God is for Suckers! » Blog Archive » “What If God Was One of Us?”

“What If God Was One of Us?”

27 March 2007 by Eve

Just a quickie. Found this via Pharyngula. (Hint: Choose the most complicated, illogical, unreasonable option every time; it’s a lot more fun that way!)

32 comments to ““What If God Was One of Us?””

Naomi:
27 March 2007, on 8:20 pm
I must not have enough testosterone in me–I didn’t enjoy being god! Not one bit! I don’t want to be in charge–except as maybe Empress of the World, so I can change some things for the better here on little-bitty old earth…

1. Ban god and religions
2. Ban patriarchy
3. Get everybody educated and responsible for each other and the planet
4. Ban pseudo-reality TV
5. Implement reasonable population size
6. Legalize marijuana (and I don’t even smoke it! That’s just a no-brainer…)
7. In fact, if you want to waste your potential, fine–we’ll make all drugs legal and available. Repressive drug laws are racist.
8. The rich will not inherit the earth–but then, neither will the meek!

I’ll probably have more later. This seems to be a never-ending wish list…
The Rev. Jenner J. Hull:
27 March 2007, on 9:41 pm
Ooh, I’m diggin’ that picture. I think I’ve got a new background now…
just say no to christ:
27 March 2007, on 10:02 pm
Naomi said:”7. In fact, if you want to waste your potential, fine–we’ll make all drugs legal and available. Repressive drug laws are racist.”

And they just don’t work. When the drug war began, 1/3 of the population were drug addicts and now well into the war on drugs 1/3 of the population are still addicted to drugs and are taking up all the room in prisons where child molesters and rapist belong. And we all know how that has been working for us.

The test was fun, but I didn’t get to finish cuz I have to give up the computer now for my husband to work on his thesis. I can’t wait for him to be done with it already, he gets so craby. I don’t blame him I get moody over any kind of term papers and what not.

Amy
ChuckA:
27 March 2007, on 10:28 pm
“Verily I say…as a born-again prophet of the Empress Naomi…all will be right with earth’s inhabitants.
Yay…she is wise in her estrogen counsel. We will follow her precepts all the days of our lives. Even those of us with testosterone, have nothing to fear…
At least that’ s what I was told when I was taken up in the whirlwind…or…was it that voice from the burning ‘Bush’?
Wait…the burning ‘Bush’ said: “I am the Decider! But I have lied to many. My pants are on fire. I have caused much suffering and death. I should never have been President.”
WHOA!!!
Wait a minute…what am I SAYING?…You mean, I was daydreaming?…and making all this shit up?
I’m really just sitting at a computer…typing, fumbling around, and trying desperately to be funny?
What’s going to happen to me…erm…Empress Naomi?

Wait just just another minute! This is EVE’S post…Wow!…
Imagining being a god…let alone ACTUALLY being one…is REALLY fucked up!
Just thinking about how nonsensical the whole idea is, plays havoc with whatever is left of one’s sanity…
All I have left to say now, is…
“Yabba-dabba-doo-doo”! “Yak vortzen shling fatzen!”
“SNARK!”
Matt:
27 March 2007, on 11:55 pm
I have a problem with setting a population limit. Enforcing it would be very intrusive, and you would be just as bad as the xians.

Seriously, how would you enforce it without becoming very intrusive, draconian, and fascist?

This reminds me of an argument over at Atheist Revolution on parenting licenses.
AtheistUnderMask:
27 March 2007, on 11:56 pm
This whole damn cookie thing is pissing me off, putting Matt instead of AUM. Anyway, I also might add that all the education in the world is nothing compared to the inevitable violation of the population limit.

I’ll only go into a detailed argument if asked to do so.
Naomi:
28 March 2007, on 2:19 am
Matt: if we had no religion (which just uses the issue of birth control to keep their wombs popping out more members for their congregations BECAUSE recruiting adults is so difficult) and people were rational about it, I don’t think that anything more than an ethical imperative would be necessary.

As it is, the governments (excluding the fucked-up-by-religion US) seem to take a hands-off attitude to the issue, knowing that in most countries (yeah, I know, China, I know, yeah) the governments need the churches’ support, so they let things slide and pretty soon 5billion is 8billion is 12billion and we’re screwed!

