Merry Xmas and Thanks for your Support

I don't know what happened. I'm online every day reading the news and trolling on Reddit but somehow I missed the headlines: "Black Plague strikes west coast; anti-vaccine groups to blame."

It's a nasty one, folks. I got hit hard and fast. Almost 2 weeks have passed and I still sound like a baying seal when I cough. And the shit that's coming out of my nose? Disgusting. To make matters worse, I infected my entire family. ‘Tis the season, after all! I shudder to think of all the germs floating around my house, coating every surface like fine dust.

Which is why I didn’t write a post last Friday. It's the first deadline I’ve missed since starting this blog and quite frankly I’m shocked it took me this long to shirk my responsibilities. In my defense I was trying to conserve energy and I didn’t think writing about charity and consumerism was a valid use of my limited stores. Everyone knows it feels good to perform good deeds; everyone knows it’s silly to go into debt over some day which was singled out as special by people who lived 2,000 years ago. That was my post in a nutshell so consider yourself caught up.

Writing about one topic for 8 weeks straight sucked a big one but it did have a few perks. While I was busy torturing myself with Christmas, all these cool ideas for posts started to accumulate in my brain. Starting in January I'll go back to writing two posts a week so I can burn through this backlog. What does this mean?

That's right. It's PEWPEW time

One thing at a time. First I want to wrap up the Christmas talk.

Looking at Christmas through a memetic lens gave me a whole new appreciation for it. Observance of the winter solstice has been a part of human life for over 2,000 years. The idea spread and evolved, assimilating countless other rituals indiscriminately until its original identity was barely recognizable. What we have now—Christmas—is a Frankenstein meme, a clumsy thing marching inexorably forward through the ages, a collage of mismatched ideas stitched together by the thread of human mind and thought.

And that's pretty damn cool! It's a testament not only to the power of our scumbag brains but also to the resilience and adaptability of the solstice meme which rose in ancient Babylon so many centuries ago. That it persists to this day is nothing short of staggering.

If you take anything away from my Christmas rants I hope it will be the notion that we are not slaves to ideas. Tradition requires minds to carry it forward. Those same minds can and should shape tradition as they see fit. Make Christmas your bitch. Celebrate it how you want to celebrate it, not how your parents and their parents celebrated it. Take what you like and throw the rest in the garbage.

My stocking

I like to practice what I preach so this year my family and I decided to customize Christmas. First we laid out some ground rules: no decorations before December 17; no lying to our kids about Santa; no Jesus talk; no Christmas music; and no gifts unless they fit in a stocking.

On the 17th we put up a little tree, strung some lights around it, and hung a few balls. On the 21st, we hosted a solstice potluck for all our close friends. On the 22nd, we hosted a family dinner. Good food, good drinks, and good company.

This change shocked some of my friends and with good cause. I’ve been the Grinch for so long no one expected me to have a tree or decorations, let alone play host to two dinners. What caused this change? In short, it was you.

Knowing that there are people out there reading my stuff is humbling and terrifying and exciting all at once. It motivates me to write in a way I’ve never experienced before. Having an audience, regardless of its size, puts pressure on me. I never would’ve written all those Christmas rants without you, and I never would’ve realized how silly I was being about the whole damn thing. So thanks, friends! I can celebrate Christmas again, and it's all because you bother to read my messy thoughts.

I’ve benefited so much from this blog and I hope that some of you have also benefited, even if only in some small way. The Meme Merchant is my tool for sharing ideas and networking with like-minded people. I want to blow minds and change the way people think about stuff they take for granted. Or better yet, I want to expose people to ideas they've never even considered.

If you’ve enjoyed some of my writing and want to help me out, here’s what you can do: give me constructive feedback. I won't cry, I swear. The things I write about aren't my ideas so I won’t take offense if you disagree. In fact, I encourage you to disagree, to question, to doubt. That means you’re driving and your scumbag brain is in the back seat, far from the steering wheel.

Truly original ideas don’t exist anymore. Everything is built on the scaffolding of past discoveries and revelations. Everything is old news with a new twist. I'm just spreading the ideas that excite me or improve my life or make my brain hurt (in a good way).

So next post, if you have something to contribute, throw some comments on the Facebook page or on the blog itself. But be warned: I don’t feed the trolls.

Like it or not, we're all in this thing together, just a bunch of ants on a grain of galactic sand. 2013 was one hell of a year and I expect nothing less from 2014. Be safe and be good to each other, my friends. I truly appreciate all the support and motivation you've given me.

Merry Christmas,

El Mercante Memo

We are not Immune

For the last decade or so, Canada has watched its closest neighbor, a once-powerful nation founded on principles of secularism, equality, and liberty, self-destruct.

The American people are now ruled by an oligarchy disguised as democracy. This oligarchy is composed of corrupt politicians and the leaders of a few industries--industries that depend on human suffering or the slow destruction of our planet for prosperity. Oil, the prison-industrial complex, pharmaceuticals, law enforcement, tobacco, alcohol, big food, and the military-industrial complex dominate the U.S. government. Their lobbyists steer social policy in directions that benefit their specific interests, even when such policies are to the detriment of the people. Meanwhile the government cuts funding to education and social welfare, tries to sneak internet censorship and copyright infringement laws into the books, and sets up mass-surveillance programs to keep tabs on its disillusioned people.

Violating the privacy of an entire population might be forgivable if such violations resulted in a Utopian society. This has not proven to be the case. While the NSA collects meta-data and eavesdrops on foreign leaders, unemployment is rampant. The American economy is failing. The country is in massive debt.

Democracy is supposed to be a tool for the people; instead, it's been hijacked by a small, short-sighted elite whose sole aim is to enrich itself at any cost.  

We Canadians have been watching the plight of the American people with an attitude of detachment and exceptionalism. Often when I'm ranting about the sorry state of democracy in our country I'm told "It could be a lot worse; look at the U.S.!" This sentiment--that no matter how bad things get for us they will never be as bad as they are in America--has always disturbed me. Just because things are worse elsewhere does not mean we should settle for the sorry state of affairs at home.

Too long have we believed our government immune to the madness which grips its US counterpart. Recent revelations show that Harper and his Conservative government  are using the U.S. as a blueprint. They're getting cozy with the NSA and helping them spy on foreign dignitaries at the expense of Canada's international reputation; trying to sneak in legislation to control the internet through an unrelated bill; attacking unions; muzzling scientists; and pushing for a pipeline that a lot of people do not want. Oh, and they "lost" $3.1 billion dollars.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself

 The media has done a decent job of following these developments. My only complaint is that they  offer no practical solution to these problems. All too often I finish an article enraged, wondering
 "What can I do to help fix this gross injustice?"

Questions like this are too big for my simple mind. They give me panic attacks. The loopholes and flaws that plague our government are linked; they form a network of interdependent problems, and trying to tackle each one individually is futile. In order to resolve these key issues, we need to look at the big picture. We need a group of intelligent people to lead a concerted effort.

I think we may have found them.

A group of over 500 authors from 80 different countries have petitioned the UN, requesting that it pen an international charter to protect the rights of people in the internet age. I admire their bravery. Signing this petition probably put them all on 24 hour surveillance. The NSA is spying on a bunch of people for no reason at all; what do you think they will do when a group of influential people put them on blast?

I urge anyone reading this to sign the petition. You don't even have to leave your house. Click on the link, mash a few buttons, and you're done. These authors have sacrificed their privacy to try and protect ours; the least we can do is sign the damn petition.

