BACKWARD SPIRAL

Cro-magnon Lives!

2007-11-07T15:53:00.000-08:00

I recently read a most fascinating book 'Cities of Dreams - When Women Ruled the Earth' by Stan Gooch. Totally facinating, so please read on:

Mr Gooch presents a convincing and compelling theory of ancient world cultures and why many symbols and stories are shared by seemingly unconnected societies. In a nutshell he proposes neanderthal and cro-magnon interbred to produce modern humans or at the very least our core belief systems originated with neanderthal and were adopted and modified by cro-magnon .

The key points to remember are: neanderthals were left handed, mostly nocturnal, moon worshippers and matriarchal while cro-magnons were right handed, diurnal, sun worshippers and patriarchal. Cro-magnons migrated into Europe where the neanderthals were firmly established around the end of last ice age. They co-mingled and cro-magnons adopted neanderthals beliefs and symbolism but over time lost their original meanings. To neanderthal the moon is represented by red, spiders, the square cross (circle with a + sign inside) water and as a goddess (female).

A radically condensed sampling of evidence:

Red comes from red-ochre and is held sacred in most ancient societies. To the neanderthals it represented blood and the menstrual cycle which in turn was associated with the moon. And as we enter the world covered in blood, they painted their dead with red-ochre before burial. Cro-magnun adopted and spread the practice worldwide. Mind you red-ochre isn't just laying around exposed on the ground, you have to dig for it, and know where to dig.

The square cross symbolized the moon and its 4 quarters and/or cardinal directions. This is where the spider comes in. Neanderthals believed the moon deity spawned a spider who in turn spun the world into existence. If you look at the center of a spider web you'll see the square cross! This eventually evolved into the various cross symbols, Maltese, christian cross, and swastika. The square cross is still used to represent the moon in astrology. Hitler even adopted it along with the familiar red, white & black, all colors of the moon. Weird huh? Gets even more tangled...

Labyrinths and dancing. Found all over the world, represents the spiderweb, usually 7 rings and enter on the left. The spider spins a web from the left and 'dances' around the supporting threads during construction. Therein later religions incorporate the labyrinth and one dances, chants or strolls from the left to the center and back out.

Zodiac. The neanderthal zodiac consisted of 13 divisions based on the lunar calendar and yes the spider figures in there somehow. This is why 13 keeps popping up, judge/ jury, Jesus/disciples, Jewish manhood at 13, Arthur/Round Table.

Now this is the point were it really takes off. Cro-magnons who weren't very ritualistic wanted to adopt the neanderthals 'magical powers' & ways but they retooled them into their way of thinking. So out with female importance, replaced by gods, male leaders, and generally making women second class citizens. This is when menstruation became unclean and women were untouchable during their periods etc. Replaced the 13 zodiac with 12. Worshipped the sun. Favored right handedness over left. All root words in various languages for 'right' always are positive words while roots of 'left' are weak, worthless and womaness!

Subsequently all the many secret, semi-secret and heretical movements that followed all sprung from the desire to recapture fragments from the Old Religion, Ancient Knowledge and Fertility Rites. They really had no idea or understanding of what they were guarding and passing down. But they did know it was very ancient.

He even argues that Christianity was an attempt to restore the Virgin Moon, the female principle, but attitudes had changed during its formation, the male principle & sun worship dominated but they were determined to pass down the core of ancient traditions (the magical path) in a form that while hidden, if one looked hard enough would recognize it for what it was.

There's lots more 'coincidences' and evidence of cro-magnons amongst us in the book. I highly recommend you read it, it'll change your world perspective. It sure did mine.

NAPOLEON: UNSUNG HERO OF SECULARISM

2007-07-28T19:09:00.000-07:00

I saw an episode of 'The Secret Files of the Inquisition' on TV the other day. I was surprised to learn that Napoleon had a big part in ending the inquisition. Wonder who's been downplaying that in our history class here in America. The way Napoleon has always been portrayed is that of the bad guy, we know of his defeat at Waterloo and that he was short and his hand always tucked in his vest and that's about it. Who knew he had so much to do with stripping the Vatican of its earthly powers. I have a new found respect for the man. Vive le Napoleon! Upon further research I found the establishment of modern Italy quite facinating. I didn't know it came from a three way fight between Autria, France & the Vatican. So below is a short history of Italy's founding.

Napoleon's conquest of Europe and the spread of Enlightenment ideas mark the beginning of the end for the Inquisition and papal rule over Italy. In 1808, Napoleonic forces occupy Madrid and abolish the Spanish Inquisition. The artist Goya depicts for the first time its cruelties, while an insider, Father Juan Antonio Llorente , publishes the first written history of the Inquisition, giving voice to its victims and severely damaging the reputation of the Church. By 1809, Napoleon strips the Pope of his authority and orders the Vatican archive shipped to Paris, hoping to use the contents to undermine and humiliate the Church. With Napoleon's defeat in 1814, the Inquisition makes a resurgence – but its reign will be short-lived, as the rise of the Italian unification movement sees the Pope's temporal kingdom steadily diminished.

The establishment of the Italian Republic and later of the Kingdom of Italy, ruled by Napoleon, began to encourage nationalism in those who lived in the regions. As Napoleon's reign began to fail, other national monarchs he had installed tried to keep their thrones by feeding those nationalistic sentiments, setting the stage for the revolutions to come. Following the defeat of Napoleonic France, the Congress of Vienna (1815) was convened to redraw the European continent. In Italy, the Congress restored the pre-Napoleonic patchwork of independent governments, particularly Austria. But several Italian states began to push for a unified Italian state again, feeding the flames of nationalism that had already been ignited in the populace.

At the time, the struggle for Italian unification was perceived to be waged primarily against the Austrian Empire and the Habsburgs, since they directly controlled the predominantly Italian-speaking northeastern part of present day Italy and were the single most powerful force against unification. The Austrian Empire fought hard against nationalist sentiment, Chancellor von Metternich stated that the word Italy was "purely a geographic expression."

Those in favor of unification also faced opposition from the Holy See, particularly after failed attempts to broker a confederation with the Papal States, which would have given them some measure of autonomy over the region. The pope at the time, Pius IX, feared that giving up power in the region could mean the persecution of Italian Catholics.

One of the most influential revolutionary groups was the Carbonari (coal-burners), a secret organization formed in southern Italy early in the 19th century. Inspired by the principles of the French revolution, its members were mainly drawn from the middle class and intellectuals. After the Congress of Vienna divided the Italian peninsula among the European powers, Carbonari spread.

They were so feared that the reigning authorities passed an ordinance condemning to death anyone who attended a Carbonari meeting. But the society continued to exist and was at the root of many of the outbreaks in Italy from 1820 on. Carbonari condemned Napoleon III to death for failing to unite Italy and almost succeeded in assassinating him for his transgressions. Most leaders of the unification movement were members of this organization.

In 1820, Spaniards revolted successfully over their constitution, which spurred a similar movement in Italy. Inspired by the Spaniards, a regiment in the army of the Kingdom of Two Sicilies revolted, conquering the peninsular part of Two Sicilies. The king, Ferdinand I, agreed to enact a new constitution. But the revolutionaries failed to court popular support and fell to Austrian troops of the Holy Alliance. Ferdinand abolished the constitution and began systematically persecuting revolutionaries.

Around 1830, revolutionary sentiment in favor of a unified Italy began to boil over; a series of insurrections laid the groundwork for the creation of one nation along the Italian peninsula.

During the July Revolution in France, the new French king, Louis-Philippe had promised revolutionaries that he would intervene if Austria tried to interfere with troops. But, fearing he would lose his throne, Louis-Philippe did not intervene in planned uprisings. The Duke of Modena abandoned his "carbonari" friends, and reconquered his duchy with help from the Austrian troops.

At the same time, insurrections arose in the Papal Legations. These successful revolutions, which adopted the tricolore in favor of the Papal flag, quickly spread to cover all the Papal Legations, and their newly installed local governments proclaimed the creation of a united Italian nation.

Louis-Philippe was warned that Austria had no intention to let Italian matters be, and that French intervention would not be tolerated. Louis-Philippe withheld any military help and even arrested Italian patriots living in France. In the spring of 1831, the Austrian army began its march across the Italian peninsula, slowly crushing resistance in each province that had revolted, ending much of the fledging revolutionary movement and arresting its leaders.

In January 1848, revolutionary disturbance began with a civil disobedience strike in Lombardy — they stopped smoking! Denying Austria the tax revenue from it. Shortly after this revolts began on the island of Sicily against King Ferdinand, who conceded and granted Sicily a constitution. Disquiet spread to Naples, where the Neapolitan liberals demanded that they should be granted a constitution too, which they were on 29 January.

In February 1848, Tuscany got one too. The Pope granted a constitution to the Papal states, which was both unexpected and surprising considering the history. Louis-Philippe was forced to flee, and a republic was proclaimed. By the time the revolution in Paris occurred, four states in Italy had constitutions.

Pius IX had been initially seen as something of a reformer, but conflicts with the revolutionaries led him to sour on the idea of constitutional government. In November 1848, following the assassination of his Minister Rossi, Pius IX fled Rome.

In early 1849, elections were held for a Constituent Assembly, which proclaimed a Roman Republic. During a political rally, a young Roman priest, the Abbé Arduini, described the temporal power of the popes as a "historical lie, a political imposture, and a religious immorality."

In the Constitution of the Roman Republic, religious freedom was guaranteed by article 7, the independence of the pope as head of the Catholic Church was guaranteed by article 8 of the "Principi fondamentali", while the death penalty was abolished by article 5.

Before the powers had a chance to respond to the founding of the Roman Republic, Charles Albert, whose army was determined to renew the war with Austria. He was quickly defeated. This time the defeat was final. Charles Albert himself abdicated in favor of his son, Victor Emmanuel II, and all ambitions to unite Italy were for the moment at least, brought to an end.

There remained the Roman and Venetian Republics. The French were determined to restore the Pope. After a two month siege, Rome capitulated and the Pope was restored. Meanwhile, the Austrians besieged Venice, which was forced to surrender. The Austrians also moved to restore order in central Italy, restoring the princes who had been expelled and establishing their control over the Papal Legations. The revolutions were thus completely crushed.

On January 14, 1858, an Italian nationalist Felice Orsini attempted to assassinate Napoleon III, the French Emperor. In a plea written from his prison cell, Orsini appealed to Napoleon III to fulfill his destiny by aiding the forces of Italian nationalism. Napoleon, who had belonged to the Carbonari in his youth, and who saw himself as an advanced thinker, in tune with the ideas of the day, became convinced that it was his destiny to do something for Italy. In the summer of 1858, Cavour met with Napoleon III at Plombières and the two signed a secret agreement, known as "patto di Plombières".

The two agreed to a joint war against Austria. Piedmont would gain the Austrian territories in Italy (Lombardy and Venetia), as well as the Duchies of Parma and Modena, while France would be rewarded with Piedmont's transalpine territories of Savoy and Nice. Central and Southern Italy would remain largely as it was. In order to allow the French to intervene without appearing as the aggressors, Cavour was to provoke the Austrians into aggression by encouraging revolutionary activity in Lombardy.

The war itself was quite short. The Austrian advance into Piedmont was incompetent, and they were unable to secure the Alpine passes before the arrival of the French army, led personally by Napoleon. The French were again victorious. The Austrians withdrew behind the Quadrilateral of fortresses on the borders of Venetia.

There were many reasons Napoleon III sought peace at this point. Fear that a long and bloody campaign would be necessary to conquer Venetia, fear for his position at home, worry at the intervention of German states, and fear of a too-powerful Piedmont-Sardinia led him to look for a way out.

On July 11, he met privately with Franz Joseph, without the knowledge of his Piedmontese allies. Together, the two agreed on the outlines of a settlement to the conflict. The Austrians would retain Venetia, but would cede Lombardy to the French, who would then immediately cede it to Piedmont (the Austrians were unwilling to themselves cede the area to Piedmont). Otherwise, the Italian borders would remain unchanged. In Central Italy, where the authorities had universally been expelled following the outbreak of war, the rulers of Tuscany, Modena, and Parma, who had fled to Austria, would be restored, while Papal control of the Legations would be resumed. Because Napoleon had not fulfilled the terms of his agreement with Piedmont, he would not gain Savoy and Nice.

The Sardinians were outraged at this betrayal by their ally. Cavour demanded that the war be carried on regardless, and resigned when the more realistic Victor Emmanuel determined that acquiescence was the only realistic option. But the Villafranca agreement would prove a dead letter long before it was formalized into the Treaty of Zurich in November. Piedmontese troops occupied the smaller Italian states and the Legations, and the French proved unwilling to pressure them to withdraw and allow the restoration of the old order, while the Austrians no longer had the power to compel it. In December, Tuscany, Parma, Modena, and the Legations were unified into the United Provinces of Central Italy, and, encouraged by the British, were seeking annexation by the Kingdom of Sardinia.

Cavour, who triumphantly returned to power in January 1860, wished to annex the territories, but realized that French acquiescence was necessary. Napoleon III agreed to recognize the Piedmontese annexation in exchange for Savoy and Nice. On March 20, 1860, the annexations occurred. Now the Kingdom of Sardinia encompassed most of Northern and Central Italy.

After waging various successful but hard-fought battles, Garibaldi proclaimed himself dictator of Sicily, in the name of Victor Emmanuel. Garibaldi furiously bombarded Palermo nearly to ruins. With the intervention of a British admiral, an armistice was declared, leading to the Neapolitan troops' departure and surrender of the town to Garibaldi and his much smaller army.

This resounding success demonstrated the weakness of the Neapolitan government. Garibaldi's fame spread and many Italians began to consider him a national hero.
Within seven week Messina surrendered. Having conquered Sicily, Garibaldi proceeded to the mainland, crossing the Straits of Messina with the Neapolitan fleet at hand, Reggio Calabria surrendered, the populace everywhere hailed him and military resistance faded. Soon Cosenza and Eboli, near Salerno surrendered.

Meanwhile Naples had been declared in a state of siege, and the king gathered the 4,000 troops still faithful to him and retreated over the Volturno river. The next day Garibaldi, with a few followers, entered Naples, whose people openly welcomed him.

Garibaldi's irregular bands of about 25,000 men could not drive away the king or take the fortresses of Capua and Gaeta without the help of the Sardinian army. But the Sardinian army could only come by way of the Papal States, which extended across the entire center of the peninsula. Thumbing his nose at the Holy See, Garibaldi announced his intent to proclaim a "Kingdom of Italy" from Rome, the capital city of Pope Pius IX. Seeing this as a threat to the domain of the Catholic Church, Pius threatened excommunication for supporting such an effort. Afraid Garibaldi would attack Rome, Catholics worldwide sent money and volunteers for the Papal Army.

Settling the standoff now rested with Louis Napoleon. If he had let Garibaldi have his way the latter would, no doubt, have quickly ended the temporal sovereignty of the pope and made Rome the capital of Italy. But Napoleon seems to have arranged with Cavour to leave the king of Sardinia free to take possession of Naples, Umbria and the other provinces, provided that Rome and the "patrimony of St. Peter" were left intact.

It was in this situation that a Sardinian force of two army corps marched to the frontier of the Papal States, its object being not Rome but Naples. The Papal troops were quickly defeated. Victor Emmanuel II arrived and took command. There was no longer a papal army to oppose him, and the march southward proceeded unopposed.

Garibaldi willingly handed over his dictatorial power. After greeting Victor Emmanuel in Teano with the title of King of Italy, Garibaldi entered Naples riding beside the king. He then retired to the island of Caprera. The remaining work of unifying the peninsula was left to Victor Emmanuel.

The fall of Gaeta brought the unification movement to the brink of fruition — only Rome and Venetia remained to be added. On February 18, 1861, Victor Emmanuel assembled the deputies of the first Italian parliament that acknowledged his supremacy at Turin, and in their presence assumed the title of King of Italy. In March the parliament declared Rome Capital of Italy.

Mazzini was discontented with the perpetuation of monarchical government, and continued to agitate for a republic. With the motto "Free from the Alps to the Adriatic," the unification movement set its gaze on Rome and Venice. There were obstacles, though. A challenge against the Pope's temporal domain was viewed with great distrust by Catholics around the world, and French troops were stationed in Rome. Victor Emmanuel was wary of the international repercussions of attacking the Papal States, and discouraged his subjects from participating in revolutionary ventures with such intentions.

Nonetheless, Garibaldi believed that the government would support him if he attacked Rome. Frustrated at inaction by the king in June 1862, he sailed and landed again at Palermo, where he gathered volunteers, under the slogan Roma o Morte (Rome or Death). The garrison of Messina, barred their passage to the mainland. Garibaldi's force, turned south. Garibaldi declared that he would enter Rome as a victor or perish beneath its walls. He landed at Melito on August 14, and marched at once into the Calabrian mountains.

Meanwhile, Emmanuel sought a safer means to the acquisition of the Papal States. He negotiated the removal of the French troops from Rome through a treaty with Napoleon III. The pope was to expand his own army during that time so as to be self-sufficient. In December 1866, the last of the French troops departed from Rome, in spite of the efforts of the pope to retain them. By their withdrawal Italy was freed from the presence of foreign soldiers for the first time probably in a thousand years.

In the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, Austria contested with Prussia the position of leadership among the German states. The Kingdom of Italy seized the opportunity to capture Venetia from Austria and allied itself with Prussia. Austria tried to convince the Italian government to accept Venetia in exchange for non-intervention. However, Italy and Prussia signed an agreement and Italy declared war on Austria.

Meanwhile, Prussian Prime Minister Bismarck saw that his own ends in the war had been achieved, and signed an armistice with Austria. Italy officially laid down its arms. Garibaldi was called back from his successful march and resigned with a brief telegram reading only Obbedisco (I obey).

In spite of Italy's poor showing, Prussia's success on the northern front obligated Austria to cede Venetia in exchange for non-intervention in the Austro-Prussian War and thus Napoleon III ceded Venetia to Italy.

The national party, with Garibaldi at its head, still aimed at the possession of Rome, as the historic capital of the peninsula. In 1867 he made a second attempt to capture Rome, but the papal army, strengthened with a new French auxiliary force, defeated his badly armed volunteers.

In July 1870, the Franco-Prussian War began. In early August, the French Emperor Napoleon III recalled his garrison from Rome and could no longer protect the Papal State. Widespread public demonstrations demanded that the Italian government take Rome. The Italian government took no direct action until the collapse of the Second French Empire at the battle of Sedan. King Victor Emmanuel II sent Count Ponza di San Martino to Pius IX with a personal letter offering a face-saving proposal that would have allowed the peaceful entry of the Italian Army into Rome, under the guise of offering protection to the pope.

The Pope’s reception of di San Martino was unfriendly. Pius IX allowed violent outbursts to escape him. Throwing the King’s letter upon the table he exclaimed, "Fine loyalty! You are all a set of vipers, of whited sepulchres, and wanting in faith." After, growing calmer, he exclaimed: "I am no prophet, nor son of a prophet, but I tell you, you will never enter Rome!" San Martino was so mortified that he left the next day.

The Italian Army, crossed the papal frontier on September 11 and advanced slowly toward Rome, hoping that a peaceful entry could be negotiated. The Italian Army reached the Aurelian Walls on September 19 and placed Rome under a state of siege. Although now convinced of his unavoidable defeat, Pius IX remained intransigent to the bitter end and forced his troops to put up a token resistance.

On September 20, after a cannonade of three hours had breached the Aurelian Walls at Porta Pia, the army entered Rome and marched down Via Pia, which was subsequently renamed Via XX Settembre. 49 Italian soldiers and four officers, and 19 papal troops died. Rome and Latium were annexed to the Kingdom of Italy.

Initially the Italian government had offered to let the pope keep the Leonine City (the walled part of Rome on the opposite side of the Tiber from the Seven Hills of Rome). But the pope rejected the offer because acceptance would have been an implied endorsement of the legitimacy of the Italian kingdom's rule over his former domain.

Pius IX declared himself a prisoner in the Vatican, although he was not actually restrained from coming and going. Rather, being deposed and stripped of much of his former power also removed a measure of personal protection — if he had walked the streets of Rome he might have been in danger from political opponents who had formerly kept their views private.

Officially, the capital was not moved from Florence to Rome until July 1871.

ATHEIST MORALITY...SUPERIOR? YEP!

2007-07-20T18:09:00.000-07:00

One of main arguments religious morons use against homosexuality and/or atheism is that without a belief in their god/faith we are immoral. Being religious is not a requirement of living a moral lifestyle. The church does not hold the patent on morality. First let's define the word moral.

Moral: relating to principles of right and wrong.

There are two sub-sets of morality, secular and religious. As the uniformity of beliefs is impossible to achieve, secular morality 'should' (if only) trump 'religious' in the modern scientific world.

Secular: Based on the modern and reasoned understanding that in order for peoples to get along and live in a just society, a set of mutually agreed upon rules pertaining to 'good and bad' behaviour should be established that apply to all equally. These are intended to avoid conflict and which by a society can achieve human advancement. Based on the principle that most will do what's right because it is right, with no ulterior motive or reward for their actions. Secular moralism embraces the principle that if the rules are not achieving their purpose they are to be revised or abandoned altogether. Under secularism all people regardless of their faith or lack thereof can get about their business without others imposing their religious intolerance upon them. Live and let live.

Religious: Based on ancient and supposed infallible rules of the Bible. They are a non-reasoned and fear motivated set of tenants that offer rewards and more often punishments. These articles of faith are magically transformed into universal 'truths' to be imposed against the will of all. The driving principle is that in order for people do to what's right they must be motivated by fear and the threat of eternal damnation. These laws are set in stone and cannot be altered. Christians threw a wrench in the works by teaching that Jesus will forgive any and all sins. This loop-hole does more to promote wrongdoing than any secular philosophy.

Conclusion: There is no need to create fictions for the purpose of moral motivation. There is no need to do what’s right because one wants to avoid punishment. There is no need for honorable people to act for the sake of a reward. We can avoid these pitfalls by embracing the principle that “Virtue is its own reward.”

I must credit the following authors to which I have paraphrased and borrowed heavily from for this argument. Charles Watts, 1880. Mark S. Halfon, 2004. Patrick Nowell-Smith, 1961. Please follow the following link, in which their eloquent arguments can be found in thier entirety:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWEB/ETEXTS/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_9_MORALITY_VALUES/Morality_Secular.htm

WILL THE REAL CHURCH...PLEASE STAND UP!

2007-07-14T09:58:00.000-07:00

Below is a compilation of various posts concerning the popes latest declaration.
Taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2125395,00.html

This week's declaration by the Pope that the Church of England and other denominations are "not proper churches" was strictly for dogmatics. Anthropologists may explain that when a priest dresses up at the altar, gestures, chants and pretends to chew the body of Christ, he is doing what was done at Chichen Itza or the Borneo jungle for centuries past. Such antics are embedded in our cultural genes. This joker in Rome claiming supremacy via the greatest con in Europe's intellectual history, the 1870 Vatican council's invention of papal infallibility.

Seems to me the biggest problem with this latest pronouncement is that nobody was asking about it, so why say it at all. As iff this was a burning issue, like abortion or divorce or women priests, then again he must speak out, after all it is his job.

The Pope drew a distinction between the Orthodox churches, which he calls sisters (surely brothers?), and Protestants who lack a "sacramental priesthood ... and a Eucharistic Mystery", and whom he clearly regards as little short of pagan. First of all, this is an abuse of the word church, which is from the Teutonic circe (Scottish kirk) out of the Greek kuriakon doma, or house of the lord. The operative root is kurios, a chief or headman. This is as wide a definition of a priest, and thus of a church, as is imaginable.

If the Pope wants to try Latin, we are into ecclesia, from the Greek for assembly. This is invariably translated as a gathering or congregation of Christians, not just of those obedient to St Peter's. Augustine himself defined the word to signify both a body of believers and the place where they met, significamus locum qui continet. In other words, there is no textual justification for Benedict's exclusivity. It recalls the megalomania of Boniface VIII, who made such outrageous claims of supremacy that monarchs and even cardinals stopped listening, culminating in the schism of 1378 and eventually the Reformation. In saying that only Roman Catholicism is a "church", the Pope is merely redefining the word to suit his position. He is climbing to the top of Michelangelo's dome and beating his chest like King Kong.

Last week the prime minister of England announced he would no longer appoint bishops but leave it to the church authorities. Why stop there? Brown should have taken the opportunity to bring forward the formal disestablishment of the Church of England. This need not affect the Queen as patron of the church, but a son of the manse and head of what should be a secular 21st-century government could surely sweep away the remaining statist nonsense.

By "Proper Church" the Hypocrite Prince of the Organization means:

1. Where the misled, gullible are atoned with the perpetual systematic every Saturday forgiveness of all the sins to start again with seven days till the next time.

2. Where the celibate SOB's take advantage of young boy pages to molest them in the name of Christ.

3. Where second class citizen, the nuns are betrothed to the savior Jesus H Christ in secret ceremonies, with perhaps only a couple of Jewish rabbis setting in the back pews, as being the relatives of the groom.

4. Where many times a week the poor ignorant vast majority from the poorest countries of the world give up their hard earned wages for the hierarachy under the Prince to live high off the hog and dish out dogmas like no birth control, no marriages for the priests, nuns not allowed to conduct services but servitude in the name of the savior, hypocrite bondage and silence.

Yes indeed it sure is a proper chruch of the corrupt to the hilt secrecy and dogma invented to keep poor poorer, rich richer. Yes of course forgiveness is the order of the day as was for the crusades with murder of the millions, all in the name of the proper church.

Do you expect the CEO of Coca Cola to say that Pepsi is also a real cola?

Then why would one expect the chief of the Catholic church to admit that the other churches are also "proper churches"?

The success of the Roman clique and their rites rests upon their ownership of the idea of Sin, and the provision of a clergy which it is claimed can purge communicants of their guilt and shame. It is very powerful. Luther hacked away at the edifice of sacraments, and we need to be grateful to the Protestant reformers, more for their success in offering an alternative to clerical hegemony over the minds of the laity than for amending doctrine.

The papal inheritance of personal power within a rigid hierarchy is deeply objectionable; atheists are quite entitled to their opinion, because within the Catholic church, the faithful cannot speak freely and live in fear, a fear enjoined by Catholic doctrine.
It diminishes personal responsibility for one's actions and infects the social body, damaging educational and moral development.

Actually, all these cults, splinter groups and offshoots are the superstitionists' equivalent to cellphone plans: in the same way that the latter are designed to bamboozle consumers by making direct price comparisons impossible, the plethora of churches and splinter groups is intended to beat the atheists with sheer overload. As soon as one religion has been exposed as a fraud, three more pop up like mushrooms (nourished on similar stuff).

All religions are crutches, and if they help people who need a crutch, then they are a good thing. If they create viciousness, intolerance and spite, as appears to be the case even in this so-called enlightened age, then they are a bad thing.
Christians, Muslims, Jews, Latter Day Saintists, Scientologists, Mormons and Morons in general are convinced that they are entirely right at all times. But why should anybody care what I think, anymore than I should care what anybody else thinks of me?

One thing we all have in common, is our complete lack of significance in the long run.

ATHIEST TIT FOR RELIGIOUS TAT!

2007-06-29T18:35:00.000-07:00

I came across the following post on an unexplained-mysteries.com forum. I normally wouldn't entertain rambling religious nuts but this lame attempt at logical argument was too tempting to not rebutt.

First his comments and then mine follow in "( )"s.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=98270

The facts are this: when people are devoid of religion...they generally stink as humans.
(Facts? Who's facts? The church's? Starting your first argument with this phrase is known as 'authoritive diversion'. Has anyone else but me noticed lately how now instead of calling it 'spreading the gospel' they now say 'teaching biblical truth'? It's kinda of like 1984 double speak: war=peace, lies=truth. So when they start out with..The facts are...you can be sure they are feebly attempting to give their opinion authority. Oh and you're..denied! Sorry nice try. This argument isn't worth responding to, the top 200 evil doers in history have all been religious to some degree, now that stinks!)

Until atheism can replace religion as a VIABLE and REAL way to inner peace, with a reverence of humanity, it can never take over the world and extinguish religion.
(Gee that's a real zinger, lol. Another pathetic attempt at justifying his VIABLE and REAL supernatural religious fairytales. Meditation is one way to inner peace, no praying to god necessary. Doing good for goodness sake is also very gratifying and done because it's the right thing to do not because you'd go to hell if you don't. Scientists call it altruism. Ridding oneself of superstitious dogma indoctrinated since birth allows the mind to finally find peace by not forcing the brain to try and reconcile nonsensical doctrine in the face of facts. Your mind will thank you.)

When you get rid of one thing, it makes room for another.
(Huh? Not sure what the point is with that comment, except that yeah I agree, getting rid of out-dated ideas of our mysterious universe makes room for the correct, logical and scientific LAWS to take hold)

Sure atheist can succeed at pointing to the flaws of religious thought, but they have nothing to replace the flaws with.
(Garbage in, garbage out! So in order for you to give up your ignorant, primitive beliefs I need to replace them with a new and improved ignorant, primitive belief. You missed the whole point of atheism...that is... there is no there there! There is one main flaw that the rest are built upon. That is a belief in a GOD. Zap the GOD...problem solved.)

Until that time..."a mans mind may be likened to a garden which may be intelligently cultivated or allowed to run wild; but whether cultivated or neglected, it must and will bring forth. If no useful seeds are put into it, then an abundance of useless 'weed seeds' will fall therein and will continue to produce their kind." ~ James Allen - And religion does a good job at controlling the weeds.
(What the? Yeah it controlled all the free-thinking rational weeds alright, by the millions. Hardly an argument in favor of religion I would interpret the quote quite the opposite, the cultivated mind being the intellectual mind that rejects suppressive supernatural nonsense. The wild mind being the ignorant, naive, never question tradition one.)

In its history, organized atheism has never succeeded at replacing religion with real humanity and compassion.
(Atheist History? LOL. Remember the 'weed' theory. We never got the chance to replace something so insidious as organized religion. And the church just gives lip service to "humanity and compassion". If you actually read the history of Religion they are polar opposites of that position.)

The atheists talk a good story, but atheists fail miserably when it comes to practical application of the 'peace talk.'
(Ditto to the line before. But with the added comment, yeah look at how peaceful our religious world is today, jews against arabs, muslim against christian, sect against sect, catholic vs protestant. War in the middle east has never stopped!)

And really the vast majority of atheists don't even have 'the talk' to spout, since they have no semblance of inner peace themselves in order to form a basis of 'lip service' to pontificate.
(Thank god (pun intended) I'm a minority then)

Don't know what I mean? I'm saying that most atheists are too ignorant when the subject turns to inner peace to even lie about or pretend that they know anything about the subject.
(Blah blah, repeating the same comment over and over won't work on me)

Another reason atheists will never win, is in general it takes hatred to fuel atheism if one is a dogmatic, militant atheist.
(Hatred? Atheists don't hate. Nor are we dogmatic. I don't see atheists bombing abortion clinics, blowing up the other faiths churches, declaring Jihads. No my friend, you have just proven to me you are the ignorant one and don't know what the hell you are talking about. It's too late to save you, your indoctrination and brain-washing since birth have been too well applied to be cured.)

Hatred blinds one to peace.
(While religious "love" opens ones eyes to war)

When you lose the hatred and militant foundation, then you do not wish to destroy others or their religion....you are at peace to let them be religious.
(Vice versa pal. The atheist argument isn't to stop you from practising what you believe, our position is for you to stay the fuck out of our lives and quit trying to make us like you, stop trying to pass laws based on your bible, stop condemning people that don't believe in your bullshit, keep your religion private and to your fellow nitwits. Live and let live.)

ENOUGH ALREADY!!! LOL... I'LL LEAVE YOU WITH THE AFFIRMATIONS OF HUMANISM.

"The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles"

• We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

• We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

• We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.

• We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.

• We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.

• We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

• We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

• We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.

• We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.

• We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

• We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.

• We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

• We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

• We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

• We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

• We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

• We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.

• We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

• We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

• We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

• We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

RELIGION - THE VIRTUAL DRUG

2007-06-16T09:15:00.000-07:00

All throughout history, humankind has been forced to bear the legacy of a religious perspective; each religion professing its particular brand of morality and consciousness as being more correct than the others. Yet, despite their pious claims, all religions are conspicuously marked with a history of intellectual oppression, promotion of nonsensical prejudice, fear-based recruitment techniques, and absurd mythological entities to explain everything from our origin to beyond the grave; just to name a few.

Cocaine, heroin, nicotine...and religion??
It doesn't seem like a likely grouping but if you were to categorize and define something as a 'bad' drug, one might choose, 'an artificial and non-beneficial means of stimulating the brain's pleasure center'. So how exactly does religion fit this definition?

Let's create a similar scenario that will highlight this point.

Imagine if there was a special group of people that believed a magical rabbit (who shall be named 'Nefarious') created and ruled the universe, and these people regularly worshipped this mystical rabbit to thank it for their existence; let's call these people, "Earians". Now Earians devote Wednesday evenings to gathering in beautiful and decorative holes in the ground where they perform elaborate rituals such as drinking carrot juice, gently biting other Earians as a show of respect to each other, and wearing huge fake ears. Earians believe that this pleases the magical rabbit entity and, in exchange, the rabbit entity is supposed to provide protection from unknown dangers, and guarantees each Earian an eternal place in the rabbit's hole upon their death.

Utter and complete nonsense.

And yet, the only difference between this nonsensical Earian faith, and 'any' other faith-based religion on Earth, is the nature of the ethereal entity being worshipped and the structure of the rituals that comprise it. This leads to the ultimatum that the only thing which can make or break the validity of any given faith is the sheer existence of the ethereal entity in the first place. If you take away the ethereal entity, a significant portion of the religious apparatus collapses into meaninglessness, effectively revealing that billions of people have equivalently been wasting a very large portion of their lives in the pursuit of gaining favor with a nonexistent magical bunny.

Religion is a drug.
Nothing is more terrifying than the prospect of death. Death is the root of all fears; it defines fear. This is the instinctual hook that religions latch on to in order to recruit the innocent/naïve among us, to maintain control of its members, and to capitalize on and focus the power of many into the hands of the few. This fear of death is greatly alleviated by promises of ethereal protection and a promise of an afterlife. As nonsensical as it sounds, people want to believe in immortality so badly that they are quite willing to submit to illogical and magical explanations for everything in their universe, and to even accept that questions they might have that may challenge these perspectives are not tolerated by the religions. The followers simply submit. This sets the stage for the perfect 'high'.

Submission to 'faith' in the ethereal is a high, no different than the high that could be achieved from illicit chemicals. What could be a better high than believing you're immortal and will never truly die?

Why is religion a bad drug?
You already know the answer...would you join the Earians in their pursuit of gaining favor with the magical rabbit? Of course not, and if you were to cross path's with one of their followers and heard their pitch about why you need to join their faith, you would think they were crazy!
Exactly; they are insane. When one believes wholeheartedly in fantasy, they are insane. It's an easy extrapolation to understand that anybody who believes in the ethereal is insane. Yes, that would mean billions of people all over our planet are to some degree, insane due to religion. This is why religion is a bad drug, it puts nonsense in your head that you act upon, make important decisions upon, and at its worst, hurt yourself or others because of these perspectives.

How do religions trap us?
Though we are very complicated creatures and have many very different wants and needs among us, we are all most fundamentally human, and all humans share the same basic instinctual needs. It is upon these needs that religions plant their seeds, claiming ownership over what is inherently ours, and reinventing these desires to be interpreted as something that can only be fulfilled through religiously-ordained channels.

Some examples of how religions take control of the human mind:

Death - Immortality, reincarnation, and/or some form of ethereal protection from harm are the bread and butter of virtually all religions. Appeasing the fearsome nature of death is a very powerful tool by which religions can attract and manipulate their followers

Fear- Nothing will coerce people faster than mortal fear. The threat of an unimaginable eternal damnation (e.g., hell) is the most powerful tool in any religion's toolchest

Ego - It is arguable that the most beautiful buildings in the world are churches, and with all the pomp, theatrics, beauty, and ceremony, coupled with the promises of 'heaven', well, who wouldn't want to be affiliated with that?

Curiosity - Most religions teach 'denial' skills (e.g., denying the existence of dinosaurs, etc.) in order to oppress any opportunity for followers to begin questioning the validity of religious teachings

Communion - Other than for the purposes of recruitment, religious followers often isolate themselves from non-followers of their faith, only allowing themselves to express this love and tolerance for their fellow humans amongst their own kind

Guilt and Shame - By creating a plethora of illogical, yet religion-benefiting guilt-laden morality (e.g. masturbating, homosexuality) in the minds of followers, they will much more easily and unquestioningly submit to the agenda of the religion in order to find relief from the artificially-induced shame

Anger - Most religious people typically react with great rage when their faith is put into question. They will often respond with shame-manipulation, diminutives, and other oppressive tactics, all with the intent of pushing away what they perceive as a threat to their beliefs

Remorse - Religions have created an easy 'escape-route' for people to believe they are forgiven for indiscretions they may have committed; a very appealing notion, especially for those that are prone to ill-intent

Nobility - Religions attach the notions of nobility to things that are not in any way noble. There are countless cases of religious people 'bending the rules' and justify it in the light of a 'means to an end', knowing that forgiveness is but a prayer away. This can manifest in many forms such as slander (e.g., atheism is Satanism), all the way to truly heinous crimes (e.g., terrorism), and yet these acts can still fit within a loose interpretation of religious doctrine as being something 'noble'

Pseudo-Logic - We all need answers, and religions typically claim to have all of them. This, fortified by religions teaching fantasy as fact, and various pseudo-logic techniques (e.g. credibility smearing by interweaving fact with fantasy, or bifurcation of complex scenarios, etc) in place of true logic, leaves a religious person poorly equipped to constitute reality for themselves

Repetition/Confusion - By overwhelming followers with a ceaseless barrage of religious mantra and routine, it will be impossible to make sense of it all, and hence becomes inconceivable to those followers that it could all be fantasy

Love - Something we can never get enough of. Religions leverage this desirable and teach you that the love you receive from their god is of the purest kind, and never stops flowing

How did we go so wrong?

Assumptions. We humans just love to run with assumptions. This, combined with our inability to surpass our ego once we have invested in an assumption (cognitive dissonance), drives us further and further down incorrect paths of perception.

The function of religion has run its course.
It's hard to imagine humankind evolving in perspective in any way other than the fantasy of religion. It would be difficult for our great ancestors to understand the world as a product of flowing energy as defined by the science of physics. They simply didn't have the knowledge to truly see our world and as such we have been forced to bear the blasphemy of mythological perspective for eons, suffering the tyranny of those that maneuvered themselves into the focal points of this power (such as priests, kings, etc.).

Religion is a natural evolutionary stage in our burgeoning intelligence but we have come far enough now to shed the shackles of mythology and to stand free from ethereal addiction. We have the strength to face life, and death, and enough science exists to detail and explain a huge number of important questions, including the big ones: Who are we? Where did we come from? What is the point of life?

So what 'are' we to believe in?
Yourself. Simply put, the noblest purpose in life is to make yourself happy. This purpose must always be balanced against the necessity of not hurting anybody else, but in any way that you feel the need to exercise your instinctual pulls, you are granted the right to pursue those needs. This is the true path to happiness, through the intelligent interpretation and placation of your unique balance of instinctual desires.

*********************************************************
Thanks to: http://www.betterhuman.org/ for this article.
*********************************************************

PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING

2007-06-01T17:34:00.000-07:00

Read a few articles lately that have religious idiots claiming there is no proof of evolution and so it can't be true. They even opened a theme park in the bible beltway that has 'scientific' reconstructions with little children running around playing with baby dinosaurs a la the Flintstones' pet Dino. While blind faith may be admirable, blind stupidity is pathetic.

While there can only be one Universal Truth, there are thousands and thousands of organized religions and spiritual cults upon this earth, each claiming and sincerely believing itself to be the truest and best of all possible religions.

Each has some special piece of evidence to use as proof of its authority and claims.

These claims are based on any or several of the following kinds of evidence:

(Proof: Absurd example)

Proof from Authority: "It must be so, our leaders say it's so."

Proof from a group of Authorities: "They all say so, it must be so."

Proof from Antiquity: "It was written in 10,000 B.C. so It must be true."

Proof from Circumstance: "I asked for a sign and the dog barked, it must be so."

Proof from Friends: "All my friends do it, it must be OK."

Proof from Phenomena: "He gave me a drink of something and it cured my pain, he must be the Messiah."

Proof from Self-Proclamation: "I wouldn't say it if it were not so."

Proof from Feeling: "It hurts so much it must be helping."

Proof from Investment: "Everybody is paying so much for it, it must be valid."

Proof from Confusion: "I can't understand it, so I'll have to believe in it."

Proof from Popularity: "Everyone says the world is flat, except you, Columbus."

Proof from Misinterpreted Evidence: "For many years now it has turned cold after the leaves have fallen from the trees. Therefore, we must fasten the leaves more securely to keep the weather warm."

Proof from Charisma: "Look at that face, the smile, those eyes, that hair and mustache, how can you not be devoted to him? Heil Hitler!"

Proof From Inner Guidance: "A voice in my head said it was OK to steal, so I stole it."

