Agnostic

I wish that I could have an open and honest discussion about religion with my family. It's important to me. It's something that I give a lot of serious thought. The problem that I face with this kind of discussion (politics are the same way, actually), is that any sort of doubt that I may express about things that they believe is perceived as a symptom of profound mental imbalance, even brainwashing. And I understand, to an extent, why they feel that way. Their religious beliefs are extremely strong, and deal with such important ideas as existence before and after life on earth - things that are significant in an eternal, universal sense. I admire their faith. I would never try to persuade them not to practice their religion. I wish that they would extend me the same courtesy and respect.

These are the things that I think about the most:

Can anyone truly know God, God's will, and Its judgement while in this current mortal existence?

I'm not saying that everyone who claims to have communicated with God is lying or ill-intentioned - I don't believe that. What I have trouble with is that there are people who say that they know the way God wants us to do things. They know what is "right" and what is "wrong". They have no problem casting judgement themselves, so confident they are in knowing the mind of a Being who - by their own admission - is so powerful that It created the universe and everything in it. I'm asking in earnest - How do you know? I would quake at thinking that I know someone's eternal fate. I would shudder away from that kind of cosmic responsibility. I would have to be absolutely certain - no doubt whatsoever - to pass judgement like that, and I would also have to be sure that I had this Being's authorization to do so.

Is there only One True Religion, and will only those who believe in it go to Heaven (or whichever eternal paradise one believes in)?

This is tricky territory for any rational discussion of religion. No one wants to hear that their religion may not be the only one on earth with the real truth. This is the kind of thing that starts wars, that inspires killing in the name of God. It's funny that there are so many loopholes around "Thou shalt not kill". I'm pretty sure that it doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill, unless you do it to prove a point or get something you want". But aside from religious war/killings, what is it about any particular religion that makes them believe they are the only ones to be "saved"? I really find it hard to believe that if God knows us personally and loves each and every one of us, that It would condemn good people just because they didn't subscribe to a particular set of beliefs. This is something that I take very personally. I have been told that my particular and personal beliefs have no place in certain religions, and that I would need to change them if I were to be "saved". I don't appreciate being told, essentially, that I would be condemned for believing in different things. I don't claim to have communicated with God in any way that I can understand or recognize, but I don't get any feeling that God would disapprove of me or what I think. If I am one of Its creations, why would it be surprised when I question things? Am I somehow different than what It intended? And if so, who's at fault - me or God? I've been told that if I somehow don't receive confirmation from God that certain religious beliefs are true, then there is something wrong with me, not the beliefs. These beliefs indicate the existence of a Jealous God. I refuse to believe that a Creator could ever be such a Tyrant. People will tell you to stand up for what you believe in, but they're not so keen on the idea when your beliefs are not their beliefs.

How can holy books be the absolute Word of God when 1) there are so many of them, and 2) they have been handed down, revised, translated, re-translated, edited, formatted, and debated over thousands of years by so many different people?

This is one thing that I have a really hard time accepting (so I don't). I find it difficult to believe that people accept these texts as unassailable facts when there are so many inherent contradictions within the texts themselves, let alone what they preach and what people practice. This leads into my next big question:

What's with the inequality between men and women in most of the world's religions?

If God created us all, we should all be equal. And yet many religions insist on separation - sometimes to an extreme degree - of the sexes. "Separate" is not "equal". I believe that we have learned this in other areas of our history, but it's still something we struggle with. I won't believe that God ever intended women to be thought of as "lesser" or "inferior" in any way. I don't accept the roles offered me by some religions - roles that are entirely based on my gender. I don't like standards that are applied to women rigidly and men flexibly.

I hope that any of my religious friends who may read this posting will understand that I am not trying to tell them what to believe, or that any of their beliefs are wrong or bad. I'm just trying to articulate my personal spiritual questions. Please note that I tried not to indicate any religion in particular or by name, out of respect. Because I do respect your beliefs. I wouldn't dream of asking you not to practice. I know that there is a lot of good that comes from religion. But I don't feel comfortable subscribing to a particular belief system. I cannot commit myself to something that I don't know. I'm agnostic. I don't know - and I accept that.

Breaking News

Southwest U.S. resident Bri Buckley suffered a crippling ordeal commonly known as a "brain fart" Friday, May 8 when she tried and failed to remember how to spell the word "accommodations". The circumstances that caused Ms. Buckley's "brain fart" came about when she was trying to intelligently phrase an email to a consultant who is scheduled to visit her workplace later this May.

