Midas Touched: Religious Discrimination at a Job Interview

This ex-minister interviewed for a store manager position with Midas on December the 8th. The owner, Russ, and I had a lengthy phone interview a few days prior to this, which lead to a face-to-face interview.

Upon arriving for the interview at his Rockville, MD shop, Russ and his sidekick greeted me and we set down to talk.

My resume lists my degree from a Christian University and my cover letter briefly highlights my post-ministerial career, which largely consists of sales and sales management. Russ was curious what I did to take a multi-million dollar furniture store (Levitz) from the worst ranked performance to the best in such a short time. I proceeded to show him the before and after numbers to document my performance and explained what my critical eye observed. The business got the people through the doors, but my predecessors weren’t able to convert that traffic into sales volume like I could.

Somewhere about 30 minutes into the interview Russ asked me why I was no longer a preacher. Up until this time it was a cordial interview with apparent progress being made. I looked Russ in the eyes and told him that I have learned not to discuss these matters because it has been a source of discrimination against me, which has greatly affected my family.

Sidekick: What? Do you feel guilty for leaving?

Brian: (silence)

Russ: Are you agnostic or an atheist?

Brian: (silence)

Sidekick: Hey dude, both of us are Christians and we both go to strip clubs.

Obviously, we had reached a comfort level enough for Sidekick to openly discuss his extra-curricular work/church activities but I still didn’t want to discuss the matter because first off – it is AGAINST THE LAW. I’d estimate that Russ was in his 50’s or 60’s and that as a franchise owner he should have known better than to ask, and then to pry.

What was I to do? The question and my silence changed the tone and mood of the interview. It was an awkward moment but Russ couldn’t pick up on my discomfort nor did he understand his legal responsibility when conducting an interview. He then gave me the “look” and I knew that I must say something in hopes to revive interest in an interview that just went south.

Brian: [looking at Russ] I’m fairly transparent, I’m not a guy that would proclaim something that I knew wasn’t true and ask people to follow or commit their lives to. So I left the ministry. What I did was honorable; I don’t feel guilty about anything [looking at Sidekick].

I usually don’t discuss my views because they have brought me a great amount of discrimination, which adversely affect me.

Russ: [stoic and declining look]

Brian: Can I speak openly?

Russ: Yes, go ahead. That is what I want you to do.

Brian: I don’t believe that snakes can talk and that axe-heads can swim in water. The Bible has many stories that are not meant to be taken literally. I’m not an atheist; I am a deist like many of the American founding forefathers were, like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. I believe that there is a God but that God wouldn’t violate common sense by asking us to believe non-sense that someone placed in a book with a pretense that it was from “God.”

Russ: [He starts to laugh and looks to Sidekick] Axe-heads? What’s an axe head?

At this moment, I knew that he was toying with me. While I can believe that he might be unfamiliar with the story of Elisha in 2 Kings 6:1-7; a man that is in the metal business of bending exhaust pipe and turning brake drums must definitely know about what an axe is by the estimated age of 60.

Russ: We don’t have a match here!

Brian: What happened? Things were going well until you brought up religion. That is exactly why I didn’t want to discuss religion with you. It was wrong for you to ask me!

Russ: [Motions to Sidekick]

Sidekick: [Gets up from the chair and walks over to shake hands with me]

Brian: [I ignored his outstretched hand…if discrimination wasn’t enough, I surely wasn’t going to allow Sidekick to patronize me with a handshake] Russ, I asked you what happened? I’m expecting an answer.

Russ: [stalls and then mutters] There is too much to bring you up to speed on.

Brian: We discussed these matters during our phone interview. [Midas want ad says he was willing to train the right person] If I can run a million dollar business and turn it around quickly, there is nothing too hard here for me to grasp. I’m a reader with a 6,000 volume library, whatever I don’t know I wouldn’t rest until I overcome my deficiency. You’re being disingenuous with me and you know it!

Sidekick: [with a threatening tone and pointing towards the door] The interview is over and you need to leave!

Brian: [gets up and walks out the door]

A Skeptical Humanist and his Newspaper

In this post, I will bemoan the faltering of two of our institutions: marriage and science. The newspaper provoked me this week; the bulk of this concerns global warming and healthy skepticism.

Kardashian Makes a Mockery of the Institution of Marriage

Another pretty face that was built up by the machine has mocked marriage again. It only took 72 days for Kim Kardashian to do so. Seventy-two days? Rather than speculate about the relationship, I want society to look at the PR marketing machine that builds ordinary folks into media magnets.

