Morality is Man’s Creation, Not God’s!

Sometimes, while perusing the blogs of others I come across something that either really inspires me to be better, or makes me incredibly angry… Thanks to my good friend Arkenaten over at “A Tale Unfolds” I’ve ran into one of the latter type on a blog called “Citizen Tom” and I had to respond to the high level of ridiculousness contained within it.

If we were created to glorify God, what makes us think God would create a universe where He is irrelevant?”

We weren’t “created” to glorify god, we exist because of evolution.  Whatever purpose we glean from the world is the result of our own choice.  

“Because we choose to ignore what our nation’s founders thought self-evident, secularists seem to be winning the argument.”  

Secularists aren’t winning the argument because we’re ignoring what America’s founders thought.  We are winning the argument because even if people still profess to believe in a god, they are realizing that religion is not necessary for a civilized society.  They realize that by working together in spite of our differences, instead of turning against each other, our chances of survival and a happier existence are exponentially increased.  

Math“When we begin a proof in mathematics, don’t we start from an axiom or two?”  

While that may be technically true, the point you’re trying to make with that statement is most definitely not.  The concepts of mathematics didn’t just drop out of the air.  Humans developed them and they were studied and researched in order to explain the world around us.  We may take things for granted, but that doesn’t mean that the things we take for granted are just “self-evident.”  What it means is that someone else did the work ages ago and it has already been proven.  It’s unnecessary to prove 1+1 = 2 every time we do an equation because that’s already been proven by others before us.  Math, much like religion, is something that was invented by human beings to explain the world.  One is still useful with new evidence that proves it’s accuracy nearly every day, while one is quickly becoming irrelevant as it is shown over and over again to have made completely inaccurate claims about the world we live in (oceans in the sky (Genesis)? Four legged insects (Leviticus 11: 20-23)? The moon as a source of light (Genesis)? Unicorns (Job 39:9-12)?)

“When Americans still considered the fact of their rights were God-given self-evident, government existed primarily to protect their rights.  Was America then a land of fairy tales? Did everyone live happily ever after?”  

The Term “God Given” and “Self-Evident” are just a way the founding fathers described rights they felt all humans deserved, based on their own experiences with the government they fled.  God didn’t come down and tell them “Hey guys! Humans should have these rights!” They realized this because of the way they were treated by those with different belief systems in the country they fled from (let’s just pretend for a moment that they didn’t slaughter nearly an entire race of people in the process).  There are plenty of nations that exist now with a secular government, no god involved.  Are they just fairy tales?  Do they live in absolute chaos because they have a secular government?  The answer is no.  Some of them are better off than we are!  

Civil War

“No. As people are wont to do, Americans still debated, argued and fought. That included fighting over the definition of rights.  To free the black race — allow blacks the ability to exercise their God-given rights — required a bloody civil war.”  

But you just stated that rights are “God given” and “self-evident.”  Why would it require debate and war if rights are “self-evident” to all human beings? Doesn’t “self evident” automatically imply that those rules are already known?

“However, it seems we have forgotten — or chosen to ignore — the alternative, of not believing God gives us our rights.”

No, we’ve just realized that “god” didn’t actually give us those rights.  We made them up ourselves because it benefits us as a species to work together instead of killing each other off.  

“If we do not consider our rights God-given, what are the consequences?”  

Here are just a couple of consequences:

We stop allowing religious differences to divide us and realize that when we work together as a species for the greater good we’re much better off.

We make scientific discoveries that are proven by evidence, like vaccinations and cures for diseases, without having religious nuts fighting them tooth and nail because “god said so.”

Those don’t seem like bad things to me…


“Most people farmed and produced their own food, and nature cooperated poorly.”

And it still does occasionally.  But there were other times when it cooperated perfectly and crops were plentiful.  

“Sometimes people starved.”

And they still do and always have, even in so called “Christian” nations.  There were also plenty of times when people lived in comfort.  

“Occasional droughts alternated with occasional floods.”  

Again… They still do… But sometimes and in different places the weather provided perfect living conditions.  

“Mysterious plant diseases and insects reduced every harvest. People died young, sometimes for no apparent reason.”  

Again…  None of these things prove that we have “God-given rights.”  These things can and do still happen today.  The difference is that we, as a species, have discovered ways to overcome those things, or at the very least, survive them until they pass.  God had nothing to do with it.  It was human ingenuity and nothing more that helped us to survive as a species.  


