Kenya and the Bashir Fiasco

There has been a lot of hullabaloo about Kenya inviting Bashir to our promulgation ceremonies. My bone of contention here is whether indeed Kenya invited Bashir to the ceremonies. I can hear choruses of "Yes". However I still disagree. Lets look at the circumstances surrounding the invite and, indeed, the country Kenya.

Kenya has just undergone a major transformation in the way it is governed. Naturally we had to celebrate, and in the celebration we had to invite our neigbours and friends to celebrate with us. Kenya is bordered by Tanzania, Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia. In addition we do have a common market agreement with Rwanda and Burundi, as well as a different agreement with the Comesa countries. To cap that we have historical ties with the United Kingdom. The United States of America, the European Union and China have been generous donors and the US of A in particular has been a rather severe critic and taskmaster. All these countries are considered our friends and neighbours, and as such in the event of a major celebration they certainly should be invited to attend.

Kenya, unlike some superpowers I will not mention, has ratified the ICC and as such is is required to arrest Bashir if he does set foot on Kenya jurisdiction. Given American behaviour in Afghanistan and Iraq I suspect that the Americans will probably see justification in Kenya raiding sudan to capture Bashir. This latter behaviour is illegal, unless the US of A does it, in which case the international media consider it a justified regime change.

Kenya invited representatives of the countries it considers our friends and neighbours. Sudan sent the president to represent it. Kenya did not invite Bashir for the ceremonies, it invited the President of the Republic of the Sudan. Bashir, as such, was not here as Bashir. He was here as the president of the Republic of the Sudan. Last time I checked the ICC had not issued an arrest warrant for the President of Sudan and Kenya, thus, is not obliged to arrest the president. Arresting Bashir would have been arresting the President of Sudan and would be not only bad manners but a major breach of protocol.

If, say, between the time the invite was issued and the promulgation date the person occupying the office of the President of Sudan had changed, that person would have come instead. If we insist that Bashir and the President of Sudan are one and the same then the ICC would have exceeded it mandate by insisting that a country be arrested. Bashir can, and should, be arrested if he travels in his capacity as Bashir, however the President of Sudan should not be arrested. During his time here Bashir was the country, and Kenya would be in breach of multiple agreements as well as protocol to arrest the President of Sudan. As a matter of fact it probably would be considered a declaration of war against the Sudan.

Crime and Punishment

I know I'll get in trouble for this but here goes.

Let's start by defining some of our terms.

Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction.

Legally

A crime is a wrongdoing classified by the state as a felony or misdemeanor. A crime is an offence against a public law. This word, in its most general sense, includes all offences, but in its more limited sense is confined to felony.

Crimes are 'mala in se,' or bad in themselves, and these include all offences against the moral law; or they are 'mala prohibita,' bad because prohibited, as being against sound policy which, unless prohibited, would be innocent or indifferent.

There are significant differences between a misdemeanor and a felony offense. A felony is defined as a crime punishable by more than one year in prison or by death
Felonies are typically the most serious crimes in any system of criminal law. However, any crime that has a sentence of only a fine or confinement in the local jail does not necessarily qualify for a felony.

In comparison to felonies, misdemeanors are less-serious crimes. They are generally punishable by a fine or captivity in jail for less than one year. Often, misdemeanors are handled by special courts with abbreviated procedures.

Prostitution: The giving or receiving of the body for sexual activity for hire but excludes sexual activity between spouses.
Performing for hire, or offering or agreeing to perform for hire where there is an exchange of value, any of the following acts: Sexual intercourse; sodomy, or; manual or other bodily contact stimulation of the genitals of any person with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desires of the offender or another.
The common lewdness of a woman for gain.

Now lets look at some of our crimes. In the Penal code Cap. 63 Chapter 1
153: (1) Every male person who
(a)    knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution; or
(b)   in any public place persistently solicits or importunes for immoral purposes,
is guilty of a misdemeanour; and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this section the court may, in addition to any term of imprisonment awarded, sentence the offender to corporal punishment.

154: Every woman who knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution, or who is proved to have, for the purpose of gain, exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of a prostitute in such a manner as to show that she is aiding, abetting or compelling her prostitution with any person, or generally, is guilty of a felony.

Firstly, what is the crime here? Getting payed for sexual favours. And exactly why is it a crime? Notice also that while a male person who "knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution" commits a misdemeanor, it is considered a felony for a female person who "knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution". Case of double standards, or is it gender discrimination?

