What do I get....?

I was watching an interview with Christopher Hitchens the other day and it got me to thinking. I started thinking of how interesting it would be to get Hitchens' perspective on death and religion now that he's passed to the "other side". I mean, who knows where he's at, if he's anywhere at all; but the interesting thing is that Hitchens was so sure of his non-religious (or atheistic) beliefs - as many religious or "spiritual" individuals are about the existence of an after-life - it would be interesting to hear what he had to say now that he's actually experiencing whatever it is we will experience.
Now certainly I would be more interested in hearing from my dead grandparents, or other dead relatives, or other dead people that I know, but the majority of the people that I know that are dead (in fact, I can't think of one that is not) followed a religion, and most of them followed Christianity which believes in the existence in Heaven and Hell, so the outcome whether you're good or bad is pretty much already known. Alright, maybe known isn't a fair word, but every religious person has some conception of what they expect to happen when they die; whether that means going to Heaven or going to Hell. Whereas, a person who doesn't have a religious belief (or doesn't believe in a deity) really expects nothing to happen when they die, and therefore any alternative would be an amazing wonder to behold.
This is why I think hearing Christopher Hitchens' perspective on his own life after death would be interesting. If nothing happens, as Hitchens believes, at least we would get a biting satirical rift  by Hitchens on the futility of religion and the idiocy of believing in something serves no purpose in life, and obviously even less so in death (ironically failing to recognize that his state could be caused by his lack of faith even if a deity did exist, so he would never know the difference). Or, more interestingly, would be Hitchens' take on an existence in either Heaven or Hell. I imagine he wouldn't even be frustrated living in Hell, because at least it would give him fodder and free-reign to further debase religion and God, because he would ask what type of god actually creates humankind with free will, but then damns them to eternal pain and anguish if they don't worship their creator (possibly justifiably so). I imagine Hitchens would be annoyed by Heaven; not only because of the unchanging feelings of bliss, but because it would be further evidence of the pomposity of God to actually reward people who worship that which has created them, all to his own glory. God created the universe. Created humans. Gave humans free will. But then only gives happiness to those who worship him. Hitchens would say this is the height of egomania.

Evidence of things not seen...

I think it is imperative before I begin to state that I am not religious. I don’t necessarily believe in God (although the truth of the matter is that I have no clue), and I’m not even a very “spiritual” person as many non-believers claim to be. Not to be cliché, but I look at the universe from a more scientific perspective, and see no evidence for or against the existence of God. Thereby, in accordance with Occam’s razor, I deduce that no god or higher power exists (although I suppose the Occam’s razor argument could be used against me, by saying that the existence of God is simplest explanation – although I would counter that the creation of existence of God is too immense a concept to be called simple).
But that is not what this post is about. Although I personally do not believe in God, and am skeptical of religious institutions, I still have an immense amount of respect for people’s personal beliefs, as well as the concept of religion as a whole. I’m of the opinion that the majority of religious (and non-religious) people in this country hold their beliefs to themselves, and are not actively trying to push their religion, religious views, or religious moral framework onto others. It’s true that there is a vocal and active minority that do, but I think their representation is exaggerated by their passion.
I think for many people religion can be a helpful, and even necessary, form of structure in their life; where they otherwise might feel lost. The world is crazy – especially the modern world. But people find religion as something steady in a world so crazy, and therefore are comforted by the steadfast framework by which they can live their life. In addition, religion has saved many people whose lives have spun out of control; whether drugs, alcohol, other addictions, marital or relationship issues, or general malaise, religious beliefs can give them a direction in their lives that they may have lacked.
Also, I’m almost envious of people to be able to believe in something so strongly, even without any evidence of any kind. I have a hard time believing that strongly in anything (that’s my burden to bear); so I respect believing in anything so strongly, but especially in something which cannot be seen or proven. But I think that’s exactly why the belief is so strong and so easy to remain steadfast. Because no one can ask God why something happened, it is always assumed that the purpose is beyond our belief. And that comforting in a way. A baby dies, it was in his plan. A child is born, it was in his plan. A mother is killed saving her child, it was in his plan. A mother saves her child and they’re both safe, it was in his plan. No matter what happens, there was some reason, but it’s beyond our comprehension. I’m not saying this to mock religion; I’m honestly saying this as an attempt at understanding the appeal.
Personally, I don’t really have faith in any institutions in modern life. I love politics, but I have no faith in political institutions or the political process. I think aid organizations are great, but I have absolutely no faith in their ability to avoid corruption or act completely benevolently. Schools and education are wonderful, but they’ve become so bureaucratic and broken down, that I have little faith that they can actually operate for the full benefit of the students that they are trying to serve. I think family and love are the solid rock upon which most of us live, but you see over and over throughout society the breakdown of families and disintegration of the familial bonds.
To conclude, I want to say that I envy people with unshaking religious faith (although I might question their critical thinking on the subject – but that’s not what religion is about), and I envy the belief in the concept of religion, but I wish that religious beliefs would remain personal and introspective, and stay out of our public life and institutions.

