This, of course, begs the question of what a Christian truly is.  Is it a requirement that a Christian always be a Christian, or is it guaranteed that the holy spirit, once it is alive and active, never leaves?  The answer, of course, is easy: The holy spirit doesn’t exist, but for all intents and purposes, claiming to believe in Jesus (and exhibiting changes) means you’re a Christian, and can “backslide” into not being one, or not being as much of one.

Falling Away as Victim Blaming

The idea of absolving God from a Christian’s change of heart is essential to maintaining the ruse that God actually exists (much like arguments from the problem of evil/original sin).  In all these arguments, the notion of “free will” is the scapegoat for victim-blaming.  This shift of blame to the victim from God serves as a powerful cognitive deterrent from inquiring “what if there is no God?” Because this question makes more sense if it is clear that “God” fails over and over again, it is necessary for religion to survive if the burden of failure can always be shifted away from God and onto the believer.

Challies’ first article gives 4 reasons for people backsliding as Christians, all of which are a form of victim-blaming, that place the failure of Christianity to take root squarely on the shoulders of the person, not on the spirit or God.

Reason #1:The conscience is awakened, but the mind is not changed.

In other words, God did his part, but you (Christian) didn’t do yours: God (pastors, preachers, parents, friends) made you feel guilty over your imaginary crime (sin), but this guilt didn’t convince you enough to change your mind. Therefore it’s the believer’s choice to suffer eternal torment.

Reason #2:They are overwhelmed by fear of man.

Again, it isn’t that God is too impotent to truly convince believers, nor that it is a delusional position, but that mean people ridicule you, and shame on you for using reason and cautiously evaluating things.  Such provisions against trusting others are inbuilt to religion, as will be clear in a moment.

Reason #3:They are full of pride, unwilling to face the world-ward shame that comes with the gospel.

This one barely makes sense to me anymore.  The definition of pride is feeling inwardly happy of one’s own achievements, and every reason so-far mentioned places the consequence of non-belief squarely on victim’s shoulders (though of course the Gospel is ignorant of this fact, and places all the good on God for slaughtering his child in a ritualistic blood sacrifice).  I’m still not sure how “I don’t know” is prideful, but claiming with absolute certainty eternal life contingent on symbolical cannibalization of a scantly-documented prophet from the first century isn’t.

Reason #4:they refuse to face their own guilt and the danger that will come to them if they do not receive forgiveness for wrongs done.

Again, people leave the faith because they don’t beat themselves up over imaginary crimes enough.  Not enough blame in the victim-blaming.

It is unsurprising that Challies leaves off a common reason for backsliding: realizing that Christianity, like Islam, Judaism, Zeusism, Thorism, is a sham, is predicated on weak evidence, and isn’t worth believing in.  Of course, often this discovery is catalyzed by the aforementioned reasons (although in my case a pursuit of proof as prescribed by 1 Peter 3:15 was the motivation point), but for whatever reason, it is clear to those in power that they must maximally dissuade people from honest inquiry, and foist indoctrination and repetition of these untruths into believers’ lives, lest they fall away and no longer buy into the group delusion.

How to Backslide Leave a Cult

The Illusion of Truth, as it is known in psychology, is the increasing of trust in claims via repetition.  This phenomenon is commonly referred to as indoctrination.  From an evolutionary psychology standpoint, it’s a great thing to trust that which repeatedly shows itself to behave similarly (this is a fundamental premise of the scientific method), but when it comes to repeating truth claims, it is not necessarily a benefit to believing true things.  Religions for eons have preyed upon this mismatch of human nature: by repeating a lie enough times, it eventually seems true.  Such is the subtextual reason for religious rituals, gatherings, and fellowship, and Challies’ list of “How to Backslide” betrays this fact in a not-so-subtle way:

1. Stop meditating on the gospel.
2. Neglect your devotions and stop battling sin.
3. Isolate yourself from Christian fellowship.
4. Stop going to church.
5. Determine that Christians are hypocrites because they continue to sin.
6. Trade Christian community for distinctly unChristian company.
7. Pursue rebellious conversation and fellowship.
8. Allow yourself to enjoy some small, sinful pleasures.
9. Admit what you are and prepare yourself for everlasting torment.

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are essentially the same thing: Quit telling yourself and surrounding yourself with nonsense.  Culthood 101: Isolate people from any external influence that might entice them to actually think about what they’re doing.  Number 5 is victim blaming rehashed, pointing out that the failing, sinful Christians are to blame for being hypocrites, not God (maybe they’re backslidden, themselves!). Number 8 is dangerous because it seeks to poke holes in the imaginary guilt caused by “sin,” such as finding members of the opposite sex (or same sex!) attractive, or for being angry at something that is anger-worthy.

Finally, 9 is just a childish attempt to scare people into submission.  I accepted this notion might be true of me, if, of course, it weren’t all just imagination and credulity run amok for 3 millennia.  As it stands, however, I started doing these things after I began realizing that the entire enterprise was based on falsehoods, deceit, and weak evidence.  Christianity is essentially a big lie that depends on victim-blaming, guilt, empty threats (with Hell), and cult-like indoctrination to keep people from questioning or leaving it.  I was very thankful that Challies provided such a succinct set of information that I could use to identify these tendencies.

…that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Proverbs 12:17 Whoever speaksthe truth gives honest evidence,
but a false witness utters deceit

John 8:32 … the truth shall make you free

The pursuit of truth, or discovering that which has the most fidelity to reality, ultimately led me away from Christianity and convinced me of its mythological nature.  The same hunger for truth frustration me when, as a Christian, charlatans spoke false theology that directly contradicted the God of the bible.  I now understand that the nature of religion is one such that everyone has a conception of God that agrees with their views, and then proof-text to support their view. However, I was fairly certain that at least one thing could be agreed upon by almost all Christians:

Salvation and the love of God hinge on belief, not works.

This is the bedrock of the so-called “good news” of the gospel: that your actions don’t determine your salvation status, but the condition of your heart, and if you’re honestly trying to do what you believe is true, you’ll be saved.

