I emerge from another self-imposed public exile with a mind overburdened with the daily privation of intellectual discourse. Every day I read another piece of excrescence from Dinesh D’Souza, or a local opinion column about the collectivism, communism, or statism of non-belief, about how atheism is teaming up with Islam, threatening our kids, or destroying society; everyday I force myself, for some unknown mental sadistic reason, to scroll through another contentious and jejune dictum on the greatness of superstition and mental obedience. I came home last night to another piece of D’Souza’s agitprop, and that shit-eating grin of his, and I lost it emotionally. The unending stream of garbage spouting the same refuted points is exhausting. I don’t have the time or the energy to single handily combat all of it. Most of the time I pass the articles over to AANR, sometimes I feel better commenting myself, but of late it just seems to be gaining momentum. One-liner punditry, worthless, and devoid of any real substance, spewed over and over; I marvel at my passionate contemporaries’ ability to brush off most of it as merely the death throes of a wasting and dying religion.

Let them have their precious beliefs one might say; and I hear you. My issue is not the lay-believer, the weekly participant, or even the piously devout who twist their own revelations towards reason to fit into society. On the contrary, my problem lies with the twisting of reality to fit into the revelations! The revision of history, the systematic theology of apologetics and Christian defense of Theonomy, and the current political Theocratic Dominionism prevailing through our culture and politics.

The abuses of the clergy and their megalithic churches is undeniable. It is a matter of principle and reason, and chiefly a matter of philosophical understanding.

The modern day atheist is the intellectual descendant of Enlightenment monism. This is not a theory, this is fact. It was with even greater courage and greatness that any true non-believers existed prior to 1859, to mollify the mental disposition towards authoritative natural conscience would have required profound intelligence, prevalent in men like Spinoza and Hume.

Today it is easier to obtain the truth, requiring nothing more than selective readings of great minds. I always ask that in the spirit of discourse one reads and understands the best the opposition has to offer, as to realize that their best is wholly insufficient. Scientists do balk at the “atheism” of evolutionary science, but evolution is the final brick in the philosophical destruction of revealed religions. Today it appears as if every major politician and leader must pander to the believers in our time in a way that is more barbaric than the early founding of our country. The deism of Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Allen, Washington, Madison, and Adams was contrary to every utterance of the modern churches. Rights are endowed by the Creator, or Nature’s God, but the the rule of the people is by the people, not a god, and certainly not the god of the revealed religions! A single quote, completely in context, can sum the entire disdain for some of the most important Founding Fathers, if there still remains any uncertainty about the subject. In context, imagine Hillary Clinton, John McCain, or Barack Obama saying any of the phrases, and having a chance to remain in Presidential contention. Christianity has changed little since this time period, but it has gained tremendous power, against all expressive attempts to prevent a Theocracy. Imagine, as I have, the response Washington gave to Hancock about chaplains being assigned to the military; “Among many other weighty objections to the Measure, it has been suggested, that it has a tendency to introduce religious disputes into the Army, which above all things should be avoided, and in many instances would compel men to a mode of Worship which they do not profess.” He would not get away this today!

John Adams:
“Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?”

Thomas Jefferson:
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

James Madison:
“The difficulty of reconciling the Xn [Christian] mind to the absence of a religious tuition from a University established by law and at the common expense, is probably less with us than with you. The settled opinion here is that religion is essentially distinct from Civil Govt. and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurous to both; that there are causes in the human breast, which insure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of law; that rival sects, with equal rights, exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or overheated imaginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and without a toleration, is no security for public quiet & harmony, but rather a source itself of discord & animosity; and finally that these opinions are support by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between Law & religion, from the partial example of Holland, to its consummation in Pennsylvania Delaware NJ, &c, has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in theory. Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State. On the Declaration of independence it was left with all other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among us now than there ever was before the change; and particularly in the Sect which enjoyed the legal patronage. This proves rather more than, that the law is not necessary to the support of religion.”

Benjamin Franklin:
“…Some books against Deism fell into my hands….It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

Thomas Paine:
“The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.”

