Arguing With Myself About Hobby Lobby, Hypocrisy and MRAs

As opinionated and vocal as I am about certain topics, I'm sure many people think I 'shoot from the lip' as it were, and don't really take the time to think about what I say or believe. Most especially after I've written something about it already. That's entirely untrue, however, as I have continued to examine my beliefs throughout my life, wondering where a belief came from, and why it is so entrenched in me. I do want to know those things, because I don't want my beliefs coming from indoctrination of any kind. I want them based on real facts, too.

Having said that, you will maybe understand why I choose to write more about SCOTUS and Hobby Lobby. Just so you know, though, I have not kept up with the latest developments, other than what I discussed in the comment section of my last blog posting about it. There may have been other developments, but I'm not able to discuss them knowledgeably at the moment. That's not what this is about. It's about the types of hypocrisy we see from the opposite end of the spectrum, but we'll get to that in a bit.

Every time a company acts out of 'religious interests' we need to ask ourselves this:

Would I hold the same opinion I do now, if this was a different religion (or lack of religion) being represented?

Would you hold the same belief if it was a Muslim company, as you do if it's a Christian company? Would you think differently if it was a Buddhist company, rather than a Sikh company? How much of what we believe is true about the Hobby Lobby decision from SCOTUS, would still hold true if they were practicing Muslims who were in favour of imposing Sharia Law?

Religious prejudice does still hold sway in Canada, much to my disappointment, and I have seen it at work in my career. In fact, the last company I worked for would not give corporate shares to one of their executives because he did not attend 'their' church, and even though this practice is completely illegal here, and falls under discrimination laws, it still happens. Just not as often as it does in the U.S. We face it with the Catholic School Boards when it comes to their hiring practices, and the debate is very, very sticky. Anti-discrimination versus religious freedom. Do we tell people they have to share a religion in their personal life in order to be employed by an organization based on a religion? Especially when it's not a for-profit enterprise.

The reverse is also an issue to ponder; non-religious companies telling their employees to keep their religions out of the workplace. I do honestly believe that there's no way Hobby Lobby would have received the same court decision had they been Muslims. Not when there were 5 practicing Catholics in SCOTUS. My personal belief has always been, and will always be, that corporations have no business practicing religion of any sort. They're nothing but a business enterprise with no beliefs of any kind. They're there to make money, and they have court protection only because they took a step back from the personal beliefs of the owners. However, that swings back to me, too.

You see, I have a registered business, which you will already know if you read my prior post on Hobby Lobby. I have very strong beliefs about non-involvement in people's personal lives, and think people should be able to do what they like in their own lives. But...is that really what I think deep down? How would I feel if I found out my employee was doing something I completely disapproved of, that wasn't really any of my business? What if they were abusing animals in their spare time? Perhaps that's not the best example, since animal abuse is actually illegal and opens up other options, but what about things that are a little more esoteric?

How would I react if my employee was attending MRA meetings? (Men's Rights Activists - believe me that's not as benign as it sounds, as they have a tendency to threaten women and have been known to promote violence toward them.) If the employee has done nothing illegal within the scope of his own beliefs, would I be able to get past it in the workplace? Knowing the content of some of these meetings, and having met a few of the trolls online, I would definitely have an issue with a person like that working within my organization. I'd be very worried about it, actually. I have to fear the potential for violence against female employees, the discomfort the others might feel in their presence, and the simple knowledge that the employee would think less of me as a human being because I'm female. As long as the employee does not bring those opinions into the workplace, do I have any grounds whatsoever to let him go?

Well, from a legal perspective he could not be fired for this specific reason. It's discrimination. He is legally entitled to his own opinion. If he insults female employees, harasses them, is belligerent toward his female employer, or a number of other behaviours that are discriminatory on his part, then I absolutely have the right to fire him for it. I can not fire him for what he thinks, or what he does in his personal life. I can let him go because I don't personally like him, of course. That's always been legal. I just have to give him termination pay, and possibly severance pay (depending on the duration of his employment in the area where he's employed). But is it the right thing to do, believing what I believe about business being separate from the personal?