The crime is a person willingly offering sexual services to another willing person (who is not a spouse) for some gain (usually monetary). If we removed the word sexual this would define almost any service that is offered. In cases where gratification is given, for example, cleaning a house, massage, running errands, driving one around, giving somebody a bath, offering butler services, secretarial services or even ushering, a person offers services to another wiling person (who is not a spouse) for some gain (usually monetary). Why then is the former treated different from the latter?

The Sexual Offences Act 2006 states in the preamble "An Act of Parliament to make provision about sexual offences, their definition, prevention and the protection of all persons from harm from unlawful sexual acts, and for connected purposes"

In the case of prostitution, willing that is, who is the person hurt? The client gets a service, the supplier gets due recompense and they both go away happy. The only entity that suffers here seems to be the government since it does not tax this illegal act that harms no one. And in this case the suffering is self inflicted.

Some objectors will point out that a number of these prostitutes are doing this job because of poverty, or lack of education, or even because they cannot get other jobs. However that argument is invalid because quite a lot of us are in other, legitimate, professions because of poverty, lack of education or simply because we cannot get other jobs. Any person claiming that all secretaries wanted to be secretaries, or that all drivers aspired to be drivers, all accountants wanted to be accountants, or even that all police-persons aspired to be so would be economical with the truth. Are we going to abandon these professions too just because a some people failed to have them as their dream careers? Why are we wasting security, legal and judicial resources prosecuting crimes that have no victim, or even a complainant that can justifiably say their rights, freedoms or property have been abrogated? Do we not have actual crimes to prosecute? Serious ones like serial murderers, grenade throwers and resource stealing MPs fail to be prosecuted because we have inadequate or indifferent resources and yet we regularly get sweeps in town to get rid of prostitutes while one street down some hapless Kenyan is getting "ngetaed" on the way home.

What if...

I was brought up catholic. When I was growing up English and Swahili Mass was considered an heretical departure from Catholicism, the idea of Catholics marrying other persons was anathema, and all other religions were considered cults. My parents read quite a lot and all of them had quite varied libraries. My mothers tended to have books based upon their professions while my father's library had a broad spectrum of books from philosophy, agriculture, fiction, religion and even psychology. Unknown to my parents I started rather early to read almost everything that I could lay my hands upon. I was an equal opportunity reader and, at that time, everything that was written, to me, was sacred. I remember reading Meja Mwangi when I was too young to differentiate between a bar and a restaurant, I do remember reading James Hardly Chase inasmuch as my father thought I should wait until I was 18 to read those. I graduated from Ladybirds to Nancy Drew, The Famous Five, to Sherlock Holmes, to Grimms Fairy Tales, to St. Augustine's City of God, to The Bible, to The Book of Mormon, to The Quaran. My young mind was quite willing to take in all that without even a grain of salt. I had already began to believe in almost everything I could read, inasmuch as I could see lots of contradictions and inconsistencies in the stuff. Any attempt not to believe was always encountered in my mind by "What if..." For some very strange reason my default position was that everything written is true until proven false.

Sometime in my school years my teachers noticed my love of reading and made me an assistant librarian. The librarian at that time was my best friend who, much as he loved reading, had many other pursuits and left to me much of the work. Here was I with the keys to a room full of books. I was in heaven, literally. My scope got wider and I'd sometimes even read three to four books at a time. I began to think there were not enough hours in the day to finish all the books I was wont to read. Classes looked to me like a waste of time, and I could not wait to get out of preps so I could hide myself in the library and read. I despaired of ever reading all of those and yet I believed I must read all. I believed in faeries, gods, ghosts, aliens, perpetual machines, cyborgs, evil geniuses, genesis, re-genesis, evolution, re-incarnation, young earth creation theory, big-bang theory, America, Europe, Father Christmas and the Elves, The Easter Bunny, Kunta Kinte, Shaka Zulu, Wangu wa Makere, Kintu and Nakku, Zeus, Hermes, even Hercules and Cupid. I even thought Mukibi's Institute for the Sons of African Gentlemen existed somewhere in Western Kenya and, boy, did I want to join that school.

Eventually I began to understand that people do write lies. Except when lies are written they are called fiction. I also learnt that the old, old lies were no longer called fiction and had to be called myth or, depending on the authority, sacred truth. I was told with all due seriousness that the Bhagavad-Gita was sacred truth and holy and yet I still was told, with equivalent due seriousness, that it is a myth and unholy. And I believed. As always any nagging doubts were dismissed with a what if...