Here’s the reality: the more educated you are and the less religous you are–the fewer children you have. Just ask the young Latino families in Los Angeles how it is with fewer children…

Are you a Libertarian or something? Or is it that you’re just a man with a mandate to reproduce?
jimmer:
28 March 2007, on 2:41 am
I’ll set a population limit, no problem. Much like I did for myself 37 years ago. And I did not get cut. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who brings a child into this world is contributing to their own demise. There are already enough children in this world who are starving we do not need more. There are people from New Orleans who need our help as well and Darfur and Kosovo and Iraq and Sudan and……When is enough , enough???
The Old Git:
28 March 2007, on 4:38 am
Here’s another one for your list, Naomi, which will help put men in their place…

Make men wear skimpy, tight-fitting clothing which severely restricts mobility and then teeter around in 4 inch (or higher) stiletto heels all day, after having spent hours applying make-up and doing their hair and nails to make themselves match some stereotype, and when they’ve finished their day’s paid job to go home, cook all the meals, do the washing (and washing-up), ironing, house-work etc., and look after the kids – all whilst still looking glamorous – and then pander to their mate’s every whim.
Naomi:
28 March 2007, on 6:35 am
In 1977, “All That Glitters” was on TV. Anybody but me remember it?

“All That Glitters” was undoubtedly Norman Lear’s most cutting edge work. To say that this show was ahead of its time is an understatement. Staying very much in the vein of Lear’s trademark “social commentary” brand of humor, the society into which this show’s characters were cast portrayed women as dominant and men as submissive and oppressed.

The key to its charm was the blatant inversion of traditional gender power dynamics as well as the complete inversion of gender-based rituals and ceremonies. I recall one episode where a wedding took place where the groom–still dressed in traditional tuxedo–came down the aisle with his bouquet in hand to meet his bride waiting at the altar.

As a first run syndicated television show, “All That Glitters” never had a regular “national” primetime slot which would have made more of the public aware of its existence. But one thing was sure: the sexism inflicted by the women on the men in this show didn’t look any better than it has coming from men. By switching the typical gender roles, Lear managed to make both a humorous and serious statement about the ugly side of sexism without preaching––an all too rare occurrence in television. This one ended much too soon.

From Wikipedia

All That Glitters was the name of a 1977 series by producer Norman Lear. The premise of the show depicted a world of complete role-reversal: Women were the “stronger sex” and breadwinners while the “weaker sex” – the men would stay home and be househusbands. Men would often be treated as sex objects

The series featured many notable celebrities including: Eileen Brennan, Greg Evigan, Linda Gray, Wes Parker, Gary Sandy, Tim Thomerson, and Jessica Walter. Comic actor and cartoon voice artist Chuck McCann was also a regular.

The series ran in syndication on late-night. It was cancelled after one season.

There’s very little about it anywhere on the ‘webs. Nothing comes up in YouTube…

The women ruled the world, men had the babies and Gary Sandy (WKRP) played a secretary and suffered sexual harassment. One character was transgender! Hooray for Norman Lear, father of “People for the American Way”! He is also remembered for “All in the Family”…
AtheistUnderMask:
28 March 2007, on 11:11 am
jimmer, I’m not talking about setting individual limits. I only want two kids, no more. But to set a global population limit would involve some very intrusive measures to enforce it.

I ask: What happens if a family has met their limit, but the wife gets pregnant again, either by accident or design? What happens? Do you take away the baby after it’s born? Do you abort it? Do you make an exception? Do you do something else I haven’t thought of yet?

What happens if a family decides to ignore it? Do the parents go to jail? One of the dancers on Dancing With the Stars has 10 siblings. If there’s a population limit, what would happen to them?

What would the limit be? Two per family? What about the cases of triplets, or more? Would an exception be made?

It’s things like this that I need to be answered before I can support government intrusion into my bedroom.
Matt:
28 March 2007, on 11:16 am
Naomi, as I stated above, I just want two kids, but one will be plenty. I do want a large family because large families are VERY hard to take care of.

I’m Libertarian. And I take the other question as an insult.

As it stands, I’ll probably end up single for the rest of my life.