Yes, I know this is just a petition. Yes, I know the UN has no real power over the US and British governments. No, I don't think this is the solution. I believe this petition is momentum and potential. By voicing our support we become activists no matter how small our activism. The first steps are the most difficult. Start with something easy and build from there.

Mass-surveillance and internet regulation may very well be the defining issues of the modern age. The powers that be have just begun to grasp the value of the internet as a tool and the damage it could inflict upon their precarious power-structure if left unchecked. The internet is a global network of people. It links like-minded individuals from across the world and facilitates the propagation of ideas. It dissolves the outdated notions of nationalism and individuality and grants unprecedented access to information. It also makes politicians obsolete. Why send some career-politician to represent you in Ottawa or Washington when you could, in theory, view, debate, and vote on bills electronically?

It's no wonder they are trying so hard to regulate and police the internet.

The good news is that they haven't succeeded yet.

In my dreams, this petition gains the support of various free-thinkers, celebrities, tech-company CEO's, enlightened politicians, and rational capitalists; together they create a universal constitution, something that lays out the rights and liberties of all people and outlines a new system of government free of loopholes and glitches; once completed, they go back to their respective nations and promote the adoption of this new constitution until it becomes a reality. 

You may say I'm a dreamer. I hope I'm not the only one.

The elites are counting on us to get confused and say "fuck it." This is how they've steered us--Canadians and Americans both--into the deep end of the pool where we've been floundering ever since. They try to make it as difficult as possible for us to get involved. They've severed the connection between the people and politics. If votes are democratic currency then ours has been devalued beyond recognition. In our current system, your vote is worthless.

Luckily for us  political activism has never been easier. Thousands of like-minded individuals are only a few keystrokes away, as is the wealth of human knowledge. We can reach our elected representatives almost instantly and educate ourselves on key issues without the help of third-parties.

For the first time in history we have the means to govern ourselves in true democratic fashion. The current powers will cling to their authority; they will conspire against us, throw obstacles in our path, even employ nefarious means to silence our mounting complaints. There are significant challenges ahead but I firmly believe the solution is out there, broken up in bits and pieces and scattered across the span of human history and thought. Each one of us is part of the solution.

We need only assemble the pieces.

The Santa Dilemma

My daughter and I are walking home from the park the other day when she asks me: “Is Santa going to visit our house on Christmas?”

Am I a hypocrite if I lie to my daughter about the existence of Santa Claus?

This is the kind of question my childless friends don’t have to ask themselves. As soon as you make a little duplicate of yourself things get complicated. It’s not just the absence of free time or inability to sleep in: there are ethical dilemmas to resolve.

Here are my concerns. Kids start lying early. At first they're not very good at it but it doesn't take them long to become little arch-deceivers. Kids realize on a basic level that lies are tools. The right lie can get you out of trouble or earn you undeserved treats. What's there not to like?  

Toddlers are devious little creatures. They're sponges that absorb good and bad ideas with the same voraciousness. They're mechanics trying to figure out how the world works, or more specifically, how they can make it work for them. “If I say this, my parents get mad. What if I say that instead?” They don't lie out of malice or for pleasure: they're pushing buttons and pulling levers in order to see how best to get the desired results. In a way it's amazing to watch. In another way, it's infuriating.

All the parents I know try to stop their kids from lying and I’m no exception. My wife and I have spent much time teaching our daughter the pitfalls of chronic dishonesty. I think the message is starting to sink in but one can never be sure. Maybe she’s come to realize that the consequences of lying outweigh the benefits, or maybe she’s just getting really good at lying and I can’t tell the difference anymore.

At face value, the answer is clear: dishonesty is bad; we try hard to instill honesty in our children; hence lying to our children is bad. This is an over-simplification, of course. Actions alone cannot be intrinsically good or bad. It's all about context. We praise killers and traitors if the circumstances are right; maybe it's the same thing with Santa Claus.

Does convincing my daughter (or letting her believe) that a fat guy in a red suit delivers presents to all the good children in the world provide some benefit that cannot be reproduced through alternative means?

I asked some people why they think parents tell their kids Santa is a real dude. Comments varied but most of them touched on one of two things:

Santa Claus elicits wonder, joy, and excitement in children.

No denying this one. Kids go crazy for the spectacle of Santa Claus. I do wonder whether, in some cases, the disappointment of learning the truth doesn’t outweigh the joy and all that. I know my reaction to the big revelation wasn't bad. I still remember thinking to myself, "As long as the presents keep coming every year, what do I care?"

Only child here. Can you tell?

Santa Claus teaches children about charity, that is giving without expectation for reciprocation.

This one is slippery. I get where people are coming from. Santa works tirelessly all year making toys for all the good kids; then, on Christmas Eve, he puts in a bunch of over-time delivering the fruits of his labor. The kicker? He does it pro bono, out of the goodness of his heart.

That is the very definition of charity.

Unfortunately, children are on the wrong end of this lesson. They learn that it feels nice when nice people do nice things without expecting anything in return. I think I can teach my daughter that lesson without resorting to deception, thank you very much.

In fact, the only people who learn about charity via Santa Claus are the parents. They’re the ones who stand in crowded malls and spend their hard-earned money. They do all the work and give credit to a long-dead, quasi-historical figure, receiving no appreciation for their troubles.

A third function

Make no mistake about it: lying is a tool for adults as well as children. We lie to make people happy, cast ourselves in a favorable light, or spare someone’s feelings. Our intentions might be pure but, since we all agree dishonesty is generally bad, shouldn’t we seek alternative ways of producing the desired result?

Case in point: a mere mention of the Naughty List is enough to curb a toddler's public tantrum or make collard greens disappear in his mouth. It’s the little red button parents get to push when a situation gets to Defcon 5. You can do things the hard way--work toward peace through diplomacy--or you can push the red button and bring peace to any region instantly via nuclear winter. The intention—to bring about peace—is a noble one but I’m sure you’ll agree that dropping nukes to establish peace doesn’t make much sense. Well, lying to establish good behavior is roughly the same thing.

Back to my daughter’s question. Caught off-guard, I’m forced to make a snap-decision. In my best fatherly voice I tell her, “Honey, Santa Claus is like Dora the Explorer and the Magic School Bus: he's just a story and he's not real. But,” I continue, ”a lot of kids believe he’s real and it wouldn’t be nice to spoil the surprise for them. So even though you know the truth, you shouldn’t tell other kids.”

I congratulate myself for handling it so well and forget the whole thing even happened.

Until I come home a week later. My daughter is extremely excited. “Daddy daddy daddy!” she says as I step through the door. “I saw Santa Claus today.” She frowns, remembering something. Her tone gets dark. “You said he wasn’t real. You lied to me.”

“He isn’t real!” I say defensively.

“But I saw him. He was at the mall.”

I open my mouth. I’m about to tell her that there’s a Santa at every mall, that people get paid to pretend, and then I stop. I was so worried about honesty and being ethical and teaching my kid the right lesson, and what did it get me? I tell her the truth and get called a liar for it.

I guess the truth is pretty flexible when you're 3-years old.

Christmas Rant Interlude

So far my Christmas posts have garnered feedback that ranges from apathetic to downright hostile. The atheists got mad at me for suggesting we should do away with Christmas' Christian symbolism while the Christians got mad at me for saying we should preserve and give credit to Christmas' pagan roots. I've had friends tell me I "made some good points" in that tone parents use when congratulating children on crappy macaroni portraits. I've had people tell me I'm giving atheists a bad name, that I have a problem with Christianity, that I'm incoherent and rambling.