Proof from Credentials: "The sign said: "Honest John's Used Cars," so naturally l assumed..."

Proof from General Faith: "We all thought the world would end on March 1, so we sold our homes to Joe, threw a farewell party and got roaring drunk."

Proof from Association: "I ate six apples on the full moon, six months later I married a werewolf. Don't eat apples on a full moon."

Proof from Packaging: "It must be valuable because it has expensive paper, leather binding, gold ink, violet ribbon, antique printing -- but what's that ticking sound inside?"

Proof from Dedication: "Four million followers have been martyred for him. He must be a true and wonderful leader for our people."

Proof from Power: "He has destroyed his every enemy, he has made the mountains quake, he has caused the sea to swallow up the land, he has created chaos out of order, who can doubt his wisdom? Who dares doubt his wisdom?

Those "Proofs" have been the basis for all Religions on Earth. It becomes increasingly clear that people of the Earth have long lived with illusions, lies, false gods, and absurdities called Truth. Essentially people are misled and unrealistic in an unrealistic world.

The proof is in the pudding.

MONOGAMY - PAGAN GODDESS ROOTS (what the...?)

2007-05-25T19:32:00.000-07:00

First my comments then a very interesting history.

Ah monogamy, that Utopian ideal that causes so much misery. Where do we get this idea that we should only have one and only one partner for life? Not only is it selfish on our part but repressive to the other partner.

Now I'm not saying a lifetime partner is a bad thing, I wholly encourage it, but they should be open enough for each to have an occasional sexual experience with an outsider. It releases pent-up sexual tension and the accompanying frustration. Forcefully repressing natural urges only leads to one despising the other and eventually conflict. Sexual freedom should be encouraged and enjoyed. A variety of partners is wholesome and essential to individual identity.

Now I'm not saying every relationship should be wide open with thousands of anonymous partners. I just think that the contrived 'one man one woman' ideal should be left up to those involved. One should not be raised nor taught to expect the completely unrealistic promise of fidelity, nor should it be the only standard by which we consider a relationship successful. So many wonderful pairings are torn apart because one partner "cheated" on the other. How stupid.

Especially here in America we have this so called 'trust' issue. Who invented that idea. It's pure psycho-babble hogwash. "You cheated on me, I can never trust you again, I want a divorce!" How pathetic is that. So grown-up. Work it out, it's not the end of the world. YOU ARE NOT THAT SPECIAL. GET OVER YOURSELF. Learn the difference between love and sex already.

Only in America with our grandiose, it's all about ME & MY feelings and unrealistic expectations does the discovery of marital infidelity inevitably lead to drawn-out scenes filled with drama, apology, contrition and oddly the detailed recitation of each liaison. Sadly it's the children that suffer. Having to watch so called 'grown-ups' displaying childish behaviour: yelling, screaming, door-slamming, name calling, hitting & shoving. Then the parents play mind games on the kids, picking sides, playing one against the other. No wonder kids these days are screwed up emotionally. Just watch the Jerry Springer show to see what's really going on in America.

In most other countries they aren't so uptight. Martial fidelity isn't such a big deal. In Holland they say "going strange", Ireland "playing offsides", 40 percent of Russians see infidelity as harmless! Japanese woman aren't so much as upset by the act itself but the lack of discretion shown so that she learns about it! In Indonesia they refer to the couple as having a "wonderful interval". Now that's a healthy attitude!

Of course it's just reinforced by the terms we use in America: Unfaithful, Infidelity, Cheating, Sneaking Around, Down Low, Double-crossing. All derogatory. Notice the first two, the 'socially accepted' terms (no pun intended) are not surprisingly religiously inspired. The others all conjure up sleazy, dirty or criminal intent.

It all has to do once again (surprise!) with the fricken church saying whats right and wrong. Reinforced through popular culture and our upbringing. Beginning with toddlers and the silly fairy tales we read to them, prince meets princess and live happily ever after. White picket fences and White Weddings. Books and movies sympathize with the faithful wife while portraying the other woman (or man) as a harlot, slut, homewrecker! Only sex within marriage is considered proper and holy. Adultery is condemned, at one time by death to one or both involved.

While I can see the benefits of the nuclear family ideal in past cultures, we are mature enough now as a species (well some of us are) to rid ourselves of the guilt and needless shame associated with the natural urge to 'spread it around' and enjoy the gift of sex. Girls are told to wait for marriage, for the right one to come along. While sampling the local flavor beforehand just might produce longer lasting and happier marriages.

I could go on and on about the stupidity of this approach but let's look at a brief history and false arguments of IMPOSED MONOGAMY, which as we shall see all comes down to power and money.

The following has been condensed from http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/monogamy/mono-history.htm which ironically is some minister arguing for polygamy. Guess he's not happy with the one he's got, god bless him (wink). I took out most of the 'preachy' stuff, but his essay is right on the money. Just remember when you read Roman think Pagan (monogamy equals pagan goddess worship).

MONOGAMY IS AS OLD AS ADAM
Some say monogamy is as old as Adam. But that’s not the real issue. From the beginning, through the generations, even to this day, monogamy, polygamy, platonic and celibacy are known forms of marital status, and of course rising up strong is "homogamy", the old time abhorred practice of homosexuality which is once again fighting for recognition and acceptance. What is in question here is how and when monogamy began to be imposed as the only right form of marriage acceptable to society.

MONOGAMY AND SHOULD-BE MONOGAMY
The practice of faithful monogamy stipulates that a man can marry only one wife at any one time in his life. Even though the various forms of marriages have been practiced through the generations, monogamy has emerged to become law in some countries today, such that the legal registration of more than one wife become a violation. This is called "Should-be" or "must-be" monogamy.

The first instances of such widespread enforcement were in Western Europe and it eventually gained worldwide acceptance in the modern world, especially in the Western Hemisphere. How did it happen? More so, how did it become known as the only acceptable standard when so many of the Bible’s founding patriarchs were openly polygamous? The answer of course would be one of greatest concern to Christians. And it will be an interesting but a very tragic one.

SOME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
We have to look at some other related history first. The Roman system was an empire built on conquest with incorporation. The secret of Rome's strength lie in her ability to incorporate vanquished nations into her own political body. Never before had so many people been brought under one government without making slaves of most of them. Gradually the Roman Empire became permeated with the philosophy of the Greeks and the religions of the Jews and Christians. The natural part of human life was raised to a higher plane.

THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE ROMAN CHURCH
Christianity became known as the official western religion, and the native religions of the western world became known as heathen - uncivilized and unenlightened. However it was not so in the beginning. It may be a surprise for many to know that during the first 3 centuries, the Christians suffered tremendously under the Roman government which tried to destroy them. However, Christianity was spreading too vigorously to be kept under control. The strategy of elimination through persecution eventually changed to one of embracing it and controlling its destiny to fulfill the purpose of their rulers.

The church on the other hand made a compromise to accept Rome and became the destroyer of her mother (Israel) who bore her. In the process, truth suffered. Biblical commandments that the Apostles taught were subordinated to pagan convenience. The church entered into apostasy. This was fully realized in the 4th century when Emperor Constantine the Great declared himself a Christian, the first pope and the ruler of the church.

One after another, the unscrupulous entered the Church to take control, ravish and strip the Church to total spiritual nakedness and bankruptcy, and then clothed her in mockery and strange garments. Greco-Roman ideologies, values and pagan practices and rituals were adopted as standards and holiness in the Church. The Christian Jews who had understanding of God’s truths refused to toe the line. As a result, they were denounced as traitors, betrayers and murderers of the Lord. The wolves now had a totally free hand, this time in the Name of God. This is the background and setting for the origin and history of the "must-be" monogamy theology.

CATHOLIC PRIESTS WERE MONOGAMOUS AND POLYGAMOUS BUT MADE CELIBATE
Due to the widespread illiteracy of the scriptures, whatever the Catholic priests said were considered as God’s Law and divine truths. One area of total distortion was that of marital relationship. It was common for Catholic priests to have multiple wives and mistresses. In 726AD, it was acceptable for a man with a sick wife to take a second wife so long as he looked after the first one. With concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance however, offspring could not inherit church property and it was later declared that all sons of priests were illegitimate. In 1022, Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages for priests (monogamous or polygamous). Finally in 1139, Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. All these were done to possess and protect money and church property. Making polygamy a sin and marriage unacceptable for a priest was a slow and purposeful process.

CELIBACY AND ASCETICISM PROPAGATED AS HOLINESS
Backing up this hidden agenda, was an anti-human Greek doctrine and the hatred of Satan, manifested as holiness against all human nature and passions. It is called asceticism; the paganistic teaching that to be spiritual is to be poor, thus sex and all human passions would have to be denied for the highest fulfillment found only in monastic lifestyle. This distorted view of human passions and sexuality put a terrible burden on the shoulders of all who wanted to be spiritual. Worse still, it became the root and the source of much more other lies and deception regarding holiness and marriage forms in the whole Christian world.

Celibacy was propagated as the new standard of high attainment in holiness. Sex was taken to be unclean and sinful. Marriages were painted, at best as being a necessary evil to guard against sexual sins such as fornication. Because of such a heathen belief, monks and nuns were considered holier and closer to God than anybody else, and priests would necessarily be celibates. Marriage was considered an activity of the flesh, if possible, to be avoided by those seeking spirituality. Thus monogamy would be tolerated as an acceptable norm among the "less spiritual" and polygamy would be condemned as an abomination. Clearly, Greek philosophy and Roman monogamy were in control of the entire Church.

ROMANS WERE NOTORIOUSLY MONOGAMOUS
Christianity was strongly and aggressively propagated from the Roman Empire into the West and thus came to be known as a western religion. It should be noted that the Romans were notoriously monogamous due to an inherent exclusivity (which we shall discuss later) in monogamy. These are some of the practices and enforcement, even on their own monarchs and nobles. Nero, the Caesar who divorced, banished and murdered his first wife in order to marry the second. Even Napoleon who crowned himself could not overthrow this law, and had to divorce his beloved wife, Josephine in order to marry another so as to yield a son. Such facts and examples are clearly evident in European history. Yet were the Romans truly monogamous? History tells us that in the Roman Empire and in medieval Christendom, though marriage was monogamous, mating was often polygynous. A lord of a manor would have one wife but his household was set up as an unofficial harem of servant girls.

MONOGAMY PROPAGATED THROUGH CHRISTIANITY AND WESTERN SUPREMACY
Thus we see how Christianity was corrupted with to the point of being almost totally heathen, bowing down to saints and angels, paying for salvation with money and penance. Despite reformations and revivals in the 15th century that challenged and overthrew the ritualistic corruption, Greco-Roman values and interpretation of the Bible are still very much in the Christian lifestyle. This includes enforced monogamy, the Roman (pagan) form of idolizing woman and the goddesses. Christianity today is still very much Romanized where monogamy is Law rather than being Hebraic in nature where polygamy was well accepted in the sight of God and man. By renouncing the Jews, the ways of the patriarchal fathers and their ways were also renounced, thus so was Biblical polygamy. This is a big mistake of the early Church. And because the reformed Church did not thoroughly cleanse herself from Romanism, Biblical patriarchy was only partially restored and polygamy is still considered an abomination. The Church is still arrogant and piteously far from returning to her Hebraic Roots. She can, but only through much trials and tribulations before she is willing to let go of her sacred should-be monogamy calf.

MARTIN LUTHER CHALLENGED SHOULD-BE MONOGAMY
For political purposes, a young Prince Philip was arranged to marry the daughter of Duke George. This unhappy union led him to several affairs, for which he felt so condemned that he refrained from the Lord’s supper. He could have easily annulled his marriage through the Roman Catholic Church, which was a common procedure that would not have caused the slightest comment. But being an avowed Lutheran, he refused to consider this way out but instead considered to keep his first wife and marry another woman, a charming 17 year old Margaret. After winning the girl’s approval, he approached her mother who said, "We must not break God’s laws!" Martin Luther was consulted. After much consideration, a letter was signed and approval given, but he was told to keep it a secret. Philip lived with his 2 wives and had children through them. Soon the secret leaked out and the Reformation was placed in severe jeopardy. Because the penalty for bigamy was death, Prince Philip was forced to prostrate himself before Emperor Charles V and beg for his forgiveness. The irony of it all was that the emperor himself had illegitimate children all over Europe and the pope had legitimatized each one in order that they all might inherit titles and attain high office.

THE POWER BEHIND THE SHOULD-BE MONOGAMY
Roman monogamy was portrayed as God’s only divine standard. Luther could not change it. There were too much to undo. But because the major part of the world is still unchristianized, there are actually much more societies of the world that are polygamous than monogamous. The spirit behind the corrupt Romans still continues, out living the Roman Empire, and is manifesting itself, not just in the religious system but also in the supremacy of Western culture, economy and technology. Thus the ambition to conquer the world did not die with the Roman Empire, but continues into the supremacy of the Western world. It is now in the Greco-Roman Worldview that is fast taking over the world.

MONOGAMY AND THE MODERN WORLD
"Should-be" monogamy never gained worldwide attention until the last few centuries. The should-be monogamy idea was not popular in previous generations, not until its strong uprising in the last 150 years or so. In fact, polygamy was still openly practiced in the last generation in non-western countries, and is today still practiced in modern societies, even though not so openly because of the outcry of the Western Feminism movement. How quickly the should-be monogamy concept has taken over, such that it makes polygamy appear sinful and wrong ever since the beginning. A worldwide ethnographic survey of 849 human societies show 708 whose customs are polygynous (more than 1 wife), 4 polyandrous (more than 1 husband) and 137 monogamous. Other than the religious and supremacy factors, there can be a few other reasons for this.

MONOGAMY AND FEMINISM
The next reason is that during the last war torn period and after, polygamy was badly abused by irresponsible men who had made it appear evil. The restoration of women’s dignity and respect, giving them their "rightful liberation" and equality had automatically promoted monogamy to be the only right form of marriage, and polygamy since then was declared abusive and unworthy of a good respectable marriage. Supported by the deceived Church as good teaching and declared as the only right way of marriage, this "truth" becomes law, not just among Catholics and Protestants, but also in modern societies.

THE APPEAL OF MONOGAMY – EXCLUSIVENESS OF ROMANISM
Another reason for the quick popularity of monogamy lies in the exclusive nature of the should-be monogamy form that is extremely appealing. But what exactly is the exclusive nature of this modern monogamy form? Romantic love means finding a soul mate – someone whose values and sense of life mirror our own. We feel a drive to organize our life around this person and no one else. If someone says, ‘I love you’ in a romantic context, this what they are understood to be saying. This seems a good modern notion of romantic monogamy that we would all readily accept. It has the good intention of bringing responsibility back into the decaying society. But it has also given us some other unintended insights.

In real modern day practice, monogamy is but the exaltation of free love and the justification of self-love. Possessiveness is not only condoned, but glorified. That’s why it is so appealing. It readily satisfies the inner desire of a woman to possess her man exclusively, and the inner need of a man to please and idolize his woman completely above all other things, to be completely engrossed in her only. A candlelight dinner never fails to portray a very romantic moment. We say, "Oh! How romantic!". But how awfully unromantic it will be if another party is involved. For should-be monogamy to work, the elements of romantic exclusiveness must be involved. I am not saying that candlelight dinners and privacy are bad. But essentially, this reveal that the elements of the Roman spirit are nothing but exclusivity, possessiveness and idolatry. And such elements are perpetuated as dominant factors into all aspects of modern life of the should-be monogamy culture and this is where the failings begin. The two persons involved finally imprison one another, thus marriages of such kind are open to destruction.

We know by now that for sure, the origin of the should-be monogamy was not Biblical as assumed by many. It’s definitely not from the biblical patriarchal fathers, as many of them were polygamous. It really was from Rome. Although in Western Europe, the idea of romantic love (in some sense) has had a long history, its acceptance as the proper basis of marriage has never been as widespread as it has been in America culture. Why the United States? The answer, at least in part, is philosophical. What was distinctive about the American outlook and represented a radical break with its European past were its unprecedented commitment to political freedom, its individualism, its doctrine of individual rights, and, more specifically, its belief in a person’s right to happiness here on earth. Both the individualism and the secularism of this country were essential for the idea of romantic love to take wide cultural root. It’s now crystal clear where should-be monogamy originated and why it is so appealing to the human self. Historically, the Romans were known to be highly monogamous but kept mistresses and abused their maids and slaves, and were also known to be very sadistic in sports and love making. And we know in part, this characteristic has found its place in modern society.

This historical observation and social deduction are not wrong, for we can also see throughout the world that the more affluent, self-sufficient, self-centered, secular and individualistic the people are, the more romantically inclined and monogamous the society is. Should-be monogamy as righteousness is hollow, a placebo, a false consolation and a false truth for the self-seekers and the uninformed.

MONOGAMY AND ROMANTIC
Even the word, Roman-tic tells us where should-be monogamy is from, the Roman culture and the Roman Empire which is Western Europe, where values contradict biblical standards. And we can be so blind as not to see it before our eyes when we read the word Roman-tic, and yet we expound and exalt it at every wedding and declared it as holiness at every pulpit!

MONOGAMY AND PROTESTANTISM
What about the Protestant world? With America drinking it all in and taking the lead, "civilized" nations swallowed the Romans’ doctrine of love, digested it into her religious system, namely Christianity, and exported it with the Gospel as a total package for living. Alas, wherever the Gospel went, the whole package was received and swallowed without question as total Gospel truth. Thus the true Biblical Gospel which God has ordained to be rooted in the Middle Eastern patriarchal culture is deceptively suppressed and replaced with one that is adulterated by a heathen Roman culture. In the Biblical patriarchal setting of our forefathers polygamy was not just tolerated, but accepted. But the western Gospel is romantically and not patriarchally inclined, thus it is actually not just anti-polygamy but also anti-patriarchy. This is why the Old Testament seems to contain many passages of polygamy and patriarchy that cannot be expounded by western Protestant Christianity.

THE CONCLUSION
History brings forth a conclusive evidence. The enforced should-be monogamy, no matter how much it is sanctioned legally or socially, or how righteous it is portrayed religiously, it was never originated from the Scriptures, and has never been set as the only standard for marriage by God. It originated from the pagan Romans that had and are still overtaking the world under the modern title, Greco Roman Worldview.

JUMPING SKIPPING CURSOR PROBLEM SOLVED!

2007-05-18T19:45:00.000-07:00

This is the first windows annoyance problem I have resolved on my own. And I figured it out for myself. No answers but stupid ones through a thousand searches.

If you have recently upgraded to VISTA on your laptop and a cursor that seems to have a mind of it's own, it seems to jump or skip around as you type, randomly replacing what you have typed. I have finally found the answer! The only answer on the web at this time!

I searched for a long time trying to figure out why my cursor kept jumping all over the place. It annoyed the hell out of me.

All answers to the question available said stupid stuff like clean your mouse, or use a mousepad. STUPID! I'm typing, not using my mouse. It's the cursor not the pointer I was having a problem with! besides It's optical, no grime on the wheel, no hairs on the laser light. I have a USB Targus laptop mouse and recently upgraded to VISTA on my Gateway NX560XL although I think it was misbehaving before.

YOUR PROBLEM IS ABOUT TO BE RESOLVED!

Problem: Microsoft uses the generic PS2 mouse driver for your Touchpad! It also loads a USB mouse driver once it is detected. Somehow the 2 mouse drivers combined with no specific touchpad driver seems to be the culprit.

Solution: First go to your computers manufacturers website, search by your model number or just search the driver downloads for "Touchpad". My search came back with "D20023-002-001.exe - Windows Vista (32-bit or 64-bit) Touchpad Driver Version: Synaptics 9.1.3.0" (yours may be different) Download the file. Don't install it just yet. You need to remove the generic PS2 mouse driver. Go to Control Panel, Device Manager, find the mouse section, you should see 2 drivers, one PS2 and antoher for the USB mouse. Uninstall the PS2 driver. Don't reboot or it'll just reinstall the driver. Then run the downloaded Touchpad program and follow the instructions to install (check the readme file). Once installed, reboot. You should now have a touchpad icon in your system tray (lower right) (looks like a grey rectangle with two little buttons underneath). Try typing something in notepad or whatever and your problem should have vanished. I typed this whole blog without one skip, jump or interruption!!!! What a relief.

Bonus solution: Disabling the touchpad altogether! Right click and select properties, you can now disable the touchpad which you could not do before using the generic driver as it wasn't an option. Yahoo!

You can thank me by linking to my blog, clicking on ads, checking my store, etc. Thanks and you're welcome!

POPE SCOLDS THE BRAZILIANS

2007-05-18T17:58:00.000-07:00

His evilness visited his flock in Brazil recently. With well deserved admonishments and just a little little touch of history revisionism to boot. The following is a newspaper account, with my comments in CAPS...

The 80-year-old Pope railed against premarital sex, abortion rights and the rise of Pentecostalism during his five days in Brazil, the world's largest Roman Catholic country. THE VATICAN MUST COLLECT EVERY DOLLAR, WE CAN NOT SHARE WITH OTHER FAITHS. PREMARITAL SEX? IT'S OK IF MY REPRESSED PRIESTS SEXUALLY MOLEST YOUR CHILDREN AND MAIDENS. WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING.

Benedict also defended the church's campaign centuries ago to Christianize indigenous people, saying Latin American Indians had been "silently longing" to become Christians when Spanish and Portuguese conquerors violently took over their native lands centuries ago. SILENTLY LONGING??? HELL THEY WERE MINDING THEIR OWN BUSINESS TILL YOUR GENTLE CONQUISTADORS CAME ALONG AND FORCEFULLY INSISTED, WHILE EFFICIENTLY EMPTYING THEIR TREASURIES OF GOLD. THIS IS KNOWN AS DOUBLE SPEAK. OR IF YOU KEEP REPEATING THE SAME LIE PEOPLE WILL EVENTUALLY BELIEVE YOU. BULLSHIT MON POPE. SEE MY BLOG ON MISSIONARIES.

"In effect, the proclamation of Jesus and of his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbus cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture," he told the bishops. NO, NO ALIENATION JUST THE COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF IT.

Many Indian groups believe the conquest brought them enslavement and genocide. 'BELIEVE'... BEING AN IRONIC CHOICE OF WORDS. 'CONVINCED' WOULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER WORD.

Pope Benedict decried the growing gap between rich and poor in Latin America but told priests to stay out of politics even as they fought for social justice. SHAME ON YOU FOR BEING POOR, PLEASE HAVE MORE CHILDREN, OH AND PASS THE PLATE PLEASE ;-)

According to local church officials here, the pope seemed to acknowledge that influence during his speeches. He described the poor as the "privileged audience for the Gospel." PRIVILEGED MY ASS, CAPTIVE AUDIENCE IS MORE TRUTHFUL. THE POOR HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE.

Bolivian President Evo Morales, of Aymara Indian heritage, also sparred with local church officials last year when his government proposed replacing Catholic religious instruction in public schools with a program that included indigenous spiritual beliefs. The Bolivian government eventually withdrew the plan in what it said was an amicable agreement with the church. AMICABLE...HA! DROP IT OR YOU'RE CONDEMNED TO HELL YOU HEATHENS!

Benedict addressed such efforts to revive pre-Colombian religions during his speech to the bishops, saying that the introduction of Christianity to the region 500 years ago built upon existing cultures to create something new. Trying to separate that now would represent a "step backward," he asserted. ONE STEP BACKWARD, BUT TWO STEPS FORWARD! WHAT GAUL. THIS MAN HAS NO CONSCIENCE.

Pope said the failures of the past century can be blamed on a blind reliance on economic models. "A society in which God is absent will not find the necessary consensus on moral values or the strength to live according to the model of these values, even when they are in conflict with private interests," he said. HOGWASH WE'D BE BETTER OFF WITHOUT IT.

The pope called the region the "continent of hope" during a Sunday Mass before 150,000 faithful in front of the mammoth basilica of Aparecida home to the nation's patron saint, a black Virgin Mary. HOPING TO GET RID OF CATHOLICISM I'D HOPE. 'EXCUSE ME POOR PRIEST, IS THAT A BLACK VIRGIN MARY?...NEXT TIME I COME TO VISIT IT'D BETTER BE WHITE WITH BLOND HAIR!"

HERE'S THE INFALLIBLE POPE AD NAUSEUM...
"For them, it meant knowing and welcoming Christ, the unknown God whom their ancestors were seeking, without realizing it, in their rich religious traditions. Christ is the Saviour for whom they were silently longing. It also meant that they received, in the waters of Baptism, the divine life that made them children of God by adoption; moreover, they received the Holy Spirit who came to make their cultures fruitful, purifying them and developing the numerous seeds that the incarnate Word had planted in them, thereby guiding them along the paths of the Gospel. In effect, the proclamation of Jesus and of his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbus cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture. Authentic cultures are not closed in upon themselves, nor are they set in stone at a particular point in history, but they are open, or better still, they are seeking an encounter with other cultures, hoping to reach universality through encounter and dialogue with other ways of life and with elements that can lead to a new synthesis, in which the diversity of expressions is always respected as well as the diversity of their particular cultural embodiment.
*************
As I conclude my stay among you, I wish to invoke the protection of the Mother of God and Mother of the Church on you and on the whole of Latin America and the Caribbean. I beseech Our Lady in particular, under the title of Guadalupe, Patroness of America, and under the title of Aparecida, Patroness of Brazil, to accompany you in your exciting and demanding pastoral task. To her I entrust the People of God at this stage of the third Christian millennium. I also ask her to guide the deliberations and reflections of this General Conference and I ask her to bless with copious gifts the beloved peoples of this Continent.
*************
WHY IS HE ASKING MARY FOR ANYTHING? LAST I CHECKED IT WAS EITHER JESUS OR THE BIG CHEESE THAT WAS TO BE PRAYED TO. OOPS HE FORGOT THEY REPLACED GODDESS WORSHIP AND THAT WAS A FREUDIAN SLIP. ACTUALLY THE VATICAN ALWAYS TAILORS THE MESSAGE TO THE AUDIENCE. TELL EM WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR, WHATEVER AS LONG AS I GET MY TITHINGS.

1842 SPINSTERS PETITION FOR DIVORCE

2007-05-05T07:29:00.000-07:00

Came across a wonderful petition by a bunch of spinsters circa 1842, railing against the church. It concerns the right to divorce but their church blasting is priceless. From the tone it sounds like all the good men were tied up in loveless marriages and these lonely 'spinsters' want laws changed to make divorce easier, so they can get their hands on a man. I have edited it for length, where you see "..." I have edited out either repetitions or wordy ramblings. I kept the best. Remeber now this is 1842! You go grrl!

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE SPINSTERS, TO THE LEGISLATURE OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, IN SESSION ASSEMBLED.

By HYPATIA, AMANUENSIS FOR THE SPINSTERS.

PETITION.

Christian Marriage is the enemy of the natural union of the sexes.

The humble Petition, and earnest cry and prayer of that moiety of the women in these dominions, who are usually designated SPINSTERS, to the Legislature of Great Britain and Ireland, in Session assembled;—

HUMBLY SHEWETH,

That although your petitioners, from the natural timidity of the sex, approach you on this trying occasion with diffidence and feelings of alarm, yet, as their case involves some of the most important and inalienable rights of deeply injured humanity, they are imboldened to lay before you their wrongs and grievances, which call aloud for your interference and redress.

With a melancholy retrospect of the past, and hopeless foreboding of the future, the youthful amongst your petitioners see in prospect, the long array and dreary waste of days they are destined to spend in that languishing and ungenial state of celibacy, to which their equally abused sisterhood were, from the same cause, doomed in former ages; and it is with grief and despair that they now behold the yearly increasing numbers of the forlorn, down to the present time, when they form nearly two-thirds of all the women in these realms, between the ages of fourteen and seventy years.

In the present perverted condition of society, where it is usual to establish laws and customs so far in opposition to reason, as to supplant every thing natural, the arts of dissimulation, as they regard concealment of inherent feelings and propensities, are instilled into the female mind as the most essential part of education: every instinctive emotion however innocent,—every impulse however connected with health, must, under an assumed placidity and acquiescence, be suppressed as the height of sin and wickedness, though the fatal resistance exposes her to the maladies attendant on all such violations of the principle of animal existence; whilst the salutary disregard of this carefully cultivated hypocrisy, subjects her to all the odium which false delicacy and unnatural religion can invent. But so intolerable has female wretchedness now become in what is called civilized society, that the free expression thereof, together with its lamentable cause, shall no longer be prevented or concealed by fashion's irrational tyranny; and, therefore, your petitioners, stimulated by an assurance becoming fearless virtue, at once declare that the sole cause of their untoward and isolated condition, is the all-blasting marriage laws now in operation, which, having been rendered indissoluble through ecclesiastical usurpation, are now become the dread of all men possessing sound reflection, by whom they are shunned as the most direful pestilence of the social system. From this fell cause alone, and not from any prudish perverseness on their part (as God knows), your petitioners are doomed to that cheerless state of singleness which prevents them from fulfilling, in a lawful manner, the intentions of genial Nature, a predicament of all others the most abhorrent to that power.

Grounding their arguments on the palpable truths displayed both by fact and analogy, throughout the whole animal world; and denouncing all such conventional laws as have been palmed upon the credulity of society, under the false pretence of commands emanating from heaven, ... if the principles, propensities, and necessities, of the human species were duly considered, ... lessons of wisdom might be derived from the wise and faultless association of all other animals, amongst whom the union of the sexes is perfect, solely because it is not perpetual; where fidelity during frequently renewed marriage is inviolable,—the gallantry of the male towards the female admirable, and separation in due time mutually assented to, because highly proper and salutary. These are the dictates which spring from the innate principle, and constitutional elements of every thing that has life; but which, in the instance of man, have been thwarted and outraged by the atrocious laws of Christian matrimony; whereby silly and deluded mortals, in the sacrifice of their dearest liberty, have made themselves the outcasts of Nature; ... love constitutes the chief solace and enjoyment of all animals, man alone excepted, to him only, as the well-merited consequence of the gross and revolting violations of the benevolent impulse, it brings degradation and misery; for whenever the familiar intercourse of marriage ceases to be cemented by reciprocal affection, it becomes not only genuine prostitution, but the cause of it wherever it exists; all seduction being induced either by marriage or the dread of it. To the perpetuity of this tie alone, which is utterly abhorred by the universal mother of all existence, is to be attributed the thousand snares laid for female seduction, and its woful train of miseries; but these pass unpitied, and even unheeded, in this Christian country of boasted humanity.

When mankind are taught from infancy, to bend under the delusion of supernatural hopes and fears, and through, fallacious promises of another world, to give up their felicity in this, they are very easily led to trample upon all the rights and principles of their nature. When reduced to this abject state, it has ever been the wicked policy of corrupt legislators, in the nations of Christendom, to found their laws and institutions, not upon these principles and rights, though they alone form the proper basis of all social order and morality; but, on the contrary, to crush them, by taking into partnership the priesthoods of the various superstitions, pampering and abetting them in their incessant guileful practices against human liberty; and allowing them to usurp a mischievous interference and control in affairs purely civil; and the union of the sexes being unquestionably of that description, all agency or influence of priests should be wholly excluded in all its concerns and relations. Every particular marriage ought to be as different as any other species of bargain or contract; and as for the inconsistent absurdity of supposing, that parties who have the right to enter into this contract, at their mutual will and pleasure, have not an equal right to dissolve it for their reciprocal comfort and convenience, it is too hostile to human happiness to originate any where but in the Pandemonium of theological tyranny. To increase the gains and power of this all-pervading evil, the expedient was invented of calling down from heaven a commission, authorizing it to mix its life-lasting alloy in the simple union of the sexes, and to confound the civil contract with what is called a sacrament, or preternatural obligation, taken before a divine tribunal, as is ridiculously imagined, and not dissolvable but in death, or through the commission of a certain crime, which is thereby greatly promoted. Thus, by sacerdotal trammels, which are intrinsically grievous and degrading, has matrimony been rendered a snare, of all others the most sorrowful.

Your petitioners having shown that the evils they contemplate arise from a source inherently depraved,... solely owing to the perpetual gall of that yoke, which was first forged by the Christian priesthood, whose influence in this, as in every other case of their interference in social affairs, hath produced effects the most inimical to human welfare. Laws tainted by the noxious leaven of supernaturalism, (and what law have we that is not so tainted?) the property of which is to vitiate every thing in this fair world, and promulgated in times of ignorance, in combination with despotic aristocracies, will necessarily partake more of feudal savageness, and superstitious thraldom, than of civilization; their object being the mental and bodily slavery of the people—not humanity. But in the particular instance of the existing marriage law, love, which disdains, all constraint, and whose life and essence is freedom, is so flagrantly outraged at the sacrilegious attempt to fix his almighty power by vain and unearthly compulsion,...are horror-struck at a connexion so indissoluble; and which, instead of being a state of peaceful union, is generally one of hostility to its victims. The experienced in the common-place strife of matrimonial warfare, talk of it as being "only the ordinary quarrels between man and wife," whom pernicious custom, as if seeking deadly mischief, has pent up in the same apartment, continually exposing the belligerants to daily and hourly collision, after every vestige of mutual feeling or sympathy has been utterly destroyed... and there hath been generated, a cancerous mental poison of such exquisite subtilty, as to cause a pain far exceeding any other human suffering, and which can be borne only by wo-begone minds already broken down by the abject slavery it produces. This is the state that exhibits the most dismal portraiture of human misery.

Your petitioners will venture an appeal; even to your own domestic experience, whether disgust and aversion be not too generally the result of matrimony; owing to incompatibility of humour and temper (these being commonly as different as are the sexes); and whether time, instead of healing the wounds laid open by mutual reproaches, does not increase their virulence daily by fresh recriminations and injuries? Alas! the two persons turned into one by the presumptuous priest, soon find that they not only continue to be two still, but that they are diametrically opposed to each other; and then follow through life those well-known clouds and storms, which, though familiar in every day's experience, baffle all description; whilst the frightful list of progeny engendered in this procreative nest of nuptial discord, are—repentance, melancholy, jealousy, animosity, poverty, disgust, despair, &c., and the frequent catastrophe is, that one or other of the miserable victims, labouring under the jugum calamitosum, commits the greatest of all crimes, as the only available means of effecting that necessary separation which an inhuman law has prohibited. ... Now, so long as the yoke of matrimony shall continue to be fastened on by priests, and require, as they say, the perpetual clinch of some personage residing beyond the clouds, your petitioners feel themselves bound in conscience, to excuse these too well-founded fears in the prudent portion of the male sex, who cannot shut their eyes to the glaring fact, that a vast majority of the ill-fated beings whose necks have been so subjected, have found, not only the extinction of sacred liberty, but the sad weight and variety of its other miseries. The heart of man (aye, and of woman too) delights in freedom; even the idea of constraint is grievous; and every attempt to confine it by violence, makes it spurn even that object which would have been its choice if left at liberty.

"Love, free as air, at sight of human ties,
Spreads his light wing, and in a moment flies."

Against the perpetuity of marriage, the authority of the greatest and most enlightened minds may be quoted :—Milton says, "indisposition, unfitness, or contrary humours, proceeding from any unchangeable cause in Nature hindering, and always likely to hinder, the main ends and benefits of conjugal society, peace and delight, are greater reasons of divorce than adultery or natural frigidity."... In the present baneful system, if genuine love, THAT ONE CORDIAL IN THIS MELANCHOLY VALE, exists previous to marriage, that very act crushes it in the bud...; the free-born mind shrinks aghast at the absurd impossibilities enjoined by the terms of the irrevocable bond, which is thus imposed by our traffickers in celestial statute laws. But as no such juggling pretences can render this obligation sacred, longer than it contributes to the comfort of the parties, it is virtually and properly cancelled when its evils become greater than its benefits; therefore the facility of separation is the more indispensable... All men in Christian wedlock are in some measure shorn of their native dignity, and to a certain degree in bondage; women of every description whatsoever are notoriously slaves; from which state there can be no efficient emancipation, whilst any action committed by them shall carry more odium, and have effects more prejudicial to their reputation and welfare, than the commission of the same action has upon those of men. Your Petitioners therefore repeat, that although they are not slaves to the male sex, yet all are decidedly so to pernicious laws, usages, and institutions, palmed upon society in times of ignorance, by Aristocratic Despotism, Priestcraft & Co., as so many state devices to perpetuate ignorance and slavery. From this corrupt fountain hath the nuptial cup been poisoned; and, as if putting the final barrier against human felicity, love, without marriage, has been branded and denounced as a deadly sin; and as there is no equivalent under the sun, the professional enemies of Nature promise atonement in their own fanciful regions, for this fatal privation, which has murdered millions of millions of the female sex;... Laws proceeding from such vicious conventions, may thus violate the universal order of things; and leave to deluded man not a thousandth part of the happiness he is capable of enjoying; but as superlative power cannot be suppressed, all such impious infringements will for ever return upon the violators.

...

...

After a youthful training of this kind, in the school of false notions and erroneous views, where the only visible effect of an expensive education is to disqualify her for the domestic utilities, and to keep her so wholly ignorant of herself and of the world, that she is totally unprepared to meet the sad vicissitudes which may await her in life's calamitous journey, what has the "happy man" to expect in his wedded dame? Not the domestic virtues certainly. ... But in lieu thereof, he may expect strong self-will, with an undisguised contempt for every thing in the shape of that due deference and subservience—that winning complaisance ..., establishes her control over his household, his purse, and, as far as possible, even over his mind itself, which, in most instances, becomes feminized and shorn of its masculine energy :— the subdued tone and look, characterize the lion of the cage,—now no longer the high-minded free lion of the desart. In short, when once the poor man is CAUGHT, he is no longer suffered to be altogether himself; he must undergo a fresh moulding—be rendered tame—learn not only to bear, but to show respect for conversation however puerile and trifling; but above all, to be perfectly pliant and passive to every thing around him; whilst the tyranny of custom and laws founded upon superstition, justify the unnatural dominion.

...

In venturing to draw so frightful a picture of wedlock's mass of evil, and consequent miseries, your petitioners, though determined no longer to hug the theological viper that stings them, are actuated by no unrestrained humour or levity of disposition; they pray not for those accommodating liberties which were enjoyed of old by the Spartan ladies; nor would they have the ideal republic of Plato realized, wherein marriage would have been entirely abolished; nor do they approve St. Paul's plan to "defraud," by borrowing wives occasionally, though "it be with consent for a time;" neither are they advocates for the still greater licentiousness of Zeno, who asserted that women ought to be altogether unrestrained in their amours, that their children might be equally dear to all men, ... Yet any one of all these modes is infinitely preferable to Christian matrimony, which your petitioners have shown to be the most woful trap that was ever set for human liberty. But so deep-rooted is the dissimulation and falsehood which priestcraft, and its offspring of bad laws and customs, have diffused through all ranks of society, that the truths thus honestly laid bare before you, by removing the veil of hypocrisy, will not only be denied by the colleagued upholders of church and state abuses, but by a vast majority even of those who, from their long experience in connubial miseries, are the most fully convinced of their sad reality.

...

First. — As the innovation creating inequality of rights and liberties between the sexes, ... which are alike the birthright of all the human race, and of which they have been deprived as aforesaid, may be legally restored to them. That, after having attained the age specified by law, they may, under all circumstances, be rendered as capable of holding, in their own right, every species of property, and to all intents and purposes of using and bequeathing the same, in virtue of the same rights and privileges as those held and enjoyed by the male sex; and that the simple casualty of living under the social protection of a husband for the time being, shall in nowise weaken or alter this absolute right of property.

Secondly. — That the church-corrupted, and highly immoral laws of marriage, which now vitiate the union of the sexes, may be wholly abrogated. That new institutions and regulations may be formed, limiting the duration of that purely civil contract, so as to be entirely subject to the mutual inclination, convenience, and well-being of the parties concerned; and that these laws may, in all respects, be consonant with the principles, wants, and necessities of human nature; these being the only proper foundation on which to establish all laws affecting the moral government of society.

Thirdly. — As it is only a fair deduction drawn from experience in the affairs of mankind, that all the doctrines of supernaturalism, by whom or whensoever propagated, have never had any other operation than that of strangling the social rights, and poisoning all the choicest sweets of human life; your petitioners most earnestly implore that in the formation and ministration of the future laws, all ecclesiastical influence, interference, or control in any way whatever, may be wholly excluded.

Fourthly. — Having shown the absurd inconsistency which cruelly prevents the separation of persons whose couples alone render them wretched, and by which two people are lost to the community, who might otherwise be useful, your petitioners pray, that all parties who have the civil right to enter into a marriage contract, at their own discretion, may have the equal right preserved to them of dissolving the same, for their reciprocal comfort and convenience, or at the instance of either party, and subject only to such moral and political regulations as, in your wisdom, you shall deem beneficial for the protection and education of the offspring, and for the general interests of society.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, &c. &c.

(Signed) HYPATIA,

***************************************************
http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/spinsters.html

THE JESUS-ZODIAC ALLEGORY

2007-05-04T17:39:00.000-07:00

This is the most facinating explanation for the Jesus myth I've ever encountered. Please read it with an open mind and see the connections. IT'S EPIPHANY TIME! (Oddly enough... epiphany not only means 'sudden realization' but also the christian festival celebrating the devine manifestation of Jesus. The things that make you go hmm...

