Moving to wordpress!

I WILL NO LONGER UPDATE THIS BLOG, PLEASE GO TO: http://manicdvln.wordpress.com/ FOR FUTURE UPDATES, AS I HAVE MIGRATED TO WORDPRESS.

What is Happiness?

When I was on vacation last week, I heard on the radio of a CBC host asking the same question to its listeners. I listened to variety of definitions and expressions of the word, but none of them were satisfying to the extent of complete apprehension of its meaning.

Maybe the word itself can only be defined as a half truth, its meaning subject to personal interpretation. What is obvious is that we probably use this word numerous times to measure our fulfillment in our daily activities. But what troubles me is that many of us overuse and abuse the word for every positive thing that happens in our lives. For instance, some of the radio listeners defined happiness when they encountered a certain pleasure. That is eating a certain food they like, or acquiring material goods like a particular car and such. For me that can’t explain what happiness is. If I would go by their train of thought, it would mean happiness can be bought. Moreover, it would mean every financially secure person in this world is happy. I don’t think anyone would agree with that notion. Neither will anyone believe that consuming a certain food will automatically make a desperate bitter or a deranged angry psycho killer to instantly and continuously become happy.

Sure, these vices may give us a temporary sensation of feeling good about something, but feeling good does not necessarily equate to happiness. Instant pleasures do not sustain long-term happiness. For instance, if I love cheesecake, and eat only cheesecake rest of my life. I might feel good of eating a cheesecake for the first 15 minutes, but that fades away quickly as my stomach starts to become full and my taste buds dissipate and can no longer enjoy it as I did with the first bite. Not to mention, I would end up in an early grave eating food that is rich in sugar and fat. Hence, the consumption of short-term pleasures can’t be defined as happiness. If that was the case, I am pretty confident every company in the world would love to sell happiness as a commodity as it is every persons dream isn’t it? To be happy.

Other listeners responded by saying that in order to attain long-term happiness, one must require spiritual guidance, more specifically to believe in God, to become a reborn Christian. This is also problematic as once again, happiness is defined as a commodity; one must have to do something in order to acquire it. Furthermore, as I have observed, being religious definitely does not make one happy. There are many faithful people out there who are unhappy, in fact, angry and intolerant. Some will testify by saying that believing in God is not enough; one must attempt to live by the teachings of their messiah in order to attain happiness. All Judaic religions pretty much tell us to follow a strict moral code so that in the afterlife, one can acquire happiness. This pretty much signifies that happiness is unattainable in life. Something that is unacceptable and alien to me.

I for one believe that anyone, no matter their wealth, social status or religion can attain happiness. I do not believe happiness is a commodity but a state of mind when one reaches a split second of self realization that he is satisfied without regret by the scrutiny of a momentary experience in life. Meaning, when you experience certain event in your life, step back, rewind and realize that the moment you just experienced was so perfect to you. How one reaches this type of awareness is very personal to each individual and does not last very long. But when one is happy they remember that moment forever in their life time. I probably can remember very few times that I have been happy in my life and I treasure them to be more precious than any material on this earth.

The reason why I believe happiness is short-lived is because we as human beings require dynamic life style that requires both negative and positive experiences that enable us to appreciate the better things in life. This is why I think no one can remain happy in sort of permanent and static state. As the grandma in the movie “Parenthood” describes, life is not a merry-go-round, it’s a roller coaster. The moments when we reach the highest peaks in life, are moments that truly make us happy.

Failures of democracy.

Democracy is “government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic” (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1996). If you look at the definition of democracy, you can feel that it is a half complete system. It is not a direct democracy, meaning each individual has direct involvement in the decision making process. It says that democratic process is by popular representation, popular remaining questionable since it a process of holding the most votes of an elected candidate that will make the decisions for the people, sometimes not even amounting to half of the population voting for the same candidate. And often times, the most popular candidate does not equate to the most capable candidate.

What’s going on here? How is this democratic? The system is discriminating against citizens who were not part of the “popular” vote. The political individual counts for less and less, as a unit of democracy and as the population rises, there is a threshold for political influence. An organization representing a fraction in thousands of ordinary citizens is unlikely to have any political importance. Furthermore, the unorganized individual is even more politically marginalized. Minorities in our democratic system will always be outvoted by the majority at a local level and more so at a national level.