And I got called a Grinch once or twice.

I resent that.

Overall I get the feeling that, no matter how good my points are, people are going to react negatively. I'm not terribly shocked; I am shitting on everyone's favourite holiday, after all, and for what? No one really cares where Christmas came from or how it became entangled with Christianity. No one is actually going to stop calling it Christmas. This little witch-trial of mine is a lose-lose.: I'm not winning any arguments, nor am I hooking new readers.

I started regretting my commitment to write about Christmas almost from the onset, when I realized two things:

1. Eight weeks is a really long time to spend writing about something you despise, and
2. My qualms with Christmas are just that: mine.

I've been wanting to take Christmas to task ever since I quit celebrating it. The initial harassment I faced left a bitter taste in my mouth and even though people stopped giving me a hard time a few years ago I never stopped resenting Christmas.

I know that my beef with Christmas is childish and hypocritical. It also goes against the purpose of this blog. The Meme Merchant is about seeking enlightenment and cultivating positive thought. It's about exploring new ideas, new ways of thinking, and improving yourself.

It's also an outlet for my noisy mind and a way for me to work things out. I'm always looking for ways to improve myself and my fixation with Christmas is just another item on my endless to-do list. My last four posts are therapy. They aren't meant to turn anyone off Christmas or convince people to discard the name; they are my attempts to rid myself of this irrational bitterness.

Don't think that I'm back-tracking. I stand behind every word I've written on this topic. None of us  decided that December 25 should be a special day requiring that we observe a series of ancient rituals. These traditions were stitched together by politicians and handed down to us via a long line of people who lacked the ability to think critically.

We are not slaves to tradition. In fact, our willingness or refusal to carry traditions forward determine their survival. That's why I encourage everyone to customize Christmas. Pick and choose what you want to keep in your holiday. Make up your own traditions. Why not? No one can tell you how to celebrate Christmas. Inventing new traditions might sound like a strange idea but we've already witnessed the rise of at least one new tradition in our lifetimes: the ugly Christmas sweater party.

Brilliant.

If you're hesitant to modify Christmas, just remember that the Christians did this very thing when they introduced the holiday in the fourth century CE. I imagine it went something like this:

"How can we get these dirty heathens to abandon their ways and follow Christ's teachings? I got it! We'll let them keep burning crap and feasting on Dec 25 but we'll tell them it's for Jesus' birthday instead!"

Cue laughter and high-fives.

For my last Christmas rants I'll explore the ethical dilemma of Santa Claus, the pitfalls of having a season of charity, and the materialistic focus of the holiday season. I imagine I'll get some more Reddit hate mail before I'm done but you can't please everyone, especially on the Internet.

26 days till Christmas

/rant over

Reddit Hate Mail

It didn't take long for the Reddit hate mail to start rolling in. Thanks to /u/yaysuekristy for providing me with the most coherent argument so far. Here's the abbreviated version. Italicized text is yaysuekristy; anything bold is my reply or original post. And here's the link  to the full page in case you want the unadulterated version complete with awesome comments from other wonderful people.

yaysuekristy: So basically you are arguing that every bit of mythology ascribed to Christmas is a shining example of the "great wisdom and creativity" of our ancestors... except the Christian mythological parts. So I guess Handel's Messiah, Silent Night, other amazing classical Christmas pieces are shite?

Quite the opposite, I find it unfortunate that such masterpieces are relegated to a 2-month window of time every year.

And how is Christianity not part of our history, when pagan myths are? 

It is a part of our history. A part of our history that has nothing to do with this season and Dec 25.

Also, the "family gathering" bit didn't come into Christmas until a reformation in the 19th century, prior to that it was mostly a raucous public festival akin to Mardi Gras. Should we go back to that too? That aspect was also pagan. 

I think we could do with a little more partying and a little less shopping and church-going. Personally I would skip out on the public orgies and human sacrifice but otherwise sounds like an upgrade from how we currently do things.

 "I have no problem with Christianity. " Yes, clearly, you do. Admitting that bias is something you need to do.

Feel free to browse my comments on Reddit. I spend far more time defending Christians and religion in general. I think it's awesome that online atheists champion truth and the dispelling of myths and falsehoods... until those falsehoods are linked to warm and fuzzy childhood memories. Then it's like 'Fuck that I like those lies!' To reiterate: my issue isn't with the Bible or New Testament or Jesus; it's with the idea that this season has anything to do with all of the above.

"The first order of business should be to abandon the word “Christmas.” I know, I know. "Why bother? It's just semantics. You can make it whatever you want it to be. Call it what you want. Festivus. Saturnalia. Solstice Day. Gift Day. Whatever." How about.... Christmas? "We Wish You A Merry Gift Day" and "White Saturnalia" don't quite have that ring to them... and Festivus is already a SEPARATE HOLIDAY that is a REJECTION of the consumerism of Christmas, yet you want to equate it with a holiday you call "Gift Day"? What ignorance. 

You got me there. Didn't know Festivus was a 'thing' outside of Seinfeld.

Christians clearly don't have a problem with "Easter" deriving from the name of a pagan goddess, so why do you, the person who self-identifies as having "no problem with Christianity", have such a beef with the word Christmas? 

Early Christians also had no problem shoving Christ into the pagan solstice where he had no business so I assume they chalked Easter up as fair trade. But that's neither here nor there. We (I posted this to an atheist subreddit so "we" means atheists here) are not Christians. Why should their willingness to adopt pagan rituals equate to our adopting Christian myths into our lives? I thought we were the rational ones? The Mythbusters? Many of us go throwing scorn and insults at our theist brothers and sisters in the name of "dispelling myths" that have little to no bearing on our lives. Christmas affects all of us but here we are arguing semantics.

Do you also favor renaming Halloween, St. Patrick's Day, Valentine's Day, and BC/AD/BCE/CE (yes, BCE/CE still reference the supposed birth of the Christian deity)?

Time is subjective and we need a reference point we can all agree on. I would much prefer we use the fall of Rome as our marker for BCE vs. CE but it's too late to change it now.

Besides, the word "Christ's Mass" only has significance to Catholics anyway.

Really? Seems to have significance to anyone celebrating Christmas since they named the holiday after Christ's Mass.

Neopagans still believe that mistletoe has magical powers, so why aren't you deriding that practice as much as a nativity scene or religious Christmas carols? 

Because neopagans have zero influence beyond their own small circle whereas tons of people still believe Christ was born on Dec 25. I get it. It's a harmless myth. A white lie. But then the bible is filled with all sorts of debatable information, some of it beneficial, some of it harmful. Maybe you can explain to me why atheists defend the Christian mythology of Christmas but attack nearly every other aspect of the Christian faith?



I haven't gotten an answer yet but I got some downvotes (for anyone not familiar with Reddit, people can give you what amounts to "internet points" if they like your comment; likewise, they can downvote you and take your points away. These points are completely meaningless but Redditors lose their shit over them) so I posted this response:

Downvotes without arguments are just as good as upvotes. If you want to do something constructive you should address my counter-arguments... 

I won't hold my breath.

Oh and One More Thing...

Saturnalia may have provided the blueprint for Christmas but even it was not an original idea. The Babylonians celebrated Zagmuk—meaning literally “beginning of the year”—a 12 day festival that symbolized Marduk’s triumph over chaos. Marduk also happened to be the Babylonian sun-god.