Solar Mythology and the Jesus Story

History — There is not a shred of legitimate historical evidence anywhere that the Jesus Story originated as the biography of a man named Jesus, and quite a lot of evidence that it did not. This has already been thoroughly covered by other people.

Comparative Religion — The basic plot of the Jesus Story, including the motif of a crucified savior, already existed in many other religions long prior to the alleged time of Jesus.

Solar Mythology — The Jesus Story is actually an allegory for what would naturally be the oldest and most important story humans would notice and write down, that of the annual passage of the seasons of the year. The position of the Sun against the celestial sphere changes during the year.

You are here privy to one of the best kept secrets of all time.

In ancient times people were very familiar with the Sun and the stars. At night they had nothing better to do than gaze up at the stars. They didn't conquer darkness with the flip of a light switch like we do nowadays. When sunset came that was it, that was the end of the day. They observed how the stars move across the sky during the night, and how different constellations are visible at different times of the year.

They made up stories which were allegories based on what they saw. Later on, these stories took on a life of their own, as the stories were passed down from generation to generation but the knowledge of what the stories represented was lost. People started believing the stories were real and actual history of events that actually really happened in the past, when originally the stories were nothing more than allegories for what people saw happening in the stars.

It's not surprising in our present culture of digital watches and wall calendars that we've lost the original astronomical meaning of these Bible stories. Today most people never look at the stars or pay any attention to the position of the sun in the sky.

Our Story Takes Place In Heaven. “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.” Philippians 3:20. Heaven has always been up. Hell has always been down. Heaven and Hell are not just theologically opposite, they are geometrically opposite. Heaven above; Hell below.

Go outside at night and look up. You are literally looking at heaven. And what do you see? You see all the stars, which make up all the constellations. The Jesus Story takes place not on earth, but in the starry night sky above.

And that is the solution to the conundrum. That is the secret to understanding the Jesus story. The entire story of Jesus’ travels during his one year ministry is an allegory for the yearly journey of the Sun through the twelve zodiac constellations and the passage of the seasons of the year.

The Sun begins in Capricorn on December 22. (All dates are for “Biblical Times”, around the first or second century AD, when the Jesus Story was written. In our present age you have to wait until January 18 to see what they saw on December 22, due to the earth’s precession.) Each day at sunset Capricorn gets lower and lower until it is completely below the horizon. The Sun appears to travel upwards along the ecliptic through Capricorn towards Aquarius. Aquarius is where the Jesus Story begins.

January Sunset. The Sun is in Aquarius, currently halfway below the horizon. Pisces, the two fish, are above. As the month progresses Aquarius will appear lower and lower at sunset, until it is completely below the horizon, and Pisces will be on the horizon. In mid January the Sun enters Aquarius. Aquarius is the bringer of water, because it's the rainy season. Rain is the first step in the harvest cycle. Aquarius doesn't look anything like a man holding a pitcher of water. The constellation has more to do with what time of year it is and the significance of what is happening at that time of year. The rest is just an imaginative connecting of the dots to draw a picture of what you've already decided should be there in that part of the sky.

In January it is traditional in church to start reading through one of the Gospels depicting the life of Jesus. The Jesus story always begins with Jesus visiting John the Baptist, who baptizes with water. And that is the beginning of the allegory. Jesus is a personification of the Sun; John the Baptist is a personification of Aquarius. Jesus [the Sun], visits John the Baptist [Aquarius].

February Sunset. The Sun is now in Pisces. Aquarius is now below the horizon. As the month progresses the constellation Aquarius gets lower and lower on the western horizon and eventually ends up entirely below the horizon in February. The constellation Pisces, which comes after Aquarius, is now on the western horizon, and the Sun is said to now be in Pisces—the two fish. The constellation Aquarius is now below the horizon, and won't be seen at sunset again for six months.

February is a good time to go fishing. After all, there's a lot of water around from Aquarius bringing all that rain. Hunting isn't very good and there's no harvest yet to eat, so it's a good time to go fishing and eat fish.
The constellation has more to do with what time of year it is and the significance of what is happening at that time of year.

In the Jesus story after Jesus [the Sun], visits John the Baptist [Aquarius] the Bible says, “After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee,....” (Mark 1:14;). Suddenly John the Baptist is "put in prison", and Jesus just goes on his merry way! There is no further explanation in the Bible, which seems quite strange if John were a real person. We want to know why he was "put in prison." What crime was he accused of? Who threw him in prison? Was there a trial? Did Jesus attend the trial and speak on his behalf? No. Nothing more is said. Jesus just continues on his journey and appears unconcerned about John the Baptist.

This is all very strange and hard to understand if interpreted as a story of real life events, but it all makes perfect sense when understood as an astronomical allegory. John the Baptist being put in prison is merely an allegory for the constellation Aquarius at sunset moving below the horizon. It is a natural phenomenon that requires no further explanation, and that is why there is no further explanation in the Bible.

Jesus, the Sun, continues on his way into "Galilee". The word "Galilee" literally means "circuit". A "circuit" is a closed, usually circular path. The ecliptic is the circuit the Sun travels along during the year. Jesus, a personification of the Sun, continues on his way along the ecliptic, or "Galilee".

So in February the Sun moves into Pisces, the two fish, and Jesus visits Simon and his brother Andrew, who are two fishermen. Simon and Andrew are personifications of the two fish of Pisces. (Mark 1:16) During this season faithful Catholics, Episcopalians, and Mahommedans observe Lent, when they abstain from meat and live upon the fishes. Christians also use the fish as a symbol of their religion.

Aries, the lamb of March, follows Pisces.
In March some wonderful things happen. Baby animals are born in March. Baby lambs are born. And the Sun moves from Pisces into Aries — the Ram, or Lamb. Jesus is sometimes referred to as "the Lamb of God".

In March the days get longer and warmer, and the crops begin to grow. The Sun, which had been rising south of due east, rises farther north each morning, until it reaches the point when the Sun rises directly due east. This day is the Vernal Equinox. At this time Christians celebrate Easter. East-er, because the Sun is rising due east. Easter is defined as the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Vernal Equinox, when the Sun rises directly in the east. Thus Easter day is technically defined to be:

Wait for the Vernal Equinox, the day when the Sun rises directly in the east.
Wait for a full moon, because they didn't have street lights and if you want to have a party it's much nicer to have it during a full moon.
Wait for Sunday, our religious day of the week set aside for religious parties.

And voilà, we have the secret behind the scheduling of Easter. It's customary for Christians to get up early on Easter morning to watch the Sun rise, then go to church and announce, “He has risen." He has risen indeed!

In April the Sun passes through Taurus. Then in May the Sun passes across the Milky Way — that starry band that lies like a lake across the night sky. At this point in the Jesus story Jesus crosses "the lake" and we have the allegorical story of Jesus walking on water. (Mark 4:35-41)

After the Sun crosses the Milky Way it moves into the constellation Gemini—the twins Castor and Pollux. In the Jesus story, after crossing the lake (the Milky Way), Jesus heals two demon possessed men (I bet their names were Castor and Pollux) (Matthew 8:28-34) Castor and Pollux are also explicitly mentioned in Acts 28:11 — "After three months we put out to sea in a ship that had wintered in the island. It was an Alexandrian ship with the figurehead of the twin gods Castor and Pollux."

In June the Sun passes through Cancer — the Crab that thought to go backwards. The starting date is June 21, the Summer Solstice, the longest day of the year, when the Sun is at its highest ascension. After this day the Sun does go backwards, beginning it's descent southward, as the days get shorter and shorter.

In July the Sun passes through Leo the Lion, for the strong hot days of summer. Around this point in the Jesus story an interesting thing happens — John the Baptist reappears and is beheaded. According to the Bible, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead,” (Mark 6:14). Recall how Aquarius moved below the western horizon at sunset and the Sun traveled from Aquarius to Pisces. After six months the constellation of Aquarius begins to rise on the sunset, and it appears that the head of Aquarius is cut off by the horizon. This is John the Baptist rising from the dead, the dead being those who are below the earth. This is the beheading of John the Baptist by King Herod, a personification of darkness.

Afterwards comes the story of Jesus' transfiguration (Mark 9:2-13). Jesus goes to a high mountain top and shines very brightly, just as the Sun is high in the sky and shines warmly and brightly during these Summer months.

After Leo comes Virgo the virgin of the harvest season. Summer passes, the story of Jesus’ journeys continues. We eventually come to the end of Summer, the month of August, and it's harvest time! Harvest time is the best time of the year, the time we’ve all been waiting for. In August the Sun has moved a new constellation that represents the harvest, that food which grows out of the virgin soil of the earth. The constellation is Virgo, the eternal celestial virgin, holding a sheath of wheat representing harvest time. Farmers who till the fields are said to be wedded to this celestial virgin for which they wait for each year. Thus they are known as "husbandmen," and their tools such as tractors are known as implements of husbandry.

Harvest time comes about three quarters of the way through the year, and it’s the happiest time of the year. And about three quarters of the way through the Jesus story is his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, which is the happiest part of the story (Mark 11:1-11) Everyone knows him and is happy to see him. Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem is an allegory for the Sun’s triumphant entry into Virgo the harvest time or "The Kingdom of Heaven". The time which Jesus refers to in earnest as coming soon throughout the story up to here.

After the harvest the Sun moves into Libra, the Scales. These are the "Scales of Justice." The harvest has been gathered, it is now time to sell the harvest. Scales are used in buying and selling the harvest. At the end of harvest time, when there is nothing left to sell, the money changers pack up and leave. The Bible says, “Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers.” (Mark 11:12-19) Jesus, the Sun, representing the passage of time, moves out of Libra, the Scales of Justice, and the money changers pack up and leave, because the season has passed and they are finished selling the harvest.

As we enter the season of Autumn the leaves fall from the trees and the trees appear to wither. It is at this point in the story that Jesus is said to curse the fig tree and make it wither, a story which makes no sense if Jesus were a real person, but it makes perfect sense when understood as an allegory. It is simply Autumn, and Jesus, the Sun, who makes the seasons pass, causes the leaves to fall from the trees (Mark 11:20-25)

In the Jesus story we then have the Last Supper, where Jesus and his twelve disciples, a reference to the twelve zodiac months of the year, recline and eat the harvest. (Mark 14:12-26) This is the natural time of year to have a huge feast. In America we celebrate Thanksgiving and have a huge feast of food. We eat the flesh of the fruit—figuratively the flesh of Jesus, who personifies the Sun which make the fruit grow; and we drink wine—the blood of the grapes, figuratively the blood of Jesus, who personifies the Sun which made the grapes grow. Without this food we would perish.

The Jesus story goes tragically downhill from there, just like in the season of Autumn the year tragically winds down and comes to an end as the days become short and cold. In October the Sun enters Scorpio, the Scorpion, which figuratively stings the Sun to make it slowly die. In the Jesus story Jesus is betrayed by Judas, one of the twelve zodiac months of the year. Judas represents Scorpio, the month of October. Judas betrays Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, representing the 30 days of the month. The month being one cycle of the phases of the moon. The moon, a piece of silver in the sky.

Jesus is handed over to Herod — a personification of Night. Herod, or the darkness of Night, is taking over Jesus, the Sun, as the days get shorter and shorter in Autumn and darkness begins to reign. Jesus is handed over to Pontius Pilate, literally "of the sea", a reference to the sea of stars above. (It's also of Latin origin, betraying it's late addition to the text.) "Pilate" is literally "armed with a spear", a reference to Sagittarius, the archer, the man armed with a spear. Pontius Pilate is a personification of Sagittarius, the last constellation of the year. Pilate is the last person Jesus sees in the story — Sagittarius is the last zodiac month of the year. Sagittarius is a man on a horse with a bow and arrow. He is the man armed with a spear. It is a good time of the year to go hunting. The animals are full grown. But the days get shorter and shorter and colder and colder as the year comes to a close. Things look dark and gloomy. What will happen to our savior, the Sun, who makes the harvest grow? Will he disappear forever?

Jesus is crucified and placed in a cave. It is the end of the story. A sad ending. But have faith. Jesus, the Sun, will arise again — a new year will begin. Three days after Jesus is placed in the cave he will arise again. This is the prophecy.

On Christmas day, December 25, we celebrate the birth of Jesus. December 22 was the Winter Solstice, the shortest day of the year, when the Sun was at its lowest. Three days later, on December 25, the sun rises 1/10 of it's width farther north — just barely detectable by carefully observing the shadows cast at sunrise. Our savior, the Sun, has been reborn, to begin the cycle of the year and the cycle of life again.

Hence the story is circular, just as the years are circular. A new year begins after the old year ends.

On New Years Eve we personify Father Time and Baby New Year, but we know these two figures aren't real people, they are merely personifications of the passage of time and the beginning of a new year. The current year is old and finished with. A new year is about to begin. The moment the Old Year ends a New Year begins. The cycle of life is circular and never ending.

In the Gospel story of Jesus, after his resurrection the story ends. People have always asked what did he do after that? Why does the story end here? Why isn't the rest of his life chronicled? — The reason is, if you want to read the continuation of the story, turn back to page one. The story is circular. Three days after Jesus dies and is placed in the cave he is born again, and the story begins anew.

*************************************************************
http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/solarmyth/christ2002.htm

JESUS BOOT CAMP

2007-04-28T12:56:00.000-07:00

In a first for me, I'll let the following video clip speak for itself. From the documentary "Jesus Camp".

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=249328211d&p=1

Sick mother fuckers!

Google "jesus camp" at http://video.google.com for more sickening clips.

THE BAFFLING MYTH OF BELIEF

2007-04-27T16:29:00.000-07:00

How is it that that vast majority subscribes to beliefs that have absolutely no basis in fact, much less science? How is it, knowing what I know, that I find myself in such a small minority? How can an intelligent and educated group of people abdicate what their senses and their intellect tell them and believe in a concept that is in irrefutable conflict with provable realities?

How can that same majority believe in a premise based on ancient writings that are rife with conflicts, inconsistencies, half-truths and outright distortions of the truth? At least science is self-correcting. But religion and belief in a God, is a distorted exercise of constant confusion and wild interpretations that continuously circle around upon themselves, leading to endless conflict. It is anything but self-correcting.

How is it we give such importance to emanations from people that lived over two and three thousand years ago and yet ignore what provable facts, scientific observations, undisputed theories and “truths” tell us? Why were religions created between 1,500 to 3,000 years ago? Why not now?

Why did the Catholic Church spend 1,500 years vigorously squelching scientific discoveries, under the punishment of death or banishment for the perpetrators? Why now is the Catholic Church reeling under a large segment of the priesthood who have fallen from grace by committing violent, illegal acts against children, all the while being covered up by bishops, cardinals and the Pope? Why indeed? Could it be that the basic premise is flawed?

For those third-world civilizations that lack education and even the bare necessities of life, it is wholly understandable that they would grasp on to “something” if that “something” promises them “light” in a medieval darkness and is told to them by an authority that they will not or dare not question. And maybe this is exactly how ancient civilizations were convinced. But for well-educated individuals to buy into the same archaic myth is undeniably baffling.

All religions have a few common tenets. Primarily the most important tenet is to get people to behave in a prescribed way, which changes over time. The method to extract compliance is fear and intimidation; namely fear of reprisals from God, fear of not ascending into Heaven at death and fear of the “Fire and Brimstone” of Hell. All three fears are the fears of apparitions with no provable evidence of their reality. Pray tell what could God do to us that random acts of fate don’t do to us almost every day of our lives. Millions of people have died in wars, pestilence and famine perpetrated by small-minded despots exercising dictatorial control over un-educated and naïve populations.

Secondly, only one person has supposedly returned from Heaven and the evidence for such an extraordinary event is only hearsay and very old. And finally, the only Hell that exists no doubt is the one we experience here on this Earth.

Three of the five major religions believe in a “one god”, whether God’s name be “God”, “Jehovah” or “Allah”. The Hindu religion believes in thousands of gods. The Buddhist religion has no known deity attached to it at all, but rather believes that there are eight “right” ways to help people behave in the “right” way. Only now the monks tend to worship the statue of Buddha as a God.

So what is truly the “right” way? Are the Hindus right? Are the Muslims right? Are the Christians right? Are the Jews right? Are the Buddhists right? And if there is in fact a God, what possible dimensions and characteristics could we prescribe to that God. I am totally convinced by evidence that we are very far from knowing if there is a God, much less what characteristics we can subscribe to him, her or it, just as we are very far from unraveling the secrets and dimensions of our Universe. The difference is that we can measure the dimensions of the Universe with instruments of science, but there is no scientific way to measure the dimensions of a God that won't speak directly to us or give us specific signs that we can measure.

I suppose one could say that God is dimensionless and un-definable. Someone called this “the square that is not there”. If such is the case, then why would we put so much stock in something that is dimensionless, un-definable and unknowable? We don’t bow to the Universe as we learn its dimensions. We don’t give homage to the Sun for the very reason we can define it in many terms. The ancients did, but they didn't know any better. The Sun is a mystery no longer in most respects. Someday, we may know and define the dimensions of the Universe and remove its mystery. Someday we may even find a link between the Universe and some Intelligence that finally presents itself by some measurable manifestation. And then again, we may find just the opposite. We may find that the Universe is completely definable and there is no link whatsoever to a deity, just as we have found that the Sun is not a deity and nothing more than a nuclear furnace that heats our home.

Unfortunately, like all tenets of any religion, they are subject to interpretation by every individual that reads them and that’s wherein lies the basic problem. My interpretation of the so-called sacred writings may conflict so badly with yours that I may go to war to prove to you that my interpretation is right, especially if I possess a greater power than you. In other words, drive it down your throat, whether you like it or not. History is replete with such wars. The next problem comes when we try to translate those sacred writings from one language to another. So much gets lost in the translation by the ineptness and biases of the translator. The Bible was written first in Hebrew, then Greek and finally English. The possibilities for translation errors, is almost infinite. What value does the ancient writings have, if the translations induce significant errors?

And then comes religion’s ritual and liturgy. Each religion has its customary rituals that are practiced routinely when those of the same faith gather together. The Catholics are still waiving a little tin cup around with smoking incense rising into the rafters. Muslims must bow towards Mecca five times a day. And have you observed a Jewish ceremony? It's almost tribal. But why should that be so surprising when life during ancient times, which these ceremonies mirror, was mostly feudal and tribal. You were either rich or poor then. There was no in between. No middle class. And the rich and privileged, lorded over the poor.

All religions are steeped in tradition, cultural idiosyncrasies and liturgy. Over time these traditions change, sometimes drastically. And what do these rituals accomplish, scientifically? Is there something magical about incense smoke and why bow towards Mecca five times a day? Why not 2 or 10 times? And why the Crusades? And why the Witch Hunts of post Medieval Europe and the New World?

Thousands of years ago, men sacrificed a young virgin to appease the Gods. Or they laid dead animals at some alter. In fact, what did these rituals accomplish? Absolutely nothing, except in the distorted, naive minds of their perpetrators and the crowds that gathered around to witness them. Most of these ceremonies were founded on fear, intimidation and uncontrolled emotions.

Now, fanatical members of the Islamic religion want Americans and Israelis to die because we live decadent lives and practice Satanism in violation of their interpretation of a book called the Qur’an, written over 1,500 years ago by a man who decreed that men should only have four wives, (he had ten) and that “men are in charge of women”. After the fanatics attack the U.S. with an unprecedented loss of life, many Americans attempt to find solace in their own religions that are based on 2 to 3 thousand year-old emanations from ancient peoples who had absolutely no perception of today’s reality.

The provable reality is that we are but a very young and successful species on the third planet from a common star, in a garden-variety galaxy among billions of similar galaxies, in a Universe, the dimensions of which are not yet fully known. This reality does not make us small and unimportant. On the contrary, it makes us aware of who and where we are and the great potential for discoveries that lie ahead of us as we wonder about and explore our emerging Universe.

This reality does not make us immoral. It allows us to explore the solid reasons why morality among people is an absolute necessity if we are to live in peace with one another and raise our children in love, strength and provable truths. Morality is pragmatic, not deity created. When will we finally grow out of antiquity and quit fighting over apparitions? f there is a God, he already gave us the tools, our minds. If everyone had the same knowledge, one person or group could not “lord” over another. Only education in provable facts and the eradication of non-truths will allow us to continue as a very successful species.

***************************************************************
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/baffling_myth_of_belief.html

RELIGION LEADS TO EMOTIONAL ILLNESS

2007-04-20T16:34:00.000-07:00

If we want to look at the problems of human disturbance a little differently, we may ask ourselves, “What are the irrational ideas which people believe and through which they drive themselves into severe states of emotional sickness?”

Exploring the Question
After exploring this question for many years, and developing a new form of psychotherapy which is specifically directed at quickly unearthing and challenging the main irrational ideas which make people neurotic and psychotic, psychologists found that these ideas may be categorized under a few major headings. Here, for example, are five irrational notions, all or some of which are strongly held by practically every seriously disturbed person; here, along with these notions, are the connections between and commonly held religious beliefs.

Irrational idea No.1 is the idea that it is a dire necessity for an adult to be loved or approved of by all the significant figures in his life. This idea is bolstered by the religious philosophy that if you cannot get certain people to love or approve of you, you can always fall back on god’s love. The thought, however, that it is quite possible for you to live comfortably in the world whether or not other people accept you is quite foreign to both emotionally disturbed people and religionists.

Irrational idea No.2 is the idea that you must be thoroughly competent, adequate, and achieving in all possible respects, otherwise you are worthless. The religionists say that no, you need not be competent and achieving, and in fact can be thoroughly inadequate – as long as god loves you and you are a member in good standing of the church. But this means, of course, that you must be a competent and achieving religionist – else you are no damned good.

Irrational idea No.3 is the notion that certain people are bad, wicked, and villainous and that they should be severely blamed and punished for their sins. This is the ethical basis, of course, of virtually all true religions. The concepts of quilt, blaming, and sin are, in fact, almost synonymous with that of revealed religion.

Irrational idea No. 4 is the belief that it is horrible, terrible, and catastrophic when things are not going the way you would like them to go. This idea, again, is the very core of religiousity, since the religious person invariably believes that just because he cannot stand being frustrated, and just because he must keep worrying about things turning out badly, he needs a supreme deity to supervise his thoughts and deeds and to protect him from anxiety and frustrations.

Irrational idea No. 5 is the idea that human unhappiness is externally caused and that people have little or no ability to control their sorrows or rid themselves of their negative feelings. Once again, this notion is the essence of religion, since real religions invariably teach you that only by trusting in god and relying on praying to him will you be able to control your sorrows of counteract your negative emotions.

Similarly, if we had time to review all the other major irrational ideas that lead humans to become and to remain emotionally disturbed, we could quickly find that they are coextensive with, or are strongly encouraged by, religious tenets.

Religion goes hand in hand with the basic irrational beliefs of human beings. These keep them dependant, anxious, and hostile, and thereby create and maintain their neuroses and psychoses. What then is the role of psychotherapy in dealing with the religious views of disturbed patients? Obviously, the sane and effective psychotherapist should not – as many contemporary psychoanalytic Jungian, client-centered, and existentialist therapists have contended he should – go along with the patients’ religious orientation and try to help these patients live successfully with their religions, for this is equivalent to trying to help them live successfully with their emotional illness.

http://www.machineslikeus.com/articles/CaseAgainstReligion.html

HITLER'S POPE PIUS XII

2007-04-15T14:09:00.000-07:00

On February 10, 1939, Pius XI died. Eugenio Pacelli was elected Pope on the eve of Hitler's march into Prague. Between his election and his coronation he held a crucial meeting with the German cardinals. Keen to affirm Hitler publicly, he showed them a letter of good wishes which began, "To the Illustrious Herr Adolf Hitler." He told the cardinals that Pius XI had said that keeping a papal nuncio in Berlin "conflicts with our honor." But his predecessor, he said, had been mistaken. He was going to maintain normal diplomatic relations with Hitler. The following month at Pacelli's express wish, the Archbishop of Berlin hosted a gala reception in honor of Hitler's 50th birthday. A birthday greeting to the Führer from the bishops of Germany would become an annual tradition until the war's end.

Pacelli's coronation was the most triumphant in a hundred years. His style of papacy was unprecedentedly pompous. He always ate alone. Vatican bureaucrats were obliged to take phone calls from him on their knees. When he took his afternoon walk, the gardeners had to hide in the bushes. Senior officials were not allowed to ask him questions or present a point of view.

As Europe plunged toward war Pacelli cast himself in the role of judge of judges. But he continued to seek to appease Hitler by attempting to persuade the Poles to make concessions over Germany's territorial claims. After Hitler's invasion of Poland, he declined to condemn Germany, to the bafflement of the Allies. His first public statement, the encyclical known in the English-speaking world as Darkness over the Earth, was full of papal rhetoric and equivocations.

Pacelli's first wartime act of reticence in failing to speak out against Fascist brutality occurred in the summer of 1941, following Hitler's invasion of Yugoslavia and the formation of the Catholic and Fascist state of Croatia. In a wave of appalling ethnic cleansing, the Croat Fascist separatists (Ustashe) embarked on a campaign of enforced conversions, deportations, and mass extermination targeting a population of 2.2 million Serb Orthodox Christians and a smaller number of Jews and Gypsies. The victims were forced to dig their own graves before being hacked to death with axes. The local priest was forced to recite the prayers for the dying while his son was chopped to pieces before his eyes. Then the priest was tortured. His hair and beard were torn off, his eves were gouged out. Finally he was skinned alive. The very next month Pacelli greeted the Croat leader at the Vatican.

Throughout the war, the Croat atrocities continued. Despite a close relationship between the Ustashe regime and the Catholic bishops, and a constant flow of information about the massacres, Pacelli said and did nothing. In fact, he continued to extend warm wishes to the Ustashe leadership. Pacelli's silence was due to his perception of Croatia as a Catholic bridgehead into the East. The Vatican approved of mass conversion in Croatia (even though it was the result of fear rather than conviction), because they believed that this could spell the beginning of a return of the Orthodox Christians there to papal allegiance. Pacelli chose to turn a blind eye on Ustashe atrocities rather than hinder a unique opportunity to extend the power of the papacy.

Pacelli came to learn of the Nazi plans to exterminate the Jews of Europe shortly after they were laid in January 1942. The deportations to the death camps had begun in December 1941 and would continue through 1944. All during 1942, Pacelli received reliable information on the details of the Final Solution. Representatives of Jewish organizations sent a memorandum to Pacelli, cataloguing violent anti-Semitic measures in Germany and in its allied and conquered territories. Their plea focused attention on Slovakia, Croatia, Hungary, and unoccupied France, where, they believed, the Pope's intervention might yet be effective. Apart from an intervention in the case of Slovakia, where the president was Monsignor Tiso, a Catholic priest, no papal initiatives resulted.

Pacelli was diverting himself, ostrichlike, into purely religious concerns and that the moral authority won for the papacy by Pius XI was being eroded. The London Daily Telegraph announced that more than a million Jews had been killed in Europe and that it was the aim of the Nazis "to wipe the race from the European continent." In the following weeks the British, American representatives to the Vatican tried to persuade Pacelli to speak out against the Nazi atrocities. But still he said nothing. In September 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt sent his personal representative to plead with PaceIli. Still Pacelli refused to speak. Pacelli's excuse was that he must rise above the belligerent parties. Britain's envoy delivered a dossier replete with information on the Jewish deportations and mass killings in hopes that the Pope would denounce the Nazi regime in a Christmas message.

On December 24, 1942, having made draft after draft, Pacelli at last said something. In his Christmas Eve broadcast to the world on Vatican Radio, he said that men of goodwill owed a vow to bring society "back to its immovable center of gravity in divine law." He went on: "Humanity owes this vow to those hundreds of thousands who, without any fault of their own, sometimes only by reason of their nationality and race, are marked for death or gradual extinction."

That was the strongest public denunciation of the Final Solution that Pacelli would make in the whole course of the war.

Clearly the choice of ambiguous wording was intended to placate those who urged him to protest, while avoiding offense to the Nazi regime. But these considerations are over-shadowed by the implicit denial and trivialization. He had scaled down the doomed millions to "hundreds of thousands" without uttering the word "Jews," while making the pointed qualification "sometimes only by reason of their nationality or race." Nowhere was the term "Nazi'' mentioned. Hitler himself could not have wished for a more convoluted and innocuous reaction from
the Vicar of Christ to the greatest crime in history.

But what was Pacelli's principal motivation for this trivialization and denial? The Allies' diplomats in the Vatican believed that he was remaining impartial in order to earn a crucial role in future peace negotiations. In this there was clearly a degree of truth. But evidence gathered shows that Pacelli saw the Jews as alien and undeserving of his respect and compassion. He felt no sense of moral outrage at their plight. The documents show that:

1. He had nourished a striking antipathy toward the Jews as early as 1917 in Germany, which contradicts later claims that his omissions were performed in good faith and that he "loved" the Jews and respected their religion.

2. From the end of the First World War to the lost encyclical of 1938, Pacelli betrayed a fear and contempt of Judaism based on his belief that the Jews were behind the Bolshevik plot to destroy Christendom.

3. Pacelli acknowledged to representatives of the Third Reich that the regime's anti-Semitic policies were a matter of Germany's internal politics. The Reich Concordat between Hitler and the Vatican, as Hitler was quick to grasp, created an ideal climate for Jewish persecution.

4. Pacelli failed to sanction protest by German Catholic bishops against anti-Semitism, and he did not attempt to intervene in the process by which Catholic clergy collaborated in racial certification to identify Jews.

5. After Pius XI's Mit Brennender Sorge, denouncing the Nazi regime (although not by name), Pacelli attempted to mitigate the effect of the encyclical by giving private diplomatic reassurances to Berlin despite his awareness of widespread Nazi persecution of Jews.

6. Pacelli was convinced that the Jews had brought misfortune on their own heads: intervention on their behalf could only draw the church into alliances with forces inimical to Catholicism. Pacelli's failure to utter a candid word on the Final Solution proclaimed to the world that the Vicar of Christ was not roused to pity or anger. From this point of view, he was the ideal Pope for Hitler's unspeakable plan. His denial and minimization of the Holocaust were all the more scandalous in that they were uttered from a seemingly impartial moral high ground.

There was another, more immediate indication of Pacelli's moral dislocation. It occurred before the liberation of Rome, when he was the sole Italian authority in the city. On October 16, 1943, SS troops entered the Roman ghetto area and rounded up more than 1,000 Jews, imprisoning them in the very shadow of the Vatican. On the morning of the roundup, which had been prompted by AdoIf Eichmann, in charge of the Final Solution, the Rome's German ambassador pleaded with the Vatican to issue a public protest. By this stage of the war, Mussolini had been deposed and rescued by AdoIf Hitler to run the puppet regime in the North of Italy. The German authorities in Rome, both diplomats and military commanders, fearing a backlash of the Italian populace, hoped that an immediate and vigorous papal denunciation might stop the SS in their tracks and prevent further arrests. Pacelli refused.

Pacelli that day was anxious that the "Communist" Partisans would take advantage of a cycle of papal protest, followed by SS reprisals, followed by a civilian backlash. As a consequence, he was not inclined to lift a finger for the Jewish deportees, who were now traveling in cattle cars bound for Auschwitz.

Pacelli was concerned that a protest by him would benefit only the Communists. His silence on the deportation of Rome's Jews, in other words, was not an act of cowardice or fear of the Germans. He wanted to maintain the Nazi-occupation status quo until such time as the city could be liberated by the Allies. But what of the deported Jews? Five days after the train had set off, an estimated 1,060 had been gassed at Auschwitz and Birkenau.

But there was a more profound failure than Pacelli's unwillingness to help the Jews of Rome rounded up on October 16. Pacelli's reticence was not just a diplomatic silence. It was a stunning religious and ritualistic silence. There is no record of a single public papal prayer, lit votive candle, psalm, lamentation, or Mass celebrated in solidarity with the Jews of Rome either during their terrible ordeal or after their deaths. This spiritual silence in the face of an atrocity committed at the heart of Christendom. This silence proclaims that Pacelli had no genuine spiritual sympathy even for the Jews of Rome, who were members of the community of his birth. And yet, on learning of the death of AdoIf Hitler, Archbishop Adolf Bertram of Berlin ordered all the priests of his archdiocese "to hold a solemn Requiem in memory of the Führer."

Settimia Spizzichino, the sole Roman Jewish woman survivor from the death camps. Speaking in a BBC interview in 1995 she said. "I came back from Auschwitz on my own. I lost my mother, two sisters and one brother. Pius XII could have warned us about what was going to happen. We might have escaped from Rome and joined the partisans. He played right into the Germans' hands. It all happened right under his nose. But he was an anti-Semitic pope, a pro-German pope. He didn't take a single risk. And when they say the Pope is like Jesus Christ, it is not true. He did not save a single child."

The saddest ironies of Pacelli's papacy centers on the implications of his own pastoral self-image. At the beginning of a promotional film he commissioned about himself during the war, called The Angelic Pastor, the camera frequently focuses on the statue of the Good Shepherd in the Vatican gardens. The parable of the good shepherd tells of the pastor who so loves each of his sheep that he will do all, risk all, go to any pains, to save one member of his flock that is lost or in danger. To his everlasting shame, and to the shame of the Catholic Church, Pacelli disdained to recognize the Jews of Rome as members of his Roman flock, even though they had dwelled in the Eternal City since before the birth of Christ. And yet there was still something worse.

After the liberation of Rome, when every perception of restraint on his freedom was lifted, he claimed retrospective moral superiority for having spoken and acted on behalf of the Jews. Addressing a Palestinian group on August 3, 1946, he said, "We disapprove of all recourse to force...Just as we condemned on various occasions in the past the persecutions that a fanatical anti-Semitism inflicted on the Hebrew people." His grandiloquent self-exculpation a year after the war had ended showed him to be not only an ideal pope for the Nazis Final Solution but also a hypocrite.

***********************************************************
condensed from: http://www.reformation.org/hitler_pope.html

HYPOCRISY RULES THE ROOST

2007-04-13T18:06:00.000-07:00

PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH

Almost everyday you can read about a scandal involving one denomination or the other. Of course the higher ups condemn the behaviour, ask forgiveness, slip a few bucks to the family, and back to business as usual. That hasn't changed since religion was invented. Yet the ignorant still blindly follow without question. HYPOCRITES EVERYONE. Below is just a sampling of various 'sins' the bible preaches against yet the leaders feel exempt.

THOU SHALL NOT STEAL
"Embezzlement seen in 85% of Catholic dioceses" Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Jan 5, 2007 by Laurie Goodstein.
A survey by researchers at Villanova University has found that a surprising 85 percent of Roman Catholic dioceses that responded had discovered embezzlement of church funds in the past five years, with 11 percent reporting that more than $500,000 had been stolen. The Catholic Church has some of the most rigorous financial guidelines of any denomination, specialists in church ethics said, but the survey found that the guidelines are often ignored in parishes. And when no one is looking, the cash that goes into the collection plate does not always get deposited into the church's bank account. One church insider had this to say "As a faith-based organization, we place a lot of trust in our folks, We think if you work for a church -- you're a volunteer or a priest -- the last thing on your mind is to do something dishonest, But people are people, and there's a lot of temptation there, and with the cash-based aspect of how churches operate, it's pretty easy." So much for Thou Shall Not Steal. Hypocrite. (WWJD? Drive a BMW of course!)

NO SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE
"Although religious denominations do not audit clerical infidelity (or divorce), outside sources do. In 1993 The Journal of Pastoral Care reported a survey of Southern Baptist pastors in which 14 percent acknowledged that they had engaged in "sexual behavior inappropriate to a minister." More startling, 70 percent said that they had counseled at least one woman who had had intercourse with another minister. In 1988, a survey of nearly 1,000 Protestant clergy by Leadership magazine found that 12 percent admitted to sexual intercourse outside marriage. Seventeen percent of these affairs occurred with people they were counseling, and 52 percent involved members, ministers or other leaders of their own congregation. An additional 18 percent disclosed that they had kissed, fondled or masturbated with someone other than their spouse. When asked what consequences they had suffered—in their marriages or their careers—as a result of their sexual adventures, only 6 percent said that they had lost their jobs. And nearly a third reported no adverse consequences of any kind. Hypocrites. (Guess it's better than molesting little boys)

DIVORCE IS A SIN
June 28, 1997, Newsweek reported:
"Although he wasn’t married himself, Jesus had some rather clear teachings on the subject. Adultery was sin, he declared, and that included even lustful looks at another woman. He was tough on divorce, too, saying that anyone who divorces and marries another also commits adultery. But the authority of Scripture isn’t what it used to be — even of those who preach it from the pulpit. In recent years the divorce rate for Protestant clergy has risen to match the general population’s.

"Born-again" Christians are more likely to go through a marital split than are non-Christians, according to a new study by the Barna Research Group. Using statistics drawn from a nationwide survey, the Barna data show 11 percent of the adult population currently is divorced but that 25 percent of all adults have experienced at least one divorce. Among "born-again" Christians, 27 percent currently are divorced or previously have been divorced, compared with 24 percent among adults who are not "born again." Surprisingly, the Barna report said, the Christian group whose adherents have the highest likelihood of getting divorced are Baptists. The only group to surpass Baptists were Christians associated with non-denominational Protestant churches. Hypocrites. (Newt's on his 3rd, I'm sure #4 is in the works)

THALL SHALT NOT COVET A NEIGHBORS WIFE
"Children fathered by priest settle suit" By Michael S. Rosenwald, Globe Staff, 1/30/2004
The Catholic Archdiocese of Boston reached a settlement yesterday in the case of a priest who fathered two children with one of his parishioners, a Needham woman, and then fled her home the night she died of a drug overdose. Church officials announced an agreement with the family of Rita Perry, who died in 1973, in the case against the Rev. James Foley. The priest acknowledged having a lengthy affair with Perry, and paternity tests eventually proved he was the father of two of her four children, Emily and James Perry. The archdiocese issued a strongly worded statement in which Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley condemned sexual relationships between priests and parishioners.

Oooo a strongly worded statement! Hello the woman OVERDOSED on drugs while partying with his holiness!!! Let alone fathered two kids. Hypocrite. (It's ok, their hetero)

THALL SHALT NOT KILL
Catholic priest convicted of nun's 1980 murder By Harriet Ryan, Court TV, TOLEDO, Ohio
A jury in this heavily Catholic community convicted a priest Thursday of murdering a nun 26 years ago in the sacristy of a hospital chapel. The panel deliberated six hours before finding the Rev. Gerald Robinson guilty of a single count of murder in the Easter eve killing of Sr. Margaret Ann Pahl. Judge Thomas Osowik immediately sentenced Robinson, 68, to a sentence of 15 years to life in prison. Prosecutors contend Robinson murdered the 71-year-old nun because he was frustrated with his assignment at the hospital, which was run by her order, and disliked what the priest called her "dominant personality." She was stabbed 31 times, including nine times through an altar cloth in the shape of an inverted cross.

Get that? a 71 year-old nun, stabbed 31 times, 9 times in the shape of an inverted cross!! Hypocrite. (Holy pissed off Batman!)

THALL SHALT NOT LIE
"Priest Is Charged In Van Bulow Case" By JONATHAN FRIENDLY, NEW YORK TIMES, June 1985
An indictment unsealed here today charges that a Roman Catholic priest lied in a sworn statement he gave in 1983 to help Claus von Bulow get a new trial on charges of trying to kill his wife with insulin injections. Thall shalt not lie nor bare false witness, a Double Whammy! Hypocrite. (I crossed my fingers while swearing on the bible!)

WAKE UP ALL YE FAITHFUL YOU ARE BEING LIED TO.

HAPPY EASTER SATURDAY & GOOD WEDNESDAY TO YOU!

2007-04-06T14:41:00.000-07:00

Believe It Or Not The RESURRECTION was NOT on Sunday!

IT is commonly supposed, today, Jesus was crucified on FRIDAY, and that the resurrection occurred about sunrise on Easter Sunday morning. It would seem that no one, ever thought to question or to PROVE this "Good Friday Easter" tradition. Yet the Bible tells you to PROVE all things. As usual the church conveniently ignores the clues in order to make their religion palatable to pagan 'converts'. The Easter the west celebrates today is the Spring equinox (pagan) and hence the Easter bunny and all those eggs. Jokes on them.

Was Jesus three days and three nights in the grave, as He said in Matthew 12:40? Can you figure three days and three nights between sunset "Good Friday" and sunrise Easter Sunday?

Tradition No Evidence
There were no eye witnesses to the resurrection. Even so called "apostolic fathers" had no source of information save that record which is today available to us. Tradition, then, must be dismissed. What are the recorded facts? The doubting Pharisees were asking Jesus for a SIGN a supernatural evidence in proof of His Messiahship. Jesus answered: "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS in the heart of the earth." (Matt. 12:38)

Now consider, the tremendous import the overwhelming significance of Jesus' statement! He expressly declared that the ONLY SIGN He would give to prove He was the Messiah was that He should be just THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS in the rock hewn sepulchre in "the heart of the earth." These Christ rejecting Pharisees demanded PROOF. Jesus offered but one evidence. That evidence was not the fact of the resurrection itself, it was the LENGTH OF TIME He would repose in His grave. Jesus staked His claim to being your Saviour upon remaining exactly THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS in the tomb. IF He remained just three days and three nights inside the earth, He would PROVE Himself the Saviour if He failed in this sign, He must be rejected as an impostor!