It took until my late teens before this "what if..." finally got me into trouble.

On one of those pagan festival periods we have at the end of the year I was walking the streets of Nairobi, idle and purposeless. While walking I met these self proclaimed prophets who somehow managed to convince me they can pray for my prosperity so I never need to suffer later in life. They took me to some "holy" lodging down on River Road where I found quite a number of other adherents waiting their turn to get prayed for. I was asked to sit down and wait my turn. while I was waiting a woman came out of the room with a smile on her face just as if she'd won the proverbial million and one man got up next to me and went in. The woman smiled at us, said a few hallelujahs and went out of the room. After about ten minutes the man comes out with a bewildered look. He looks like he cannot believe his fortune and walks out without even looking at any of us. Then I'm beckoned in.

The 'prophet' tells me I've entered a holy place and I must remove my shoes. He also tells me I must not profane the place by entering with any money so I'm required to put my all my money on the side in a bowl where it will be prayed for. The fella prays for about one minute (he must have been tired) then asks me to bring the bowl with my money for him to pray over. I bring it and he prays for slightly longer. He hen tries to convince me that the money has entered my stomach and will come out again when I reach home. Then he tells me to go home and not to talk to anybody on the way until the money has come back. I tell him "that's very fine, now can I have my money back?" He looks askance at me at proceeds to pray a bit longer while making it a point in his prayers to ask God to show me how my money is now in the stomach and to make sure it gets out when I arrive at home doubled. He also asks God to remove the doubt in my mind since the money cannot double unless I do not doubt. At this point all my 'what if.." comes back to me. Here is a man of God promising me miracles if I believe. I am still adamant that I want my money back! The man of God prays harder and even longer for my salvation and quotes many bible verses on believing without seeing. The fellow even has the audacity to lay his hands upon my head and pray for the evil spirits that are blocking my belief to leave me. I begin to think 'what if I believed and the miracle happened?' I finally and reluctantly agree to go home, but with a lot of doubt.

It took me about half an hour later to realise I asked the wrong what if. I should have asked what if I refused to believe. At least I'd have my money even if it is not doubled. Going back there I discover that the fellows have already left, leaving a few faithful there waiting for their return. Needless to say none of us saw this fellow again.

Now that I am older (and hopefully wiser) I find that a lot of us stay in illogical and unsustainable beliefs because of that what if. We are frightened to live our lives just in case our particular 'what if' turns out to be true. We are willing to trade in the present, nay, even ignore it, for a future what if. We ignore the here and now, ignore the lessons of the past, suppress our reason for that pie in the sky. Mayhaps it is time to look at the world and instead of asking 'what if it is true and I lose the pie in the sky?' we should ask 'what if it isn't true and I lose what I do have now?'

Secular Morality

In one of our various discussions over what I prefer to regard as Kenya's favourite drink we touched on the issue of morals. The majority consensus was that morality cannot exist without religion. To quote one of the debaters “Secular morality is an oxymoron”. This got me thinking, can we really have morality without religion? Would secular morality in itself simply be a form of anarchy? Perhaps we should begin by trying to find out what “Morality” is.

According to Wikipedia:
Morality (from the Latin moralities "manner, character, proper behavior") is a system of conduct and ethics that is virtuous.
In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society.
In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what people think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation.
Morality may also be defined as synonymous with ethics, the field that encompasses the above two meanings and others within a systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.

According to Dictionary
Moral: Adjective, of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:
In my opinion none of these precludes having a secular morality. Morality, in itself, cannot be said to be religious, neither can secular morality be defined to be anarchy.

I would imagine that secular morality would define a system of conduct that enables a human being to live in society in a manner that enhances rather than destroys the fabric of human interaction, and the development of human potential. Granted that many of the principles that we consider moral are also in almost every religious book, it does make it hard to distinguish between religious morality and secular morality, that in itself, however, should not invalidate the concept.

Morality should be based on a few fundamental precepts. The right to life and the right to freedom. This implies not only that the individual has these rights, but also that the society he interacts in as well as humanity at large is guaranteed these freedoms. Not only should the individual have these rights but should acknowledge that other entities, too, have those rights. The only limitations should be when these selfsame rights abrogate the rights of others in this respect.

Most (not all) of the religious precepts ignore the second and limit the first except where it is expedient for it's purposes. All religions have some form of moral precepts. Not all agree, but in many cases those precepts do have a lot of similarity. But this is about secular morality, nor religious morality.