My business isn't incorporated so I have more personal leeway with respect to that sort of thing, and I'll get back to that later, but what about corporations? Take a look at the big employers, like Google and Facebook. Look at their investments, and where they donate their money. Liberal companies, basically. Sure, they can choose to donate where they like, considering it's a tax write-off and good for PR and the bottom line, but is it really something that corporations should be doing? They are, in fact, expressing an opinion about moral and/or political issues.

Hiring practices deal with the same issue. You try to find people who 'fit the corporate culture,' but what is a corporate culture if not an enforced moral compass for the employees? Sure, it might be an easy one to follow, like wearing blue jeans to work, but if one employee is more comfortable in his or her job wearing a suit to work they will not fit in. The position itself might even require a suit and tie because they're meeting outside clients who will be more traditional in their mode of dress. That big, colourful slide at Google's offices might look like fun to a lot of people, but some - possibly even me - would be a little taken aback by it. Some of us like a more traditional office where we aren't distracted by such things. That doesn't mean we're incapable of doing the creative work required of a company such as Google. I spent most of my time being creative, and I work in bed half the time (and my pajamas all the time), so I have an arguably relaxed environment, but do I really want a ball pit to play in? Nope. Knowing me I'd probably break a bone, or would get beaned by an employee.

If companies donate to Planned Parenthood, aren't they guilty of the same thing as Hobby Lobby in a sense? They're taking the company profits, given to them through the hard work of their employees, and sinking them into something the employees might very well disagree with wholeheartedly. Sure, it's the company's money by that point, but those of us who are angered by the Hobby Lobby decision don't believe a company should be able to tell employees what to do, either. Admittedly a very large part of that anger comes from the fact that they're still funding vasectomies and Viagra, so they seem to think men should have unencumbered sex, but not women. I'm not going to get into all that again, because the hypocrisy of the company is not the issue right now. It's the hypocrisy of those who think 'liberal' companies should have the freedom to do what they want, and be able impose those beliefs on their employees.

Should companies be forcing any moral standpoint on any employee? That's the real question. I've heard myself say no a million times, but deep inside I need to be sure I'm expressing that for all sides of the equation, and not just my own personal belief system. Do I like the idea of donating lots of money to animal protection groups, and organizations that help women who have been raped? Sure I do. Do I think it should be a part of my corporate culture? If I responded emotionally, I'd say yes, but there I'd be trapped by my own logic about business. As a business, I really have no business doing anything from an emotional standpoint.

Getting back to the MRA, I think I'd be one of the hypocrites if I said I would even hire him in the first place if I knew about his activities, but maybe not. I can justify the action by saying he would most likely not fit in, and would make the other employees uncomfortable. I'd be acting like I can predict the future, of course, because I can't honestly say with any certainty that what I think will happen will in fact occur. The odds are on my side, but odds aren't facts. Would it be right for me to base a decision on that? Well, yes and no. As an employer I have an obligation to hire people that I don't think are a risk to their fellow employees. MRAs represent a risk to not only the female employees (including myself), but also to the male employees who don't feel that way about women. They will likely be placed in untenable situations where they see things they don't like, and have to decide whether or not to speak up against them, possibly placing themselves outside their peer group's approval.

An employee such as that is very likely to poison morale, and as an employer I have to consider that very seriously. I want all of my employees to be able to come to work and know that it's a safe environment for them. If I'm going to be completely honest with myself, though, I have to admit that my gut decision would be not to hire him for very personal reasons. It would be my very first emotional reaction to a man like that. My distaste would be quite pronounced, in fact. Still, knowing myself as I do, I also know that I would force myself to think about it very seriously and continue to regard him as an individual human being. I'd have to determine within the scope of an interview if I really believed he was part of that fringe group where violence against women is not only condoned but encouraged.