Our democratic system does somewhat guarantee basic rights for minorities, but that is all. They cannot guarantee minorities, a society built upon their values. Democracy often means minority groups living in a society, which they find morally unacceptable. Guarantees of civil and political rights cannot compensate minorities for living in a society which they consider ethically intolerable. Yet the democratic process does not recognize conscience, or the moral autonomy of the person. If no fundamental ethical differences exist within a society, then there is no problem. However, issues like racism, culture, religion, abortion, euthanasia show the limits of democracy.
The system cannot resolve ethical issues, nor can it sustain a balance of values between ethnic groups. There are many unresolved ethical issues in developed nations, much greater in third world states. If there are two opposing parties dealing on a specific issue, the legislature must either accept or reject the demand. There is no third option other than delaying the legislature which is another kind of rejection of demand. Either way, some people will live under laws, which they cannot morally accept. The outcomes are usually unfortunate, it either makes the individual feel helpless and if the political arena fails for their voices to be heard, it’s usually resorted to violence.

It is futile to say that candidates that are elected to represent an entire population of a state will ever embody the needs of all people of the state. Therefore, I believe the complete participation of a citizen within the state is the only way politics in civil society will matter. Participation leads to state responsibility, thus responsibility of citizens to make the right choices that in effect will affect all citizens within society.

What we can learn from prohibition: legalization is the only way.

Prohibition was a period in America which the sale, manufacture, or transport of alcoholic beverages became illegal. It started January 16, 1919 and continued to December 5, 1933. Although it was designed to stop drinking completely, it did not even come close. It simply created a large number of bootleggers who were able to supply the public with illegal alcohol. By doing so, criminals became more efficient and more organized as they evolved to large criminal organizations. Many of these bootleggers became very rich and influential through illegal sales of liquor.

If it weren't for prohibition, criminal organizations probably would not have been as sophisticated as they are today nor would they have had any source of income if liquor was legal. This brings me to reflect on present situation where certain stimulants such as marijuana, ecstasy and other illegal substances are the culprit of numerous labor consuming and expensive operations from agencies throughout the world in effort to stop the drug trade. Why haven't we learned from prohibition? Did the world come to a halt after the legalization of alcohol? Why can't we do the same for other stimulants? From top of my head, I can name a great deal of benefits through legalization. Government agencies such as FBI or the RCMP and others would have more valuable time to investigate terrorist activity instead of fighting a lost cause which is the drug trade. In fact, most of these terrorist organizations are funded by the sales of illegal drugs.

Through legalization, criminal or terrorist organizations would lack any source of income as corporate investment would obviously take control of once illegal trade through legitimate sales. Not only would this help against terrorism, but also help open hundreds or even thousands of new legal jobs which would guarantee worker safety and minimum wage to their employees. On top of that, the government would be able to collect taxes over sale of these substances as they do today with tobacco and alcohol. So in the end, it's a win win situation.

I know some are concerned that the public would be exposed to more harmful drugs, and that this would lead to more consumption. I would disagree, as I believe, the people who are stimulant free will remain as such, and the people who do use it will continue to do so. This is not to say there will be temptation to try it once. But in the end, nurture more than nature dictates our lifestyle. Why are some people chain smokers, others alcoholics or heavy coffee drinkers? Are these vices any different than a womanizer or a glutton? I think the culprit is not exposure but social dysfunction, and more so in a multi-cultural society that is run by fast paced capitalism.

Everyone finds a way to exhaust their daily stresses on something. So if drug addicts are able to obtain their fix in dangerous and uncontrollable ways, we as a society, might as well benefit and learn from their demise instead of pointing illegal substances as an obvious scapegoat. We tabooed it, we frowned upon it, and we even tried to stop it. It all failed; now let's try a new alternative.

Christian dogma: God created sin in his own image.

