The Crucifixion of Jesus (A Sacrifice?)

I’ve heard it complained that Jesus getting crucified to atone for mankind’s sins wasn’t all that much of a sacrifice if he knew he was going to be resurrected and live forever. I can’t say I haven’t thought this myself because, well, it’s a good point. If Jesus was God, he was omniscient (or is, if he were actually God) and knew everything that was going to happen regarding his alleged sacrifice. While I’m not going to say getting nailed to a cross is the least traumatic thing you could put yourself through, do the pros outweigh the cons in this situation?

 

On one hand, Jesus is going to be humiliated by the Romans, beaten, flailed, and made to bear a large wooden cross prior to the crucifixion. Of course, after that he’s crucified and it takes him approximately six hours to ‘die’ (according to the Bible, from the third hour to the ninth hour). So, pretty gruesome. On the other side of that, given his resurrection, Jesus is going to live harmoniously forever after either serving as God or at God’s right hand (depending upon your theological interpretation). A few days of hell on earth vs. an eternity of heaven that also atones for mankind’s sins. Is that REALLY a sacrifice?

 

Let’s suppose there’s a donut between me and someone I don’t know. We both want the donut terribly bad – we’re hungry! – and the other person has done something terrible and doesn’t even deserve the donut. Then someone outside of our situation makes me an offer: I can have the donut and that’s that, or, give the other person the donut and starve to death. What’s more, if I give up the donut, after I die after weeks of starving, I will live forever and can have all the donuts I could ever want on a moments notice. Assuming the reward was guaranteed, I’m giving up the donut unless or until I consider the downside of living forever. And I’m guessing most people would give up the donut if some wonderful eternal life were a sure thing. After all, it seems most people give up the donut of rational thinking betting on an eternal afterlife and so accept Pascal’s Wager. But I digress…

 

Clearly, the long-term reward is greater than the short-term reward of enjoying the donut and living out my short life. The same is true of Jesus’ ‘sacrifice.’ Again, I’m not saying getting tortured and crucified isn’t going to be a traumatic experience, however, Jesus goes into it knowing full well the outcome. Jesus didn’t give up his life not knowing if it would do any good. By comparison, any man who signed up to fight in WWII not knowing if the Allies would be victorious against fascism and not actually knowing they would go to heaven if they died in combat are much more heroic and make a much larger sacrifice.

 

So, I can’t say I’m impressed with Jesus’ capitulating to himself (again, if he’s God which he says many times) to atone for mankind’s sins. Honestly, if I cared enough about people, I would do the same thing to save the world even without the promise of an eternal afterlife. That’s what heroes in stories do. Difference is, Jesus knew the outcome so I have a hard time saying what he did was even heroic. More likely, it was the ultimate result of the vanity of a man claiming to be a god. Make no mistake; Jesus even told his disciples they would end up joyous after his death, comparing his ‘sacrifice’ to child-birthing [man’spaining?] because he would return thereafter, so it was obvious to Jesus his agony would pale in comparison to the outcome. So, yet again, not a real sacrifice. A real sacrifice requires one gets nothing in return. Jesus got a lot in return. The pros far outweighed the cons.

 

…

 

I’ve searched in vain for a satisfactory response to this critique. Moreover, some have written, rather cheekily, that it makes no sense for God to sacrifice Himself to Himself to satiate a rule he made, that is, (eternal) death due to sin.

 

One defense typically comes in the form that Jesus and God are not strictly the same, though Jesus doesn’t make this distinction when referring to himself as God, nor is the ‘trinity’ doctrine appear in the Bible anywhere. Jesus, as a man, suffers mightily and that makes what he did extraordinary. That may be so, but I’m sure many, many people have suffered worse fates (which speaks to the horribleness of mankind.)

 

Another defense is that it’s not a rule God can change since the rule exist by virtue of God’s nature, but this defense only serves to defeat God’s alleged omnipotence and makes moral rules arbitrary: God’s rules are what they are because of his existence…which means we have no objective standard by which to judge God’s goodness. Whatever God says is good is good and we can’t question it.  Nor can we question the divine plan of God sacrificing (at least) a part of Himself to atone for mankind’s sins, a plan an omniscient and eternal God must’ve known literally forever. Did Jesus not understand the full weight of what he had to do until he was flesh on earth? That’s not an omniscient deity.

