, except that fanaticism blinds them. I do know that those people will argue that they do know what the Founding Fathers wanted, how Christians were they, etc. You see, they tend to interpret things their own way, just like they do with the Bible… The problem is that, unlike the Bible, there are documents from the time, LEGAL DOCUMENTS, that destroys those arguments completely and without a trace of a doubt shows that the Founding Fathers wanted the separation of Church and State. Back in November 4, 1796 the new nation of the United States entered in their first treaty, this treaty was with Tripolitania, and was signed by John Adams.  This document leaves no doubt about the religious founding of this country. In the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, commonly known as the Treaty of Tripoli, this becomes irrefutably clear:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

This document is never mentioned because its not a very known document, but it states in no uncertain terms that this country, the United States of America, was not founded on Christianity.

So Mr. Santorum, vomit all you want… but Religion never had and shall never have a place in government just as government has no place in religion. You want God in your life? Do all of us a favor, go to church, pray privately and adore whoever you want, just don’t force the citizens of this country, who will be paying your salary, to believe in what you believe, after all, there are Atheists and Agnostics too and they constitute the 4th largest group in this country, there are more Atheist and Agnostics than there are Jewish, Mormons and Muslims… combined!



Religion has no place in Washington

The last name Santorum, literally means all saints in Latin. Apparently, Rick Santorum takes his last name at heart, the only problem is that he is no saint and if he is, he certainly is playing in the wrong field.

For starters, the United States is and has always been a secular country. All these false "patriots" that keep claiming that God should be "reinstated" in all governmental buildings and included in all governmental mandates are simply lying. The Founding Fathers of this great nation made sure that religion was not part of government, after all, not of the Founding Fathers believed in God – I bring this up because these false "patriots" keep talking about what our Founding Fathers wanted, specially Santorum,  they keep talking about honoring the Constitution yet, the original Constitution says just the contrary of what they and Santorum, are so vehemently and falsely claiming.

For those of you that have never read the Constitution of the United States (the original, as written by our Founding Fathers and therefore the “holy” one) the only time that the word religion is mentioned it’s to precisely refute it, this is verbatim the only time it’s mentioned (in a few different places, but exactly the same paragraph): “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” They made sure that religion was not necessary to hold a position within the government of this country.

The original Oath or Affirmation, as given to George Washington, reads as follows: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It is said that George Washington added in his inauguration the words “So help me God”, but there is no record to confirm or deny this… Regardless of who added it, it was not in the original Oath emphasizing the separation of Church and State.

Further, we find in the original Bill of Rights, signed in December 15th, 1791, the First Amendment to the Constitution, the very first, which must have meant that it was categorically the most important amendment of all which again makes sure of this separation by affirming: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yet, the Republicans keep insisting in bringing God into government and claiming that it is what our Founding Fathers wanted, nothing could be further from the truth. They either have never read the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights or, just as it happens with the Bible, they have decided to ‘interpret’ them as best suits them. But unlike the Bible that is full of riddles and parables, these documents are written in plain English for all to understand, without a doubt, what their intentions were.

The Founding Fathers were not all Christians. When Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, he wrote it with the Revolution in mind, making sure that the feelings of the people at the time were forever engraved in that document. He made sure that freedom, equality and self-determination was to be included. Not a word about religion can be found in it. The reason might have been that Thomas Jefferson himself was not too fond of religion; he went as far as writing a book called “The Jefferson Bible” where he compiled passes from the Bible excluding all the miracles and supernatural events that is abundantly found in it. He admired Jesus’ teachings, but didn’t believe in all the hocus-pocus that in many cases overshadows these teachings instead of exalting them. But again, Republicans keep saying the Founding Fathers were Christians and God fearing men… they weren’t, at least not all of them.