The Christian faith is radically different from any other kind of belief or philosophy. A sharp contrast to all other non Judaic doctrines of faith is that the Bible teaches us because of Adam and Eve’s fall into sin, we too have become sinful. The impact of falling into sin is so far reaching that we are unable to save ourselves or make ourselves acceptable to God on the basis of our own merits. There is only one way by which God saves us. He does so exclusively through his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ who is the way, the path to light. No one can come to God, the Father, except through the Son.

The problem I find is that if Adam and Eve’s disobedience was the culprit of man becoming sinful, then wasn’t that God's choosing? Sin can be defined as disobedience towards God’s will. Yet, who created Satan? Who planted the seed for Satan to rebel against God? Who let the serpent roam in the Garden of Eden? Obviously the idea of sin was premeditated from God or else sin would not exist. It’s a perplexing contradiction of God going against his own will to create world of suffering.

Furthermore, the concept of a god taking the form of a man to endure the suffering of a mortal life is also problematic. If God wanted truly to be human, then why didn’t Jesus ever commit a sin? The idea of a human being never to have sinned is like a lion that doesn’t eat meat. Of course, in the bible, it is even admitted that no one can imitate completely the life of Jesus, but the pursuit of it is enough to gain salvation.

Now even more contradictions, so God wants us to be what we should have been but he never intended us to be from the beginning? What does that really equate to? Man was designed to sin, but we ought not to, that is our choice in life.

There is also dogmatic problem of the Ten Commandments given to Moses. One of these commandments states that we humans are not allowed to commit murder. Yet if you look at the many chapters in the Old Testament, there are several cases where God mass murders human beings such as in the great Noah’s flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, God commanding Abraham to commit murder against his only legitimate son, God mass murdering Egyptians… The list can go on for pages. So why is God allowed to murder when we are not? Another example is God commanding us not to covet or be jealous of our neighbors yet God himself is jealous that no human being should worship anything or anyone but him. The Christian response is usually in the manner of: “well is he is God, he can do whatever he wants”. I won’t disagree with that, what I see to be problematic is God setting a double standard. How you may ask? I will explain. Every child looks up to his parents for guidance and discipline. As Jesus said, we are his flock of sheep. If a father tells his children, it’s wrong to steal, yet the father himself steals, do you think that father will gain any respect from his children, particularity in moral behavior?

Theological humility: Is peace possible among the faithful?

Unfortunately I would have to say that popular religions will never come to peace, unless only one religion remains within this world or none at all. There are some who believe in theological humility which is the practice of teaching to love members of other faiths with the argument of God’s revelations amongst different groups of people are one and the same and we should move beyond tolerance and encourage love.

It's a daring concept in the attempt to find commonality and peace amongst western monotheistic religions as all three religions believe in the same Abrahamic God. However, I find this attempt quite limited. The concept is based amongst Christians, Jews and Muslims, yet ignoring other religions as well as newcomers or one’s that are left in a minority, such as Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, Scientology…

There are many religions within this world and some that have gone extinct, yet no one tries to find commonality amongst the gods of ancient Greeks, or ancient Egyptians gods or even the Roman gods. Maybe because no one follows those religions anymore, either because of imperial conquests such as Muslim’s taking over Egypt, European’s invading newly discovered America or cultural influence such as Jewish religion influencing nearby cultures to form new monotheistic religions.

I do very much agree that tolerance is not always a positive value. One can tolerate another viewpoint but not necessarily respect it, but the alternative of teaching to love another from a different faith does not solve the problem either. For example, in the Five Pillars of Islam, it is clearly stated that the enemies of Islam are people who do not believe in Allah, the one and only God who is the same God of Christians and Jews. Another example taking from one of the ten commandments is God forbids in the worship of other gods for he is a jealous god. There is no other way to interpret this law, when it has been clearly stated.

This only brings me to question how would one expect to love others whose religion is quite alien to western perception of the divine such as eastern religions like Hinduism or what about non-believers? We have to understand that the opposite of love is hate. All three western monotheistic religions within their biblical scripture despise atheists, how are believers going to convince or interpret their scripture to love non-believers? This is not about interpretation, but a direct violation of God’s will. To love someone is to respect others beliefs and I doubt any Christian, Muslim or Jew is going to respect an atheist’s position, let alone love them.