 

Defending Jesus’ crucifixion ultimately makes the whole story look less and less plausible so Apologists are better off just not saying anything about it. “But he died for your sins,” they will say. Sure, but really for a few days. Again, again, again, not a true sacrifice. He practically won the jackpot for his troubles.

 

Prelude to a Crucifixion (a short play)

 

God: (Calling down from Heaven) Jesus. Jesus my son, can you hear me?

Jesus: (Exasperated) God, stop calling me your son. I AM you. Or you in the flesh on Earth. Or part of a trinity. Or the Son of Man. Did we ever settle on any of this? I feel like this is going to confuse some people. Don’t you ever worry about all the different kinds of Christianity there’s going to be if we’re not very clear on what’s going to be written about us?

God: Wow, you need to settle down, boy. There are more important things to worry about right now, like taking away the sins of the world, giving the world Atonement. It’s part of the divine plan.

Jesus: So you’re saying flooding the world and killing all the sinners but Noah and his family didn’t get that sorted out? Oh, yeah, I already know this because I’m you.

God: What can I say? People can’t help but be sinners. I know since I created the circumstances that basically makes it impossible for them not to sin. That being the case, you know what I’m going to tell you to do, because it’s the only way.

Jesus: Is it really the only way? I mean, you know a crucifixion is going to hurt, right? Like, really, really bad. You’re telling me there’s no other way for an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity to save His creations from their miserable lives on earth? I feel like we could come up with something easier, or at least classier.

God: Don’t be a snowflake, boy. If it were easy, no one would think it was a sacrifice and be convinced to shower us with tithings. But look on the bright side; a few days of suffering and then you die only to rise from the dead – no small feat – and live happily forever after, literally. I think it’s more than a reasonable trade off.  

Jesus: Okay, just so we’re clear, a few days of excruciating pain for immeasurable happiness forever after; I guess it’s a little bit like a woman giving birth to a child. And, this takes away the sins of the world, although people are going to keep sinning after this and will need to accept me as their personal savior to avoid the fiery pit you…I…created out of love. (Goddamn pronouns…)

God: Yes, it’s so simple its genius. Sure, I could have never created Hell or evil or sin but what fun would that be? Oh, the kick I get out of seeing them struggle against temptation and face the worst life has to offer. All so that they’ll acknowledge me as their king.

Jesus: Careful, we don’t want to admit any vanity. We need to humble ourselves by allowing our own creations to torture me, sort of like what AI is going to do to social media users in the future. But still, when I’m resurrected, I’ll be a king! Ah, but again, just because we’re a king doesn’t mean we’re vain. No, sir, we’re humble. And if people don’t accept me as their savior – after I make this HUGE sacrifice – they will go to Hell for their disobedience to be tortured forever by someone else who disobeyed us. By the way, have you checked on Satan lately to make sure he’s doing his job? It seems counterintuitive that he’d torture people for doing the same thing he did.

God: Don’t get sidetracked, boy, and stick to the plan.

Jesus: Ugh, okay. As long as you’re…I’m…we’re…FUCK – as long it’s going to work and we’re not just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.

God: I’m sorry, did you say something? I think the popcorn is done. Well, get on with it. I don’t have all day. Ha, ha, ha, actually I do. I’ve got forever.

Jesus: Okay then, don’t worry about me. I’ll just go collect some painkilling herbs. Don’t forget me when I’m on the cross!

God: (Picking up the phone) Mel Gibson! Hey, playa, it’s God! Listen, do you have a camera handy?

Jesus: First the dinosaurs, now me…(walks away) 

SCOTUS v. Roe v. Wade

1-The pro-birth movement (for they are not pro-life; that’s absurd) is driven by the talking points of evangelical Christian leaders, and white men basically, who want power over women. Their goal is not to preserve life; their goal is the subjugation of women whose freedom they find abhorrent. Put another way, (primarily Evangelical) men find it repugnant that a woman might have sex for pleasure; they think women should only have sex for the man’s pleasure. Men have long gotten a free ride in this respect but it is the woman who they want to force into paying the price. Obviously, if ‘pro-lifers’ actually cared about life, they wouldn’t ignore a child the moment it is born. If ‘pro-lifers’ actually cared about life, they would hold men accountable for their roles in pregnancies and make sure a child has both a married father and mother, per their traditional family doctrine. I could point out hypocrisy all day but as a friend said, “Technically you can’t be a hypocrite if you have no morals to begin with.” Striking Roe down is about a power struggle, a desire to revisit the times one could punish women for doing anything a man doesn’t like, thus reducing women to property once again. This isn’t about life for as everyone knows, if men could get pregnant they’re be an abortion clinic on every corner.   