Given the fundamentals, there a a few questions that would arise from that. What moral precepts would guarantee these basic rights? In my honest opinion some of the so called “controversial issues” like homosexuality, abortion or even the right to kill in special circumstances can be answered by ensuring that the basic principles are taken care of while ensuring no person or group of people are capable of removing these rights, and if they attempt to they would have, at the very least, have abrogated their rights to freedom.

Most people take the golden rule as the ultimate morality. The golden rule says “do unto others as you would want to be done unto you.” I tend to disagree with this. Consider a person who loves pain and is into pain inducing activities as a turn on. Would somebody else, who is not into pain and such, really want to be done unto as that one would want to be done unto? The golden rule really should be “do unto others as they would like to be done unto them.” What you do unto others should be as per their preferences, not as per yours. What you do unto yourself, however, is as per your preferences.

Capital punishment cannot be a morally desirable issue. Capital punishment is an unrecoverable form of punishment which (if proven unjustified) can neither be reversed or adequately compensated. As such it should not be an option society should have at it disposal.

Imprisonment, while it does abrogate the right to freedom, should be used in cases where people abrogate the rights of others. Banishment from society and it's products would be a better option though it can only become practical when we find areas we can banish people to. Mayhaps when we discover other life supporting planets, or even if the population ever falls to a level where we can afford to have vast tracts set off and sealed for these persons.

Abortion should be limited to the persons who actually carry these babies. Persons who have nothing at stake, other than a hypothetical interest in genetic continuity or voter expansion. What is in my body is mine until it leaves my body, and as such it is my responsibility to either nurture it or terminate it. It should not be the responsibility of other third parties, whatever stake they may imagine they have unless I am no longer capable of making these decisions for myself.

Some “sins” like fornication, adultery, homosexuality et al should not really be an issue at all. After all whatever is done between consenting adults in their own privacy is really a matter between those adults. In the case of adultery (defined as a sexual act between at least two persons, one or more of whom are a married to a person outside this liaison) is really a matter between the parties concerned and should not be an issue for society at large.

Certain “commandments” like Do Not Steal, Do Not Kill fall under the right to freedom and the right to life. Persons should have freedom to accumulate, or not accumulate, articles they consider valuable and it would be morally improper to either curtail this activity or profit unfairly by removing them from that person without their free consent or otherwise. And persons should be left to live the life they want to live.

Incidentally, it should also be within that person's rights to terminate their own life in any manner they feel like, inasmuch as it does not directly infringe on the lives, or rights of others. This means that jumping out of my fifth floor window and bashing yourself to death on my new Toyota Premio is a no no. So would shooting yourself in the premises you are renting from me in such a manner as to create damage to my premises. However if you want to hang yourself from the nearest tree the only good thing the “good Samaritan” can really do is give you a stout rope as an aid.

The biggest advantage secular morality would have is that since it is not set in stone by some being it can evolve as society evolves, and it can adjust itself to situation that are new and strange without in themselves being broken. A new rule is simply set up against the fundamentals, and if it fails the fundamentals then it is immoral, if it doesn't then it is moral. Isn't that so much simpler?

A meeting with Her Pinkiness

Tony Lawrence : The Ten Commandments
(A Man recounts the decalogue to Her Pinkness.)

The IPU shook her mane and stamped her feet impatiently. Her Holy Nostrils flared. "Anything else?" she inquired of the Man who stood quivering in front of her.

"Um…" The Man was obviously nervous. He was not enjoying this conversation, and the IPU's growing impatience was not helping. "Um, yes, we are, um, not…" The Man paused and then continued in a rush, "not supposed to covet our neighbour's wife!"

The IPU snorted loudly. "That's rich!" she bellowed. "Now THAT ought to be an easy one for you insatiable little monkey spawn. I'll just bet!" she chortled.

The Man shuffled his feet and stared at the ground. A small slug was crawling slowly through the leaves at his feet. The Man wished he could crawl off somewhere else.

But the IPU was not finished with her interrogation. "You have missed one. I believe you said there were ten commandments, and you have only told me nine. What is the tenth, insignificant turd?"

The Man swallowed hard. Hands clenched, he gritted his teeth and raised his head. He stared into the flashing eyes of the Holy IPU. "We are tmf nthr ds for em".

"WHAT!" The Holy IPU fixed the Man in her regal stare. "Speak up, you ugly pink ape!"