If people were smart, fine. But you said you would SET a population limit. That has nothing to do with people being rational, intelligent, and not religious. People being rational and intelligent is a PERSONAL choice. Setting the limit requires government intrusion and enforcement.

As I said above, what are the consequences for someone who breaks that limit law, whether by accident or design?
AtheistUnderMask:
28 March 2007, on 11:16 am
Damn it! Stupid cookies!
AtheistUnderMask:
28 March 2007, on 11:18 am
I meant I do NOT want a large family. My brain was going faster than my fingers.
flame821:
28 March 2007, on 12:36 pm
As Naomi mentioned, with the increased education and availability of birth control, not to mention the autonomy of women, the birth rate NATURALLY drops. I doubt draconian laws would be needed at all, of course it wouldn’t be an immediate drop, it would take time.

But a lot of families have uber amounts of children due to high mortality rates. With education, healthcare and such those rates decline and mothers are not forced to pop out a baby every year in the hopes that at least one of them make it to adulthood and produce their own offspring, or help work the farm.

And this is coming from and Irish Catholic girl with nine brothers and three sisters (2 sets of twins and a twenty year spread) so I know the pros and cons of large families. I stopped at 2, several of my brothers and two of my sisters have none.
just say no to christ:
28 March 2007, on 12:37 pm
Naomi posted from Wikipedia:All That Glitters was the name of a 1977 series by producer Norman Lear. The premise of the show depicted a world of complete role-reversal: Women were the “stronger sex” and breadwinners while the “weaker sex” – the men would stay home and be househusbands. Men would often be treated as sex objects
———

Now, I don’t know many men who are not begging to be sex objects.lol My own husband claims all he wants out of life is to be my sex slave. However, if they had to have babies and do all the things that women do, I’m sure being a sex slave would be at the very bottom of the list.

Oh, what I’d give to trade places with men for just one day. Only one day, cuz that is all it would take for men to realize what women really have to deal with. And only one day, cuz inspite of how bad some men treat us, I really like being a woman, boobs and all.

Amy
flame821:
28 March 2007, on 12:37 pm
“former Irish Catholic girl”

LOL My fingers and mind aren’t in sync yet either it seems
just say no to christ:
28 March 2007, on 12:39 pm
Flame said:

“As Naomi mentioned, with the increased education and availability of birth control, not to mention the autonomy of women, the birth rate NATURALLY drops. I doubt draconian laws would be needed at all, of course it wouldn’t be an immediate drop, it would take time.”

And there you have it. Well, said!
AtheistUnderMask:
28 March 2007, on 1:45 pm
I know this flame, but even then you will have people who will WANT five kids. But Naomi didn’t say she wanted just education and access to birth control (which I’m behind 110%, FYI) but as Naomi stated, IMPLEMENT reasonable population size is not the same thing as education, birth control, and a natural drop in birth rates.

As I said, I’m all for access to birth control and education. I’m not stupid like abstinence pushers who would rather stick their head in the sand and pretend sex doesn’t exist (which brings up a point about why their gawd would create a biological function that starts early in life if he didn’t intend for people to use it, and by not using it they are thumbing their noses at the wishes of the gawd, but I digress…).

But as I agree with everything said in defense, how about we discuss hypothetically here. Say there is a population limit enacted, and instead of the education and access to birth control solution, it’s done as was originally typed: It was implemented by a government or governments.

How would you enforce population size, because this would be needed. If people are limited to two or three kids, what happens when they have a fourth? What happens if they go over the family limit? What is done about that?

Even with education, what are you going to do about the group of people who decide to have 10 kids? What do you do about the people who just want to buck the system, who think the population limit is bad, and who rebel by having a large family?

Would it become MANDATORY that people use birth control. Would it become law that no one can have sex without one partner on the pill and the other with a condom? Or would the choice of not using it still be viable?

And after having the set number of kids, would both mom and dad be mandate by law to get fixed?

What about all those people who, despite access to birth control and education and equality, etc, etc., decide that they still want a large family?

Implementing (the word used in the first post) population limits is government controlling reproduction. It’s government telling these people that no, you can’t have three kids, four kids, ten kids, because it would go over the limit.