2-Evangelical followers are led to believe the Bible makes a case for protected fetuses because of verses in Jeremiah and Isaiah that discuss the sanctity of these two prophets’ lives before they were born. Somehow, evangelical leaders extrapolated upon this to convince their flocks that all fetuses are in need of defense, even in cases where that fetus was conceived out of evil (incest and rape). Interestingly, Jews – using the same scriptures – do not interpret these scriptures the same way, seemingly not convinced this prohibits abortions. Enacting abortion restriction for religious reasons establishes state-sponsored religion, which the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids. The Constitution prohibits the establishment of any religion in the governance of its citizens. (Sorry, but I have to keep saying it for Republicans seemingly know the Constitution about as well as they know the Bible.) We have to assume those who serve on the SCOTUS are not stupid and know that the attack on ‘established law’ (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett even said Roe was in their confirmation hearings) is ideologically driven. For any member of the SCOTUS to vote against Roe now would be intellectually dishonest and completely destroy any trust in this government institution, as if it hasn’t been destroyed already.

3-I cannot harp on it enough: Abortion restrictions are religious in nature as there is no agreement on when life begins. Evangelicals tend to tow the line that life begins at conception, but not only is this ambiguous at best in the Bible, it is an arbitrary distinction at well. What’s special about cells dividing? Is someone no longer a person when their cells stop dividing? Moreover, why not go further back than conception to the sperm and egg? Those are living cells, too. Why not go back to the lives of potential parents? The argument gets teleologically silly quite quickly. In fact, there is no complete agreement/scientific consensus on what life is. There is no complete agreement on what a person is. (Legally, corporations are people, but to whom among us does that make sense to?) It seems like these arguments should be settled before affecting half the populations’ lives. I realize there has to be some starting point to that conversation but religion cannot answer the question of life or personhood effectively and therefore should not be an element of the debate.

4-As an aside, if it’s an aside, how much does the healthcare industry stand to benefit from in increase in pregnancies? A woman who is uninsured (a likely scenario thanks to Republicans rolling back the Affordable Care Act) is going to pay on average anywhere from $30K-$50K depending on vaginal vs. C-section birth. Then there is the cost of raising the child, the likelihood of needing childcare (because where is the father?) which isn’t covered by any insurance, and paying for higher education (though to be fair Republicans are fine with people not attending college). Many industries, if not capitalism in general, stand to benefit from an increased birth rate which has otherwise been declining for years. Knowing how Republicans feel about unregulated, unfettered capitalism (unless you speak out against them, Disney) we shouldn’t be surprised if we find out just how much the industries that benefit from the situation are donating to Republican candidates.

5-Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who – like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said Roe v. Wade was settled law, wrote in the leaked documents that the U.S. needs a domestic supply of infants, no doubt referring to white babies. Not only is population growth nowhere in the Constitution*, which is the job of SCOTUS to interpret, population growth has nothing to do with rights or privacy which the Constitution does address. As far as population ‘growth’ is concerned, all the Constitution says is that Congress may conduct censuses if they wish, so it should be unfathomable that Barrett’s personal opinion would shape her vote on abortion, especially after she explicitly said her personal opinion would not during her confirmation hearing. Her ‘new’ position is only slightly worse than Justice Alito’s justification for overturning Roe who thinks the 14^th Amendment used in Roe that made the case for a woman’s liberty was too vague and not rooted in the text of the Constitution. Unsurprisingly, also not rooted in the text of the Constitution are civil rights for minorities and an individual’s right to bear arms when they are not part of a militia. Alito also references a 13^th century document that posits abortion as murder as part of his justification for overturning Roe. Not only does Alito want to interpret the Constitution as written by white men in the 18^th century, he also wants to interpret it through the lens of documents that have nothing to do with the Constitution. One might suppose prohibitions against murder never change yet we don’t see Alito trying to overturn the death penalty knowing there will be wrongful deaths because of wrongful convictions. SCOTUS has acted in bad faith. Now they want to cry foul when protesters show up outside their houses. It seems like someone doesn’t like having their privacy disturbed.

 

What to do? Vote, of course, but this seems to vague. Vote for Democrats and not throw away votes on third party candidates because you don’t agree with every single element of their platform? Enact federal protections for women’s privacy? Expand the court so that conservative judges cannot perjure themselves and get away with it? (Ah, so this is the ‘judicial activism’ Bill O’Reilly warned us about years ago.) Civil war?