“WHY? Desperate for answers, people worshiped idols, hoping that because of their worship their god would give them some control over their lives. Their harvests would not fail, their children would not die, their enemies would die at their hands in combat…..”  

This statement is absurd.  People have worshiped a variety of different gods for thousands of years.  When they didn’t have an explanation for something then it automatically became “god did it!” Just because that was the answer they came up with, doesn’t mean it was the right one. Thanks to science we now know that thunder isn’t god clapping his hands and that rain isn’t god’s tears.  This is the thing about religion, you could be saying “Wow, we have worked together as a species pretty darned well and have survived some pretty spectacular odds!” But instead you give credit to some being who you’ve never actually seen, heard, or spoken to instead of realizing that we’ve done it all ourselves and will continue to do it ourselves until we’re destroyed by each other because of some ridiculous differences, or by some massive asteroid, the imploding sun, or the collapse of the universe itself.   

“The strong and clever determine the “rights” of the weak. That is, might makes right. We obtain our “rights,” our “right” to do what we wish, because we have the power to make it so.”  

This HAS happened all throughout our history (and in many cases is still happening!)  As soon as man was able they discovered that the strong could easily overcome the weak and rule over them.  But you know what else we discovered over time?  There is strength in numbers.  The weak got tired of being trampled on by the strong so they banded together and overthrew the strong, or at the very least kept them at bay.  We discovered that it was better if we all lived and worked together to build something greater, rather than just serving the whims and desires of one strong person.  That is how our species has survived and how government and civilization was formed, and it all happened before the idea of your god ever came into existence.  

“So what would ameliorate our behavior? Why are most men usually willing to respect the rights of others? Is it the fact most people believe in God, or is each one of us the embodiment of reason? Have we logically deduced the problem that arises when we harm the interests of our neighbor? If we don’t respect our neighbors rights, no one will respect our own? Or is it the moral law, that sense of right and wrong that each of us carries in his heart?   Do we recognize in each other a being akin to our self?  Don’t we know how we would feel if someone abused us?”  

You answered your own question, yet you still chose to give “god” the credit.  It’s called “trial and error” or “action and reaction” if you will.  Much like we quickly realize that if we stick our finger in a flame we will get burned, we realized that if we go around robbing, raping, and murdering people eventually the people we’ve been robbing, raping, and murdering will get sick of it and will probably kill us or throw us in jail.  It’s that simple.  No other explanation needed.

Humans didn’t wake up and realize it was wrong to harm other people, it took a lot of trial and error.  Our history is littered with the mistakes of our ancestors and we can all see the mistakes that we continue to make.  If humans innately knew right from wrong, they wouldn’t do wrong! The fact is, we have to learn how to co-exist with each other.  You see it with children every day! They do what they think looks fun or interesting.  Sometimes they get hurt, sometimes they hurt others, sometimes they’re punished by the adults that care for them.  But you know what?They almost always learn and many times they grow up to be amazing adults who go on to do amazing things.  They don’t automatically know what’s right and wrong anymore than they know what’s safe and what is dangerous.  It’s a learning experience. We, as a species, learned together what worked and what didn’t and we adapted.    


“Without sin, we have no need for rights, and without God sin has no meaning.”  

Sin is just a word created by the religious to condemn things they didn’t like others to do, which is why the concept of what “sin” is has varied so widely since it’s creation (by man.)  When the Pentateuch was written (by men) “sin” included things like not eating shellfish, not wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics, and not touching a woman who was menstruating. Later, those things were thrown out and it became “sin” for women to talk in church and for men to have long hair.  It was considered a “sin” to not help the poor and needy.  Now, for many religious people none of those things matter.  It was also a way for a small group of “Priests” to control the greater numbers by saying “if you break these rules, you’re sinning! Follow my… I mean GOD’S rules!” By worshiping “God” the people were inevitably worshiping the priesthood.  They’d give the best part of their flocks and harvests to the priesthood for “god” (but it was actually eaten by the priesthood…), they gave them money, clothing, the most honored houses.  Heck, in the Israelite culture the priesthood even got to determine who was king! But of course that was “god” also, wasn’t it? As I stated before, sin is nothing more than a manmade creation used to allow a small group of people or a single person to control the greater society.  It was enforced by making up a “god” that would bring down destruction if this group or person were to be disobeyed.  