Sacaea, another Middle-Eastern solstice festival, sounds remarkably like Saturnalia. Berossus, a Hellenistic-era Babylonian writer, described a series of festivals characterized by a subversion of order similar to the reversal of power seen in Saturnalia. A mock-king was crowned. Masquerades filled the streets. 

Why were ancient peoples so obsessed with the solstice? 

Our ancestors didn’t have long weekends and statutory holidays: they worked the fields, often at the end of a whip's crack, for as long as there was work to be done. So when there was a brief moment of idleness—typically after the harvest—the priests who ran things back then decided to kill three birds with one stone. 

The priesthood was the elite; they didn't soil their hands in the fields. And since they lacked HBO and Reddit, they spent a bunch of time watching the sky and tracking the sun, moon, stars. They were the first to pick up on the shortening of the days that occurred like clockwork every year.

Our ancestors also happened to be a superstitious bunch. Whereas you and I know that the sun will rise tomorrow, the ancients had no such guarantees. The solstice festival resolves this first dilemma in a typically human manner: by flattering and bribing the sun-god into coming back full-time.

The second dilemma to afflict our ancient elite--how to keep the workers happy--was resolved in an equally pragmatic way. If the rituals and sacrifices were meant to appease the sun then the feasts and benders were meant to appease the slaves and lower classes who composed the bulk of these ancient civilizations.

The second solution also helps to remedy a third problem. Even today winter is a depressing time. The short, dark days wear people down, and we know the sun is coming back. Imagine how shitty this season would be if we believed that the sun's return was dependent on whether or not we made him happy with our offerings! 

We don’t need to burn yule logs to appease a trivial deity. We don’t need to light up the the night to ward away evil spirits. The Christmas tree, a pagan symbol of winter's inability to stop the cycle of renewal, is also unnecessary.

We’re practicing ancient, outdated, and obsolete rituals, and I for one think it's great. They are a part of our human heritage, little pieces of history carried to the modern era by the minds of our ancestors. They’re founded on real natural phenomenon and are largely symbolic. We can burn yule logs without believing that the sun would forsake us if we didn’t. We can decorate an evergreen with lights without believing it's a safety precaution against ghosts and spirits.  

What we can't do is support the Christian mythology of Christmas without believing in it. And since the Christian mythology supports a carefully crafted lie, it cannot qualify under the symbolism exception.

Whereas symbolism represents or suggests a belief, the Christian mythology of Christmas promotes false beliefs to the masses.

I'm a big proponent of letting people do their own thing. I don't subscribe to any religion myself but I support those who do and defend their beliefs so long as those beliefs don't bring harm or suffering. Deceiving people by appealing to their spiritual beliefs qualifies as harmful in my book.

I have no problem with Christianity. To me, all religions are memes born of human minds, possessing lives and minds of their own. Christians reading this should not be offended. If anything is offensive about this whole affair it's that early church fathers, hand-in-hand with the Roman empire, soiled Jesus by implicating him with Saturnalia, the pagan Fourth of July. 

Apologists who concede that Jesus wasn't born on December 25 say they are doing good by honouring Christ and taking attention away from Christmas' pagan roots. Only Jesus specifically warned his disciples to abstain from such practices in Matthew 15:9: "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines of men." Then, in Mark 7:9: "Full well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition."

Uncanny. It sounds as if these passages were penned to address this exact situation!  There goes the "honoring Christ" explanation.

The reason I am spending so much time on the origin and evolution of Christmas is twofold: first, I want to make it clear that fighting to keep Christ in Christmas is a waste of energy. The historical and archeological evidence is unanimous on the topic. On this basis alone, we should take Jesus out of Christmas,

Second, I want to illustrate Christmas' obedience to memetic law. From Babylon to Rome to nearly a third of the world, Christmas has changed, adapted, and evolved to survive. We have been carrying the meme in our big sexy brains for 4,000 years, shaping and moulding it with our beliefs before passing it onward to the next generation.

Christmas is just one example of this phenomenon. Since the dawn of our species we have been the unwitting, unknowing carriers of religions, ideologies, traditions, and rituals. 

If enough people realize that they carry and shape ideas, we can turn the tables and gain some control over the process. If instead of blindly following tradition we look at the things we take for granted with a critical mind, we can trim the fat. We can discard the things we deem unnecessary and keep the things that make us happy. We can dispel the myths that have no place in our modern age and reinforce the facts. 

Quitting Christmas doesn't mean quitting the holidays. It doesn't mean getting rid of the family gathering, evergreen tree, bright lights, gifts, mistletoe, and yule log. Quite the opposite. These rituals form a part of our legacy. They are the fossils of dead memes dug up every December and re-examined. They serve as a sober reminder of how far we have come and that even our ancient ancestors possessed great wisdom and creativity.

We should honour our history, not a series of carefully constructed myths.

Let's take control of this storied tradition and make it ours again. The first order of business should be to abandon the word “Christmas.” I know, I know. "Why bother? It's just semantics. You can make it whatever you want it to be." True, we can and should make it our own, but as long as we call it Christmas, we're still enforcing a lie.

Something tells me he wasn't big on presents

Call it what you want. Festivus. Saturnalia. Solstice Day. Gift Day. Whatever. Even after we ditch the Christian myth, the spirit of the holidays remains unchanged. It will continue to be a time for the gathering of family and friends during the cold dark days of winter; a time to reflect on yet another year of life in this awesome and mysterious universe. And if you want to break the bank and buy a bunch of presents, why shouldn't you?

Just don't do it for Jesus.

(PS: You'll notice I haven't mentioned Santa yet. That's because he is perhaps my favourite character in the mythology of Christmas and deserves his own post, which I will be putting out next Friday. Until then, 33 days till Krissmuss. /rant over)

Taking Christ out of Christmas

While researching this post, I discovered that many Christians are "fighting" to keep Christ in Christmas. Seems like a strange cause to champion considering Christmas originally had nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity.

The evolution of Christmas from pagan Mardi Gras to religious holy-day is an intriguing story. Christmas, like all ideas borne of human minds, falls within the sphere of meme theory. Its popularity has waxed and waned. It has competed against some memes, merged with others, and adapted to survive.

Christmas didn't start with Christ. It existed in other guises long before Jesus came around and it didn't start up in its Christianized form until 300 years after his death. Selecting December 25 as Jesus' birthday was a pivotal decision made by humans for social, political, and economical reasons. Ancient sources are quite clear. Jesus' birthday was a topic of great debate for the early Christians. Doesn't help that the Bible is shockingly vague on the topic. And what hints we do find in the Bible tend to contradict the December 25 hypothesis.

Why did early Christians decide on that specific date if there is no evidence to support it? The answer is tied to another holiday that originates in the Roman republic long before Jesus was ever conceived, though I suppose some people will argue that he was always conceived in his father's mind.

Anyways. Let's talk about Christmas' drunk uncle, Saturnalia.

Saturnalia, aka Best Christmas Party Ever

Long before the birth of Jesus, intrepid Romans created what is possibly the greatest holiday conceivable.  Imagine if Mardi Gras and Carnival had a baby together and decided to raise it in Las Vegas.

Saturnalia started on December 17th with the closing of the courts and culminated on December 23rd, the winter solstice and birthday of the Roman sun-god Sol Invictus. During this time, gambling and dicing, typically frowned upon in Roman society, were allowed and encouraged; slaves were served by their masters and given temporary freedom; marital bonds were shattered; togas were cast aside in favour of colourful outfits which were otherwise considered poor taste; everyone wore masks.