Ethan Allen:
“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”

—In this, I share only the philosophical belief that the enemy is not the religious, and that other atheists and agnostics ought to take the word Freethinker instead. “Revealed” religion is the enemy of reason, that which accepts revelation as in any way a reliable source of knowledge and information about the world. All religions that profess revelation as this source, are the enemies of reason, and contrary to the Freethinker, contrary to the Founders of this country.

I’ve been bitching to my buddy Micah (Like, actually whining, I don’t know why he puts up with me sometimes) for the past few months about the abuse of the Middletown Police Department and the local government. I’ve avoided local politics, and for the most part, been keeping my nose clean with any local activism. I’m accustomed to being pulled over for one thing or another, in my mind usually for my “controversial” car decals (Two Darwin Fish…). Here, I’ve been pulled over twice for a “random” check. I’ve been asked in malls to remove my hands from my sweater, and I’ve had my keys confiscated by a police officer for not having my Environmental decal displayed, who then proceeded to lie to me about the suspension of my registration. I had to attend a Tribunal to argue in front of the judge that the suspension of my registration was against the law, seeing as I didn’t break a law. I wrote a lengthy and well written complaint to internal affairs about the whole ordeal, to which the local Middletown Police refused to acknowledge. I brought the issue with the local government, with no proper confirmation or acknowledgment that my complaints reached the right sources. Meantime, the cops are all driving brand new Dodge Chargers.

From Micah:

“Providence AP. Middletown School District. Wow. We are famous as privacy abusers. You are right Dane (Savor that, by the way), Middletown is fast becoming a police state.”

Scrolling across Faux News the last few nights has been the headline that here in Middletown, RI, our lovely local government and school board will place electronic tracking devices in Elementary School Students to test better communications between teachers and parents with students.

Ironic. I happen to be in the right place at the right time. This was actually my elementary school in the short time I lived here, almost 20 years ago. There is still a time capsule in the playground from my Kindergarten class, I’m sure, long forgotten.

No, it’s really not funny. The big guns (ACLU) are coming in for this one, and coupled with national attention, it won’t be an issue for too long. This has been Micah’s home for a lot longer than mine. We both have come to a fairly solid middle-ground, myself leaving behind the fetters of a Big Government economy, and Micah leaving behind the detritus of Big Government social values. Perhaps we should consider running for local government, if anything, to protect our neighbors and friends from abuse of the system, something that is clearly necessary.

I have raised money for Ron Paul, I have recruited people to the campaign, I have defended his positions, and I have stood out in the cold to help get signatures. I have also contributed over 300 posts to the Ron Paul Forums, and was considered a Senior Member.

After posting recently four major concerns about atheists and Ron Paul’s policies, the thread was effectively deleted. Upon pointing out that I did not violate any of the forum rules by criticizing his stances, (concerning abortion, separation of church state, racism, education, and his views on evolution and science)the new thread was also deleted, and I was banned permanently from the forums.

This is what a campaign begins to look like. The Ron Paul supporters can congratulate themselves, they are mainstream, and they are acting like it. I have no real equivalent explanation to the behavior. This is a campaign that swears on the Constitution and our freedoms, a quasi libertarian movement that attempts to be above everyone else, especially in regards to our first freedoms.

What can I say about this? This is representative of the campaign and the movement. I have received personal return mail on the positions of every candidate or campaign except Ron Paul. One can only assume that he is offended by my non-belief, which means he will be offended by your non-belief. The grassroots campaign has become a cult whose rabid fans continue to expouse freedom as a qualifier of their authority under the guise of Christian Dominionism oozing with distant echoes of white supremacy. The real libertarians have been ejected from the role they started in the grassroots effort. In its place, this, an odd collection of pseudo-intellectual self-appointed arbiters, who believe in some sort of political panacea who, armed with single sentence cliches, run to the defense of Ron Paul’s policies despite the goatse like holes that have gone unfilled.

Am I bitter? Maybe. I don’t exonerate myself from a part in any of this… It was not like I was a troll or an obnoxious presence. I have merely been a presence of dissent that was deemed dangerous enough to the campaign to delete and ban permanently, without even a defined reason.