 

I recall being an Army veteran and having signed up to fight for the rights of every man – and woman. No one told me shit was going to turn out like this. The country I fought for, that ideal, was an illusion from the get go it seems. There does not seem a way back from any of this.

Here we Go Again On The Teleological Argument

After tweeting a comment about the philosophical shortcomings of the act of praying, something I 'might' be wrong about, a Christian apologist offered to debate me in DMs. (And, for the record, I am tweeting and messaging as The Stranded Alien @TheStrendedAli2 because 1-More and more I don't believe I am from this planet and 2-Making comments from the perspective of an alien who seeks to understand humans keeps me civil.) What follow are the screen shots of our messages and additional thoughts as to what was going through my head as I was replying. 

Props to the Millennial Christian as he stays civil throughout this, or perhaps it is a ploy to gain  my trust and convert me. At any rate, once we pass the civility test, he comes across as your garden variety apologist who hasn't been in the game very long, as you can see in the very beginning when he refuses to define 'god.' I understand his reluctance, though. 

Rookie mistake; nature itself can't be evidence of things that are created when all we know about things that are created are the things created by humans.

His initial statement is silly. He's implying that having never been told about a god or creator, he has looked at the entire universe and thought, "One [entity] did this" which is a preposterous extrapolation. And no, knowing how we got here does not define our purpose, if any purpose besides reproduction can be said to exist. Animals don't posit the beginning of the universe to know they need to eat and take shelter to survive and reproduce. Second, why should I respect another person's life if I don't know about our origins? I can think of some good reasons. At least he concedes that his god could have been created (it's turtles all the way down) but goofs on the Fine Tuning Argument, not realizing that the second we find life on another planet, the Fine Tuning Argument goes out the window. Also, the earth is never in the same place.

(oops, goofed on the screen captures there...) The story of the Fall in Christian mythology is so ridiculous it boggles the minds. I might also add that nowhere in Genesis does it say Adam and Eve were 'perfect,' another word lacking description. I mean, I'm not surprised that another Christian apologist hasn't read the Bible they've allegedly analyzed, but c'mon. He started with the Teleological Argument, was shown it was faulty - thank you, David Hume - and then had to resort to scripture which no one worth their salt does. After this, the Millennial Christian no longer engaged, perhaps to practice his conversion techniques some more. Kid's got a long way to go. 

The Blood On God's Hands

If we consider all the death and destruction done throughout history in the name of God or gods, a number of things are possible if a deity really does exist. One, they are a bloodthirsty SOB. Two, they are unable to stop violence done in their name. Three, they don’t care what we do to each other. Four, the world is exactly the way they want it. Five, and this is important, having free will is far more important than any harm we can do to each other. Yeah, I’m sure that’s very comforting to the victims of the 9/11 attacks. “Hey, don’t get upset that terrorists killed your family. They’re just collateral damage in the name of free will.”

The fifth point, as everyone who knows anything about philosophy or theology knows, is referred to as the Free Will Defense and is most often turned to by the theist to allow for so much evil in the world. Yet, if any god did create the universe and everything in it, they are ultimately responsible for the existence of evil, not humans. Sorry, there’s just no way around that. With this being true, the remaining possibilities may be just as likely. If a god can’t or doesn’t want to stop violence, then evil must have a practical use. Say, anyone up for a crucifixion?

Let’s take a very, very brief look back upon the history of religiously inspired violence. Do we have to? No, but gee whiz, it sure is interesting.

·       The ancient Mayans were known to practice human sacrifice to please their gods. These sick bastards would rip your beating heart out and show it to you before you died, thousands of years before Mortal Kombat was only a game.

·       Ptolemy Philedelphus had the Catholic Church attack and burn down the Great Library at Alexandria in 391 CE to suppress learning and knowledge. Millions of scrolls and scriptures are lost over a friendly and divine marsh mellow roast.

·       Between 500-1000 CE, Christianity gleefully ignites the Dark Ages. Science, medicine, education, art, and history are demonized while the Church amasses land and wealth through force.

·       891-903 CE, murder and corruption leads to 10 popes over 12 years and eventually 40 popes over 100 years. This leads to speculation that it is not so good to be the Pope.

·       Through 1000-1500 CE the Church resists the Enlightenment, launching the Crusades to teach those pesky Jews and Muslims one final lesson.