These popular religions can’t even find consensus amongst their own sects! As for the underpinning argument that God works in mysterious ways amongst different religions seems to be a far cry for relativism. This type of tolerance is dangerous. In this case, any religious group can justify any sort of act by appealing to their scripture or God as truth, an excuse for extremist groups to commit atrocities to other people or violate human right laws.

This kind of mindset would encourage justification of female genital mutilation in some parts of Africa or Middle-East or the practice of Sati that still going on in some parts of India or the discrimination of the “untouchables”, even though both are now banned by the Indian government.

Religion or Self-Discipline? Problems with Bhuddism

It seems that all religions face two key problems: the rejection of reason and persecution. Usually, one is more present than the other and danger is apparent when both are actively emphasized. Fortunately, Buddhism only falters in one aspect, and that is reason.

I not being a Buddhist, find it exceptionally hard to understand the life and teachings of the Buddha in a manner which would make it consistent as a whole. The consistency in the story of the life of Buddha becomes a complex thing and some parts of his teachings become much more so.

Without a doubt, it wouldn’t be an overstatement to say that in all the founders of religion in this world, the description of the life and teachings of the founder of Buddhism invites the most dilemmas that are quite confusing if not baffling. Isn’t it essential that these problems should be resolved so that a rational person who wishes to take upon the path Buddhism has a clear understanding?

I think these are problems that Buddhists should take up for debate or at least for general discussion either to reach a consensus or at least shed some light on these issues. In many of the conundrums of Buddhism, I would like to reflect on two: The Four Noble Truths and the contradiction of soul and karma.

The Four Noble Truths teaches us that life was disappointing because of desire, but that this condition was somehow remediable. This formula destroys the basis of Buddhism. It mentions that life is unhappiness; death is unhappiness and re birth is unhappiness. If that is so, neither religion nor philosophy can help a man to achieve happiness in our lifetime. If there is no escape from sadness, then what can this religion do to change that?

What can Buddha do to alleviate man from such unhappiness? What would be the point of this religion? The four noble truths are a great eye opener in the sense that how non-Buddhists are to apprehend the doctrine of Buddhism. They pretty much deny hope to humanity. They make Buddhism appear like a doctrine for pessimism.

The second problem relates to Buddha’s dogma of soul, of karma and rebirth. Buddha rejected the existence of the soul. Yet he also believed to have acknowledged the principle of karma and rebirth. Anyone want to guess what is wrong with this picture? If souls do not exist, how can there be karma? If there is no soul, how is rebirth possible?

These are inexplicable questions. In what context did Buddha used the concept of karma and rebirth? Did he mean them in a different sense than the sense in which they were used by the Brahmins of his day? If so, in what sense was it then? Are the concepts of soul, karma and rebirth to be taken in the same sense in which the Brahmins used them? If so, isn’t there a terrible contradiction between the denial of the soul and the affirmation of karma and rebirth?

Such contradiction needs to be resolved if Buddhism is to be accepted and taken seriously as popular religion and just a method of self-discipline like other emerging cults. However, it may be too late, actually 2500 years late as the only person who could have answered this question would be the founder of this religion, Buddha himself.

If anyone is knowledgeable and have answers to my questions, please leave them in the comment section. Thank you.

Harmony or Absolute truth? My perspective on Hinduism.

Hinduism being a polytheistic religion has various Hindu gods. Origins deriving from the oldest and most sacred texts, the Vedas, are essentially concerned with mythologies and rituals related to a number of deities, most of which are identified with aspects of the natural world. The gods of modern Hinduism are many, some of which include the chief gods Shiva, Vishnu and the Mother Goddess Shakti as well as a numerous local community gods.

It seems that devotion to these various deities is based primarily on one's region and needs, and even when devotion is given to only one; the existence of others is acknowledged. Hindu worship virtually always involves sculptures and images, to which offerings are made and rituals are performed.

The issue I find to be problematic is regards to ethics. How is one to know what is is right or wrong when there are many deities to appeal to? It is only common logic to assume that what is loved by one god may be also hated by another. Not all the Hindu gods love or hold dear the same things.

