Ladies and germs, I love good, righteous indignation as much as the next fella. Hell, probably more-so. I love getting riled up at the injustices in the world, and yammering on about them without actually doing anything to change them. Being an armchair ethicist is what I do.

When I first heard about the Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman case, boy howdy I was furious. Hemming and hawing, all that good stuff to get the blood flowing. Then Zimmerman was found innocent and I just rolled my eyes and thought, “good going, AMERICA!” Smug in my righteous zeal, I sat quietly waiting for the next tragedy to unfold so I could bring down the flames once again.

Then I read a news article that mentioned that Trayvon Martin was black, and George Zimmerman identified as being Hispanic. Exact words. And I thought, how come Zimmerman doesn’t get to have a race in this? For a case that seemed to rely so heavily on racial overtones, why does one person get to have a race, and the other only gets to identify as having one? If you think that maybe since Zimmerman is half-white he doesn’t get to have a race (also keep in mind that white counts as a race too, but we don’t need to get into that), well then remember that America didn’t elect a president that identifies as being black. My point is that from this simple phrasing, we can assume the media is trying to frame George Zimmerman as not being ethnic, so as to fuel the flames of this already huge media firestorm.

So let me play devil’s advocate on what we actually know that went down:

Zimmerman sees a youth wandering the streets at night. He chooses to follow him. Does he follow him because the youth is black, or does he follow him because he is the captain of the neighbourhood watch of a gated community, and more than likely knows everyone and their dog in that area, and can tell that this youth had never been around there before?

Zimmerman calls the police, who tell him to desist following the youth. Zimmerman ignores the advice. Does he ignore it because he thinks he has a shot at taking on this black kid, or does he ignore it because he thinks he can probably handle a teenager on his own and feels he doesn’t need to wait for the police who might needlessly complicate things?

There is a confrontation. Zimmerman gets beaten the hell up. Trayvon Martin gets shot. I can’t find anything that says that Trayvon Martin had damage done to him other than the bullet wound, so it’s quite possible that he was the one who threw the first punch. He may have felt threatened after having been followed, but does that excuse instigating violence? Zimmerman had two black eyes, a broken nose, and a wound on the back of his head that suggests he probably fell backwards and hit his head on something. George Zimmerman had a gun. He used it.

Self-defense is a tricky thing. If you’re getting badly beaten up in a bar, and the only thing you can do is grab a beer bottle and break it over your attacker’s head, you’d probably do it. It may not be as likely to kill him as shooting him, but your attacker may still die if you hit him in the right spot. Zimmerman fired once, after having been beaten in the face repeatedly, so it was unlikely he was aiming for a killing shot.

Concealed weapon laws are the reason that option was on the table for Zimmerman. Had Zimmerman not used his gun, and the beating continued, worst case scenario is that Zimmerman would have been beaten into a coma. Do I think that a comatose 35 year old is better than a dead 16 year old? Of course. Gun reform in the US is a huge issue, and I would love to see that option for people off the table. But I sincerely doubt that George Zimmerman would agree with me on that, considering he would be the one in the coma, and I’m just in the armchair.

Lastly, there is the talk that Zimmerman was getting off lightly because Trayvon Martin is black and Zimmerman is not. But last I checked, Hispanics in the States don’t really get preferential treatment either, so that accusation doesn’t really fly with me.

It is incredibly unfortunate what happened to Trayvon Martin. Whenever someone dies for no reason, and a youth especially, everyone should mourn. But was it a hate crime? I don’t know. Everyone seems to be clammering about how it is, so I guess it must be. But I think there’s just as much evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was being ageist as much as there is that he was being racist.

Based on the evidence that we have, and the laws of Florida, it is easy to see how Zimmerman was found innocent in a court of law. Does that make it right? Like I said, self-defense is a tricky thing. I want you to put yourself in that position, in the heat of the moment, in fear and pain, and with that one option standing between you and a possible coma. Is it horribly racist? I don’t know. It certainly opened up the race debate in the States again, which is always a good thing, but do we scapegoat Zimmerman if it wasn’t in fact racially motivated? Is *that* right?