The Roman poet Horace called it "December liberty." It was a time for leveling the playing field. Noblemen and slaves partied side by side as equals, protected by anonymity and the good grace of Saturn, god of agriculture.

Oh, and there were orgies. Lots of orgies.

December 23 marked Sigillaria, a day of gift-giving. Sound familiar? The season's greeting, Io Saturnalia, also bears heavy resemblance to our own "merry Christmas." Christianity took root and flourished in the Roman empire, where Saturnalia originated and was widely celebrated. During the 300 years between Christ's death and the appearance of Christmas, it's hard to believe that Christians--the bulk of which were former pagans--weren't heavily influenced by Saturnalia.

Saturnalia wasn't all about liberty and gift-giving though. There's talk of human sacrifices taking place. My favourite story is that Romans, at the onset of the festivities, elected a "King of Saturnalia." For the duration of Saturnalia, this person was honoured at feasts and banquets. He hosted parties and issued capricious commands ("You, over there: dance naked on the table!") that were obeyed without question.

Sounds rad, right?

Except at the end of the week, the "King" was sacrificed to Saturn. As in, brutally murdered in public. This hasn't been concretely proven so take it with a grain of salt. Whether true or not, there are clear social benefits to such a tradition. People would certainly be inclined toward kindness if they believed they might be elected as the King of Saturnalia next year.

So how did Christ, who died for our sins, get involved with a pagan festival composed primarily of sinning?

The First Christmas

The first mention of December 25 as Jesus' birthday appears in the fourth century CE, well after the death of Christ. What prompted this move? Did someone discover evidence regarding Jesus' birthday? Actually, no. As it turns out, his birthday was as much a mystery then as it was shortly after his death.

Claiming December 25 as Christ's birth was a business decision, not a revelation. Remember that Christianity's primary goal has always been to convert the heathens. In an effort to ease the transition from pagan to Christian, early church-leaders decided to steal Sol Invictis' birthday and make it their own. They also allowed converts to celebrate Christmas as they had celebrated Saturnalia with one exception: rather than pay homage to Saturn, the Roman god of agriculture, they were to honour Christ instead.

It may be difficult for us to understand how such an obvious lie took root and managed to persist for so long. First we must remember that gods were very real back then. People took their existence as matter-of-fact. For Romans in the fourth century, the jump from Osiris-worship to Christianity was more of a hop, the modern-day equivalent of switching cable providers. They weighed the pros and cons, then made a decision.

By transposing Christian imagery onto Saturnalia, early church-leaders eliminated the biggest obstacle to conversion. Adapting Christianity to Saturnalia was the incentive many pagans needed to make the switch. The spread of Christianity throughout the known world was greatly facilitated by its willingness to adapt to the times. The invention of Christmas is a perfect illustration of this.

So What?

I respect Christmas' ability to morph and adopt the traits of its competitors in order to survive. The end result of its evolution isn't pretty, though. It resembles Frankenstein, a monster made of mismatched parts. Some of the parts are valuable and worthwhile; other parts should be hacked off. The Christian mythology of Christmas, as appealing as it may be, is a lie.

Let's amputate this unsightly appendage. Let's dispel the Christian myth and at least accept this holiday for what it truly is.

40 days until Krissmuss.

Christmas on Trial: Three Observations

I already spoke at length about my personal experience with quitting Christmas (and got plenty of grief for it on Reddit) so this time I'm actually going to get into it. But before I expound on the weird religious thing or the disturbing trend toward consumerism or the creepy character of Santa Claus, I want to share some observations I've made over the last few years. Yes, I'm aware these are subjective opinion. I'm banking on the fact that many of you will have made similar, if not identical, observations, hence lending them credibility.

These observations can be summarized as follows:

1. Most people hate Christmas
2. Most people are reluctant to quit Christmas
3. Most people hate it when others quit Christmas

Disclaimer: I'm not digging up stats for this. These are my personal observations, not a peer-reviewed research paper. If you happen to agree with my "findings," welcome to the circlejerk. If not, see you next week with some hard facts.

Most people hate Christmas

In the last few years I’ve noticed a growing hatred for the holiday season among friends and strangers alike. Working in sales, I've had the "pleasure" of talking to thousands of strangers. Custies, as I like to call them, were the first to clue me in to this trend. In the past, they would get testier than usual around the holidays (I work in the insurance industry so they are testy all year round) but recently they started to voice their hatred for Christmas. And if they'll open up to me about it ("you people raised my rates again!") you know it must be serious.

Many of my friends have also emerged from the closet and admitted they wish they could quit Christmas. Most of their complaints are standard fare—crowded malls, traffic, stress, money, the music—but a surprising number relate to that wholesome holiday tradition of spending time with your family. It’s not that my friends hate their families (at least I hope they don’t) but rather a matter of scheduling. These days, having two families is not uncommon. If your parents split and remarried, you now have two Christmas dinners to attend to. If you're married and your spouse also came from a broken home, you have four.

Another Christmas at the in-laws, eh Brian?

I have one friend whose wife was adopted. Her adopted parents divorced and remarried. Then my buddy's wife decided to find her biological parents and is now close with her mother, adding a third family to the equation. Spread this mob of people across two cities, add my buddy's own gigantic family (also has two sets of parents) into the mix and you have the Dante's Inferno of holiday seasons.

Isn’t this the time for rum-and-eggnog fueled chats by the fireside at some mountainside ski-resort? Guess not.

A few of my friends have even taken the brave first step to quitting Christmas. You know the one. “We’re not doing gifts this year.” So far, none have progressed any further, which brings me to my next point.

Most people are reluctant to quit Christmas

At the height of my bitterness, I wanted to write a book called "The Cult of Christmas." The way people used to defend it blindly, often on religious grounds, baffled me. Didn't everyone know that Christmas had nothing to do with Jesus? That the Romans had dressed their favorite pagan holidays in Christian clothing? That the whole thing was a sham hijacked by corporations in order to drive up profit? Whenever I mentioned such things I was met with feverish denial or evasion--just how I imagine a cult-leader might respond to criticism of his cult. 

I don't actually think Christmas is a cult (anymore) but the parallels between the two are hard to deny. Forget the people who are on the fence; why do those who admittedly dislike Christmas still go through the motions? Like the poor cult member who has suddenly realized the lapse in his judgment, my friends see Christmas for what it is and they don't like it one bit. So why do they stick it out year after year? Do they think they will miss it once they leave? Are they trying to avoid disappointing family and friends still in the cult? Christmas isn't easy to leave and doing so can sometimes be painful. Another parallel can be drawn between Christmas and an abusive relationship. Like a beaten spouse who just can't leave her tormentor, who even rushes to his defense, folks keep going back to Christmas despite knowing better. Hence #3.

Most people don't like it when others successfully quit Christmas

If we accept premise one and two, it is easy to see how they lead to this conclusion. Many people strongly dislike the holiday season, either in part or completely. Despite this, they feel obligated to continue the tradition. When they meet someone who has done what they could not--who has gone ahead and severed ties to Christmas--they react bitterly.

At least that used to be my explanation for it. Recently even this trend has begun to change. 

Initially my abstinence was met with confusion, anger, and sadness; last year, it was met with envy and indifference just as often as it was met with scorn. Who knows? Maybe in another few years we'll see more people doing their own thing. We have the time off. Why not take the holidays back for ourselves? Why not relax, spend time with the people we want to spend time with, and celebrate whatever we believe in however we see fit? Traditions, whether innocent or malign, are carried forward by people. Why not take what we like about the holidays and discard the things that stress us out and make us bitter and exhausted?   