The Dilemma of the Higher Critics
This one and only supernatural PROOF ever given by Jesus for His Messiahship has greatly bothered the commentators and the higher critics.

Their attempts to explain away this sole proof for Christ's divinity are ludicrous in the extreme. For explain this away they must, or their "Good Friday Easter" tradition collapses! One commentator says, "Of course we know that Jesus was actually in the tomb only half as long as He thought He would be!" Some expositors impose upon our credulity to the extent of asking us to believe that "in the GREEK language, in which the New Testament was written, the expression 'three days and three nights' means three PERIODS, either of day or of night!" Jesus, they say, was placed in the tomb shortly before sunset FRIDAY, and rose at sunrise Sunday morning two nights and one day.

The BIBLE Definition
But the BIBLE definition of the duration of "nights and days" is simple. Even these same higher critics admit that in the HEBREW language, in which the book of Jonah was written, the expression "three days and three nights" means a period of 72 hours three twelve hour days and three twelve hour nights.

Notice Jonah 1: 17: "And Jonah was in the belly of the fish THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS!" This, they admit was a period of 72 hours. And Jesus distinctly said that AS Jonah was three days and three nights in the great fish's belly, SO He would be the same length of time in His grave!

Notice the BIBLE DEFINITION of the expression, "THE THIRD DAY."
In Genesis 1:4 God "divided the LIGHT from the DARKNESS. And God called the LIGHT Day, and the DARKNESS He called Night. And the evening (darkness) and the morning (light) were the FIRST DAY ... and the evening (darkness) and the morning (light) were THE SECOND DAY and the evening (now three periods of darkness called NIGHT three nights) and the morning (now three periods of light called DAY three days) were THE THIRD DAY." (Gen. 1:4 13)

Here we have the ONLY BIBLE DEFINITION which explains and COUNTS UP the amount of time involved in the expression "THE THIRD DAY." It includes three dark periods called NIGHT, and three light periods called DAY three days and three nights, and Jesus said they contained TWELVE HOURS for each period a total of 72 hours! That ought to be conclusive! Any seven year old, near the end of the second grade, could figure it easily.

What Is Wrong?
What is wrong with these plain, simple words of Jesus? How do these wise and prudent theologians KNOW Jesus was crucified "Good Friday" and rose "Easter Sunday?" The simple answer is, THEY DO NOT KNOW IT for IT IS NOT TRUE! It is merely Tradition, a tradition we have been taught from childhood, and carelessly ASSUMED! Jesus warns against making "the Word of God of none effect through your TRADITION."

"And He began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and AFTER three days rise again." Our young second grader can figure this. IF Jesus had been killed on Friday, and then AFTER one day He had risen, the resurrection would have occurred on Saturday evening. IF AFTER TWO DAYS, it would have occurred Sunday evening, and if AFTER THREE DAYS, it would have occurred MONDAY EVENING!

Examine this text carefully. You cannot, by any process of arithmetic, figure any less than a full 72 hours three days and three nights in a resurrection which occurred three days AFTER the crucifixion! If Jesus was in the grave only from Friday sunset to Sunday sunrise, then this text too, must be torn out of your Bible or else you must reject Jesus Christ as your Saviour! If He rose AFTER THREE DAYS, it might have been more than 72 hours, but it could not have been a second less!

The TIME OF DAY of Resurrection
Now notice carefully this fact: In order to be three days and three nights-72 hours-in the tomb, Jesus had to be resurrected at exactly THE SAME TIME OF DAY that His body was buried in the tomb! Let us realize that very vital fact. If we can find the TIME OF DAY of the burial, then we have found the TIME OF DAY of the resurrection! If the burial, for instance, was at sunrise, then in order to be left an even three days and three nights in the tomb, the resurrection likewise had to occur at sunrise, three days later. If the burial were at noon, the resurrection was at noon. If the burial was at sunset, the resurrection was at sunset, three days later.

Jesus cried on the cross soon after "the ninth hour" or three o'clock in the afternoon. (Matt. 27:46-50) The crucifixion day was called "the preparation," or day before "the sabbath." (27:62). This day ended at sunset, according to Bible reckoning (Lev. 23:32). Yet Jesus was buried before this same day ended,before sunset. (27:57 He died shortly after 3 p.m. Therefore-notice carefully!-the BURIAL OF CHRIST'S BODY WAS IN THE LATE AFTERNOON! It was between 3 p.m. and sunset.

And since the RESURRECTION had to occur at the SAME TIME OF DAY, three days later, THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST OCCURRED, not at sunrise, but IN THE LATE AFTERNOON, near sunset! If Jesus rose at any other time of day, He could not have been three days and three nights in His grave. If He rose at any other time of day, He failed to prove, by the only sign He gave that He was the true Messiah, the Son of the living Creator! Either He rose near the END of a day near sunset, or else He is not the Christ! He staked His claim on that one and only sign! So a time-honored tradition must be shattered!

What Day Was the Resurrection?
Now which DAY OF THE WEEK was the resurrection day? The first investigators, Mary Magdalene and her companions, came to the sepulchre on the first day of the week (Sunday) very early, while it was yet dark, as the sun was beginning to rise, at dawn. (Mark 16:2).Now here are the texts most people have SUPPOSED stated the resurrection was at sunrise Sunday morning. But they do not say that! When the women arrived, the tomb was already OPEN! At that time Sunday morning while it was yet dark-JESUS WAS NOT THERE! The angel says "HE IS NOT HERE. BUT IS RISEN!" (Mark 16:6) Jesus was ALREADY RISEN at sunrise Sunday morning! Of course He was. He rose from the grave IN THE LATE AFTERNOON, near SUNSET! And since we know the resurrection was just shortly prior to that Sunday morning, and that it occurred in the late afternoon of the day, we now may know THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST OCCURRED LATE SATURDAY AFTERNOON. The Sabbath day ended at sunset. It was late on that day, before the beginning of the first day of the week. It was not, then, a Sunday resurrection at all it was a Sabbath resurrection!

Did Christ Fulfill His Sign?
Now all this is based on the supposition that Jesus did fulfill His only SIGN of being three days and three nights in the grave. All our evidence is based on the claims of Jesus BEFORE His crucifixion. THE ANGEL gives this testimony "He is not here: for He is risen, AS HE SAID." And He certainly did not rise unless He rose at the precise TIME that He had said! So we have the proof of the ANGEL, recorded that Jesus did fulfill His sign-He was three days and three nights in the earth-He did rise Sabbath afternoon, and not Sunday morning! The THIRD DAY following His Wednesday burial was the Sabbath; THREE FULL DAYS spent in the grave ended Saturday afternoon just prior to sunset, not Sunday morning.

Which Day Was the Crucifixion?
It is not difficult now to determine the day on which Jesus was crucified. Counting back three days from the Sabbath when He rose, we come to Wednesday, the fourth or very middle day of the week. Jesus was crucified on WEDNESDAY, the middle day of the week, He died on the cross shortly after 3 p.m. that afternoon, was buried before sunset Wednesday evening. Now COUNT the THREE DAYS and THREE NIGHTS. His body was Wednesday, Thursday and Friday NIGHTS in the grave THREE NIGHTS. It also was there through the daylight part of Thursday, Friday and Saturday THREE DAYS. He rose Saturday-the Sabbath late afternoon, shortly before sunset, at the same TIME OF DAY that He was buried! And Sunday morning at sunrise He was NOT THERE-HE WAS ALREADY RISEN!

WHAT Sabbath Followed the Crucifixion?
Now we come to an objection some may raise, yet the very point which PROVES this truth! Perhaps you have noticed that the Scriptures say the day AFTER the crucifixion was a SABBATH! Hence, for centuries, people have blindly assumed the crucifixion was on Friday! Now we have shown that the crucifixion day-Wednesday-was called "the preparation." The preparation day for THE SABBATH.

Just what is a "HIGH DAY"? Ask any Jew! He will tell you it is one of the annual holydays, or feast days. The Israelites observed seven of these every year-every one called SABBATHS! Annual Sabbaths, falling on certain annual calendar dates, and on different days of the week in different years, just like the Roman holidays now observed. These Sabbaths might fall on Monday, on Thursday, or on Sunday.

And what was THE PASSOVER? It was the ancient day of Israel commemorating their deliverance from Egypt, and picturing to them the crucifixion of Christ and their deliverance from sin. In the twelfth chapter of Exodus you will find the story of the original Passover.

The children of Israel killed the lambs, and struck the blood over the doorposts and on the side-posts of their houses, and wherever the blood had thus been applied the Lord PASSED OVER that house, sparing it from death. Following the Passover, was a holy convocation or annual Sabbath. Observe the dates: "And in the fourteenth day of the first month is THE PASSOVER of the LORD. And in the fifteenth day of this month is the FEAST." (Num. 28:16-17)

The Passover lamb, killed every year on the 14th of the first month called "Abib, JESUS WAS SLAIN ON THE VERY SAME DAY THE PASSOVER HAD BEEN SLAIN EVERY YEAR! He was crucified on the 14th of Abib, the first Hebrew month of the year! And this day, the PASSOVER, was the day before, and the preparation for, THE FEAST day, or annual highday Sabbath, which occurred on the 15th of Abib. THIS Sabbath might occur on ANY day of the week. And the Hebrew calendar shows that in the year Jesus was crucified, the 14th of Abib, Passover day, the day Jesus was crucified, was WEDNESDAY. And the annual Sabbath was THURSDAY. This was the Sabbath that drew on as Joseph of Arimathea hastened to bury the body of Jesus late that Wednesday afternoon. THERE WERE TWO SEPARATE SABBATHS THAT WEEK!

So now do you STILL believe everything the church tells you as truth? as infallible? Question authority, think for yourselves. Easter is just a pagan tradition transformed into a messiah myth. They don't even use their own timetables as written in the Bible. You are being lied to. Celebrate spring.

THE CONVENIENTLY FORGOTTEN HISTORY OF BOY-RAPE

2007-03-24T19:17:00.000-07:00

With all the church scandal recently involving pedophile priests you'd think it was a modern invention. People are shocked and outraged, (rightly so) but once again their ignorance of history leads them to think that firing, fining & imprisoning those responsible will magically make the problem go away, a quick fix. One has to admire the church's cunningness in whitewashing the history of boy-rape. Always insisting is just a few 'bad apples' and then blaming the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle as the cause of all immorality in the world. A quick review of history will show that pederasty was once not only common but institutionally promoted by none other than the religious leaders of their time. It was perpetrated not by gay men but by straight men including their own fathers. It wasn't about love or sex but power and control. Let me make myself clear, I do not condone nor accept pedophilia, what pisses me off is how the church is trying to deflect the issue and thus guilt by shifting the topic to 'those immoral homos'.

Pederasts past and present use boys for sexual purposes to make up for the traumas of their own childhood, "the male child representing his ideal self, whose youthfulness protects him from annihilation (death anxiety)." The boy is the smooth, maternal breast, the penis is the nipple, and raping the boy is an act of revenge toward the mother, showing that the pederast is in total control, dominating the boy to overcome his sense of emptiness and abandonment. As one pederast put it, "I want to hold him in my arms, control him, dominate him, make him do my bidding, that I'm all-powerful." The pederast's sexual targets are so interchangeable that he often seduces hundreds of boys in his lifetime. The sexual use of boys is not to be thought of as "a lack of impulse controls" or even as "only a different object choice" as most historians claim; pederasts are driven not by their sexual instincts but by their overwhelming anxieties.

Domination rather than tender love was in fact the central aim of all sexuality until modern times. Raping boys was by far the preferred sexual activity of men; it was considered more "according to nature" than heterosexuality, "an ordinance enacted by divine laws." Pythagoras, when asked when one should have sex with women rather than boys, replied: "When you want to lose what strength you have." As one historian of sexuality put it, "The world was divided into the screwers, all male and the screwed, both male and female." Because the boy represented the ideal self with whom the rapist merged, he must be without hair: "I like the smooth surface of the young boy's body, I don't like hair on it, I can't stand it..." So as soon as boys reached puberty, they were felt to be useless for sexual purposes, and all pederastic poetry mentions the first hairs terminate the boy's attractiveness. According to graffiti and poetry, the boy is most often raped anally. Lucilius compares sexual relations with boys and women: "She bloodies you, but he on the other hand beshits you." While the vagina is "castigated in invective as smelly, dirty, wet, loose, noisy, hairy, and so on...no such feeling seems to have been applied to the anuses of pueri." Boys' anuses were called "rosebud", sometimes compared to the sweetest of fruits, the fig, other times again equated with gold. The only precaution taken was to depilitate boys' anuses, says Martial and Suetonius. Indeed, as Martial put it, men must only penetrate the anus of boys, warning a man who was stimulating a boy's penis: "Nature has divided the male into two parts: one was made for girls, the other for men. Use your part." Boys were far preferred over women; Propertius vowed, "May my enemies all fall in love with women and my friends with boys."

It was important that the boy not experience pleasure, only "pain and tears...of pleasure he has none at all." In particular, "initiatory" pederasty was always anal, involving a fantasy of "the intrinsic spiritual value of sperm, one needs to ejaculate into the boy's anus in order to make him a man." Parents taught boys in antiquity to "Put up with it: not as a pleasure, but as a duty." Physicians were regularly expected to provide ointments and other lubricants for anal penetration of boys and they were asked to repair the rectal tears and other injuries that were the usual results of the rapes.

Pederasty was widespread in preliterate tribes around the world, from the "customary pederasty" of Australians and the sexual use of berdaches in North and Central American tribes-where boys were dressed as girls beginning in infancy for raping-to the "boy-wives" of Africa. All early civilizations practiced boy rape and even had boys serve as temple prostitutes, including the ancient Hebrews, Sumerians, Persians, Mesopotamians, Celts, Egyptians, Etruscans, Carthaginians, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Aztecs, Mayans, etc. The rape was expected to be violent; men were expected to take along with them when going out in the streets "scissors, to make a hole in the trousers of the boy and a small pillow to put in the boy's mouth if he should scream..." Tutors and teachers often raped their pupils along with beating them; as Quintilian warned, "I blush to mention the shameful abuse which scoundrels sometimes make of their right to administer corporal punishment.

Fathers in Greece chose the penetrator of his boy, often obtaining gifts or favors in return. Aristophanes shows one father in Birds complaining to another, "Well, this is a fine state of affairs...You meet my son just as he comes out of the gymnasium, all fresh from the bath, and you don't kiss him, you don't say a word to him, you don't hug him, you don't feel his balls! And yet you're supposed to be a friend of ours!" Pedagogues were hired to guard boys against rape by unapproved men, but the pedagogue might assault the boy himself. Boys in Greece were blamed if their failed to find a pederast for themselves; every boy was expected to have one.

Greek and Roman soldiers brought boys along with them on campaigns to use sexually. Slave boys were often furnished to guests for sexual use. Doctors prescribed sex with boys as therapy. Boy brothels and rent-a-boy services were widespread, and pederasts chosen by the father could even sell his rights to rape a particular boy to another man. With the number of boys prostitutes worldwide still in the millions, it is not surprising that every city in antiquity had its boy-brothels; in Rome, boys could be picked up at the barbershop or at the exit of any of the games. All men, even when married, were expected to have sex with boys. "Almost all of the great democratic leaders of Archaic Athens were...pederastic." Wives found it hard to compete with their husbands' boys. Juvenal says wives were "always hot with quarrels...bitching away...about his boy-friends," and Martial describes a wife yelling, "Bumming a boy again! Don't I have a rump as well?"

A few early Christians began to object to using boys sexually. John Chrysostom complained about fathers taking their boys to banquets where they were made to perform fellatio on men "under the blankets," recommending that boys be placed in the care of monks at the age of ten to avoid seduction. But most medieval authors gave the pro-pederast advice of antiquity, with medical books recommending sex with boys as "less harmful [than] sexual union with women [which] leads more quickly to old age..." The reason men in medieval times waited until their 30s to get married was because they routinely used young boys for sex until then; in Florence, for instance, only a quarter of the men in the fifteenth century were married by the age of 32. Since over a third of most households had servants or apprentices, sexual relations between masters and male servants were even more common and even acceptable than between masters and female servants. Tutors and teachers in schools were expected to use their students sexually, and those who protested that it was a "vice so inveterate [and] so strong a custom" that it was "hardly likely to be discouraged" were thought odd.

But placing boys as oblates into monasteries only made them available for rape by monks, who could not keep their hands off them. One abbott wrote about an infant boy brought to the monastery by his father:

...the man turned the child over to me altogether, and I received the baby with pleasure and joy and a clean heart. [But] when the boy got older and had reached the age of about ten...I was tortured and overwhelmed by an obscene desire, and the beast of impure lust and a desire for pleasure burned in my soul...I wanted to have sex with the boy...

Sex with boys was the central obsession of monks beginning with the early anchorites who went to the desert; Macarius saw so many monks having sex with boys in the desert that he strongly advised monks not to take them in. But the need was too strong, and even rules such as those requiring boys to have escorts when going to the lavatory did not prevent monks from routinely using their oblates sexually. So many monks raped their novices that there was a common saying, "With wine and boys around, the monks have no need of the Devil to tempt them." Priests also commonly used confessions to solicit sex with boys, but early Christian penitentials assessed penances only for the boys, since they were blamed for their own rape. Peter Damian said in the eleventh century that sex with boys in monasteries "rages like a bloodthirsty beast in the midst of the sheepfold of Christ with bold freedom" and suggested both the man and boy be punished as accomplices for a "sin against nature."

So acceptable was pederasty in medieval times that parents continued handing over their boys for sexual use to friends and others from whom they expected favors. Bernardino of Siena condemned parents as "pimps" of their own sons, saying the fathers, pederasts themselves, were the ones most responsible, taking money or gifts from their sons' rapists. Boys were so likely to be raped in the streets "a boy can't even pass nearby without having a sodomite on his tail" that Bernardino urged mothers, "Send your girls out instead, who aren't in any danger at all if you let them out among such people...this is less evil." Mothers, too, colluded in the seduction of their sons. "When a boy started to mature sexually...his mother gave him a bedroom to himself on the ground floor, 'with a separate entrance and every convenience, so that he can do whatever he pleases and bring home whomever he likes.'"

When beginning in the fifteenth century some more violent pederasty disputes began being handled by courts, the huge number of cases prosecuted revealed that every place boys were gathered, from schools and monasteries to taverns and pastry shops-were "schools of sodomy" where pederasts gathered to violate boys. In Florence, according to the thorough analysis of court records by Michael Rocke, "in the later fifteenth century, the majority of local males at least once during their lifetimes were officially incriminated for engaging in homosexual relations" with boys. Since many pederasts were never incriminated in court, since courts were reluctant to try any but the most violent cases of boy rape, and since pederasts past and present usually rape dozens of boys each, these early court statistics reveal as nothing else the universality of pederasty in history. If the majority of men were hauled into court for cases in connection with their pederasty, the number of boys actually being raped must have been nearly everyone.

As more parents evolved into the intrusive and socializing modes of modern times, they were more and more reluctant to hand over their boys for use by pederasts. Tutors began being monitored to see that they were not pederasts, and reformers began to warn that servants too often "take liberties with a child which they would not risk with a young man." Some suggested that public female brothels should be encouraged as "the best chance of keeping men away from boys." The rape of boys in British public schools, "with the full knowledge and collusion, even the approval, of their elders," nevertheless continued into the twentieth century, where every older boy and even teachers had a younger boy as their "bitch" to use sexually. Only slowly in recent decades has it become acceptable to defend children against sexual attack, and only in the most psychogenically advanced nations has the rate of sexual abuse of children dropped to only half of the children born.

RELIGION IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH MENTAL HEALTH

2007-03-23T17:57:00.000-07:00

According to Webster’s New Word Dictionary, religion is: “(1) belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe; (2) expression of this belief in conduct and ritual.”

The Comprehensive Dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms (1958), define religion as “a system of beliefs by means of which individuals or a community put themselves in relation to god or to a supernatural world and often to each other, and from which the religious person derives a set of values by which to judge events in the natural world.”

It seems silly to say that someone is religious because he happens to be philosophic or ethical; and unless we rigorously use the term religion to mean some kind of faith unfounded on fact, or dependency on some assumed superhuman entities. Every Atheist has some kind of philosophy and some code of ethics; and many Atheists, in fact, have much more rigorous life philosophies and ethical systems than have most deists.

If religion is defined as man’s dependence of a power above and beyond the human, psychotherapists find it to be exceptionally pernicious. For the psychotherapist is normally dedicated to helping human beings in general, and his patients in particular, to achieve certain goals of mental health, and virtually all these goals are antithetical to a truly religious viewpoint.

Let us look at the main psychotherapeutic goals. The psychotherapist tries to help his patients to be minimally anxious and hostile; and to this end, he tries to help them to acquire the following kind of personality traits:

1. Self-interest. The emotionally healthy individual should primarily be true to himself and not masochistically sacrifice himself for others. His kindness and consideration for others should be derived from the idea that he himself wants to enjoy freedom from unnecessary pain and restriction, and that he is only likely to do so by helping create a world in which the rights of others, as well as his own, are not needlessly curtailed.

2. Self-direction. He should assume responsibility for his own life, be able independently to work out his own problems, and while at times wanting or preferring the cooperation and help of others, not need their support for his effectiveness and well-being.

3. Tolerance. He should fully give other human beings the right to be wrong; and while disliking or abhorring some of their behavior, still not blame them, as persons, for performing this dislikeable behavior. He should accept the fact that all humans are remarkably fallible, never unrealistically expect them to be perfect, and refrain from despising or punishing them when they make inevitable mistakes and errors.

4. Acceptance of uncertainty. The emotionally mature individual should completely accept the fact that we live in a world of probability and chance, where there are not, nor probably ever will be, any absolute certainties, and should realize that it is not at all horrible, indeed – such a probabilistic, uncertain world is most conducive to free thought.

5. Flexibility. He should remain intellectually flexible, be open to change at all times, and unbigotedly view the infinitely varied people, ideas, and things in the world around him.

6. Scientific thinking. He should be objective, rational and scientific; and be able to apply the laws of logic and of scientific method not only to external people and events, but to himself and his interpersonal relationships.

7. Commitment. He should be vitally absorbed in something outside of himself, whether it be people, things, or ideas; and should preferably have at least one major creative interest, as well as some outstanding human involvement, which is highly important to him, and around which he structures a good part of his life.

8. Risk-taking. The emotionally sound person should be able to take risks, to ask himself what he really would like to do in life, and then to try to do this, even though he has to risk defeat or failure. He should be adventurous (though not necessarily foolhardy); be willing to try almost anything once, just to see how he likes it; and look forward to some breaks in his usual life routines.

9. Self-acceptance. He should normally be glad to be alive, and to like himself just because he is alive, because he exists, and because he (as a living being) invariably has some power to enjoy himself, to create happiness and joy. He should not equate his worth or value to himself on his extrinsic achievements, or on what others think of him, but on his personal existence; on his ability to think, feel, and act, and thereby to make some kind of an interesting, absorbed life for himself.

Now, does religion, faith unfounded on fact, or dependence on some supernatural deity – help human beings to achieve these healthy traits and thereby to avoid becoming anxious, depressed, and hostile? The answer, of course, is that it doesn’t help at all; and in most respects it seriously sabotages mental health. For religion, first of all, is not self-interest; it is god-interest.

The religious person must, by virtual definition, be so concerned with whether or not his hypothesized god loves him, and whether he is doing the right thing to continue to keep in this god’s good graces, that he must, at very best, put himself second and must sacrifice some of his most cherished interests to appease this god. If, moreover, he is a member of any organized religion, then he must choose his god’s precepts first, those of this church and it’s clergy second, and his own views and preferences third.

In a sense, the religious person must have no real views of his own; and it is presumptuous of him, in fact, to have any. In regard to sex-love affairs, to marriage and family relations, to business, to politics, and to virtually everything else that is important in his life, he must try to discover what his god and his clergy would like him to do; and he must primarily do their bidding.

Masochistic self-sacrifice is an integral part of almost all organized religions: as shown, for example, in the various forms of ritualistic self-deprivation that Jews, Christians, Islamists, and other religionists must continually undergo if they are to keep in good with their assumed gods.

Masochism, indeed, stems from an individuals’s deliberately inflicting pain on himself in order that he may guiltlessly permit himself to experience some kind of sexual or other pleasure; and the very essence of most organized religions is the performance of masochistic, guilt-soothing rituals, by which the religious individual gives himself permission to enjoy life.

Religiosity essentially is masochism; and both are forms of mental sickness. In regard to self-direction, it can easily be seen from what just been said that the religious person is by necessity dependant and other-directed rather that independent and self-directed. If he is true to his religious beliefs he must first bow down to his god; to the clergy who this god’s church; and third, to all the members of his religious sect, who are eagle-eyedly watching him to see whether he defects an iota from the conduct his god and his church define as proper.

Religion, therefore, is even more about dependency. For a man to be a true believer and to be strong and independent is impossible; religion and self-sufficiency are contradictory terms.

Tolerance again, is a trait that the firm religionist cannot possibly possess. “I am the Lord thy God and thou shalt have no other gods before me,” saith Jehovah. Which means in plain English, that whatever any given god and his clergy believe must be absolutely, positively true; and whatever any other person or group believes must be absolutely, positive false.

Democracy, permissiveness, and the acceptance of human fallibility are quite alien to the real religionist – since he can only believe that the creeds and commands of his particular deity should, ought, and must be obeyed, and that anyone who disobeys the is patently a knave.

Religion, with its definitional absolutes, can never rest with the concept of an individual’s wrong doing or making mistakes, but must inevitably all to this the notion of his sinning and of his deserving to be punished for his sins. For, if it is merely desirable for you to refrain from harming others or committing other misdeeds, as any non-religious code of ethics will inform you that it is, then if you make a mistake and do commit some misdeeds, you are merely a wrong-doer, or one who is doing an undesirable deed and who should try to correct himself and do less wrong in the future. But is it is god-given, absolute law that you shall not, must not do a wrong act, and actually do it, you are then a mean, miserable sinner, a worthless being, and must severely punish yourself (perhaps eternally, in hell) for being a wrongdoer, being a fallible human.

Religion by setting up absolute, god-given standards, must make you self-deprecating and dehumanized when you err; and must lead you to despise and dehumanize others when they act badly. This kind of absolutistic, perfectionistic thinking is the prime creator of the two most corroding of human emotions: anxiety and hostility.

If one of the requisites for emotional health is acceptance of uncertainty, then religion is obviously the unhealthiest state imaginable: Since its prime reason for being is to enable the religionist to believe a mystical certainty.

Just because life is so uncertain, and because millions of people think that they cannot take its vicissitudes, they invent absolutistic gods, and thereby pretend that there is some final, invariant answer to things. Patently, these people are fooling themselves – and instead of healthfully admitting that they do not need certainty, but can live comfortably in this often disorderly world, they stubbornly protect their neurotic beliefs by insisting that there must be the kind of certainty that they foolishly believe that they need.

The trait of flexibility, which is so essential to proper emotional functioning, is also blocked and sabotaged by religious belief. For the person who dogmatically believes in god, and who sustains this belief with a faith unfounded in fact, which a true religious of course must, clearly is not open to change and is necessarily bigoted.

If, for example, his scriptures or his church, tell him he shalt not even covet his neighbor’s wife – let alone have actual adulterous relations with her! – he cannot ask himself, “Why should I not lust after this women, as long as I don’t intend to do anything about my desire for her? What is really wrong about that?” For his god and his church have spoken; and there is no appeal from this arbitrary authority, once he has brought himself to accept it.

Any time, in fact, anyone unempirically establishes a god or a set of religious postulates which have a superhuman origin, he can thereafter use no empirical evidence whatever to question the dictates of this god or those postulates, since they are (by definition) beyond scientific validation.

The best he can do, if he wants to change any rules that stem from his religion, is to change the religion itself. Otherwise, he is stuck with the absolutistic axioms, and their logical corollaries, that he himself has initially accepted on faith. We may therefore note again that, just as religion is masochism, other-directedness, intolerance, and refusal to accept uncertainty, it also is mental and emotional inflexibility.

In regard to scientific thinking, it practically goes without saying that this kind of cerebration is quite antithetical to religiosity. The main canon of the scientific method is at least in some final analysis, or in principle, all theories be confirmable by some form of human experience, some empirical referent. But all religions which are worthy of the name contend that their superhuman entities cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt, or otherwise humanly experienced, and that their gods and their principles are therefore distinctly beyond science.

To believe in any of these religions, therefore, is to be unscientific at least to some extent; and it could be contended that the more religious one is, the less scientific one tends to be (a raving maniac need not be either).

In regard to the trait of commitment, the religious individual may – for once! – have some advantages. For if he is truly religious, he is seriously committed to his god, his church, or his creed; and to some extent, at least, he thereby acquires a major interest in life.

Religious commitment also frequently has its serious disadvantages, since it tends to be obsessive-compulsive; and it may well interfere with other kinds of healthy commitments – such as deep involvements in sex-love relations, in scientific pursuits, and even in artistic endeavors. Moreover, it is a commitment that is often motivated by guilt or hostility, and may serve as a frenzied covering-up mechanism which masks, but does not really eliminate, these underlying disturbed feelings. It is also the kind of commitment that is based on falsehoods and illusions, and that therefore easily can be shattered, thus plunging the previously committed individual into the depths of disillusionment and despair.

Not all forms of commitment, in other words, are equally healthy. The grand inquisitors of the medieval catholic church were utterly dedicated to their “holy” work, and Hitler and many of his associates were fanatically committed to their Nazi doctrines. But this hardly proves that they are emotionally healthy human beings.

When religious individuals are happily committed to faith, they often tend to be fanatically and dogmatically committed in an obsessive-compulsive way that itself is hardly desirable. Religion is fanaticism – which is a rigid form of holding to a viewpoint that invariably masks and provides a bulwark for the underlying insecurity of the obsessed individual.

In regard to risk-taking, it should be obvious that the religious person is highly determined not to be adventurous nor to take any of life’s normal risks. He strongly believes in unvalidatable assumptions precisely because he does not want to risk following his own preferences and aims, but wants the guarantee that some higher power will back him.

Enormously fearing failure, and falsely defining his own worth as a person in terms of achievement, he sacrifices time, energy, and material goods and pleasures to the worship of the assumed god, so that he can at least be sure that this god loves and supports him. All religions worthy of the names are distinctly inhibiting – which means, in effect, that the religious person sells his soul, surrenders his own basic urges and pleasures, so that he may feel comfortable with the heavenly helper that he himself has invented. Religion, then is needless inhibition.

Finally, in regard to self-acceptance, it should again be clear that the religious devotee cannot possibly accept himself just because he is alive, because he exists and has, by mere virtue of his aliveness, some power to enjoy himself. Rather, he must make his self-acceptance utterly contingent on the acceptance of his definitional god, the church and clergy who also serve this god, and all other true believers in his religion.

In the final analysis, then, religion is neurosis. From a mental health standpoint Voltaire’s famous dictum should be reversed: for if there were a god, it would be necessary to uninvent him.

Think about it, ever wonder why the vast majority of serial killers, mass murderers, and lunatics in general can all be linked to their religious upbringing.

***************************************************************
Condensed from:
http://www.machineslikeus.com/articles/CaseAgainstReligion.html
***************************************************************

EVIL PARENTING OF YORE (PART 3)

2007-03-17T08:43:00.000-07:00

CHRISTIAN FAMILY VALUES...NOT! PART 3

To summarize PARTS 1&2: The theory "Psycho-genetic Evolution" postulates that the way society and more specifically how mothers treat their children has an direct affect on future generations. Those societies that abuse, mistreat or neglect the children are destined to stagnate if not devolve in inovation and progress. While those that love, encourage and respect their children benefit from the creativity unleased by healthy minds. The modern stereotypical nuclear family is a fairly recent innovation and not the norm throughout most of history, although the church tries hard to claim the credit for family values, they actually did more to cause countless generations to suffer through unimaginible horrors through ignorance and superstitions. It wasn't until free-thinkers and nonbelievers started appreciating their children that the rapid explosion of new ideas and scientific progress was allowed to flourish. PART 3 continues with more examples of how we treated children in the past...

MUTILATING CHILDREN'S BODIES
The powerful need to mutilate children's bodies is found in nearly all cultures in some form, and reaches back to the Paleolithic caves where handprints on the walls show clearly that children's fingers were cut off in the widespread belief by many cultures that the Devil demanded a child's finger to appease his wrath. These finger sacrifice rituals are documented in many cultures, as far back as the Neolithic with finger bones, right up through ancient Greek times, when, Pausanias reported, finger sacrifice rituals were still performed to pacify pursuing demons. Finger amputation was also endemic in Ocean, Polynesia and among North American Indians.

But more often it is the genitals, head or feet of children which are assaulted; as the Canadian Intuit Eskimos say, "A hurt baby is more lovable!" and mothers who feel affectionate toward their infants are reported as commonly "slapping it, squeezing it tightly, or biting it until it bursts into tears." Cutting off parts or all of the girl's genitals is a widespread practice, possibly reaching back to Paleolithic times since a stone knife is often used, and is still practiced in preliterate tribes from Africa to Australia, where the girl's vagina is torn open with a stone knife and the child is then gang raped. Historical evidence dates from ancient Egypt, where mummies have been found with clitoral excision and labial fusions, and Greek physicians regularly advocated the removal of a girl's clitoris if it was "overly large" so she would not be overly lustful.

There are over 100 million Arab females today who have had their genitals chopped off, having been told that "if the clitoris is left alone, it will grow and drag on the ground, and if left uncircumcised, they will be wild and...grow up horny." Often the girl's labia are cut off in addition to the clitoris, and the remaining flesh is sewn together, leaving only a small opening for urination. The vagina must therefore be cut open again before intercourse, and the women have great difficulty giving birth and often are further cut to allow the baby to pass through. The ritual which is not a religious rite and is nowhere mentioned in the Koran,is accompanied by the joyful shouting and chanting of the women, "now you are a woman," "Bring her the groom now." "Bring her a penis, she is ready for intercourse," etc. It is not surprising that the overwhelming majority of circumcised girls grow up to be frigid. Female circumcision was practiced historically in various groups from Russia to Latin America, and was even inflicted on girls "who masturbated too much" in Europe and America in the nineteenth century, using a red hot iron to burn away the little girl's clitoris.

Circumcision for boys might be thought of as less traumatic since it involves only removal of the foreskin, a far less painful and serious mutilation. Yet in many cultures circumcision of boys is quite painful, as when Moslem boys are circumcised between the ages of 3 and 7 in a painful, bloody ceremony, after which "he is placed on his mother's naked back [so] that his bleeding penis presses against her. His mother dances along with the other women until he stops crying." Circumcision of boys practiced from Egypt and Africa to Peru and Polynesia, makes them into "little mothers," with the peeling away of the foreskin uncovering the glans so that it can act as a maternal nipple. That circumcision of boys is still practiced so regularly in America is a testimony to the continuing ubiquity of parental assault on the sexuality of children.

But the more serious genital mutilation of boys that occurred throughout history, East and West, was castration. Eunichs were found in most cultures, beginning as a sacrificial rite to early goddeses: "piles of freshly severed genitals lay beneath the altars in Egyptian temples, where hundreds of virile youths were initiated daily into male prostitution." In addition, castration was necessary to satisfy all the men who preferred hairless castrated boys to rape, plus all those used as harem keepers, palace officials, boy singers, actors and many other roles thought to require castrates. Nero was said to enjoy the use of eunuchs in his orgies, even marrying one of them. When parents sent their boys to aristocratic households for sexual use, they were said to sometimes cut off their genitals and keep them in a jar. Eunuchs were especially popular in Byzantium, while in the West Verdun was widely known as "the great eunuch factory." In some Italian towns, boys who were destined for the clergy were castrated at an early age; in Naples, signs hung above stores, "Boys castrated here." Many cultures castrated boys when they are just infants, claiming they "really wanted" to be girls. They are then used as women, sexually and otherwise, when they grow up, as in the hijras of India or the berdaches of American Indian tribes. The testicles of these boys were either torn from them, crushed or seared off them with red-hot irons, usually between the ages of 3 and 7; in China, "both the penis and scrotum were removed with one cut." Castration of boys continued until recently in the Middle East, followed by burial of the mutilated boy in hot sand for several days to reduce hemorrhage-only one in five surviving the bloody operation. Some societies had variations of circumcision that approached castration, as in some Arab tribes where they performed salkh, which "consisted of flaying and removing all of the skin of the penis..."

The ancients' more usual assault on boys' genitals, called infibulation was less painful, though longer lasting. Since they were so deprived of maternal love, ancients saw the boy's glans as an exciting nipple ("it strikes terror and wonder in the heart of man") and felt they needed to hide it, so they drew the prepuce foreword, drilled two holes in it, and closed it up with a ring, pin or clamp. Infibulated penises are regularly shown in drawings of Greeks and Roman athletes and was popular until modern times. The same practice in the East is called mohree, sewing or cauterizing the prepuce over the glans, preventing erection; to this day some Japanese athletes use infibulation to prevent the loss of their strength, which could evaporate through the glans. One is tempted to give the Aztecs the prize for the most sacrificial parenting, since they were routinely sacrificed, cut, tied to cradleboards, holes drilled in their lips, drugged, burned over fires, starved, stuck with spines, thrown naked into icewater, tortured and battered nearly every day of their lives. But this would be a mistake. Aztec childhood was simply more fully described, by visitors from Europe. Equally graphic were those who described the ancient Chinese habit of beheading or strangling children who were "guilty of addressing abusive language to his or her father or mother" or of the nineteenth-century Yugoslav practice of smearing infants with excrement and holding them over the fire or pushing them into a bread-oven to cure "bewitchment."

Parents in traditional societies couldn't keep their hands off their little babies; they simply were compelled to hurt and torture them. The first thing most Western societies did to the newborn up until the twentieth century was cut the ligament under their tongue with their thumbnail, assaulting them in advance for what they experienced as maternal tongue-lashing. Then their heads and genitals would be forcibly "shaped": Long heads would be reshaped, indeed all babies' heads would be reshaped to make the conform to the desired shape. The nose would be corrected...the nurse would gentle stretch the end of the foreskin every day...The scrotum would also be massaged.

Particularly widespread was the impulse to burn children. Traditional Arab children had burn marks all over their body from being burned by their parents with red-hot irons or pins. English newspapers often reported parents "stirring up the fire with [children's] feet so that their toes rotted off. The regular use of applying burning Mona to the child's body is still common in Japan. Pouring scalding hot water ("iron water") over children was supposed to be curative in Eastern European therapy. Similar results are ascribed to the Italian medieval practice of, "as soon as children be born, they cauterize or burn them in the neck with a hot iron, or else drop a burning wax candle upon the place...they think the brain is dried, and by pain the humour which doth flow is drawn to the hinder part of the head." Every kind of excuse is given for the torture of children. Parents of every period force children who have soiled their bed, to consume their own excrement.

THE LACK OF EMPATHY TOWARD CHILDREN
Every childrearing practice in traditional societies around the globe betrays a profound lack of empathy toward one's children. This should not, however, be simply seen as a result of poverty or even "the brutality of human nature." These parents are in thrall to their own mothers' alters, demanding the torture and sacrifice of their grandchildren. A typical example of this thralldom can be seen in the following observation of a visitor to Italy who describes a popular religious festival:

The most striking object of the solemnities is a procession [in which] a colossal car is dragged by a long team of buffaloes through the streets. Upon this are erected a great variety of objects, such as the sun, moon, and principal planets, set in rotary motion...The heart sickens at sight of it [for] bound to the rays of sun and moon, to the circles forming the spheres of the various planets, are infants yet unweaned, whose mothers, for the gain of a few ducats, thus expose their offspring, to represent the cherub escort which is supposed to accompany the Virgin [Mary] to heaven. When this huge machine has made its jolting round, these helpless creatures...having been whirled round and round for a period of seven hours, are taken down from this fatal machine, already dead or dying. Then ensues a scene impossible to describe-the mothers struggling with each other, screaming, and trampling each other down. It not being possible, on account of the number, for each mother to recognize her own child among the survivors, one disputes with the other the identity of her infant...The less fortunate mothers, as they receive the dead bodies of their infants, often already cold, rend the air with their fictitious lamentations, but consoled with the certainty that Maria, enamoured of her child, has taken it with her into Paradise.

