On Religion

Religion has always been such a delicate topic. Otherwise rational people suddenly freak out when a person wishes to have a rational and logical discussion about religion. The main reason is that when logic and reason come into play, the conclusions that are reached do not favour any religion. And the topic has become delicate due to the extreme offense that so many people take when it comes to their faith. Someone merely asking questions and pointing out very obvious logical inconsistencies is immediately asked in an angry tone "Who are you to question my faith?" There are actually many people out there that question religion in general, but the majority remain silent on the issue. Experience has shown them that people do not take kindly to those that actually think about religious issues with logic.

As for me, there are plenty of people in this world that hate me already. So if I add a few more to that number with this rant, so be it. Now let's begin.

Religion always has and always will create many problems in the world. The supporters of religion claim that it is necessary in order to instill morals in people. But if that is true, then why do the non-religious people seem to have more morals and more principles than those that are religious? If it truly is religion that provides morals, one would think that the religious people would be more moral. There should be less rapes, homicides, robberies, and crimes in general committed by the religious. Yet the people that almost always commit these crimes follow some type of religion. Now it wouldn't be fair to simply make that statement without viewing percentages. After all, there are more religious people than non-religious. However, the percentages are far out of whack. While the percentages of major religions in populations pretty much mirror the percentages of those religions in prisons, the percentage of the non-religious in the population far outweighs the percentage of the non-religious in prison. While this does not show that religion causes crime, it still does show something significant: religion is neither necessary nor useful when it comes to morality.

Every religion has a dark past and most continue to have a dark present. Ancient religions regularly practiced animal sacrifice and human sacrifice. The Thuggee cult in India killed about two million people alone. There have been sacrifices of virgins to appease the gods in a wide variety of cultures and religions. And the atrocities committed against those that have a different belief system can be found throughout history. During the 1100's and 1200's there was a religious sect in France known as the Cathars. Pope Innocent III (ironic name) started a crusade against that sect in 1209. Then in 1232 Pope Gregory IX set up Inquisitions (religious courts) in southern France to complete the annihilation of the Cathars.

Other Inquisitions have occurred throughout history, with the Spanish Inquisition being famous for its crimes against humanity. The Italian Inquisition condemned Galileo Galilei for stating the findings through his telescope. Namely, that the Earth revolved around the Sun. For such "heresy" he was forced to retract his statement and was placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Sadly, the Inquisitions continued for a period of 400 years under papal authority.

Now we have terrorist bombings also in the name of religion. The problem is that people are very short-sighted. They may blame something on this religion or that religion. But it has never occurred to them that their own religion has probably resulted in many similar things over the years. Today it is one religion that commits some atrocities, tomorrow it will be another. It is religion in general that brainwashes people and causes them to commit unspeakable acts. Right now, Muslim extremists are the problem. A thousand years from now it may be extreme Scientologists or String Theorists. Religion in general is the problem.

But now let's have a look at the problems that are not obvious to everyone. A lot of people see the problems with religious killings, human sacrifices, priests molesting little boys, high church authorities protecting the child molesters, torture, burning "witches," and terrorism. But the obvious problems are not the only ones. Religion now infringes upon progress in general.

Political issues are still very much controlled by religion. No leader in any democracy can possibly be elected if he or she does not follow and claim to believe in a particular religion. Science has also been affected by religion. Scientific progress has been slowed down dramatically as a result of religion. In earlier years, any scientific truth would simply be condemned as heresy and the results usually did not favour the one who spoke the truth. Religion has been chosen over enlightenment throughout history. Nowadays, there are political sanctions on stem cell research. We are also regressing rather than progressing when it comes to other scientific matters. Evolution has so much evidence at this point, it is regarded as a well-established scientific fact. Yet we still have people teaching creationism in our schools. The Scopes trial took place 85 years ago, yet we are back to condemning evolution. This anti-scientific sentiment has never made sense to me. On the slim chance that some deity does exist, how could he or she get mad at the truth? This is logic I've never understood. Evolution exists, the age of the earth exists, and all scientific phenomena actually exist. If there is an almighty creator, then he or she created all of this. How is knowledge of such things evil? I never understood how that could be. But then again, religion is not friends with logic.

One slight point should be made concerning morals as well. I've already shown that religion cannot claim to bring about morality. It should also be noted that being immoral does not necessarily constitute a crime. And when it comes to these immoral yet law-abiding citizens, every single one of them that I've encountered has had a religion. Those that avoid religion have always been more likely to be good people.

In short, religion in general is not good. Science has been stopped at so many points along the way, it is clear that our society would be far more scientifically and technologically advanced if religion had not been stopping the progress throughout history. In the words of Thomas Paine, "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst." He also said "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." I'm inclined to agree with him.