I believe in freedoms. There isn’t a freedom that someone could convince me to with enough reason and rationale.

What is this? This is what it has become? Suppressing a dissenting opinion? For what end? What reason, other than the fear that what I have to say may in fact reach a few people?

In no way do I intend to imply that I lost support for Ron Paul because of this event. I apologize for that misconception. My opinion changed because of issues I have yet to discuss. I would like to point out this post was more about the hypocrisy of being banned from a Ron Paul Forum in light of the claim of supporters to adhere to the principles of freedom. Many Ron Paul supporters have also attacked other forums for deleting threads about Ron Paul.

1. I did not endorse another candidate.
2. I did not break any of the forum rules.
3. I brought up a long list of issues and concerns in my consideration for Ron Paul as a candidate.
4.  Thread was deleted
5. Bringing up the deletion got my account banned.

Savvy?

Discussion on Facebook.

Remember when a Ron Paul Thread was deleted by Sean Hannity Forums?

SO get this: Advocates of Faith and Freedom, an ultra-theocratic advocacy law firm, is representing a student of an Orange Country School District who claims his first amendment rights were violated by Dr. James Corbett, an AP European History Teacher by “convey[ing] a governmental message that students holding religious beliefs are outsiders and not full members of the community. This hostility towards religion is a violation of the establishment clause.”

Dr. Corbett apparently “spends an extended period of time at the beginning of each class discussing topics that are not only irrelevant to history but also inflammatory and often altogether inappropriate for high school students.”

This student, Chad Farnan, brought in a tape recorder and recorded some of the teacher’s rants, including this:

What part of the country has the highest murder rate? The South. What part of the country has the highest rape rate? The South. What part of the country has the highest … church attendance? The South. Oh, wait a minute. You mean there is not a correlation between these things … You know, you go down to Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, all these states that are as red as they could possibly be, as right-wing Republican as you could possibly be. When you first present these people with the economic policies of the Democratic party, they are all Democrats. Virtually all the social programs, they like. They lead the Democratic party on social issues. That’s it. Social issues, can you imagine what they’re saying on Rush Limbaugh now? About, ‘Middle school people in New England giving people birth control pills. My God. What next?’ I love Rush Limbaugh. A fat, pain in the a—liar. And, boy, is he a liar. Unbelievable.”

Sheer comic genius. Give this man the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Seriously. I wish I had one teacher like Dr. Corbett in High School.

No. Let me explain this a little better. This lawsuit has been done before, and this language is the language of the previous attempt, the secularists. This is not original. This is merely more proof of the copycat approach to morality and the legal system by the religious dominionists. It isn’t enough that the school system is still a breeding ground for religious indoctrination, and non-believers and other people who would rather teach their kids at home about religion have been ostracized and having failed previous attempts to bring these lawsuits to the courts, this Fascist Law Firm decides to copy the work of organizations like the ACLU. In these previous cases we, the secular taxpayers, have been found to not have standing. Our only victory was erasing mandatory prayer from school and the occasional Lemon Test success, but Christian proselytizing from the podium is not a phantom. If this brings about the demise of teacher’s personal freedoms of ranting about religion from either way… it is a victory for us. Dr. Corbett’s glorious and hilarious rant is what they ask for when theists demand that we allow “mandatory” prayer back in the school system. They ask for the competition of ideas on religion, and they are going to get the opinions of the occasional intelligent man like James Corbett chiming in…

I hope Chad was offended. I hope many people were offended. Not because I’m a cold-hearted anti-theist spewing my hatred into the nethervoids, not at all; it is because it’s an opportunity to learn, to know what it is like to be unlike an authority, and to question authority. My classes were filled with very anti-secular, anti-atheist rhetoric that would make Jonathan Edwards grimace (whose infamous sermon was also taught in my school with reckless literal abandonment). I’ve heard every horror in history, including the Inquisition, unexpectedly blamed on non-believers. My school hosted Heaven’s Gates and Hell’s Flames! No, if anything, this will give our friend Chad that opportunity to faithfully disagree with his professor in a healthy way… it’s an AP course for goodness sake! I am who I am today because I disagreed with my professors, and for every professor who has proven his worth to me, in being unequivocally wrong and out of order, I applaud you.