Indeed, almost every mother who could afford to send their newborn out to wetnurses did so, even when the wetnurses fed them pap, not breast milk, and even though their child was more than likely to die from the wetnurse's callous treatment. In fact, mothers in the past seemed unable to even empathize enough with their infants to notice when they were hungry. Doctors throughout the centuries in all parts of the world routinely reported that "babies should only be fed two to three times in twenty-four hours." Héroard's diary of little Louis XIII showed that despite over a dozen nurses and caretakers being assigned to provide for his needs, he was regularly malnourished, even close to death. Even princesses as late as the eighteenth century were regularly reported to be "naked and dying of hunger." Mothers and nurses in the past were closer than one wishes to admit to the mother chimpanzees, who cannot empathize with their weaned babies enough to give them food or water or even to show them how to get it, so that one-third starve to death during the weaning crisis. Human mothers, however, go far beyond this lack of empathy, and purposely starve their children in fasting or punishment rituals so beloved by many societies in the past. When babies cried, mothers heard their own mothers' demanding voices, and only wanted to quiet them, so they would as likely feed them beer, wine or opium-available in every store as Godfrey's Cordial, Dalby's Carminative or Syrup of Poppies, which would either narcotize them enough to quiet them or would kill them. The use of opium on infants goes back to ancient Egypt, where the Ebers papyrus tells parents: "It acts at once!" Physicians complained of the thousands of infants killed every year by nurses "forever pouring Godfrey's Cordial down their little throats, which is a strong opiate and in the end as fatal as arsenic." At all costs the baby must be quieted.

There is no conscious guilt on the part of mothers who allow their children to starve to death, since they blame the children "for wanting to die." Many mothers and wetnurses didn't breastfeed at all, but just gave infants pap, "gruel" (bouillie), made of water or sour milk mixed with flour, which has very little nourishment and was so thick that "soon the whole belly is clogged, convulsions set in, and the little ones die." In Bavaria, for instance, mothers considered nursing their children "disgusting," while the fathers were totally lacking in empathy, telling their wives "those breasts are mine" and threatening to go on a hunger strike if the mothers nursed their baby. All sort of past childrearing practices contributed to the starvation or malnutrition of infants. Newborn babies were usually not fed at all for the first week or more, since the mother's colostrum was believed to be poisonous to the baby. Swaddled babies were hung on a peg or put in a cradle in another room, where their hunger cries could not be heard; in addition, tight swaddling makes infants withdraw into themselves so they refrain from crying when hungry. Infants sent out to wetnurse, after not being fed during the journey, were given to women who often attempted to nurse up to five or more babies at a time as they worked in the fields, while "the child is left to himself, drowning in his own excrement, bound like a criminal..." Particularly malnourished were those babies fed on pap by nurses, sometimes taking on as many as 40 children at a time, most dying, while mothers continued to send them their subsequent babies.

Most historians have been as little able to feel empathy for infants sent to wetnurses as the mothers themselves were, claiming it "reflected not so much a lack of love for them as a deep fear of loving them," or that was just "a harmless convention not a rejection of the child."From the eighteenth to the early twentieth century, less than 5 percent of the babies born in Paris were nursed by their own mothers, rich or poor alike. Six percent of eighteenth-century Parisian parents that wetnursed their babies were noble, 44 percent were master artisans and tradesmen and 24 percent were journeymen or other workers; over a third of the children died during their time at wetnurse, a mortality rate at least double that of maternal nursing, with the mortality rate of foundlings placed at wetnurse being a deadly 92 percent. Parents, of course, knew these enormous infant mortality figures when they condemned their innocent babies to wetnurse.

Mothers knew their own mothers would be jealous if they cared about the newborn rather than devoting themselves to the grandmother, so they rarely inquired about the baby at wetnurse. One unusual mother who actually visited her baby at wetnurse was warned by a relative that "such exaggerated love was a crime against God, and he would surely punish it." Besides, "many young mothers say...'If I turn nurse, I should destroy my husband's life, and my own too.'"Upper-class mothers almost never nursed their babies, saying, "Nourish an infant! Indeed, Indeed! ...I must have my sleep o'nights...And a new gown to wear at the Opera...What! Must the brat have my paps too?" Defoe called suckling babies by ladies of quality "a thing as unnatural as if God had never intended it." Newborn babies were experienced as demon alters-dragon-snakes (drákoi)-until they were exorcized at baptism. Breast milk was supposed to have been made from the mother's blood, and mothers imagined that "every time the baby sucks on her breasts, she feeleth the blood come from her heart to nourish it,"making her feel like the baby depleted her of her very life's blood. Doctors beginning with Soranus agreed that mothers who nursed their babies would "grow prematurely old, having spent herself through the daily suckling."In addition, since it was believed that "sperm would spoil the milk and turn it sour,"for most of history maternal breastfeeding meant no sex for the mother while nursing. Still others rejected breastfeeding because it felt too sensual,violating the anti-sexual prohibitions of their family upbringing.

The trip to wetnurse began the infant's traumatic life experiences. "The infants were bundled upright in groups of four or five in pannier baskets strapped to the backs of donkeys. Those who died on the journey were just thrown out en route."Once there, their parents "seldom inquired about the survival of their infants and were often uninformed as to their whereabouts."Mothers sent each newborn to wetnurse "despite the killing off, one by one, of their children. "Hung from a nail like a bundle of old clothes...the unfortunate one remains thus crucified [with] a purple face and violently compressed chest." The wetnurses' superstitions included a belief in favor of cradle cap and of human wastes, which were thought to have therapeutic value,"so infants were rarely washed and lived in their own feces and urine for their entire time at nurse: "Infants sat in animal and human filth, were suspended on a hook in unchanged swaddling bands or were slung from the rafters in an improvised hammock...their mouths crammed with rotting rags."

Wetnursing was practiced by societies all over the world, from Europe to Asia, as far back as records exist.233 The Code of Hammurabi even allowed the wetnurse to sell the baby if the parents couldn't pay her the contracted amount. The first improvement did not come until the seventeenth century, when wetnurses began more often to be brought into the parents' homes, especially in England, Holland and America. The next step was for the mother to nurse herself. The decision was made purely for psychogenic reasons; no new invention nor social condition caused the change. Nor was it due to a change in the opinions of experts-the pro-nursing tracts of Rousseau and others had little affect on the near-universal wetnursing practice in France, for instance, while in America, even in the South where slave nurses were available, mothers usually nursed themselves by the eighteenth century. Advanced mothers began by telling each other they would find new delights in nursing their own infants. Rather than a draining of vital blood, nursing could actually be a pleasure to the mother! The new middle class took the lead in maternal nursing, while-even in England-the upper classes gave their infants to wetnurses well into the nineteenth century; Victoria was the first English monarch who was not put out to wetnurse. All of these changes took place before the advent of sterilized bottle feeding in the twentieth century. Infant mortality in these areas immediately plunged, and mothers began to work out how to face the new emotional challenges of relating to their babies.

SWADDLING THE EVIL INFANT
Since "infant humans are inclined in their hearts to adultery, fornication, impure desires, lewdness...anger, strife, gluttony, hatred and more,"they had to be tightly tied up so they "be not crooked nor evil shapen"and will not "tear its ears off, scratch its eyes out, break its legs, or touch its genitals, "would undoubtedly "fall to pieces," and would certainly "go upon all four, as most other animals do." Worse, infants are always on the verge of turning into your own angry mother; there is so much "viciousness in all children [if you] pamper them the least little bit, at once they will rule their parents." Infants are so violent that even their heads must be "firmly tied down, that they might not throw off their heads from their shoulders." Physicians complained "mothers and nurses bind and tie their children so hard [they] made me weep {as they] lie the children behind the hot oven, whereby the child may soon be stiffled or choked..." The swaddling process was much the same for millennia:

[The mother] stretches the baby out on a board or straw mattress and dresses it in a little gown or a coarse, crumpled diaper, on top of which she begins to apply the swaddling bands. She pins the infant's arms against its chest, then passes the band under the armpits, which presses the arms firmly into place. Around and around she winds the band down to the buttocks, tighter and tighter...clear down to the feet, and...covers the baby's head with a bonnet [all of which] is fastened with pins.

Swaddled Albanian infants were described as follows in a 1934 study: The child began immediately to passionately scream and tried to free himself...This seemed to be a signal for the mother to rock the cradle violently; at the same time she covered the head of the baby with a white sheet. While the baby's miserable screaming made a strong impression to us, it seemed to be an everyday thing to the mother, to which she did not react except by rocking the cradle as strongly as possible. The traditional "benumbing shaking" of the baby and "violent rocking" of the cradle "puts the babe into a dazed condition in order that he may not trouble those that have the care of him," is sometimes supplemented by "a piece of linen rag stuffed into its mouth" to stop the screaming. Because straight pins were used to keep the swaddling bands in place, "nurses, blinded by passion and prejudice, do not hesitate to beat the helpless babe, without examining whether its cries are not occasioned by a pin..." Because every visitor to the home represents the jealous grandmother, infants are usually kept in dark rooms and their faces are covered by blankets to ward off the "world full of angry, malevolent, burning, glaring looks, a world dominated by evil and fear...usually represented by an older woman...Sharp objects are placed into the cradle or stuck between the swaddling bands-knives, needles, forks, nails-to protect against incubi..." Salt was rubbed into the baby's skin, irritating it terribly, excrement was sometimes smeared on its nipples, infants were made to drink their own urine and neighbors would often spit on it, saying: "Ugh, aren't you just ugly," all to ward off jealous "evil eye" spirits.

Few traditional mothers or nurses heeded doctors' pleas "not to let them lie in their filth,"so that during their first year of life they were usually "covered with excrement, reeking of a pestilential stench [their] skin completely inflamed [and] covered with filthy ulcerations [so that] if touched...they let out piercing cries."

The effects of swaddling upon every human born during the past ten millennia were catastrophic. Besides having "the pressure force blood to their heads and make their little faces purple," besides "crushing his breast and ribs" and "compressing the flesh almost to gangrene, the circulation nearly arrested," swaddled infants were severely withdrawn, listless and physically retarded in the onset of walking, which often didn't begin until from two to five years of age. The effects of swaddling on all adults' emotional lives is even more profound. Because of the lack of warmth and holding, there is a lifelong deficit in oxytocin and oversupply of cortisol, the stress hormone, resulting in a lifetime of rage and anxiety states.

THE HISTORY OF CHILD BEATING
Despite belief to the contrary, mothers beat their children today "at a rate approaching twice that of fathers," and mothers in the past were even more likely to be the child beaters than today. If the mother could not spare the time to beat her child, or if she complained "I have a little pain in my back with whipping Susan today, who struggled so that I have got a wrench," she could always hire a "professional flagellant" who advertised their child-beating services in newspaper ads or, like one mother, she could hire a "garde-de-ville to whip her three children once a week, naughty or not." After all, until just recently, all experts advised that mothers should "let the child from a year old be taught to fear the rod, and cry softy...make him do as he is bid." Since "God has given every mother the power [and] placed in your hands a helpless babe...if it disobeys you, all you have to do is to...inflict bodily pain so steadily and so invariably that disobedience and suffering shall be indissolubly connected in the mind of the child." And since your child needs you so much, "he does not bear a grudge against those who have hurt him...However much his mother whips him, he looks for her and values her above all others.""After thou hast beat him...then he hath forgotten all that was done to him before and will come to thee...running...to please thee and to kiss thee."

Children throughout history began being beaten in the womb. Pregnant mothers in the past were usually beaten by their husbands, a practice they had a legal right to do until the twentieth century. The beating process was ritualized, to relieve the parents' guilt and to enhance its sexualization. Children often would be forced to "ask for God's blessing on the flogging," "the wife then bares the child's bottom with delight for the flogging," "the child must ask to be beaten...(Batty rhapsodizes on God's wisdom in providing children with bottoms so they can be beaten repeatedly without permanent damage)." After the beatings, the child would often be made to kiss or thank the beating instrument or the beater for the beating. Parents usually are described as being out of control, "fearce and eager upon the child, striking, flinging, kicking it, as the usual manner is." Even mothers who wrote about being nice to their children, stressed the need to flog until "the plough of correction makes long furrows on their back."

Professional floggers hired by parents used more openly sexually sadistic equipment: Preparations consist in having ready a strong narrow table, straps (waist-band with sliding straps, anklets and wristlets), cushions, and a good, long, pliable birch rod, telling her to prepare by removing her dress...For screams increased strokes must be given. If a girl tries very hard indeed to bear it bravely, then, perhaps, I give ten instead of twelve.

Children of wealthy parents were, if anything, more severely beaten than others, by both their caretakers and parents. Louis XIII was routinely "beaten mercilessly...On waking in the morning...he was beaten on the buttocks by his nurse with a birch or a switch...his father whipped him himself when in a rage..." On the day of his coronation at eight, after being whipped, he said he "would rather do without so much obeisance and honor if they wouldn't have me whipped." Noble parents demanded nurses whip their children; Henri IV wrote: "I have a complaint to make: you do not send word that you have whipped my son...when I was his age I was often whipped. That is why I want you to whip him..." The beatings were usually bloody.

Laws did not protect children against cruelty until the modern period unless they were beaten to death; as one thirteenth-century law put it, "If one beats a child until it bleeds, then it will remember, but if one beats it to death, the law applies." Since children were beaten with the same instruments as criminals and slaves, floggings could be accomplished with whips, shovels, canes, iron rods, cat-o'-nine tails, bundles of sticks, shovels, whatever came to hand. Parents could avoid killing them, said Bartholomew Batty, if they would not "strike and buffet their children about the face and head, and lace upon them like malt sacks with cudgels, staves, fork or fire shovel...[but instead] hit him upon the sides with the rod, he shall not die thereof."

When children went to school, the beatings continued with increased ferocity. Beatings were considered the basis for learning, since, as one educator said, "fear is good for putting the child in the mood to hear and to understand. A child cannot quickly forget what he has learned in fear." Children were beaten for every error, such as "being flogged for not marking the ablative case," and since sexual sadism was rampant among teachers throughout the centuries the floggings being administered to children "stripped in front of the whole community and beaten until they bled". Schoolmasters were often described as taking "the most pretty and amorous boys...into his lodgings and after a jerke or two [a blow with a rod or a whip] to meddle with their privities..." Many books and articles have been written detailing the "erotic flagellation" of British schools, but the erotic content of school beatings was well-known everywhere since early times. Children wondered why "We are taught during our first five or six years to hide our buttocks and shameful parts; then...along comes a teacher who forces us to unbutton our trousers, push them down, life our shirt, show everything and receive the whip in the middle of the class." fainted."316

No child in antiquity and the middle ages can be found who escaped severe physical abuse-at home, at school , in apprenticeship, all suffered from "battered child syndrome," from infancy until adolescence. The Old Testament not only demands beating children, it says children who curse their mother or father "shall surely be put to death" and of stubborn sons, "All the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones." Spartan boys were flogged in public contest to see who could endure the longest, and ritually whipped at altars which became filled with their blood. Chinese parents punished children by "a hundred blows with a bamboo...strangulation [or] having his flesh torn from his body with red-hot pincers." St. Ambrose praised tutors for being "unsparing with the whip," Augustine "lived in dread of the whip of his teacher," and Martial "jokes about the complaints of neighbours living next to a schoolroom: the sounds of students being beaten awakens them annoyingly early in the morning."

By the middle ages, a few reformers, began questioning whether whipping children "day and night" was wise. Still, little changed for most children, except that by the seventeenth century sometimes if they were whipped to death during apprenticeship the master could be convicted of manslaughter. Small infants were the first to be exempted from whippings; "a babe at six months cries when its mother gives it into the arms of another person...the child ought not to be whipped for this..." By the eighteenth century's socializing mode parenting, we find the first children in history who could be said not to have been beaten at all,particularly in America, where European visitors agreed "one and all that American children were badly spoiled." Mothers discovered for the first time in history that they could have "a deep, unquenchable love for her offspring," and would abjure all "whipping, caning, slapping, ear-pulling or hair-dragging," favoring chastising words or locking up in a room instead. By the early twentieth century, twelve percent of white Americans in one study claimed never to have been spanked.

The number of daily tortures routinely inflicted upon children in the past seem beyond comprehension. From birth, children had to endure constant freezing practices, including ice-water bathing and baptism: Children were baptized by being plunged into a large hole which had been made in the ice [on the river} Neva, then covered with five feet of ice...the priest happened to let one of the children slip through his hands. "Give me another," he cried...I saw that the father and mother of the child were in an ecstasy of joy...the babe had been carried straight to heaven.

Ice-water bathing was a widespread historical practice from antiquity to modern times, "the colder the Bath the better...use every Day," so that "the shock was dreadful, the poor child's horror of it, every morning, when taken out of bed, still more so." The excuse given was that it was necessary for "hardening" the child, "to toughen their bodies by dipping them into cold water like white-hot iron," so that when the "little infant [is washed] in cold water...itself in one continuous scream [the] mother covering her ears under the bed-clothes that she may not be distressed by its cries" it can be hardened to life's cruelties. The mother took the naked baby and a pot of hot water into the backyard...poured the water on the snow, melting it and creating a pool which could serve as a washing basin for several days; all she had to do the next day was to break the iceMost societies used these Spartan hardening practices: Russians complained about traditional hardening such as being put to bed wrapped in wet cold towels, and Colonial New Englanders regularly complained that they were made to sit with wet feet "more than half the time."

THE ABANDONMENT OF CHILDREN
Abandonment of children may seem less traumatic than tying up, beating and terrorizing them, but they suffered as much. They were given away by their parents as most children in history were, under one excuse or another. Newborn infants who were abandoned on the side of the road, of course, almost always died, two-thirds of the babies who were abandoned to foundling homes beginning in the modern period usually died from maltreatment in the institutions. Visitors to these foundling homes regularly described the children there as: stunted creatures, neither childlike nor human...they sit close-packed against the wall or gathered into knots, dull and stupefied...Never played with or cuddled.It is a room of filth, filled with ceaseless crying, where their lack of decent covering, their misery and consequent infirmities combine to bring about their death within a few days. Most of the children abandoned in foundling homes were legitimate so it is no wonder that it was proposed that a motto be carved over the gate of one foundling home: "Here children are killed at public expense."

Babies not abandoned to foundling homes could be sold by their parents as slaves during most of history; there are still hundreds of thousands of chattel slaves around the world today, even more in debt bondage. Public auctions of children were common throughout Europe and Asia well into modern times. One American colonist described the sale of children in debt bondage that took place as ships arrived in Philadelphia: "Many parents must sell and trade away their children like so many head of cattle; for if their children take the debt upon themselves, the parents can leave the ship free and unrestrained..."

The one institution to which parents could abandon their children and know they were likely to live was the religious order. Parents knew monasteries and nunneries were abusive, "there is an inscription over the gate of hell: 'Abandon all hope, you who enter'; on the gate of monasteries, the same should appear",but they nevertheless paid good money to them to dump their children in them permanently. Most oblates were children of aristocrats, so there is no argument for economic necessity, and gave large gifts to the religious orders to take their children, usually at around five years of age. The child became a holocaust, a sacrifice, to God, and the cloister "became a cruel life of hard labor, boring routine, beatings, and fear of sexual sin and assault. In return, the parents could expect "clerical prayer and, ultimately, salvation". The children held the legal status of slaves of the monastery, and they were endlessly whipped, naked, regularly starved in severe fasts, only allowed to sleep for five hours a night and used sexually by clerics and older boys. Although most monks were earlier oblates, oblation began to decline in the late twelfth century, as wealthy parents decided they preferred to hire servants to whip, starve, torture and sexually abuse their children in their own home.

Another widespread abandonment practice throughout history was fosterage. Fosterage was found mainly among royalty and other well-to-do parents [and] was so common that the remark that 'all the children grew up at home' was offered as an unusual occurrence....sons obtained new networks of kin relations, but bonding with the mother was most often precluded, and-most surprising to the modern reader-she did not seem to have desired her son's company. Children might be sent to fosterage "for affection or for payment" as soon as they returned from wetnurse, usually to other family members, and not returned until adolescence. Since so many families simply traded children with each other, the custom was puzzling unless one realizes that adults emotionally were able to treat foster children more abusively, working them like slaves, beating them, using them sexually, than if they had kept their own children and not traded them to others. Fostering in archaic civilizations was so common the mother's brother was often called the "upbringer" or "fostering brother," and "among Hittites, Greeks, Romans, Celts and Germans, mother's brothers [would] supervise initiation and...ritually sodomize his ward..." Fosterage was practiced in all complex civilizations in every continent on earth, right into modern times. Parents would simply ask the uncles or grandparents if they "needed a child" and shipped one off to them without tears. If one sent one's child to royalty and it was killed by abuse, one was expected to thank the foster parent and bring another.

There was little difference between fosterage, adoption, apprenticeship and service. All involved virtual slavery without rights for the children. The opinion of the Italian at the end of the fifteenth century that "the want of affection in the English is strongly manifested towards their children...they put them out, both males and females, to hard service in the houses of other people...few are born who are exempted from this fate, for every one, however rich he may be, sends away his children into the houses of others; whilst he, in return, receives those of strangers into his own" Half of all persons who came to the colonies in the American South were indentured children. England continued to send hundreds of thousands of children to Canada and Australia for fosterage well into the twentieth century; a Canadian minister complained about England' practice using Canada as "a dumping ground for the refuse of the highways...waifs, strays, and the children of vicious and criminal tendencies..." The practice continues in many areas of the world for tens of millions of children today.

Obviously, despite the achievement of empathic childrearing among some parents today, most of humankind still has a long way to evolve to get beyond severe abuse and give their children the love and respect they deserve. The ubiquity of severe child abuse and neglect in historical sources makes even the most horrific descriptions found in contemporary clinical and child advocacy reports seem limited in comparison. It is no wonder that historians have chosen to hide, deny and whitewash the record here uncovered, in order to avoid confronting the parental holocaust that has been the central cause of violence and misery throughout history.

EVIL PARENTING OF YORE (PART 2)

2007-03-16T12:41:00.000-07:00

CHRISTIAN FAMILY VALUES...NOT! PART 2

To summarize PART 1 in a nutshell. "Psycho-genetic Evolution" is a theory that how a mother raises her children effects his/her psyche and can be passed down through generations. In order for society in general to evolve we must raise our children free from abuse, neglect and ignorance. My purpose is to show how the 'nuclear family' we think has always been the norm is anything but. It wasn't until we went against religious dogma and ignorance that chidren finally were raised emotionally 'healthy' and therefore were capable of thinking outside the box which lead to innovation and scientific advancement. You can't think altruistically if you've been raised in an evironment of abuse and neglect, you're main concern is survival.

Since nearly all of the cultural evolution of Homo sapiens sapiens has taken place during the past 100,000 years-only about 5,000 generations and since this time span is too short to allow the human gene pool to mutate very much, epigenetic evolution of the psyche,the evolution of the architecture of the brain occurring during development in the womb and during early childhood-must be the central source of cultural change, rather than genetic evolution.

Environmental change cannot explain cultural evolution since culture has often evolved while the ecology has devolved because of soil exhaustion. The point is that the degree of steepness of the environmental ladder doesn't determine whether people chose to climb it you still must want to climb and you must be innovative enough to invent or adopt ways to conquer each rung.

But what is usually overlooked is that genetic evolution only provides the capacity for adult behavioral variations assuming a specific developmental environment. The road from genotype to phenotype is a long one. What trait actually appears in the mature individual depends upon the actual course of epigentic development, beginning in the womb and continuing throughout childhood an extraordinarily complex and variable journey for each individual. The most important environments are the mother's body and behavior, and the most important competition for survival not in the sperm or ovum but at the neural level, in the brain, with the mother acting as the agent of natural selection.

Scientists have prenatally stressed mice, who are as adults found to be more aggressive, and then taken the male mice and mated them with other females and found that their grandsons were also more aggressive than non-stressed males-thus showing how environmental stress can be passed down genetically. Others have shown dramatically how stressed children "change from being victims to being victimizers" because of imbalanced noradrenaline and serotonin levels, which then can be passed down through both genetic and epigenetic changes.

The evolution of the psyche is first of all accomplished by removing terrible abuses of children and their resulting developmental distortions, allowing the psyche to produce historical novelty and achieve its own inherent human growth path. Civilization is not, as everyone including Freud has assumed, a historical taming of the instincts. Nor does the evolution of mankind proceed from bad to worse, with early societies being "indulgent" toward their children and modern societies more often abusive. The reverse is true, that culture evolves through the increase of love and freedom for children, so that when they grow up they can invent more adaptive and happier ways of living. Because we were all children before we were adults, childhood evolution must precede social evolution.

Every abandonment, every betrayal, every hateful act towards children returns tenfold a few decades later upon the historical stage, while every empathic act that helps a child become what he or she wants to become, every expression of love toward children heals society and moves it in unexpected, wondrous new directions.

Children throughout history have arguably been more vital, more gentle, more joyous, more trustful, more curious, more courageous and more innovative than adults. Yet adults throughout history have routinely called little children beasts, sinful, greedy, arrogant, lumps of flesh, vile, polluted, vipers and infant fiends. Although it is extraordinarily difficult to believe, parents until relatively recently have been so frightened of and have so hated their newborn infants that they have killed them by the billions, routinely sent them out to extremely neglectful wetnurses, tied them up tightly in swaddling bandages lest they be overpowered by them, starved, mutilated, raped, neglected and beat them so badly that prior to modern times it's hard to find evidence of a single parent who would not today be put in jail for child abuse.

THE MISSING FATHER
The problem with the overly monolithic conception of a "patriarchy" wherein men dominate women both in society and in the family is that while no "matriarchal" society has been found, there is little evidence that until modern times most fathers were absent in historical families. In our promiscuous chimpanzee ancestors, fathers were quite absent in child-rearing, so there are no "families," only grandmothers and mothers moving about with their children. It is also likely that there were no Neandertal families to begin with, since women and children lived in separate areas from the males in caves. Although a "gynocratic state" is slightly approximated in such tribes as the Iroquois, the Navajo, the Ashanti, and the Dahomeans, the families themselves in preliterate cultures are usually run by women, who often live in separate spaces from their husbands. In some, like the Ashanti, they have a visiting husband...in which the husband and wife live with their respective mothers [and] at night the man 'visits' his wife in her house. In others, men spend much of their time in their own cult houses, and women in separate family or menstrual huts, segregating themselves of their own accord. Even when men lived with their wives, females took care of the children, although cross-cultural studies conclude that in the majority of societies mothers are not the principal caretakers or companions of young children...older children and other female family members mainly looking after them. Even when the children are somewhat older, fathers are generally not the ones that teach them skills. Boys learn their bow-and-arrow hunting knowledge and techniques and their tracking skills mainly from other boys not their fathers.

The historical family is in fact a gynarchy, composed of the grandmother, mother, aunts, unmarried daughters, female servants, midwives, neighbors called "gossips" who acted as substitute mothers, plus the children. Fathers in traditional families may sometimes eat and sleep within the gynarchy, but they do not determine its emotional atmosphere, nor do they in any way attempt to raise the children. To avoid experiencing their own domination and abuse during childhood by females, men throughout history have instead set up androcentric political and religious spheres for male-only group-fantasy activities, contributing to the family gynarchy only some sustenance, periodic temped children lived shut away from men. They rarely showed themselves in public but stayed in apartments men did not enter; they rarely ate with their husbands...they never spent their days together. In Greece women had a special place. Larger houses at any rate had a room or suite of rooms in which women worked and otherwise spent much of their day, the women's apartments, the gynaikonitis, which Xenophon says was "separated from the men's quarters by a bolted door. In two-story houses, the gynaikonitis would usually be upstairs. The men's dining-room, the andron, was located downstairs near the entrance, guarding the women's quarters: Here men in the family dined and entertained male guests. Vase-paintings do not depict Greek couples eating together. This mainly vertical organization of most homes lasted well into the eighteenth century, when a new "structure of intimacy" began to be built, with rooms connected to each other on the same level.

Thus Herodotus could assume his reader would easily recognize families where "a boy is not seen by his father before he is five years old, but lives with the women,and Aristotle could assume his readers' assent that "no male creatures take trouble over their young." Ancient Greek, Roman and Jewish men had all-male eating clubs where women and children were not welcome. Plato has Socrates suggest a possibly better home arrangement, with dinners at which citizens will feast in the company of their children....In general, however, children ate with their mothers, not their fathers...Eating and drinking, far from offering the whole family an opportunity for communal activity, tended to express and reinforce cleavages within it. Boys tended to remain in the gynarchy of their own or others' homes until their middle teens.

The family in Egyptwas matriarchal. The most important person in the family was not the father, but the mother. The Egyptian wife was called the Ruler of the House. There is no corresponding term for the husband. In rural Greek villages even today the mother owns the house, passes it on to her daughter as dowry, and continues to rule the house when her daughter has children. Indeed, the husband was rarely with his family in antiquity, legislators sometimes suggest that in order to prevent population decline it would be a good idea for husbands to visit their wives occasionally and not just have sex with boys. Plutarch puts it "Love has no connection whatsoever with the women's quarters; it is reserved for pederastic relations with boys." When Socrates asks, "Are there any people you talk to less than you do to your wife?" his answer was, "Possibly. But if so, very few indeed." Men stayed in the thiasos, the men's club, with other men, and had little to do with their children. Greek boys stayed in the gynarchy of their own home until they at the age of about ten were forced to be eromenos, sexual objects, in the andron of a much older man's home. Greek girls stayed in the gynarchy until they were about twelve, when they too were raped by a much older man, a stranger chosen for them by their family to be their husband. The father might try to enforce an occasional dominance of the gynarchy by beating the women and children, but usually it was the women of the household who wielded the family whip on their children.

The gynarchy ruled supreme in early homes. In Byzantium, women had separate spheres with strict exclusion of men from the family, where "men live in light and brightness, the palaestra; women live in the gynaecaeum, enclosed, secluded." This was even true of supposedly patriarchal Chinese families. The Chinese gynarchy was described by visitors as living in women's apartments behind the high walls of their husbands' compounds, dominated by women who are reputed to terrorize the men of their households and their neighbors with their fierce tempers, searing tongues, and indomitable wills. When father and son do work together, they have nothing to say, and even at home they speak only when there is business to discuss. [Otherwise] they mutually avoid each other. Indonesian fathers are simply not present very much, the woman has more authority, influence and responsibility than her husband.

The examples can easily be extended around the world and into the Middle Ages:

The female world was highly structured, like a little monarchy-that monarchy wielded by the master's wife, the 'lady' who dominated the other women in the house. This monarchy was often tyrannical. The chronicles of French families at the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth century paint a picture of shrews reigning brutally over servants whom they terrorized, and over their sons' wives whom they tormented. Indeed, a female power existed which rivaled that of men. Men were afraid of women, especially their own wives, afraid of being incapable of satisfying a being who was seen both as a devourer and as a bearer of death. Men are shown as being excluded from the traditional "gynaeceum" the nursery, the kitchen, the work bees, even the laundry. While husbands are hopefully told in moralist's instruction manuals about the "Duties of a Husband" to instruct their wives, the sections on the "Duties of a Father" to care for their children are nowhere to be found until modern times. Most fathers agreed with Abelard, who, after he got Heloise pregnant, sent her away, admitting, "Who can bear the screams of children...Who can tolerate the unclean and continuous soilings of babies?" As Buchan wrote, "Men generally keep at such a distance from even the smallest acquaintance with the affairs of the nursery [and] is not ashamed to give directions concerning the management of his dogs or horses, yet would blush were he surprised in performing the same office for [his] heir..." Since children of the upper classes were sent out to wetnurse and then to school, many adults could agree with Talleyrand when he stated that he "had never slept under the same roof with his father and mother." Fathers were so distant that most could agree with Vandermonde, who said, "One blushes to think of loving one's children." When their children died, most fathers, like William Byrd, revealed no signs of grief, writing in their diaries the night of the death only that they had "good thoughts and good humor."

By the nineteenth century, some fathers began to relate to their children with some empathy, yet even they were seen as rare, as when Grigorii Belynskii was described as "the only father in the city who understood that in raising children it is not necessary to treat them like cattle." Even those who began at this time to criticize "paternal neglect," like John Abbott, said it was the father's sole task "to teach his children to obey their mother." It wasn't actually until late socializing mode fathers came along that they actually began some caretaking, pushing prams and otherwise trying to live up to the New Fatherhood proclamations of the twentieth century. Yet even though there are some fathers today who are helping mode parents and who spend equal time with their wives caring for their children, various time surveys in America still show that working fathers spend only about 12 to 18 minutes per day with their young children, without even counting the one-third of all babies who are born to unmarried women. The gynarchy, it appears, still reigns supreme, and fathers around the world have yet to seriously embrace the tasks and joys of fatherhood.

GIRLS HAD WORSE CHILDHOODS THAN BOYS
The problem with having only women raising children is that parenting is an emotionally demanding task, requiring considerable maturity, and throughout history girls have grown up universally despised. When a girl was born, said the Hebrews, "the walls wept." Japanese lullabies sang, "If it's a girl, stamp on her." In medieval Muslim cultures "a grave used to be prepared, even before delivery, beside the woman's resting place [and] if the new-born was a female she was immediately thrown by her mother into the grave." "Blessed is the door out of which goes a dead daughter" was a popular Italian proverb that was meant quite literally. Girls from birth have everywhere been considered full of dangerous pollution-the projected hatred of adults-and were therefore more often killed, exposed, abandoned, malnourished, raped and neglected than boys. Girls in traditional societies spent most of their growing up years trying to avoid being raped by their neighbors or employers and thereby being forced into a lives of prostitution. To expect horribly abused girls to magically become mature, loving caretakers when as teenagers they go to live as virtual slaves in a strange family simply goes against the conclusions of every clinical study we have showing the disastrous effects of trauma upon the ability to mother.

Mothers earlier in history mainly saw their children as their own screaming, needy, dominating mothers, forming a "hypersymbiotic relationship" wherein the child is expected to make up for all the love missing in the mother's own life, cure her post-partum depression and restore her vitality. The need to shut up the mother's angry voice in babies lead to their being tied up, neglected and beaten. Tiny infants were experienced as being so destructive that, according to Augustine, "If left to do what he wants, there is no crime he will not plunge into." In fact, infants were felt to be so full of badness that when they died they were often buried under rain gutters so the water would wash off their inborn pollution. The baby in the past must not need anything, but must just give love solely to the emotionally-deprived mother.

CHILD SACRIFICE AS PUNISHMENT FOR SUCCESS
The act of having a child is, says Rheingold, "the most forbidden act of self-realization, the ultimate and least pardonable offense," and brings with it inevitable fears of maternal retribution for one's success and individuation. Mothers in antiquity hallucinated female demons-Lamia, Gorgo, Striga, Empusa, so jealous of their having babies that they sucked out their blood and otherwise murdered them. Even today peasant villages fear the outbreak of "angry, malevolent, dangerous" hallucinations that surround the newborn and threaten the mother and even keep the nursery room boarded up with the door barred to prevent the intrusion of dangerous spirits. All early societies invented sacrificial rituals wherein babies were tortured and killed to honor maternal goddesses, from Anit to Kali, vowing that, "although Mommy wants to kill me for having sex and making a baby, if I kill the baby instead [usually the first-born was sacrificed], I can then go on having sex and other babies with less fear of retribution."

The severely immature parents of the past felt under such constant threat for success by malevolent forces that their own children were constantly being used as poison containers for their disowned feelings. As one informant in a contemporary rural Greek community put it, "When you're angry a demon gets inside of you. Only if a pure individual passes by, like a child for instance, will the bad leave you, for it will fall on the unpolluted." A typical child sacrifice for parental success can be seen in Carthage, where archeologists have found a child cemetery called The Tophet that is filled with over 20,000 urns containing bones of children sacrificed by the parents, who would make a vow to kill their next child if the gods would grant them a favor,for instance, if their shipment of goods were to arrive safely in a foreign port. They placed their children alive in the arms of a bronze statue of "the lady Tanit...the hands of the statue extended over a brazier into which the child fell once the flames had caused its limbs to contract and its mouth to open...the child was alive and conscious when burned...Philo specified that the sacrificed child was best-loved."

Child sacrifice was the foundation of all great religions, depicted in myths as absolutely necessary to save the world from "chaos," that is, from terrible inner annihilation anxiety as punishment for success. The Sacred Executioner: Human Sacrifice and the Legacy of Guilt, portrays the entire history of religion as dramas featuring a vengeful, bloodthirsty Sacred Executioner, demonstrating that the role of children, from Isaac to Christ, was to act as sacrifices for the sins of the parents. Behind even male gods demanding sacrifice are Avenging Terrible Mothers of Death, Inanna, Tiamat, Ishtar, Astarte, Lilith, Hathor-Sekhmet, Izanami, Chicomecoatl, all demanding revenge for the hubris of daring to be a parent.The wealthier the family, the more children had to be sacrificed to the goddess, representing the infant's furious grandmother.

Child sacrifices have been found from the beginning of human history: decapitated skeletons of early hominid children have been found, with evidence of cannibalism, as their parents ate them on behalf of the spirits of their life-devouring grandmothers; young children were buried with their skulls split by an ax at Woodhenge/Stonehenge; decapitated infant sacrifices to the Great Goddess were found at Jericho; early Arabians sacrificed their daughters to "the mothers;" the serpent goddess of the Aztecs demanded skull and heart sacrifice of children, including the eating of the children's bodies and covering themselves with their blood; Mayan and Incan sacrificed children are still being discovered in the South American mountains, along with children who have been killed by drug dealers to ward off revenge for their successful cocaine runs. The need to sacrifice children to ward off fears of success was so powerful that right through medieval times, when people built new buildings, walls or bridges, little children were sealed in them alive as "foundation sacrifices" to ward off the angry, avenging spirits, of parents who felt envious of the accomplishments of their children.

Over and over again death wishes are revealed in the historical sources, breaking out when interacting with children. Epictetus admitted, "What harm is there if you whisper to yourself, at the very moment you are kissing your child, and say 'Tomorrow you will die?'" Another recalled his mother tucking him into bed nightly with the words, "Soon my son you will exchange the bed for the grave, and your clothes for a winding sheet." The deaths of children were rarely mourned: mothers were commonly reported to have "regarded the death of various daughters at school with great equanimity" and fathers to "cheerfully remark when two of his fifteen children died that he still had left a baker's dozen."

As we will see in the sections that follow on infanticide, mutilation and abandonment, parents are the child's most lethal enemy.

INFANTICIDE AS CHILD SACRIFICE
Mothers who feel like killing their newborn children today are clinically found to be deeply depressed and lonely, because, according to Rheingold's study of 350 filicidal mothers, "It is only the fear of being a woman that can create the infanticidal impulse...having a child is the most forbidden act of self-realization...punishment is inescapable and punishment means annihilation...To appease the mother she must destroy the child, but the child is a love object too. To preserve the child she must renounce mother... She is trapped in a desperate conflict: kill mother and preserve the baby or kill the baby and preserve the mother." Mothers in the past routinely chose killing the baby, by the billions, driven to it by her devil alter (her own destructive mother image in her head).

It is likely that overall infanticide rates of both sexes exceeded 30 percent in antiquity and only slowly declined to the very small rate in advanced societies today. Multiplying these infanticide rates by the 80 billion human births in the past 100,000 years, a weighted average infanticide rate for the entire 80 billion births was likely at the very least 15 percent, or 12 billion children killed by their parents.

Even this astonishing figure is not the whole story of infanticide. Every study of infant death rates among children sent out to wetnurses and abandoned in foundling homes shows much higher death rates, running to over 70 per cent and higher, even in modern times. Doctors of every age agreed that "the most profound cause of the terrific waste of infant life [is] neglect...neglected by their own mothers and neglected by the nurses to whom they were abandoned..." Since parents who sent their children to wetnurse and foundling homes knew quite well they would likely not see them again, some were sent to so-called "killing wetnurses" with a small sum of money under the tacit assumption that they would not be returned. These "delayed infanticide" acts must be added to the estimated rate of child killing, increasing it by at the very least a third, or a total of 16 billion children killed by parental acts over the entire historical span. No wonder people in the past so often said that everywhere in their areas "you could hear coming out of the bottom of latrines and ponds and rivers the groanings of the children that one had thrown there."

Although poverty played some part in this holocaust of children, it is doubtful if it was the main cause of child deaths. In the first place, the cost of bringing up a girl is no more than the cost of bringing up a boy, so the differential infanticide rates are certainly parental choices. When, for instance, Arabs dug a grave next to the birthing place of every new mother so "if the newborn child was a female she could be immediately thrown by her mother into the grave," it was likely hatred of girls, not poverty, that was the motive. Secondly, if scarce resources were the main cause, then wealthy parents should kill less than poor. But the historical record shows exactly the opposite: historical boy/girl ratios are higher among wealthy parents, where economic necessity is no problem at all. Even in early modern England, the infant mortality rates for wealthy children were higher than the same rates for ordinary farmers, day laborers and craftsman. Thirdly, many wealthy high civilizations such as Greece, Rome, China, India, Hawaii and Tahiti are very infanticidal, especially among their elite classes. As one visitor to Hawaii reported, there probably wasn't a single mother who didn't throw one or more of her children to the sharks. There were even societies where virtually all newborn were killed to satisfy their overwhemling infanticidal needs, and infants had to be imported from adjoining groups to continue the society. Finally, many nations-like in Japan until recently-kill their children selectively in order to balance out an equal number of boys and girls, a practice called mabiki, or "thinning out" the less promising ones, again revealing a quite different motive than the purely economic. It is most certainly not economics that causes so many depressed women on the delivery tables even today to implore their mothers not to kill them after they have given birth. Women since the beginning of time have felt that their children "really" belonged to God, and that "the child was a gift that God had every right to reclaim." When killing her child, therefore, the mother was simply acting as her own mother's avenger.

