Dealing With Intolerant Christian (and Religious) Parents- The Spanish Inquisition and You

This post was inspired by one of my friends, who shall go unnamed, along with the countless other people with religious beliefs that differ from their and have cost them that relationship, whether they are young or old.

I'll start this off by saying yes, I am an atheist. So what. The internet is the atheist's domain, especially when the three most popular operating systems in the world were created by atheists.
I have a fairly good relationship with my parents, although my father insists that I'm not an atheist as I "don't have enough knowledge to be an atheist."
I'll also start this off by defining atheism, so, if you do come back at me for this, I can say "I told you so." Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a god, gods, deities, etc. Nothing more. I typically attach several more words when referring to myself, which I won't today, for the sake of salience.

Parents constantly demand respect from their children, every day. However, they fail to realize that they often don’t respect their kids. Respect is a two way street, and parents must realize this. They cannot punish their kids for liking a certain band, going along with a certain trend, or having a different philosophy. They must heed the words of Voltaire: “I disagree, but I defend to death your right to say it.” No matter what they believe, they must respect that their child is a human being, and entitled to make their own decisions, including those of a religious nature. The worst possible argument for a certain set of religious beliefs is “That’s what my parents believed in.” Parents impressing their religious beliefs in their children will ultimately fail humanity, and turn the population in unintelligent sheep unable to think for themselves, and parents punishing their children for different beliefs should not be considered loving parents.

Religious beliefs are not something to expel someone out of a house over, nor are alternate lifestyles or sexualities. Parents are not the morality police; no one is the morality police. There are no legal punishments for being an atheist or Buddhist or a Satanist or a progressive Christian. There are, however, consequences for abusing a child over religion, or running them out of the house over it. These parents, are, at least, no better than the image of the “blasphemous” beliefs they hold. If they really care about their beliefs more than their children, then they do not deserve to be parents. It is that simple. One can almost see children booted out of their house over their beliefs as an opportunity to find adults that care about them, not their beliefs, an unfortunate opportunity, but an opportunity nonetheless. The kids would finally find a place where they belong, instead of a household dominated by bigoted, corruptive, unjust religion.

The only course of action for parents to take is, of course, talk about it. If the parents personally know they cannot make a cognizant substantiated argument for their belief system (which no religion can), then they have no reason to be mad at their children. No, even if they have a reason, parents have no reason to punish their kids over beliefs. Parents often forget that children too are protected under the First Amendment, and that denying them the option to choose their beliefs is denying them the right of freedom of and from religion, and ultimately showing them you don’t love them.

Denying your children this is denying them a brain to make decisions with. It’s their life, and it’s now or never.    

The Supreme Court and Prop 8

Tuesday, March 26, 2013, marks the start of the Supreme Court decision regarding the constitutionality of California’s Proposition Eight, which makes the marriage between homosexuals illegal. However, before I tell you why they are going to rule against Prop 8, I need to clear up an issue: the disputed neutrality of SCOTUS.

The foremost reason people claim the Supreme Court slants one way or the other is their rulings on controversial issues, which is seen as bias. They are seen as being personally in favor or not in favor of the issue on hand, whereas SCOTUS’s purpose is not to be the morality police, but rather to decide whether something is legal or not. Of course, existentially, the legality of something may very well determine the morality, but that’s another post.

SCOTUS is the ultimate authority of legality and constitutionality, and their rulings do not necessarily reflect their personal views. For example, in the landmark case Lemon v Kurtzman , the Supreme Court ruled on the legality of government-funded religious displays and activities, while simultaneously creating the “Lemon Test”, which still stands today. The Lemon Test reads as follows:

 Three ... tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.[1]

This was seen as a quite liberal decision; however, the Chief Justice at the time, Warner Burger, was considered both a conservative and an originalist, meaning he believed that it was not the Supreme Court’s job to strike down laws, but merely to uphold them. One can clearly see the conflict between the justice’s personal views and that of his ruling.

Now that I have established SCOTUS’s neutrality, I will predict what ruling they will make in the coming months.

The main legal argument against Prop 8 is that of the first part of the 14th Amendment, which reads:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[2]

Specifically, the part about “abridge[ing] the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” along with “nor shall any State…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

I think it would be correct in assuming that privileges include the right to get married, and that it is the purpose of the law to uphold these privileges. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to deny citizens a privilege such as marriage.

Case closed.

But not quite.

The argument for Prop 8 defines marriage as between a man and a women, citing tradition. I guess that also means we shouldn’t have a democracy, or free speech, or abolition, or cars for that matter, because these are not traditional. Gee, see how that logic works against you, hard righters?

The second way the pro-Prop 8 attorneys are blatantly disregarding the 14th Amendment is by also defining the purpose of marriage as for reproduction. According to this logic, infertile men and women, along with the elderly and those who do not wish to have children, cannot marry. What would be really interesting is if one of the pro-8 attorneys turned out to be infertile, or gay for that matter.

Any other arguments, especially those along the lines of “It’s against the Bible” will be easily thrown out by SCOTUS as hogwash, with the justices citing, “This is not a Christian nation. It may be a nation of Christians, but it was in no way based on the Christian religion.”[3]

Simply, the only reason to keep Prop 8 is if you are homophobic bigot that enjoys taking rights away from people different than you.

