Taber-Chuckle: 2011-Dec-02

The joy of the lord is your strength.

(As I write this a few weeks later, I honestly cannot remember what was the point I had at the time. Fortunately, you need only see the phrase in context to find something egregious about it. Historical context illuminated by James R. Davis at FocusOnG**.com)

To its credit, this little ditty is inspirational. Replace the theological aspect with scientific inquiry and it remains as inspiring. However, I came to lambast this saying, not praise it. In context, it is a story about looking at what you have, be grateful and celebrate life. In all, still not a bad suggestion. It is the general message ofFrank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life. People love that movie for that very reason. It does gloss over the point that it's okay to not be satisfied with your situation. After all, that is the catalyst for most change in people's lives: you are happy with what you have or not and you're willing to do something about it. Much like George Bailey in the movie, the Israelites in the parable are whiney about their situation. In both instances, the sky daddy intervenes to tell these individuals that all is okay and be glad with what you have, meager and insignificant though it may be to the grand scheme of things. The scheme of some individuals will always be insignificant and once you can embrace this, you'll find yourself a much happier person.

As I mentioned, it's a decent observation that is easily adapted to a non-theological stance that retains its inspirational aspect. Nevertheles,  the message of "be happy with what you have" is oppressive. "You're still alive and you have me, your sky daddy. Stay where you are. All is well! I repeat, all is well!"

If you're happy or content, you are less likely to better yourself, to seek something new and exciting for the sake of that very discovery and its inherent journey. That right there is the story of humankind. That is inspirational. Interstellar-space forbid, you move on, leaving the comfort of the sky daddy. I say that because eventually, every journey will take an individual to a point where sky daddy cannot go. Some people will stop at that point and be content. Good on them for finding that balance in their life. Some people will press on and discovery ever greater wonders. Good on them for not stopping human progress.

 

See you there.

Pat Condell: The arrogance of clergy

Back from the summer vacation season and on fire!

De theocracy natura

The blogs that keep tabs on the religious nut jobs have plenty of quotes from their mouthings off that make it clear, though not always explicit, that these bozos would like nothing more than to live in an American theocracy. I have some thoughts on that.

There are few true theocracies in the world because they require one hundred percent commitment from the populace. Most of them, to obtain that amazing support, require such control and capitulation of the will and individuality of the populace that the very thought of it gives a rational, free individual a WTF moment.

Perhaps these evangelical lunatics should consider this: evangelicalism exists because it does not like the way the mainstream version of the cult works. Their crap is derived from Protestantism, which exists because they did not like the rules of Catholicism. Even evangelicalism has splinter groups who interpret things different from the other dangerous cults. So here is the question: whose rules are law? What about people who do not agree? Do they form a subcult? Are they afforded the same privileges? Of course not. One thing that religions is completely against is options. So that should tell them, if their rules are so awesome, why is it that some people do not like them?

It happened before and it will happen again: one person will be to differ with the ideals of the mainline faith and cause it to splinter. Will that be treated as a civil war? Considering how rabid some people in this country are about their faith, armed conflict is inevitable.

To offset this, they ruling cult will probably opt for a least-common-demoninator for of the rules. Keep it simple enough that everyone is happy. The problem with that, is that no religion works that way.

For a contemporary perspective, look at the goings-on in Iran. That is an example of an extreme cult running a theocracy and what happens when some people don't have their head up their ass. Eventually it will happen. There is no way that a system can maintain that kind of tension. Humans adapt and change. Humans that do not are dead anyway.

Taber-Chuckles: 2009-05-19

So many posts, so little time.

I can appreciate the attempt to give an encouraging message to the sheep but the short space makes for some damn funny clauses. This is one of them. I could be wrong, and this is the pure message as intended. Yikes. Let's start, as I always like to do, by analyzing the language. It is always a source of amusement.

Actually, the clause itself is fine but for two single words, pay and sacrifice. They give it a rather explicit meaning that is disturbing. All the speaker had to do is move who up to the first line and replace pay with make to make the clause acceptable. As it is, it reveals much about the psychology of the writer.