Now, we find ourselves being assaulted by the Right and their never ending pursue to bring religion (their religion) into government. Rick Santorum is talking about the devil and Christ as if he was running for the clergy instead of the most important position in the United States and the world! It amazes me that one of the best presidents we ever had, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, was also a Catholic but, unlike Santorum, Kennedy understood that his religion – or any religion for that matter – had no place in public office. Who doesn’t remember his famous words: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.” That is what a President should be like, that is what an Americans should demand.

Santorum, a religious fanatic that is campaigning as if all Americans were Catholics or Christians – he dreams of being the President that will force all Americans to believe in what he believes in, some sort of a religious tyranny; Kennedy, a man that worshipped privately but had the decency of not mixing the divine with the mundane, not mixing God and Government, Religion and Politics. That is the difference between the Right and the Left, between the irrational and the reasonable.

Rick Santorum, do America a favor, honor the Constitution and practice your religion where you should – your church, and allow all the American citizens to practice what they belief in or not, as the case might be.

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_2.html

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600

The Ugly Face of the Conservative Future

I am beginning to notice what is that the extreme right is envisioning. It is a scary thought but the only thing that makes sense. The extreme right and so-called conservatives are proposing changes that will affect everyone living in America and the thing is, most people are not noticing what their true agenda is. We are all fighting on separate issues and not connecting the dots. Today, by mere coincidence, all the dots became clear to me, as if an epiphany had taken place and I am for sure sharing it with the world because it is of extreme importance that we fight their plans with all our might.

The far right is pushing for changes in our society that will only benefit the large corporations they so intensely protect, the ones that they so valiantly gave the title of personhood. Let me begin opening your eyes:

The conservatives in this country are pushing for the abolition not only of abortion, which depending on your personal religious belief they may be right or wrong; but they are also eradicating contraceptives, abortions even if to save the life of the mother, they are trying to make illegal any means that will prevent any woman from getting pregnant, until she reaches the menopause age. That will make a woman a birth machine, with the possibility of giving birth to 10 or more children in her lifetime.

Then, they are trying very hard to make education a luxury by getting rid of public schools and make them private. This will mean that while the poor keeps giving birth, it will be impossible to send not even one of their children to a school to receive an education. Only the wealthiest will be able to afford it and get an upper education at any given University. Only the wealthy will be able to obtain a professional career, only the wealthy will be able to own their own companies or hold executive positions.

Furthermore, there are those conservatives that are already considering lowering the working age, in other words, legalizing child labor, with me so far?

Connect the dots. It is clear that they are looking at a very near future, anywhere from 15 to 20 years from now, and they have a plan, a macabre plan.  At this rate, they will have in less than a quarter of a century an immense workforce, and a cheap labor. Imagine, so many uneducated people seeking work! They will have to work for barely anything and a new form of slavery will have been created with no way to get around being poor, with no means to improve the situation. The poor will be poorer, if that is even possible and the rich will be even richer since they will have an endless workforce that will work for pennies!

It must be our moral, civil and human obligation to stop them and stop them now. The future of this country, the world and our own depend on it.  

My Uterus is my Temple... not theirs

The debate about contraceptives continues in Washington and of course, the religious groups negotiating with congress are, in the vast majority, composed of men, out of those the representatives of the Catholic Church are not even – hypothetically – engaged in a sexual relationship. However, these men think that they have the right to impose their opinions and beliefs on every woman walking on the face of the earth, not only Catholic women. These same "holy" men (and I am using the term "holy" very, very loosely) do not seem to object to vasectomies or to the use of Viagra for men to fornicate for pleasure and not necessarily for procreation… the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church is unbelievable!

The Catholic Church is debating the contraceptive mandate on the grounds that it is against their belief and morals. Can someone ask these Bishops and the Pope why don’t they make such a fuss over the death penalty? Among the capital sins, I believe, there is the “Thou Shall Not Kill” commandment; yet, they do not revolt every time someone is fried in this country or anywhere else. They solemnly give the last rites to the poor soul that is going to be executed, but that’s about it.