This is why it is very hard to contemplate a universal code of ethics in polytheism, a dilemma that also plagued the ancient Greeks and Egyptians who also believed in many gods. Western religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism are not faced with this problem for each of these religions believe in monotheism and more so believe in the same deity. Hence, there is no problem or conflicting morals, one God equals one truth.

While I do acknowledge there are also problems with these religions concerning the issue of interpretation of scripture, the basic moral arguments are standard. Something I find hard to understand in Hinduism. How did Hindus overcome this problem? That is if they even engaged in this issue at all. It seems that the religion itself has been quite tolerant in acquiring changes and adoptions particular to ones region.

An anthropological perspective would argue that religion is simply a system of beliefs to keep social order. In this case, one can argue the reason there are so many regional gods in local communities is because each part of India required different needs as well as cultural discrepancies that can be assumed played a major role in their polytheistic practices.

This can also account as to why Hinduism has been so widely accepted in territory of the once vast Indian empire, as each regional territory of India knotted their customs and traditions with the grand ideas of Hinduism. This harmonious merger is different approach then western religions where assimilation and conversion were practiced instead. Jews, Christians and Islam did not propose a merger of ideas, instead opted for oppressive measures of acceptance.

From a modern point of view, it seems that the western form of persuasion has won but with what price? Islamic, Christian and to some extent Jewish sects still shed blood against their own brethren and people of their own religion for absurd technicalities of interpretation of scripture, something fortunately unseen in Hindusim and to be appreciated in their religion.

If any faithful Hindus believe I have misunderstood certain aspects of Hinduism, I welcome you to post any discrepancies in the comment section.

Faith and knowledge should not be intermingled.

Faith and knowledge should not be intermingled. Moreover, I believe it has lead to dangerous thinking and introduced intolerance between religions. This is not something we haven’t seen before, as the most popular reason humanity has waged war amongst each other is because of religion. This type of intolerance that emerges from the war of ideas and religious conviction has become a natural phenomenon since the birth of civilizations.

What is most troubling is when ethics becomes legitimized through faith. Since knowing things will result in the contemplation of what is right or wrong. A person relying on oneself to confirm what is right or wrong triggers an egoist mindset. Of course, you may hear from religious believers that good ethical behavior is dependant on religious scripture, yet so much we see that even those are ripped apart in so many small pieces of different interpretations. Ask any religious person, what their common beliefs are, they will ask you which religion, what denomination, which sect?

Our religious convictions are divided, distant from one another, we almost see strangers around us like aliens. This is a dilemma that plagues all religions, as extremism becomes more apparent than ever. The perception of taking all on faith results in the rejection of reason, emotions and sympathy as one’s beliefs will now be only guided by his own interpretation of God’s will.

I do not know much in eastern Holy Scriptures, but I do know enough that everything in Judeo/Christian bible can’t be taken literally or face value, context is always important. For instance, let’s say I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. In Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? Or in Leviticus 19:27, that males are expressly forbidden to get their hair trimmed, including hair around their temple. Am I obliged to kill everyone who does not follow this religious law? This might sound ridiculous to some of us, but is this any different than Muslim women being stoned to death simply on the assumption of infidelity or Hindu practice of Sati, live burning of a widow?

These are not questions of ridicule or attempt to mock religious traditions or beliefs. For these questions are taken extremely seriously by religious fundamentalists and used as evidence in their judgment of moral standards. Yes, these are obscene scenarios, but an active abortion doctor being shot to death by a Christian extremist is not and is part of our reality in modern society.

This is why I am strong advocate for the separation of church and state, as I do not believe religion has any footing politically in modern society. Issues like these not only create strife between secularists and believers, but as well encourage competitive religious beliefs within a multi-cultural society which then can result into undermining or oppressing the religious convictions of minority groups.

Here is a video that clearly shows my point.

Armenian Genocide: Past grievances should be forgotten.

I think past violent conflicts shouldn’t be remembered. In most cases, past human atrocities were caused by deep hatreds that were never settled by different groups of people. Such memories of hate usually are deep rooted within societies because people won’t let go of them. I, being an Armenian, have no intention of keeping the memories of my ancestors. Yes, the Turkish government systematically carried out a genocide that killed around 1-1.5 million Armenians in 1915. Yes it was terrible event, but how beneficial would it be to keep these memories intact in present times?