Controversial Sign, Confused Message

Yesterday, the Christian Post reported on a sign in Portland, Oregon, that has been making waves in the Christian and Atheist community.  Many atheists are embracing and cheering its sentiment, as are more than a few Christians.  The sign first appeared on their Facebook page, and has now gone viral.  Its sentiment is simple: God prefers kind atheists over hateful Christians.

I hate this sign.  It is absolutely contrary to multiple warnings and positions espoused by the God of the bible.  I hate it for the same reason I hate other pastors which tell known falsehoods as truth.  These pastors are liars for Christ, who peddle falsehoods about the nature of reality, and of the god portrayed within the text of the bible, as truth, for the express purpose of gaining congregants or respect in an unrespectable, unteneble, intellectually bankrupt position of superstition as reality.

Shady Theology

On the church’s Facebook page,  Pastor Tate explains his theological underpinnings:

… if we complete the “list” of God’s “required beliefs” then God will love us. Or so the argument goes. This means that we can control whether or not God loves us.

Yes, that’s exactly how the bible portrays faith, belief, and salvation.  God makes people believe, and gives them faith.  Tate goes on to say he believes in “Amazing Grace” that values right actions over beliefs, but ignores the key lines of the song:

How precious did that Grace appear…
the hour I first believed.

Grace isn’t contingent on being “nice” or “hateful,” and in fact, if warning against the dangers of sin and pushing towards righteousness are “hateful,” then Jesus was a hateful Christian.  The whole point of Christianity, of the Gospel is wrapped up in this: Sinners, despite works, are saved by belief. How ignorant must you be to not understand this idea? What God is he even talking about?

Who God Actually Prefers

As an atheist, God has quite a few words to say about me.  And they do not generally agree with the sentiment of the sign.  Generally when doing hermenutical study, if some idea is spoken to directly in scripture, that supersedes personal interpretation.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

John 3:36 ”He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

Psalm 14:1 To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.

1 John 5:10 Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son.

Revelation 21:8 … But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

Dishonesty All Over Again

The above verses are what the god of the bible actually says about unbelievers.  Not that He “prefers” atheists over Christians, but that they will burn in the lake of fire.  Such fallacious cherry-picking on behalf of the pastor is ignorant stupidity at best, and deliberate misrepresentation at worst.

If you think that God is evil for preferring Westboro over Bill Gates and Todd Steifel, then lose the god.  I wish Christians would be honest that God is an evil being, who created a world for the purpose of punishing most of it, especially punishing those that value credible, reliable, falsifiable evidence over stories and feelings.  I’m guilty of the crime of valuing reliable evidence for discovering truth, and for that, God prefers a hateful Christian over me any day of the week.

Part 1: The gospels, Synoptics, and Birth

Part 2: Josephus and the Talmud

Part 3: The Resurrection Legend

I’ve explained elsewhere (part 1) why I don’t accept the gospels as eyewitness documentation, as well as why extra-biblical sources (Part 2) do nothing to add credibility to their corroboration.  What I am learning is that the most basic facts about Christianity are rarely discussed in detail.  Therefore, today I’d like to look at the account of the resurrection given by the gospels.

Apologists often throw the Red Herring of textual attestation found in antiquity as somehow making the gospels acceptable from a historical perspective.  The best documentation of historical events comes from eyewitness testimony near the time of the event, with multiple independent corroborating stories that agree in details.  Such is the standard historians use to evaluate ancient history’s attestation in consult with archaeology.

In contrast to historical reality, legends are expected to grow in extraneous detail over time,  embellished as oral tradition invents new details.  As the gospels are neither eyewitness documents, nor are the authors known, it provides a beautiful picture of a fabrication developing over time.

Keep in mind this does not explicitly disprove the resurrection; it merely shows that it is far more likely to be an orally-inspired legend rather than historical fact.  It is impossible to prove something didn’t happen, but history is about reconstructing the most plausible explanation from the available data, and if you’re not willing to dismiss the resurrection as legend, it certainly displays belief despite evidence to the contrary.

The Resurrection According to Mark (~60 AD)

Never made it to the disciples, at least in the earliest manuscripts we have, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.  In most bibles, a small bracket appears at 16:9 stating that the earliest witnesses do not contain 9-20, since the Sinaiticus ends at 16:8.  The account ends in 8:

⁸ Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

Of course the fact that the author of Mark (note that this book is anonymous, as Papias guessed at the authorship in the 2nd century.  I will refer to the author henceforth as Mark) tells us a story that could not be known if it were true, it is clear that the author is neither an eyewitness nor has any method for knowing the truth.  An alternate ending is posed in a handful of Greek manuscripts,

And they reported all the instructions briefly to Peter’s companions. Afterwards Jesus himself, through them, sent forth from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen

However, this is not the discussion at hand; we are trying to compare the 60 AD version of Mark to the other accounts.  We will return to verses 9-20 later. Mark’s account is extremely terse, only 8 verses:

Mary Magdeline, Mary the mother of James, and a woman named Salome (a mostly apocryphal character of unclear origins) go to an empty tomb on Sunday morning, with the stone rolled away and a single man sitting inside.  The man tells them to tell the disciples that he was risen, but they didn’t tell anyone because they were afraid.

The end.

According to Matthew (70-75 AD)

10 years later, Matthew (again, anonymous, attributed by Papias) wrote down what he had heard.  The story grew from Mark’s account from 8 to 20 verses, and includes quite a few more spectacular occurrences.  Firstly, there is a great earthquake (an event that probably would have been recorded in historical records, or at least in the other gospels), and has only the two Marys running to the tomb to see the stone rolled away by an angel, who was then sitting on the stone (not inside, the man got powered-up to angel!).  The women went to the disciples, “afraid but filled with joy” (see the contrast to Mark?), then tell the disciples.  Jesus then suddenly appears and tells them to go to the disciples.