Some poor in spirit but wealthy media continue to unwisely invest in characters to show the world how things shouldn’t be done. Are they THAT lacking in discernment or are they intentionally seeking to demoralize society? This wasn’t intended as a rhetorical question! Character should count for something. What, are they suggestively trying to get us to accept the degradation of the “stars” they run through the machine as normal? Is this what these media perverts want our youth to aspire to? Our media institutions are broken down!

My suggestion for the media is this. First do some background checks into the character of the individual BEFORE you build them. If they pass and later are found to set a bad example for society then by all means the media should “pull the plug” upon them just like a disgraced minister receives when they are found to violate trust.

Global Warming, Climate Change and the Institution of Science

Buried well behind the front page of the November 2, 2011 Washington Post was a piece written by Martin Weil entitled “Snow, cold make October one for the record books.” Contained within is a paragraph worth noting:

At least four tornadoes touched down in the Washington area last month, and snow fell in October for the first time in many years. In addition, it was the first month since March with a below-average temperature.

Either we are facing an oncoming calamity or we are being manipulated for a swindle. Laymen have no way of knowing which scientists to believe about global warming, climate change or whatever new designation is chosen to describe what is in dispute. Weil’s paragraph squares with climate change but is at odds with global warming. Two months of below average temperatures provokes skeptical questions within reasonable people. Skeptics notice aberrations!

I frequently observe Internet searches that lead to this website asking questions such as, “Why are Christians reluctant to accept global warming?” Science should be objective, but whenever scientific luminaries get into other things such as killing religion…. credibility is lost, especially within the Christian community. Still, some dimwits can’t seem to see any correlation between the two.

Look at atheism’s most recognizable leaders (Dawkins & Myers); scientists at war with religion. That warfare with religion comes with a high price tag that impedes scientific instruction of many within religion. Wouldn’t it have been a more prudent decision for science to have avoided religious warfare altogether and have religion friendly scientists deliver the case for global warming and evolution? Too late now, they have already blown it!

This ex-minister doesn’t know whom to trust upon global warming. On one hand, I think we are screwed if the issue falls along partisan lines. On the other, I think we are already screwed if global warming is true simply because of the alienation of the faithful by scientific hybrids moonlighting as hatemongers. Basically, we would need the faithful’s cooperation to help solve the problem. As it now stands, that cooperation isn’t there nor do I see this changing in the near future due to the breakdown of convention within science and it’s warfare with religion.

Am I skeptical about global warming? Yes, I am especially whenever the pitch states a consensus scientific opinion rather than a unified one! Science itself is divided upon the subject. Which scientists are we supposed to believe these days?

Last year, my curiosity spurred me to visit NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association) to gain a better understanding. Turns out that they weren’t receptive or interested in furthering inquisitive minds. Living in DC, I have frequented institutions and organizations and without fail all that I have visited were pleased that someone showed interest and made you feel welcomed. Plus, most wanted to hand you a packet to get better acquainted with their cause or mission.

NOAA was standoffish and wouldn’t show a human face. When I visited, rather than speaking face to face with a live person they asked you what you were doing there and gave me the third degree. It was rather unpersonable having walked into their building in a good expectant mood to only have someone tell you to speak to a person on the telephone that treated me like a Russian spy. Needless to say, I left with a different impression that made me wonder why they were so uptight and rude.

I wasn’t skeptical about global warming on that September 1, 2010 date when I walked into NOAA; I was aligned with the majority position inclined to side with what they said. However, my experience has been to question whenever a group doesn’t want to talk about something. Red flags go up! I embrace skepticism and welcome questions that might challenge the reasons that underpin stances that I hold; I suspect those that can’t do the same.

The consensus opinion loses traction with me when I compare it with a field in which I cut my teeth…religion. My religious skepticism is a minority position amongst current clergymen. I’m well aware that the crowd can be wrong about something they are passionate about!

If you’re reading this trying to ascertain my position upon global warming you are missing the big point. Let me answer the last sentence by saying that this discussion is largely about the breakdown of our scientific institutions that cannot send out a clear signal to society! I still suspect that we have a dire problem and want to point out how this unwarranted sacred – secular conflict has exacerbated/complicated potential solutions.

From my vantage point, both science and religion have a peculiar chip upon their shoulders. Too often sides become unglued with healthy skepticism that starts with a question. It is like a sales objection that flusters a poor salesman; that same objection is a buying signal to a closer. How one responds sets up the perception of the inquisitor.