Alas, I don’t think it is right. My stance is neutrality, although I definately think there is room to discuss the failings of Christianity in a history class. If they win this lawsuit, which they probably will, consider the fallout in our favor. Where we have failed, they will succeed, and close themselves further out of the public tax supported spectrum. For this, Dr. James Corbett, is an American hero.

And for good measure, (I could listen to this guy all day) let’s see what other bits of wisdom our friend has:

The Boy Scouts can’t have it both ways. If they want to be an exclusive, Christian organization or an exclusive, God-fearing organization, then they can’t receive any more support from the state, and shouldn’t.” In the industrialized world the people least likely to go to church are the Swedes. The people in the industrialized world most likely to go to church are the Americans. America has the highest crime rate of all industrialized nations, and Sweden has the lowest. The next time somebody tells you religion is connected with morality, you might want to ask them about that.

Well, we know abstinence doesn’t work. And we know one other thing, and that is, once people become sexually active, they often don’t stop for, like, 40 or 50 years. I mean, generally, when you start you don’t, like, have a conversion and try to become re-virginized, you know. It’s not going to happen.

Sound.

The pledge of allegiance asks for a personal affirmation of faith from each child every morning in the public school system. If this were not such a big deal, than the removal of Under God would not be a big deal. The reason the constitutionality is questionable is most noticeable in an example a priori.

Christians: Each morning your child is mandated to attend a public school system, in which your money contributes. Each morning your child must state a personal affirmation to the republic, the flag, and a lack of faith.Each morning the child affirms:

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation without God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

Do you have a problem with this? Using the excuse of De Minimis, we have only changed one word. It is just a minor affirmation of non-faith. The courts, using the argument that the affirmation is “too short” to worry about, is a fallacy. Everyone in this country would worry about that change. Rightfully so. Why?
Because you know the government should not be dictating affirmations of faith. Read that again. YOU know the government should not be dictating affirmations of faith. Your children should not be pledging to a Nation Under God just as much as other parent’s children should not be pledging to a Nation Without God. This is an argument for neutrality.

Notice that by including one God, not gods, not no gods, you have effectively chosen and singled out an affirmation to one god. You have favored one specific form of religion, monotheism, over two other choices, atheism, and polytheism.

As a good rule to follow, imagine that the government was neutral to the three main forms of belief. Neutrality towards Atheism, Monotheism, and Polytheism. Why would anyone complain about this? Is it unfair to one group specifically? Is their a religious argument that can be made to not support this? How many people are affected.
15% of the population to be more exact, or 7.2 million children who fall under a non-monotheism umbrella. It is insurmountably clear that the intention of the founding fathers was to never exclude citizens from this country based on religious or non-religious affiliation.

The arguments for the pledge of allegiance to remain intact has come in a variety of forms. The most notable and most prevalent as discussed opinions and friend of court briefs. The government brief read as:

“What it really means is, I pledge allegiance to one nation, founded by individuals whose belief in God gave rise to the governmental institutions and political order they adopted, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Is this even a legitimate court decision? If the country thought that is what it said, we wouldn’t have the responses. I also doubt that the people most appalled by the “attack” on the pledge believe that to be the case. The problem also comes from the abuse of the “Under God” portion of the pledge. It has been used against non-believers and polytheist already.

* Christians disrupt Hindu Prayer to open Congress. Many were quoted as saying “This is one nation Under God, not one nation of many gods.”

* When asked “Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?”, future president George H. Bush famously replied “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”

* Chuck Norris in a column for WorldNetDaily noted that if he were president he would Tattoo an American flag with the words, “In God we trust,” on the forehead of every atheist.