The Man's hands were shaking and his tongue could not work. He opened his mouth, closed it, then opened it again. Finally, eyes winced against the inexorable results, he spoke: "We are to have no other gods before Him." He closed his eyes and waited for the Fiery Breath to consume him.

Nothing happened. Cautiously, the Man opened his eyes. The Holy IPU was simply standing in front of him, and actually she looked more amused than angry.

"No other gods?" she asked. "As in, no worshipping of the One True God, Her Incredible Pinkness? No worship of ME?

The Man again found the slug to be the focus of his concentration. Something about its slow progress through the field encouraged him. The slug would reach its destination, and he, the Man, would also survive this day. The Holy IPU would not reduce him to a pile of cinders to be blown away by the summer wind.

The IPU spoke again. "Where is this Mighty One who is so jealous of Me?" she asked. "Have you seen Him?"

The Man looked at her once again. "I have not, but Moses has. The Lord spoke to him from a burning bush."

"Cheap carnival trick," offered Her Pinkness. "I don't suppose you've seen any tangible evidence of this Dude's presence, then. How about intangibles? Healing of the sick, bountiful crops, that sort of thing? Actually, I thought the harvest was pretty poor this year. Shouldn't your Pal have prevented that?"

The Man's face plainly displayed anger. He was well aware of the IPU"s refusal to even listen to entreaties for assistance. She didn't care if his people lived or died, and made it well known. Pleas for assistance were greeted with nothing but insults and laughter, if they were even entertained at all.

"There has been sin."

The Holy IPU raised her eyebrows. "Sin? Oh, how handy. Let me guess: I bet there's been some coveting, and some bearing of false witness, and perhaps some harsh words by teenagers to their parents, so conveniently enough, your Invisible Pal doesn't have to shower you with bounty. How beautifully done: set you up for failure, then get you to blame yourselves. I love it!"

"God is not Invisible. God is everywhere!" The Man was sullen, but was also remembering a certain bit of coveting that he was guilty of. He hated to think that it might be his fault that the crops were bad, but…

The IPU shook her mane, and looked off across the field. "Go away, Man." She spoke softly, even kindly. Usually her words were caustic, full of sarcasm and disgust. But now she seemed almost tender. No fire was in her eyes, and her hooves were not pounding the earth. "Go away," she repeated. "Go and pray to your invisible friend. Chastise yourself, and praise him. Punish everyone who will not join you in your delusion. Feel good about that, and believe that your Make Believe Buddy will reward you for your cruelty. Take his commandments, and rule your life by their words. Do not question anything, do not use your pitiful mind; simply give yourself over to this pathetic dream."

The IPU now looked sad. "You know, in spite of the fact that you are all incredibly ugly and hopelessly stupid, I had some hope for you." She paused, and looked again at the Man who stood before her, still afraid, but now confused by her inexplicable reversal of attitude.

"Things could have been different", she said, and then vanished in a puff of Pinkness.

The Man stood alone in the field. The last rays of the sun lengthened his shadow to where the IPU had stood. The grass was even now straightening up from the imprint of her hooves, and soon there would be no remaining trace of her presence at all. The slug had managed to move an entire pace away from the Man's foot. He stepped forward, bent down, and popped it in his mouth.

Gods suck, he thought as he walked back to his village.

Gotten from http://www.palmyria.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm

Of Coughs, Flu and God Almighty

I am trying to recover from one of those bugs that seasonally fly around. It been so bad that this has been one of the rare times I've actually gone to the pharmacist to get myself drugs for it. As usual the pharmacist asks what symptoms I have. Running nose, cough, fever, and one painful headache. All standard. Then he asks "Wet cough or dry cough." Usually I answer without thinking so much "Dry Cough." After all wet cough does give me a picture of some undersea noises as you cough through a mass of liquid. For some strange reason this time I decided to ask what the difference was. Horror of Horrors, I discover then that what I'd always presumed to be a dry cough is defined, at least by the pharmacist, as a wet cough. I, apparently, have been using the wrong definition for all my life!

Cough and flu done. So what has this got to do with God Almighty? I was tempted to say nothing, however something did come to mind. I have two friends on the opposite side of the God spectrum. One believes in God. The other doesn't believe in any gods. Then again, I have may friends who believe in God, or gods and insist that these entities exist while others insist that it is impossible to know whether they exist. What I have noticed with all these people is that they all seem to presume they are using the same definition of God, or gods, as the other.