Did this greatly offend you? Do you feel as though I’m a terrible person for having thought these terrible thoughts? Good. Convince me I’m wrong. I miss having the fury coursing through my veins. But you have to do better than, “Racism against blacks exists in the States. Trayvon Martin was black. Therefore, his death must have been racially motivated.” Find me legit news articles that have Zimmerman wearing a white hood. For the Canada Day bombing threat, I saw article upon article about how one of the alleged bombers was once seen wearing a burkha, and how another neighbour thought they overheard the term “jihad” used in a phone conversation. That kind of shit makes the news all the time because it sells papers. Where is it with George Zimmerman? Convince me this is more than just a tragic happenstance that would have occurred regardless of Trayvon Martin’s race.

To qualify what makes a religion, we must first attempt to describe what a religion actually is. It’s not actually all that easy, and if you’ve ever taken a religious studies course, you know you always spend the first week going over what makes a religion, and the whole point of the exercise is to prove to the students that you basically can’t describe religion, because it’s so varied across the globe that to narrow it down to a single descriptive phrase is pretty much impossible. For example, saying that to be religious means to believe in a transcendant, all-powerful God or gods means you’re neglecting Buddhism, Taoism, and many native religions.

However, the point of this little write-up isn’t to convince you that describing things is hard, but to rag on douche-y Atheists, so let’s get on with it. I’ll give a few examples of what I believe to be the key points of what makes a religion a religion before we move on to the good stuff.

Community: religion offers a home base where like-minded individuals can come and feel welcome. This community supports each other, helps through grief and hard times, and is there for guidance whenever one of their congregation needs it. Humans are social creatures, and religion offers one of the easiest means to be a part of a group. Atheists may have a tight knit circle of friends, or a sports team, or any number of groups that offer the exact same benefits, but atheism on its own is not something that offers that kind of social relationship.

Mythos: Basically, stories. Stories that offer a truth. Not necessarily the literal truth, as many fundamentalists would like to believe, but a different truth. A truth that transcends objective reality and offers something more. A different way of looking at life. The story of Job isn’t the historical telling of a guy who has a really bad day, but it does offer a way of looking at life when things are rough. Have faith that things will get better. Become Job when things are bleak. You don’t watch Die Hard and think that it’s a depiction of true events, but if you were ever locked in an office building full of terrorists led by Alan Rickman, you’d certainly want to aspire to be just like John McClane.

Meaning: The Whys and the Oughts of the universe. Science can give a very convincing How, but does not even bother with Why things are, or whether or not we Ought to do one thing or another. I’m not saying that How isn’t a very important question we should be asking, but Why and Ought are equally important. Many of the mythos discussed earlier are attempts to answer those two questions.

I could go on, and even a list like this is debatable, but now it’s time for the nastier aspects  of religion that for some reason Atheists want to emulate.

Dependency on others for salvation: the same way that church goers rely on God, or the Pope, or their priests to decide what’s best for them, Atheists will rely on Scientists to save them. I capitalize Scientists because it’s never physicists, or chemists, or botanists who will save us with their carbon-reducing plants, but just Scientists, like there is a group of people in lab coats with bad haircuts hiding in an underground lab using Science to make a machine that will hack the God damned planet and magically fix everything.

What they fail to understand is that Scientists are people just like you and me, who need jobs to support their families. So that guy in the lab coat isn’t sweating over a population-control-but-somehow-not-genocidal machine, he’s working for McDonald’s too but instead of flipping burgers he’s making a better tasting McNugget. Or the Pentagon, or wherever will pay him the most money. Because that is how the world works. For every scientist working on cold fusion, there are thousands more working on how to extract oil from the earth in a more profitable manner. If you honestly want the world to be a better place, and this goes for everyone, do it yourself because nobody else is going to do it for you. Don’t assume that simply because your ideology is different that somehow this makes you responsible for the world becoming a better place (it’s not and you aren’t).

You might say, “Oh but Danny, Science relies on this little thing called The Scientific Method, and that makes it infinitely superior in every way to any other way of thinking!” First of all, the coolest science of all, theoretical physics, is literally really smart dudes MAKING SHIT UP. Science, at least in that field, has gotten to the point where the scientific method isn’t even valid anymore. Soft sciences are far too complex for it to truly work, chemistry will either poison us or blow us all up before it saves us, and the medical sciences are just a bandage for the world’s woes. Nobody cares about math. Join an activist group or start handing out pamphlets calling for a violent revolution; anything but sit on your ass feeling smug about your choices in belief.