There is an interlude from the omniscient Matthew about conversations between the guards and the chief priests, and the “fabrication” of the stolen body story.  Matthew was not an eyewitness.

The story ends with the disciples going to Galilee, to a mountain that Jesus told the Marys to tell them to go, where Jesus appears.  Some doubt.  Jesus tells them to go baptize everyone, and he will be with them always even until the end of the age (implying he will not ascend again).  The end.

Growing pains

Man inside tomb: upgraded to angel on the stone

• A(n) man angel inside sitting on the stone
• The Marys were afraid and told no one but told the disciples.
• There was an uncorroborated earthquake.
• A story was concocted by the chief priests to explain the body away
• Jesus appears to the disciples together on a mountain
• Some doubt
• Jesus tells them to go forth and preach
• Jesus says that he will always be there.

The makings of an orally-embellished legend are in the making.

Luke (75-80 AD), “The Historian”

Jesus deceived them for about 12 hours.

Fast forward 5 years and double-and-then-some the verses from 20 to 52, and you have the significantly more embellished account of Luke (anonymous,  Irenaeus made up these guesses).  Some basics are fundamentally (not) the same: The women (2 Marys, Joanna, and “the others with them”) went, found a rolled away stone, when BAM! two men appear gleaming like lightning.  The women were scared and told to tell the disciples, so they went back to the disciples, who did not believe them. Then Peter (alone) went to the tomb to double check the story.

Then two disciples are walking and talking about everything, when Jesus appears but hides his identify from them (God commonly uses deception for some odd reason).  They talk about how awesome Jesus is, then invited him in to eat.  Finally after being with them all day, Jesus was revealed, and then disappeared! They then reconvened with the 11 and told these stories, when BAM! Jesus appears again.

This time they are all freaking out, instead of worshiping as in Matthew’s account.  Some of them doubt, and he shows them the holes in his hands and feet, then broke bread, gave some encouraging words, opened their minds so “they could understand the Scriptures” (45), then they all went to Bethany, and he ascended into heaven. The End.

More Growing Pains

Fairly fantastical, but we’re not over yet.  The gospel of John gets even bigger and better.

Super Epic Legendary John (90 AD)

What happens when you play telephone for 15-20 years? You get the totally embellished gospel of John’s (Iraneus’ guess) account of the resurrection and post-resurrection story.  It grows from 52 verses in Luke to a whopping 2 chapters, of 30 verses (chapter 20) and 25 verses (chapter 21).   The word count (in the NIV) is increased by 393, a 138% increase from the word count in Luke.  Lets go straight to bullets.  There’s simply too much otherwise.

Aand that’s the end of John 20. John 21 picks up where Luke had Jesus ascending into heaven (which doesn’t occur in other gospels).  Jesus catches a lot of fish, calls Peter an idiot, and instates him as the first pope, makes eerie prophecies about John (who would be exiled around the time of writing), says “I’m not lying, I promise!” and did other things that would fill all the books of the world.

Mark’s Interpolated Crazyfest Party Time

Almost done.  Let’s return to the Markian addition, which was interpolated sometime after John’s gospel, as late as 160, 100 years after the original, and 130 years after the events.  The events follow Luke’s tradition most closely, but err on key details.

Telephone in a Legend

In the first century, people were storytellers.  There was no scholarly criticism, no skepticism.  The truth of a story was evaluated on the excitement of the teller.  It was the perfect setting for a legend.  When you get a group of people together and their leader is killed, it’s not at all implausible that they would begin circulating stories about how he rose from the dead.  Rising from the dead wasn’t a big deal in first-century Palestine.  It was in vogue.

The gospel’s account of the resurrection of Jesus are a beautiful example of a legend whose details grow and weave with the passing of time.  The man in Mark becomes an angel in Matthew, becomes 2 glowing men in Luke, and becomes 2 angels in John.  The disciples didn’t hear in Mark, doubted in Matthew, saw the hands and feet in Luke, and doubted despite the evidence and suffered correction in John.

Attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable differences generally fail, and end up being implausible up to ridicule.  This is where the faith to believe comes in, to attempt to square the circle away, but then if these irreconcilable accounts are so plausible, why are those of Sathya Sai Baba unbelievable? Why do you change your standards?

People believe in superstition because they want to, not because it is true.  I simply value truth and integrity over believing a legend.

I can’t make the steps of rationality for you.  I can only show you the way.  And it is nothing more than mental gymnastics and special pleading to believe the gospels are anything more than the legendary recorded oral tradition of first century superstition story-peddlers.  Good luck in your journeys towards the truth.

Further Reading

Richard Carrier’s article, “Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story” is extremely informative.

A handy reference with parallels between each of the stories in the gospel accounts, including Paul’s account (which differs)

Why invite trolls?

Not surprisingly, I’m not alone in my opinion.  Kelley from the Friendly Atheist wrote an article yesterday: Why the invite?  And some of the most influential forefront atheists came out to agree in the comments section.

Matt Dillahunty of The Atheist Experience:

 If they’d have shown up on their own, THAT would have been something to talk about…but this is the rough equivalent of a movie studio hiring protesters to drum up advertising.

American Atheists (Prime promoters for the group)

We would not have invited them, but now that they are coming we *can* take advantage of it.

Meanwhile, a representative of NAP, Troy Boyle, played the fool:

Do you think that our invitation, just 3 weeks prior to the event, ACTUALLY persuaded the WBC to come? You’re not that naive.

Of course not.  A tongue-in-cheek snarky letter inviting the most reviled hate-group in America to “Come on out and join the fun!” wouldn’t at all serve to incite their “righteous anger” at folks like us, who they fervently believe are the reason our country is facing so much hardship.

Give me a break. 

Christians Respond: Victory for Reason!

In the comments, many of the atheists predicted (myself included) that outsiders would take the invite as a sign of weakness, or at least as us not wanting to properly reason with the already self-invited Christians who were coming there to rehash arguments for the existence of God (“witness”).  We were right.  RatioChristi, one of the prime organizers for the evangelism effort, is declaring the invite the creation of a straw-man:

It appears as if the Reason Rally organizers are setting in place their very own–live,  in person, full color–straw man fallacy. They have invited the Westboro Baptists to their Washington D.C. “Reason Rally.”