Every time I challenge one or the other to prove their stand I get a mass of contradictions. One would think they are actually discussing different concepts while thinking the other is discussing their concept. I've realised that most of us have our own internalised definition of God which may not necessarily be what the other thinks of as God.

Which brings me to the crux of the matter. Exactly who, or what, is God?

Free Thinkers

Most people take the position that either God exists or God does not exist. Agnostics do not count because their position is that they are not sure that God exists. Thus agnostics would fall in the whole range from those inclined towards belief in God upto those inclined towards unbelief in God. In both cases (belief and unbelief) there is something/one called God which/who they either believe in or don't believe in.

Skeptics (who sometimes call themselves free thinkers) are akin to agnostics who are probably going to lean towards no in regards to the God question. Skeptics are generally prejudiced. In literature and discussions many skeptics give "logical" answers to prove that there is no God. A study of their arguments and "proofs" however tends to yield a complete different view. In all due regard many things about this earth and it's environment can be known. We can be almost certain that there are no mammoths alive on earth today partly because the earth is limited and we have explored almost all of it. Something that large would be rather hard to find. In the same way there is probably no bigfoot, or the tooth fairy, or even father christmas' toy factory at the north pole.

We have found no evidence for any of these things and in spite of searching their alleged environment we have not seen, or otherwise felt the presence of any of these beings. Thee is no logical reason why some humanoid creature could not leave in the Himalayas yet all searches have turned up nothing. So we can say we have reasonable doubt as to the existence of bigfoot, in the same manner there is no logical reason to think a toy factory at the north pole cannot exist and yet we have found no evidence for that in our explorations of the north pole.

In looking for proofs of God(s) we have not applied the same through search for the existence, and/or non existence. In common parlance a god is something whose powers are far greater than ours, who we cannot comprehend and whose nature we cannot predict. Something which is out of our reality space.

When defining something I must assume that definition and I are in the same co-ordinate space. This is the problem I have when trying to define God. In order understand God hesheit must be in my same co-ordinate space, however by being in my co-ordinate space hesheit cannot thus be outside the rules of my co-ordinate space. Does that make God human, or does that make me God? Most current definitions tend to put God outside our co-ordinate space and claim that the God(s) can quite easily manipulate humans. This would make god undefinable, unsearchable and unperceivable (is there really such a word?)

A distant god would evade our sensors. A very small god would be below our notice while a very large god would be above our notice. Only a god which fits within our reality space and is perceivable by our sensors would be detectable. This god would be almost human, or near enough as to make no difference. If we are manipulated by the gods it would be quite easy for them to evade our senses, unless they do want us to perceive them.

I do agree that the existence of God(s) has not been proven. However close to 100% of the perceivable universe has not been explored and as for the universe beyond our ken, the jury is still out on that one. Until we can come close with certainty that we have explored most of the universe (as we can on earth) then can we begin to make logical assumptions about the non existence of God(s). The fact that we have not proven God(s) to exist does not necessarily mean we have proven God(s) not to exist.

Atheists blow apart the beliefs of religious people using science and logic. They imagine that this in some manner makes their beliefs true. And yet it doesn't. Theists do not know that God exists. They believe that God exists. It is not a failure if they find no evidence of their God because the search for truth is not part of their system. Atheists on the other hand base their system on science and truth so when they are not scientific they are back to zero, just like the theists. But unlike the theists theirs is a fail for the theist applies no measurement to beliefs while the atheist does.

The atheists has taken a position that requires proof. He must say that he knows there is no God. Faith is a belief while knowledge is a certainty. The atheists claims to be certain that God(s) do(es) not exist and must thus give us proof. This cannot be done. There are no proofs that God(s) do not exist.

In the past religion stifled thought outside the "norms", science now does the same. We are indoctrinated from childhood with "scientific" facts and we are told these are unquestionable facts. We couch the facts and proofs in language that is unfathomable to the layman and require that the layman must undergo rigorous study to even be able to read, let alone understand these proofs. Anybody who does not agree, or tries to bring alternate theories is vilified by the establishment. People are shot down with credentials and PHDs. Alternative theories are labeled unscientific and unproven, let alone that most science is still currently theoretic. Doesn't that bring to mind the "golden age" of priests and church control of thought?

In the last several years science has generally stagnated. The theory of evolution is still a theory, Quantum theory is still theory, we have been standing on the shoulders of the "greats" and taking their theories as gospel truth (pun intended). We have fossilized these beliefs and turned them into the new religion. Where are the new messiahs to lead us out of our darkness?

Will the real free thinkers please stand up.