Armenia is economically very dependant to its neighbors in trade which is a big political obstacle because it’s biggest neighbor being Turkey itself. Still today, Armenians have relentlessly tried to force the Turkish government into recognizing the genocide.

Do you think annoying the Turks with past events will help Armenia in anyway? No, it will just make matters worse and it has. European countries like France have recognized the Armenian genocide with the agenda of gaining political capital by French Armenians as well as a good excuse to stop entry of Turkey in the European Union with the pre-condition that they will not enter until they apologies for the acts committed. On the other hand, countries like USA and Israel (a nation that itself suffered from genocide) do not recognize Armenian genocide and even go to lengths that it didn’t even happen, reason being both of these are strong allies with Turkey.

The present Turkish government has no blame on this issue, and what it probably fears is that any kind recognition will lead to money lawsuits which do not help the victims; neither do they help to heal relations by both groups. Giving people financial restitution is an insult to the victims. That’s like putting a price on a human being.

Oddly enough, Jewish groups did exactly that with the German government and settled for billions of dollars in return for German exemption of future accusations. Norman G. Finkelstein, a Jewish author, wrote about this issue and greatly emphasized that one injustice has now lead to another. In this case, Jewish lobby that carried out the lawsuits have used most of the money not to help the victims overcome their grievances and compensate for their losses, but rather use it to fuel the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

These are not healthy memories; these are memories that are stretched out, blown out of proportion and used as political tools to advance similar agendas. Best evidence yet is Rwanda, where ethnic tensions by Hutus and Tutsis, which was in the first place an artificial social constructed hatred since colonial times, led to massive killings in short amount of time. A genocide was committed because of “Je me souviens” which is a Quebecor expression all too familiar with Canadians.

Yet in times of great faults, selfishness, cynicism, there are examples that should be recognized and remembered. My best example would be after the fall of the apartheid white government of South Africa and the empowerment of the majority black population. After years of torment, persecution, degradation and humiliation of blacks by the white government and police, did the newly established black government stage vengeance for past atrocities towards the whites? Did it chant the death of every white folk? No, it did not. Rather what they did is setup a “truth & reconciliation” committee where they asked any white man that committed any kind of crime against a black to voluntarily come up and apologies, and then go scot free. Yes, the power of forgiveness does seem to exist and it’s times like these we should never forget. Our memories should not haunt us, but to help us to better ourselves.

Update: Armenian Genocide documentary by PBS video here.

Kingdom of heaven or blood? Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

It’s quite ironic that in today’s world, the situation between Jews and Muslims is quite different than in the past, before the rise of nationalistic movements and the creation of the Israeli state. It is interesting to note that many scholars believe that Jews supported the creation of Muhammad’s Islam.

But why would Jews encourage such a thing? Could it be because Jews want to spread their monotheistic religious beliefs around the world without forcing the Torah on foreign cultures? That may be the case, but why didn’t they not realize the repercussions of helping to support a religion that now has spread very quickly to become a behemoth that overshadows the tiny Jewish religion.

These two faiths having many similarities are now facing a heated battle on the political level. The creation of the Israeli state destroyed any relationship these two religions once had. Presently, Muslims and Jews are shedding blood for a piece of land that has absolutely nothing to do in rectifying their faiths. The wrongs on both sides are not caused by the practice of their religions but by political actions that have encouraged unfounded religious claims to legitimize their political motives as to be sacred.

Nowhere in the Jewish scriptures does it say that Jews are to politically claim themselves as rightful owners of the lands which are now part of Israel. If that was the case, why hasn’t the Jewish Temple of Solomon been rebuilt? Obviously, this only means that the majority of faithful Jews still do not consider the actions of the Zionist movement legitimate according to Jewish scriptures.

Muslims also face the same problem. Nowhere in the Quran does it emphasize that murdering innocent people with horrendous acts like suicide bombings is an act of Islamic law. If we were to follow the Quran, it grants protected people status to people who believe in God. This consists of all three Abraham religions. Hence, Jews and Christian are not to be harmed, especially in the manner that Muslim extremists are targeting. So in the end, politics not religious faith is determining the final destination of these people.

