Life, Music, and Civil Disobedience

Today I spoke with a friend briefly via facebook. About five months ago, he moved to Colorado to take a job, and I have not seen him since. This physical separation significantly dented our friendship; we went from roommates for a year to seeing each other a few times per week to not seeing each other for months.

The peculiar thing is that I once believed his views were far too leftist for me; that his view of the world was very different from mine. This did not affect my relationship with him. I did not think anything less of him or anything better of myself. We were simply two friends with differing opinions. Our conversations were usually lively and productive: we challenged each other, we valued each other’s opinion, we learned from each other.

I cannot place the moment, day, or even month that it happened, but I am now decidedly atheist. It was a very long, gradual process. I had certainly traveled down a path away from faith, from fervent conviction, to carelessness, to apathy, to disbelief. I firmly believe that organized religion suppresses free thought and skepticism. Among the qualities of human nature, I consider skepticism to be of the utmost merit and importance.

This newfound strength in skepticism has led me to acknowledge the things that I know to be true, and the things for which I have no evidence. Claims unsupported by evidence are not necessarily unwarranted, nor are they immediately to be dismissed. However, they most certainly should be questioned. The shortest path to forming beliefs logically and rationally is simply to ask the question, “Why?” Someone must have known this at some point, but didn’t bother to teach it in schools, teach it to the young, or preach it on the streets.

In regards to differing opinions on social issues, arguments that can’t logically or empirically answer the question “why?” usually lose. Toward that end, I believe the only logical view on any given social issue is epitomized by the French laissez-faire. If something does not directly infringe upon your right to life, liberty, and happiness, it has no business being illegal. Gay marriage? Abortion? Gun ownership? Drug use? Prostitution? Doesn’t bother me. Do what you want, but do it by yourself. I don’t need more laws to know what’s wrong and right. What’s right for me isn’t necessarily right for everyone else. Would I prostitute myself? No. Does someone else prostituting him- or herself subject me to prostitution? Absolutely not. So what’s the problem? Doesn’t bother me. I won’t be visiting a prostitute but that doesn’t give me the right to tell others not to. Live and let live. Can’t we band together and agree to be different? Let’s agree to disagree. Let’s agree to celebrate freedom and celebrate our differences. Let’s be open-minded.

My moral beliefs aren’t dictated by dogma or doctrine other than my own. I will decide what is right for me and I respect every other citizen’s right to do the same. I have made my own informed decisions. My only duty to others is to encourage them to make their own. Instead of preaching, “abortion is murder,” why don’t we preach “abortion is a serious medical procedure that should be thoroughly researched before making an informed decision about”? I suppose the latter doesn’t roll off the tongue quite so well. If God loves us and gave us free will, wouldn’t he want us to make our own well-informed decisions about what is right and wrong instead of declaring what is right or wrong and allowing us to choose “incorrectly”? The idea makes no sense.

Is God able to prevent evil, but not willing? The he is malevolent.

Is God both willing and able to prevent evil? Then whence cometh evil?

Is God neither willing nor able to prevent evil? Then why call him God?

... is now online! Go check it out; you might learn something!

Prepare yourself, tumblr.

That he met in the house,

"Let us both go to law:

I will prosecute you.

Come, I'll take no denial,

We must have a trial:

For really this morning

I've nothing to do."

Said the mouse to the cur,

"Such a trial, dear Sir,

With no jury or judge,

would be wasting our breath."

"I'll be judge, I'll be jury,"

said cunning old Fury:

"I'll try the whole cause,

Improve his shining tail,

And pour the waters of the Nile

On every golden scale!

How cheerfully he seems to grin,

How neatly spread his claws,

And welcome little fishes in

Here are a few excerpts of my writing, with her comments. Notice the lack of grammatical sense and straight up contradiction.

Original:

"Especially in written communications, directness and clarity can make or break a deal."

With comments:

"Especially [insert comma before "especially"], directness and clarity [in academic writing, if this is a series, place a comma before the conjunction (and)] can make or break a deal."

Uh, a comma before "especially" makes no goddamn sense. Also, two items do NOT CONSTITUTE A SERIES requiring the serial comma.

Original:

"Canadians expect politeness, but can be reluctant to engage in discussion of personal matters until they build a more stable and personal relationship with the colleague."

With comments:

"Canadians expect politeness, but can [Remove comma (if the following is not an independent clause or last element in a series] ..."

That one, I actually accept. With her correction, the sentence makes sense. My problem arose she left this remark, four sentences later:

Original:

"Canadians like to be direct but the culture is not very confrontational."

With comments:

"Canadians like to be direct but [Grammar: A run-on sentence requires a comma before "but" (or other conjunction) linking main clauses] the culture is not very confrontational."