Utopianism: Now this probably made up word refers to the idea that since your ideology is obviously right, if everyone just embraced it, the world would become perfect in every way; rivers would run honey, birds would chirp in tune to Lynyrd Skynyrd songs, and everyone would be having one long continuous orgasm. This is a commonly held view among religions, hence why conversion and a rather mild dislike of infidels are often major themes. Similarly with atheism, the view is that if everyone would just stop taking their crazy pills and embrace glorious reason, then we could all start with that wonderful sounding orgasm and get on with our lives.

This line of thinking brings up the whole Us versus Them mentality, and how They must be eliminated. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, two very prominent Atheist philosophers, openly advocate waging bloody warfare on religious peoples, and how even moderates shouldn’t be tolerated on the path towards illuminated reason. That is obviously an extreme example (however prominent), but there are many seemingly minor disallowances as well that are debated frequently in the secular world. Burkhas, turbans, building an Islamic community centre within 10 miles of the 9/11 rubble… This alienation leads only to more aggression, and problems escalate.

You have to keep in mind that everyone is a different human being, with different experiences and different cultures. No one will ever agree fully on anything; that’s just not how people work. If people were able to agree on the simplest of facts, then we wouldn’t have so many different sects of Christianity, now would we? On the secular side of that coin, you could look at the old grandfatherly wisdom that states, “if everyone wanted the same thing, they’d all be after your grandma.” Getting everyone to agree on one thing, especially something huge like religious belief (or lack thereof), is impossible. Even if you genocided your way to the top, there would never be an accord. If there is going to be any hope of harmony on this forsaken planet, it’ll be through a form of subjective acceptance, not absolutist dogma.

Intolerance: This ties in slightly with the previous rant, but is distinguishable enough that I’ll give it its own section. Atheists love to point out that the Bible is explicitly in favour of slavery, is opposed to homosexuality, and denounces a great many things, upsetting many socially conscious folks. However, not to be outdone, Atheists have found their own secular reasons for disliking those who are different, or even for no reason at all. There are the bio-truths out there that suggest women belong in the kitchen because they used to be the gatherers during the hunter/gatherer stage of our evolution, or the statistician that concluded that blacks were dumber than whites based on collections of test scores, without looking at the structural disparities that very likely contributed to those numbers. Then there is of course the person who calls someone else a “faggot” simply to put him down.

It’s not because homosexuality is denounced in the Bible that homophobia is so rampant, because otherwise we’d see equal protesting of shellfish and tattoos which are denounced in the very same chapter (Leviticus 11:9, 18:22, and 19:28, if you were wondering). So really, people are just assholes. If you want to come down on intolerance, good for you, but remember it’s not due to any ideology, but more that the person is just… kind of a twat. Well not even that, really, we just live in a culture where ostracization is an important form of social control. Come down on that, maybe.

Illogic: The term “Invisible Sky Wizard” makes me want to die. The whole Pastafarianism parody of religion also makes me want to die. There are a good many things on this planet that make me want to die. We get it. There are things in the Bible that don’t make literal sense. Go ahead and completely dismiss a few thousand year old paradigm because it’s not possible for two of every animal to fit onto a boat. Then go ahead and kill yourself. That’s like going to a fancy restaurant, having this fabulous meal, and then dismissing the whole experience as a waste of time because you went to the washroom and found that somebody had forgotten to flush after dropping a slimy deuce. I mentioned earlier that the stories in the Bible don’t actually have to make sense because that’s not the point of them. So get over yourself and pay attention to what actually is important in there, and maybe come up with an opinion on that instead.

People are illogical all the time. This article even goes so far as to suggest that we’re just flat out wrong about everything:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html

We frequently do the stupidest shit. You ever leave the twist tie on before using the microwave? You ever step on a burning bag that was left on your porch?

I’ve just started reading a book that suggests we have two types of thinking. Fast thinking and slow thinking. Slow thinking is when we actually stop to ponder for a bit before we do something, and fast thinking is what we basically do the rest of the time. Read: all the time. And fast thinking is supremely biased based on our experiences and preconceived notions. So we see that bag and we think “Fire!” and our fast thinking tells us to stomp it out, whereas the slow thinking might have suggested we check for poop first. But slow thinking rarely happens in day to day activities, so most people are acting illogically the majority of the time. It’s how life works. Maybe you might think that if people were to slow think about religion, they would see how ridiculous it is, and that does occasionally happen. That’s how moderates or apologists are born. But I’m sure if you slow thunk about some of your own firmly held beliefs, you’d come to some pretty shocking conclusions yourself. Like have you ever stopped to think about why you believe your life is going to turn out okay? What proof do you have of that? You work hard and take your vitamins? Well, have fun with your BRAIN ANEURYSM. That kind of thing happens all the time. One is probably building in your head as you read this.