If I have learned anything from fundamentalism, pedophiles Dr. Bob Gray and Donald Domelle it is that they all despised critical inquiry. Turns out that my skepticism was right. Rather than science becoming unglued with my skepticism of temperature aberrations and religion being offended by inquiry…seems that I’m really digging at something not easily recognized. I’m speaking of the spiritual problem of PRIDE!!! Simply put, questions shouldn’t offend us!

So what do I suggest? A dose of General Patton is prudent….”know what you know and know what you don’t know.” Personally, I know the Bible but upon global warming I have two differing views to choose from. I can’t think of another issue like global warming that is so dependent upon trust.

In closing, trust is in question because our day is so laden with rampant GREED! Greed is a spiritual problem. If you ask me, I think it is likely the greatest problem upon our planet. We can’t cure greed with science. If you ask me, religion is the best tool to combat greed! Nor will we be able to solve global warming as long as skeptics combat religion. The sacred –secular dualism works in our best interests; dueling doesn’t. Think about it!

Jon Bon Jovi’s Soul Kitchen

I am so impressed with Dorothea and Jon Bon Jovi’s understanding of humanity and their charitable innovation! Their Soul Kitchen is a “pay what you can” restaurant near the Red Bank train station in New Jersey.

(please read "Jon Bon Jovi's charity restaurant opens in NJ" article from Yahoo in it's entirety...the following quotations are from this article)

The restaurant provides gourmet-quality meals to the hungry while enabling them to volunteer on community projects in return without the stigma of visiting a soup kitchen. Paying customers are encouraged to leave whatever they want in the envelopes on each table, where the menus never list a price.

The restaurant is the latest undertaking by the New Jersey rocker's Jon Bon Jovi Soul Foundation, which has built 260 homes for low-income residents in recent years.

"With the economic downturn, one of the things I noticed was that disposable income was one of the first things that went," Bon Jovi told The Associated Press in an interview Wednesday before the restaurant's grand opening ceremony. "Dining out, the family going out to a restaurant, mom not having to cook, dad not having to clean up — a lot of memories were made around restaurant tables.

"When I learned that one in six people in this country goes to bed hungry, I thought this was the next phase of the Foundation's work," he said.

It started several years ago when Dorothea Bongiovi (she uses the legal spelling of her husband's name) and Jon started helping out at a food pantry at nearby St. Anthony's Roman Catholic Church. They later moved their focus to the Lunch Break program, which feeds 80 to 120 people a day, dubbing it "The Soul Kitchen."

…
Bon Jovi, who has a home in next-door Middletown, is adamant about one thing.

"This is not a soup kitchen," he emphasizes. "You can come here with the dignity of linens and silver, and you're served a healthy, nutritious meal. This is not burgers and fries.

"There's no prices on our menu, so if you want to come and you want to make a difference, leave a $20 in the envelope on the table. If you can't afford to eat, you can bus tables, you can wait tables, you can work in the kitchen as a dishwasher or sous chef," he said. "If you say to me, 'I'm not a people person,' I say, 'That's not a problem. We'll take you back to Lunch Break to volunteer with those people. If you don't want to volunteer with that, we'll take you to the FoodBank."

After volunteering at one of those places, a person will be given a certificate good for a meal at The Soul Kitchen.

"If you come in and say, 'I'm hungry,' we'll feed you," Bon Jovi said. "But we're going to need you to do something. It's very important to what we're trying to achieve."

That includes making people feel part of a larger community that cares about them, while still expecting them to contribute to society at large.

"This is not an entitlement thing," Bon Jovi said. "This is about empowering people because you have to earn that gift certificate."

He and others at the restaurant want those who can afford to dine out to patronize the restaurant as well and pay what they consider market prices, or even a bit more than that, to help sustain The Soul Kitchen as a true community resource.

Years ago I wrote about Ted Turner’s charitable innovation. Several points about the Bon Jovi’s innovation that shouldn’t “fly under the radar” of societal consciousness that I would like to highlight:

1) "If you come in and say, 'I'm hungry,' we'll feed you," Bon Jovi said. "But we're going to need you to do something. It's very important to what we're trying to achieve." That includes making people feel part of a larger community that cares about them, while still expecting them to contribute to society at large." This is not an entitlement thing," Bon Jovi said. "This is about empowering people because you have to earn that gift certificate."

