"God In Chaos" Chapter Eight; HUMANIST POINT OF VIEW part thirty

But as I have said before, since non-adherents do not have a dogma we really have no need to meet together or organize. But I have a feeling
that will change as we fight through the courts to return our nation to
the secular nation that it was founded as. People seem to be tiring of
the rules and control of dogma and want to be good peaceful people
living with one another. Helping out where we can and staying out of the
way when we should. In the past few years many voices of the
non-believing nation have began to speak up. Many of these have found a
new audience in the Internet and podcasts. But also more gatherings are
being organized around the country.

While most Christian Americans have no problem with having beer and liquor sales regulated according to the wishes of the dominate fundamental Christian view, they
would be, rightly so, up in arms if the laws of Islam (shirea) were to
be introduced as laws in America. Today, Muslim cab drivers in New York
City are fighting for the right not to carry a person that has been
drinking or carrying unopened alcohol with them. This goes in the face
of the “drink responsible” programs that have been promoted across this
nation for years.

In Sweden recently, young women are brutally beaten and forcible raped by sick cruel Muslim men that think that just because a women on planet earth doesn't dress the way they think she
should she has no rights and is fair game to be sexually assaulted.
This issue has gone as far in Sweden at to be called a Muslim rape wave.

From the Assyrian International News Agency dated December 15, 2005:

“In Oslo, Norway, immigrants were involved in two out of three rape charges in 2001. The numbers in Denmark were the same, and even higher in the
city of Copenhagen with three out of four rape charges. Sweden has a
larger immigrant, including Muslim, population than any other country in
northern Europe. The numbers there are likely to be at least as bad as
with its Scandinavian neighbors. The actual number is thus probably even
higher than what the authorities are reporting now, as it doesn't
include second generation immigrants. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm, who
has investigated violent crimes in Svea High Court, found that 85 per
cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or by foreign

The story goes on to relay how the Muslim men feel about how the woman are treated:

“Some Muslim immigrants admit their bias quite openly. An Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that
women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape." Apparently,
he's not the only one thinking this way. "It is not as wrong raping a
Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl," says Hamid. "The Swedish girl gets
a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably fucked before, anyway.
But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For her, being
raped is a source of shame. It is important that she retains her
virginity until she marries."

When I read something like this, it actually makes me want to return kind for kind retaliation upon these so called men. If these Muslims, living inside these
countries, do not wish to see woman dress as she wishes, then they
should move to a country that shares their views. Otherwise they should
be subjected to the same brutal treatment that has happened to these
women. I would have little problem with fathers, mothers, sisters,
brother, friends and the victims themselves, inflicting a penalty on
these Muslim men that have no respect for women.

While the rape wave issue is religiously based, in the town I live in Oklahoma I was told that on the local public transportation a person cannot be taken to
or from a bar or transport a person that has been shopping and has any
alcohol with them. This seems to me to be a way to encourage a person to
act irresponsibly concerning drinking. After all why should the state
have any issue with a person acting responsible? These are state laws
and can affect the funding of the local transportation service if they
are violated. This is a odd reflection in Oklahoma of what the Muslin
New York City cab drivers were asking for. Maybe they should move to
Oklahoma. In the past few months I have seen every sort of an attempt to
create the State of Oklahoma in to an actual theocracy. Sally Kern is a
Representative here and has proposed a Proclamation for Morality. it
claims among other things,

“WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other
forms of debauchery”

Kern seems to think that same sex marriage is the same as child abuse and sex trafficking and who the hell knows what is debauchery to her. As far as illegitimate births, Kern needs to
endorse the teaching of sex education that actually prevents girls from
getting pregnant and not the failed pipe dream of “just say no to your
natural desires”.