"Is it one 'c' and two 'm's, or two 'c's and one 'm'?" Co-workers report hearing the frustrated administrative/accounting assistant mutter to herself. Ms. Buckley allegedly refused to open a Word document or a Google tab for assistance in remembering how to spell the five-syllable word. "I can do this - I'm a good speller! It can't be two 'c's and two 'm's. That doesn't look right."

The word "accommodations" is a Latin-based term that, when used in the context that Ms. Buckley intended, means lodging or access to certain facilities. Whether the centuries of trans-continental influence and evolution of this word from Latin to American English happened in such a way as to make it particularly difficult to spell is still in question.

After several minutes of racking her brain, searching for any memory she had of vocabulary words or tests in which she would have learned the spelling of this word, Ms. Buckley reluctantly looked it up in an online dictionary. "Two 'c's and two 'm's?! Really?! That makes no sense. I could have sworn it was only one 'm'." Still, Ms. Buckley agreed that it was better to make sure of the spelling rather than send a professional email that contained a typo.

Experts say that though "brain farts" can be painful and frustrating, there is usually no lasting damage caused by the "brain fart" itself, only from any mistakes that may have been made under its influence. Ms. Buckley is expected to fully recover from the "brain fart", but the emotional and intellectual trauma she suffered in her failure to remember proper spelling may take more time.

"I know that it's not that important to most people, but I'm just disappointed in myself," Ms. Buckley told reporters. "It might take me a while to get over it, but I'm sure I'll get there eventually. I'll remember how to spell it next time."

Free the Market!

I'm getting a little tired of almost militant defense of capitalism and the free market. Let me say right now that I am not anti-capitalism. I think capitalism is just like any other good thing - too much can kill you. Everything in moderation, right? A capitalist economic system fosters healthy competition, at least in theory. It offers consumers the luxury of choice. That being said, may I politely tell you all to shut up about it? You're getting pretty shrill.

I acknowledge the benefits of a capitalist system, but it's not infallible, people. It's not the Pope, though it seems like some of you have an almost religious devotion to it. Those of you who are clamoring against any kind of market regulation would probably have a slightly different attitude if the market were something else, like a public swimming pool, for example. Let's explore some of these metaphors, shall we?

A lifeguard? Must be a Commie! Let's let the free market decide who can or cannot swim!

Chlorine is just more Big Government interference. I demand the right to swim in the untreated urine and God-knows-what-else of complete strangers!

Can you see how ridiculous those attitudes really are? Let's be realistic. There's no such thing as a perfect system, because people are not perfect, and they obviously sometimes act out of extreme selfishness (see current economic crisis). Can we accept that the free market does not have the population's best interests at heart? It is after all, the pursuit of money, not the happiness of those who are not stock-holders. Regulation (hopefully) ensures that our kids are not eating lead. It keeps our peanut-butter sandwiches free of salmonella. It forces large corporations to consider the little guy, rather than poisoning the air he and his family breathe. What we need is a healthy balance between a free(ish) market and fair protective regulation. So stop whining! Accept it as a necessary evil and don't place capitalism on a pedestal.

Who else will?

A co-worker recently asked me a question while we were making idle small-talk. I rarely have very serious conversations at work, partly because I don't care to deepen my work relationships too far out of my comfort zone, and partly because I don't believe that many of the people I work with have similar enough tastes in subject matter for me to believe the conversation meaningful and worthwhile. Anyway, we were discussing weekend plans, and I mentioned that I would be spending a day volunteering at Best Friends, a no-kill animal shelter located outside Zion National Park. My co-worker was slightly taken aback by how I was going to spend my Saturday, and he almost immediately asked "Why would you spend your time helping animals when there are so many people that need help?"

I was shocked that he'd even asked. So much so that I couldn't even articulate a good answer. I think I mumbled something about liking animals and that was the end of our conversation. I suppose that his question might be considered a fair one, especially when one takes into account the enormity of human suffering around the world. The current economic crisis is causing many people to lose their homes, some parents to choose between necessities like paying for gas to get to work in order to provide for their families, or buying food for their children to eat or paying for health care they desperately need. People are dying by the thousands all over the world: the genocide in Darfur, natural disasters such as the earthquake in Italy or typhoons in Southeast Asia. The plight of women in countries like Pakistan or Somalia, to name just a few. There is no doubt in my mind that there is plenty of human suffering to be found almost anywhere one cares to look. So why help animals, who after all are "lower forms of being"? Why spend time on creatures that aren't even sentient? Why donate money or even time to help ease the suffering of animals that we esteem so little as to experiment on them, raise them in huge numbers only to slaughter and eat them, or destroy their natural habitats to the extent of their inevitable extinction?