2) Plenty of goodness is found within the church. I love the fact that a notable who didn’t need the church first recognized and chose to work along side with them to achieve something that has great meaning!

It is important that people be able to maintain their dignity. What we need is a system that is fair and just and lets the chips fall where they may in a democracy that should represent 99% of society. Injustice wars against hope and diminish opportunity of a man that wants to provide for their family by paying their own way. If we had a just society issues such as social justice and entitlements wouldn’t be necessary. The Bon Jovi’s are onto something essential here, I’d be surprised if they aren’t wildly successful!

Cain's Plan for his Brother

Enough is enough! Pardon the natural pun, but we have a non-Biblical Cain preparing to harm his poor brother if enabled. He calls it his 9-9-9 plan, let me render in German a proper response…nein!

Some people have no shame. Those waging warfare on the poor need to have their salvo’s brought to light. I won’t pose as a political analyst, these are not the issues people come to this website for. Bottom line, poor people will have an increased burden.

Evidentially, there is no limit on GREED. Cain needs to be kept at a distance from his brother. Most skeptics readily see this for what it is….and wince whenever modern followers of Jesus align with people who disobey his principles.

What would Jesus do? Jesus cared for the poor and would cut through the rhetoric. That is what Jesus would do!

I applaud and align with believers that have the intellect, fortitude and courage to stand for what they say they believe in. I agree with Jesus concerning the poor while disagreeing with Ayn Rand.

Ex-Minister has been silent concerning politics these 8 years. What I’m really saying is that skepticism and Christianity need to focus upon ethics. I’m in! This is an ethical issue. How will we know if we are on an ethical path rather than a political one? Answer, when Christians follow Christ’s instructions and skeptics renounce “Randism.”

PS: It is hard for me to fathom how a Baptist minister (Herman Cain) of a suburban Atlanta church cannot rightly discern what Jesus taught in the Scriptures. If Herman Cain were an ex-minister that departed from faith, I would give him a skeptical pass. It is unconscionable though for an intelligent believing minister to malpractice Jesus.

The Plot to Undermine the American Pulpit

The atheists have done it again. First, since they were dumbfounded without having a scientific sounding reason to explain the origin of the universe they reverted to their nature. So what did they do? They stole the church’s answer of the Big Bang (which had the God of the Bible behind it) but instead denied that God exists and attributed natural selection as the force behind the Big Bang. No original thinking here, just an act of pirating.

Second, since atheism has such a bad reputation they decided to deflect it by forcing the amalgamation of secular humanism into atheism. They have virtually destroyed secular humanism (which wasn’t at war with Christianity) and replaced it with the “new atheism.” Once again no original thinking was done here; this is just another act of piracy.

Third, they coveted my own Ex-Minister Idea. I have always wanted to reach out and assist ministers within religion and those transitioning out of religion. Atheists saw that with a twisted motive, they could turn this into a recruitment tool for atheism. Once again no original thinking was done here; this is just another act of piracy.

About two years ago, I had approached Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) about helping ministers and the cause of Ex-Minister. Two years later I have yet to hear back from Barker. However, I just happened to sit in on a lecture given by Linda LaScola in Wheaton, MD a few months back and now understand that my helping idea has been “swiped” and converted into an atheist-recruiting tool!

Ex-Minister’s eight-year-old idea (since 2003) had the interests of the minister in mind rather than recruitment for atheism as its goal. According to LaScola a sizeable donation was given to study non-believing clergy, that donor does not want to be identified!

A number of well-known atheists have been collaborating together and are close to unveiling what is to be called “The Clergy Project.” Linda LaScola (researcher) and Daniel Dennett (Tufts University and one of the “four horsemen” of atheism) have been conducting research of non-believing clergy for a length of time. See The Washington Post on: Non-Believing-Clergy

As LaScola’s lecture continued, I was a little taken back when she reacted to a tape recorder that a member of the audience was running. She insisted that recording her lecture was not permitted and had to be assured that the recorder was turned off before she continued on.

LaScola proceeded to describe how the tests were conducted and then showed an ABC News clip interviewing members of the clergy that LaScola research had interviewed. The identities and voices were disguised as to not blow the clergymen’s cover.

After the clip was shown, LaScola revealed the clergymen’s first names and discussed the impact that should follow when America comes to understand that a number of clergy actually do not believe what they are publicly preaching from the pulpit! I WAS LIVID and almost came out of my chair!