From a Christian perspective, is not the taking of the Lord’s name in vain a sin? How much in vain in the claim to be one Nation Under God? If the court is correct in it’s interpretation, there is no argument to be had that this isn’t simply uttered in vain, since the meaning is apparently not what it clearly says…

Secularists are not trying to destroy religion. We are trying to maintain a neutral battlefield of ideas. Mixing a pledge of allegiance with affirmation of faith is saying that a person who doubts the existence of god, or believes in more than one god is not loyal to this nation. If the pledge is an act of patriotism, what does it mean to include an affirmation of faith? If the affirmation of faith is meant as something else entirely, does that not reduce the value of the statement to faiths like Judaism and Christianity, who hold that they will not take the Lord’s name in vain?
The attempt to clarify the meaning of Under God or dismiss it under the De Minimis approach is the purest form of judicial activism. Mixing patriotism with an affirmation of true faith in one God in unconstitutional and ultimately oppressive. The correct ruling will ultimately dismiss the phrase Under God permanently from the pledge of allegiance, and the rational and common sense sides of America should embrace that decision.

It was with great reluctance that I withheld this long from writing. From a personal perspective, this has been highly draining. Surviving both an emotionally draining but entertaining trip to South Bend to watch my Alma Mater get an enema from Boston College, I returned to Newport with the nastiest flu I can remember, and followed it with an even meaner case of tonsillitis. An entire month+ and I’ve only managed to add another few pages to my very enjoyable essay on Hart. I had told myself I wouldn’t post until I was finished with the piece, but as the title explains, this has become an untenable situation in and of itself.

So much has happened in this short time. Greg Epstein has signed a deal to write about Humanism in a book tentatively called Good Without God. It is often difficult to explain to some of my peers why I like Greg so much, but talking to anyone in person changes your opinion of them, the one and quite possibly only issue I have with the technological curtain. I’ve always maintained in defense of Greg that Secular Humanism, in general, is the only imperative replacement for securing social traditions left in the absence of strict religious activities and observances. Greg has also given credit to us vocal atheists in bringing more attention to Humanism… I charge him with making sure it doesn’t enjoy the same apparent fall of the previous generation’s attempt.

Today marks the first celebration of a so-called Great American God-Out, which I’m guessing is a play of the Great American Smoke-Out. I had only recently heard about this, but some big players have signed on, including (Facebook-Hating) Rational Response Squad, Greydon Square, Michael Shermer, and Margaret Downey. The event calls for celebration around the nation for the 29 million people who consider themselves non-believers. With a slogan like “Help give theocracy the philosophical hammer!” I’m sure it will serve as a beacon of hope for those of us who are to be hanged in the next presidency.

I do have to revisit my comment about Facebook Hating. As a former user of Myspace, a peruser occasionally on the forums of Rational Response, listener of their broadcasts, and their home on Stickam, I’m struck with the noticeable failure of the entire group of usually insightful people to even investigate the potential of Facebook. I’ve been to all the places they get their message across on, and I’m generally unimpressed by the amount of involvement. I’m not saying this because of my loyalty to AANR, or my personal connection to it, it just seems that their is a tremendous amount more people involved actively with the forums on Facebook then anywhere else that I contribute. When this fact is brought up to Brian “Sapient”, it is usually followed by a very derisive scoff at the mere mention of Facebook. It should be noted the only reason I even maintain any Myspace accounts any longer, is for þL||2þΩ535 |<\>√Ω£√|<\>6 7#3||2 4[[355|8£3 4<\>I> þΩΩ|2 [ΩI>3. That really is how bad it has gotten. The forums on the “active” atheist group is comprised 4/5th of the time with advertisements, followed by HTML hacks. Occasionally, very occasionally, there is a taste of insightful debate.

No matter, AANR has just reached 13,000 members, a group which has no competition on Facebook. One would think I would be trying to avoid the Rational Response Squad’s presence, but I think the last thing we need in our battle for hearts and minds is that ancient Atheist independence rearing its’ ugly head, and as a result I am a adamant activist for cooperation on all fronts. What AANR offers is that sense of community ironically. Somehow, the group has become rather close, with some of the active members becoming friends outside the boundaries of technology.

Let’s see. Weapon of Nation Destruction, or WorldNetDaily (WND) as they like to call themselves, has yet another monstrous commentary on the position of non-belief. This one, lovingly entitled “The irrationality of atheists” (lower case intact) , is, to put it mildly, nearing the “fighting words” category of hate speech.