Of course, maybe the point would be moot. Maybe all I'd have to do is ask him about it - simply tell him I know about his outside activities, and ask how he proposes to reconcile that with the fact that he will not only be working with women, and for a woman, but also working for a woman who is in fact a feminist. Any sort of negative reaction to that would be more than enough to tell me he would be a problem, and not worth hiring. If there's no reaction at all, I have to let the issue go and judge solely on his skills and experience, as well as his personality as a human being. I mean, bosses will never hire someone they think is a jerk, unless that's the personality they're looking for - which does happen for certain positions. Sometimes you need an employee like that.

If he's already an employee? Well, it boils down to this: I can't legitimately fire him, even if I can do so legally, if he has never done anything wrong to justify the firing. I might have to grit my teeth for a while, every time I'm in his presence. What he does in his free time is none of my damn business. It never was. How he behaves at work is entirely within my province as his employer. Case closed. I may not like it, but I'll not go down in history as a hypocrite if I can help it. There may be times I do it where I'm unaware of it, but hopefully it will be pointed out to me by one of my very intelligent friends.

There are plenty of employers out there right now who are showing off their 'good deeds' with expensive PR campaigns. Starbucks is one that's always doing that, and I've lost track of the stuff they promote about themselves. One minute one group loves them, and then the next it's a different group who loves them and the original group is ticked off. JC Penney riled people with an ad about a lesbian couple that were parents, and when there was an outcry they responded by showing an ad with two dads - another gay couple. Emotionally I can cheer that, because I believe wholeheartedly in marriage equality, and I'm proud that my country has had it for about 9 years now. Logically, I'd like to know why companies are even making stances like this. It may advance a cause, but it creates a dangerous precedent, much like the Hobby Lobby ruling. One company is allowed to do it, and is in fact encouraged, but then people get angry when a company does something they disagree with.

I find myself again stating that people can't, or shouldn't, have things both ways. Companies can't have separation from risk without separating from having personal rights. They stop being people and become nothing but a business. The same needs to hold true for the public when they view these companies. If we're going to get angry about companies taking these moral stances, we can't be cheering others on when they do the same thing just because we happen to hold the same opinions. We are personalizing bricks and mortar, and not seeing them for the non-sentient entities that they are supposed to be. By all means, cheer on a fellow human being for taking a moral stance you approve of, but not a corporation.

Ignorance is Only Bliss to the Ignorant

"Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." Thomas Gray, Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College

This phrase is constantly misinterpreted by the masses. In fact, until I researched it I didn't realize there was any more to it than the commonly uttered, "Ignorance is bliss." Once you see it in context, however, it's readily apparent that Thomas Gray was in no way promoting ignorance. He was, in fact, being nostalgic about his youth.

Ignorance has never been blissful to anyone other than those who are ignorant, and even then the ignorant suffer for their lack of knowledge and understanding in life. Far too many people choose to be uninformed about far too many things, and generally we are punished for it whether we know it or not. When we aren't the ones punished, it's always some other creature or person who is.

Animal rights is one good example of ignorance working against everyone and everything. As much as I hate the thought of animals being abused in general, I'm not going to look at this from the perspective of their suffering this time. From a completely unemotional and selfish human standpoint, let's examine why animal abuse is bad. We'll take bees as the first example. Not too many people spend much time thinking about them, other than perhaps beekeepers and those in the agricultural and environmental fields. The funny thing is, bees are one of the most vital components in the mechanism that keeps people alive on this planet. I won't post the quote attributed to Einstein about bees, because research has determined that Einstein probably never said it. Einstein wasn't a botanist, entomologist or biologist of any kind, so talking about bees wasn't exactly his schtick. However, the message within the quote remains somewhat valid. Without bees to pollinate, we would lose a very large portion of our food supply. Not all of it, but a huge amount. That's the direct impact. The indirect impact is that many of the things pollinated by bees are what support animal life in the wild. This affects anyone who might hunt for food.