First let me say, if a non-theist group wants to reach out and help these clergymen…I would welcome this. Second, I resent that LaScola broke the vow of complete confidentiality that Daniel Dennett had promised (video of this is/was on Richard Dawkins website). These clergymen have had their trust violated! Third, I have been doing this since 2003 and have a good understanding of what the real numbers of disbelieving ministers are…atheism stinks for exaggerating these numbers! Fourth, a minister being approached by this team would get the feel that this was professional research being conducted here rather than a pretense to float the idea out to the American religious public that a large number of their clergy doesn’t believe what they teach and that this study is a tool to undermine the credibility of active clergy.

I raised my hand to ask questions, but I was ignored. Atheists in the audience were yapping about something I knew they didn’t care to understand. LaScola took a break and came to a table that was near to where I was sitting.

I went and introduced myself to LaScola and asked her why in the name of research would they avoid the person that introduced the Ex-Minister idea (yours truly). She told me that I should get in touch with Dan Barker. I laughed at her and said Dan has refused to communicate despite my attempts. I looked her in the eye and said, “You ought to be ashamed of yourselves! The reality is that there is no true intent to help these ministers; this is just an atheist-recruiting tool to undermine the faith of the man in the American pews!” LaScola didn’t like what I had said and I decided to zip it and left the meeting prior to its ending.

Another thing that disturbed me was what LaScola had said about one of the men that she interviewed (also on the ABC News disguised video clip). You would think that a thorough researcher might have recognized a rather large “red flag” and moved on to another. One of these clergymen was basically a draft dodger. To avoid going to the Korean War there was a program that allowed a clergyman-attending seminary to avoid military service. He jumped at the chance! Sure he didn’t believe then, he just exploited a loophole, got a clergyman’s education and stayed in the ministry afterwards. What business did LaScola have to feature a man with such an obvious character flaw?

Riots, Flash Mobs & Religion

Riots in London, flash mobs in our American capitol, Washington, D.C.; should we be surprised?

Media sources re-broadcast the reactions and the denunciations of our political leaders like we expect. While venting may appease the populous, great leaders see the future well ahead of the commoner and govern so as to seek to prevent such occurrences from happening in the first place!

Obviously, there has been a breakdown. Do you expect me to go on a diatribe and lash out and assign blame? If so, who? Prime Minister Cameron and President Obama?

Riots and flash mobs are just symptoms of deeper problems that have been ignored for quite some length of time before Obama and Cameron took office. The deeper problems that I am referring to have to do with the weakening of the “Queen of Sciences” influence in society.

How do you prevent rioters from looting and rampaging? How do you best prevent a group of youth from grabbing items from a merchant’s shelves and running out the doors without paying? You can deter this type of behavior by throwing them into jail…but notice the question concerns prevention rather than deterrence. While justice can bring a measure of deterrence, it would be a much better strategy of the state to prevent such crimes from happening in the first place.

As a commoner, it amazes me that highly educated societal leaders born with a silver spoon cannot figure this one out! The clergy knows! This non-religious ex-minister knows! Good religion helps to curb bad behavior. Misguided skeptics and cynics along with an ineffective clergy are working to destroy what should be our friend, religion.

I want to highlight a few excerpts from Will Secularism Destroy Society?

Will Durant saw the decline of a civilization as a culmination of strife between religion and secular intellectualism, thus toppling the precarious institutions of convention and morality:

“Religion begins by offering magical aid to harassed and bewildered men; it culminates by giving to a people that unity of morals and belief which seems so favorable to statesmanship”

“Conduct, deprived of its religious supports, deteriorates into epicurean chaos; and life itself, shorn of consoling faith, becomes a burden alike to conscious poverty and to weary wealth. In the end a society and its religion tend to fall together, like body and soul, in a harmonious death”

Times have changed in England. I look at the UK and their rich history of preachers like: Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John Owen, Joseph Parker, G. Campbell Morgan, Charles Spurgeon and my favorite of the bunch, Alexander Maclaren of Manchester! Religion has been dying off in England for a very long time. The religious landscape in the US is declining as well.

The question of what comes afterwards (dissipation of religion) isn’t a question at all! History is history and here we are repeating it! Flash mobs and rioting shouldn’t surprise educated people because as Durant states “Conduct, deprived of its religious supports, deteriorates into epicurean chaos”.