“As odd as it may seem, Jesus defined the sinner, the one who would deprive another of their rights, as a slave.”  

This isn’t true even in the Biblical concept, so now you’re just making stuff up (instead of just believing things other people made up.)  Jesus condoned slavery (Luke 7:2), as did his apostles (including Paul), and they frequently treated the gentiles like garbage.  Jesus didn’t even want to heal a gentile woman and only did so after she begged him, compared herself to a dog, and literally would not leave him alone.  The only reason why Paul turned to the gentiles to preach his heretical vision of Christianity was because the Jewish Christians wouldn’t have it.  So let’s not try and pretend that the Apostles or Paul had any concern for the “inalienable rights of all mankind”, because they most certainly didn’t.  The only one in that scenario that may have cared is Jesus and we aren’t even certain that most of the things the Bible claims about him were true (I’m guessing they got part of the name right and maybe the location, but that’s about it).  

“When we hate God or our neighbor, we are enslaved to sin.”  

This is most definitely not true.  Atheists simply DON’T BELIEVE there is a god.  There is no hate involved and most atheists get along just fine with their neighbors.  Frequently they are active members of society, they donate to charities, they help the homeless, and adopt needy children, all without the concept of god ever entering into the equation.  You seem to be arguing that without the idea of god, or religion, that man would just run amok and we would all be killing each other, but evidence doesn’t support that.  If anything religion only makes that worse (the Salem Witch Trials, the Crusades, and 9/11? Anyone?) The atheist is the perfect piece of evidence that can be used to disprove the “god makes morality” nonsense because they have perfectly fine morals WITHOUT god.  If American society is any indication, then atheists care more about basic human rights than almost any religious sect.  The Conservatives in this country claim to have a direct line to Jesus and the only rights they seem to care about are their own.  The best anyone else can hope to get from them is a one way ticket to hell.  


To wrap this up I have to say, the idea that human beings would be like bloodthirsty animals if we didn’t have this idea of “sin”  and “god” is truly frightening to me.  It makes me think that if you suddenly realize god wasn’t real then you’d grab a knife and go on a killing spree.   The image this brings to mind is a giant, rabid dog, held by a tenuous chain, that could break out at any moment to wreak havoc through the neighborhood.  Can you see how that might be a little disturbing for the rest of us?

James Garcia: (9/8/15)

Kim Davis: God’s Warrior or Public Official?

I am going to take a week off from writing my Broken Chains series and comment on the Kim Davis debacle that’s happening in Kentucky at the moment by addressing some of the arguments that I’ve seen from the fanatical, fundamentalist right lately.  The following are my responses that I wrote for a Facebook conversation that was taking place on a friend’s wall (she was being attacked by one of her friends for posting an article about Kim Davis stating that she should be fired for refusing to do her job.)  

Here are some arguments that I saw and responded to (my responses are in black):

Loud Boss

“The government [should] stop pushing their agenda down everyone’s throats in the name of tolerance.”

Requiring a government official to do the job that she was hired to do (in this case issuing marriage licenses to all those legally allowed to marry) is not “forcing an agenda” down anyone’s throat.  It is simply requiring her to fulfill her job duties.  If she no longer wants to do her job, she should resign.  That’s how a job works.  

“The people screaming “tolerate all” are the ones screaming “we will not tolerate your beliefs because they don’t agree with ours”

A person  having a reasonable expectation that they can go into a government office and utilize the services they are supposed to offer is not being intolerant of someone’s views.  A government office is a government office, not a church, not a Christian book store, or a Christian school.  If she wants to be able to preach her religious views at her place of employment she should find a job at one of the other places and allow someone who will provide a government service to all American citizens to take her place.  In America, there are a wide variety of religious beliefs (even no belief at all!).  Every American citizen should be able to walk into a government office and utilize whatever services they offer without being discriminated against.  Kim Davis’s job is not a pulpit for her to preach her religion.  That is not intolerance, that is common sense.  To quote a Reddit user’s statement, I wonder how tolerant these people who cheer Kim Davis would feel if a Christian woman walked into the DMV and a Muslim man working behind the counter said “According to my religion, women should wear burkas and stay in the home, so I refuse to issue you a driver’s license.”  I’m pretty positive that that wouldn’t go over well with the fundamentalists on the right.  


