The Gospel of Y'hoshua

In the beginning was Society, and the Society was with Men, and the Society was Men. The same was in the beginning, thus, with Family. All things were made by Family; and without Family was not anything made that was made. In Family was life; and the life was the Imaginational Foundation of Men. And the Imaginational Foundation shineth in the face of Ignorance; and the Ignorant comprehended it yet not.

Firstly, according to experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, and author Steven Pinker, “Concrete behavioral traits that patently depend on content provided by the home or culture--which language one speaks, which religion one practices, which political party one supports--are not heritable [genetic] at all.”

Yet, Pinker paints not with stark blacks and whites--that is, nature (genetics) verses nurture (environment). He says, “traits that reflect the underlying talents and temperaments… are partially heritable.” These “temperament traits” define more or less how far, in any particular direction, one will go.

No child, therefore, is born a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, or any other faith-based dogmatist. Children enter this world as much a religious practitioner as a political lobbyist, a social activist, a low-skilled worker, and/or a professional careerist.

So, as Pinker argues these types of content are provided in one’s home and culture, one will have to concede that geography is not just a “causal relationship”, yet an obviously reliable one.

When, according to the CIA Factbook, 100 percent of Saudi Arabia, 97 percent of Iraq, and 85 percent of Kuwait are Muslim, one must logically conclude that roughly the same percentage of family and culture (per country) will be Muslim. By that, the children reared in these countries, based upon Family Learning and/or a modified Social Learning Theory, are evidently raised Muslim.

The same associational dialectics apply to the state of Georgia, where 76 percent embrace Protestant Christianity, and for Israel, where 76.4 percent gravitate toward Judaism.

Secondly, H. Richard Niebuhr’s The Social Sources of Denominationalism, summarized by sociologists Ralph E. Pyle (University of Nevada) and James D. Davidson (Purdue University), “stressed that a group’s sect-like or churchlike character was influenced by its social class standing. Sectarian groups--elective associations characterized by doctrinal purity, an emphasis on the priesthood of all believers, ethical austerity, and a high degree of tension with the dominant society--have a special appeal for the lower classes.”

Max Weber, political economist and sociologist, “suggested that members of different social classes adopt different belief systems, or theodicies, to explain their social situation.”

For the affluent, the good fortune theodicies emphasize prosperity as one of God’s blessing.

“Theodicies of misfortune, on the other hand,” summarized Pyle and Davidson, “appeal to the poor and present a less sanguine picture of worldly success. Theodicies of misfortune emphasize that affluence is a sign of evil and that suffering in this world will be rewarded in the next.” This type of “transvaluational orientation,” by Weber, is a lower-class characteristic of worship.

Davidson’s own findings on the relationship of religion and class show “[t]he lower classes are more likely than affluent groups to pray in private, believe in the doctrines of their faith, and have intense religious experiences,” while “the middle and upper classes are more likely to attend worship services and take part in church organizations and activities.”

As Rodney Stark, a sociologist of Baylor University, explains, the lower class demonstrates “greater religiousness in those aspects of faith that serve as a relief for suffering,” whereby the middle and upper classes for legitimacy of claims for their high status.

Therefore, if one missed it, class structure does affect religious views. Class ranking, furthermore, falls within a single society, not defined by way of comparison to other societies.

Finally, when I tell you that you are atheist, for you disbelieve in all deities of yesteryears and in many deities of today, which you brush off, you should have embraced it, instead of denying. It only strengthens one’s argument to appear rational and calculating, instead of incomprehensive and brimstone slinging.

Because of declaring it is a game of semantics or incorrect word usage displays the disdain held for the atheist minority. When one truly ruminates over the topic, it is far more logical than arguing the infallible and scientific nature of religious texts.

For every Abrahamic religion--Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Bahá'í Faith--there are three types of claims: moral claims, physical claims, and historical claims. These three claims’ contexts must be defined, as well as each claims’ relationship towards the other or others.

Science and history have put aside the physical and historic, e.g. evolution, medicine, locations, and personage. While morality, thanks to religion, proves countless times over that society is the root of morals and deviance.

However, to remain in the high status of religious certainty, when confronted by this evidence, one writes it off as metaphor.

Though in doing so--within Christianity, for example--one must, then, read the entire text in metaphor, which would also make Jesus, or at least the resurrection, a metaphor. Yet, no dogmatic Christian wants that.

So, the denial of evidence must be, to these faithful, upheld with fervor, yet making the whole illogical and unfounded.