I cannot begin to tell you how I feel inside after all these years of watching and observing a misguided movement support the destruction of society! All I can do is to write and sound a prophetic voice hoping that someone will care enough about society and help promote the work of Ex-minister.

Fixing the Easter Scandal

The thought of skepticism brings negative reactions from some folks. This perception is most unfortunate because a little skepticism applied towards Christianity could produce a better presentation of faith. Say what? Whose side are you on?

Easter’s shifting dates from year to year is a “stumbling block” to rational minded people. In fact, it was one of my top 5 question marks back in 1999 that helped ease me from my faith. Here is what I wrote:

Isn’t the historical date of a person’s birth & death constant? Does Easter get a special exception? For example, Thomas Jefferson died on July 4, 1826. Isn’t it ironic that he died 50 years to the date of the adoption of Declaration of Independence? My point is that the date of death is FIXED.

Easter’s date is determined by astrology, not a historical date! Not only do we get differing months and days for Easter, theologians, historians, and the Bible itself cannot agree upon the year of birth or resurrection of the Christ. Why don’t Christians pick a date to celebrate the resurrection? Something like the first Sunday in April? They chose a fixed date for Christ’s birth(Dec. 25). The dates of Easter in years past:

1992 April 19
1993 April 11
1994 April 3
1995 April 16
1996 April 7
1997 March 30
1998 April 12
1999 April 4

The well-respected Thomas Paine had this to say about Christianity, “The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun.” If you seek more information about this, read the chapter named "Astro-Theology" by Jordan Maxwell contained within "The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You To Read," edited by Tim Leedom.

I love what Dr. Antonios Kireopoulos, associate general secretary of the National Council of Churches for Faith & Order and Interfaith Relations is attempting to do! He argues for a common celebration of Easter in the east and west. Below, I have listed two of his paragraphs; I encourage you to visit this link and read his thoughts on the matter.

Easter is at the heart of our Christian faith. On that day, we celebrate our belief in what the apostles claimed – that a man, Jesus, who had died upon a cross, is risen from the dead – and our belief in what the Church subsequently concluded after years of contemplating this miracle – that he is the Son of God, fully human and fully divine, one of the Holy Trinity who, with the Father and the Spirit, created and redeemed and continues to sanctify the world.

This is Good News indeed. And yet almost every year the Christian community is split on which day to proclaim this Good News. The split is along an Eastern (Orthodox) – Western (Catholic, Protestant, and Anglican) divide, and duplicative celebrations cause confusion both inside and outside the churches. This, my dear friends, is a scandal! How is it that we have allowed the glory of the Gospel of the risen Christ to be diminished by a fractured telling of the story?

If I were still behind a pulpit, I would happily support this! Now that I’m out, I still find myself supporting Dr. Kireopoulos and encourage Christianity to follow his leadership and resolve the Easter problem!

Fixing the Easter scandal was my first point of this essay; the second is that skepticism can inadvertently stand in the way of progress without even realizing it! I think that we could do a much better job to help facilitate positive changes within religion if we only had a better attitude towards religion! I’m not suggesting that skeptics love religion, just don’t get caught up in the hatred of those that do!

There are many things that the clergy could do that would benefit both the faithful and society at large. But faithful church members and sarcastic skeptics wouldn’t permit church leadership to “exhale” and make those changes due to traditions and “heresy” charges. The clergy are in a sense “painted into a corner” without a viable exit plan!

No clergy wants a “heretic” label or to be scoffed at by a skeptic that can’t wait to pounce on them with “I told you so”! Skepticism needs to better understand the clergy and allow them to be more progressive.

Need an example? What about the Pope's condoms statement scandal last year? The Pope is a powerful man that is in a position to bring about positive change; but just like any head of state or leader they are all subject to pressure and political whims as well! The thoughts of their constituents and "opposition" are always factors in decision making.

Do you know what I really think? I think that some skeptics are so desperate for a cheap laugh, scoff or sarcasm that they would prefer to have that “selfish moment of jubilation” rather than progress!

This ex-minister is a skeptic, I don’t believe in the claims of my religious past. I do believe that religion does a lot of good and that secularism is silly if it thinks that it is in a position to “fill the void” that religion satisfies in the world! Religion isn’t my cup of tea, but let’s not throw a tea party!

I’m after “goodness” in this world and want to believe that you are too! Goodness is hard to find! Let’s be skeptics rather than goodness killing cynics! We could fight and hinder progress, but I’m asking you to show charity and support people like Dr. Kireopoulos!