Then, we must remember that nowhere among those 10 commandments was a commandment saying “Thou shall not take the pill”, I have really  tried to find it but no, it’s nowhere to be found. Furthermore, these representatives from the Catholic Church are themselves breaking a mandate given to all mankind by the almighty Jesus: “Love and procreate,” what happened to them then? Why they can’t procreate/fornicate/make love? If we are to follow the mandates of the New Testament to the extreme as they want us to, we should demand the same from them.

I still believe that the penis and uterus belongs to whoever owns it and not the church, not the government, not you not me unless, of course, it’s your own organ. If contraceptives means "preventing an egg from being fertilized" good, no "babies" were killed, just prevented from forming; if an abortion during the very first weeks means murder, the judgment for that should be between that woman and her god and not a public or church affair. God, presumably, gave us free will and that includes making a reproductive decision, even if a wrong decision.

There are thousands if not millions of children languishing in orphanages all around the world; thousands more have been abused and even murdered after being born because the mother was not fit for that role and it would have been much better for her to take contraceptives or damn, have an abortion before giving birth to a live baby to kill or abuse it. But of course, the Catholic Church doesn’t see it that way, I think their main concern is running out of children for them to abuse – who will they sexually take advantage of if there is a limited amount of children? I really think that is their main worry, a decreasing number of children to focus their sexual depravation on.

Until the Catholic Church picks up the tab for every child born, for every woman whose future is destroyed by having a child when she is a child herself, for every child that has been sexually abused by the predatory church… when the Catholic Church does this, then and only then it may have the right to interfere with a political mandate that concerns women and express their opinion, but until that happens, they should keep out of women’s uterus… We all know that they don’t care for a woman’s uterus or vulva for that matter, its no wonder why they’re celibate…. Only children matter to them, and not necessarily in a pure and holy way.

Contraceptive Controversy

There have been numerous comments and uproars about the “contraceptive mandate” in the Obama Healthcare Reform that demands that women must have access, in the healthcare provided by their employers, to pregnancy preventive services. The Catholic Church is adamant in capitulating to this mandate alleging that the mandate is a violation to their religious beliefs. I can understand but, isn’t that what they do with those of us that don’t agree with their beliefs?

Let me begin by saying that the religious groups are constantly imposing on everyone their religious values: Gay marriage is a big no-no, abortion is out of the question even for atheists and “One Nation under God” was added to our Pledge of Allegiance in 1951 forcing us to say it if we pledge allegiance to the flag, and the list goes on. Why do churches believe that they have the right to impose their views onto everyone else but not the other way around? After all, we all pay taxes.  Sorry, I forgot... Churches don’t even do that, they are tax-free “leeches.”

What amazes me is the little faith they do profess towards their female parishioners with these uproars. If they are so certain that their flock is so faithful to their religion, what’s the problem then? They can include access to these services but the religious women will not use them, or are they afraid that they would if these resources were readily available? Again, isn’t in the Bible – their holy book – that God gave men free will precisely for them to make their own decisions? Why is it that churches believe that they must control people and force them to make the "right" decision? If that is what God had intended, we would all be like zombies, no decisions to be made, no rights or wrongs.  According to their own religion and scriptures, we are supposed to have the freedom to make our own choices, but I guess that only applies to "men", women must obey.

It is obvious that I am not religious but I do not condemn those who are, they have all the right in the world to worship as they please, as long as they don’t push their beliefs down my throat as they are always trying to do. I have an equal right not to belief and to do as my principles dictates, not theirs. After all at the end if God does exist, it will be a matter between that God and myself – I don’t need an intermediary or a conscience… I already have my own!

The Religious Right

Let me begin by saying that I grew up Catholic. Ever since I was a little girl, I was an avid reader, I would read anything that was intellectually nourishing and in particular I loved philosophy. Many things happened in my life by the time I turned 11 that made me reject Catholicism and almost all form of organized religion, to the astonishment of my family, whom to this day are deeply concerned that I will burn in hell for all eternity.