Until then, the holidays remain a curious juxtaposition. On one hand it's a time for charity; on the other hand it drives people to put themselves into debt. On one hand it's "the most wonderful time of the year;" on the other hand people seem more miserable than at any other point of the year. On one hand it's a time for family; on the other people are stressed and overloaded and the last thing they want to do is have Christmas eve dinner with mom and brunch the next day with the in-laws and dinner with dad that evening and then...

You get the point.

48 days till Christmas!

/rant over

It's Already Begun

November 4th, 2013. 2:23pm.

I'm sitting in my local Starbucks surrounded by red and green merchandise and there's Christmas music blasting in my ears. Two months to go and we're already getting primed for Christmas by our corporate overlords.

I've been quietly boycotting Christmas for about 5 years now. I don't make a big production out of it. Whenever questioned on the topic I try to keep my answers as generic and simple as possible. My boycott isn't some cry for attention nor do I want to push my views on others. I also don't want to offend anyone.

I've been cornered on this topic more often than I care to remember. Strangers, co-workers, family members, and friends have all, at one point or another, pushed the issue. No matter how evasive I am, people can't seem to let it go.

I get it. It's rare for people to just quit Christmas. It's no surprise that the first question I get is regarding my faith. Apparently being a Jehovah's Witness is the only legitimate reason for boycotting Christmas.

Reactions go something like this: confusion, because why would anyone willingly choose to abandon Christmas?; anger, because I just gave them a bunch of reasons; and finally sadness, because poor me, I must be miserable. I've been called a Grinch so many times I just started accepting it. When rational arguments are met with insults, no matter how silly, then you'd best walk away. It's all downhill from there.

To recap: I never initiate these awkward conversations and I do everything in my power to derail them before it's too late. Even after it's too late, I never pass judgment on people who celebrate Christmas. To each their own, I say. Despite all of these precautions, I get ostracized and insulted. People infer that maybe I'm just an angry, bitter person who is incapable of feeling joy.

My boycott is a personal choice based on critical thought and research. Furthermore, this choice only affects me. My family is free to celebrate however they choose. I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing what they want. So why do I get so much grief for my personal decision?

This year, I decided to take a new approach.

I've been building my case for long enough. It's time to put Christmas on trial.

You can be the jury. If at the end you still think Christmas is a valid holiday worthy of celebration, I will wish you the best. I'm not on a crusade to wipe out Christmas or anything, only trying expose you to some new ideas and present old ideas in a new light. If these ideas convince you to abandon Christmas, great. If not, also great. As long as you're happy, I'm happy. At least now my opinion will be out there for all to see. I can refer any inquiries to the blog.

The way I see it, if I have to listen to "Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer" for the next two months, I might as well give something back. I'll be posting my Christmas rants every Friday, nowhere near as often as I will have to listen to some infuriatingly catchy Xmas song, and on December 24th, I'll drop my closing statement.

Consider it a gift. Some of you will undoubtedly think it's a lump of coal, but it's the thought that counts, right?

50 DAYS UNTIL XMAS!!!

/Rant over

A Modern Political Party

If we agree that our political system is broken--that it is ancient and plagued with loopholes and redundancies, that it serves a small group of individuals who are not accountable for their actions and decisions--and want change, how should we proceed? If we listen to Russell Brand, we will abstain from voting and... then what? Sit around waiting for a revolution? This is the same passive approach that perpetuates our current paradigm. Unless we want to repeat the past, we have only one option: get involved. In a representative democracy, that means voting.

The question then becomes: who should we vote for? What political party is attempting to reduce corruption, increase voter turnout, and modernize our government? The answer, sadly, is none.

There are glimmers of hope here and there. MP Kennedy Stewart's motion 428 is certainly a step in the right direction. Likewise, Justin Trudeau's call for more transparency inspires hope. Transparency is the best weapon against corruption; eliminate all the hiding places and politicians will have no choice but to behave. Trudeau and his Liberal party may only be revealing their expenses to the public but it's a step in the right direction.

Aside from these two examples, political parties are pretty busy slinging mud at each other, presiding over witch trials, trying to disband the senate, building oil pipelines or fracking (to the detriment of our environment), cutting funds to education and the arts, and negotiating Internet censorship behind closed doors. Canadians, having elected their so-called representatives, sit idly by and watch these episodes unfold. Is it any wonder people don't believe in democracy anymore?

I started by telling you to vote, then proceeded to tell you that the political party of our choice doesn't exist. What gives?

One potential solution is to start a new political party dedicated to the neglected issues listed above. Our mandate would be to eliminate corruption, modernize our system, educate the masses on key issues, increase participation, and actually represent the people. Below you will find a general outline of how such a party might operate. It's only a  skeleton, meaning it needs to be fleshed out by people who are smarter than I. You'll note that my outline says nothing about social policy: that's because such talk should be driven by voters, not politicians.

The Power of Crowd-funding

We've only just begun to realize the full potential of crowd-funding. Websites like Kickstarter have helped raise funds for video-games, TV shows, movies, and more. Now it's time to apply this idea outside of entertainment. Dan Carlin recently alluded to crowd-funding as a tool for political and social change and I couldn't agree more. The creation and implementation of a sociopolitical crowd-funding website ought to be one of our first steps as it would allow our supporters to donate their time, knowledge, expertise, and most importantly, their votes. Love our cause but can't afford to donate money? No problem. Come donate your time! Help out at your local office, canvas your neighborhood, or spread the word on message boards and social media. You don't even have to leave your home to contribute!

Political Facebook

Social media is everywhere. Facebook. Twitter. Instagram. But where's the sociopolitical media at? The development of a political Facebook would help with a variety of our goals. Log on and read about what each political party is working on, which motions they are supporting, where they get their donations from, and how they are spending their funds. This site could serve as the foundation for online voting as well. Imagine you are provided with a secure PIN, allowing you to vote at every level of government--from municipal to federal--with the click of your mouse. Online voting may not be technologically viable today but it should be implemented as soon as the experts deem it safe and secure. Modernizing democracy means making it widely accessible, simple, and transparent. A secure sociopolitical Facebook would give the public easy access to the parties, their members, agendas, and past stance on key issues. It would also provide a centralized forum for political discourse. Add to this the ability to vote and you have what I call a Game Changer.

Repackaging Politics

The above suggestions--crowd-funding and sociopolitical media--encourage and facilitate participation but they do not make politics interesting. In order to do that, we should take a page from reality TV. Now before you get incensed and close your browser, take a deep breath. What you just had is called a knee-jerk reaction and it's typical when faced with new and unorthodox ideas.

I don't mean that we should have weekly eliminations, elaborate contests, or night-vision cameras spying on secret lovers on Parliament Hill. I'm only suggesting that we package political discourse in a way that is, once again, accessible to the masses. Envision a weekly TV show complete with its own hosts (smart, funny, and representative of the full spectrum of political views in our nation) and guests (experts, celebrities, and of course politicians). This show would serve a variety of purposes, from educating the masses on political issues to exposing people to the views of others. It could also serve as a platform for weekly televised debate, something which should be at the core of our political system.

If you think that this approach would cheapen politics and make a spectacle of democracy, I invite you to read the news. Politicians and their unscrupulous behaviour have already cheapened politics. They've drawn the attention away from the management of our country and drawn it instead to their own corrupt, dishonest, and hilariously ineffectual ways.