I am somewhat inclined to agree that the move for an invite was nothing more than a publicity stunt, that has the potential to go badly.  Sure; its cool to point to atheists as a reasonable alternative to WBC, but that shouldn’t be the thrust of our effort. The efforts to promote a reasoned, secular worldview should stand on their own, and do not need the backdrop of the fundamental problems we fight against.

This doesn’t magically make the PR move a straw-man (a logical fallacy in which, rather than attacking someone’s actual argument, you attack a weaker version of their argument).  This would be a straw-man if we claimed all Christians are hate-mongering assholes, which is far from the fundamental claims of the New Atheists.  The claims of the “reasons for god” coming from the TrueReason.org camp work equally well to defend Westboro.  You’re on their side.

That’s the problem I have, at least; the arguments for God eventually rely on faith and individual revelation, and from there you get good-natured priests and fag-hating fundamentaists.

No True Scottsman? Again? Seriously?

Hitler was a Christian; Stalin was an atheist. Neither fact says anything about the ideologies they represented.  WBC are Christians and jerks.  Richard Dawkins is an atheist and a jerk.  So what?

The problem is this: “God” thinks like you, and it gives people a licence to do things with a mindset that they will reap eternal rewards regardless of this life.  This delusion creates problems, because the “proof” is separated from the “Pudding.”  If my reputation is destroyed, I have nothing else. Atheists call each other idiots and judge based on rational, moral, and philosophical standards, and its quite easy to lose your reputation commodity as an atheist.

Dawkins’ comment about Rebecca Watson, for example, caused quite a bit of outrage throughout the atheist blogosphere.  We atheists don’t have a “God told me so” to fall back on.  When you do, God seems to always agree with what you want, whether it be witchcraft, hating gays,  slavery, or ending sex slavery.

Such is the problem atheists have with Christianity, and in that respect, Christians trying to distance themselves from WBC are trying to pull a No True Scottsman.  Westboro calls themselves Christians, work in God’s name, and believe fully that they will reap eternal joy in heaven (not in the name of satan, or in the name of no god).  This is no different from Christians who cherry-pick different verses and live their lives in radically different ways, and say that the holy spirit guides them to kindness.

Westboro are assholes.  So are many atheists.  But I get to call them out on in with rational, reason-based authority, and if it doesn’t work, lock them up through legislation against certain asshole-ish acts (murder, theft, rape, etc).  I don’t have to distance myself from asshole atheists, but WBC perfectly illustrates why most atheists get pissed off at religion.

“God told me to” ceases to be a functional rationalization only when you have no gods.

Diversity

In the end, the fact that some idiotic atheist who don’t represent us all invited WBC highlights a cool thing in the atheist community.  Rather than distancing ourselves, many are “making lemonade,” from the situation. So we have a diversity of opinions.  So be it.  We don’t have to distance ourselves from our red-headed stepchildren.  I love and hate the National Atheist Party, but i won’t go around screaming that they’re not true atheists; I’ll just blog about how stupid they are.

In the end, an atheist has no metaphysical basis for being an asshole.  They’re just an asshole, and I’ll tell him that to their face.

“The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.” - Dr Richard Furman, South Carolinan Baptist Pastor (1838)

When the Pennsylvania Nonbelievers, in partnership with American Atheists put up a billboard with a biblical message, they were not expecting the response it received.  The billboard quotes Paul, who admonishes slaves to obey their masters.  The passage continues by urging (Christian) masters to be kind to their slaves, though inconsequential to the command given to Christian slaves.

The bible condones slavery, throughout its text.  To think that it doesn’t is to be ignorant of the bible, and to be willfully ignorant of the Bible’s historical use to both support and oppose slavery in the 19th century.  This is the idea that the billboard attempted to present, though its message was lost on those who should be most outraged by the truth.

In every news story covering the billboards, African-Americans were offended by a picture of a slave next to a verse from the bible to support slavery 300 years ago.  One individual thinks the “devil is a liar,” which says something about her position towards the bible.
Ernest Perce points out, “The bible, if you read it, is unbelievable,” has no problem with slavery, and for most of its history (18 of 20 centuries) Christianity was fundamentally okay with enslavement.

Slavery: Okay by Yahweh!

Slavery has always been sanctioned by the God of the Bible, and often times encouraged (or commanded).  The rules for slavery within the tribe (selling oneself or ones daughter into slavery) were drastically different from what is permissible to foreigners.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT

Hebrew slaves, meanwhile, are to be offered freedom every 7th year (Exodus 21:2-6).  However, if a slave marries during his tenure, and even if the slave’s wife has children, only the slave is granted freedom; the master keeps the woman, and/or children, as his property.

Of course, the slave may choose to be a slave for life (assuming he has a good master), which may well have been the case sometimes.  However, if we are to pretend to know anything about human nature, this was surely not always the case.

Under the old testament, you may also sell your daughter into sex slavery, a form of slavery still practiced today.  Concubines and multiple wives were common in Israel, and daughters sold into sex slavery ”is not arrived to the age of twelve years and a day, and this through poverty.” [source]

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. – Exodus 21:7 NLT

Such practices were not uncommon in the Near East, but are nearly universally denounced today.  It should be interesting to note that God got such a basic human right so egregiously wrong.

…But Times Were Different!

Slaves in the time of Israel enjoyed some protections from their masters, such as a punishment if they were beaten to death:

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21:20-21 NAB

Slaves in ancient Israel were often foreign-purchased, or war prisoners, and were used as household servants and as forced labor; there are cultural differences between this enslavement and that of the 1700s, though the ideas and principles still stand.  Humans were property, could be beaten and flogged (as long as they survive after a day or two), and must be returned if they escape.