·       The Reformations through 1500-1700 CE attempt to purge Europe of pagan elements, but instead sparks a schism when Martin Luther opposes the Church with a (Protestant) Reformation of his own. The animosity between warring denominations stains Europe with blood. On St. Bartholomew’s Day (1572) 10,000 Protestants are slaughtered in France. Animosity continues to this day in Ireland. (It is also during this time period when the idea of the devil and demons are clearly defined by the Church. The elaborate concept spawns a 300 year long period of witch-hunts. Women are scapegoated as the Church fails to maintain control of the masses. Millions are speculated to die thanks to the hunts. Religious leaders even demand that animals associated with paganism be put to death, such as cats and owls, animals that control rodent populations. Plagues soon explode across the continent.)

·       Since the creation of Israel by the UN in 1948, Muslims and Jews have been blowing each other to bits over disputed Holy Lands. (Sure, it’s all more complicated than that, but the two sides being uber-religious doesn’t exactly help negotiate peace.)

·       In the 1980’s and 1990’s, abortion clinic bombers and shooters claim moral authority to justify murdering abortion clinic doctors and workers. They are soon discovered to believe that one plus one equals whatever their version of God says it is.

·       In 1995, Master Asahara (a Christian Buddhist, whatever that is) attacks a Tokyo subway with nerve gas in an attempt to set off Armageddon. He fails. 

These are just a few examples among hundreds…of thousands.

         

The reasons for religious violence are not just anybody’s guess. For most anyone, being violent creates the illusion of power. With a god in tow any horror can then easily be justified or excused. Remember, the gods are generally supposed to be all-powerful and humans, being of lower stock so-to-speak, are the messengers of those gods. Too bad in their urge to make anything but peace, these messengers instead identify themselves as soldiers. In due time, when a movement to spread a message inevitably begins to collapse or fail, there becomes an inclination to commit greater and greater evil. Religious insanity escalates most painfully in the final, hopeless moments of the struggle to enforce belief, when the power of a god becomes the primary resource at hand. The current race for the 2015 Republican party candidacy for U.S. president is evidence of this.

Are there ever times when these instances of violence are justified? Self-preservation can fuel such emotion, but that’s a human response, not a divine one. Yet, why people should use God to justify self-preservation makes little sense if they believe they’ll go to heaven anyway. In that case, wouldn’t you want to die? If you want to blow yourself up with 20 sticks of dynamite, fine, but now you’ve got two dead people, me and you. Wouldn’t it be more tolerable for the believer to try and persuade me into accepting their religion? Of course it would, except that religions are by nature exclusionary, just another means by which groups of people divorce themselves from others.

Do any of us want to die for the beliefs of others? I don’t want to die for what other people believe in. I’m not a puppet in any god’s sick puppet show to be controlled or maimed through the use of force. I wasn’t designed to be a contender in an unholy, cosmic game of Battle Bots. Some theists however thoroughly disagree and those people need to be eliminated with extreme prejudice. My holy scriptures would surely tell me so.

So what do you say; have we all had enough of having been given life by some supposed Creator who ironically calls for us to kill each other? Surely any god who endows a universe with evil is not reconcilable with a peaceful world. For all of you taking a moment out of your busy schedules to pray for world peace, stop. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

I mean it when I say I am tired of the excuses and I’m sure not going to let any god off the hook for the existence of evil. Lots of people say they want world peace but I don’t see them doing anything about it. I want world peace too; or at least one where only socially acceptable outlets for our primitive, violent tendencies are allowed. So I’m going to do something about it.

I’m calling God out; any god, you name ‘em. Anytime they want to duke it out with me in the ring for the fate of the world, I’ll be happy to punch their stupid face in, bite their ear off, and eat their babies. Now if only Don King wouldn’t screw me out of my hard-won purse, the world would be a better place.

Independence From Religion Day

Christians have apparently forgotten what it is like to be persecuted.

Michigan, Mississippi and a spate of other states already had a similar law in place. Indiana, Virginia and now Arkansas have just passed an anti-gay/pro-discrimination law as well. The

Rallying against hate.

difference, though, is that Indiana and Virginia, for example, doesn’t have any laws that protect LBGT’s as a class. As Addictedinfo.org reports on Virginia (and basically pertains to Indiana also), “The state of Virginia is set to pass a law which would allow anti-LGBT business owners to bar gay people, purely on the basis of their sexuality. The Virginia Bill states that anyone seeking or holding a business license from the state of Virginia in the state can refuse service or entry to gay people, on the grounds it ‘would violate the religious or moral convictions of such person with respect to same-sex marriage or homosexual behavior.’”