I’m not against anything you guys have said, but I am against government intervention, and this seems to me to be a massive intrusion.
Naomi:
28 March 2007, on 3:09 pm
Excuse me, but some are missing the one very important thing I said that isn’t being referenced. And it speaks to all the hysteria over right to bear children. Ready?

Ethical Imperative.

We are fast approaching critical mass! At that point, the selfishness of childbearing ability butts heads with societal needs. There is no way that large families are acceptable! Selfish resource gobblers, is more like…

I had two children, one girl, one boy. I had my tubes tied in an era when you had to be approved by a hospital’s Sterilization Board! At age 25, I was denied, because I failed on all three counts: age, too few children, and my husband made too much money!

My doctor was convinced of my determination and referred me to another doctor and a progressive hospital. And the deed was done! I have never once regretted it, never once wished that I could have another child.

This was 1972, just as Rowe v Wade became the law of the land and birth control became more than just available–but a powerful gift! And the era of ZPG (zero population growth), a voluntary initiative regarding family size. We felt as though we could make a positive change in the world!

However, we’re right back in the Patriarchy, aren’t we?

So, all of you that want to get in my face about family size and intervention–go ahead! I’ve been at this for about 35 years now. And I’m in your face with this meme: Procreation is a selfish act of cloning. Get over yourselves!
just say no to christ:
28 March 2007, on 3:36 pm
Atheistundermask said: “But as I agree with everything said in defense, how about we discuss hypothetically here. Say there is a population limit enacted, and instead of the education and access to birth control solution, it’s done as was originally typed: It was implemented by a government or governments.”
——–
I think the best thing to do is look at other countries that do.
——-
Also said: “How would you enforce population size, because this would be needed. If people are limited to two or three kids, what happens when they have a fourth? What happens if they go over the family limit? What is done about that?”
——-
From the only country I know of (china) that inforces laws about how many kids one can have, have only led to infantcide and femalecide, child abandonment and a whole shit load of other inhamane acts to children. SO, I don’t see how a law like that could ever work.
——
Also said: “Even with education, what are you going to do about the group of people who decide to have 10 kids? What do you do about the people who just want to buck the system, who think the population limit is bad, and who rebel by having a large family?”
——-
I’m sure there are going to be people like you mentioned, but with more and more of the population not having a lot of and no children, we would still head for a more balanced population. And who knows, maybe we might evolve to relying on alpha famale and alpha male to do all the reprodution for us. It works well for wolves, why not humans? After all the dog is a wolf(according to DNA)and the biggest reason dogs have been so sucessful as house hold pets is because their social structures is almost identical to our family structures.
——
You also said: “Would it become MANDATORY that people use birth control. Would it become law that no one can have sex without one partner on the pill and the other with a condom? Or would the choice of not using it still be viable?
——-
Birthcontrol isnt always a 100% and no sex is not an option. Humans are sexual animals and are sexual even for no reproduction. Sex has other evolutionary reasons, it helps regulate our emotions, our passions, and our impathy. Sex is a way for us to release our anxieties, so we know we can not, not have sex. So, that means if we made laws that made mandatory birthcontrol it could only lead to child abandonment, forced abortions, and infantcide. Not the kind of furture I would want to look forward to.
——-
You also said:”And after having the set number of kids, would both mom and dad be mandate by law to get fixed?”
——-
I can see that being possible, but who would pay for the surgery? The family? What if they can’t afford it? The government? Where are they going to get the money for it?

A lot of hassle for something that can naturally be controlled when women have absolute autonomy.
——

I think I answered the major questions. ITs good to set all the cards on the table and see where they might lead.

Amy
just say no to christ:
28 March 2007, on 3:46 pm
Naomi said: “So, all of you that want to get in my face about family size and intervention–go ahead! I’ve been at this for about 35 years now. And I’m in your face with this meme: Procreation is a selfish act of cloning. Get over yourselves!”

I can respect that, there is a LOT of truth in what you say. Identifying the root of the proplem and acknowledging it, is the best way to fix the problem.

Amy
The Old Git:
28 March 2007, on 4:34 pm
Naomi,

I have a lot of sympathy for what you say.

Frankly, I’m pissed-off with people who claim they have the ‘right’ to do something or other, but who deliberately and selfishly choose to ignore the fact that in societies ‘rights’ come with concomitant responsibilities.