By the times of Christianity, slavery in the Hellenized world had taken on a new meaning.  Slaves, depending on their status, had various rights under Roman rule.  These reforms were due to Hellenization, not to any work of the Jews, and slaves were still treated as the property of their owners.  Escaped slaves were always required to be returned to their masters, and as Paul pointed out in Philemon, should return under compunction.

Early Christian theologens somewhat disagreed on the matter; Augustine believed that slavery was a result of sin, and a natural part of the moral law.  This view was shared by the reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin. A careful few disagreed.  This “Natural” state of slavery was carried until the late 1800s, when Christians, alongside deists, agnostics, and freethinkers, re-examined their tenets about slavery.

The Pesky Problem of the Holy Spirit

The problem with the bible, as I’ve noted before, is that there is no standard interpretation of doctrines.  Protestants take this even further than Catholics, placing interpretation in the hands of the reader, with no authority over their interpretation, and Catholics (at least on birth control) don’t even agree with their own supreme interpretations.  The result is drastically different interpretation of these verses, as well as the concept of the “Curse of Ham,” which many slavers used to rationalize themselves as doing God’s will.

The story goes something like this (Genesis 9, 20-27): Ham looked at his dad naked (interpreted as having gay sexytime) and was cursed to be the lowest slave to his brothers.  Pastors taught that the Caananites became the Africans, and that their dark skin was a curse, signifying that they deserve slavery.  The LDS Church used this idea identically during its formation (in the early 19th century, at the same time period) to exclude black members from their ranks.  This teaching was ratified by the Talmud,

“Cush, lineage of Ham, shall become black because of the curse (…)
The crow and the Cushite will be black because of their wrongdoings”

Thus, “the curse of Ham is the assumed biblical justification for a curse of eternal slavery imposed on Black people, and on Black people alone.” [The Curse of Ham, p.168].  These teachings were ratified by pastors throughout the 19th century, who used the curse to suppose they were carrying out God’s will by taking slaves from among the decedents of Ham.  Dennis Hidalgo writes, quoting Dr. William Page,

“… most abominable aspect of the slave trade, was fueled by the idea that Africans, even children, were better off Christianized under a system of European slavery than left in Africa amid tribal wars, famines and paganism”

This issue was an integral issue to the American South, and Jefferson Davis, the President of the confederacy stated,

“[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God…it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.”

My state’s own Dr. Furman (for which the college gets its name) believed slavery a fundamental right of humanity, established by the holy scriptures.  He even points out,

Had the holding of slaves been a moral evil, it cannot be supposed, that the inspired Apostles, who feared not the faces of men, and were ready to lay down their lives in the cause of their God, would have tolerated it, for a moment, in the Christian Church.

Furthermore, he shows (through an apologetic technique still used today to justify genocidal slaughter, and the utter immorality of “god”), “In proving this subject justifiable by Scriptural authority, its morality is also proved; for the Divine Law never sanctions immoral actions.”

The entire letter, hosted on Furman University’s website, is an excruciating apologetic defense for the kidnapping and enslavement of African Americans in the 1800s.  His views reflect much of the consensus of the southeastern US on the subject of slavery, and to say his view is not biblically informed or defended is simply assinine ignorance.

Offense at a Straw Man

The offense of the Pennsylvanians is rooted in the willful ignorance of the support throughout the bible (and history) of slavery.  By being indignant towards the “racism” of the poster, rather than the fact that the bible, an outdated story book with bad morals, is responsible for their own awful history.  The billboard itself was partially torn down, leaving the bronze age mythology and removing the message:

The Pennsylvania legislature supports a year dedicated to the book that served to end criticism, and theologically defend, the systematic enslavement of the African subcontinent.

And that is where the offense ought to lie.

However, this freedom is increasingly in duress, and has been in the news recently in several different manifestations.  Furthermore, this phenomenon crosses interfaith lines; without standing as a unit, all Americans, as well as those throughout the world who enjoy free speech, could find themselves in a 1984-esque society where doublespeak is the only allowable language.

Thunderf00t’s Videos Removed

If you spend any time at all investigating atheism on YouTube, you will certainly come across the user “Thunderf00t,” an incredibly intelligent atheist who has a 37-part series called “why do people laugh at creationists,” which systematically debunks the entirety of the ID theory.

The problem with speech came about when YouTube changed its policy on hate-speech, promoting an Islamic-fundamentalist-esque standard of offense as hate speech.  Several incredibly mild videos were taken down, but thanks to the collective effort of thousands of people, the videos are back up.  Thunderf00t added this to the video, at 2:55:

Thanks to Youtube too for having the strength of character to do what was right, albeit after dropping the ball in a pretty shameful fashion.

YouTube, though dominated (as the internet often is) is a haven of free speech, in which many diverse views can be espoused without the fear of being flagged for hate speech.  Though some videos qualify, the strength of discourse provided by youtube (especially where commentary and rating are not disabled) allows for a beautiful snapshot of what discussion looks like.

It is a shame to think that YouTube even considered such a change, as though people had a right to not be offended by anyone else.  Such is the position of Sharia law, but this idea has no place in a free society.

Christians are Victims Too

I love and hate street preachers; they certainly make the job of atheists much easier.  Tom Short’s street preaching solidified my status as an anti-theist, and helped my girlfriend realize the utter moral depravity and worthlessness of the Christian position. But I will never, ever say that they need to shut up or keep peddling their filth; it’s their prerogative to spew forth their ignorant mythologies, just as much as any other human.

Street preachers usually train themselves in the art of incensing a crowd, angering and provoking them as much as possible; through years of experience, there is little that can perturb their senses.  They are basically schoolyard bullies who never grew up.  Such is the case in the video below.

A group of preachers at a Lady Gaga concert telling everyone (surprise surprise) they were headed to hell were accosted by an Islamic fundamentalist, preaching his own mythologies to them; Jesus was not born of a virgin, Allah is the one true god, and that Mohammad was his messenger.  In typical street preacher fashion they followed the bible’s advice to turn the other cheek and love your enemies began calling Mohammad a pedophile, inciting him to violence.