Televising their shenanigans couldn't possibly worsen the situation. And at least we'd get some good ratings!

Halloween Rant (Wait for it...)

We learn more from our failures than we do from our successes but only as long as we're receptive to the lesson. If we allow our emotions, those irrational tricksters, to dominate our thoughts we’re sure to miss the lesson.

And that's the only true failure in life. If we don't learn from our setbacks then we’re doomed to repeat them. We're bound to continue blaming external factors when we ought to examine ourselves instead.

When we deny our flaws, we reinforce them. When we ignore them, we give them free reign to do as they please.

Ever meet a person who just can’t find a partner? Every boss they ever had was a jerk, they always have drama in their life, and nothing—no movie, TV show, book, song, whatever—is ever good enough.

This is the critic who has accomplished nothing noteworthy but loves to pick apart the accomplishments of others.

This is the kind of person who would most benefit from applying a critical eye internally; instead, they fixate on the flaws—perceived and actual—of others and perform all manner of mental gymnastics to protect their fragile egos.

They don’t see the common denominator in all their misfortunes. Through all the failed jobs and relationships, they never bother to ask: could I have done anything to prevent this? Is there something I could do to avoid these unpleasant situations in the future?

They may not be solely to blame but they could definitely avoid reliving the same negative experiences over and over again if they took some ownership.

Most people want others to change but refuse to change themselves. This is an extremely selfish and unreasonable way of looking at the world. I suggest that, in order to enact change in others, you must first enact those changes in yourself.

Imagine a giant, incredibly complex machine composed of 7 billion moving parts that are constantly interacting with each other. If you amend how one of those parts behaves you affect how all the other parts function, even if only incrementally.

The idea that changing yourself is detrimental to your integrity—that people should “love you for who you are,” that no one has the right to demand you to change—is your ego’s strongest self-preservation mechanism. You're not your likes, dislikes, or behavior patterns: those are just masks and costumes you wear.

Changing or stripping away the costumes doesn't actually change the person wearing the costumes.

On Halloween, a day when people are encouraged to dress up and pretend to be something they're not, I think it's important to remember what you are.

Happy Halloween!

The Meme Merchant

Russell Brand, Revolution, and Some Real Talk

It was an evening like any other. My wife and I had just finished putting our kids to sleep and we were settling down to watch some TV. I was scrolling through my Facebook feed when I stumbled upon this gem.

Anyone who has read my previous post on upgrading our government will probably know where I stand on the matter. I completely agree with Brand's laundry list of evils. Democracy has indeed been hijacked by big industry and politicians, whether willingly or not, have become their tools. The electoral process is farcical. Meanwhile the people have become disillusioned. About 50% of the population abstains from voting altogether. The rest continue to participate despite knowing that their votes mean nothing. They vote for the politician who makes the most appealing promises and when that politician steps into office and breaks those promises, they hardly blink.

When corruption and scandal become the norm, we know we have a problem on our hands.

Like Brand, I have never voted. Like Brand, my abstinence came from disillusionment, not ignorance. I've defended my stance of political abstinence many times before and sadly, the discourse always ends with the same, tired argument: "If you don't vote, you can't complain." My interpretation of this final argument is this: people only vote so they have the right to complain and gripe.

What a democracy!

At one point during the interview, Brand implored people to abstain from voting as a matter of principle. I once supported this type of political boycott  but as it turns out, I was terribly wrong.

Brand wants a revolution. Historically, this happens when people rise up and overthrow the ruling class. This type of uprising is violent and turbulent; more often than not, it cripples a functional nation. Is this the kind of revolution we want? Or is this the revolution of a crude, unrefined people? A desperate people without alternatives?

Aside from the potential for violence and anarchy, this type of revolution poses some serious logistical problems. Suppose we marched down to the parliament and demanded the resignation of our local politicians. In all likelihood, we would be choking on tear-gas within moments of our arrival, but say our politicians are surprisingly cooperative. Say they abandon their posts willingly, handing complete power over to us.

What now? I certainly don't know how to run a municipality let alone a nation. I wouldn't even know where to start. Should we hold an election to fill the vacant positions left behind? If so, won't we face the same issues of corruption as before? It's the system that corrupts politicians, not the other way around. I might promise widespread democratic reforms if elected, but once I get in power there is no guarantee I'll follow through.

The irrational mind--the one that takes over when we're overcome by powerful emotions, emotions like outrage over endless political scandals--seeks the most direct resolution. Unfortunately, the most direct resolution is rarely the correct one. More often than not, these "quick fixes" lack forethought or in-depth analysis. Brand's revolution, no matter the shape it holds in his wishful thoughts, is such a resolution. "Don't like the politicians? Let's overthrow them! Don't like the system? Abstain from taking part in it!" Do these sound like rational solutions?

As I said, I agree with Brand's assessment of the situation. His solution, on the other hand, is vague, short-sighted, and dangerous.

If we truly want change while avoiding violence and unrest, our revolution must be a peaceful one. But wait: is such a thing possible? Isn't "peaceful revolution" an oxymoron? In the past, physical violence was the primary resource of the revolutionary, but no longer.

Big industry was able to find loopholes within our political system and use those loopholes to hijack our democracy. They did not march into parliament with loaded guns and demand power: they used their resources--money, connections--to exploit flaws in our outdated system. There was no bloodshed, no violence. It was a gradual conquest which is only now becoming apparent to the masses. 

Big industry has its resources, and we have ours. The occupy movement gave us a name and it is apt. We are the 99% and ours is the vast majority within a democracy. No matter that this democracy is corrupt and dysfunctional; so long as we work together, the 1% cannot stop us.

We don't need a bloody revolution; we need a crowd-funded one.

And that means working within the confines of the system, not outside of it. Rather than abstain from voting, what we need is a coherent, united movement with a transparent agenda and as much support from the 99% as possible. This means working with people of divergent ideological stances--uniting liberals and conservatives, atheists and theists, and so on--to topple those at the top of our political apparatus. If money is the resource of the 1% then voting is the resource of the 99%. With enough votes, we can literally reshape our government, restructure our democracy, and finally give voice to those who have felt voiceless for far too long.

(PS. On Friday I'll delve into what such a movement might resemble, how modern inventions/innovations like Facebook, Kickstarter, and reality television can help us design a more functional democracy, and whatever else I can cram into 1,000 words. Oh yeah and here's the Russell Brand interview, in case you missed it. /rant over)

Evolution, Empathy, and Ethics

The idea that humanity is at its worst is strangely prevalent in today's world. By nearly every measurable standard available we are actually at our best but that doesn't stop the media and a slew of pessimists from raining on humanity's parade.

These doom-and-gloom types are fond of listing the massacres of the 20th century along with "the erosion of traditional morality," especially in today's youth, as proof positive of humanity's eminent fall. I normally counter these points with the usual rhetoric--that Hitler was no more evil than Genghis Khan, that the "traditional" morals of imperial Rome would put Miley Cyrus to shame--but today I'd like to concede to the Debbie Downers.

Humans may be enjoying the highest quality of life in recorded history but that doesn’t mean we should settle. There are many areas in which we can and should improve. Greed, irrational thinking, selfishness, and a lack of foresight are widespread. We’re obsessed with hoarding power, controlling others, and imposing our views on our neighbors.