So, according to the Gospel of Y’hoshua, this shall cometh to pass as “Good News.”


This is my second installment about religion and atheism. There were many of things I wanted to add, yet I ran into the length problem. Too many ideas and arguments, not a big enough word count. I, nonetheless, hope you enjoy.

Religious Faith Under Exam

If I told you I was an atheist, you might stop reading and say, “God help your soul.” If I told you that you were an atheist, the odds are you stopped reading and thought, “He does not know me and my relationship with God.”

Firstly, the realistic fact is you are atheist.

You will not grant credence to Santa Claus as the Justice, Apollo as the Son, Jupiter as the Father, the Flying Spaghetti Monster as anything but the figment of the imagination, for that matter.

What distinguishes God or Allah or the Godhead from these supernatural, nonexistent beings?

Nothing at all.

Sam Harris--philosopher, neuroscientist, and author--gives the example: “If I told you that I believe there is a diamond buried in my backyard the size of a refrigerator...”

Granted, this diamond is invisible as well as the little, green gnomes which guard it.

“It might,” Harris continues, “occur to you to ask me why. And, if in response I gave the kind of answers you hear.... The answers which describes the good effects of believing as I do. So, I said things like ‘Well, this belief actually gives my life a lot of meaning, or I wouldn’t want to live in a universe where there wasn’t a diamond buried in my backyard the size of a refrigerator.’”

What makes these types of beliefs appear as the first signs of mental illness? Yet, when one replaces the invisible, non-active, refrigerator-size diamond with an invisible, non-active being named, by chance, Elohim, Jehovah, Yahweh, God, Jesus, or Allah, it becomes now someone’s religion and we do not question.

Secondly, no grounds exist to favor one god over another, as popularly believed.

So, when faced with the reality that geography and economics actually indicate and shape, for the most part, one’s religious views of the world, and when the realization takes place that practitioners of other faiths believe just as ardently as one’s own self, then how does one justify that newly found knowledge in a way that God or Allah or the Godhead might have intended?

Well, first off, if you go by the Torah, you are to stone the gentile or nonbeliever. (Deuteronomy 13:1-11 and Deuteronomy 17.)

However, if you go by the New Testament, you are to slay those who do not want to be reigned over. (Luke 19.)

The point is your religious faith is directly linked to the part of the world from which you come. On the one hand, if you are a Georgian or Mississippian, you are likely to be a Protestant Christian. On the other hand, if you were reared in Saudi Arabia, you are more likely to become a Muslim.

The same is true of the financial class in which you were raised. The poorer classes are always more likely of being religiously faithful.

Finally, why does being an atheist, as reported by a University of Minnesota study, make one less trustworthy of all minorities?

Yet, when one truly considers the fact we all are atheists to one faith-based dogma and/or another, why do we not just mistrust the whole 100-percent majority?

Richard Dawkins, biologist at Oxford and author, argues that all are atheists, yet some actually take it one god further.

So, if God or Allah or the Godhead stands “knees and toes” with other mythological beings and even to a mental fabrication or two, and if one’s religious identity is based on which plot of ground he or she was raised and how many nickels are in his or her pocket, then why not go another god further?


Again, I did a poor job proofreading this week's column. Yet, in my defense, I had two Sociology papers due yesterday and I did not get started until about 4:30pm. I had the thoughts but not the structure worked out. So, I was wrestling with that and missed about five simple grammar errors. Things like, giving a plural verb to a singular subject and a forgotten word as well as leaving an article behind after reworking a sentence. I am ashamed to call myself an English major these past two weeks. The thoughts are very simple. I read several books and watched dozens of lectures on topic of atheism and the plot holes in the religious texts and thus the beliefs.

Tackling the “Common Cause”

Americans, being human beings, proclaim many assumptions about the world in which they live and, like most assumptions, could not be further from the actual-world reality. Moreover, many, hiding behind such assumptions, blind themselves from the objective, multi-communital truths.

Statements and proclamations in the nature of those presented in last Friday’s column, "The Common Cause," presumes national truths without dialectics. The random, circular thinking leads to a misunderstanding of the possible goals of such an argument.

Before I begin, I apologize that my rebuttal cannot cover all the issues addressed in The Common Cause, due to length. For example, the whole immigration issue will take another several columns alone to explain.

Firstly, blasting any president’s administration for the failures of Congress will not deliver any practical results, yet will only prove to showcase the constitutional ignorance of the blasphemer. Besides, the president needs Congress to pass the bills before he can then sign or veto.