However pathetic these human scum are, they do not deserve to be attacked for simply espousing their views.  The unique thing in this case was that the police officer, who saw the Muslim attack the man, sided with the Muslim.  Here’s where free speech gets tricky.

As you watch this, and feel the hate boil up in you, are you on the side of free speech or do you want the man to be silenced? Do you secretly cheer for the Muslim as he headbutts a man who is exercising his rights to free (hate) speech, causing him to bleed profusely from the mouth?

Where do you draw the line between hate speech and free speech? Different people’s standards for hatred are different.

Zombie Mohammad

Ernest Perce, who I’ve commented on before, is an ex-evangelical firebrand preacher, and the president of the Pennsylvania Nonbelievers, a freethought/atheist group.  At their Halloween parade last year, Perce dressed up as a risen version of Mohammad the prophet.  *29:50* While parading, he was most likely assaulted (in some way), and claimed he was being choked, by a Muslim who was offended by his costume (and thought it was illegal to make fun of Mohammad in such a way).

Perce found the nearest Police officer and explained the situation to him, then awaited sentencing.  In the Court Recording, it is clear that the Judge is offended over Perce’s actions, pointing out that such an offense would have had him killed in an Islamic theocracy (how this is related is beyond me), and goes on to state that the first amendment doesn’t protect people’s right to offend people.

The judge attempted to justify his ruling.  The comments made in the video are clear: the judge was offended by what the atheist did, and that the first amendment right does not extend to “piss off  other cultures.”  This clearly influenced the judge’s evaluation of the defendant’s claims of harrassment, and overruled the testimony of the police officer on the scene, who caught the Muslim in a lie.  Perhaps he should become more familiar with the forefathers’ opinions on his own beliefs (as a Lutheran):

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

What are your thoughts? Has Islam gone too far? Does hate-speech get the OK or do we have the right to not be offended?  Do we get the right to assault people whenever we’re offended, or should we say, you’re offended, so what?

The most successful religions have been those that most adequately infect our natural human propensities: desire for reassurance, ideas that assuage a fear of death, and that provide a scapegoat to our problems.   The more adequately a particular evolution of religious ideas can attach to extant cultural or human desires, the more effectively it propagates, as a virus attacking cells.

Religion grows by feasting on doubt, fear, and ignorance, and many religions also seek to manufacture these emotions (through blame-shifting and instilling guilt over natural human tendencies), so that they may be preyed upon.  The idea of the scapegoat, which in the Judaeo-Christian tradition is literally a goat that was sacrificed for the sins of the people (thus absolving them), is central to religious life and mindset: that the punishment or pain of someone (or something) else somehow absolves you from the consequences of your own actions.

And yet this is precisely what is prescribed by all three major monotheisms; that by actions, words, or beliefs, you can attain forgiveness for some other action, thereby providing people’s guilt faculties with a sense of forgiveness, whether or not the forgiveness was actually earned by any action pertaining to the greviance caused.

Pragmatic Core

The ideas about gods that survive today are those that have taken firm grasp of the pragmatic concerns of religion; how to deal with human inadequacy, suffering, guilt, and death.  This pragmatism does not often show itself in an amicable light, however.  Over the course of the relatively recent resurgence of Christianity in Africa, pastors and teachers with messages similar to that of “Prosperity Gospel” ministers in America have carved out a niche for themselves by preying on the broken economy of the subcontinent.

One particular manifestation of this pragmatism is the scapegoating of the economic problems onto children, who are in turn accused of witchcraft by their Holy Spirit-filled pastors. By crafting a peacemeal form of Christianity, which demonizes and dehumanizes these children, a new evolution of the religious virus can survive and thrive under the oppressive conditions in the Congo.

It is particularly telling that the boys in question were, in all likelyhood, malnourished and had worms, and represent a significant sunk cost (*Edit: I misuse this term, disambiguation below) were the community to attempt to care for them.  The boys will, without outside help, die, thanks to the divine sentence decreed by their pastors.  But, in a poor community with limited resources in need of a scapegoat, such forfeit of life for the delusion of a better future is purest pragmatism.

Religion Fighting Religion

Religion is unique, in that its ultimate accountability is that of an inaudible voice, and armed with a holy book that vindicates prophets who boldly spoke against mainstream thought, it is relatively simple to convince itself that it is the absolute truth.  However, manifestations of religion often take different forms, as in the case of the Catholic worker featured in the video above.  For him, the manifestation and calling that weighs heavily on him is diametrically opposed to that which the street preachers proclaim, yet he prays to the same god that they do.

Such is the nature of religion; it takes root in any way that it can, and manifests itself unique to the context of a culture.  To him, Jesus was not the man which was like the prophets of old, casting out demons and decrying the work and evil of Satan, but of the peaceful god-man who cared for the little children.  While this is much more amicable from a humanist perspective, the same factors are at play: the creation of guilt over sin, a desire to eradicate the guilt through belief coupled with right actions, at Jesus, the ultimate scapegoat, forgiving the sins of the Pentecostal pastors and the Catholic worker alike.

In affluent communities in the US, this sort of seemingly antithetical pragmatism shows itself; soup kitchens and homeless shelters are staffed with religious men and women who have removed their guilt by the belief in a savior figure, or by their continued, right action.  The joy created by this “freedom” from (religion-induced) guilt causes people to desire to serve with fervency, out of gratitude for a superfluous gift.

Uniformly Bankrupt

Each of these spectral bands from the prism of denominational interpretations rely on nearly the exact same text.  That ought to tell any man who has take the time to think about it quite a few things; one book can be used to justify the taking of life or the giving of it, in identical situations.  If all scripture, or each and every Almah, were consistent in every situation, if there were no contradictions, things would be an entirely different matter.

If God had not wrestled with Jacob, only to hide his face from Moses; if Allah had not faulted the believer for his unbelief while claiming to confuse his vision; if Jesus had not said he was the only way, while condemning geographically unlucky humans to eternal anguish and suffering, things may have been different.  But they’re not; people believe that they are the only ones who know.  As it stands, I’m right, but “they”are not; my opinion is valid, but “theirs” is not.