In the past few years, stone tablets of the 10 commandments have been placed on county courthouse grounds in Haskell County, Oklahoma. An attempt was made to prohibit Professor Richard
Dawkins from speaking as a guest of the University of Oklahoma to an
audience. There was passed a law and signed by the Governor that is
authorized to place a monument to the 10 commandments on the Statehouse
grounds. Then again Representative Sally Kern wants to pass a
Proclamation of Morality which also states in part:

“NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we the undersigned elected officials of the people of Oklahoma, religious leaders and citizens of the State of
Oklahoma, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world, solemnly declare
that the HOPE of the great State of Oklahoma and of these United States,
rests upon the Principles of Religion and Morality as put forth in the

It is amazing to me that the religious adherents are either so unable or unwilling to control their own nature and behavior according to their self imposed rules of dogma and religion
that they feel compelled to pressure lawmakers into passing legislation
that reflect their personal dogma. It seems the way these pious and
religious people are able to control their own actions is to also
control the actions and desires of people who could careless about their
beliefs. However, if an other religious group was to force their views
on them they would be the first to cry for freedom from religion instead
of integrating more of them.

The Native American tribes in many parts of the country have the ability to establish casinos on land that is owned by the tribe. So by default that basically makes gambling legal
in Oklahoma as well as many other states where the state itself doesn't
allow gambling. I have been to casinos several times. My first time to
go to a legal casino in the United States was in 1994 in Las Vegas. I
was doing well at blackjack. I won some money the first part of the
night and then lost all I won plus the $80 I came to play with. I did
know I needed to get back to Kansas and that I needed the money to be
able to make the trip so I put that aside plus money need for food and
hotels. I was trying to be responsible for my actions. After going up so
big that first night them losing it all plus even more I had decided
that I am not very good at gambling. So I basically gave it up. [lesson
learned Las Vegas, thanks]

I have known people that go almost every week to casinos and will win thousands of dollars and then lose the same amount the following week. I guess if they can afford the
fluctuation in their funds that is fine. I cannot, so I prefer not to
risk it. But I am still a supporter of casinos.

Because of this I have decided for my own behavior that this activity is not for me. No lawmaker had to regulate my behavior, not dogma had to convert me to its
system of belief. Simple experience shows me that gambling is something
that I cannot win and will only come up on the short side. I do still
indulge on the occasional lottery ticket. [I haven't won yet.]

Because of this, I don't see any reason to have laws that restrict how you can perform otherwise legal activities. It is one thing to have a law in
place for drinking and driving. It is quite a whole other thing to have
taken the right away from an adult to choose for themselves how to
regulate their behavior. I am all for enforcement of laws that keep
people that are under the influence of medications and legal substances
from driving. [I wonder how many of these local prohibitions on drinking
would be in place if the only way they could pass were for the churches
to be shut done in the same municipality or counties?]

If a person doesn't want to have liquor, don't drink, if I person doesn't like abortion, don't have one, if a person doesn't like to smoke, then
don't. If a person doesn't want caffeine, please have a root beer. I
certainly recognize that some people have addictions to such activities
and need help but that is a different situation than letting otherwise
reasonable and able people from acting in a manor that suits their
desires. The religious right some times fail to recall that our nations
independence was sought with the idea of rights of liberty, life and the
pursuit of happiness. As Benjamin Franklin said in Poor Richard's
Almanack, (sic) “The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”
These ideas are driven by the individual not the collective body of

When it comes to religious laws in America some of the biggest ones that are de fato in place are the closing of public buildings and businesses on Sunday morning or all day and alcohol and
smoking laws. There is not regular mail delivery on Sunday. The reason
implied or driven by ordinances for business being close serves the
purpose of making sure people have the ability to attend church without
being encumbered with it affecting their income.

In many places in America one cannot buy a car on Sunday. I fail to see any religious based logic in that. Certainly there cannot be a reason to have a law to
prohibit such “evil” activities.

Having lived and traveled in many states I find the inconsistencies with liquor laws to be quite fascinating and nearly incomprehensibly. These attempts by a moral
majority to police a persons behavior are truly the result of an attempt
to force religious morality upon a group of people that do not hold
their view. The idea that a person is not free to decide for themselves
is an insult to an adult. I could write a great deal about the different
laws themselves but I will touch on a few of the more bizarre ones.

Keep in mind, any of these business that do these things based upon their personal choice is great. I am talking about either direct governmental
or social pressure that are laws of the community.