It’s not really our fault. We were never meant to live in over-populated cities, surrounded by strangers. We started off in tribal groups and would have stayed that way if not for our big, sexy brains and one of its byproducts, empathy. Great apes are also capable of empathy but thanks to our self-awareness, memory of the past, and imagination, we humans take it to the next level. We can literally experience the suffering of others, especially when faced with poignant illustrations of their pain.

Without empathy, coexistence in large groups would be impossible. The move from small tribe to city-state to kingdom to empire is impossible without the ability to imagine the plight of others. Civilized humans realized the importance of empathy early on. Starting around 600BCE, philosophers and spiritual leaders in different parts of the world attempted to codify empathy into a rule or maxim. The results are known collectively as the Golden Rule.

One of the best known versions of the Golden Rule is attributed to the man himself, Jesus H.G. Christ: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” (Luke 6:31)

Or as we typically hear it: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Until now the Golden Rule has only applied for members of your particular group. "Love thy neighbor" originally meant just that: your countryman. If you were an Israelite living in Biblical times, you didn’t love your Assyrian, Roman, or Persian neighbors.

Globalization and a growing understanding of the human organism are helping to dismantle the myth of individuality. Take a step back, behold the whole of humanity, and it becomes clear that you are merely a component in a greater whole, a cog in some marvelously complicated wheel. We are all interconnected. Furthermore, our similarities far outweigh our differences. At the core, humanity is shockingly simple. We all need food water, and shelter. We all seek happiness while avoiding suffering.

If humans could reach some basic agreement--an agreement that transcends culture, religion, and ethnicity--our differences would become inconsequential. Free from conflict, we could actually learn from each other. Every ideology has some value. As for what that basic agreement ought to be, I see nothing better than the Golden Rule. It's found in every major religion as well as secular humanist philosophy It's simple and effective and promotes the good treatment of others.

The Golden Rule isn’t the end-all, be-all. It's less a commandment and more a rule of thumb. It doesn’t resolve every conflict but if everyone applies it regardless of race, creed, or ideology, it will help us find peaceful resolutions to our problems.

Noticeable change wont happen overnight, nor will it happen without resistance. The current power-structure benefits a small percentage of the population and unfortunately, this minority happens to control most of the wealth. Our division over petty differences only benefits the ruling class. Is it any wonder they work so hard at reinforcing outdated stereotypes? That they cherry-pick from scripture in an attempt to appeal to our superstitious hearts? These are charlatans, nothing more. Do not let them fool you.

I said previously that it was my goal to infect people with new ways of thinking. If I could choose only one idea to convey to you, it would be the Golden Rule. Imagine a world where everyone followed this simple guideline. Ideally speaking, there would be no murder, no theft, no rape. I don't expect that to happen but for every convert, for every person who consciously applies the Golden Rule to his or her life, there comes a trickle-down effect. You promote the Golden Rule by using it. You infect people with it, and they do the same to others.

And why stop at the Golden Rule? Why not take the next step? Karl Popper wrote: "The golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever reasonable, as they want to be done by." In other words, do not only abstain from doing ill to others but also seek to do good in their lives, whenever possible.

Try it for a month. Keep an eye out for those in need and offer your help. Give kind words and encouragement instead of criticism and judgment. Learn to cultivate positive thought and fixate on the good qualities of those around you. If you don't notice a difference, feel free to stop.

Few feelings rival that of helping a stranger without expectation for reciprocity. That is the very spirit of charity and no matter your opinion on the state of humanity, the world can always use more of that.

From Reddit

I love Reddit. It's the Hive-mind of Generation Y and my link to the events and ideas of the day. I often comment on Reddit, typically in a sub-reddit called DebateReligion. I get a lot of ideas for this blog on Reddit and I thought I'd share some of my interactions here.
 

Find below a question posed by /u/tarandfeathers (in bold) and my response. Thanks to tarandfeathers for thinking outside of the box and sorry for linking to my blog. My reply was TL'DR.





It looks to me like the discussions upon the existence of a certain all-powerful creator is not the central point of the problem that leads us towards pondering on religion, and the god topic simply misleads us from the main question.

Correct. The central issue has always been death. Primitive humans, the first animals to possess self-awareness, had to find a way to cope with the inevitability of death. They had to find something that transcends the natural world, something that is eternal and everywhere. God is primitive humanity’s brain-hack for coping with mortality and if you subscribe to meme theory, you see how far that simple idea has evolved. The main question—are we truly mortal or does some part of us outlive this shell—is usually tied to god and most people lack the imagination to pull the two topics apart and examine them separately.

So, please, anyone try to explain to me why do the majority of the debates on religion revolve on the problem of the existence or nonexistence of a god (or God, whatever) instead of focusing on the hardest and most important matter at stakes, i.e. survival of consciousness after the physical death?

God has, until now, stood at the heart of the matter because he (and his progenitors) have always been the source of eternal life/life after death. I say until now because I believe, much as you do, that we should not rule out the existence of the soul simply because we eschew the idea of God. Even if we do not have souls that outlive our bodies and consciousness is generated solely by the brain (an issue of some debate), we should still discuss the future possibility of multiple lives. Some people say we’re not far from being able to upload our minds into computers or robots and the staggering progress of technology lends credibility to such ideas.

What if there is a god but our consciences doesn't survive after death?

That would be exceedingly cruel and proof positive that God is a giant douche.

Or, what if there is no god but our consciences migrate to another plane of existence thereafter? What if the Universe (supposing it is not only what today's physics can accept it is) has evolved, all by itself, by means of its known and yet unknown natural laws, towards an infinite, rational order which allows us to live forever, evolve forever and in that final eternity reach a supreme, godlike, unified etc. state? (I don't want to look like making precise assertions on what could follow or if it will, I just want to point out the general idea).

Speculating is fun but this sub is the wrong place for it. Needless to say there is some support for a cyclical universe so it’s not outside the realm of possibility. There are also some people who believe we will one day evolve to be Gods ourselves by merging with technology and I don’t see why that can’t or shouldn’t happen provided we take some precautions as a species first. In the end though, we’re all free to believe whatever we want. Leaving the door open on the topic of eternal life can really help ease the anxiety of mortality: why should theists be the only ones to benefit from such a hope?

Or, what if God doesn't exist yet? What if we are his & her ancestors, creating it step by step, molding it with each of our thought, action, decision? And what if the morals is in this way absolute, as it contributes to creating a good, favorable god instead of an evil one (who in the end will take over the Universe as his/her own creation and behave as we had shaped him/her to)?

Of all your points this one is the most poignant for me. If we can create an AI that is vastly more powerful than the human mind, connected to all our electronic devices, and without physical form, doesn’t that sound an awful lot like God? Could such an AI offer guidance or make groundbreaking scientific discoveries? Might such an AI provide salvation for a fractured and misguided human race?
 

This "what if" string could go on, pointing that it's more likely that we will manage to meet (a potential) god by trying to understand the world and ourselves than the opposite. Now really, if I were God, I would like you people to focus your attention towards my realms rather than on myself. It's like an author who prefers reading his book rather than stare at his picture, considering he wagers more on his talent than on his handsomeness.

For those of us who have concluded that God doesn’t exist outside the human mind, I think understanding ourselves and the universe is key to our survival and prosperity.

In less words: why is the (non)existence of a god a more important issue than the (non)existence of an infinite Universe (which bears all the possibilities, including the survival of my conscience)?
Because people are anchored down by their fragile egos and attacking the Gods of others is the quickest way to validate our own world-views.