The in-group always thinks in 3000 years of pretending to know what god is saying, they are the only ones who have a chance at getting it right.

And in a world where our brothers are hurting and dying because of the deluded words of men of God, we can’t afford to lie to ourselves that everyone’s position is valid.  The only truth is, there is probably no God, so lets argue about what ought to be after we admit everyone is wrong.

*1EDIT: It was brought to my attention through outside commentary that I misused the term “Sunk Cost,” as this refers to costs that have already been invested, and I was referring to the future cost of raising a malnourished child.  I apologize for the inaccuracy of this term, but stand by the ideas espoused, that religion provides an excuse to end lives that would otherwise create significant economic strain on an already impoverished society

¹⁴ For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

Christians latch on to the idea that the law ceases to apply, conveniently ignoring the next line,

¹⁵ What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!

What Would Jesus Do?

The fact that the law should still be followed is ratified in the Gospels, when Jesus says in Matthew 5,

17″Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them

In fact, in Matthew 15, Jesus admonishes the Pharisees for not following the commandment to kill children when they dishonor their parents (telling the Pharisees they ought to kill themselves)

3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b]

Jesus goes on to point out that the Pharisees do wrong by ignoring the imposition of God’s command, (and ought to be put to death), for setting aside their possessions “for God” and not giving it to their parents.

Civil, Ceremonial, Moral Law, and “Context!!1!”

Whenever punishments of the old testament are described, the classic Christian apologist go-to is discipline vs. doctrine, or “Civil, Ceremonial, Moral” law.  This distinction divides the entirety of the old testament law into multiple categories, that may be applied at the discretion of the “Holy Spirit” (one’s own inbuilt/environmentally-created conscience).  This distinction is often the implied idea behind claiming the context (historical, biblical) of a passage as a validation for its dismissal.

This sort of claim to an outside agent for accepting some laws as valid, and dismissing other laws, is a classic case of Special Pleading.  Special pleading is defined as:

a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves

It is also called having a “Double Standard,” and a critical investigation of the standard by which some laws are ignored (even the principles behind these laws) and others are followed reveals this fallacious nature of this mindset.  When this argument is used, it can be dismissed outright.

Arbitrary Distinction: Special Pleading

The text of the Torah has no asterisks beside its passages, nor qualifications within, such as “this must be done until the temple is destroyed” etc.  Nor does Jesus when he says the law should be followed, and that disobedient children should be put to death  One example is in Leviticus 19:

¹⁸ “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.  ¹⁹ “‘Keep my decrees.“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. “‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

By what authority should one dismiss verse 19, when Jesus himself alludes to verse 18? There is no “context” shift that states that it is permissible to wear clothing of mixed fabrics.

Furthermore, because the Law was Theological in nature, it is impossible to distinguish theological law from ceremonial law.  Commands such as in Leviticus 19:19 may very well be theological in nature, not to be discarded but to be practiced within the context of the significance of the holiness of YHWH.  Again, there is no reliable method for establishing this distinction.

Under the New Covenant, Christ paid for sin, but the meaning and intent of the law still apply.  Many Christians then subscribe to principlism, an approach which examines the context and intent of the law, the reason it was framed and posed, and carries the ‘principles’ along.  However, this is identical to the special pleading previously examined: the external source of evaluation is the changing cultural context of the modern era, meaning one can use the state of culture as an excuse to ignore some laws and attempt to follow others (thereby distancing oneself from the nasty bits.  Just like the definition of special pleading).

Modern Examples

Modern morality has evolved in spite of the old testament law.  The women’s rights movement, the civil rights movement, the end of slavery, the principles of secularism, the advancement of science, and many other modern cultural constructs go directly against the Law found in the Torah, and the “principles” behind the laws themselves (If you disagree, ask an ultra-orthodox Jew).   It is special pleading to proclaim laws don’t apply simply because everyone else has outgrown the old laws, and religion has been dragged along, kicking and screaming all the while.

For example, though slavery was fought in England by Wilberforce (a Christian), he was opposed by religious teachers of the day that pointed to the “curse of Ham,” alongside the many verses that encourage the taking of slaves from other nations.

Another area where this comes up is the debate over homsexuality: is it inherently a sin to have homosexual sex in the confines of marriage, or not?  There are people on either side, some of whom claim that homosexuality is an abomination as stated in Leviticus (and elsewhere), and others who believe this to be something up for interpretation; neither side has any concrete methodology for dismissing the verse or accepting it, because the people who would accept Leviticus 18:22 would be willing to ignore Leviticus 19:19 (the previously mentioned verse about mixed fabrics), on an arbitrary basis.

Another area this is clear is in the area of women’s rights.  Deuteronomy 22′s intent is clearly the subjugation of women, including stoning if a woman is found to be ‘unpure’ on her wedding night (V.20), but these verses are dismissed outright today.  The lesser status of women is echoed in scriptures attributed to Paul, such as in 1 Timothy 2:12; women are commanded to be silent, learn in submission, and exercise no authority over a man, but because of our changing cultural context, this scripture is ignored, or succumbs to a compromise which pays lip-service to the verse, but is simply a cultural adaptation of a clear-cut command.

Just Do Away With It

My solution is simple: Get rid of the whole law.  Christians today already cherry-pick their morality, which sometimes lines up with scripture, and other time ignores huge swaths of principles to remain relevant to today’s changed moral landscape.  Special pleading about the law simply reveals that Christians are no more aware of eternal moral truths than anyone else, and by dismissing the outdated spewings of iron-age tribesmen, a better morality is reached effortlessly.

I constantly find that the more scripture people ignore, the better human beings they become.  Why not go the mile and freely admit that empathy and reason inform one’s views of the ridiculous requirements of the law, rather than the other way around?  Then maybe we can advance our morality together, instead of the secular world constantly dragging the religious along.