I'll give a second example of how animal cruelty impacts humans, and then we'll move on to something else, but it's important for people to make connections like this. A second example is necessary to demonstrate a completely different sequence of events that many do not consider. How about we go with any sort of breeding facility for meat products. Pigs, cows, chickens and their ilk, are most often raised in sub-standard conditions. I'm not saying illegal, either. I just mean animals that are penned in tight quarters, given growth hormones and antibiotics that are unnatural to their systems, and that are often treated very badly. There are plenty of videos out there showing the beatings and abuse inflicted on farm animals, so if you're interested by all means Google it, but I won't include them here because I can't stand to watch them.

My point is this: These animals are not healthy. They're not allowed exercise because the meat becomes tougher. They confine them to keep them tender for our chewing pleasure. How healthy are the humans you know that don't get any exercise at all? The ones who stay firmly planted on the sofa, and often don't even get up to go to bed because they sleep on the couch - those are the ones I'm talking about. Chefs talk about the 'marbling' in the meat that makes it so juicy - well, that's nothing but a fat, out-of-shape animal. Now start adding those unnecessary antibiotics or growth hormones.

The other issue regarding close confinement is the fact that it spreads disease very rapidly, and quite often that meat finds its way into our grocery stores and onto our tables long before they discover anything is wrong with it. Generally people have to die before anyone notices that "X" farm's beef is not quite the safest thing around. If you confine large numbers of people in buildings, disease spreads just as quickly. Think of everything from the common cold to swine flu. Well, the same thing happens with animals who are closely quartered.

Going beyond animal treatment and things that actually impact each of us directly when we're ignorant of the facts, I want to talk about the more altruistic concerns where ignorance is harmful to others rather than ourselves. In these situations, selfish people simply aren't going to care, but I believe most people do actually care about their fellow humans. I think they often choose to shield themselves from inconvenient facts, though, so they don't have to feel guilty for pretty much everything they do in their daily routine.

One daily routine that's almost universal, is getting dressed after we wake up and changing into pyjamas when we go to bed. The question becomes, where are you buying your clothes? Following that line of thought, where are the stores you shop in getting the clothes, and/or materials the clothing is made from? Are your clothes free-trade and cruelty-free? If you're buying from Walmart, and a wide variety of other retailers, there's a good chance your clothes were made by people who are working in unsafe conditions and aren't even being paid enough to eat anything more than a bowl of rice per day.

Maybe you saw something about this in the news in April of 2013 when 1,129 workers were killed because a factory collapsed on them. Originally the death toll was 1,127, but two more people died within a month. A number of companies selling the clothing that was made there signed an agreement to improve conditions. Walmart did not. Another seven people died in October 2013 from a fire in a fabric mill in Bangladesh. Lack of transparency from many retailers makes it difficult to find clothing you don't have to feel guilty about, but if you're interested you can get some information here on where to find it. That link also provides information on the companies not doing so well, and in some cases provides a link where you can express your concern or take action in some way. Sadly you're likely to find some of your favourite brands and companies on that list, including Disney.

There is another sense in which ignorance is really not bliss, and that has to do with how it affects the people around you just in general conversation. You get this a lot with people who like to spout off with statements like, "Political correctness has gone too far." Says who? Says the person who isn't being hurt or oppressed in any fashion, (or in some cases they are and don't know it because it's so culturally ingrained). This happens with any kind of struggle for equality, be it feminism, marriage equality, racism, etc. Most statements from people who shrug off political correctness are coming from white, heterosexual, non-disabled males who are part of some sort of organized religion. You can get mad at me if you want to, and state that I'm making generalizations, but I was actually pretty specific there. Take a close look at the rhetoric being spewed by many so-called God-fearing Christians in the bible belt. Actually, a close look is completely unnecessary and might actually become a forest for the trees scenario. That kind of attitude is best seen from a distance for a wide variety of reasons.

White people do not generally experience racism. It can, and does, happen in a small number of cases in areas comprised predominately of people of non-Caucasian descent. White people almost never experience racial oppression. When I talk about oppression, I mean the action or force that causes real harm, not someone simply making a snide remark. I'm white, and have never been oppressed for the colour of my skin. Hence, I will never understand what that is like, other than by comparing it to the fact that I'm female and have experienced unequal treatment based on my gender. However, even within the feminist movement there is a great deal of non-inclusiveness when it comes to people of colour.