Brian Worley May 13, 2011 All rights reserved

The Function of Myth

I challenge skeptics to get deeper than mere debunking activities. People of faith are all around us and we should adapt to our environment and embrace humanity for what it is. Many folk turn to an irrational belief to derive a benefit to fill an unmet need. We should love, understand and try to help them if we feel nurturing tendencies.

I wish that we could conceivably get all parties involved to sit down together in a roundtable discussion about the functions of myth, literature and religion. Especially skeptics! Why? Because skeptical society doesn’t really understand or esteem non-evidential capital the way it should.

As a student at Tennessee Temple University, I had an aversion to literature and mythology while preparing for the ministry. My thinking back then was, “Why should a minister of the life changing gospel of Christ be bothered with myth, fiction and other worldly entertainment?" I thought two semesters of literature classes were irrelevant to a minister. Jane Austen and mythology never saved anyone -- but Jesus could! I was so wrong and yes -- ignorant about the matter.

Turns out that those classes eventually expanded my thinking. But it took a departure from faith and my being immersed into a post-communist and largely non-religious society to recognize the importance of the lesson that the religious myth provided.

Question, “Was Robin Hood was a good or bad guy?” Ask a poor Latvian kid with little religious exposure and they will usually respond with the evolutionary survival mindset that he was a hero. Who teaches the difference between right and wrong in an atheistic or non-religious society and how effective are their results? I clearly witnessed the absence of religion and associate it with a lesser desirable society that lacks moral organization.

Specifically in regards to myth, myths serve to help organize society. Mircea Eliade argued that one of the foremost functions of myth is to establish models for behavior.

Eleven years after leaving Christianity and the ministry, I still believe that mankind's greatest problems are of a spiritual nature. Deep within man are factors that influence a man towards actions that others can judge to be either good or bad. Don’t get spooked by my usage of spiritual (the emotional state or mood in which the interpreter and manager of sensory information processes and acts upon the input in time) -- I just can’t find a better word to describe the direction of thoughts and perception that influence behavior.

Take the case of Tiger Woods. The man had most everything going for him: elite skills in a popular sport, a loving family, a beautiful wife, fame and influence with more than enough money for a lifetime. The common man has a hard time understanding why he couldn’t keep it “between the lines” in what many would picture as a blessed life.

Evidentially Tiger lacked contentment and appreciation for what he had and got greedy wanting something more than the original agreement he had with his wife. The “other women” had spiritual problems as well. Tiger’s problem wasn’t religious but it was spiritual because he broke that agreement with his wife which in turn wrecked his family.

Religion employs mythological creations to teach values and encourage mankind to do what is right and proper. It teaches mythological lessons that should inspire us to avoid learning the lessons of life through experience and the school of hard knocks! We should understand the myth that religion employs and allow it to fulfill it’s intended teaching and inspiring function that serves to better mankind. So what if many religious followers fail to comprehend the myth as long as they are influenced to do what is right and proper? Skeptics should wink and nod in approval while saving their wrath for fundamentalism.

The literalism of fundamentalism misses the point of the religious schoolmaster which is to nurture the decision making process in a positive non-punitive manner. The goal shouldn’t be to avoid a mythological hell or get into a fictitious heaven. Religion and myth are tools that shape society in order to keep it from becoming too disorderly and to curb lawlessness. Fundamentalists (religious and atheist) don’t understand the nuances of life!

PS:This is a re-post from a portion of "The Atheist Billboard" article upon the Ex-minister website. This is a challenge to freethinkers that war against myth. For this reason (challenge to freethinkers) I thought it best to extract the thought and post it upon the blog to reach a greater number of readers.

Organization News Spring 2011

Plenty of news to cover. I'm in the battle of my life! I hope that you will read and consider what you might be able to do! I'm in a position that with timely support some significant results might follow! On the other hand, I could get "steam rolled!"

Click here to be taken to the website's news page.

Note to media and others interested in covering my case. Email me with your official contact email (real source not a yahoo, hotmail, etc address) and I will provide you with pertinent information pertaining to coverage.

When lunatics claim to know the mind of God

You just knew it would happen again. Another tragedy, accident or natural disaster occurs when some Christian boldly steps forth stating or suggesting that god was behind it and that this event was some type of a warning message to backsliding or heathen subjects of wrath.

Question, how might this “prophetic Christian” gain such insight? How would they know what their god might be thinking? Did they gain this insight through Biblical exegesis? Are they special? Did god avoid all other people on the planet and specially choose them to “whisper into their ears” what god himself is thinking?