The president, according to Article Two, Section Two of the Constitution, has power to act, basically, only "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate."

Secondly, when one argues based on assumptions, he forgets to define colloquial terms, such as "middle class."

The middle class has "but nobody--not economists, sociologists, or the U.S. Census Bureaus--[who] seems to have a clear definition of who the middle class actually is," according to an overview of Politics & Economy by PBS.

U.S. Census Bureau offers a more number-based approach. "In 2004, the middle fifty percent of households had annual gross incomes between $22,500 and $75,000. The top quarter (26.8 percent) of households earned more than $75,000 while the bottom quarter earned (25.2 percent) earned less than $22,500 annually."

Thirdly, David Brooks, New York Times columnist, summarizes a new report by Third Way, "The authors of this report… try to blend all the diverse pieces of American reality, and to expose what they call the 'myths of neopopulism.'"

The first of these myths is the "failing middle class." He continues, "It’s true there are more households headed by young and old people, who tend to have lower incomes. But if you take households headed by people in their prime working years, 25 to 59, you find those people are not failing. Their median income is $61,000. If they are married, their median income is $72,000."

What is more, "living standards are not stagnant," like usually presumed. In the last 27 years, "the percentage of prime-age households making over $100,000 in current dollars rose by 12.7 percentage points," Brooks writes.

Finally, some argue the fact of wage inequality proves the middle-class shrinkage. One of the most wage equal times in American society was during the Great Depression. The poor and rich both fell, yet only the poor had a shorter distance to fall. No one wants a second Great Depression for equality to return to the States.

Some might complain this wage inequality is a problem the government needs to address. However, when only 27.7 percent of all Americans over the age of 25 have a Bachelor's or higher and 14.8 percent never finish high school, wage inequality is going to occur, despite a government, let alone a president.

I say, it is a citizen problem, and we, the American citizens, are the ones who need to address it.

But to do that, assumptions must be put to the side.


I will have to thank the Parthenon staff member who caught the several errors I missed, when self-proofing. I am not to happy with this column. I started out by addressing every issue that "The Common Cause" stated so matter-of-factly. By the time I finished I had about 900-1000 words, so in my cutting I missed some easy errors--I forgot a word, I used "assume" in the place of "presume" twice. Oh well, it happens. The point is that assumptions mislead and block forward progress.

When in Rome, Ask Arthur?

Some Americans chant, “More troops, less politics.” At the same time, other Americans cry, “Less troops, more diplomacy.”

Which one is right? Which one is wrong? What if neither is wrong nor right?

My last two columns constructed the argumentative dialogue between both sides with both showcasing their strongest claims. The interesting thing about those two columns was—instead of an actual dialogue, as we know it—they each closer resembled a triumphantly self-righteous monologue.

Neither side addressed each other’s main points, while presenting their case with an air of condescension.

The conservative and liberal mindsets based around party lines disable the fruitful potential that a good, strong debate offers.

Two opposing parties engage in debate, not for one to come out a victor like two gladiators wrestling in the mud and the blood of the Colosseum floor, but for both to find a truth better and higher than each initially brought forth.

The conservative and the liberal both covet the applause of the crowd (us, the American citizens) so much they would rather battle to the death, then sit down at a Round Table and agree to “argue the issue, not the person.”

Each indoctrinates hisself to the degree that he is right—that is, his life is weighted on it. So, the other must and has to be wrong.

What is more is that neither side can walk into a room and say that he and his claims are not infallible.

The lack of this type of honesty and objectiveness is what divides rather than unites.

Before one can love or hate, one must first understand, Leonardo da Vinci said.

The conservative and liberal mindsets praise or decry without any understanding besides the very assumption of the other party and their stereotypical party lines.

I ask—hopefully, along with the rest of the nation—for pragmatic debate and self-honesty.

With that said, both sides of this war in Iraq have important claims that need to be addressed and not just brushed out.

I seriously do not know which course of action will result in the outcome we, as a nation and a world, need to benefit us all. I am sure that I am not alone, if we were only honest with ourselves.


This is the 3rd and final column on this topic of the Iraq War, at least at this time. The point of all this is that we just do not know. This idea of a three-part column came out of my limit of 500 words a column. I wanted to say more, so I derived this idea of creating John Conservative and Joe Liberal and giving each a column to argue.

Apropos, I do not believe that the word "himself" is correct, or at the very least, share continuity as the rest of pronouns. So, I avoid it and/or replace it with the often looked down upon pronoun "hisself", which does follow the pattern of other pronouns.