Sports and Porn

Today is “Wear Your Jersey” day at church.  Members of the congregation are encouraged to wear the colors of their favorite athletic team to church.  Amazing.  Sickening.  And I wonder why I am so aghast and upset about this event.  It strikes me that addiction to sports and addiction to porn are very much alike.  I would be equally aghast and upset if the congregation were invited to church dressed (or undressed) as their favorite porn star.

Sound absurd?  Regardless of your sexual orientation and identity, porn is exciting.  We are hard wired to desire sex.  Observing attractive naked people engaged in sexual acts by definition is exciting.  I think one would have to be dead to be immune to porn.  However, we know that many of the folks in porn are abused and degraded, they are treated like cattle or worse, and many have life-long mental health issues once their porn days are over.  People still want to watch so there will be porn.  But watching too much is equally harmful and we know that porn addicts begin to suffer in their personal lives due to their addiction.  There are links to increased chemical addictions, negative impact on social relationships, negative impact on intimate personal relationships, and risk of job loss and productivity.  So, the observers of porn are at risk and the actors in porn are at risk and the effects can be life-long.

Regardless of your city or state there are 100’s of athletic teams to observe.  Watching sports events can be exciting.  We are likely hard wired to compete so watching competition is thrilling or agonizing depending on whether your team wins or loses.  However, we know that there are life-long effects for athletes, especially in the contact sports.  More and more evidence of permanent brain damage resulting from football and boxing makes it clear that we may be watching very self-destructive behavior.  Even middle-aged people who only played sports in high school still suffer from leg and hip and shoulder injuries.  Playing sports can be harmful to the professional players, and they are bought, sold, traded and released in an abusive and degrading way that is more like slavery or indentured servitude that goes un-discussed because millions of dollars are at play.  But they are treated little differently than porn stars.

How about those who are addicted to sports?  Those who cannot wait for their team to play.  Those who subscribe to all the sports channels so they do not miss a game.  Those who are addicted spectators?  More and more research verifies that fan effects are negative.  Spectator aggression including verbal, gesturing, “missile” throwing, swarming the field, property destruction, and physical assault are documented each year as side effects of intense fandom.  Add to that public intoxication, under-aged drinking, sexual degradation of cheerleaders, littering and traffic congestion and it becomes clear that watching such events not only puts the players at risk, it puts the spectators at risk.  Hostility and aggression escalate during the observance of competitive events.

So it seems to me that porn addiction and sports addiction carry numerous similar harmful side-effects with long-lasting effects on both the participants and the spectators.

And what ever happened to turning the other cheek and doing unto others as you would have them do for you?  Competition somehow does not fit those directives.

I am therefore horrified that a church would promote one or either of these addictions.  I will not be there on Jersey Day.  Maybe on porn star day, but not Jersey Day.

Why Leave Religion

Interesting.  Bottom line is many are leaving.

Better Off?

At 4:15 this morning the headline on CNN’s web page was, “Town Fights Mosque.”  In Newton County, Georgia, Islamophobia is reaching fever pitch as an Islamic Imam has purchased 135 acres on which he and his congregation plan to build a new, larger mosque to replace their current overcrowded mosque, and a cemetery to bury their dead.  Word got out, fear spread, and the town has halted the construction.

A town in the United States of America is blocking the construction of church because it is not the same as their church?  I have had it.  These protestant, white, Christians are creating religious conflict where there was none before.  They are acting no differently than the Muslims in the Mid-East who persecute Christians.  These folks are not qualified to call themselves Americans, much less Christians.

Christopher Hitchens, a renowned philosopher and atheist, asked, “Is the World Better Off with Religion?”  The answer appears to be a hearty “no” and the evidence continues to mount.

Without religion we would not have had the Crusades, we would not have had the Inquisition, we would not have had 9/11 and other terrorist attacks, we would not have conflict in Georgia, we likely would not have had the Civil War or mandates to implement Christian symbols across this country.  We would have had considerably more tax revenue as churches own a vast amount of real estate currently exempt from taxes.  We might likely have had real rest on the weekend without the Sunday or Saturday sojourn to a church. 

Without fundamental Christians, women would have always had equal rights, slaves would have been set free from the get-go, and women would have control of their reproductive systems.  Without Christians all stores would be open on Sunday.  Without Christians we would have a logical approach to gun restrictions.  Without Christians we would have been tolerant of people with different sexual orientations and identity.  Is there a Christian position in this country that in fact is more welcoming, more tolerant, and more supportive of diversity than atheists? Believers seem to have this urge to make everyone believe as they believe.  But if what they believe was evident, tangible, observable, and measurable there would be no arguments.  If what they believe is in fact just smoke and mirrors we will have a wide array of beliefs in constant competition for followers. 

I cannot think of a single positive, peaceful contribution to humanity made in the name of religion that would have not happened without religion, other than some absolutely glorious works of art and music.  Yes, religious groups have contributed greatly in areas of natural disasters, but so have countless other groups.  And the other groups helped without the catch that you had to hear about their philosophy.  Did Christians intervene to save Jews in Germany in the 1940’s?  Did Muslims offer to help Christians find relics during the Crusades?  Did missionaries reduce or increase the conflict in China in 1949, in Africa today, in Nepal today, in Bosnia today, in the Americas 500 years ago, and in South America today?  Where are the people of faith at a time of global conflict? 

Inside their ornate walled, air conditioned, pipe organed, and projected lyrics churches enjoying what used to be called a hootenanny. 