Seriously.

It is legalized discrimination meant to protect business owners who are also Judeo-Christian from catering to gays, though we all know that in reality the laws may eventually extend to anyone a business owner doesn’t like (and they will be able to invoke ‘religious objection’ in their defense). To be clear, I do think that a business owner should be able to deny a person service provided there is a good reason, where ‘a good reason’ is one grounded in reality. (That is to say being a religious Jew, Christian, or Muslim is not grounded in reality.) While those of us in the good ol’ U.S. of A. with any semblance of sanity or aren’t insane about inflicting our exclusionary beliefs on others can talk and give lip-service to how terrible these laws are, no one is doing much of anything about it. Sure, there have been street protests and several companies have bailed on planned expansions into Indiana, for example, but I don’t think it is enough. The people creating and passing these laws simply don’t understand how hateful they are being, where being hateful is simply primitive at this point in human history.

It is no longer acceptable. But you cannot reason with the kind of people who support these laws, the kind of people who, say, claim to be Christians but don’t act anything like Jesus. Take the Indiana Gov. Mike Pence for instance, who complained in an interview of, "an avalanche of intolerance that has been poured on our state" but seemed not to understand that what he’s done is allow the government to sanction just that, intolerance. You can only make such people understand by demonstrating what it is they are doing to people when they deny a person basic human rights. You can only hope to make them understand by putting them through the very thing they insist on doing to other people. That being the case, I am calling for a national day of protest, a day in which Christians are denied services by non-Christians based, of course, on ‘moral objections.’ Without getting into the particulars of my system of ethics, let’s just say I find the morality of Judeo-Christians quite disturbing. Why shouldn’t I, or anyone else with a different system of ethics – one based on science since science is apparently a religion to the Christian right-wing – deny Christians service based on a ‘moral objection’?

Unfortunately, Easter is too close to raise awareness of and organize such a protest. My solution is to make July 4, 2015 in the U.S., America’s Independence Day, Independence From Religion Day* by being intolerant of the religiously inclined and invoking a ‘moral objection’ as the reason for denying certain people services. On a day that is only allowed to be celebrated by straight Judeo-Christian patriots – since you’re not a patriot if you’re not a straight Judeo-Christian – I say we hold what is the social equivalent of the Boston Tea Party; the rest of us are going to take the rights straight Judeo-Christians take for granted and throw them overboard. Extremist straight Judeo-Christians need to be shown that freedom from religion in just as important as the freedom of religion.

[Sorry, can’t think of a catchier title at the moment.]

This was a lifetime ago! And today?

I will admit that this seems like a rather extreme measure to take but ‘extreme’ is the only thing extremist straight Judeo-Christians understand. There is only a shred of hope that the people who wish to legally discriminate can come to see that Independence Day really should be called ‘Interdependence Day;’ America has long suffered from a fractured psyche (in no small part due to the Reagan Years) and it is time to re-establish a national identity. These discriminatory laws cannot accomplish that. Making bullies understand what they are doing by showing them how it feels is the only possible hope in putting the U.S. back on the road to unity. Okay, okay, not that the U.S. was ever really unified – some group somewhere was always getting the shaft – but few will argue that the U.S.’s current national identity isn’t like Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde at best. The sane among us cannot stand idly by and let religious lawmakers create laws in their favor. And so the sane among us have no good recourse but to deny their kind service.

Certainly there will be practical difficulties. For instance, it is not always immediately clear who is and who isn’t a religious wing-nut. In cases where it is known, servicing a religious person should be politely declined and the reason for denying service given; “I’m sorry Mr. White, but I morally object to the nature of your ethics and therefore cannot in good conscience serve you today.” There is also the matter of whether to deny service to religious people who are not dicks, which in actuality would be most religious people (in my experience). Should those people be denied service? For the sake of consistency, I would have to say ‘yes’ as doing so would result in the situation being recanted to the denied party’s family and friends who are also likely to be religious. While I don’t like the idea of there being ‘collateral damage,’ no good revolution has come about without some innocent ‘blood’ getting spilled.

The year is 2015. Americans are not dirt-snorting, cave-dwelling misogynist towelheads that like to behead people for petty reasons. Some people should stop acting like that’s what they want to be, or if they want to, be that person somewhere else. The U.S. is no longer the place for you.