Men, at this point in history, do not experience gender oppression. There are some cases where they are discriminated against, such as in the case of custody and support hearings, or when they are assumed to be the abuser in a domestic violence situation. My point is that they aren't told they have less value than a woman because they're male. There were times in history, and in various cultures, where men were the underdogs. They aren't now. In a case by case comparison, it is women who are overwhelmingly treated as the less important of the male and female genders. There are people who have it a lot worse than women, however. I refer to those who are transgender, or intersex (someone who is born with both sexes - what most people refer to as hermaphrodites, although that is not a scientifically correct term). Imagine living your life as neither of the accepted genders. There are countries in which you can be legally defined as a gender other than male or female, but in the western world those people are completely discounted by the ignorant among us.

Overweight people are treated like human waste and fat-shaming is standard behaviour. Naturally low-weight people are accused of being anorexic. For some reason our size becomes the definition of who we are, and where we are situated on the social ladder. Admittedly, quite often a person's size can be attributed to certain psychological factors. Overweight people are often overweight because of psychological issues that compel them to overeat. A number of extremely skinny people are underweight in an unhealthy way, and also for psychological reasons. The problem is, there is no way of knowing which cases is which merely by looking at them. Never mind the fact that if you really stop to consider the reasoning behind either extreme that is the result of unhealthy thought processes, you realize that there is every reason to provide understanding rather than judgment. There is the pain that brought on the issue to begin with, and now there is the pain that results from their issue being so blatant and open to criticism.

Going beyond insulting and hurting people with our ignorance, there's the simple annoyance factor. Ignorant people are very annoying to people who actually take the time to learn about things. I mean, let's face it. There really is no excuse for not learning about a topic before waxing enthusiastic on it. You want to talk about how great the bible is? Fine, but maybe you should actually read it first. Don't leave out all the parts that contradict you. If you want to talk about marijuana legalization, and tell everyone why you think it's a terrible idea, it's best if you understand a little something about it. Don't be like Nancy Grace who mouths off about deaths that never happened, and violence that didn't occur, not bothering to back up your words with any appropriate sources. Maybe you want to talk about gun control, but if don't know anything about the current legislation, or the legislation being proposed, your arguments won't be very effective. You'll just sound like an ignoramus extremist of some sort, no matter what side you're arguing on. If you happen to find yourself in a conversation with someone who has some knowledge, you'll notice that you're not very well liked or respected after that.

Ignorance is lack of knowledge. When I was growing up people also liked to call someone ignorant if they were rude, though it's an inappropriate use of  the word - in other words they were ignorant of the definition and meaning of ignorance. However, ignorance often results in rudeness when an ignorant person is shown to be wrong. People tend to get defensive under those circumstances, and will exhibit angry behaviour. There again ignorance becomes an issue to surrounding people. If people don't like being shown to be wrong about something, then people certainly don't like it when someone attacks them verbally or physically out of frustration and hurt pride.

Much of the anger we see in political and social issues today is based on ignorance. Quite often willful ignorance, too. They simply refuse to listen to other possibilities or compromises. They don't want to know why the people on the other side of the argument think they're right. They don't want to open up to the possibility that there might be a kernel of sense in a differing opinion. Most often they simply talk over what they don't want to hear.

"We have two ears and one mouth, so we should listen more than we say." Zeno of Citium

The quote from Zeno can also be applied to our eyes. We use our eyes to read and learn. If we applies twice as much time to learning and listening, as we do to speaking, our whole civilization would improve instantly. Beliefs do not have to be static. Beliefs should always be fluid and open to new information. If reality contradicts our beliefs, we are left floundering in a state of cognitive dissonance. We can't honestly reconcile the two things, and that friction can become quite psychologically painful. Conversely, refusal to believe in a thing does not mean is ceases to exist.