How To Recycle: Another Guide For Morons

Nowadays there is a big push for people to "go green." I do not wish to comment on the movement itself, other than to say that some people take it to unnecessary extremes. Nevertheless, I suppose the effort should be considered noble since it does aim to try to undo some of the havoc this species has wreaked on the planet for centuries.

In line with this effort, recycling programs have been around for quite some time. The basics of recycling seem fairly simple. Metal, glass and plastic goes in one container, cardboard and paper in another, and regular garbage in a third. Now there are distinctions between which type of products can be recycled and which cannot. There are enough distinctions that I cannot fault someone who accidentally tries to recycle a broken light bulb or a plastic bag. However, the basic items such as beer bottles and cardboard should be fairly easy to figure out.

Yet despite the amount of time the recycling programs have been around, there are a great many people that fail to grasp the concept. Curbside recycling programs have been around for nearly twenty years. One would think that this is enough time to figure it out. But apparently human stupidity even exceeds my estimates.

Now I am not a person that can be considered "green" by any stretch of the imagination. I don't really care if someone doesn't choose to recycle. That is pretty much his or her business. But what does concern me is the mistakes that take place in my own home. If you happen to eat at a person's house, you may come across two separate containers. One container is filled with all types of things: crumpled paper, discarded food, dirty paper plates, et cetera. In essence, one is filled with trash. The other container has nothing but cans and bottles. Into which container should you scrape off your plate when you finish eating?

If you knew that it should be the container with all of the trash, congratulations! You know more than most people. If you did not know the correct answer, take solace in the fact that although you are dumb, you are still part of the majority. We can forget the fact that the garbage bags also have different colours. One is a regular black or white trash bag and the other is a clear blue bag. But we cannot expect the majority of people to distinguish between such things. After all, colours were taught back in kindergarten. We can't expect the average person to remember something from so long ago.

Common sense should let someone know the correct course of action. But the term "common sense" is most likely a misnomer. Sadly, it is not so common after all. And this annoys me greatly. In fact, even when this faux pas of using the wrong can occurs at someone else's domicile I get annoyed. It may not be my problem, but it is the problem of the host or hostess. And I find it just plain rude to soil the recycling bin with gravy, chicken bones, and rice after others have spent the night carefully discarding the trash in its proper container.

So to those violators out there, please be more careful when discarding trash in another's home. The method should really be quite simple. You already fall in with the majority in terms of your stupidity. Now have your trash fall in with the majority as well. If you are discarding a beer bottle, have that beer bottle join the can filled with all of the others. Let him take part of the majority. Don't make him the iconoclast. The same goes for pure trash. Don't let it become isolated and lonely amongst a sea of recyclables. Let it join in the fun with all of the other trash. That way both you and your trash can be part of a majority.

On Favour Mongers

In each and every one of our lives there are times when we must call upon others for help. Even people that are extremely independent, such as myself, have had situations that required assistance. As Homo sapiens is a social animal, this is not surprising. In fact, it is quite normal and commonplace.

However, the occasional favour request is abused by many. There are people that have become so dependent upon others that the favour requests start to occur with more frequency. Every single task suddenly requires assistance, and what used to be an occasional request now occurs far too often to warrant the term "occasional." This creates a problem.

The trend develops to a point where there are no longer any interactions that take place merely for the sake of socialization. The favour monger no longer calls to simply hang out or make plans. Every phone call from this person will inevitably contain the phrase "Can I ask you a favour?" or something quite similar. Any time this person rings the bell something will be asked. It gets to the point where others will not want to pick up the phone when the favour monger's name appears.

This is simply disgraceful. Whatever status the relationship formerly had is now lost. No longer can the two individuals be considered friends. One starts viewing the other as a tool to be used in a time of need (which suddenly seems to be all of the time) and the other starts harbouring feelings of resentment for being treated as such. The relationship, and in many cases the contact, dissolves.

So to all of the favour mongers out there, I have this to say-- start to learn some self-reliance and self-sufficiency. You do not require assistance for every single task. It may well be that a true friend is there for assistance in times of need. But it is non sequitur to believe that a friend's purpose is to help simply because he or she does help. The friend or relative does not exist in order to serve you. Contacting such people without needing a favour is actually possible. Trust me. I've contacted plenty of people on countless occasions without asking for favours. Perhaps you can do the same.

On E-mail Chains

In this modern age, very few people use the postal service for correspondence. Writing a letter and having it sent in the mail is now considered far too slow. In fact, what used to simply be called "mail" is now referred to as "snail mail." This is, of course, due to the Internet and the accompanying electronic mail. As soon as the mail is sent, the other person receives the message within seconds.

While electronic mail (or e-mail) may be quite useful, its flaw is that it is almost too easy to use. E-mail has become ubiquitous, and the very efficiency and speed that make it so wonderful has also lead to another effect. Now instead of people sending messages of importance, as they would with regular mail, any message or thought is immediately sent to numerous parties at once. The people sending these e-mails have no capacity to filter out the trash. It doesn't matter if the people have any interest in the material; they'll receive it anyway! They're on the list of people to e-mail.