Usually it was the mother or one of the other women of the gynarchy who did the killing, usually violently, smashing in the baby's head, crushing it between her knees, asphyxiating it against her breasts, sitting on it, or throwing it alive into the privy, with the mother sometimes earning the nickname of "child-stabber" or "child-crusher." It helped to have gynecological writings like Soranus's on "How to Recognize the Newborn That Is Worth Rearing" to rationalize the infanticide. It helped to share the blame for the murder with your children, who were often made to help the mother kill their newborn siblings, and who would then be more likely to restage the murder upon their own newborn.

Opposition by society to infanticide was negligible until modern times. Jews considered any child who died within thirty days after birth, even by violence, to have been a "miscarriage." Most ancient societies openly approved of infanticide, and although Roman law, in response to Christianity, made infanticide a capital offense in 374 C.E., no cases have been found punishing it. Anglo-Saxons actually considered infanticide a virtue, not a crime, saying, "A child cries when he comes into the world, for he anticipates its wretchedness. It is well for him that he should die...he was placed on a slanting roof [and] if he laughed, he was reared, but if he was frightened and cried, he was thrust out to perish." Prosecutions for infanticide before the modern period were rare. Even medieval penitentials excused mothers who killed their newborn before feeding them. By Puritan times, a few mothers began being hanged for infanticide. But even in the nineteenth century it was still "not an uncommon spectacle to see the corpses of infants lying in the streets or on the dunghills of London and other large cities. The English at the end of the century had over seven million children enrolled in "burial insurance societies;" with the infant mortality rate at 50 percent, parents could easily collect the insurance by killing their child. As one doctor said, "sudden death in infants is too common a circumstance to be brought before the attention of the coroner." Free medical care for children was refused...'No, thank you, he is in two burial clubs' was a frequent reply to offers of medical assistance for a sick child.

Century after century, the children in traditional societies who survived remembered the cries of their murdered brothers and sisters, feared their murderous parents, believed themselves unworthy of living, irredeemably bad, and grew up to inflict the killings on their own children.

TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 3

EVIL PARENTING OF YORE (PART 1)

2007-03-15T19:31:00.000-07:00

CHRISTIAN FAMILY VALUES...NOT! PART 1

I stumbled across the following theory "Psycho-genetic Evolution" while trying to research the history of child rearing to refute today's "Christian Family Value" argument. I knew that the so called 'nuclear' family so heralded and held up as the ideal christian family was a recent 'invention'. Invented to deflect Christianity's real effect of harming children emotionally, stunting intellectual growth, and keeping society stagnant in ignorance. Fabricated to justify their patriarchal institution of marriage where the FATHER plays the lead role and used as the modern justification against gay couples adopting children.

You know the stereotypical, loving father, adoring mother, dutiful son and caring daughter we see in Rockwell paintings. We have been conditioned to believe it has been that way since well 'Adam & Eve'. That contrived happy family is historically inaccurate and boldface fabrication from a church trying to improve its image. History has been purposely hidden, changed and made up to fool us into our modern way of thinking. Boy was I surprised, my image of past family life wasn't even close! I imagined an aloof and stern father and the phrase "children should be seen and not heard" (familiar to those raised on Disney films). It was much much worse.

Throughout most of history children were scorned, neglected, abandoned, considered evil or a curse, sexually abused, or sold as slaves. It wasn't until free-thinkers and unbelievers began to question the status quo that our idea of the nuclear family began to transform family life (for the better) beginning around the 18th century and that's when scientific progress and human inventiveness was finally allowed to blossom. NO THANKS AND NO CREDIT TO THE CHURCH CAN BE GIVEN. DO NOT LET THEM FOOL YOU. The only way we can evolve our potential as humans is if todays parents foresake and abandon religion outright and give their children the gift of a guiltless, constructive and purposeful life, free of superstitious dogma.

We will see that fathers played little role if any in raising children. It was the mothers that raised children. In societies that permitted love between mother and children, they thrived and the next generations benefited. While those societies that fostered ill-will between mothers and children they stagnated under emotional deprivation and the next generations fared even worse.

Since for most of history mothers raise boys who then go off and hunt, farm, build things and fight wars rather than directly contributing much new to the psyche of the next generation, the course of evolution of the psyche has overwhelmingly been dependent upon the way mothers have treated their daughters, who become the next generation of mothers. Since early emotional relationships organize the entire range of human behavior, all cultural traits do not equally affect the evolution of the psyche, those that affect the daughter's psyche represent the main narrow bottleneck through which all other cultural traits must pass. The study of the evolution of the psyche depends more on developing a maternal ecology than on studying variations in the physical environment.

The evolution of the psyche and culture has been crucially dependent upon turning the weak bonds between mother and daughter of apes and early humans into genuine love for daughters (and sons). This means that historical societies that create optimal conditions for improving the crucial mother-daughter relationship by surrounding the mother with support and love soon begin to show psychological innovation and cultural advances in the next generations, so that history begins to move in progressive new directions. In contrast, societies that cripple the mother-daughter emotional relationship experience psychogenic arrest and even psychogenic devolution. Only in modern times have fathers, too, begun to contribute to the evolutionary task of growing the young child's mind.

Paralleling the term "hopeful monster" that biologists use to indicate speciating biological variations, the idea that the mother-daughter emotional relationship is the focal point of epigentic evolution and the main source of novelty in the psyche can be called the "hopeful daughter" concept. When mothers love and support particularly their daughters, a series of generations can develop new childrearing practices that grow completely new neural networks, hormonal systems and behavioral traits. If hopeful daughters are instead emotionally crippled by a society, a psychogenic cul-de-sac is created, generations of mothers cannot innovate, epigenetic arrest is experienced and meaningful cultural evolution ends.

The task of "fathering" of playing a real role in forming a child's psyche is in fact a very late historical invention. Most fathers among our closest ape relatives don't have much to do with their children, and a nurturing role during early childhood for the human father turns out to be a far more recent historical innovation than has heretofore been assumed. The major epigenetic changes in the structures of the brain, therefore, have mainly been evolved by females, not males. Fathers until recently have affected their children's psyches mainly through family provisioning and by establishing some of the conditions for mothering, but it has mainly been the mothers who have produced epigenetic novelty; so to discover the laws of cultural evolution one must "follow the mothers" through history. This is why only the psychogenic theory posits that for most of history women and children are the ultimate source of historical change.

Imagine how the U.S. could progress if we could rid ourselves of RELIGIOUS dogma and the attendant emotional damage once and for all and not pass it down to our children.

I'll give two examples here, more insidious and horrendous examples in PART 2. Some parts will be very graphic and disturbing...but true. This will be a extreme eye opener for most of us.

For example, in China before the tenth century A.D. men began to footbind little girls'feet as a sexual perversion, making them into sexual fetishes, penis-substitutes which the men would suck on and masturbate against during sex play. Chinese literature reports the screaming cries of the five-year-old girl as she hobbles about the house for years to do her tasks while her feet are bound, because in order to make her foot tiny, her foot bones are broken and the flesh deteriorates. She loses several toes as they are bent under her foot, to emphasize the big toe as a female penis. This practice was added to the many brutal practices of what was perhaps the world's most anti-daughter culture, where over half the little girls were murdered at birth without remorse and special girl-drowning pools were legion, where beating little girls until bloody was a common parental practice, and where girl rape and sex slavery were rampant. This vicious anti-daughter emotional atmosphere extreme even for a time that was generally cruel and unfeeling towards daughters was obviously not conducive to mothers producing innovations in childrearing when the little girls grew up. Therefore China which was culturally ahead of the West in many ways at the time, became culturally and politically "frozen" until the twentieth century, when footbinding was stopped and boy-girl sex ratios in many areas dropped from 200/100 to near equality. The result was that whereas for much of its history China punished all novelty, during the twentieth century rapid cultural, political and economic evolution could resume.

Japan, which shared much of Chinese culture but did not adopt footbinding of daughters, avoided the psychogenic arrest of China and could therefore share in the scientific and industrial revolution as it occurred in the West.

The same kind of epigenetic arrest can be seen in the damage caused by genital mutilation of girls among circum-Mediterranean peoples that began thousands of years ago and continues today. Since "hopeful daughters" do not thrive on the chopping off of their clitorises and labias, the present cultural and political problems of those groups who still mutilate their daughters' genitals are very much a direct result of this psychogenic arrest.

THE SIX CHILDREARING MODES
"Psycho-genetic Evolution" proposes six modes of childrearing which societies unevenly evolve. Most modern nations today contain all six stages in varying proportions. They have been empirically confirmed by five book-length historical studies in addition to the over 100 scholarly articles on the history of childhood during the past 26 years in The Journal of Psychohistory. The following list summarizes the historical evidence on childrearing modes.

1a. Early Infanticidal Mode (small kinship groups): This mode is characterized by high infanticide rates, maternal incest, body mutilation, child rape, tortures and emotional abandonment by parents when the child is not useful as a an erotic object or as a poison container. The father is too immature to act as a real caretaker and is emotionally absent. Prepubertal marriage of little girls is common, similar to cults like The Children of God. The schizoid personality structure of the infanticidal mode is dominated by alters, in which adults spend much of their time in ritual and magical projects, so they are not able to evolve beyond foraging and early horticultural economic levels nor beyond Big Men political organization.

1b. Late Infanticidal Mode (chiefdom to early states): Though infanticide rates remain high and child rape is still often routine, particularly royal and pedagogic pederasty the young child is not as much rejected by the mother, and the father begins to be involved with instruction of the older child. Child sacrifice as a guilt-reducing device for social progress is found in early states as the use of children as poison containers became more socially organized. Infant restrictions devices such as swaddling and cradle boards begin, sibling caretakers replace child gangs and sibling incest is widespread. Various institutionalized schemes for care by others become popular, such as adoption, wetnursing, fosterage, and the use of the children of others as servants. Beating is now less impulsive and used as discipline, and because the child is now closer emotionally and used more for farming chores, discipline becomes more controlling and brutal, leading to complex societies whose innovations are paid for by genocidal slaughter and the enslavement of women and children.

2. Abandoning Mode (beginning with early Christianity): Once the child is thought as having a soul at birth, routine infanticide becomes emotionally difficult. Early Christians were considered odd in antiquity: "they marry like everybody else, they have children, but they do not practice the exposure of new-born babes."These Christians began Europe's two-millennia-long struggle against infanticide, replacing it with abandonment, from oblation of young children to monasteries, a more widespread use of swaddling, wetnurses if one could afford them, fosterage, wandering scholars and child servants. Child sacrifice was replaced by joining in the group-fantasy of the sacrifice of Christ, who was sent by his father as a poison container to be killed for the sins of others. Pederasty continued, especially in monasteries, and girl rape was widespread. The child was thought to be born full of evil, the parent's projections, so was beaten early and severely. Abusive child care was not mainly due to economics, since the rich as well as the poor during the middle ages had high infanticide, abandonment, sexual molestation and physical abuse rates. The borderline personality structure of Christianity stresses clinging to authority figures as defense against emotional abandonment and constant warfare against enemies to punish others for their own imagined sinfulness for deserving abandonment.

3. Ambivalent Mode (beginning in the twelfth century): The twelfth century ended the oblation of children to monasteries, began child instruction manuals, began to punish child rape, expanded schooling, expanded pediatrics, saw child protection laws, and began to tolerate ambivalence, both love and hate for the child, marking the beginnings of toleration of a child's independent rights. The child was seen less as a sinful poison container and more as soft wax or clay that could be beaten into whatever shape the parent wished. The reduction of splitting defenses of the late medieval narcissistic personality structure produced the advances in technology and the rise of cities associated with the period and eventually the rise of the early modern state.

4. Intrusive Mode (beginning in the sixteenth century): The intrusive parent began to unswaddle the child and even the wealthy began to bring up the infant themselves rather than sending it elsewhere or at least have the wetnurse come in to the home thus allowing closer emotional bonds with parents to form. The sixteenth century particularly in England represents a watershed in reduction of parental projections, when parents shifted from trying to stop childrens' growth to trying only to control it and make it "obedient." The freedom of being allowed to crawl around rather than being swaddled and hung on a peg and the individuation of separate child beds and separate child regimens meant parents approached closer to their children and could give them love as long as they controlled their minds, their insides, their anger, their lives. The child raised by intrusive parents was nursed by his or her mother, not swaddled, not given regular enemas but toilet trained early, prayed with but not played with, hit but not battered, punished for masturbation but not masturbated, taught and not sent out as servants to others and made to obey promptly with threats and guilt as often as physical means of punishment. True empathy begins with intrusive mode parents, producing a general improvement in the level of care and reduced child mortality, leading to the early modern demographic transition to later marriage, fewer births and more investment in each child. The end of arranged marriages, the growth of married love and the decline of domestic violence also contributed to the child's ability to achieve emotional growth. A healing of splitting and an increase in individuation produced the scientific, political and economic revolutions of the early modern period, so much so that some British and American parents were often called "strange" by visitors because they "pampered" their children so much and hit them so little. Men didn't cling to their hypermasculine social alters as much and discovered they had a "private self" that was emotionally involved with their family life.

5. Socializing Mode (beginning in the eighteenth century): Obviously something new had entered the world when society could claim that "God planted this deep, this unquenchable love for her offspring in the mother's heart." During this period the number of children most women had dropped from seven or eight to three or four, long before any medical discoveries were made in limiting reproduction, because parents now wanted to be able to give more care to each child. Their aim, however, remained instilling their own goals into the child rather than producing individuation: "Is there not a strange fullness of joy in watching the reproduction of your traits, physical, mental and moral, in your child?" The use of mainly psychological manipulation, along with spanking of little children, remains the most popular model of "socialization" of parents in Western European nations and the Americas today, training the child to assume its role in the parents' society. The socializing mode built the modern world, and its values of nationalism and economic class-dominated representative democracy represent the social models of most people today.

6. Helping Mode (beginning mid-twentieth century): The helping mode involves acknowledging that the parents' main role is to help the child reach at each stage of its life its own goals, rather than being socialized into adult goals. Parents for the first time consider raising children not a chore but a joy. Both mother and father are equally involved with the child from infancy helping him or her become a self-directed person. Children are given unconditional love, are not struck and are apologized to if yelled at under stress. The helping mode involves a lot of time and energy by parents and other helpers during the child's early years, taking their cues from the child itself as it pursues its developmental course. Birth rates tend to drop below replacement as each child is recognized as requiring a great deal of attention. The helping psychoclass, though few in number today, is far more empathic toward others and less driven by material success than earlier generations. Though Dr. Spock's child care book was late socializing mode, some of the "Spock generation" adolescents after the mid-century were actually products of helping mode parents and felt empowered to explore their own unique social roles and go beyond nationalism, war and economic inequality.

Parents from each of the six childrearing modes co-exist in modern nations today. Indeed, much of political conflict occurs because of the vastly different value systems and vastly different tolerance for freedom of the six psychoclasses. Cyclical swings between liberal and reactionary periods are an outcome of a process whereby more evolved psychoclasses introduce more innovation into the world than less evolved psychoclasses can tolerate. The latter try then to "turn the clock back" and reinstate less anxious social conditions to reduce their growth anxiety, and when this fails, the nation attempts to "cleanse the world of its sinfulness" through a war or depression.

Now that you are familiar with the history and terms used discussing this 'theory' read PART 2 where the historical horrors and abuse will be exposed further. No matter how rough you THINK your childhood was...you ain't got nothing on history's kids (most of whom didn't live to tell about it).

*******************************************************************************
Condenced and inspired from http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln07_evolution.html

SORDID LIVES OF THE POPES

2007-03-10T17:56:00.000-08:00

The Criminal History of the Papacy
Most Catholics go through life and never hear a word of reproach for any pope or member of the clergy. Yet the recorded history of the lives of the clerical hierarchy bears no resemblance to its modern-day portrayal, and the true stories of the popes in particular are among the most misrepresented in religious history.

For centuries, the Church maintained a comprehensive account of the lives of the popes who, up until the 11th century, called themselves "ecumenical patriarchs", and amazing excesses are recorded. Official Catholic records provide extraordinary confessions of wickedness in the whole Christian clergy, and the implications surrounding this knowledge begin to assume major new proportions when considered in light of the central Church claim of unquestionable piety in the clerical hierarchy.

The reality of the matter is that they were intent only upon their own interests, not those of God, and cultivated a system of papal vice more assiduously than Catholic writers of Church history dare to reveal openly. They were resented by the laity and, when better economic conditions awakened the minds of a developing European middle class, there was widespread rebellion against them.

Below are highlights from some of the most notorious.

Pope John XII was one in a succession of impious popes and he opened his inglorious career by invoking pagan gods and goddesses as he flung the dice in gambling sessions. He toasted Satan during a drinking spree and put his notorious mistress/prostitute Marcia in charge of his brothel in the Lateran Palace. He "liked to have around him a collection of Scarlet Women", said the monk-chronicler Benedict of Soracte, and at his trial for the murder of an opponent his clergy swore on oath that he'd had incestuous relations with his sisters and had raped his nuns. He and his mistresses got so drunk at a banquet that they accidentally set fire to the building. It would be difficult to imagine a pontiff who was farther removed from saintliness, yet in an age when the average life of a pope was two years, he held the throne for 10 years. However, his life came to a sudden and violent end when, according to pious chroniclers, he was killed by the Devil while raping a woman in a house in the suburbs. The truth is that the Holy Father was thrashed so severely by the enraged husband of the woman that he died of injuries eight days later.

Pope Benedict IX won the murderous scramble for the wealth of the papacy. He immediately excommunicated leaders who were hostile to him and quickly established a reign of terror. He officially opened the doors of "the palace of the popes" to homosexuals and turned it into an organised and profitable male brothel. His violent and licentious conduct provoked the Roman people, and in January 1044 the residents of the city elected Pope Sylvester III, to replace him. But Sylvester was quickly driven out by Benedict's brothers and fled for his life. Benedict IX then sold the papacy to his godfather, Pope Gregory VI, but in 1047 Benedict reappeared and announced he was reclaiming the papacy. The Church added that he was "...immoral...cruel and indifferent to spiritual things.

1096, Pope Urban II sanctioned the first of eight Church crusades that extended in time to a total of 19, and they continued unabated for 475 years. Heresy, said the Church, was a blow in the face of God and it was the duty of every Christian to kill heretics. Earlier still, Pope Gregory VII officially declared that "the killing of heretics is not murder" and decreed it legal for the Church and its militants to kill non-believers in Christian dogma. Up until the 19th century, popes compelled Christian monarchs to make heresy a crime punishable by death under their civil codes, but it was not heresy that instigated the crusade against the Cathars: its purpose was to "yield the papacy additional land and revenues, and the popes engaged in brutalities, threats and all kinds of stratagems to attain their ends"

Pope Celestine III supported the earlier decision of Pope Lucius III to annihilate every Cathar from the face of the Earth. To do this, now early in the 13th century, Pope Innocent III ordered Dominic de Guzm‡n to develop a troop of merciless followers called "the Catholic army" , and an initial force of 200,000 foot troops was established with assistance from 20,000 mail-clad, horse-mounted knights. The general populace labelled them the "Throat-cutters" but Dominic deemed them the "Militia of Jesus Christ", and he later increased the army by an additional 100,000 troops. The Church's fighting force developed into 500,000 troops against a body of ordinary, unarmed folk who saw that, in practice, the papal system of religion was frivolous and false. The devastation caused by the Catholic army was immense and the loss to civilisation is difficult to comprehend. Historians estimate that more than 500 towns and villages disappeared from the map as a result of its depredation.

Pope Innocent III, whom many Catholics exalt above all others and regard as one of the chief constructive forces in the development of European civilisation. When he was elected, he demanded an oath of allegiance to himself, as pope, from the prefect, who represented the Holy Roman Emperor, and the senators, who represented the Roman people. In order to curb the nobles, Innocent gave great power and wealth to his brother. He proceeded with all the ruthlessness which is characteristic of "great popes", and he was indifferent to the appalling bloodshed which he caused. At the Fourth Lateran Council in April 1215, Innocent III condemned the Magna Carta and demanded that the Jews wear distinctive dress. He also declared that anybody caught reading the Bible would be stoned to death by "soldiers of the Church militia" . But the main purpose of his Council was to develop a plan to expand his military affairs, his intention being ultimately to dominate all Europe, in which he intended to subject all kings and princes to the judgement of the Holy See.

Pope Innocent III wrote a revealing work called Registro, in which he deals extensively with the power of the Church to punish sins and sinners. Within it, he included a vivid illustration which shows a wolf in friar's clothing with a pronged weapon demanding alms from a cloven-footed creature with a curled tail. This doe-eyed composite animal satirically represents believers in Jesus Christ whom the general populace called "pigs with crosses".

Pope Celestine V before and during the time of his pontificate lived a hermit's life in a cave in the wild mountains south of Rome, a fact that has proved difficult for the modern-day Church to dismiss. With Celestine, we see another of the Church's confessions of the ignorance and uncritical simplicity of the papal office, extending over fifteen hundred years of Christian history. The cardinals were disquieted when the humble monk ordered them to come to his cave, but they went and there they consecrated him as pope. King Charles II, wanting papal favours, sent a deputation to the cave to escort the pope to Naples to meet him. Celestine arrived and created a daily public spectacle of conceding extraordinary and unlimited privileges to Charles. The cardinals, now realising that the pope was "of disastrous simplicity", were moved to demand his resignation. Chief among those who pressed him to abdicate was Benedetto Gaetani, a rich and robust prelate of great ambition. It was widely believed that Gaetani had a speaking tube put through the walls of the pope's room, and a "voice from heaven" bade him resign. Celestine V was convinced that "God had spoken to him" and he abdicated. Gaetani then purchased the papacy from the cardinals for 7,000 gold florins and became Pope Boniface VIII. Celestine was immediately imprisoned in a grim castle and was so brutally treated that he soon died.

Pope Gregory VIII (1187) was so hated for his crime of blinding his opponents that the locals tied him backwards on a camel and paraded him through the streets of Rome, screaming vulgarities at him and pelting him with rocks until he was dead.

To avoid impending charges of murder, Pope Calixtus II desecrated the alleged tomb of St Peter and fled to Constantinople with "silver panels from the doors", "thick plates of gold" that had covered the altars and a solid gold statue.

Pope Benedict XIII who took the extraordinary step of seeking out and destroying all copies of two second-century books that contained "the true name of Jesus Christ". He created four new cardinals specifically to single out for condemnation the secret Latin treatise called Mar Yesu, and then issued instructions for all copies of the mysterious Book of Elxai to be destroyed.

John XXIII drew up a long indictment which ran to 54 Articles. He was later charged with rape, adultery, incest, sodomy and the murder of Pope Alexander V. After a brief trial he was found guilty, deposed, imprisoned and strangled. The Romans pelted mud and stones at his coffin when it was brought to Rome. There was no public funeral. Gossip of the day had it that during his legation he seduced 200 women and a similar number of men.

Pope Innocent VIII rewarded those who supported him with immense wealth, splendour and glory. As pope, however, his only interests were women and sex. The Vatican became an establishment overrun by his vast progeny of more than 100 illegitimate children, and the cost of maintaining his women, sons, daughters and grandchildren was enormous. The contemporary Italian Church historian Valore related that, through gross self-indulgence, Innocent VIII grew immensely fat and by the spring of 1492 had become "a mass of flesh incapable of assimilating any nourishment but a few drops of milk from a young woman's breast"

Pius II held obscene dances with naked ladies in a garden at Siena, and he continued to enjoy such spectacles until the end of his life. His pontificate provided one of the gravest scandals in the Vatican since the Reign of the Whores, and the parade of his sexual licence was maintained with little or no concealment. From the diary of German chaplain Johann Burchard comes the famous comment saying that "the pope's Christianity was a pretence"

Alexander VI had sex with Lucrezia, his daughter by Rosa Vannozza dei Cattanei. One wit of Rome called Lucrezia "the pope's daughter, wife and daughter-in-law", and he reportedly fathered "nieces" with her. Atone supper in the apostolic palace, with 50 decent prostitutes or courtesans in bright garb in attendance, who after the meal danced with the servants and others there, first fully dressed and then naked.
Following the supper, lampstands holding lighted candles were placed on the floor and chestnuts strewn about, which the prostitutes, naked and on their hands and knees, had to pick up with their mouths as they crawled in and out among the lampstands. The Pope watched and admired their noble parts. The evening ended with an obscene contest of these women, coupled with male servants of the Vatican, for prizes which the Pope presented. Lucrezia and the Pope later each took a partner of their liking for further dalliances.

Pope Alexander VI was aware of the "silent spread of suspicion in the intelligentsia, even in the clergy themselves" about the validity of Christianity, and, realising that his institution could not afford to have its credentials checked, he moved quickly to establish censorship of damaging publications. In 1501 he issued an edict ordering that no book discussing the Christian religion be printed without the written approval of the local archbishop or "bearing the personal permission and privilege of the Pope". This was the beginning of the suppression of books challenging Church dogma and soon became official Vatican policy. It was perhaps the most dramatic form of censorship known to the world, by which the Church for centuries policed the literature available to the public, and it maintained official sanction well into the 20th century. Alexander VI died in 1503 and his infamous career came to a welcome end. His passing was greeted with celebrations in the streets of Rome; the papal doctor was sent gifts and was congratulated for failing to keep the pope alive.

Get the picture?

**********************************************************************************
Condensed from an article by Tony Bushby in NEXUS Magazine. http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/Papacy1.html

VISIONS OF TORTILLAS VIRGINS

2007-03-09T18:31:00.000-08:00

I SEE DEAD PEOPLE
Seems almost every day there is another report of the Virgin Mary appearing on tortillas, or Jesus in a window pane. Miraculous appearances? Signs from heaven? The end of the world? No. Just the human mind and imagination doing what it does best, recognizing patterns, usually facial, in inanimate objects. The perception of patterns where none are intended.

HOLY VISIONS BATMAN
Pareidolia describes a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being mistakenly perceived as recognizable. Common examples The man in the moon or hearing messages on records played in reverse. The word comes from the Greek para: amiss, faulty, wrong and eidolon: image.

I SEE THEREFORE I BELIEVE
Pareidolia is the well described and near universal tendency of humans to see faces and other images in rock formations, tree stumps, faces on Mars, dirty windows, toast, smoke from burning buildings, portraits on currency, shower curtains and random data of all kinds and at all scales. People may remember the popular Rorschach inkblot tests. The test uses pareidolia to attempt to gain insight into a person's mental state. While this test is still widely employed, its scientific basis is disputed, and no studies have shown empirical confirmation of success.

HARD-WIRED OR JUST TRIPPING?
According to Stewart Guthrie, one of a handful of professors who have studied it, such perceptions are part of the way human beings are hard-wired. We humans are programmed by evolution to recognize faces from our very earliest days (usually our parents) and then our siblings, friends, neighbors etc. This allows people to use only minimal details to recognize faces from a distance and in poor visibility, but can also lead them to interpret random images or patterns of light and shade as being faces. This facility of our brains is very important but like other parts of human observation can be fooled or deceived into seeing facial images in random data. The dangerous part of this phenomenon is not that people can see images of something but that they see images of religious figures Jesus, the Virgin Mary and so on. Leading them to believe the falsehood of religion, afterall it's a sign from Heaven. Sometimes even converting the non-believers! Shows just how gullible mankind can be. So sad.

ROOTS IN SURVIVAL
It's really part of our basic perceptual and cognitive situation said Guthrie, author of the book ''Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion.'' It has to do with all kinds of misapprehensions that there is something humanlike in one's environment, when really there's not. At the root of the phenomenon, he said, is is the survival instinct. It's a built-in perceptual strategy, of better safe than sorry. In a situation of uncertainty, we guess that something is caused by the most important possibility. Hence, if you're alone and hear a strange sound -- even on a gusty night -- you're more likely to ask, ''Who's there?'' than think it's the wind. And if you happen to be religious, your answer may well be, in a broader context, God. More specifically, Jesus in a fried tortilla.

IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD
All over the world, have been finding religion in very odd places. Holy figures have been perceived in bricks, wooden logs, the gritty underpass of a Chicago expressway, and a tiny gold nugget found in the Arizona desert. A woman making burritos saw the face of Jesus in the pattern of skillet burns on a tortilla. She built a shrine to house the Jesus tortilla, which was blessed by a priest, and thousands of people from across the country came to gaze and pray for its divine assistance in healing their ailments.

LET'S MAKE LOTS OF MONEY
The publicity surrounding sightings of religious figures and other surprising images in ordinary objects, combined with the growing popularity of online auctions, has spawned a market for pareidolic items on eBay. One famous instance was a grilled-cheese sandwich with the Virgin Mary's face sold for thousands.

THE CHOCOLATE VIRGIN
The wonder, believers said, appeared in a chunk of chocolate. A worker arriving at a candy factory saw it in a sugary glob at the mixing vat's spout: an amazing likeness of the Virgin Mary standing in prayer. ''It's absolutely a miracle,'' said Jacinto Santacruz, a 26-year-old Roman Catholic who discovered the 2½-inch-tall apparition at Bodega Chocolates.

JESUS ON A DOG
Angus, a three-year-old terrier mix, personal Jesus was discovered on a Sunday morning in 2006. The MacDougall family was waking up when Angus began to perform his morning ritual. He stretched forward then leaned back sticking his rump high in the air. At that moment, the morning sunlight hit Angus' rear end. "It's Jesus!" the pet owner, Mr. MacDougall exclaimed.

DEVIL OF A DOO!
Many Canadians thought they saw the face of the Devil in the Queen's hair on a dollar bill in the 1954 series, adapted from a photograph. The bills were not withdrawn from circulation, but the image was altered in its next printing.

THE WRITINGS ON THE WALL
Christians aren't the only ones to find the holy in the ordinary: Followers of Islam have said they've seen the Arabic script (since they don't allow graven images) for Allah or Muhammad on fish scales, chicken eggs, lambs and beans. In the Muslim community, a frequent form of newsworthy pareidolia is seeing "Allah" in Arabic on natural objects such as fish, vegetables, plants and clouds. This is made more likely by the general simplicity of letter forms in the Arabic alphabet; a tradition of massive typographical flexibility in Islamic calligraphy; and the particular shape of the word Allah. These factors make the word easy to read into many structures with parallel lines or lobes on a common base.

ALLAH FISH
In February 2006, people flocked to a pet shop named Water Aquatic in Waterfoot, UK after it was announced that the markings on the scales of a two-year-old albino fish named Oscar in the shop, mimicked the Arabic script for "Allah". That the other side of the fish appeared to be inscribed with the word, "Muhammad".

NIKE'S DILEMMA
In 1997, Nike had to recall thousands of pairs of shoes because the flames they had decorated on a series of basketball shoes (such as Air Melt, Air Grill, Air B-Que and Air Bakin' series) when read from right to left, as is customary with Arabic, resembled the word for Allah.

THE FACE ON MARS OR JUST SPACED OUT
Astronomer Philip Plait is tired of radio personality Richard Hoagland's claims. He's had enough of Hoagland's assertions that NASA is covering up evidence of extraterrestrial life, that the infamous Face on Mars was built by sentient aliens and that otherworldly machine parts are embedded in the red planet's dirt. And then there's the mile-long translucent Martian worm. On Hoagland's web site, there are several images from various space probes said to possibly show evidence for ET. Recent Mars rover photos include not just rocks, Hoagland maintainS, but common objects that might tell of alien civilization -- a bowl, a stove, a piston. Hoagland has since 1983, he says, led "an outside scientific team in a critically acclaimed independent analysis of possible intelligently-designed artifacts" on other worlds, using spacecraft data from NASA. Plait author of "Bad Astronomy" (2002), which debunks space myths, had for years not countered Hoagland directly, because he did not want to give a man he calls a "pseudoscientist" the air-time that he so desperately seeks. Recently Plait took his intellectual gloves off. Plait has two words for the latest claims of alien objects on Mars. The first is "garbage." The second and more scientific word is "pareidolia." He notes that just a few months ago, a water spot on his shower curtain took on the uncanny form of the face of Vladimir Lenin. Plait took a picture of the liquid Lenin and uses it illustrate his contention that, though objects on the surface of Mars can sometimes take on interesting shapes, they are just a bunch of rocks.

2012 - THE MAYAN FINAL AGE

2007-03-03T09:53:00.000-08:00

2012 is sometimes claimed to be a great year of spiritual transformation or apocalypse. Many interpret the completion of the thirteenth B'ak'tun cycle in the Long Count of the Maya calendar (which occurs on December 21) to mean there will be a major change in world order. The Mayan civilization was and is the most advanced in relation to time-science knowledge. Their main calendar is the most accurate on the planet. It has never erred. They actually have 22 calendars in total, covering the many timing cycles in the Universe and Solar System.

In Mayan mythology each Long Count cycle is a world age in which the gods attempt to create pious and subservient creatures. The First Age began with the creation of the Earth, and it had upon it vegetation and living beings. Unfortunately, because they lacked speech, the birds and animals were unable to pay homage to the gods and were destroyed. In the Second and Third Ages the gods created humans of mud and then wood, but these also failed to please and were wiped out. We are currently in the Fourth and Final Age, the age of the modern, fully functional human. Is it possible that these Ages referred to evolutionary change? What might occur when the current age finishes on December 21, 2012?

The tzolkin calendar is said to spring from the Sacred Tree. The Sacred Tree is at the center of Mayan Creation Myths. Lord (Ahau) Pacal by way of divine kingship, is equated with the sun, and he is portrayed "entering" the Sacred Tree. The day the sun conjuncts with the crossing point of ecliptic and Milky Way would be an important date. In the pre-dawn skies of this date, the Milky Way would be seen to arch overhead from the region of Polaris (Heart of Sky) and would point right at where the sun rises. This is the only date when the Sun/Lord could jump from the ecliptic track and travel the Milky Way up and around the vault of heaven to the region of Polaris, there to enter the "Heart of Sky." 1300 years ago Polaris was much less an exact "Pole Star" than it is now. It wasn't a Pole Star that the Maya mythologized in this regard, it was the unmarked polar "dark region" symbolizing death and the underworld around which everything was observed to revolve. Life revolves around death - a characteristically Mayan belief. These dates change with precession.

The Maya were adept skywatchers. Their Classic Period is thought to have lasted from 200 A.D. to 900 A.D., but recent archaeological findings are pushing back the dawn of Mayan civilization. Large ruin sites indicating high culture with distinctly Mayan antecedents are being found in the jungles of Guatemala. Before this, the Olmec civilization flourished and developed the sacred count of 260 days known as the tzolkin. The early Maya adopted two different time keeping systems, the Short Count and the Long Count. The Short Count derives from combining the tzolkin cycle with the solar year and the Venus cycle of 584 days. In this way, short periods of 13, 52 and 104 years are generated. The Long Count system is somewhat more abstract, yet is also related to certain astronomical cycles. It is based upon nested cycles of days multiplied at each level by that key Mayan number, twenty:

Number of Days / Term
1 / Kin (day)
20 / Uinal
360 / Tun
7200 / Katun
144000 / Baktun

Notice that the only exception to multiplying by twenty is at the tun level, where the uinal period is instead multiplied by 18 to make the 360-day tun. The Maya employed this counting system to track an unbroken sequence of days from the time it was inaugurated. We find Long Count dates in the archaeological record beginning with the baktun place value and separated by dots. For example: 6.19.19.0.0 equals 6 baktuns, 19 katuns, 19 tuns, 0 uinals and 0 days. Each baktun has 144000 days, each katun has 7200 days, and so on. If we add up all the values we find that 6.19.19.0.0 indicates a total of 1007640 days have elapsed since the Zero Date of 0.0.0.0.0. The much discussed 13-baktun cycle is completed 1872000 days (13 baktuns) after 0.0.0.0.0. This period of time is the so called Mayan Great Cycle of the Long Count and equals 5125.36 years.

The point of interest for these early astronomers seems to have been the projected end date in 2012 A.D., rather than the beginning date in 3114 B.C. Having determined the end date in 2012, and calling it 13.0.0.0.0, they proclaimed themselves to be living in the 6th baktun of the Great Cycle. The later Maya certainly attributed much mythological significance to the beginning date, relating it to the birth of their deities, but it now seems certain that the placement of the Long Count hinges upon its calculated end point. Why did early Mesoamerican skywatchers pick a date some 2300 years into the future and, in fact, how did they pinpoint an accurate winter solstice? For some reason, the ancient New World astronomers were tracking precession.

The precession of the equinoxes, also known as the Platonic Year, is caused by the slow wobbling of the earth's polar axis. Right now this axis roughly points to Polaris, the "Pole Star," but this changes slowly over long periods of time. The earth's wobble causes the position of the seasonal quarters to slowly precess against the background of stars. For example, right now, the winter solstice position is in the constellation of Sagittarius. But 2000 years ago it was in Capricorn. Since then, it has precessed backward almost one full sign. It is generally thought that the Greek astronomer Hipparchus was the first to discover precession around 128 B.C. Yet scholarship indicates that more ancient Old World cultures such as the Egyptians and Babylonians also knew about the precession.

Even cultures with simple horizon astronomy would notice the slow shifting of the heavens. They might erect monoliths to sight the horizon position of the dawning winter solstice sun. This position in relation to background stars could be accurately preserved in wisdom teachings. Precession will change this position at the rate of 1 degree every 72 years, within the relatively short time of 100 years or so, a noticeable change will have occurred. The point of this is simple. To early cultures attuned to the subtle movements of the sky, precession would not have been hard to notice.

The Mayan are not the only ones that assign special significance to the year 2012. The following do too. Coincidence?

The Bible Code claims that, according to certain algorithms of the Bible code, a meteor, asteroid or comet will collide with the Earth.

The Nostradamus Code speaks of a series of natural disasters caused by a comet (possibly as above) which will allow the third anti-christ to disperse his troops around the globe under the guise of aid in preparation for a possible nuclear war, although in the strictest sense it is unspecific as to nuclear war or some other natural or man caused distraction.

The Orion Prophecy claims that the Earth's magnetic field will reverse.

2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl theorizes a possible global awakening to psychic connection by the year 2012, creating a Noosphere.

McKenna's mathematical novelty theory suggests a point of singularity in which a great number of things could happen, including "hyperspatial breakthrough", planetesimal impact, alien contact, historical metamorphosis, metamorphosis of natural law, solar explosion, quasar ignition at the galactic core, or nothing.

The Prophecy of the Popes, attributed to Saint Malachy, speculated that Pope Benedict XVI would reign during the beginning of the tribulation of which Jesus spoke, and sometime later a future pope described in the prophecy as "Peter the Roman", the last in this prophetic list, would appear, bringing as a result the destruction of the city of Rome and the Last Judgment.

Many new age spiritualists and philosophers believe humankind will enter an age of enlightenment in 2012. There are a range of varying, generally positive, beliefs shared by a subset of spiritualists from the mundane to exceptional,including a positive social shift and age of peace, mankind becoming psychic and connected by a collective, and/or an evolution of the human race into non-corporeal beings made of "spiritual" energy, or light energy. An alternative view is that we are already thought-forms and will be realizing our true selves in this year.

Some alien-enthusiasts, along with some new-agers, believe 2012 to correspond approximately with the return of alien "watchers" or "caretakers" who might have helped the first human civilizations with developing their technology and may have been waiting for us to reach a higher level of technological and/or social advancement. Beliefs range from the extra-terrestrials having benevolent purposes -- such as to help human society evolve -- to malevolent purposes -- such as enslavement of mankind and/or manipulation.

The Nepalese ascetic Ram Bahadur Bomjon the so called buddha boy reportedly told his followers that he will return around 2012.

WHO'S BURIED IN GRANT'S TOMB...JESUS?

2007-03-02T16:56:00.000-08:00

Here we go agian. With the release of James Cameron's - The Lost Tomb of Jesus, the believers are up in arms, condemning and dismissing the idea out-of-hand without even viewing the (yet unreleased) documentary. The minds are so closed and set-in-stone they can not even tolerate speculation. But I'm getting a kick watching the clergy on the hot seat, defending their faith to the gullible.

THE EVIDENCE?
The boxes bear the names: Yeshua [Jesus] bar Yosef [son of Joseph]; Maria [the Latin version of Miriam, which is the English Mary]; Matia [the Hebrew equivalent of Matthew, a name common in the lineage of both Mary and Joseph]; Yose [the Gospel of Mark refers to Yose as a brother of Jesus]; Yehuda bar Yeshua, or Judah, son of Jesus; and in Greek, Mariamne e mara, meaning ‘Mariamne, known as the master.’ According to Harvard professor François Bovon, interviewed in the film, Mariamne was Mary Magdalene’s real name.

The bones contained in the boxes have long since been reburied, according to Jewish custom, in unmarked graves in Israel. If the evidence adduced is correct, the bone boxes, and microscopic remains of DNA still contained inside, would constitute the first archaeological evidence of the existence of the Christian savior and his family. Tests on mitochondrial DNA obtained from the Jesus and Mariamne boxes, show conclusively that the two individuals were not maternally related. According to Carney Matheson, this likely means they were related by marriage.

THE TYPICAL REACTION!
The Rev. Schenk said “This is nothing more than a modern day circus sideshow,” “At best it is pure presumption. At worst, it is pure chicanery.” Well Reverand, ahem, to me your story of Jesus is just as preposterous and the Pope is its ringleader. As usual they defer to name calling and diversion when confronted with a different viewpoint.