Violence: All the world’s violent outbreaks are quite obviously the fault of a belief in something beyond the empirical universe. Oh wait, shut up. Here is a comprehensive list of religious violence compared to secular violence.Religious: The Crusades – Secular: The 100 year war.Religious: The Inquisition – Secular: The Holocaust.Religious: 9/11 – Secular: The Atomic bomb.Secular: the Rwandan Genocide, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, anyone that looked at Stalin the wrong way, the list goes on and on.

For every violent act commited in the name of religion, there is one in the secular realm as well. It’s almost as if it’s not actually religion that causes violence at all, but hate, power and greed.

Perhaps you’ve noticed my point that maybe it’s not actually religion that is all that terrible when it comes to the most common complaints about it. If these problems are arising outside of religion, maybe it’s just that human nature is just… garbage. Maybe when you start being more proactive in actually trying to make the world a better place, you can start not being a douchebag as well. I honestly believe that Ted Theodore Logan, and  Bill S. Preston, Esq. will save the world because they have the simplest philosophy that is nearly impossible to fuck up.

“Be excellent to each other, and party on, dudes!”

Readings which influenced this essay, in no particular order because fuck legitimate bibliographies:

The Case for God – Karen Armstrong

I Don’t Believe in Atheists – Chris Hedges

Thinking, Fast and Slow – Daneil Kahneman (I still haven’t finished reading this one, so maybe when I do I’ll do a complete 180 on my opinions)

The End of Faith – Sam Harris

11 Year Old Girl Commits Suicide After Discovering Non-Existence of Santa Claus
http://www.kymonews.com/news/national/11-year-old-girl-commits-suicide-santa-claus/article5633560/

Janet Paisley, 11, committed suicide yesterday afternoon after having discovered that the jolly old elf Santa Claus had been entirely fictional. In an interview with her mother, we learned that Janet began having doubts about Santa Claus a few years earlier, and would purposely misbehave around her family to see if she would in fact receive coal for her transgressions. “We knew she had been a hellion, fighting with her sister and cousins, but what parent could bring themselves to ruin a kid’s Christmas? We still bought her the gifts, and she seemed happy enough to receive them. How could we know?” said mother Anne Paisley.

Janet then began an existential spiral into nihilistic despair. Her journal revealed that she had begun to question the legitimacy of morality. One passage reads, “If I’m good I get presents, and if I’m bad I get presents. My parents buy them for me. There’s no list of the naughty, no list of the nice. My actions have no consequence. If I did actually get coal, it wouldn’t be because some transcendent judge with absolute knowledge of nice and naughty deemed me unworthy of gifts, but merely because my parents were upset that I broke Grandma’s vase and lied about it.”

This surprisingly articulate 11 year old, fuelled by her despair at the lie she had been living, began misbehaving in school, and, despite measures by the school’s staff, seemed impervious to traditional methods of discipline. “We would put Janet in detention for hours upon hours after school, and she would continue to misbehave. I even asked her if it bothered her to be all alone, and she told me that she’s always alone. In her mind, there is only her consciousness, and that doesn’t change whether there are people in the room or not,” said Arthur Schumacher, the school’s Vice Principal.

Right before Janet’s unfortunate end, she had been sitting quietly on a swing in the playground. Janet then got up, and calmly walked over to her classmate Ahmed Nasab, 11, and stabbed him in the side once with a pencil, then stabbed him four more times in quick succession. Ahmed was rushed to the hospital, and is currently in stable condition. When asked why she did it, Janet replied, “Just to see.”

Then yesterday, just days after the incident on the playground, Janet was found by her mother in their bathtub with her wrists slit. Beside her was a note that read, “I no longer desire presents. Coal doesn’t bother me. All I want for Christmas is the truth, and that is the one thing that does not exist. There is no Santa Claus. There is only nothingness.”

Memorial services will be held in St. James Church, Thursday November 29th, at 3:00pm.