For the last 10 years or so, I’ve been appalled at the extremist religious people that you read about in the news. Religious people that is willing to kill and “burn in hell for all eternity” in order to prevent another person from killing an unborn child. I wonder many times, if “murdering” a fetus is so bad… Why is it that for them murdering a family man or woman, who has a spouse, children, who is a doctor and a useful member of society isn’t just as bad? Oh yes, in their minds, they’re doing God’s work!  

The religious right wants the rest of America to practice their religion, to worship their God and pray to Jesus. They want to make it mandatory for public schools to pray, of course, their prayers God forbid if the school decides to consent to prayers and allows for a prayer from other religions to be taught and prayed a different one each day so kids can learn from others, then we will be stepping over our boundaries and their religious views deserve respect! 

The religious right of this country and those that proudly represent the Bible belt are extremists. They are the most hateful group of people that you can find in this great country; they are the ones that keep the breaks in any scientific advances, social advances, technological advances and even moral advances. Always shielding themselves by claiming that it’s God’s will, as if they have a direct line to that God! 

They hate anything, everything and any one that do not profess the same views as them, all of America have to accept everything they do, in return, they will not allow you the same respect. I am not talking about Christians, don’t get me wrong, I am just referring to the extreme religious right. Those that believe that evolution isn’t real, many of whom have claimed that the prehistoric bones of dinosaurs from million of years ago are fake and refuse for evolution to be taught in school. I am talking about those that still to this day, block scientific advances such as stem cell research because it uses discarded fetuses in their experiments… they prefer for those fetuses to be thrown away, making their ‘death’ a complete waste – they seem to forget that the soul, what is supposed to be precious, is no longer in those fetuses; they’re just a carcass who no one wants or is going to give them ‘proper burial’ such is their selfishness and irrationality! 

Then, the subject has to be mentioned about the sanctity of marriage. While more and more religious right leaders are being caught practicing extramarital affairs, and not always with the opposite sex, they are relentless in their fight against same sex marriages, even when these marriages are not to be ‘blessed’ by a church but strictly through a civil ceremony. It is as if they don’t want others to experience any type of happiness since their own lives are so full of misery. They use every trick to block any advances in society to finally accept and institute throughout this land gay marriage. So far, they’ve succeeded. 

Race is another issue. While the ‘righteous right’ claim to be followers of Jesus, they have learned to tolerate other races, but only superficially and it doesn’t take much for them to show the ugly face of racism. We all saw it when Obama was elected. Up to a point, it’s understandable. It wasn’t long ago when the Ku Klux Klan terrorized the non-white South, cowardly hiding under sheets bearing crosses near their heart. The KKK was so “Christian” that they murdered hundreds if not thousands of people – mostly blacks. So when Obama was elected, it was really no surprise to see the religious right go into the streets carrying signs depicting the President of the United States of America as a witch doctor, a monkey or the Joker from Batman. I must admit, the signs showing Obama resembling Hitler, it was a bit confusing, I never knew if they were praising him or bashing him after all most Neo-nazis belong to the KKK. 

Now this same religious right is once more confabulating against Obama. They represent a serious threat to Democracy and most of all a huge threat to Liberals and Progressives. They will not back up Obama, that is well known and Mitt Romney for sure is not getting their endorsement, after all, he is a Mormon. They have offered their support to one of the most retrograde candidates running in this election, Ron Paul. Ron Paul is against everything a true Democracy stands for. Help is only for those who can afford it, so is education, health care, love and everything else. It’s no wonder why the religious right is endorsing him they’re a perfect match! 

Today more than ever, it's imperative that we show support for our president.  We must show up in masses to help him win, without a doubt, a second term.  The religious right will take this country back to the days were racism was acceptable, where there was 'second class' citizens, where the right to pursue happiness was only for those lucky enough to be wealthy.  In today's economy, with Corporations being considered 'persons' it is easy to see who will have the exclusive right to that happiness, the sad thing is, the religious right is not a corporation and they're so stupid they don't know it!