On alcohol, In Oklahoma you cannot by any wine or liquor at any store on a Sunday. No bar can serve and liquor on a Sunday. No beer greater than 3.2% abw can
be sold cold. In Texas, North Carolina and New Mexico a person by
themselves cannot purchase a pitcher of beer. However a person can
purchase several beers at one time in some states. The issue with this
morality by legislation has got to be one of the most futile attempts to
try to regulate the behavior of citizens. These are all related to the
desire to have a moral code forced upon people that may have no desire
of belief in that said code.

To better explain this situation would be to turn the tables on those that wish to push their morality on the general population. So here are some fantastical laws governing

• Must be at least 18 or older to attend a church.

• Church only on Sundays.

• No display of public religiosity.

• No open Bibles or religious books in public places.

• Other than in a church or your home, religion cannot be practiced anywhere else.

• You can only attend church at state approved churches.

• It is illegal to preach to or let children under 18 read the Bible or other religious material.

• Any person praying in public will be held at least 8 hours in a non-praying cell.

• Multiple violations will result in loss of your driver's license.

• Pastors on duty must cut a person off from religion if they have had too much.

• Preaching and driving strictly forbidden.

On views concerning liquor and tobacco I tend toward a Libertarian view, this would include the decriminalization of marijuana. I find letting
out these person that have had only convictions related to the laws
concerning marijuana possession and such to be a good way to ease up the
high cost of housing non-violent offenders and have their record
expunged of the offensive.

June of 2009 The State of California proposed to legalize marijuana to help ease the budget crisis that they are in. The measure would come up for a vote in 2010. The taxing of
cannabis would produce millions of dollars for the state while taking
dollars for law enforcement from arresting otherwise law-abiding
citizens and putting them in place for more effective uses. California
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Said that he would welcome debate on the
issue but has as of yet to cross the line to promote the wholesale
legalization of the naturally fast growing plant. It is predicted that
the legal sale and use of marijuana in the State of California could
produce up to 1.3 billion dollars of additional revenue for the state

Of course this set the religious right on edge. But even among the more conservative states the frustration of dealing with the overrun of dealing with the cost of enforcing the marijuana laws.
The status quo of the religious fundamentalist is falling into the
minority of this view and if the voice of the people is to be heard,
then the complete legalization of marijuana is just a matter of time.
Oddly enough, the people that have or had used marijuana in the past
sound quite reasonable when talking about the issue and the ones that
are opposed to the legalization of pot are the ones that seem “high”
when you hear what they say.

I am thankful to President Barack Obama for deciding not to prosecute persons that are in line with state laws concerning medical marijuana use. It will be even better when the
Federal Government decides not to pursue this issue whatsoever. While I
disagree with motorcycle helmet laws and seat buckle laws I would be
hard pressed to show a connect for these libertarian issue to be related
to religion.

It is still odd that the pace of legalization is taking such a long time. It would be hard to imagine how different the country would be if Prohibition was still in place after 72 years,
Ending in 1991 instead of 1933.

I recently read a comment on a forum about the legalization of marijuana. The poster wrote a comment to the effect as this, “Do you think the drug dealers are going to just
turn over their plants and become law abiding citizens? Of course not.”

This person is in need of a history lesson. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt passed the law to allow beer to be produced it wasn't the
illegal companies that benefited but the legal ones. But it did stop the
resources of law enforcement from having to deal with all the massive
law enforcement efforts to prohibit the use of alcohol. Those that were
the gangsters went into other forms of crime to deal in, such as
marijuana and cocaine. The legitimate businesses were the ones that
benefited from the repeal and the government got the much needed tax
revenue of the legal products and a break on the overwhelming pressure
that law enforcement was dealing with to keep alcohol out of the

Views: 43


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Thomas True on November 3, 2010 at 11:33am
This is one of the reasons that I include my sources. Unlike the religious adherents, I can't just make up facts. Thanks for the comment, Glen.
Comment by Frankie Dapper on November 3, 2010 at 11:17am
Not bad. Did not know about issue of muslim rapists in Scandinavia-here in America and elsewhere?



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service