REFERENCES

1.  http://www.usconstitution.net/lemon.html

2.  http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am14.html

3.  http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

An Introduction to Depeche Mode

I love Depeche Mode, so much, in fact, I named this very blog after one of their songs. I first encountered them way back when the radio was decent enough to listen to. After hearing “People Are People,” I quickly looked up the song to figure out who the hell this amazing band was. After finding out, I finally went onto IHeartRadio and surrounded myself in Depeche Mode’s unique sound. Since they have just released their thirteenth studio album, Delta Machine, I’d like to introduce the most definitive electronic act of all time, before I review Delta Machine later this week.
Depeche Mode originally consisted of Martin Gore, David Gahan, Andy Fletcher, and Vince Clarke. Clarke left after the first album to form Yazoo and Erasure, and was replaced by Alan Wilder; Wilder left after the release of Songs of Faith and Devotion, and the band has consisted of Gore, Gahan, and Fletcher ever since.

Depeche Mode were, by no means, the first band to use synthesizers. Indeed, the first use of synthesizers in popular music would probably be considered to be the Beach Boys in “Good Vibrations,” released in 1966. The Beatles followed in Abbey Road in 1969, along with Pink Floyd with Ummagumma. While these first songs did feature synthesizers, they did not play a big part in the sound of the groups, with the guitar being the driving force behind the songs. It was not until Kraftwerk was founded in 1970 that the synth sound was created. Kraftwerk was, and still is, the flagship of early synthpop, and the genre remained basically the same until 1981, when Depeche Mode released their first album, Speak and Spell, containing the infective hit “Just Can’t Get Enough.” This is the number one song people recognize when I play it to them, the “So that’s Depeche Mode” song.

This was before the Pet Shop Boys came to the east end with “West End Girls” and Tears for Fears yelled at the world with “Shout.” However, these two groups served to foreshadow what synthpop could do, with a hint of the dark lyrics and drippy synthesizers that Depeche Mode is now famous for. Their style changed quickly, with the loss of lyricist Vince Clarke and the failure of Martin Gore’s first attempt at an album in A Broken Frame. “Everything Counts” off Construction Time Again was the band’s first single of their darker era, and strayed away from the happier dance-pop of Speak and Spell and A Broken Frame, this time focusing on a serious, mature subject matter, in this case the record industry itself.

Their next album, Some Great Reward, containing the ever famous song of nondiscrimination and peace between minorities, “People Are People,” was another shade darker than Construction Time Again, and also pushed them into mainstream culture. While taking on even more mature subject matter, it still hinted at Depeche Mode’s dance-pop roots, especially in “Something to Do,” with its light “Just Can’t Get Enough”-style beat.

Black Celebration was the end of the development period for Gore’s songwriting, cementing Depeche Mode into the darker side of synthpop. It included the appropriately dark title track, “Black Celebration,” with its rather haunting lyrics, “Stripped” of Say Anything… fame, and “But Not Tonight,” a lighter end to a dark album. “Stripped” was really the only song that received major airplay, while the rest of the album, much darker than the Say Anything… soundtrack, went unnoticed. It was still, however, a groundbreaking album.

The sixth studio album, Music for the Masses, was the true beginning of the dark, popular era of Depeche Mode, with “Strangelove” and “Never Let Me Down Again.” While never seeing much acclaim, its successor, Violator, was the premiere Depeche Mode album, going triple platinum. Containing “Personal Jesus” and “Enjoy the Silence,” it was undoubtedly the most popular album over the band’s lifetime. Three years later, Songs of Faith and Devotion was released, creating the golden duo of Depeche Mode, with these two albums influencing Delta Machine, their latest release. Their content was dark, full of drippy synthesizers and blues guitars, from the social warning of “Policy of Truth” off of Violator to the classic “Walking in My Shoes” from Faith and Devotion.

Ultra, Exciter, Playing the Angel, and Sounds of the Universe have only served to further the image of Depeche Mode’s darkness and signature sound, propelling the already famous band into the spot of best electronic band of all time. Delta Machine will enhance this even more, as Gore, Gahan, and Fletch move their group into the twenty-first century.

Later in the week, I’ll put up the review of Delta Machine. For now, however, enjoy the music. 

Let's see how this works/Physicist funeral

Testy test test
Well, now that that has failed miserably, I suppose I should put something up.
Here's a nice little article by Aaron Freeman, a commentator for NPR.
This is absolutely NOT mine.
Sorry about the formatting, Word screwed it up.

Why You Want a Physicist to Speak at Your Funeral

You want a physicist to speak at your funeral. You want the physicist to talk to your grieving family about the conservation of energy, so they will understand that your energy has not died. You want the physicist to remind your sobbing mother about the first law of thermodynamics; that no energy gets created in the universe, and none is destroyed. You want your mother to know that all your energy, every vibration, every BTU of heat, every wave of every particle that was her beloved child remains with her in this world. You want the physicist to tell your weeping father that amid energies of the cosmos, you gave as good as you got.

And at one point you'd hope that the physicist would step down from the pulpit and walk to your brokenhearted spouse there in the pew and tell him/her that all the photons that ever bounced off your face, all the particles whose paths were interrupted by your smile, by the touch of your hair, hundreds of trillions of particles, have raced off like children, their ways forever changed by you. And as your widow rocks in the arms of a loving family, may the physicist let him/her know that all the photons that bounced from you were gathered in the particle detectors that are her/his eyes, that those photons created within her/him constellations of electromagnetically charged neurons whose energy will go on forever.

And the physicist will remind the congregation of how much of all our energy is given off as heat. There may be a few fanning themselves with their programs as he says it. And he will tell them that the warmth that flowed through you in life is still here, still part of all that we are, even as we who mourn continue the heat of our own lives.

And you'll want the physicist to explain to those who loved you that they need not have faith; indeed, they should not have faith. Let them know that they can measure, that scientists have measured precisely the conservation of energy and found it accurate, verifiable and consistent across space and time. You can hope your family will examine the evidence and satisfy themselves that the science is sound and that they'll be comforted to know your energy's still around. According to the law of the conservation of energy, not a bit of you is gone; you're just less orderly.