MY OPINION
I for one don't believe the ossuaries could be those of Jesus and Mary, why? because of the paucity of historical evidence,they were never real people. Just mythical figures adapted from earlier traditions. The boxes are probably remnants of an early tourist attraction by some smart huckster having fun at the ingnorant's expense.

The following are comments left on various sites in response to this story. They are not my comments although I agree with them all:

ANNONYMOUS WEB COMMENTS
"Christianity is a stange religion. The Reverend Bob Schenk is quoted as saying: “All of Jesus’ contemporaries recorded Christ rose after being dead for three days and ascended into Heaven.” The only contemporary of christ who wrote about him was Paul. Paul never told the story of Jesus, in fact Paul only went as far to say as a man named Jesus was the Mesiah (a revelation he had during an epileptic seizure no less!). He only gave a few details of Jesus’s life and even fewer of the death. The later apostles did not write about Jesus for one or two more generations, well after his life. THEY WERE NOT CONTEMPORARIES. Why do these religous leaders lie to their parishoners? What are they afraid of? What else are they lieing about?"

"Religious myths, spiritual con and demagougery move at thousand miles-per-minute but truth ultimately catches up with it. The greatest con of man, the trumped-up divinity story perpetuated by the Vatican and its collaborators for thousands of years, is finally coming apart. As a kid I suspected that Christianity was a sham when I caught our priest phucking my recently-widowed aunt just three days after he officiated at her husband’s funeral. What hardened my suspicion into hard fact was that the very next day the priest looked me squarely in the eye, smiled, then mounted the alter and rendered a thunderous tirade against the evils of sins of the flesh. Starting in the early 60’s the de-deification and de-mystification of Jesus has been gathering steam. Christianity, as practised and imposed on the world by the Roman Emperors (who slept with their own mothers), European royalty (who exploited non-white people in the name of a Jewish God) and the Vatican (who stole a Jewish God and justified murder) has finally been exposed for the hypocrisy and shameless myth that it has always been."

"Long before the eigth century AD, The church fell to the three temptations of Satan, which Jesus was tempted with, yet refused, in the desert. Power, money, land- the church took it all. The Church is not made in Christs image, has accomplished none of Christs ambitions, and is no authority on the life of Christ. The church has subverted knowledge with faith. My point is that the Church long ago shredded any credibility it has on this issue. Most contemplative people I have met, are aware of this, even priests within the Catholic church, yet the Church leadership fails to pass this understanding on to its congregations. I have yet to meet a churchgoer who knows what the Council of Nicea was, let alone what its implications are for the veracity and credibilty of the churchs version of Christ’s life and death. A belief in the resurrection is not a requirement for being a Christian, no matter how much the Church wants us to believe otherwise."

"One day, religion will be seen as it really is, a form of mental illness. It is a self-induced neuro-chemical addiction, based on a fairy tale."

"I can understand the reluctance of believers to admit, and then, let go of a life-long self-delusion. I truly feel sorry for such people.
I prefer to put my stock in science. It works whether you believe in it or not."

"Organized religion/christianity needs to realize their days of controlling the masses is about over. Of course who wants to realize that something they have believed in and found the safety in, their forgiveness in, whatever gives them ease for their life, would be challenged and found out. I feel sorry for all the millions of people on this planet that cannot find the strength and discipline to take responsibility for their lives and trust the real eternal..themselves..we are all the same energy..the same universe..nobody can or has saved us from anything..there is nothing to be saved from. We are either good or bad, we either try or not try, we either care or not care."

"Religion is the reason for all the hatred/killing amongst the human race. Religion is about control..it is not about anything else..it is a manmade thing..was not created by the same laws that were are created from..which is the universe..period."

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE EARLY CHRISTIANS

2007-02-24T11:45:00.000-08:00

"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love, all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world.

Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. Why then are our attitudes toward homosexuality and sexual tolerance so different from the Romans? Romans were indifferent to questions of gender and gender orientation. Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way.

One imperial writer made a comment on the subject in a general way "Zeus came as an eagle to godlike Ganymede and as a swan to the fairhaired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. Some claim that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome. This was not the case. But it is also a mistake to say that unbridled hedonism ruled. Romans had a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution was so common that the taxes on it were a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.

Gay marriages were legal and frequent in Rome. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. Popular Roman literature contained many gay love stories. There was absolutely no conscious effort in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or blond hair. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people, an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, the Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from the society which followed it that gay people were inferior to others.

If this was the social structure from which Western culture was derived, where did the negative ideas regarding homosexuality come from? The most obvious answer to this question, and the one which has most generally been given in the past, is that Christianity is responsible for the change. When Christianity appears on the scene the tolerance spoken of earlier disappears and the general acceptance of homosexuality becomes much less common.

Modern christians falsley believe that the Bible has something to do with their attitudes toward gay people. There is no place in the writings of the Early or High Middle Ages where the Bible seems to be the origin of these prejudices against gay people. Where any reason is given for the new hostility other sources not the Bible are cited. The Bible should be the last place to look for the growing hostility but so many people believe that the Bible is involved that its teachings on the subject matter must be addressed.

Most serious biblical scholars now recognize that the story of Sodom was not intended as any sort of comment on homosexuality. It certainly was not interpreted as a prohibition of homosexuality by early Christian writers. The story refers to the sin of inhospitality rather than to sexual failing. Almost all medieval scholars felt the story of Sodom was a story about hospitality. This is the most obvious interpretation and also the one given to it in most other biblical passages. It is striking that although Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in about two dozen different places (other than Genesis 19 where the story is first told), none associate homosexuality with the Sodomites.

Passages that could be miscontrued against homosexuality are Deuteronomy 23:17 and Kings 14:24, and doubtless the best known Leviticus 18:20 and 20:13, where "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman" is in reality describing ritual impurity for Jews. None of these was cited by early Christians against homosexual behavior. Early Christians had no desire to impose the levitical law on themselves or anyone else. Most nonJewish Christians were in fact appalled by most of the Jewish laws and were not about to put themselves under what they considered the bondage of the old law. St. Paul says again and again that we must not fall back on the bondage of the old law and in fact goes so far as to claim that if we are circumcised (the cornerstone of the old law), Christ will profit us nothing. The early Christians were not to bind themselves to the strictures of the old law. The Council of Jerusalem, held around 50 A.D. and recorded in Acts 15, in fact took up this issue specifically and decided that Christians would not be bound by any of the strictures of the old law except for which they list - none of which is related to homosexuality!

In the New Testament we find no citations of Old Testament strictures. We do find three places, I Corinthians 6:9, I Timothy 1:10 and Romans 1:2627, which might be relevant. The Greek word malakos in I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1 :10, which Scholars in the 20th century have deemed to refer to some sort of homosexual behavior, was universally used by Christian writers to refer to masturbation until about the 15th or 16th century. Beginning in the 15th century many people were bothered by the idea that masturbators were excluded from the kingdom of heaven. They did not however seem to be too upset by the idea of excluding homosexuals, so malakos was retranslated to refer to homosexuality instead of masturbation. The texts and words remained the same, but translators just changed their ideas about who should be excluded from the kingdom of heaven.

The remaining passage - Romans 1:26-7 - does not suffer by and large from mistranslation, although you can easily be misled by the phrase "against nature." This phrase was also interpreted differently by the early church. St. John Chrysostom says that St. Paul deprives the people he is discussing of any excuse. Observing of their women that "they changed the natural use. No one can claim, Paul points out, that she came to this because she was precluded from lawful intercourse or that because she was unable to satisfy her desire....Only those possessing something can change it. He points the same thing out about men but in a different way? saying they 'left the natural use of women.' Likewise, he casts aside with these words every excuse, charging that they not only had legitimate enjoyment and abandoned it, going after another but that by spurning the natural, they pursued the unnatural." What Chrysostom is getting at, and he expounds on it at great length, is the idea that St. Paul was not writing about gay people but about heterosexual people, probably married who abandoned the pleasure they were entitled to by virtue of their own natures for one to which they were not entitled. This is reflected in the canons imposing penances for homosexual activity, which through the 16th century were chiefly directed toward married persons. That is a married straight man having sex with another man. Little is said of single people.

The most significant element of the passage is it introduced into Christian thought the notion that homosexual relations were "against nature." What Paul seems to have meant was 'unusual' not 'against' natural law as it is so often interpreted. The concept of natural law was not fully developed until almost 1,200 years later. All that Paul meant to say was that it was unusual that people should have this sort of sexual desire. This is made clear by the fact that in the same epistle in the 11th chapter, God Himself is in fact described as acting "against nature" in saving the Gentiles. It is therefore inconceivable that this phrase connotes moral turpitude.

Why doesn't the New Testament indicate something about the attitude of early Christians toward homosexuality? In the New Testament Jesus, St. Paul, and the other writers are responding to questions regarding social and moral problems posed to them by a predominantly heterosexual society. People asked them questions about divorce, widows, property, etc. and they answered these questions. Jesus does not appear to be giving detailed guidelines on all aspects of human life, but rather to be offering general principles. There is almost no comment anywhere in the Bible about loving your children; there are few comments about friendship; and there is not a single comment about what we know as "romantic love," although this is the basis of modern Christian marriage.

Todays primary reasoning for hostility toward homosexuality is the general opposition to non-procreative sexuality. Early Christians were hostile toward any form of sexuality which was not potentially procreative. This cannot, however, be shown to stem from Christian principles. There is not a word within the Old Testament or the New about non-procreative sexuality among married persons, most Jewish commentators have agreed that anything was licit between husband and wife. It is a well established principle that there is a classrelated prejudice against non-procreative sexual acts among lower class Christians as among any lower class group of society. The theologians explicit rejection of all non-procreative sexuality, does not relate directly toward gay people. The theologians of the early church were attempting to impress on all Christians that they had to see every act of heterosexual intercourse as the potential creation of a child. No effective means of birth control was known (except for abstinence), not even the rhythm method. The only way to avoid having children was to kill or abandon them. Theologians therefore wished to persuade Christian parents that they had to be responsible for the creation of a child every time they had sexual pleasure. The only other alternatives in their world were morally unacceptable. Now the original aim of this approach, it appears, was to protect children. It was not to attack homosexuality. It was a very long time before this notion spilled over into homosexuality, but it eventually did.

As late as the eleventh and twelfth centuries, there appears to be no conflict between a Christian life and homosexuality. Gay life is everywhere in the art, poetry, music, history, etc. of the 11th and 12th centuries. The most popular literature of the day is about samesex lovers of one sort or another. Clerics were at the forefront of this revival of the gay culture. St. Aelred, for instance, writes of his youth as a time when he thought of nothing but loving and being loved by men. He became a Cistercian abbot, and incorporated his love for men into his Christian life by encouraging monks to love each other, not just generally, but individually and passionately. He cited the example of Jesus and St. John as guidance for this. 'Jesus himself," he said, "in everything like us, patient and compassionate with others in every matter, Transfigured this sort of love through the expression of his own love. For he allowed only one - not all- to recline on his breast as a sign of his special love; and the closer they were, the more copiously did the secrets of their heavenly marriage impart the sweet smell of their spiritual chrism to their love."

After the twelfth century Christian tolerance and acceptance of gay love seems to disappear quite rapidity. The writings of St. Aelred disappeared because they were locked up and forgotten. Beginning about 1150, for unknown reasons, there was a great upsurge of intolerance towards gay people and violent outbursts against Jews, Muslims, and witches. Women were suddenly excluded from power structures to which they had previously had access. There was suspicion of everyone. In 1180 the Jews were expelled from France.

The change was rapid. In England in the 12th century there were no laws against Jews and they occupied prominent positions, but by the end of the 13th century, sleeping with a Jew was equated with sleeping with an animal or with murder, and in France Jews were to be killed on the spot if they questioned the Christian faith. During this time there were many diatribes against gay people as well, suggesting that they molest children, violate natural law, are bestial and bring harm to nations which tolerate them. Within a single century between the period of 1250 and 1350, almost every European state passed civil laws demanding death for a single homosexual act. This reaction affected Christian theology a great deal. Throughout the 12th century homosexual relations had at worst been comparable to heterosexual fornication by married people and at best not sinful at all. During the 13th century writers like Thomas Aquinas portray homosexuality as one of the very worst sins, second only to murder.

St. Thomas tried to show that homosexuality was opposed to nature in some way, the most familiar objection being that nature created sexuality for procreation and using it for any other purpose would violate nature. Aquinas was much too smart for this argument and tried other reasoning. In the Summa Contra Gentiles he asks, "Is it sinful to walk on your hands when nature intended them for something else?" No, indeed it is not sinful" so he shifted ground. This is obviously not the reason that homosexuality is sinful; he looks for another. First he tried arguing that homosexuality must be sinful because it impedes the reproduction of the human race. But this argument also failed for Aquinas noted in the Summa Theologica, "a duty may be of two sorts: it may be enjoined on the individual as a duty which cannot be ignored without sin, or it may be enjoined upon a group. In the latter cases no one individual is obligated to fulfill the duty. The commandment regarding procreation applies to the human race as a whole! Which is obligated to increase physically. It is therefore sufficient for the race if some people undertake to reproduce physically." Aquinas admitted in the Summa Theologica that homosexuality was absolutely natural to certain individuals and therefore inculpable. In what sense, then, could he argue that it was unnatural? He concedes that the term "natural" in fact has no moral significance, but it is simply a term applied to things which are strongly disapproved of. "Homosexuality," he says, "is called 'the unnatural vice' by the common people, and hence it may be said to be unnatural." This was not an invention of Aquinas'. It was a response to popular prejudices of the time. It did not derive its authority from the Bible or from any previous tradition of Christian morality, but it eventually became part of Catholic theological thought. These attitudes have remained basically unchanged because there has been no popular support for change in the matter. The public has continued to feel hostility to gay people and the church has been under no pressure to reexamine the origins of its teachings on homosexuality.

It is possible to change ecclesiastical attitudes toward gay people and their sexuality because the objections to homosexuality are not biblical, they are not consistent, they are not part of Jesus' teaching; and they are not even fundamentally Christian. It is possible because Christianity was indifferent, if not accepting, of gay people and their feelings for a longer period of time than it had been hostile to them. It is possible because the founders of the religion specifically considered love to transcend accidents of biology and to be the end, not the means. It may not be possible to eradicate intolerance from secular society, for intolerance is, to some extent ineradicable; but the church's attitude can and must be changed. It has been different in the past and it can be again. Plato observed of secular society nearly 2,400 years ago that "wherever it has been established that it is shameful to be involved in homosexual relationships, this is due to evil on the part of the legislatures, to despotism on the part of the rulers and to cowardism on the part of the governed."

There is an abundance of ecclesiastical precedent to encourage the church to adopt a more positive attitude. As a gay archbishop wrote in the 12th century, "it is not we who teach God how to love, but He who taught us. He made our natures full of love." A contemporary of his wrote, "Love is not a crime. If it were wrong to love, God would not have bound even the divine to love." These statements came from the Christian community, from Christian faith. That community can and must be reminded of its former beliefs, its former acceptance.

HISTORY OF BEER AND THE CHURCH

2007-02-23T18:29:00.000-08:00

Did beer beget bread, or did bread beget beer? They arrived at about the same time but the cultivation of grain stabilized previously nomadic peoples and was essential to the development of civilization. And would one day enrich the Catholic Church in the process. Life was not easy in the 'old days'. Water wasn't always potable, so low-alcohol beers became the drink of choice; the low alcohol content killed any pathogens. It was safer to drink the beer than the water! People worked hard and lived on poor diets. Beer provided calories, B vitamins, and some respite at the end of a hard day of labor.

The two main grains were barley and a kind of wheat known as "emmer". The original first beers made from raw grain were very low in alcohol. A big step ahead came (around 3,000 B.C.) when the brewers in Mesopotamia accidentally learned to turn barley into malt.Raw grain was wetted then left to dry in the sun. The grain would swell in anticipating of sprouting, then it was dried while it still retained its rich sugar and starches. Now the fermented beverages made were much higher in alcohol.

Early brewers knew nothing of yeast; they did know that when they made beer, the deposits from previous brews left in their clay pots would turn the liquid into alcohol. Wild yeasts also contributed. Hops weren't used at this time as the plant was not known. The brewers made "beer bread" by pouring heated water over bread, which was filtered and left to ferment spontaneously.

The Egyptians used all malted grain and produced only dark beers. Brewing in this ancient culture was not a sideline, but a major industry; pharaohs gave their favorite subjects tens of thousands of litres of free beer. The Islamic invasion of the 8th century ended the practices of brewing in Egypt, the Koran forbade the use of alcohol. No wonder they're so crabby.

But word was out. The Phoenicians had taken brewing techniques to other countries, Bohemia, Bavaria, and the land of the Celts. The conquering Romans were still partial to wines but grapes were finicky to cultivate in many parts of Europe. Grains would grow widely, and when Roman troops ran out of wine, they gladly turned to the local beers to quench their thirst.

The skill of brewers came to exceed that of winemakers. Cooperage - making storage casks out of wood - allowed brewers to store their beer in large, air tight containers. In 21 AD Greeks and Romans noted seeing wooden "pithoi" in northern Europe, during a time when they were still putting their wine in clay vessels. "The Celts are fine coopers" it is noted "their casks are as large as houses." In Britain, the Celts made a beer called 'curmi' and also made hard cider and mead from honey.

Brewing was originally in the domain of the woman of the house as was bread-making, which utilized the same ingredients. A good ale wife was held in high esteem. Men often married, not based on a woman's good looks or dowry, but on her ability to brew good ale. Over time, the best ale wives became so celebrated amongst their community that people would go to their houses to drink, and then to buy, their good ale.

Nordic peoples called their beer ol or ealu, from which comes the term "ale". Another Saxon term for beer was woet, which survives today as wort, the sweet malt liquid that is fermented into beer. For centuries, ale meant a fermented barley-water flavored with herbs, spices and other plants--but not hops.Beer, from the German word bier, came much later and was ale used with hops. Utilizing hops in beer was very unpopular with some brewers and countries. Hops have a natural anti-bacterial effect and allow beer to be stored longer and be transported over long distances without spoiling. In the early 1500's Flemish traders brought the hop to England, where some brewers welcomed it, and some condemned it as "causing unhealthy conditions in the body". Eventually brewers realized the benefits to storage and flavor that hops provided and now virtually all commercial beers utilize hops.

In early Europe a small commercial brewing movement started and spread, basically based on inns and taverns where the owners brewed. These brewers soon found a major competitor - the Christian church. The archbishops and clerics being the money mongering beasts they were stepped in to 'cure the excesses' of the Anglo-Saxons and to corner the market in ale. Ale was brewed for the monks and was for a time considered 'liquid bread' - you could fast but not break your fast by drinking ale! Holy men always find a way around the good book. The Benedictines were the largest brewers, but in medieval Germany there were as many as 400 to 500 monastic breweries. And remember these guys were responsible for translating the bible, the reason so much has been misinterpreted, perhaps?

Beer making was big business for the monasteries for centuries. Monastic brewhouses were generally located near moving bodies of water, where grain mills were set up powered by the water. Many old type brewhouses from the 13th and 14th centuries were still intact until destroyed by the bombs of WWII.

In the Middle Ages brewers didn't understand the phenomena of brewing. They mixed the ingredients and somehow it turned into beer. Nobody questioned why or how it happened, they were just thankful that it did. Since they knew so little about the process, there was a great chance that something might go wrong along the way. In Europe during the middle ages, with the influence that the Catholic Church had on life in those days, there could only be two possible explanations for the phenomena of brewing beer, Devine Intervention or Demonic Intervention.

In the Middle ages when people could not explain something it was considered to be the work of the Devil. However people liked beer. Not only was it tasty and intoxicating, it was also much safer to drink than water. Nothing resembling sanitation had been invented yet and most towns and villages had poisonous if not toxic water supplies. People were encouraged to drink beer in lieu of water. St. Arnold actually earned his sainthood because of this. Beer was good. Fermentation was considered a miracle. Beer brought in moola!

Problem was when you don't understand the fermentation process sometimes a batch of beer wouldn't turn out right. The possibility of something going wrong was very high. In the minds of our Mid-Evil progenitors, a bad batch of beer meant the Devil got is dirty hands into the brew kettle and interfered with God's miracle and profits. Hmm, wonder if our word profit comes from prophet.

There were several practices employed to control or avoid the intervention of the devil. The posting of Christian icons in the brew house was a common practice. Even today, in most Belgian brew houses you can find a crucifix or a statue of a Saint. Other symbols used were the six-pointed star or the sign of Solomon. Another common practice was to stick to certain rituals, like reciting ritual phrases at certain specific moments, or to try to do everything exactly the same way.

The most certain way to avoid demonic interference in the brewing process was to have the local priest preside over the brewing. Of course, a priest's time was very valuable in those days. There were lots of demons running around the countryside, towns and villages meddling with the lives of peasants and nobles alike. So the priest had to be paid. Normal compensation for a priest was four pints of beer per blessing. The blessing of the beer was a service known as "The Right of Signage."

Some priests were a bit crooked and began blackmailing breweries, demanding greater payment for their service. To control these excesses, local rulers created laws that defined how much would be paid to priests for their blessing. To keep the clergy happy, they also created rules that required that breweries have this blessing for every batch of beer they produced. This was an early and effective form of taxation. The law created and enforced by the ruler insured that the Church would continue to support that leader's divine right to rule.

Not long after the laws were created requiring payment to the Church, the Church decided that it really wasn't necessary for a priest to be present at the time of brewing. As long as payments were made on time, the church would bless the brewery from afar, so convenient. It was now a tax and not a ritual, a fee and not a rite, a levy and not service. But the money kept pouring in! Greedy bastards.

Monastic brewing thrived until Henry VIII destroyed the monasteries of England in his contempt for the Roman Catholic Church. The beginning of the decline of the monastic breweries was the beginning of the rise of commercial brewers.

When the French Revolution spread through Europe at the end of the 18th century, and Europe finally started to truly revolt against such ancient ways of thinking, this practice of local priests getting paid a compensation for each batch of beer halted. The blessing of the brew kettles was soon replaced by the placing of candles before the statue of a Saint or by the posting of a crucifix in the brew-house.

It is said the Pilgrims landed earlier than scheduled as they needed to brew more beer and so landed at Plymouth Rock instead of further south. In the early Dutch and English colonies beer was very important to the settlers. There were more taverns than churches. Church services were often held in taverns. Records from the early English colonies show that most colonists preferred to go drinking at taverns on Sunday instead of Church. As a result laws had to be enacted to reverse this trend!

In the 19th century, science made such progress that the brewing process and the function of the yeast was fully understood. From then on, the priest had to pay for his beer. Unless, of course he was a monk and was living in a beer-brewing Abbey.

TESLA'S FREE ENERGY SUPPRESSION

2007-02-19T09:45:00.000-08:00

Free energy suppression is a conspiracy theory claiming that certain special interest groups are suppressing, or have suppressed in the past, technologies that would or could provide energy at reduced costs, reduced pollution output, or would or could reduce the energy consumption of various devices. Groups most often implicated in such activity are the oil industry, petroleum, national governments and, additionally, automakers. The most common perceived motive is preservation of the economic status quo and sustained increase of fuel prices. Dependence upon expensive energy is perpetuated by governments in order to control the populace by means of hydraulic despotism.

The principal belief is that electric companies, gas heating companies and oil companies would lose half or more of their profits with free energy available. Therefore, these companies donate millions to governments (bribing them) to make sure that free energy devices stay out of the public market. Tactics and means of suppression include buying the patent of the free energy device from the inventor or his family, suing the inventor or patent holder and even murdering the inventor in some cases.

Based on the principles of capitalism, free energy cannot be allowed. The traditional economic system contains three aspects: capital, goods and services. Within the aspects of capital are three subcomponents: currency, credit, and natural capital. Natural capital comprises raw material and energy. This differs considerably from the orthodox definition of capital in economics.

By reviewing history it is understandable why some inventions are not commercialized. It is economics, not science, that is the main factor. It will be remembered that alternating current was opposed by powerful financiers in Tesla's time. Westinghouse promoted his DC, Tesla his AC. Thankfully Tesla won that battle. Tesla is the key player in Free Energy Theories. Below is his proposal.

Tesla was fascinated by radiant energy and its free energy possibilities. He called the Crooke's radiometer, a device which has vanes that spin in a vacuum when exposed to radiant energy "a beautiful invention." He believed that it would become possible to harness energy directly by "connecting to the very wheel-work of nature." Tesla announced a plan for a "cosmic-ray motor" when asked if it was more powerful than the Crooke's radiometer, he answered, "thousands of times more powerful."

In 1901 Tesla Tesla believed that neutron particles were responsible for all radioactive reactions. Radiant matter is in tune with these neutron particles. Radiant matter is simply a re-transmitter of energy from one state to another.

Tesla's free-energy concept was patented in 1901 as an "Apparatus for the Utilization of Radiant Energy." The patent refers to "the sun, as well as other sources of radiant energy, like cosmic rays," that the device works at night is explained in terms of the night-time availability of cosmic rays. Tesla also refers to the ground as "a vast reservoir of negative electricity."

How his radiant energy receiver worked:
From the electric Potential that exists between the elevated plate (plus) and the ground (minus), energy builds up in the capacitor, and, after "a suitable time interval," the accumulated energy will "manifest itself in a powerful discharge" that can do work. The capacitor, says Tesla, should be "of considerable electrostatic capacity," and its dielectric made of "the best quality mica, for it has to withstand potentials that could rupture a weaker dielectric."

Tesla received two patents for this radiant energy device; U.S. Patent No. 685,957 - Apparatus for the Utilization of Radiant Energy and U.S. Patent No. 685,958 - Method of Utilizing Radiant Energy. Both these patents were filed on March 21, 1901 and granted on November 5, 1901. In these patents he explains:

The Earth's Electrostatic Charge
Tesla's intent was to condense the energy trapped between the earth and its upper atmosphere and to transform it into an electric current. He pictured the sun as an immense ball of electricity, positively charged with a potential of some 200 billion volts. The earth, on the other hand, is charged with negative electricity. The tremendous electrical force between these two bodies constituted, at least in part, what he called cosmic energy. It varied from night to day and from season to season but it is always present.

The positive particles are stopped at the ionosphere and between it and the negative charges in the ground, a distance of 60 miles, there is a large difference of voltage - something on the order of 360,000 volts. With the gases of the atmosphere acting as an insulator between these two opposite stores of electrical charges, the region between the ground and the edge of space traps a great deal of energy. Despite the large size of the planet, it is electrically like a capacitor which keeps positive and negative charges apart by using the air as a non-conducting material as an insulator.

The earth has a charge of 96,500 coulombs. With a potential of 360,000 volts, the earth constitutes a capacitor of .25 farads (farads = coulombs/volts). If the formula for calculating the energy stored in a capacitor (E =1/2CV2) is applied to the earth, it turns out that the ambient medium contains 1.6 x 1011 joules or 4.5 megawatt-hours of electrical energy. In order to utilize this high-voltage energy you must do two things -- make an energy sink and then devise a way of making the "sink" oscillate.

"Zero-Point Energy?"
Such a "sink" has to be at a lower energy state than the surrounding medium and, for the energy to continually flow into it, the energy must be continually pumped out. Additionally, this "sink" must maintain a lower energy state while meeting the power requirements of the load attached to it. Electrical energy, watt-seconds, is a product of volts x amps x seconds. Because the period of oscillation does not change, either voltage or current has to be the variable in this system's energy equation. Bifilar wound coils are used in the system because a bifilar wound coil maximizes the voltage difference between its turns, the current is then minimized.

Set into oscillation at its resonant frequency by an external power source. During the "zero-point" cycle the coil will appear as one plate of a capacitor. As voltage across the coil increases, the amount of charge it can siphon will increase. The energy that is taken into the coil through the small energy window (zero-point), appears to be the key to the success of this system. It is at this zero-point where energy is condensed into positive and negative. When energy escapes from the "sink" the magnetic field collapses and a strong magnetic quake is created.

The radiant energy system is a self-oscillating capacitive system. Very little power is expended keeping it going. A small amount of charge moves through the system per cycle, that is, the coulomb per seconds = amps are low. If the charge is used at a low rate, the energy stored in the system will be turned into heat at a slow rate enabling the oscillations to continue for a long period of time.

Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO MAGNETS," patent #512,340 is a very special coil design because, unlike an ordinary coil made by turning wire on a tube form, this one uses two wires laid next to each other on a form but with the end of the first one connected to the beginning of the second one. In this patent Tesla explains that the double coil will store many times the energy of a conventional coil. A bifilar coil is capable of holding more charge than a single wound coil. When operated at resonance, the distributed capacitance of the bifilar coil is able to overcome the counter - electromotive force (e.m.f.) normal to coils, inductive reactance. Because of the electrical activity, a bifilar coil does not work against itself and the potential across the coil quickly builds to a high value. The difference between the turns becomes great enough that the energy is practically all potential, at this point, the system becomes an electrostatic oscillator.

A standard coil of 1000 turns with a potential of 100 volts will have a difference of .1 volt between turns. A similar bifilar coil will have a potential of 50 volts between turns. Stored energy is a function of the square of the voltages the energy. That equates to 502/.12 = 2500/.01 = 250,000 times greater than the standard coil.

1932 Nikola Tesla stated:
I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive device...The attractive features of the cosmic rays is their constancy. They shower down on us throughout the whole 24 hours...it will not require devices for storing energy as would be necessary with devices using wind, tide or sunlight...They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light...the cosmic ray ionizes the air, setting free many charges ions and electrons. These charges are captured in a condenser which is made to discharge through the circuit of the motor.

1933 Device to Harness Cosmic Energy:
Tesla's first radiant energy receiver stored static electricity obtained from the air and converted it to a usable form. Tesla's invention is a simple version of T.H. Moray's device. Moray's device used a unique rectifier (RE-valve) to efficiently capture the static electricity from the surrounding air. Moray's oscillator tubes (magnetron transducers) utilized this high-voltage energy to generate an internal secondary "cold" fusion reaction. Stick an antenna up in the air, the higher the better, and wire it to one side of a capacitor, the other going to a good earth ground, and the potential difference will then charge the capacitor. Connect across the capacitor some sort of switching device so that it can be discharged at rhythmic intervals, and you have an oscillating electric output. T.H. Moray simply expanded on Tesla's idea to use high-voltage to create ionic oscillation. He is directly converting ionized particles generated by radiant matter. Radiant Energy is directly converted to electrical power! It is this transfer of energy that could be used for practical purposes.

Tesla was once a household word, sixty or seventy years ago. Why were his acheivements virtually stricken from history almost the day after his death. What did Tesla discover which threatened the powers that be? Since we already know about the many patented inventions, the assumption has always been that the unknown, still classified works were far in advance of the published ones, and were in realization of projects about which Tesla had announced he was working on, or had already tested and developed, but had not yet given to the world.

There have been countless speculations as to what Tesla's most secret discoveries were. At the time of his death, there were in all, the approximate equivalent of a railroad boxcar load of Tesla materials confiscated by the FBI, from around four different storage locations and Tesla's hotel storage and hotel room and safe. Of this, a total of only about 150,000 documents were released to Tesla's Yugoslavian relatives, now held by the Tesla Institute in Belgrade. The remainder of Tesla's papers are still classified, literally tons of notes, documents, drawings, and plans. The government distributed false rumors that "Tesla never kept notes", which was a blatant lie.

Odd behaviour given Tesla's repeatedly unsuccessful efforts to get the attention of the war department, met with ignorance and shoddy treatment. It was not until after it came to their attention in 1942, that the Nazis were building flying saucers and other 'fantasy' weapons based on Tesla's inventions, that the U. S. Government became so concerned. So why hide something from the American public today which the Nazis stole before 1934? In the case of (flying saucer) electro-propulsion, this invention is not only classified, but the very existence of it is categorically denied by the government, while its covert agents in the UFOlogy community attribute it to extraterrestrial, "alien" origins. What better way to deter civilian scientific investigation into the obvious?

BRUNO - THE FORGOTTEN HERETIC

2007-02-18T09:47:00.000-08:00

Giordano Bruno (1548-1600)

Before Galileo there was Filippo Bruno, born in 1548. He took the name Giordano upon entering the Dominican order. Bruno was instructed in Aristotelian philosophy. His exceptional expertise in the art of memory brought him to the attention of patrons, and he was brought to Rome to demonstrate his abilities to the Pope. Bruno was also drawn, fatally, to new dangerous streams of thought.

He attracted attention by the originality of his views and by his outspoken criticism of accepted theological doctrines. After his ordination his ideas brought a formal accusation of heresy. He fled to Rome but did not mend his manner on the mysteries of faith; for the accusations were renewed against him. Within a few months of his arrival he fled the city and cast off all allegiance to his order. He was a man without a country and finally without a church.

He wandered from country to country ending up in Geneva, where he adopted the Calvinist faith. But years later, before the ecclesiastical tribunal at Venice, he steadfastly denied that he had ever joined the Reformed Church. He was excommunicated by the Calvinist Council on account of his disrespectful attitude towards the heads of that Church and was obliged to leave the city.

In Paris he published several works on the art of memory-training. Bruno had made a reputation for himself as a magician who could inspire greater memory retention. That reputation reached King Henry III who was curious to find out if Bruno's art was that of magician or sorcerer. Bruno satisfied the king that his system was based upon organized knowledge. Bruno found a real patron in Henry Ill and it had much to do with the success of his short career in Paris. He wrote that Christianity is entirely irrational, that it is contrary to philosophy and that it disagrees with other religions. And that we accept it through faith, that revelation, so called, has no scientific basis.

He crossed over to England and enjoyed the favour of Queen Elizabeth. He objected to Oxford's blind scholastic reverence to the authority of Aristotle. He published his "Ash-Wednesday Supper", in which he attacked the Oxford professors, saying that they knew more about beer than about Greek. The book also spread the Copernican doctrine. A new astronomy that people were laughing at heartily, because it was at variance with the teachings of Aristotle. It was not the methods of Aristotle nor the mind of Aristotle which he questioned, it was the authority granted Aristotle. A thing must be believed because Aristotle said so. He objected to the cramming down one's throat, as statements of fact because Aristotle made them, when they were plainly at odds with the fresh knowledge science was producing. Bruno was carrying on a spirited propaganda war in a fighting mood. There was hardly a teacher in Europe who persistently, openly and actively spread the news about the universe which Copernicus had charted, except Bruno. A little later on, a more famous character was to take up the work: Galileo.

He returned to France and made several attempts to reconcile with the Catholic Church, all of which failed because of his refusal to accept the condition imposed, namely, that he should return to his order. In Germany, he showed the same spirit of insolent self-assertion and was excommunicated by the Lutherans. He wrote of an infinite universe which left no room for that greater infinite conception which is called God. He could not conceive that God and nature could be separate and distinct entities as taught by Genesis, the Church and by Aristotle. He preached a philosophy which made the mysteries of the virginity of Mary, the crucifixion and the mass, meaningless. He was so naive that he didn't think these ideas were heretical. He thought the Bible was a book only the ignorant could take literally. The Church's methods encouraged ignorance from the instinct of self-preservation. "Everything, however men may deem it assured and evident, proves, when it is brought under discussion to be no less doubtful than are extravagant and absurd beliefs." He coined the phrase "Libertes philosophica" The right to think.

He moved to Venice at the invitation of Mocenigo, who professed to be interested in his system of memory-training. Failing to obtain from Bruno the secret of his "natural magic", Mocenigo denounced him to the Inquisition. Bruno was arrested, and in his trial before the Venetian inquisitors first took refuge in the principle of "two-fold truth", saying that the errors imputed to him were held by him "as a philosopher, and not as an honest Christian"; later, however, he solemnly abjured all his errors and doubts in the matter of Catholic doctrine and practice. At this point the Roman Inquisition intervened and requested his extradition.

Bruno was sent to Rome, and for six years was kept in the prison of the Inquisition. After he had been granted several terms of respite in which to retract his errors, he refused and was finally condemned to death by burning. Bruno answered the sentence of death by fire with the threatening: "Perhaps you, my judges, pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it." He was given eight more days to see whether he would repent. But it was no use. He was handed over to the secular power, and burned at the stake. As he was dying a crucifix was presented to him, but he pushed it away with fierce scorn.

Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, and that the Devil would one day be saved. Martyred for his enthusiasm.

In the latter part of the 19th Century Italian scholars began to be intrigued with Bruno and for a while "Bruno Mania" reigned. Bruno became a symbol to represent the forward-looking free-thinking type of philosopher and scientist, and a symbol of scientific martyrdom. Bruno was a pioneer who roused Europe from its long intellectual sleep. His life was important because he is in the direct line of modern progress. He has become the Church's most difficult alibi. She can explain away the case of Galileo with suave condescension. Bruno sticks in her throat.

**************
Thanks to blog reader Steve, Hollywood Hills, CA for bringing Bruno to my attention.

GALILEO VS URBAN

2007-02-17T10:03:00.000-08:00

Galileo's belief in the Copernican System eventually got him into trouble with the Catholic Church. The Inquisition was a permanent institution and charged with the eradication of heresies.

His book The Dialog was not the first to suggest the Earth revolves around the sun, Copernicus' view had been published in 1543. A committee of consultants declared to the Inquisition that the Copernican proposition that the Sun is the center of the universe was a heresy (sort of). The church realized the danger of such teachings and issued a injunction to teaching his theory. In 1624 Galileo is at his height of fame as a mathematician and writer under the patronage of the Medici family. A new pope, Urban is in office and is open to new ideas, seeking to advance church teachings in the sciences. Urban would consult personally with Galileo frequently. Galileo complains to Urban that the catholic Church's edict against Copernicus is holding back scientific advancement. A credibility gap is building between Italy and the rest of Europe. Rome will be left behind. Urban agrees.

Galileo suggests being allowed to write a book on the subject, sharing his insights gained from observations with his recent invention, the telescope. He suggests to Urban that Copernicus may have been right. Urban gets upset, not with the theory per se, but that Galileo is claiming proof, which denies the faith and church teachings. Urban lectures and warns him "There can be no ultimate proof of God's design". He suggests that Galileo could write about it as long as it is hypothetical and offers no suggestion of proof.

Urban gives his blessing and even suggests the book be about the two chief systems of the world. Galileo hears the blessing but misses the veiled warning. His solution is genius, he devises his book around a dialogue between three characters. One supporting the church view, one the Copernican view, the other weighs each equally. But he can't deny the evidence and the book which takes seven years to write is heavily biased towards the Copernican.

In 1632 Urban is in a tight spot. The protestant reformation is encroaching on Catholic dominance. One cardinal, Borgia even suggests that Urban is a failure by not enforcing the church doctrine strongly enough and should be impeached! Meanwhile the book is eventually printed in Florence, far from Rome. He was supposed to provide a copy to Rome before printing but the plague is raging and nothing has been sent anywhere by anyone for a long time. His is given a rubber stamp approval by the local inquisition. The most explosive book in 500 years is about to hit the streets. The book sells out in 5 days. When it finally reaches Rome, there is outrage amongst his advisers, the character that supports the church is named Simplicio and made to look foolish and is obviously modeled after Urban himself. Urban's blood boils! Urban is trying desperately to improve his image and can't be seen as supporting heretical texts. Urban demands the book and its author be held for trial on heresy.

This is where it gets good. Medici sends his top lawyer to Rome to try to get Urban to reconsider and drop the charges. But Urban has been humiliated and wants blood. Urban blames Galileo's problems on Galileo, lambasting the lawyer and asking why would Galileo write about the one subject guaranteed to land him in jail, the one subject he personally warned him about and the one subject that would "stir things up for me!" The lawyer points out that Galileo did get the approval of the inquisition. Urban doesn't care. Now it's personal.

Urban insists Galileo will be tried for heresy. Only one problem. The edict against Copernicus has a major loophole as it doesn't actually contain the word heretical. It almost lets Galileo off the hook. Urban is blinded by revenge, Galileo will be tried for heresy, for something that technically isn't heretical. Politics! This of course being before the papacy declared itself infallible.

Day one of the trial and they have a big problem. As the book is not technically heretical they can't convict him of heresy. It concludes with orders that the book be reexamined. The court is in recess. The prosecutor tries to convince Galileo to give up the fight. Galileo seems to accept his fate.

Day two finds Galileo fighting back. He admits his error. He suggests he accidentally appeared to support Copernicus by being too clever in his arguments. Not that he personally supports Copernicus. He was only guilty of showing off. It's not the confession the court needs. The court is again dismissed with the church at a loss on how to proceed.

Day three and Galileo launches a surprise tactic. He produces the injunction given him 16 years ago that ordered him not to support Copernicus. He points out that is does not contain the phrase "nor teach in any way whatsoever". He says he took that as permission to discuss the idea hypothetically (of course). He feels he has won, but only manages to put the church in a corner. Urban wants the trial over. Galileo is to confess and retract by whatever means, including torture. "We should not be squeamish in such important matters!"

Day four and the churches intentions are clear. Galileo knows the horrors that await if he refuses. So he 'confesses': "I was once undecided but now...persuaded by the wisdom of the authorities...I hold as most true and indisputable, the stability of the earth and the motion of the sun."

The church has won. Galileo is sentenced to be held indefinitely, as the pleasure of the holy office sees fit.