Alright, I don’t want to start a cultural/religious war here. But I have to say that it is absolutely ridiculous the rhetoric that is coming from the religious (specifically Catholic) right about the Obama administrations so-called “war on religion”, by requiring healthcare plans associated with religious healthcare organization to provide birth control for women. I won’t even go into the argument of how ridiculous it is for Catholics to denounce birth control, while they still have an international uproar raging over a generation of priests molesting boys, and the upper echelon of the church attempting to cover it up (without punishing the priests).
Social conservatives are against abortion, they’ve made that abundantly clear. So in an attempt to avoid unwarranted pregnancies and the associated abortions, birth control pills were created. Yay!! But wait, social conservatives are also against birth control. Hmm…that doesn’t seem to add up. How do we stop from having unwanted pregnancies if we don’t use birth control (the Catholic Church is also anti-condom)? Oh, right, abstinence is the answer; because that is a realistic approach to the worldwide problem of HIV and AIDS, as well and overpopulation and unwanted pregnancies worldwide (ironically, abortion numbers would actually decline if birth control was cheaper or more widely available). Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The moral majority conservatives (and Catholics) can have all the kids they want, and reject any message about birth control and abortion (even while pushing abortion numbers up), but they should not have the right to deny employees full access to heath care. If an employee of one of these institutions is a Catholic or a social conservative, they can choose not to purchase or use birth control; but other employees who are not of that faith or ideology should have the choice to receive a full range of healthcare options when it comes to birth control.
In addition, to call this a “war on religion” is absurd. The president did not make this choice as an affront to the Catholic Church or any religious institution in general, his purpose was to expand the healthcare options provided to literally tens of millions of women across the country. Of course it was inevitable that this was to become a political issue, but I applaud the president for doing this in the face of blustery politicians who politicize everything the president does, regardless of who and how many it helps. Obviously the cleavage between Republicans and Democrats is so large that anything the president does is wrong (to be fair, it was the same under President Bush, but almost everything he did WAS wrong...see).
If our nation is ever going to be back on the right track, we’re going to have to quit looking at all of these issue through such an ideological (or religious) spectrum, and instead start to think (like the president has done in the circumstance) about the broad impact it will have on the citizens in this country. Good work President Obama (and I’m honestly not trying to put my finger in the eye of religion) for standing up for the interests of the people, instead of for political interests.

Of course we respect the right of religious freedom...

I had to comment on something that I heard in the Republican debate the other day (yeah, I know, discussing the debates is getting old, but this is touching upon another topic). In his closing argument, Texas Governor Rick Perry said that we in this country need to get back to religious freedom and moral values - meaning that he wants the country to stop embracing religous freedom of non-christian religions, and instead adopt strict Christian moral principles.
This seems to be a long-running, but seldom spoken, open hypocrisy within the conservative ideology, that reveals an intolerance on the part of many conservatives, even going into a presidential primary.
I'm not so naive to believe that we have a complete freedom of religion in this country. I'll even concede that there is a certain amount of religious speak within the formative documents of our country and that many of our founding fathers were representing some form of religious moral values in creating the laws from the outset and moving forward. However, the founding fathers, regardless of their personal religious perspectives, explicitly wanted to create a separation between church and state, and create a freedom of religion. A freedom of religion means the express right to practice freely whichever religion or lack thereof that one might choose; and separation between church and state being the unequivocal declaration that no specific religion should dictate the positions of our politicians or policies. The specific documents that these ideas were included in are moot, but the fact that the founding fathers had such foresight in creating them is not in dispute.
But over the past 30+ years, conservatives have begun to define religious freedom specifically as protecting Christians against the gross infringment of other religions and beliefs upon their precious moral values (too snarky?). While it's true that around 75% of Americans consider themselves Christians, we are still a country of laws, and not a theocracy. Therefore, while we decry Saudi Arabia and other countries around the world who have theocratic regimes, the moral majority, Christian conservative right, still push harder and harder to make Christian moral values the values of our whole country, even going as far as changing laws to comply with Christian morality.
Either conservative Christians don't understand or don't care that their denigration of minority religions in this country, along their religious laws, morals and customs, is simple hypocrisy, and specifically antithetical to the Christ-principled creation of their religion. But I suppose all of this is nothing new...