Freedom of Religion (From Oversight)

Churches here in the US enjoy oversight-free status in numerous areas that most non-profit organizations do not enjoy, and often engage in business and commercial enterprise using methods that would be illegal under other circumstances.  Many churches enjoy tax-free retail establishments such as coffee shops or bookstores (which are somewhat under fire), which compete directly with other businesses.

In Michigan, the problem of direct competition showed itself when a Catholic retirement community came under fire for attempting to file for property-tax exemption on its units, while a neighboring community’s residents pay $2300 per unit in taxes per year.  The eventual outcome of the dispute was the loss of tax-exempt status, but the issue highlights the entitlement that church organizations feel in their exemptions.

The true nature of nationwide church enterprise is unknown, since religious institutions do not need to file IRS reports that detail the origins or destinations of their income.  All other non-profit organizations must file with the IRS to ensure their status, but religious institutions are also exempt.

In many states, religious institutions are absolved from many consequences of the law that would normally protect groups from harm or discrimination.  In Alabama, the normal safety requirements for child daycare services are suspended for religious organizations.  Meanwhile, the recent court case of Cheryl Perich, a school teacher who was dismissed after suffering from narcolepsy for a term.  The supreme court ruled in the church-run school, citing the ministerial exception, which is designed to allow churches to dismiss ministers who disagree with the church theologically.  In this case, however, the law allows for discrimination, racism, and dismissal based on medical grounds.

Tax-Free Housing

The parsonage allowance extended to all religious clergy who receive a salary from a church is another area of contention, that non-profit workers do not experience in the least: It allows a pastor to receive tax exemption on the rental, property, and utility cost of a home.  Thanks to the efforts of megachurch pastor and author Rick Warren, a 2002 bill capped the parsonage allowance at the “fair rental value” of the home, who in 2000 was brought to court over his own parsonage allowance.  This new law set the precedent for years to come.

Joyce Meyer's former home in Missouri

The parsonage allowance, unlike in the case of the United States Military, has no cap.  This means that megachurch pastors such as Joyce Meyer or Joel Osteen (who earn hundreds of thousands of dollars per year) can claim the parsonage exemption on their million-dollar mansions.  Meyer’s ministry check pays for the utilities, maintenance, landscaping, pool upkeep, and even the insurance, all tax-free under the current law.

Megachurch Millions

In 2007, senator Charles Grassley assessed some of the largest megachurches in the nation, and found tremendous earnings posted by the pastors.  Many of the pastors preach the so-called “prosperity gospel,” which promises earthly wealth from God in response to hefty donations.

The result is an incredibly skewed salary for pastors at megachurches.  A study in 2010 found the average salary to be $147,000, with salaries going as high as $400k per year, plus medical, dental, and life insurance, and often included cell phone, retirement, and long term disability insurance, all of which are tax-free.  Many of the ministries investigated by Sen. Grassley’s owned private jets, lake homes, and other amenities afforded to the staff by the tax-free donation of its congregants.

Small-Time Problems

Even small churches see incredible benefit from some of these privileges; Churches pay no property tax, even on prime real-estate.  Historic churches in vibrant downtown areas pay only rent, which prevents businesses and offices from engaging in these areas.  There is also the very real problem of fraud, in which the review process to become a religious institution (along with the exemptions) becomes lucrative from a business standpoint.

Furthermore, because the government has no say in how churches operate, churches are required by law to not interfere with government matters.  This, however, is a pipe-dream fairytale.  Church-funded lobbying groups such as the American Family Association use tax-free donation funds to fuel a political agenda.  Candidates are often endorsed directly from the pulpit, which is a violation of the auspices of tax exemption that churches enjoy.

Despite some actions being taken to alleviate and investigate the problem, there is not enough manpower available to the government to investigate every church every week, and religion has continually shown itself to want to edge as close as possible to the limits of the law, or even knowingly break it.

Time to Take Hints from Europe

Italy’s pressure on the catholic church is unprecedented in Europe, where Catholicism rarely receives monetary scrutiny (though it has seen a decline in respect through recent scandals).  However, in France, religions have come under intense fire in recent years.  It recently declared Scientology a fraudulent cult, and assessed the church nearly $800,000 in fines for “targeting vulnerable people for commercial gain,” contrasted by the US position on Scientology, which recognizes it as a legitimate religion.

There is no way to know just how much we would gain from removing the privileged status that religion enjoys in our nation; there may be up to $100 billion available in property taxes alone, but this is simply an estimate.  However, when we are facing an unbalanced budget that is trillions in debt, we should take a hint from Italy, and explore all the options we have.  I, for one, am all about exploring our options.

EDIT: I erroneously stated that pastors pay no income tax.  This is not true; They may either pay income tax as an employee or self-employed, with deduction for parsonage.  However, if any salary goes unreported to the government (such as with waiters and waitresses), the pastors pay no income tax on these funds.

To show God’s love by providing free Health Care to those who need it.

That’s right. God.  The one atheists like myself and the majority of the Pastafarians don’t believe in.  The ones that many of us actively wage an intellectual war against (that takes place in the minds of His followers, of course).

Here’s the thing: Atheists, like Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Scientologists, along with every other religiously affiliation, have one thing in common, beyond every other thing:

We are human.  We know what it means to hurt.  We know what it means to feel pain.

And for the majority of humans, we want to help one another out.  That means things like a benefit dinner for the Good Samaratiain Clinic, a free clinic that provides health care services to the Hispanic population of Columbia, SC, replete with volunteers from USC which serve to interpret and foster cultural relations.

This means that I have the opportunity to set aside my differences of theology and pursue what is laid out in James 2: 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?  Help is active, not passive; It is ignorant to assume otherwise, regardless of which side of the religion fence you sit on.

I couldn’t be more proud to serve alongside Christians at such an event.

The Dinner is being held at Russell House Ballroom A at the University of South Carolina.  Tickets are $6 at the door, and all proceeds go directly to support the free clinic.  I’ll be playing guitar for everyone’s enjoyment.  Hope to see you there!