I can sum up the entire article in one sentence the Inkdribbler wrote, “You see, the problem that the atheists (and anti-theists) have is not an intellectual one but rather a moral one. It’s not a matter of the head but one of the heart; they don’t believe in God because they don’t want to believe in Him.“

Yikes. I can’t even muster up sarcasm for that. The Theists, and Conservatives in general, must always prove a point by declaration and affirmation. The last line of the commentary, “the evidence for God is so overwhelming that it takes far more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. That fact was demonstrated yet again, … as anyone who watched [the debate] objectively would have to conclude”, is the most egregious and disdainful attempt to undermine a group I’ve seen in my lifetime. Granted, I was born in 82′, and missing out on the various civil injustices of the prior generation, I am generally offended by this piece.

The WND is garbage. Most of us sit back and just acknowledge that this is the case, that there are in fact media outlets like this, and it’s best just to ignore them…

The problem is that these venues are new to America. You have to travel to the likes of old Soviet Russia and modern day Eritrea, to find this kind of distortion of reality. Our drive-by criticism is not doing the job, these groups, Fox News included, are distorting the public in a way that media has never done before in America. The supposed “liberal” news bias claims are unfounded. Liberal here literally means truth, in the case of the news organizations. If CNN reports on a death toll in Iraq, that’s liberal. When Fox News spends 3 minutes trashing the legacy of Kurt Vonnegut, that’s fair and balanced. When Weapon of Nation Destruction claims loudly and defiantly “Anything Not Christian is Irrational” that is the American way.

If you track the face time of the political candidates, you may notice that Fox does in fact spend a fair amount of time on most candidates (excluding the Red-headed stepchild of the GOP Ron Paul) , but how many of you actually see one bit of news that is fair to Obama or Clinton? Think about that, face time isn’t good if it is an hour long special on how you will ruin America. I just can’t sit back and believe that the American people are really falling for the obvious distortion of the some of the media. When a person is allowed to answer criticism sent their way, that is fair, when a news media that calls itself fair and balanced actively and willfully pushes the candidate of their own choosing… that is neither fair nor balanced.

Speaking of which, The New York Times seems to think that Fox has chosen their horse, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/us/politics/02FOX.html.

The question is, does this article seem excessively liberal or conservative, when compared to this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311838,00.html

Posted just an hour ago, I didn’t even have to look long for an example.

Sad… really sad. I’m ashamed to call myself libertarian when the movement gets even remotely associated with these neo-cons.

Edit: At the time of writing this, the Fox News Website also had this: Breaking News: Ball of Flame Erupts on Texas Highway After Truck Bursts Into Flames: Watch Live

*For the moral win.

This reminds me of the report that stated that Fox decisively shows more scantily clad women than any other news stations, in the guise of reporting on the failing standard of culture. Sensationalism…

Ayn Rand wrote about Fox News years before it was created… she called it The Banner.

Several articles have been reprinted lately, most in response to a Washington Post article which makes the dubious claim that atheism is on the rise. One asks, “Why is atheism on the rise?”. Local newspapers across the nation are showcasing one of the two versions of this article.

Sometime last night it struck me. A realization as profound as the organic label on produce, although vastly more useful. A question each of us can tackle, and hopefully empathize and experience in our own mildly solipsistic world.

The believer is in fact threatened by us. They are genuinely disturbed the fact that we don’t believe. Really think about this for a second… They are actually appalled by our non-belief. How dare you not believe. I suppose this concept was more profound to me, when I applied it to myself… Imagine you held that sort of conviction, the mere presence of someone who didn’t, knowingly, especially something you should know better about, would in fact be upsetting.

Let’s really think about that… How dare you not believe…

What kind of twisted, convoluted world do we live in? People are actually insulted by not accepting their beliefs. In other countries, it is a crime.

We should be angry. As a non-believer, the average believer seems ridiculous, but we are not genuinely appalled by their existence until they decide to speak. The believer is the common man, the usual, the everyday thing, the horribly wrong, yet defiantly stubborn sufferers of paranoia/delusional schizophrenia. We don’t make the comparison enough, but read for yourself: Delusional Disorder.