“A homosexual man has the same right that I do… To marry a woman. homosexuals are looking for special privileges and applause, not equality.”

What many fundamentalists forget is that what they have is the right to marry the person they happen to fall in love with (or someone they got pregnant, or someone they got drunk with and married in a stupor at a Vegas casino by an Elvis impersonator).  Now, according to the Supreme Court of the United States, homosexuals have that same right.  That is not wanting a special privilege, that is wanting access to the same right that straight Americans already have (which, should they ever decide to marry someone of the same sex, they also have access to now).  As a gay person, I can tell you truthfully, I don’t want or care for anyone’s applause.  Those who dislike me for being gay don’t matter to me up until that point when they start feeling like their religious beliefs should have power over me and the rights that the government offers to me.  Once that happens, then we have a problem.  

“So now [Kim Davis] must lose her job, and many must lose their businesses simply because [gay people] don’t agree with them and [they] want to force them to do something that goes against what they believe?”

Kim Davis doesn’t have to lose her job.  If she wants to keep it she can do her job and all that it requires… Including issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.  If she doesn’t like her job duties she can resign, or continue to refuse to do them and be fined or imprisoned.  No one is forcing her to get married to a gay person, no one is saying she can’t believe that being gay is wrong.  What they are telling her to do is to issue marriage licenses to all couples that are legally allowed to request one, which now includes gay people.  If she doesn’t like it, again… She can resign (or continue to refuse to do so and face fines and imprisonment.)  Just like a Muslim DMV employee can’t deny a driver’s license to a woman, a Christian Clerk can’t deny a marriage license to a gay couple.  It’s really simple stuff here.  

“[The] homosexual agenda [is] forcing a woman to adhere to their beliefs in gay marriage.”

No, they are wanting a government employee to provide a service that they are entitled to by law.  The government isn’t charged with making sure everyone adheres to Christian principles.  America is a melting pot of beliefs and cultures and we all have to coexist together within it.  That means if we work at a government facility we will occasionally have to work with people who don’t share our beliefs.  As a government employee Kim Davis doesn’t get to pick and choose which American citizens are entitled to the services offered in the government office where she works simply because they don’t agree with her religious beliefs.  

ball and chain_full

“[Gay people are ] forcing her to go against what she believes in order to make them happy.”

Again… No one is forcing her to do anything.  If she no longer likes her job duties she can easily resign and allow the position to be filled by someone that will perform the duties they agreed to perform.  As a government official, Kim Davis doesn’t get to choose which American citizens she will serve anymore than a Policeman or a Fireman does.  They don’t get to say “I’ll only protect and serve Christians.  If a gay person is in danger or if their house is burning, I can’t help them because I might be violating my religious beliefs.”  Government positions don’t work that way. 


“Well how bout the bakery fiasco? Homosexuals didn’t get their way so they forced the bakery owners to do what the homosexual couple wanted.”

I’ve already written out a detailed response to the bakery nonsense, so I’ll just post a link to it here:


“This isn’t a peaceful little March for “rights.” No, no, no. This is becoming an enforcement of homosexual beliefs on everyone, regardless of what [a person] believes.”

No one is forcing anyone to be gay or even to believe that being gay is moral.  A Christian having to share the rights that they already have with gay people is not forcing anything on anyone, anymore than it was forcing a “black agenda” on people by allowing black people to have the same rights as white people after the Civil Rights movement.  It wasn’t forcing a “female agenda” on men when women won the right to vote.  It wasn’t forcing an “interracial marriage” agenda on non-interracial couples when interracial couples were allowed to marry.  It’s not forcing a “broccoli agenda” on you if I choose to eat broccoli even though you hate broccoli.  It’s not even forcing a “broccoli agenda” on you if you work at a grocery store and have to sell broccoli to someone else.  You don’t have to eat the broccoli, you just have to sell it to people if it’s on the shelves in the store you work in.  Selling broccoli to someone isn’t violating your broccoli hating sensibilities.  So, moving passed the silliness I’ll say it again:  Having to share rights that you already enjoy with people that are different than you is not forcing anything on you.  

“As far as I’m concerned, that’s unconstitutional.”

Luckily for everyone else, Fundamentalist Christians don’t get to arbitrarily decide what is or isn’t Constitutional!

“This doesn’t “tolerate religion”. it’s forcing everyone to deny their religion to accommodate 2% of the population that is upset.”  

