No Magic has moved to Wordpress

Follow this link to the new site. I'm blogging as the inquiringbeagle.

Hawking says there is no need for a god!

The Telegraph in the UK quotes Stephen Hawking saying "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going." His new book to be released this month is titled The Grand Design.

 

Wow! The blogs are singing! One of England's greatest minds has just told the world there is no reason for a God. Everyone is now blubbering all over themselves that there must be a reason for the universe. Why else would we be here?

 

I, for one, have been quite happy for many years in the knowledge that we are just one big happy accident and there is no purpose for the universe except that which we make of it.

 

So, we no longer have an excuse to do nothing while waiting to be saved from our own mistakes and laziness by a sky daddy. Go out and live your lives and enjoy what you have. You will cease to exist one day and the universe will keep on being -- until it is not. Should it cease to exist one day, we will not know, since we won't exist either.

 

 

My God's better than your God

I'm struggling to understand how people twist their minds into pretzels so that they can continue to believe the nonsense they believe. One example is the recent debates over the construction of an Islamic center a couple blocks from the World Trade Center site known as Ground Zero. It seems that some people believe their God is more deserving than other Gods to have special worship centers close to supposedly hallowed ground.

From what I can tell, some Christians are claiming that their god is better than the Muslim god. I'm really confused because I grew up as a Catholic, and I was taught that the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims all believed in the same god, but the major difference was the relationship of this guy named Jesus to the three religions.

Maybe that was just my simplistic take as I was being indoctrinated, but that still sticks with me today. If that Is the case, then what are these imbeciles fighting about? When you get right down to it, if there was a god, I'm sure he/she would have taken care of deciding long ago which of the Big Three was supreme. Since that hasn't happened, I'm guessing that there are no gods and that these three groups are just after power and control over other people to make them feel like they have a purpose in life. Since without God, there is no purpose, right?

Funny that it's the atheists who seem to have a better idea of what we should be doing with our lives than any of the god chasers. I'm all for shipping all the faithful from the three religions to some desert somewhere and letting them spend the rest of their lives in an all out smack-down. Winner takes all -- of the desert anyway. That would clean out the rest of the earth for those of us who just want to get on with our lives and enjoy the world around us while we exist.

The winners of the smack down would be able to pray to their god for sustenance in the desert and be able to smugly look down their noses at the rest of us -- while they died of thirst and hunger.

Oh well, I guess that is just too much to hope for.

Obama's Faith? Who Cares?

I'm really getting tired of the press lately running stories (often prompted by right-wing political motives) about the American public's doubts about Obama's faith. I really don't care what he believes so long as he continues to leave it out of the public sphere. Whether he believes in fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, or vampires -- I don't care. Just be sure he keeps it to himself and make decisions based on rational, evidence-based processes.

 

The Constitution Article 6 says there should be not any religious test for public office. So, who cares about Obama's religion except those who would undermine the US Constitution for their own purposes. I sincerely doubt that Christian fundamentalists care about the Constitution any more than the Islamic reactionaries in Iran care about how we feel about their country. If they had it their way, we would be a religious monarchy today in the US led by some wacko Christian fundamentalist (who I'm sure would want for nothing, including his mistress to go along with his wife.)

 

Religious people tend to be very hypocritical, especially those who publicly proclaim their religiosity. Give me a declared atheist as President so I can have some confidence that at least his or her decisions are not affected by imaginary spirits whispering in his or her ear.

The President was right about the mosque near ground zero

The Republicans and the religious zealots are having a field day with the President's remarks about the rights of religious organizations to build places of worship on private property. The crazies demand that the Government stop the plans for the mosque. This is a private property in a dilapidated, abandoned area of Manhattan. There is nothing there. Now we have private citizens who want to renovate the area and put up a house of worship for their religion -- not far from two Catholic facilities I might add.

 

So, we now have Republicans stirring up a false controversy about the appropriateness of a Muslim mosque within several blocks of the World Trade Center site. It's funny that the religious fundies have been screaming discrimination and a "war against Christianity", yet they turn around and declare war on another faith! What a bunch of hypocrites.

 

The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." How can people claim to support the Constitution if they propose that the Government restrict the freedom of a religion to build a place of worship on private property in accordance with local zoning and building codes?

 

The president's remarks simply echoed support for this fundamental right.

 

As an atheist, I am offended when a Christian megachurch is contstructed in a prominent place in our city. Yet, it is their right, and I defend that right as an American citizen.

 

The clear message here is not whether this is a proper location for a Muslim facility, rather, it is that this demonstrates why we need a solid separation of church and state, and that religion continues to be a divisive force in our country and around the world.

 

We don't need more religion, we need less religion. Help stop the crazies!!!!

Sharron Angle, another wacko who wants to run the country

NPR news, from Associated Press, reports that Sharron Angle [emphasized text mine]

... who has called for dissolving some federal agencies and shifting their powers to states, including the Department of Education, warned of growing dependency on Washington. "We know that once we have a majority that are dependent upon the government, we will lose our freedom," she said. "That's the next stage. Our Founders warned against this."

What???!!! How do we know this? Where does that come from?

The only people losing freedom would be us:

• She wants to completely prohibit abortion
• She wants to prevent gays from marrying
• She wants to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance

How is this freedom? Sharron Angle believes this is more freedom, not less? I'd be really afraid that someone with such a ridiculous perspective on human life could actually make it through a primary election and be nominated for one of the highest offices in our country.

"The Lord shows me daily where he wants me to walk," she said.

Really? He talks to you? Did you get that on your Blackberry or does he appear in your bedroom with a PowerPoint presentation explaining his latest edicts? How can anyone take a person like this seriously?

... Angle said, "We're at war in this country, for our freedom, our culture, for our liberty, our Constitution."

Yes, we are at war in this country -- with insane, delusional, fairy-worshippers who want to make everyone else as insane as them. It just won't do if only they are insane. They have to force everyone else to accept their insanity, too. If she wins her Senate race, I don't give our civilization much chance of surviving past this century.

Supreme Court and Roe vs. Wade

When President Obama nominated Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court, much discussion ensued regarding her position on abortion rights. I am a strong supporter of the right of choice for women. I don't believe the states or the Federal Government should restrict abortion. The primary objection to abortion is based on religious beliefs and is therefore not relevant to the discussion. Unfortunately, religion still drives much of our lawmaking despite the First Amendment restriction on establishment.

The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...". That's pretty clear to me, yet the basic premise for restricting abortions is driven by a religious belief that a soul is placed into a fertilized egg at conception and is therefore a miniature human being.

I'm not going to debate the ridiculousness of that thought, but instead I will address the role of the Supreme Court in the abortion debate.

From a strict constructionist perspective, there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the right to abortion. The same could be said of many other rights we enjoy. The Constitution was intended as a framework to guide decision-making and lawmaking, but was never expected to be a comprehensive set of guidelines to cover all possible situations. Thus, the need for a body to interpret the Constitution whenever issues of intent are involved.

The right to abortion, and for that matter, any decision about one's own body, should rest with the individual and not with society. As long as what one does with one's own body does not physically harm another, society has no right to restrict what one does with one's own body. Abortion is an example of this. An embryo is not a person, just as an egg is not a chicken.

Taking this concept to the next level, I believe we need an amendment to the Constitution that guarantees all citizens the right to self-determination of anything having to do with their own body without interference from society. Not only would that allow women to choose to have an abortion, but it would also allow people to decide when to die.

It is not for society to control my body. That is my right, and mine alone.