I write in jest mostly, but there is something wholly unnerving about the tendency of believers to not only become apparently disheartened at our existence, but to then go on to try and explain it?!

Why is truth on the rise? Why is sanity on the rise? Why are more people believing that disease is caused by microbes? Why are more people refusing to believe the earth is flat? Why are more people refusing to believe [insert random insanity].

Why is atheism on the rise?

Think.

Dutch Hoorenbeek is a successful entrepreneur. A net worth of $1.5 million, an owner of a mall and several dance clubs, married to a gorgeous redhead, designs lingerie and bikinis, and known the world over as sophisticated and charming, a tall, dark, and striking rogue biker, dressing under his privilege and affluence. He is the paragon of success…

Except his money is in Linden dollars, his real name is Ric Hoogestraat, he is married to a different woman, and he makes 14 dollars an hour as a call center employee.

Hold that thought.

Those who have shared the unique honor and abject horror of meeting me for the first time are usually aware of two things. That I am a modern progressive, and unapologetic about it, and if you remain in contact with me, your life will never be the same.

As a technologically savvy college graduate, a computer nerd and hacker, a twisted combination of introspective nerdy chic and a X-Gen socializing cross between computer gamer and Ferris Bueller, a government contracted Sys Admin no less, I am the last person who should be saying this…

I despise Second Life. I hate everything it stands for. I abhor the concept, and deep down I know why. I daresay, deep down you know why too.

When I was a kid, I fantasized about designing a game like Second Life, although it was more of a fantasy world more reminiscent of World of Warcraft. I told kids at school I was playing it everyday, every question they asked was followed with a detailed description of the game, a complete fabrication, but a lucid one that my childhood friends shared in absurdity and wild excitement, “You mean there are thousands of skeleton soldiers as an army?” It was a dream of mine to one day have the means to produce such a game, to create a complete world, where one could pick up a rock and throw it at the person in front of them, knock down a tree, explore a complex, detailed world, where one could set out alone to find rare artifacts and spells or engage in collective, orchestrated battles of nations. To sail the ocean endlessly, or turn yourself into a gallivanting cut-purse, pillaging and stealing from others.

I have learned a lesson, and that dream is long since shattered and swept under the fridge. Second Life is an attack of the only cure we have against delusion right now. Technology, the free flow of information, mass of data and knowledge, all dangerously fragile, all subject to the same uncontrolled and arbitrary method of destruction that has already destroyed the media.

Escapism.

Never mind for now that Second Life has major crime issues, and virtual fraud. A millionaire in Second Life is not a millionaire in real life, but it would take a real equivalent to match them in the virtual world. In order to obtain multi millions in Lindens, it would cost you real money, and/or real “hard” work. The wall of representation and the seemingly mocking example of our real economic fiat continues. The one way exchange rate is L250 to $1. A banking firm in Second Life now might have to explain to a REAL federal investigator how he lost $L200,000,000, a real life $750,000 to people who used his bank. Think of the law nightmare this creates, and the very real possibility that it could undermine the concept of what is of real value to anyone.

This however, is not my concern.

I have re-read, for the fifth time, Fountainhead. In it, Ayn Rand predicted many things, all of which, I challenge anyone to question otherwise, have come true. From the exploration of space, to the eventual rule of the masses through media. In the most vivid scene to me, Gail Wynand gained control of the Gazette, changed the name to the Banner, and in the first publication, asked for donations to two causes. A starving scientist with promising new research, and a chambermaid with an illegitimate son. The overwhelming response to the story of the chambermaid is used in a staff meeting by Wynand to explain to his workers what the banner will be, sensationalism, and moral stories that nobody will disagree with, when there isn’t news, the Banner will make the news. She predicted Fox News. She predicted The Drudge Report. The is the first problem with Second Life.

Hold that thought.