I am not repeating the same argument over and over again for no reason.  This is the same argument that is being used by the Fundamentalist Right again and again and again (and was in fact used multiple times in this same conversation), so I’ll address it once more… Gays having rights isn’t forcing religious people to give up their beliefs.  All American citizens can believe whatever they want to believe.  The only thing it’s forcing religious people to do is to live in a society equally, according to the law, with those that are different from them.  If they can’t handle losing the privileged number one spot in exchange for a level playing field, well… That is their problem, not ours.


“She signed up to give couples marriage licenses, not to give homosexuals a right to what society has perverted into ‘marriage.’”

She “signed up” to give marriages licenses to all couples who are legally allowed to have one, regardless of what her personal religious beliefs are on the subject.  She doesn’t get to deny marriage licenses to atheists, or Jewish people, or Muslims, or divorced couples, and as of the Supreme Court ruling, she can’t deny marriage licenses to gay people either.  If she doesn’t like her job duties anymore she can resign, or continue to deny those services and face fines or imprisonment. (I feel like a broken record!)

gay agenda

“The homosexual agenda is [forcing others to stop] saying anything against homosexuality.”

I so love this “homosexual agenda” nonsense.  It makes me feel like a super-villain sitting in my secret lair having a meeting with all of the other super-villains about how to take over the world.  But that’s beside the point.  People are welcome to say whatever they want, but as with actions, words have consequences.  If a person says something I don’t like, I have every right to respond to their nonsense.  If they own a business and they refuse to sell me whatever product they already offer simply because I’m gay, then I can file a complaint to the proper government authority.  I can tell all my friends about what happened and they can all boycott their business.  I can also post about my experience on social media (or on my blog) and everyone that reads it can choose to boycott that business also.  In a few states (with more being added all the time) I can sue that business for violating anti-discrimination laws, just like they would be allowed to sue me if the tables were turned.  

“A couple is defined as man and woman. man and wife.”

This again? Hasn’t this ridiculous argument been shot down already? A marriage is defined as “between and man and a woman” only in specific religious sects, not according to the Federal government.  In our country, marriage is a contract between two people.  While most people get married when they love each other, it is not a legal requirement for even love to be involved, much less specific genders.  Sharing a specific religion certainly isn’t a requirement.  People are entitled to believe whatever they want, but we live in a melting pot of beliefs and cultures and in this country all of them are treated equally.  One religion doesn’t get to rule over the rest.  That is what the First Amendment guarantees.  

“[Procreation] is everywhere. You find it in the Bible (which you obviously don’t believe).”

The Bible doesn’t matter when it comes to discussing American law…


“But you also find [procreation] throughout nature.”

You know what else you find in nature?  That’s right… You find homosexuality in nature.  There are reportedly over 1,500 animal species that either engage in homosexual behavior or form homosexual pairings.

“It’s just the way we were created. we are created to procreate and that’s through man and woman.”

There certainly isn’t any scientific proof for creation by a god or gods, nor for “procreation as our sole purpose.” There are many living beings (including many human beings) that can’t procreate in male/female pairings and many that simply don’t want to.   Procreation is certainly necessary for man’s continued existence, that is true, though with scientific advances, even that is changing.  Some might even argue we should hold off procreating for a little awhile, what with all the children in orphanages, the current overpopulation problem, and our quickly depleting natural resources…  So, as it can quickly be established, there is no “set purpose” for human beings to exist, and even if there were, it certainly isn’t this “procreation only” nonsense.  

“And they have the right to marry. a man can marry a woman and vice versa. really simple stuff.”

(This argument annoys me to no end!) And now, according to Federal Law, gay couples can marry also.  It’s really simple stuff.  

tax exempt

“They want special privileges, and that is discrimination against the rest.”  

As stated before… Having the same rights as Fundamentalist Christians is not having “special privileges” (Cough…Cough… Tax exempt status…)   Christians can legally marry the person they love, and now, I can too!  Yay! 

“Yes, I’ve had gay friends. and they know I don’t approve or agree. I’m glad they do, because they need to realize it’s wrong in the eyes of God.”