It's impossible to argue with someone who refuses to listen to a counter-argument. It's called the invincible ignorance fallacy, and is a circular argument in which no evidence put forward is acknowledged. You're talking to someone who simply denies any validity of the information that has been presented, and it's something you see a lot in debates between scientists and creationists. Creationists deny any and all evidence put before them regarding evolution, or that contradicts their belief that the world is only 6,000 years old. There's actually a video you can watch with Richard Dawkins (a very well-respected scientist in case you haven't heard of him), where he is put through this, and the look on his face is priceless. He simply can't get over the woman's refusal to even acknowledge the evidence he verbally demonstrates. The full video is almost an hour long, but there are highlights you can watch where you see the complete blankness on this woman's face as she repeats over and over that there's no evidence. That's one of the best examples of the invincible ignorance fallacy I've seen to date. In one sense it makes me laugh, but in another sense I want to hang my head and cry.

I can only hope that people start consciously choosing to open their minds, learn and grow. It isn't as easy as it sounds, either. We're all guilty of closing our minds in certain ways. We're all guilty of jumping to conclusions at one time or another. It is impossible to be the perfect thinker. We work with what knowledge we have obtained, and what abilities we currently have to improve ourselves. Then again, we also have choices. No one can force us to think a certain way. We may be conditioned to do so, and many live in societies where it is forbidden to speak certain things aloud, but every person on the planet has the option of free thought.

The Religion Bludgeon

I am sick to death of people using their religion as a cudgel.  It's disgusting, and the worst perpetrators are those who have no idea what they're talking about.  For instance, I had another verbal altercation with a woman who thinks gay marriage is the same as paedophilia and incest.  Seriously.  She wrote an article saying that if it was okay for people of the same sex to get married, then it should be okay for a father to molest his daughter.  Excuse me?

The worst part is that she uses the bible to back up her claims.  Here's the thing.  According to the English translation of the bible, the bible was not supposed to be translated from its original form...ever.  So, by that measure the English-language bible should not be available to anyone.  Unless this woman is capable of reading the ancient texts in their original language, she has no business quoting anything.  The second portion of that issue is the reason why the bible was not supposed to be translated.  Things lose their meaning.  Think about it.  Do you really think "chew the fat" would translate very well, or "I was canned"?  If they were translated literally, they would make absolutely no sense.  People have had their expressions as long as there has been formal language, and every language and culture has different expressions.

For example, the term cribbing has no meaning in North America that I'm aware of, but in India it means complaining.  This is an English word that is used by people in India.  How would we translate something like that?  A person would have to be fully immersed in multiple cultures in order to do a proper translation of anything, and I have to say it's very unlikely that the bible was translated by anyone who was open-minded enough to be well-versed in any culture other than their own.  The bible was translated by people with a specific religious bent, and everything translated by them would have had that slant.  Not just a biased opinion, but also a specific cultural mindset about what something means.  If a term made no sense, they would have to improvise.  Not a good thing when it comes to judging the morality of others, based on the supposed word of God.  Never mind the whole, "Judge not lest ye be judged" thing.

Of course, the bible was not written by God.  The bible was written by people.  Even the account of Jesus and the crucifixion was written about fifty years after Jesus had supposedly 'died for our sins'.  Back then, contrary to what bible-thumpers believe, people simply did not live that long.  After fifty years there wouldn't likely have been anyone alive who had been around at the time the crucifixion story takes place.  That relegates the story to the equivalent of our urban legends, if that.  These days we have the internet to check up on facts and figures.  Back then stories were told verbally.  If you remember your bedtime stories even, there is a great deal of embellishment from our parents, let alone the stories being told back then about someone who was long dead.

Every tale that wasn't written by the person it happened to, is hearsay, and then you have to be skeptical regarding the ones who supposedly had these things happen, because people lie all the time.  They lied back then, and they lie today.  In fact, it's a lot harder to get away with a lie now, than it used to be.  Communication is constant and instant now.  We don't have to wait for a traveller to bring word to us of our loved ones, hoping that the words are at least similar to what was actually said.  No, we have e-mail and cell phones where we get the information "directly from the horse's mouth" (another phrase that wouldn't translate well I imagine) so to speak, and we get it as it's being told.  Even then the information is only as reliable as its source.