I wonder if we awoke tomorrow not knowing anything, our brains swept free of all knowledge, what would happen?  We would develop language, but probably not our current languages.  We would discover the laws of nature as in gravity, evolution, and DNA as they currently exist because they are discoveries, not inventions.  We would likely develop music and other art forms.  We would invent transportation and entertainment, etc.  But what about religion?  Would we “discover” a monotheistic religion?  Would we “discover” Christianity, Muslim, Hindu, etc.?  Would we invent them?  Would we have wars to convince those of other beliefs that our particular belief is the right belief?  Or would we even bother?  Belief systems are invented, not discovered.

It also appears to me we have more scientific evidence of the existence of UFO’s than we do of an afterlife.  And I continue to wonder if there is an all-knowing, all powerful deity out there why he or she insists on being cloaked.  Come on out and show yourself, elsewise, leave us alone.  If the test is to believe based on faith rather than fact, how different is that from a psychotic episode? 

So, I conclude, the world is not better off with religion.  It is an invention that has triggered separation and conflict.  Believing some god is on my side has been used to justify some of the most horrible assaults on humanity by fellow humans.  We no longer need that.  We can live a life governed by strong moral principles, then know we simply die like every other life form on the planet.

Give me liberty or give me death, and give me reality not hallucinations.

God is Anti-Abortion?

Just read an article by Jerry Newcombe ("God or Abortion.  Choose One," 8/4/2016) that simply argues Nancy Pelosi does not understand that God is anti-abortion.  I’ve read tripe before; I have graded thousands of high school seniors’ essays.  But Newcombe is right up there near the top in the non-grounded BS department.

Newcombe sites two Old Testament and one New Testament scriptures to “prove” God is anti-abortion.  David says in Psalm 139 that God knit him together in his mother’s womb.  Jeremiah says before God formed him in the womb He named him a prophet.  In the New Testament he sites Luke 1 where Mary and Elizabeth, both very pregnant, meet and Elizabeth says the baby in her womb leaped for joy.  If it is a baby it must be a human and if it is human abortion is murder and therefore should be opposed.

Really Jerry?  Is that all you’ve got?  A quote from two Bronze Age men who believe that God controls what happens in the womb from conception forward.  Do you want to stick with that?  If so, what kind of God do you worship who controls any number of birth defects?  What kind of God do you worship who controls any number of diseases infants manifest at birth?  Are you going to say that from conception forward the zygote is holy because God controls it and not hold God accountable for all the terrible atrocities that can occur at birth?  Is it that Jeremiah knows God ordains our future as we are formed in the womb?  If so, why does God curse so many infants?  What did they ever do that was so terrible that they deserved a birth defect, childhood cancer, SIDS, or whatever?  One cannot logically claim that at conception humans are sacred because God controls it and at the same time let God off the hook for the atrocities He therefore has committed.  Sounds like God should be prosecuted for murder, not pregnant women who have abortions.  And Elizabeth’s fetus jumping for joy?  Really?  How in the world do we know that the movements of an unborn are the result of some emotional state?  Does that mean if my wife’s baby bump moves when I sit next to her that our baby-to-be is jumping for joy? Or could it be that he is pissed off because he now has less room?  Or could it be that it is simply reflex movement as part of the developmental process?

The scriptural support is bizarre for his claim and logically worthless.  What I find even more disturbing than claiming God is anti-abortion is his willingness to skip over everything else God opposes.  If abortion is murder and should be subject to persecution, how about the passages that just come right out and say that if you get a divorce you have committed adultery and should be stoned to death?  How about the passages that say if you are a homosexual you should be stoned to death?  How about the passages that say if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night she should be stoned to death?  How about the passages that say if people do not worship the one true God they should be killed?  Each of these passages is extremely clear, no interpretation needed, no pseudo logical projection like if God ordains a future prior to birth this must be a baby and subject to all the protections of adults.  That is stretching logic and inference further than the passage allows.  The passages I refer to above are absolutely clear.  If this is the case, then this is the consequence.  We should be damning premarital sex and divorce more fiercely than we damn abortions.

Or, is Jerry one of those guys who says the rules regarding premarital sex, divorce, homosexuality, refusal to worship God, etc. were historically contextual and do not apply to us today, but I choose to take the logical inference regarding abortion from the same time period and conclude that such interpretations remain valid.  If Jerry has the authority to decide which Bible passages are valid and which ones are not, then I would strongly encourage him to simply decide his made up logic regarding abortions is no longer applicable.  That he does not make such a statement simply reveals his bias, not his logic, not his belief. 

For those of us who are questioning and wondering about our faith there are some incredible takeaways from Jerry Newcombe’s piece.  God must curse some babies in the womb.  God has decided our future roles before birth so there is no reason to presume we choose our own path.  Jerry is empowered to interpret scripture and ignore scripture as he sees fit to meet his own agenda.  Bronze Age men are capable of making better decisions regarding women’s reproductive rights than modern women.

Or, if the Bible says it or implies it we must obey it.  How anyone who has even the most superficial understanding of biology, anthropology, geology and astronomy could adhere to what are clearly statements in the Bible not only not grounded in fact, but actually false, is beyond me and beyond logic.  How can we maintain faith in the face of such lies and falsehoods?  And if the answer to that is we are allowed to pick and choose which passages we hold to be true, then what is the point of belief?  I could edit the Bible to portray any message I choose to portray.

Oh wait.  There are televangelists and mega churches that do that very thing so they make a ton of money.  In America if you get rich you must be right.  My bad.