As with the Bible, what a Fundamentalist Christian thinks “God” says is wrong is irrelevant when discussing American law.  People like this character I was debating with are no friend of gay people.  When someone tries to deny someone else basic human dignity and the Civil Rights that they already have access to, they are not a friend.  A person that wishes to deny me access to Civil Rights may be a casual acquaintance, a co-worker, or even a blood relative, but they aren’t a friend and they definitely don’t love me. No matter how much they’d like to pretend otherwise.  

“I love Gay people [but] I hate what they do.”

People like this only “love” gay people (but as I said, that’s debatable) so long as they conform to their beliefs and don’t live their lives as who they know they are.  Anti-gay bigots don’t “hate what [gay people] do.”  They hate gay people.  Period.  No matter how much they try and insist otherwise.  Being gay is a part of who I am just as much as my eye color, or my skin color.  I didn’t choose to be gay anymore than they chose to be straight (and unlike how they actually chose to be Christian).  Due to a random combination of genes, environment, and psychology, I turned out gay.  Being gay isn’t something I “do”, it’s a part of who I am, whether these zealots like it or not.

Kim Davis Jail

“Why are you forcing your “truth” on the poor judge? Sheesh! Her truth isn’t yours, but that’s doesn’t make your truth hers.”

As I’ve stated several times before no one is forcing her to do anything.  She has three options here:

  1. Do her job and provide marriage licenses to all who are legally allowed to have them (including gay people)
  2. Resign from her position if she doesn’t want to perform her job duties
  3. Continue to refuse to perform her job duties and face fines and imprisonment

Those are the options available.  Those are the only options available.  Continuing to deny gay couples marriage licenses from her position as a government official, when they have been guaranteed the right to marry by the Supreme Court, and therefore by the US Constitution, is illegal.  That’s all there is to it.  

“With different truths, we’re left with no truth and just madness.” (This was his response to the statement that not everyone lives their lives by what he believes to be true.)

The world has mostly gotten along just fine since humanity came into existence (ignoring the wars, genocides, and mass exterminations perpetrated by religious groups) with a wide variety of different truths.  Humanity existed long before the existence of Christianity or even Judaism just fine and it will continue to do so for as long as the environmental conditions and the availability of natural resources allows.  Provided we don’t blow each other up with nuclear bombs first of course…


“If there is no truth.. why can’t I just murder someone?”

Anyone can technically murder someone if they really wanted to (as we see on the news every day it seems…)  However, we have a system of laws in place, and those who break that law (by murdering someone for instance) will face the consequences of violating those laws.  They also may experience backlash from the family and friends of the person they murdered (up to and including losing their own life in return).  That is how our society works and religion has absolutely nothing to do with it.  Also, if the only thing that stops someone from murdering people is someone at their church telling them not to, then I’d say they have FAR more problems than they think any gay person has.  

“You do realize that this country was formed on biblical foundations right?”

As usual, the conversation always seems to head in this direction, and as always… It’s just wrong.  Just because some of the men (not all of them) who founded this country were Christian, doesn’t mean they intended this to be a Christian nation.  Here are a few quotes from our founding fathers (I’ll even use a couple that aren’t normally used to debunk the “Christian Nation” nonsense either!):

“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”  -George Washington

“We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition… In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.” – George Washington

“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” – 1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adamsreligious

Honestly, in spite of how it may seem, I don’t enjoy having this same discussion over and over again.  It’s dishearteningat best.  I can’t understand how seemingly intelligent people think that it’s okay to deny rights that they’ve always enjoyed to people a little different than them.  Where is the humanity?  Where is the empathy for their fellow human beings?  Why must we, as a country, keep reliving the same old battles, but with a change in one of the players?  It seems that we are always embroiled in Civil War of sorts, that usually involves Christians vs. [insert minority group].  It’s even been Christians vs. Other types of Christians for Christ’s sake (no pun intended)!

religion 2

If the religious community as a whole wants to remain relevant in this country (and even the world), then they need to wake up and stop with all of this nonsense where they viciously attack those that don’t hold to their particular faith, whether it be with bombs, guns, and knives, or with laws and regulations that attempt to deny rights to those outside of whatever the majority faith happens to be.  Those that are still a part of the world’s various religious communities that just want to live in peace with the rest of us need to rise up and tell those who cause trouble or who harm others that enough is enough! With information being passed between people in an instant, religion is quickly becoming irrelevant in it’s current form, and if it doesn’t want to be left behind then the religious need to wake up and realize that the rest of world is moving on without them and find a way to coexist.   


James Garcia 9/2/2015