This leads to a problem for many. Any message of importance or significance can not always be accessed in a timely manner. The inbox fills up with extreme rapidity. And why and how can people send messages that fast? Simple: the e-mails are usually chains that are simply forwarded to a large group of people without any discrimination. It is a huge pain, and someone needs to speak out about it.

First off, there are the chain letters. These are the dumbest things I've ever seen. Some say that you must forward for luck, some for money, and some for love. Regardless of the spiel, they all claim to have been passed around for a long time and then contain stories of people that did and people that did not pass it on. Well I've never passed one on (excepting one bulletin on MySpace to test my ability to copy and paste-- I'm quite computer illiterate). And in all of the chains I've received, I have never gone bankrupt, been hospitalized, or had a giant sea monster kill me. None of the claims about not passing the chain letters are true.

There are other chain letters that claim to have some magical tracking device. Why do people still believe in this? NO! Not Microsoft, nor Apple, nor any other company is going to give you any money for forwarding this e-mail! Nor will the Red Cross donate money to help Sicky McGee in the hospital! Nor will some crazy video or image come up after forwarding to X number of people! There is no such thing as any tracker to continually follow and keep track of how many forwards, and so on, to launch a program that will come back and reward you with a video (or an image, or money, or a donation to some sick kid). These e-mails have been around for years, and people are still stupid enough to fall for them.

Then there are the political e-mail chains. These are fairly clever, because someone had to take some information, scramble the details, and rewrite what happened while making the story seem plausible. Every single one of these e-mails that I've read have contained some type of lie. Whether it was something that Obama said or refuses to say, something that George W. Bush has done, something Clinton did, or easily checked facts like members of The United States Senate Select Committee or things that people have said on tape or video makes no difference. Someone makes a story up, sends it in an email, and then I get an inbox filled with misinformation! If you're going to send this crap, at least verify the so-called facts.

I've also received religious e-mail chains. Anyone familiar with my religion (or lack thereof) should realize that I don't want to receive an e-mail chain preaching any type of religion. It doesn't matter if the religion is Christianity, Judaism, String theory, Islam, or Scientology. I don't want to read it!

In closing, I would just like to tell everyone that sends these chains to please stop! I guarantee that there are many people out there that feel the same way I do. They are just too nice to tell you that you are being a major pain with all of these e-mails. But here's a clue: when you ask someone if they read a particular forwarded e-mail and he or she says "I haven't had a chance to go through all of them yet," you're forwarding too many e-mails! Now cut it out!

On Children In The Workplace

The productive members of society all have a means of generating income. While there may be various ways to earn money, I believe the vast majority of individuals earn income through employment. In this day and age there are now various jobs that can be performed from a remote location through the internet. However, the majority of jobs still involve the individual traveling to a workplace.

Regardless of the job setting or the position held, I believe it is fair to say that most jobs should require at least some modicum of professionalism. Even when the job atmosphere is very laid back, some order should be maintained. But this is not always the case. From low level jobs to high corporate positions, there is an occasional disruption that should not exist. I am referring to children in the workplace.

A lot of businesses and organizations may sometimes have a "take your child to work" day. These days are already known well in advance, and a bit more work can be done on the preceding days in order to compensate for the fact that less work will be done with children present. Scheduling such days do not really pose a problem. The foreknowledge provides the employees with an opportunity to plan ahead. But many employees with children are unconcerned with planning ahead.

There are times in every job where a child is unexpectedly brought into work. This creates a potential problem for everyone else that works there. In some cases, though few, there is no problem. A parent that brings in a well-behaved child does not really create a disruption. In the cases where the child does not run amok, the parent has usually brought some activities to keep the child busy. Unfortunately, not all children are well-behaved and most people are too inconsiderate to bring something to occupy the child's time.

In a great many cases, the employees have to suddenly become baby sitters. The children run around creating a major disturbance and prevent any real work from getting done. Suddenly the workplace turns into Romper Room and everyone has to suffer. This is just plain rude and inconsiderate. The parent obviously knows how the child behaves. Yet not only was that child brought into the parent's place of employment, but furthermore he or she is given carte blanche to run around disrupting everyone.

I think that this is inexcusable. With a handful of exceptions, the employees did not sign up to baby sit someone else's child. The burden should not be on them to keep the kids out of trouble. Regardless of the job setting, there is work to be done. It cannot be completed with a screaming child running around like a maniac.

So if you are the parent of a disruptive child, don't bring that child to work. Or if you really must, then you should be the one keeping his or her behaviour in check. Don't pass on the responsibility to coworkers. The onus of watching your child does not fall on their shoulders. Let's try to keep the workplace at least a bit professional.