Yet the earth still turns, he knew it, and they knew it.

It would take 359 years for the church under John Paul II to formally rehabilitate Galileo and admit their error.

ABSURDITIES IN GENESIS & EXODUS

2007-02-16T16:17:00.000-08:00

ABSURDITIES IN GENESIS

Just pointing out a few of the many perplexing and absurd things the bible has to say. If this doesn't interest you at least read the last one..Devine Mooning.

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). 1:3-5

God makes the animals and parades them before Adam to see if any would strike his fancy. But none seem to have what it takes to please him. (Although he was tempted to go for the sheep.) After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while. 2:18-20

Cain is worried after killing Abel and says, "Every one who finds me shall slay me." This is a strange concern since there were only two other humans alive at the time -- his parents! 4:14

"And Cain knew his wife." That's nice, but where the hell did she come from? 4:17

God created a man and a woman, and he "called their name Adam." So the woman's name was Adam, too! 5:2

Noah is called a "just man and perfect," but he didn't seem so perfect when he was drunk and naked in front of his sons (9:20-21). 6:9, 7:1

Noah is told to make an ark that is 450 feet long. 6:14-15 God tells Noah to make one small window (18 inches square) in the 450 foot ark for ventilation. 6:16

Noah sends a dove out to see if there was any dry land. But the dove returns without finding any. Then, just seven days later, the dove goes out again and returns with an olive leaf. But how could an olive tree survive the flood? And if any seeds happened to survive, they certainly wouldn't germinate and grow leaves within a seven day period. 8:8-11

Lot and his daughters camp out in a cave for a while. The daughters get their "just and righteous" father drunk, and have sexual intercourse with him, and each conceives and bears a son (wouldn't you know it!). Just another wholesome family values Bible story. 19:30-38

And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east: 12:8 ....

Jacob names Bethel for the first time, before meeting Rachel. 28:19 Later in 35:15, just before Rachel dies, he names Bethel again. (And it was called Bethel long before it was named Bethel in 12:8 and 13:3.) ....

Jacob names Bethel again. The first time 28:19 the name didn't stick. 35:15

ABSURDITIES IN EXODUS

The Israelite population went from 70 (or 75) to several million in a few hundred years. 1:5,7, 12:37, 38:26

In complaining about his difficulty with public speaking, Moses says, "Behold I am of uncircumcised lips." 6:12, 6:30

God tells Moses and Aaron that when Pharaoh asks for a miracle just throw your rod down and it will become a serpent. So when the time comes, Moses throws down his rod and it becomes a serpent. But the Egyptian magicians duplicate this trick. Luckily, for Aaron, his snake swallows theirs. (Whew!) 7:9-13

If an ox gores someone, "then the ox shall surely be stoned." 21:28 If an ox gores someone due to the negligence of its owner, then "the ox shall be stoned, and his owner shall be put to death.". 21:29

The Divine Mooning
33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

That's enough bizzare goings on for me. People really buy into this stuff. Hmm...

HIGH TIMES OF MARIJUANA HISTORY

2007-02-10T12:28:00.000-08:00

Primitive man, trying all sorts of plant materials as food, must have known the ecstatic hallucinatory effects of Hemp, an intoxication introducing him to an other-worldly plant leading to religious beliefs. The original use of this plant in China was as a fiber plant, hemp. That usage now is documented back to 10,000 B.C. in Taiwan, where archaeologists have unearthed broken pieces of pottery having hemp fiber patterns and rod-shaped tools for beating the stems to obtain net fiber. The Chinese would take the soft fibers and use them for fishing nets, clothing, shoes, sails, and, eventually, writing materials (oldest known rag paper 180 B.C.). The seeds were eaten, being rich in triglycerides (oils).

Ethnobotanists have suggested that Cannabis grew as a robust weed on rich, nitrogenous dump heaps, where villagers put the remains of fishes. This presumably led to the discovery of hemp as a fiber and a food plant, and to its deliberate cultivation by 4000 B.C. Oldest Chinese reference to hemp (ma) occurs in Shu King (2350 B.C.) and Rh-Ya on oldest shamanistic uses (15th Century B.C.), whereas the oldest fragments of spun and woven hemp fabric are only from burial sites of the Chou dynasty (1122-249 B.C.). Ancient China was labeled "the land of mulberry and hemp" because people wore silk imprinted with mulberry leaves and hemp. However, silk was very expensive and worn only by the wealthy. People in eastern Asia adopted this as a medicinal plant (2737 B.C. in a Chinese herbal reference written by Pen T'sao Ching), cannabis seeds were a major pseudocereal in China. At times during Chinese history, wars were waged between land barons over the crop, fought by warriors with bows strung with hemp string. At least one author called this the "first agricultural war crop," and land barons devoted large parcels to grow hemp, so that each canton could be economically independent. Cannabis was brought into cultivation in southwestern Asia for its intoxicating properties, perhaps independently from its medical uses by the Chinese.

In Japan, hemp (asa) was used to make fishing nets, clothing, and mats. Hemp cloth was worn during religious and formal ceremonies to signify purity, and hemp was give to brides as a symbol of the wife's obedience to her husband.

The narcotic use developed in ancient India, where Cannabis was brought by the god Siva from the Himalayas for use and enjoyment. In India, there are three standards of potency: bhang, mostly the U.S. equivalent of marijuana, which includes leaves, fruits, and stems; ganja, prepared from flowering tips (female flowers and upper leaves); and charas, pure, golden resin. The resin was formerly collected by charas, men wearing leather clothes would run through the hemp fields from which the resin could be easily scraped off with a curved spatula. Siva, Lord of Bhang, drank bhang, a mild, boiled liquid refreshment from leaves of Cannabis mixed with almonds, eight spices, rosebuds, milk, poppy seeds, and sugar. Bhang was used like alcohol. Ganja or hashish is sometimes collected by thrashing flowering tops against smooth rock or concrete walls, where the resin and plant particles will stick and can be scraped into bricks. Both bhang and ganja were used during war.

Especially famous was the use of Cannabis by Gobind Singh, founder of the Sikh religion; his soldiers became intoxicated with bhang and opium, and were so stoned and frenzied that they killed attacking elephants and overpowered a superior enemy. Anniversaries of Singh's victory are commemorated with bhang. In the Hindu texts, the Veda, the mind-altering effects of this plant were discussed.

From Herodotus we learned about the Scythians (7th or 6th Century B.C.) of central Siberia. These were expert horsemen and warriors who practiced cannabis intoxication using vapor baths as well as cures for sickness and burial rituals. Their descendants spread to eastern Europe, and are believed to have taken the plant with them. On Christmas Eve, Lithuanians may serve a hemp fruit soup (semienjatka) "for souls of the death," and in the Ukraine and Latvia similar rituals are observed on Three Kings Day.

Some scholars concluded that the "nepenthe" of Homer was Cannabis, but other feel that this is too early and that ancient Greeks knew nothing about the medicinal or intoxicating properties of Cannabis, although they used hemp cloth (450 B.C.) Dioscorides (d. 90 A.D.), in De materia medica, discussed the use of Cannabis for rope, sexual disorders, and earaches. Even as late as Rome, physicians Galen (130-200 A.D.) wrote that it was sometimes customary to give Hemp to guests to promote hilarity and enjoyment. Pliny the Elder (43-79 A.D.) who died a victim of the eruption of Vesuvius, said little about its medicinal uses.

Legends once stated that hashish was discovered by Haydar, founder of Persian Sufis, in 1155 A.D. when he ventured from the monastery on a hot summer day and returned with a happy, whimsical air. His Sufis monks were sworn to secrecy, and Haydar apparently remained stoned the rest of his life (d. 1221), hence the title "the wine of Haydar." Use of Cannabis as an intoxicant became firmly ingrained in the Near Eastern and Turkish, as well as Indian, cultures. The word sufis comes from suf, or wool. This sect wore clothes made more of wool than cotton and was condemned for imitating Jesus, not Mohammed (cotton).

Sufis were a contrast to orthodox Islam and had a mystical approach, including intoxication by drugs. These believers were a counterculture, like hippies, comprised mostly of lower and middle class disciples, living a bleak existence and physically withdrawn from society into their own communes. Sufis were blamed for the downfall of Islamic society and for spreading drug use. That sect attracted social outcasts and those looking for a cheap high relative to the costly high of alcohol.

Cannabis was also involved in the schisms occurring within Islam, following the death of Mohammed. Mohammed died without designating a religious heir (caliph). Islam split into Sunnis of Semitic origin and who wanted to elect the caliph, and Shiites, who insisted that only legitimate successors came from Ali, the husband of Mohammed's surviving daughter Fatima. Shiite Caliph Jafar-I-Sadiq caught his eldest son Ismail drinking wine, and from anger chose his younger son Musa to become the caliph. A small group of Ismail's loyalists went underground and started a new movement. Disciples of Ismail converted the Persian Al-Hasan ibn al-Sabbah, who ruled a mountain stronghold fighting the Persian sultan. He had 12,000 loyal soldiers. Legend has that this loyalty was obtained by offering recruits drugs and beautiful women "to minister to every need."

One legend states that the word "hashish" has another sinister side; according to this legend, Al-Hasan got his army of robbers to murder Christian crusaders and then rewarded them with hashish, hence, "hashishins," the murderers, became the origin of the word assassin.

Egypt was eventually another site of Cannabis history. Although "hashish user" became a derogatory term throughout Islam, signifying low class, problems developed by the 13th Century. In Cairo (1253), Egyptian Muslims ordered plants of Cannabis to be burned, but farmers simply moved outside the city to grow the crop. In 1324, the Egyptian army was used to destroy the crop in the countryside, but the hashish production survived. In 1378 the farmers fought troops to protect their crop and revenues; marshal law was instituted and traffickers were killed, but by 1393 a business of Cannabis was again thriving there. Hashish was eaten, and leaves were rolled into a ball and swallowed like a pill.

Arab traders were also responsible for spreading marijuana to other parts of Africa, where the plant was used by women during childbirth (an ancient custom) and to feed babies after weaning. Kafirs referred to this plant as dagga, which was used in beverages or chewed, but the colonial Dutch adapted this plant for smoking.

Henry VIII fostered the cultivation of Hemp in England. The maritime supremacy of England during Elizabethan times greatly increased the demand. Hashish was introduced into France by Napoleon's army from Egypt (1800), and was first used for treating the mentally ill before becoming popular with Parisians. Frenchmen, including a psychiatrist named Moreau de Tours and the artists Gautier and Boissard, experimented with hashish and started the Le Club des Haschichins, which lured others (Dumas, Delacroix, and Hugo) to try pot. Many felt that the drug improved artistic creativity.

Marijuana was intentionally introduced to North America in Jamestown (1611) as a fiber plant, used primarily for ropes, canvas sails and for paper to print Bibles, the Gutenberg Bible and many others were published on hemp paper; what would Rev. Falwell say about marijuana Bibles? In many states marijuana occasionally grows as a weed, spread by birds. Many famous documents, including early drafts of the Declaration of Independence and writings of Thomas Paine, were scribed on cannabis paper. Hemp farming was done by Thomas Jefferson and many other famous individuals of colonial times, our domestic hemp industry helped our ancestors become economically independent of Mother England, and hemp was at the center of debate between the North and the South in fights by Webster and Clay over tariffs.

In the United States the first marijuana laws were enacted in 1900, presumably because the liquor lobby did not want competition, even though from 1840-1900 more than 100 papers had been published in Western medical literature for using marijuana to treat various illnesses and discomforts. The League of Nations opposed the drug in 1925. The great blow to U.S. use of marijuana as a medicine came with the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which became law following a massive campaign by Harry Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, who accused marijuana to be an addictive drug, causing violent crimes, psychosis, and mental deterioration. The film Reefer Madness was part of that campaign. That law levied a tax of $1 per ounce for industrial or medical purposes and $100 per ounce for other uses, and tax evasion was punishable by stiff fines or prison terms. That legislation made marijuana a major financial liability for anyone dealing with the plant, and all legitimate uses of marijuana and hemp were essentially stopped economically.

FACTS & FIGURES
Cannabis is one of the few generic names that has become a common name in our culture, either as a subject of praise or damnation. The principal active compound is 3,4-trans-delta-1-tetrahydrocannabinol, also known as delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol or most commonly as THC, but in this plant there are 360 known compounds, of which more than 60 have the 21-carbon cannabinoid structure. Of these the cannabidiols are mildly active and believed to be the metabolic precursors of the tetrahydrocannabinols, and the cannabinols are thought to be deactivated forms of the THCs. The "ol" ending on these compounds tells you that these are alcohols, present on the leaves and in resin when produced mostly from special glandular hairs on the plant surface. The fruits, roots, and stems, have none of the psychoactive compounds.

Aside from its intoxicating human uses, THC was formerly used as a human and cow tranquilizer, and there are several synthetics, including Synhexyl, Nabilone, and Levonatradol. Marinol is the pharmaceutical name for THC. Recent research by neuroscientists has suggested that there are special receptors in the brain cerebral cortex that are stimulated by THC, although neural substrates are still not firmly established. As an hallucinogen, THC produces euphoria and highly modified sensual perceptions. The concentration of THC can range from 1-5%, and plants grown in North America from stock coming from Panama, Mexico, and, especially, Thailand frequently yield the highest values. A one-gram cigarette containing 10 mg of THC (1%) is considered psychoactive. Hashish resin may have up to 60% THC by weight. The fiber type of plants do not have THC concentrations that are effective enough to produce psychoactive responses (greater than 0.25%).

Botanists classify the northern plants, used for fiber and oil, as C. sativa, a plant that can grow very tall. Southern types including C. indica are densely branched plants about one meter tall and have high resin content. And C. ruderalis, a shorter form with few or no branches. Botanists treat it as one unstabilized species that has been under intense artificial selection for many centuries. Hemp, or marijuana, is a wind-pollinated annual or short-lived perennial. The height record for this plant is about 12 meters. Female plants are usually taller and stockier than male plants. The resin is produced around female flowers until the fruit is nearly mature. Marijuana is the form that comes from smoked dried and crushed leaves, whereas hashish, which is smoked or eaten, comes from the resin produced by the female flowers.

EVOLUTION OF GAY 'PERSONALS'

2007-02-09T17:01:00.000-08:00

This is one of the few 'personal' blogs I intend to write. I prefer writing about history and hypocrisy. But with this blog on the evolution of gay dating services. I can share with the younger generation the pathetic tools we had to work with before the dawn of computers and how we suffered thru the trials and tribulations of primitive technology. To show that they have it so easy these days compared to what we went thru. From hand-written letters & Polaroids to Instant Messaging we've come along way baby. It's a story better told in person but here goes...

MOVING ON UP...
I moved to Hollywood in 1978 after high school. I was finally on my own. Free of small town bigotry and family ties. I had a job that paid a whopping $4.00/hour. My rent for a large single was $160 a month. It was an exciting time to be gay and young, the gay movement was growing. I voted in my first election and we defeated Prop 6, the Briggs initiative that would have banned gay teachers. I was also too young to go to bars (although I did get a fake ID that I used from 19 to 21), the only place I could meet guys was Venice beach, I didn't have a car and the trip took 3 Buses to get there and was a weekend thing. I also frequented a few coffee shops in West Hollywood hoping someone would talk to me. I'd walk Hollywood Blvd listening to my blue wrist-strap Panasonic radio in knee high socks with stripes, white short shorts and blue Adidas sneakers. I was jamming.

MALE-ORDER BRIDES
One day I was reading the gay rags and saw an ad for a Introduction Service by mail. I quickly wrote out a check and eagerly checked the mail. About 3 weeks later I finally got my first 'package'. It was a regular sized business enveloped stuffed to bursting with about ten typewritten, mimeographed pages of gay male personals! For the younger set reading, mimeographs was the precursor to xerox copies. You typed on a sheet of paper with a special carbon sheet underneath. You attached that to a hand-cranked machine drum, added a clear chemical and turned the crank, pages were then reproduced in a very light blue. I can still remember that smell, it was very sweet smelling. My first experience with it was in middle school when I would go to math class early (teacher's pet) and he would let me run that days math quiz. The pages came out slightly wet and you had to let them dry first. I would fan them and sniff 'em. It didn't get you high or anything like that, just a pleasant smell.

I digress...there was about 25 listings per page, 3 lines per listing. First name, last initial, city, state. Most had phone numbers though some still in the closet used PO Boxes or mailing address. This was my first exposure to the 'coded shorthand' of gay lingo, SGWM (single gay white mail), it was very exciting and I would read them from start to finish over and over. All kinds of weird things I had never heard of, but was curious to explore. So after crossing off the bottoms, or the extremely weird kinky descriptions, I was disappointed that there weren't very many locals. Most were out of state.

PHONE SEX
So I embraced phone sex! I had one phone friend from the service that lasted for close to 15 years, and I'd call at least a couple times a week. Some of my best orgasms were with that man and the way he could role-play a sleazy scenario. A couple years later they rolled out the 976 sex lines. I could never figure out why someone would pay when I had been doing it for years for free, lol. I can remember having guys write to 'occupant'. Soon I got a couple letters in the mail, guys wanting to write dirty letters and such, and they sometimes had Polaroids. Now remember this is before computers, before VHS. The only access to pornography was magazines bought from a sleazy bookstore, 8mm films and the XXX theater. So it was very exciting at the time. I don't think I met more than 1 or 2 guys in person, WARNING: guys may be uglier than their descriptions!

MATCHMAKER MATCHMAKER FIND ME A MAN
The next evolution to hit the single scene were known as Introduction Services or Matchmakers. I signed up and went to some spiffed-up office space off Santa Monica Blvd. There you'd be handed a large binder with a single picture of available men. You would have to sign and leave a form of interest or some such nonsense and if the guy was interested the company would give him your telephone number. Not only was there nobody that thrilled me in those binders but it just felt weird to be sitting there with several other people doing the same thing. I'd hurry up and check the new guys and then hit the bars which were hopping in the late 70's early 80's pre-AIDS days.

VIDEO DATING...NOT!
Then came video dating. I didn't even have a desire to attempt that after the failure of picture books. So that one thankfully passed me by. But from the number of spoofs and jokes about video dating I figure it wasn't very promising. The trouble with picture and video services is you have to leave home, sit around with other strangers, and there's that nosey middleman involved in your personal business and peccadillos.

THE DIGITAL AGE..sort of
Finally around 1984 computers hit like a mack truck. They were way to expensive for me to have one. And besides there was no Internet, no email, no reason to have one, except for PORN! One day my lover at the time brought home an IBM-XT that his company was replacing in 1986. The IBM-XT for you youngens out there was primitive indeed. It had a green screen, no graphics, no sound and ran on DOS 1.0 and used 5.25" floppies, had only 64kB memory and a teenie tiny hard drive, 10 megs at the most. List price new $7,545.00! He also snagged an external phone modem at a super fast speed of 1200 baud.

BBS
I had read about guys meeting up on something called BBS (Bulletin Board Systems). Most of these were run by computer hobbyists and many were free. It allowed users to dial into the system over a phone modem and, using a terminal program, perform functions such as downloading software and data, reading news, and exchanging messages with other users. They would publish the number to dial and access codes and general area of interest. I signed up for a local gay BBS. It was completely menu driven. Enter 1 to go to bulletin board, 2 to see profiles, 3 to download software, etc. At first there was no simultaneous "chat" or "instant messages" but you did have a primitive email account with them, sort of...only worked internally, you had to log on and could only send to others on the same BBS. Later limited chatrooms came in and there was a new option, #9, the Internet! I had heard of it but at the time there was nothing really to do on it. Mostly download form FTP sights and you had to know the FTP address before hand in order to download the file. Today we have Web-Masters back then they were Sys-Ops.

JOYS OF DOWNLOADING
But you were able to download pictures from the email account that guys would send you, but at 1200 baud even small picture took a long time, I can remember hitting download, and then taking a shower, shaving, getting dressed, all before the download was complete! With great excitement you'd click open file, and more likely than not be very very disappointed. I'd get angry and scream having wasted 30-45 minutes downloading a non-porn pic! lol. And I couldn't even print out the pictures as all we had was a daisy-wheel printer. Again for the youngsters...a daisywheel was a pritner that had a round disk with the letters imprinted on them, it would spin and strike the appropriate letter on the paper (the paper too, wasn't single 8.5x11 it had to be computer paper, fan-folded and with track holes on the side). So it could only print words not pictures. To print italics, the printer would stop, beep, and tell you to swtich to the italic daisywheel, beep again, change back to normal. Dot-matrix would soon appear but wasn't much better, at least it didn't involve switching wheels, and was still black and white, red if you were lucky.

PRODIGY
It pretty much was like that until a nationwide campaign touted a service called Prodigy in 1990. Prodigy was a joint effort between IBM and Sears. Initially, Prodigy had hoped that its service would be much like today's Internet portals, offering news, weather, sports, shopping, banking, and airline reservations. The service provided many lifestyle features too: an array of popular syndicated columnists, Consumer Reports, games, in-depth original features called "Timely Topics," bulletin boards moderated by subject matter experts, and e-mail. Only catch was it required a graphic card. I went to Radio Shack and bought an expensive graphic card, although it was still only in green, but it did render graphics. After days of tinkering with switches, jumpers, config.sys and not having a clue what I was doing, I managed to somehow get it to work. The first time it booted up and I logged on to Prodigy, (which up till then I had only seen BBS's in text), and saw the cute Prodigy logo I screamed with joy! But again it was early in the game and still before the World Wide Web and no browsers. So I didn't make much use of it.

WE'RE NOT IN KANSAS ANYMORE...
One night I went to a party at a friends. I noticed they had a computer with COLOR graphics. Boy was I envious. I non-chalantly asked if they had upgraded from a previous video card, they had, and they gave me their old color graphic card for free! It was one of the happiest days of my life. I couldn't wait to go home and try it out. First though I had to again go to Radio Shack to by a color monitor. I finally got it all to work and was thrilled to see porn in color.

WINDOWS 3.1
I moved to San Francisco in 1993 and left that IBM behind. I bought a then top of the line 286 computer. More as a hobby to keep me busy. Window's 3.1 left you with plenty to tinker around with, whether by choice or not, lol. It was very temperamental and everything had to be just right or it wouldn't work. I spent a fortune upgrading graphic card after graphic card trying to improve performance. I soon signed up for AOL when they had less than 2 million subscribers. I still wasn't into the chat rooms and there wasn't any gay personal sites that I can remember at that time. So I used it mostly to email and/or IM and for research.

CABLE MODEM
Fast forward to 2000 and I moved to Palm Springs. My partner would spend hours online, we would have to take turns as we only had dialup, downloading porn, I never really got into it that much, but one day I asked him for his access code to a porn site. Now I understood what all the fuss was about, search your interest, your kink and voila, thousands of links to click. Soon I had a library of thousands, all sorted by type, age or kink! Went thru 2 or 3 desktops systems and In 2003 bought my first laptop and signed up for cable. I'll never know how we managed on dial-up. I know I can never go back.

THE PRESENT
A friend kept talking about Gay.com and I soon joined and am now hooked as it were. If nothing else they help to sort the men-from-the-boys (bottoms & tops). When I recognize someone from a site, I have a good memory for faces, so I know whether he's bottom, top or versatile and have saved countless hours cruising the wrong ones. I now belong to dozens of personals sites. Most a waste of time but I have made a few contacts (blush). And I have since bought a new laptop every year for xmas and give my partner my old one. We now have 2 desktops and 3 laptops! Amazing. My current one I specifically bought anticipating Vista and got the free upgrade. It is due to ship in March, I'll keep a detailed log on the installation of Vista, so check back in March to learn how it went.

FAITHS' PHALLIC FOUNDATION

2007-02-04T12:25:00.000-08:00

This article traces the evolution of pagan phallic worship and how it became the foundation of Judaism & Christianity. It starts out slow but read on, where else will you read how phallus worship, the religions of Egyptians, Greeks, Hebrews & Christians, the Cross, Christmas trees, Yule logs, Phallic Saints and Hebrew names all celebrate the power of the male erection? Skeptical? Read on...

IN THE BEGINNING
In the Neolithic way of life, mother-rights and the clan system were dominant as they had been in the paleolithic period, and land would generally have descended through the female line. From 3.5 million years ago to about l0,000 years ago, was a peaceful period, when "marriage" was informal, casual. They sang to the moon and played and worked together and watched the children grow. For the most part life was good, and we made art and rituals celebrating our participation in the glorious spectacle and process of life within nature. A woman did not need a husband as a means of support; she was herself economically independent as a producing member of the community. This gave women, like men, the freedom to follow their personal inclinations in sex relations. A woman had the option of remaining for life with one husband, but she was not under any legal, moral or economic compulsion to do so.

MAN STRUTS HIS STUFF
This freedom was destroyed with the advent of class society, private property and monogamous marriage. Men took over and it was their belief that the male had an indispensable role in the central mysteries of life, death, and rebirth. No reproduction could take place without the life force that only the male could provide. Indeed, children were considered of the father.

ISHTAR/DUMUZI
The earliest record we have come out of the Middle East, the myth of Ishtar (Inanna) and Tammuz (Dumuzi). Worshipped in the vicinity of Ur. Tammuz was the god of vegetation and fertility, and the underworld. He is called 'the Shepherd' and 'lord of the sheepfolds'. In Sumeria he is the husband of the goddess Inanna, the Sumerian counterpart of Ishtar. According to the Sumerian King-List Gilgamesh was descended from 'Dumuzi a shepherd'. Dumuzi was originally a mortal ruler whose marriage to Inanna ensured the fertility of the land and the fecundity of the womb. This marriage, however, ended in stark tragedy when the goddess, offended by her husband's unfeeling behavior toward her, decreed that he be carried off to the netherworld for six months of each year. Hence the barren, sterile months of the hot summer. At the autumnal equinox, which marked the beginning of the Sumerian new year, Dumuzi returned to the earth. His reunion with his wife caused all animal and plant life to be revitalized and made fertile once again.

HOW THE "WAILING OF TAMMUZ" BECAME LENT
We find him mentioned in the Bible as an example of the pagan worship that the Israelites had fallen into. "Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz." (Ezekiel 8.14-15).

The month of Tammuz wailing was from 20th June till 20th July, when the heat and dryness brought forth the demons of pestilence. The mourners chanted:

"...The shepherd, the wise one, the man of sorrows, why have they slain?...
"...There is wailing for Tammuz "at the sacred cedar, where the mother bore thee",
(a reference which connects the god, like Adonis and Osiris, with tree worship)

The wailing is for the herbs, they are not produced.
The wailing is for the grain, ears are not produced.
The wailing is for the habitations, for the flocks which bring forth no more.
The wailing is for the perishing wedded ones; for the perishing children; the dark-headed people create no more.

The season of LENT, as observed by the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches, is actually an adaptation of the mourning for Tammuz. The forty days abstinence was directly borrowed from the worshippers of Astarte/Ishtar. Held in the spring, which was celebrated by alternate weeping and rejoicing, observed in Palestine and Assyria in June, called the month of Tammuz, Egypt in May, Britain in April. To conciliate the Pagans to nominal Christianity, Rome pursuing its usual policy, took measures to get the Christian and Pagan festivals amalgamated, by a complicated but skillful adjustment of the calendar, they got Paganism and Christianity, far sunk in idolatry, to shake hands.

MAN BECOMES SPERM DONOR
Inanna’s descent to the underworld is her death and the end of fertility on earth. Her return to the upper world is the return of life on earth. But renewed life can be purchased only at the price of another’s death, in this case of her consort Dumuzi. Herein lies the logic of ritual even human sacrifice. The metaphor in which water is to earth, as semen is to womb, whence new life springs. The Shepard Dumuzi is connected with milk in many descriptions, the milky white stuff is like semen, or like the water that makes the earth fruitful by flowing across it, impregnating the female’s womb. Here is where we first obtain our idea of Man as “sperm donor.” His life-giving seed is essential for all life on earth.

ISIS/OSIRIS
In Egypt the myth becomes Isis and Osiris. A brief summary:
Osiris the king of Egypt and Isis his queen was beloved by all his people. But his brother Seth was jealous and plotted against him to take over the throne. One day Osiris held a big banquet, Seth was also invited. This was the moment he had long waited for. He gave Osiris a coffin made of the finest wood and gilded and painted. When he was persuaded into taking place in it, Seth´s accomplices quickly nailed the lid,it was taken away and thrown into the Nile. Isis was overcome with grief. She searched all over Kemet and beyond finally finding it in Egypt. She brought it back to bury him. One night Seth happened upon the casket, realized his treachery had been found out and feared that Isis would punish him. He broke into it and tore Osiris´ body into several pieces which he spread out all over the land. For many years she searched. Wherever they found a piece of Osiris´ body, they erected an altar. When at last all the parts had been assembled, Isis made Osiris into the first mummy. She then proceeded to use her powerful magic and breathed new life into Osiris and so she was able to conceive the child Horus. She recovered all the pieces except for the penis, which was eaten by three different species of fish, whose eating was ever after taboo. As a substitute, she made a phallus of wood, which was worshiped in many of the temples. After this Osiris became the King of the Land of the Dead, while Horus became the Living King of Egypt.

Please note the moral of this story: OSIRIS BECAME KING OF THE LAND OF THE DEAD, BECAUSE HE NO LONGER HAD HIS PHALLUS, WHICH GIVES LIFE. Because of this fact, the phallus became an object of veneration and WORSHIP. Phallus worship spread to Africa. These ideals of male fertility worship would eventually spread from Egypt, the Middle East and Asia Minor to the Greeks that most influenced our Western Civilization. However, make no mistake: phallus worship was practiced in other places such as:

India: Shiva Linga is a wide spread Indian Phallic figure. It consists of a feminine base ‘Yoni’ or ‘vagina’ and a rising masculine portion ‘the Phallus’ or ‘penis.’ The Linga artifacts, dating from the first century BC to the third century AD, are shaped like realistic ‘Phalli’. Thereafter the shape becomes progressively more abstract. By medieval times, its observable portion, rising from the Yoni, forms a round block with domed apex.

Japan: The Hounen festival at Tagata Jinja shrine is one of the most famous festivals in Japan. It is frequently referred to as the "penis shrine", or "Japanese penis festival", primarily due to the ancient Hounen Matsuri,a festival celebrating fertility and renewal, which is held here every March 15th when a huge two and a half meter wooden phallus is carried a short distance between two shrines.

Europe: Among Celtic peoples, tumuli, dolmens, menhirs, and most megalithic monuments, are the abode of various orders of fairies, of pixies in Cornwall, of corrigans in Brittany. The menhir were regarded both as an abode of a god or as a seat of divine power, and as a phallic symbol. As a phallic symbol, the menhir was related to a sun-cult; because among all ancient peoples where phallic worship has prevailed, the sun has been venerated as the supreme masculine force in external nature from which all life proceeds, while the phallus has been venerated as the corresponding force in human nature.

Now you know that the male energy was held with respect and awe not with contempt and loathing as we see in modern times. It is clear that any notion of the female as being the sole giver of life would be anathema to our forefathers. The modern church that seeks to denigrate the “profane” men of the world never abandoned the principle of phallus worship.

GREEKS TAKE A PAGE FROM EGYPT
The Greeks did not develop their religious and philosophical ideals in a vacuum. They borrowed quite liberally from the Egyptians:

Egypt was clearly divided from the yellow desert by the black Nile-mud, and was called Chemi, the Black Land, when made into a person, Chem, or Ham. He was the father of their race, called in the Bible one of the sons of Noah, and considered by themselves the god of increase, the Priapus of the Greeks.

Isis, or Isitis, the Earth, the mother of all creation. Her name is derived from SAT, to sow seed, like the Latin Ceres. Thoth, a Pillar at the corner of the field, became an important god, often shown writing, or counting the years on the the back of a palm branch, which became hieroglyphical character for the word "year." The Greeks called Hermes, a name which has the same meaning, a pillar.

Osiris was piously lamented by Isis. This story the Greeks copied as Venus and Adonis, a mortal. The boar which killed Adonis the hippopotamus Typhon. Osiris alone had a place of birth and burial. Mount Sinai, to the Egyptians mount Nissa. From which Greeks derived the name Dionysus, the same as the Hebrew Jehovah-Nissi. The name Moses gave to the Almighty when he set up an altar to Him at the foot of the holy mountain, a spot sacred alike with Jews and Egyptians.

The story of Uranus: Three sons were born of Earth (Gaea) and Heaven (Uranus), Cottus and Briareos and Gyes, of all the children that were born of Earth and Heaven, these were the most terrible, and they were hated by their own father from the first. Uranus hid them away in a secret place. Earth got upset and plotted to castrate Heaven. Cronos (Saturn) accepted the task. While Heaven lay about Earth spreading himself full upon her, Cronos took a sickle with jagged teeth, and swiftly lopped off his own father's members and cast them away into the sea, a white foam spread around them and in it there grew a maiden. Named Aphrodite, the foam-born goddess. And with her went Eros, and comely Desire into the assembly of the gods. The lesson here is the fact that through the Blood of Uranus, various gods were born from mother Earth, and that from his genitals sprang the goddess Aphrodite, ruler of love and sexual desire.

PENIS ENVY
Then theres Priapus, mainly known for his huge virile member, and the size of it is so enormous that it has been called "column", "twelve-inch pole, "cypress" "spear"
"pyramid", and many others referring to the dimensions of his penis. And just as Zeus shows his thunderbolt, Poseidon his trident, Athena her spear, Apollo his golden arrows, Hermes his caduceus, Dionysus his thyrsus, Heracles his club, so Priapus cannot but proudly exhibit his penis, which best represents him, and without which he is weaponless. This is the reason why his privy parts are always shameless displayed in erection. His statue was used in the Roman gardens as scarecrow, and his enormous penis as a threat against thieves! The Greeks were very fixated with phallic worship. The interesting thing is we still use our “phalli” as a means of communication, as the Greeks did to express certain religious ideas. The use of the phallus apotropaically to turn away evil, is older than our species; among higher primates aggressive males show their erect penis to warn off intruders. Today we “flip the bird” to those who act abusively, to turn their aggression back on them .

CLEANING UP THE DEVINE PROFANE
We see now that the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Greeks were fascinated by phallus worship. These peoples built huge temples, phallic symbols, and idols which they proceeded to venerate and worship. However, over time One God began to make himself known to Abraham. Humankind had fallen into the error of worshiping the created, instead of the Creator. All of this was going to change...

The male sex drive was embedded and encouraged by God, “Be Fruitful” was not a mere suggestion; it was a direct order that the Hebrews took quite seriously. The Sexual ability of man and Nature was personified, and likewise supplied with a governing Deity, which was elevated to the niche of the Supreme. Being God of the genital power and numberless children were born under his auspicious rule. The names of his dutiful descendants were composite in signification, and in many, ways characterized the honored Deity. Hence, derived therefrom, we meet with the El God in Michael, Raguel, Raphael, Gabrael, Joel, Phaniel, Uriel, Sarakiel, Bethel, Chapel, Eli, Elijah. The children of course were the angels.

WHAT'S IN A NAME?
Let us look to Biblical names to confirm whether or not the Bible concerns itself with male fertility. The Hebrews believed God was the source of male vitality, and were not ashamed to let it be known. Below are names and their true translations from two different sources.

Aram, "high," "to swell up," "to be uncovered or naked."
Aram: meaning to be high, rise up.
Baal-Peor: "the maiden's hymen opener," "my Lord the opener."
Baal-peor: Master of the opening
Ben-zoheth: "son of firmness," "to set up," "an erection," "a cippus."
BEN-ZOHETH: "son of Zoheth," from a Hebrew root meaning "to be strong"
Elkana: "El the erect One," "the tall reed," "El burning with desire."
Eshek: "he presses, squeezes, penetrates into."
eshek: from an unused root (meaning to bunch together); a testicle (as a lumpGaza: "strong," "the trunk of a tree," "a phallic emblem."
Jakim: "he set up," "standing erect," "raising seed to."
Jakeem: "raised up" variant form: Jakim.

This strongly suggests erections, hardons, the penis were a subject of some fascination to the Hebrews. Male fertility worship did not go away with the revelation of Yahweh to his chosen people. The early Israelites merely abandoned (officially anyway) the crude art of phallus worship. I suppose not all men are created equal ;-)

PHALLIC CHRISTIAN ROOTS
The Cross, adopted by the Christians as a symbol of everlasting life and victory over sin and death, has a very ancient pedigree. In antiquity, it was used as a symbol of the Triad, or Trinity. The cross was a horizontal piece of wood fastened to an upright beam and indicated the height of the Niles flood waters. This formed a cross, the Nileometer. If the Nile failed to rise to a certain height, no crops and no bread was the result. From famine on the one hand to plenty on the other, the cross came to be worshiped as a symbol of life and regeneration, or feared as an image of decay and death.

JUNIOR AND HIS TWO PALS
The Assyrians, Egyptians, Hindus, Canaanites, Israelites, Christians, and many other religious peoples, had and have their Trinity, purely phallic in origin and significance. The phallus was noted to be not alone efficient in the work of procreation; its creative labors were shared by two coefficients, the two testes. Hence these were likewise honored, personified, and deified, with distinctive names: the right one, supposed to be prepotent in the generation of a man-child, was named Anu, or On -- that is, "strength, power"; the left, or female-producing was called Hoa or Hea. When Jacob's son was born, his mother Rachel "called his name Ben-oni [son of strength]: but his father called him Benjamin [son of my right hand] (Gen 35: 18 ). Thus Anu and Hea completed the Trinity, side by side with Asshur.

There is little doubt that the early fathers in the Christian church recognized in the cross the ancient emblem of fertility, but as the idea of a spiritual life had begun to take root, it was deemed proper to conceal its real significance; hence from a symbol representing the continuity of existence on the earth, the cross now prefigured eternal life or existence after death. They now speak of spiritual truths, not of crude phallic ideas. However, we must not forget that in its various forms, the cross began as a symbol of MALE FERTILITY which gives life.

A few phallic symbols that remain embedded within the Christian faith to this day.

SPIRES/OBELISKS
At the top of many church towers, a spire often points to the sky. Linked with the ancient obelisk erected outside pagan temples, the show the influence of our phallus-worshipping ancestors. So why is there an Egyptian obelisk in St. Peters square? The official Vatican story puts it this way: Augustus ordered the obelisk erected in Alexandria, where it stayed until A.D. 37. Caligula moved it to the Vatican Circus in Rome where innumerable Christians, including St. Peter, were put to death. The reason this obelisk was not later overturned as were all the others in Rome was that it was looked upon as the last witness to the martyrdom of St. Peter. The obelisk is 836 feet high, and weighs 360.2 tons. Its apex is adorned with a bronze cross containing a fragment of the True Cross. This represents the triumph of the Church over paganism. It is clear that the early Church took these concepts of manliness and male vitality seriously, and weren’t afraid to “flip the bird” to those pagan types.

CHRISTMAS TREES
Since the earliest of times, trees especially evergreens, were worshipped by the pagans. Since it was EVER green, it always had life. The trees were worshipped as symbols of life, fertility, sexual potency and reproduction. These pagan rituals of worship were then brought into the homes and set up as idols, with the belief that it would give men a heightened potency of sexual virility to procreate new life. The evergreen tree represented a "PHALLIC" symbol set in an upright position. Any wonder why people hang round balls on a tree?

YULE LOG
The Yule log dates back to Scandinavian countries where their pagan sex and fertility god was called Jul, or Yule. He was honored in a twelve day celebration in the month of December. When the season began, a Yule Log was lit and put into the fireplace where the same log was used for 12 days to keep the fire lit. Since Jul was the pagan god of sex and fertility, it does not take much to see what this also represented. The lit Yule Log represents again a "phallic" symbol, and being a log and lit, it represented a good omen for heightened sexuality for the coming year. It was the shadow and type of a burning lust of a man to fuel the fires of sexual potency to reproduce fertility. When one sends "YULETIDE GREETINGS", they are basically saying, "I greet you with this flaming log to fulfill a year of sexual virility.

PHALLIC SAINTS
The phallus of St. Foutin was worshipped; the women poured wine upon the head of the phallus, which was collected in a vessel, in which it was left till it became sour; it was then called the "sainte vinaigre," and the women employed it for a purpose which is only obscurely hinted at. When the Protestants took Embrun in 1585, they found this phallus among the relics, its head red with the wine.

A much larger phallus of wood, covered with leather, was an object of worship in the church of St. Eutropius at Orange, but it was seized by the Protestants and burnt publicly in 1562.

Similar phallic saints were worshipped St. Guerlichon in Bourges, St. Gilles in Britany, of St. Rene in Anjou, of St. Regnaud in Burgundy, of St. Arnaud, and above all of St. Guignolé near Berri. Many of these were still in existence and their worship in full practice in the last century; in some of them, the wooden phallus is described as being much worn down by the continual process of scraping, while in others the loss sustained by scraping was always restored by a miracle. This miracle, however, was a very clumsy one, for the phallus consisted of a long staff of wood passed through a hole in the middle of the Saints body, and as the phallic end in front became shortened, a blow of a mallet from behind thrust it forward, so that it was restored to its original length.

The evidence is clear. The Church did not destroy the ancient ideas of male fertility; it preserved and perpetuated them, directly and indirectly.