Unless some people would like to claim that religion is an absolute component of political action. This would mean every political action would have to be judged according to religious law. This is something very hard to do as every religion has many different kinds of interpretation, some of which now have been very popular and used to fuel violence. If these two cousin religions are ever willing to bring peace, it will have to be through peaceful religious practice rather than political action.

Difference between a Christian and homophobia.

First I will state that I am not gay. Second I will state that people who accuse of homosexuals to be sinners in the Christian sense are not really Christians at all, but homophobes who use the bible as a weapon to dehumanize and demonize gays. In fact, didn’t the Nazis, Turks and Hutus use the same tactics as reasons to exterminate the Jews, Armenians and Tutsis? A real Christian wouldn’t accuse of someone to be a lesser person than he is. Didn’t Jesus say: “he, who is without sin, cast the first stone”? Aren’t we all sinners?

The next argument by homophobes is that homosexuality is a sin because it hinders pro-creation and that one who does not pro-create is an inadequate being, a useless life. Well that only means that people who remain celibate or single are useless as well? That would mean nuns, monks, priests and even Jesus could be considered as useless waste of life. Not to mention that our dominance over this earth by the ever growing human population has in fact has had an ill effect, as deforestation for habitat and farms and extinction of many animal species for food have been consequences of pro-creation.

Third, homosexual activity is wrong because it is unnatural. This is false, as many mammals and even our closest genetic ancestors, chimps, participate in homosexual activities.

Fourth, homophobes claim that homosexuality is a preference. Ok if it is then, why do you care? Why do homophobes go to such lengths as threaten, verbally abuse someone because of a certain preference? Do these very same people also act the same way towards people who eat their food in a certain way or dress in a certain fashion or who even sleep in a certain position. I could care less if my neighbor prefers a Ford instead of a Honda. Yet, preference of having homosexual activities is such a crime!!! Yet I bet some of these very people wouldn’t mind having anal sex with women or seeing two women kissing each other or any other kinky sexual activity.

Fifth, people who reject gay marriages are simply idiots. You like it or not, gays will live together. You might as well be recognized by the government for tax purposes. And being gay is not contagious, there are many gay families who have adopted children and their offspring are not gay. I see, we allow drug addicted mothers or fathers who beat their kids to have the legal right to raise children but not gays. Isn’t it odd that we need a license to drive, a license to own certain pets, a license to own a gun, but not to raise kids. Screwing up a child is fine, but DARE NOT TO DRIVE WITHOUT YOUR LICENSE. A good parent has nothing to do with sexual preference.

And now I will raise some contradictions made by homosexuals.

Some homosexuals claim that you are born gay. I believe them, since I have read and conversed with homosexuals that wish they were not and that homosexuality is a tough life to live.

If this is the case, then why hasn’t homosexuality been treated and recognized to be a mental illness or some sort of hormonal disease? If you are born with it, and very little of the population is born gay, then it is obviously an abnormality that needs to be addressed. This is no different than some men who are psychologically trapped in a women’s body and vice versa. Why has homosexuality been given a free ticket?

Second problem I see with homosexuals is that even though animals may participate in homosexual activities, they are not 100% gay, they are actually bisexual. Since all animals instinctively have a calling for pro-creation. These homosexual tendencies are related to sexual practice, self-gratification or because of sexual deprivation. I see no problem with people being bisexual, but someone who claims they are 100% homosexual is a little hard to swallow.

Third problem I see is homosexuals who want to be Christians or want to marry in a church. Sorry but this is the most stupid thing ever conjured up by homosexuals. Bible says it’s a sin. You are a sinner according to the bible. This is no different than murder being a sin. Would you accept a serial killer Christian? Ridiculous, the only way a homosexual can be a Christian is if you repent your sins of homosexuality and not continue to commit such sins. Otherwise, it is impossible to be Christian and you might as well find another religion to get brainwashed with.

I don’t mind gays getting legally married by city hall, but why would you want to practice the ceremonial ritual of marriage in a Christian church? I doubt any priest would allow a man or women to marry a goat within a Church or a necrophiliac marrying a dead person. Simply doesn’t make sense at all.