Hell’s teeth, if we’re going to argue that people have the untrammelled right to do whatever their conscience tells them is right, then we grant unalloyed permission for Xtian fundies to teach so-called ‘ID’ in place of the sciences, Muslims to stone adulterous women to death – not to mention decapitate those of us whom they consider kafirs and/or apostates – and sickos of every description to justify their heinous acts.

I remember a quote, but not by whom. It was, “Ask me not what my country can do for me, but what I can do for my country.” In other words, responsibilities to society are just as important as individual rights. Many people choose to either forget or ignore that fact.
Eve:
28 March 2007, on 5:52 pm
Enjoy the pic, Rev. Jenner J. Hull!

Don’t worry about me, ChuckA; from what I can tell, comment threads take on lives of their own often only marginally related to the original post. As long as it gets people communicating, albeit to disagree, it’s all good!
Naomi:
28 March 2007, on 6:19 pm
Matt, you are quoting me inaccurately. I said:

5. Implement reasonable population size

Implement. Reasonable. That means, to me (and to all reasonable people) debate and negotiation. But in order to have good debate you must have good data and level-headed people who can see the stark reality facing them–not emotional and delusional religionistas. Like the coming debate on single-payer healthcare, there should be no seat at the table for the few (BigHealthcare/HMOs and shareholders) who wreck things for the many (all the rest of us)! For population control, that means the “uteri and penises of the pious” must step back while we clean up their mess.

I was far more stern and “empirically authoritarian” on BANNING religion. No one took offense, which means there are no fundies around here.

We are fast approaching a point (my “critical mass”) where selfishness must be surrendered to the common weal. Or else…

And when the last few pockets of people remaining write the history of the “Late, Great Planet Earth!“, I expect that a good share of the blame will be placed where it belongs: on the wilfull breeders!
just say no to christ:
29 March 2007, on 1:32 pm
Naomi

You got a HUGE set of overies. I like that. Tell em like it is sista! lol

Amy
Naomi:
29 March 2007, on 6:14 pm
Truthfully, Amy, the ovaries went with the uterus in 1990! I don’t miss them, believe me.

The first time I went shopping after the surgery, I went down the aisle with all the tampons, pads and fem products. I thumbed my nose at the tampons!

I love the evenness of my moods now. And so does my husband!
Blue Rizla Girl:
30 March 2007, on 6:17 am
One way to keep the population size down would be to eliminate men altogether. Reproduction would be by True Artificial Insemination, i.e. using a woman’s DNA to cause an ovum to divide. The process has already been demonstrated in mice — google for “virgin mouse gives birth” — so shouldn’t be too hard to get working in humans.

Really, men don’t do anything useful anymore. We have machines to do all the old labour-intensive jobs that used to be their preserve. Men are simply obsolete, and we should give serious consideration to replacing tehm with a superior alternative.

Yes, there’s an argument that this would make us “dependent on technology”. But our society already became dependent upon technology the moment a child survived only with the benefit of fire and/or primitive stone weapons.
The Old Git:
30 March 2007, on 12:55 pm
What a good idea, BRG. I’m off for the ‘gender reassignment therapy’ right now.
Naomi:
30 March 2007, on 4:25 pm
And who will you be, upon completion, TOG?

As an aside, what did you think of TransAmerica with Felicity Huffman?
Eve:
30 March 2007, on 7:38 pm
Well, as for me, I know we may not need men, but I still really like you! Despite everything, you bring a dimension, dynamic, and sheer sexual tension to life that I find different from women’s and yes, enjoyable.

Of course, that’s only the positive side of the spectrum; unfortunately, there are so many bad apples out there trying very hard to spoil the whole barrel…
The Old Git:
31 March 2007, on 5:36 am
And who will you be, upon completion, TOG?

Still me, Naomi.

One of the saddest phenomenon is the number of people presenting for sex reassignment therapy (SRA) who seem to think that all the deficiencies in their life will be ‘cured’ once the ops are over; a substantial number subsequently realise that life, per se, is no better after surgery, and confess that they wish they hadn’t bothered. Some even want the procedures reversed, as they are even more unhappy than before.

GifS info

More of us

Search the archive

Archives

Categories

“What If God Was One of Us?”

32 comments to ““What If God Was One of Us?””