The massive 8.9/9.0 earthquake in Japan on March 11 has prompted a basketball dribbler to speculate on her Twitter account. The following is a portion of an ESPN article:

New York Liberty guard Cappie Pondexter has apologized after causing an Internet uproar with comments on her Twitter account that were deemed insensitive toward victims of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami.

On Saturday, Pondexter tweeted: "What if God was tired of the way they treated their own people in there own country! Idk guys he makes no mistakes."
She later tweeted: "u just never knw! They did pearl harbor so u can't expect anything less."

Pondexter also used the racially derogatory term "jap," when referring to someone who was offended by her comments.
On Monday morning, Pondexter issued an apology on her verified Twitter account "cappa23."

"I wanna apologize to anyone I may hurt or offended during this tragic time," the tweet said. "I didn't realize that my words could be interpreted in the manner which they were. People that knw me would tell u 1st hand I'm a very spiritual person and believe that everything, even disasters happen 4 a reason and that God will shouldn't be questioned but this is a very sensitive subject at a very tragic time and I shouldn't even have given a reason for the choice of words I used.

The least thing I wanted was to hurt or offend anyone so again I truly apologize. If you've lost respect for me that's totally fine but please don't let me or my words lose the respect of u the WNBA and what it stands for. "I'm very strong woman evn strong enough 2 admit an apologize when I'm wrong. Twitter is a voice and wth tht I wanna apologize again."

The Anti-Defamation League in New York issued a statement on Pondexter's remarks. "Cappie Pondexter's words show the endurance of long-held bigoted and prejudiced attitudes toward the Japanese, even from young Americans in today's society whose only knowledge of the Second World War comes from history books and popular culture," Anti-Defamation League national director Abraham H. Foxman said.

"While it is encouraging that Pondexter felt enough remorse to apologize for her insensitive and prejudicial words, the apology did not go far enough. The notion that God would punish an entire country because of some assumed moral or spiritual defect is, in fact, another form of intolerance. Pondexter needs to understand why her words were so painful, and why it is prejudiced to suggest that one people may be inferior to another in the eyes of God."

By the way she writes, you wouldn’t mistake Cappie as an intellectual; one might think it best to just simply ignore her. Pondexter’s statement is another reminder of the legacy of two infamous fundamentalist ministers from Virginia (Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.) Please note, that it wasn’t an atheist or humanist but rather two “reverends” that popularized the fingering of the Christian god in the wake of human tragedy.

Falwell and Robertson had numerous personal dislikes and misused their pulpits to equate tragedy, accidents or natural disasters as god’s judgment upon selected groups of mankind (most notably gays and someone outside of their political ideology). One would think that Westboro Baptist’s hate-mongering flock would have to tip their hat to both Falwell and Robertson as twisted role models.

Ex-Minister wants to go beyond complaining or belittling those involved. I want to strip them or any perceived Biblical authority or justification of their psychotic behavior.

Psychosis is a loss of contact with reality, usually including false beliefs about what is taking place or who one is (delusions) and seeing or hearing things that aren't there (hallucinations).

In the simplest terms, I want to discuss what the Bible says about knowing the mind of the god of the Bible. According to the Bible…

Point #1 No man can know what god thinks!

I Cor. 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Point #2 According to the god of the Bible, everything that god wants you to know about him is written in the Bible

2 Peter 1:19-21 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto you do well that you take heed, as to a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Point #3 In summary, whenever you hear a believer pronounce a judgment that lacks scriptural support (chapter and verse) you are likely hearing their own personal bias or prejudices being vocalized.

Therefore, whenever a Christian issues a judgment that lacks chapter and verse authority, you have insight to their disposition and prejudices. It is crystal clear that no man can know the mind of the Christian God outside of what the scriptures have previously revealed. Said in another way, the scriptures are a complete and finalized history written nearly two millennia ago. Cappie can produce absolutely zero scripture about a Japanese earthquake, therefore as Abraham Foxman rightfully pointed out her words were the rehashing of long-held bigoted and prejudiced attitudes toward the Japanese.

In his Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis issued an interesting statement about Jesus. He stated that he was either “Lord, liar or lunatic.” Now in like manner, let perpetuity apply the same logic towards statements issued as judgments by Christians. If your judgment lacks scriptural support then you must be lying about god’s words; or you are a bigot; otherwise you must be a lunatic.