In I Am a Strange Loop Douglas Hofstadter details the idea of “soul shards”, people as the abstract existence of memory. Imagine a small piece of paper with black dots on it, a written compilation of Beethoven, arraigned and designed perfectly to the exact specifications of the artistic genius composer himself. All of us share Beethoven, a piece of him, a component of his mind, with something as small as a hand-written note. Our memories of people in pictures, writings, works, and anything that gives us one sudden neurological response to them, is in essence all the technological wave, the destroyed of gods has given us. But it is not without its’ power. These shards, these pieces of people effect thousands, millions, and some, billions of people. You will not see your favorite dog, or your mother, or your great-aunt when you die. You can however, look at picture and enjoy the millions of sudden reflections in your mind of that object of sentiment. When you die, others will do the same for you. In this sense, what is your contribution to the memory of your family and friends, those closest now, who, would be the champions of your deepest thoughts and life tribulations. What do you create in a world that is automatically the abstraction. Are you really represented, are you anything remotely yourself. This is Second Life’s second problem.

Hold that thought.

Ayn Rand’s most important lesson was not new, but it was the most detailed. The destruction of the “I”. Selflessness specifically combined with the shameful reality of indulgence of the absurd, the gossip, the fall of great people, the cheaters, the extraordinary, the bold lettered headlines shouting loudly the harrowing mob desires. Second Life is indeed two lives, but not because it rapes from your real life. It is the destruction of the “I” and it is science and technology’s companion to Fox News, The Drudge Report, the modern tabloid and the greatest evils ever perpetuated upon man. The evil of allowing easy access to the destruction of the self, easy access to the dissemination of the amazing collection of real knowledge, the allowance and joyous suppression of the facts buried in the opinions of men who know the rise to power is through the collective and genuflecting “selfless” people, who in their misery of their own lives, seek the justification of their existence in the faceless news reels, the promotion of charity through idea that merely being against something matters, who watch and learn with fast moving and simple moral standards, commentaries by men who have never written an original word honored as heroes of a culture war, public memorials to remove the shame at having watched secretly in desire to see the car crash, the joy of watching starlets entering rehab, gain weight, and fall from grace, so one could suddenly feel righteous by being the first to forgive them, the average housewife detailing the pity shared of husbands of wealthy socialites who cheated, have in turn vindicates themselves, watching in senseless shame a hurricane barely miss a major city, and sigh that it was a pity; these people to be given the idea that they are part of a fair and balanced existence, who, as the spiral of self-loathing continues, drives the repression into the fantasy realms of Second Life and World of Warcraft. These are the people from my end, my side of life that should know better. Instead, the nausea has seeped into the last stronghold of intellectual discourse. A free thinking person should fear the control of the mass mediocrity, the same as one should fear the control of the masses by one.

This is the final blow, the mixing of the real Second Life, the meaning of it all. We are already shells of other lives. Integrity is a dead art. We are escapists in everything, including now, our love, our money, our entire physical lives.

This is the path to a totalitarian democracy.
The future dystopia will have a second life, the greatest conceived tool of the enshrined mediocrity, but I assure you, it will not be called second life.

Sources:
Wall Street Journal
Associated Content

A reminder:

Amendment 1
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.

Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

If an atheist walks into a courtroom with this:

You are going to tell me that this doesn’t violate her right to a fair trial, and the establishment clause, especially seeing as this is the only display in the court?!

Bullshit. These same idiots who are going after the ACLU are the ones who used the ACLU in at least two cases protecting free speech:

California: A high school student, Tyler Chase Harper is allowed wear a shirt opposing homosexuality in protest of his school’s day dedicated to gay rights, the ACLU fought and won him that right.

New Jersey: The ACLU defended the right of an elementary school girl to sing a religious song at the school supported talent show.

I agree 100% with the rulings of these two cases, yet in the words of Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian anti-ACLU and civil liberty destroyer: “[The ACLU is] one of the worst attackers of religious speech in America,”.

Honestly, fuck you ADF. The ACLU is a protector of ALL civil liberties, regardless of who they come from… and you think they would protect Muslims more than they do Christians?

Think again you twisted half-wits. This kid has a constitutional right to flush whatever holy text he wants, and the ACLU is going to defend him as well.

So chill, the ACLU is out to protect you folks. Stop being ignorant, please.