The sad fact is, there is no real truth in the world.  There is only perspective.  My viewpoint, even if my morals and beliefs are similar to someone else's, will be completely different from that of another person.  The information we take in and absorb will be different.  Look at eyewitness accounts of criminal activity.  Every account will be different, even when nobody is lying.  We take in different information from the event than the information taken in by the person standing next to us.

Applying these principals to the stories of the bible, you can see where it's not exactly reliable.  I'm not saying belief in God is wrong, or even necessarily belonging to a structured religion.  I'm just saying we can't believe everything we read, even in the bible.  Mistranslations, slanted beliefs, different cultural perspectives, hearsay, distortion from information passed through word-of-mouth (check the gossip mill for that one), embellishment by people wanting to entertain, and then the intake of differing information regarding an event - these things all add up to a confusing morass of nothing.

We can take the bible as a morality tale, if we like, but whose morality?  It certainly isn't God's morality, seeing as the words were not written by God, and the translation itself forbidden.  No, the morality we find in the bible is the morality found in the human beings who wrote the stories a couple thousand years ago.  Are we supposed to compare ourselves to those people?  We have nothing in common with them, except possibly our range of emotions and other human traits.  Their lives looked nothing like ours.

They lived in times with a completely different governmental, social, and religious structure.  The people then would have no idea how to cope with the lives we live now, and the reverse is true as well.  After all, how many of us would survive in a time of disease-ridden filth in the streets, a complete lack of indoor plumbing, food we had to grow ourselves, and absolutely no protection from our governments?  A time when most people were basically slaves to the various royalties.

If we took the bible at its word, we would also have to assume all people came from Adam and Eve.  If that's the case, then their children were banging each other and producing offspring from that incestuous coupling.  Right.  If we are all the descendants of Adam and Eve, our DNA should be similar.  Siblings have specific markers that show them to be siblings.  Alleles, they're called.  The same thing is found in parent-child relationships.  If a child is born of two people with DNA that close, they share even more alleles.  Our genetic structure would bear out the fact that we're related to everyone else.  So, not only is the idea repugnant, but it's patently false at a genetic level.

I do find it funny when people go searching for the Ark.  Noah's, I mean, not the Ark of the Covenant.  Why would anyone think there would be any portion of that Ark remaining, assuming it existed in the first place?  It was made of wood, for crying out loud.  Wood does not last thousands of years, with the exception of petrified wood which can last for millions of years.  If the Ark had been petrified, it would have been found by now.

Faith in the ancient, and grossly inaccurate, stories is typical of the ignorant mindset I encounter with regards to these religious twits.  I'm not saying they're all twits - just the ones who choose to remain woefully uninformed, blinding themselves to scientific facts.  If you want other people to believe what you believe, then you have to be able to present it to them in a form that's believable.  Logic would be of great assistance here.

As I've said before, the more I learn about science and anatomy, the more miraculous I think we are, and that science is not the enemy of religion.  I'm agnostic, but I lean toward a belief in a supreme being of some sort simply because it makes more sense to me as I go.  The complex structure of our bodies makes me feel there's a lot we do not know about our origins, and there's a lot we have to learn.

Our evolution into our current form is miraculous in itself.  The various addresses/codes embedded into our stem cells that tell the cells exactly where to go and what to create when they get there, is beyond amazing to me.  Embryonic stem cells are capable of anything.  They start out identical, and then are routed to where they need to be.  Once they're there they create the part of us that's supposed to be in that exact spot.  The embryonic stem cells that create our hearts are the exact same as the ones that create our skin, and what the scientists are trying to figure out now, is how the hell they know the difference.

I think, if people would allow themselves to move beyond blind faith into a world of knowledge, they would find even more faith.  Faith based on reality and not stories told by uneducated, illiterate masses.  Ignorance may be bliss for the ignorant, but it pisses off everyone else.