If we're going to debate the relative value of these issues, then why not compare other causes? Why raise money to research infertility and its causes when there are millions of homeless or foster children who need and deserve loving homes? Why fight to preserve the opportunity for students to learn not only language arts and mathematics, but also science, history, and the arts when the latter subjects are not life "essentials"? Why bother raising money for research into cures for diseases when the world is facing overpopulation problems?

The point that I'm trying to make is that comparing different causes is as useless as comparing apples and oranges. I could go insane trying to analyze the comparative value of many worthy efforts. And why would I want to restrict myself to contributing in only one way? The fact is that if it is only permissible to care for animals after all human suffering has been eradicated all over the world, or even in any single country, then it never will be permissible. I am realistic. There is not much that I can do to help all of the people who need it, and truth be told, in general I like animals much more than I like people. I feel comfortable around them because they make so much more sense than people do. They never try to deny their true natures. They don't play the cruel mind-games that humans practice without even thinking. When they offer love and affection, it is complete and unconditional. How many of us can say the same? And perhaps most important, they may not be "sentient" in the ways that humans have decreed that they must be in order to be considered a higher life form, but just because animals don't adhere to our standards doesn't mean that there's nothing there. Animals feel pain, sadness, happiness, love. The question is not "Can animals think?" but "Can animals suffer?", and I believe that the answer is yes. They're voiceless, however. They cannot fight for their rights in human society. They cannot understand when their people abandon them because of a stupid homeowner's association rule, or the fact that their people did not plan for how big they would get, or that their people simply don't want to take care of them anymore. Who will help them, if not me? As stupid as it may sound to some people, I care about them. I care about them in groups, I care about them as individuals. It breaks my heart that 150 dogs were euthanized without any evaluation in Indiana, simply because they were seized from a dog-fighting ring. Many of them were just puppies, who had not yet been trained to fight. It breaks my heart that millions of animals are euthanized every year because they were abandoned, and no one cared enough to adopt them. It breaks my heart that I am not able to take all of these needy animals and care for them, protect them. All I can do is what I can do.

I know the animals at Best Friends, well, the cats, mostly. It's more relaxing to work with the cats. The dogs are a little too high-energy for me. I know them the way their handlers know them: as individuals. I don't know them as well, but I appreciate the time that I am able to give them, and I like to think that they appreciate it, too. Visit the Best Friends website - www.bestfriends.org - to get an idea of what this sanctuary is like. Take a look at the animals that I have come to know and care for:

This is Gimble. He and his brother Ty were born with a neurological disorder that makes them lurch and wobble when they walk, as if they're drunk. They can eat out of their food bowls, drink from their water dishes, and use their litter boxes, but they will probably never be adopted, just because they're a little different.

This is Peepers. She's completely blind, but she still gets around fairly easily. She tends to stay on the ground because she can't judge the height or length of tables or chairs, but she's very sweet. If she senses that someone is near enough to pet her, she'll rear up on her hind legs and reach for them with her front paws. She will probably never be adopted, because it's always a challenge to take on animals with disabilities. They become ousted from society, just like humans with disabilities are sometimes. The difference is that a disabled human is not likely to be euthanized because of it.

This is Vante. She is a beautiful cat with very affectionate personality. She loves to ride on people's shoulders and purr against the back of their heads. She seems like a creature of the air, staying mostly on shelves and table tops and only venturing to the floor for food. She has been adopted several times, and returned to Best Friends every single time. Why? Because she has a digestive disorder that involves incontinence, and she cannot always make it to her litter box in time. She will probably never find a forever home, because for most people her loving nature does not outweigh the messes she can't help but make.

This is Peanut (above) and Bubba Lou (below). They are both paralyzed in their hind legs. Peanut was shot, and lost the use of her hind legs. She is able to get around by scooting around on her front legs. Bubba Lou was rescued by Best Friends during one of their special trips to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. He had been hit by a car, leaving his hind legs mangled and broken, but thankfully pain-free. He has now had both of them removed, in order to improve his mobility. It's probable that neither of these cats will be adopted. Their paralysis has also made them incontinent, and as I said before, it's difficult to take in animals with disabilities.

So why do I waste my time helping animals rather than humans? Because if I don't, who else will?