A person can make a sacrifice or pay a sacrifice. Paying for something implies that the object is something that the person wants but must perform a transaction to acquire it. Something tells me this is an impulse buy. Maybe they person wants the item but do they really need it? My main problem with the use of pay here is that the transaction involves the individual's life itself, as opposed to some form of legal tender or bartering with something of equal value. One's life is not. Apparently, the boogieman for this cult only accepts payment in death.

Next is the word sacrifice. Sure sacrifice fits the usage, if you change the verb, but one could just as easily-and effectively-use the word price. It definitely works with the verb pay. Pay the ultimate price has a shred of dignity to it. Make the ultimate sacrifice has a bit of dignity but also implies that the person knew that this would happen, thus performed the act willingly. That would be okay, but we are dealing with cultists, so there is an understanding of deception and/or coercion. What is the reward? Death. What is the cost of this reward? Death. Sounds like a death cult to me.

Then there is the other aspect of sacrifice. Of the two possibilities, this is usage is definitely literal: the person is literally sacrificing themselves, just like in the "good ol' days." People nowadays still make sacrifices but they are most often figurative. Wearing one's Sunday finest to the cult facility is a figurative sacrifice that pagan cults used to do. The Athenians would offer bolts of fine cloth to Athena as a sacrifice. What they do today is the same thing, just figurative—and very pagan. With this statement, however, it is implied that it is literal. It has to be-it is a death cult.

Towards the end of the writing, the word willing leapt out at me. There is not much to say about it other than it reinforces the supposition of dumb sheep being tricked into marching to the slaughter. All I can do is shake my head at the potential lost if these people were not fettered, neutered, and shamed into submission. They have no true respect for themselves.

On the other hand, taking the message as it reads, it is asking the reader to extol the virtue of someone so delusional as to believe that one person having holes shot in to their carcass makes a substantial difference. How many does it take? When have enough sheep been sacrificed to make one say: "maybe we cannot win this one?" Such arrogance. Such stupid sheep. Sounds like a match made in....ah, crap.

Regarding Dr. Tillman

I told myself that I was not going to comment on the vicious, hypocritical murder of Dr. Tillman, the late-term abortion doctor in some flat part of the country.

Considering how much gawd-lovers scream about abortion and children, do they not realize that children and reproduction technically are their gawd's curse to women and punishment to both men and women? Of course it is. To be funny, one could say that it was paradise because you could walk around the house naked all day. However, there is nothing to indicate that A&E were copulating prior to acquiring knowledge, prior to which they were as dumb as the moss on a stone. They did not have offspring in the garden. Ah! Maybe they could not because they were not sexually mature. That would be interesting in light of religious figures and children.

One thing that does bother me about religious justice is that a mundane instrument is required at all. There were a number of jerk-offs who said that their gawd would not want this murder victim to live. Obvious IT did because IT had not killed it before then. After all, IT is omniscient and omnipotent, but more importantly, IT is obviously lazy. Maybe IT decided to test IT's cultists with the existence of the murder victim. By committing the murder, the cultists are telling IT that they do not like that test. Well, isn't that convenient. If you tell your teacher that you don't want to take their stupid test, they say No problem. Here's your F. This shit does not jive with love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek, probably because it's inconvenient and isn't compatible with their burning intolerance. I wish they would follow the turn the other cheek line. More children from the insane cultists need to be aborted, as late-term as possible. Gas it right after the live birth.

There have also been a number of cultists who have publicly endorsed this murder. They should be rounded up and executed, young and old, rich and poor, cultists and cult leaders. They are all criminally insane. Now, we will not give them lethal injection, or electrocute them, or decapitate them, or shoot them, or hang them. Let's use their own favorite: burn them alive. All the others kill more quickly than burning but that is not the real reason to use it. We use it for the blood-curdling screams one hears coming from the flames. Real, protracted pain and suffering. They deserve only the best.

Squirm, selfish cultist, squirm!

No matter which way I turn when I leave, I have to pass by a church. When I do, it starts my mind to race and my blood to heat. Today was no different. What popped into my head today was the phrase, "my personal relationship with <your brand of pasta here>..." I then responded, "yes, it is a personal relationship. Mine is different. Howdy Doody's is different. Why are you talking to me?"

As I have said in the past, a cultist's faith is unique to them and solely for that individual's benefit. Of course, they may tell you that they want to share their joy with their faith. Why does that individual think that anyone else cares? Does the mad cultist share every time it is overcome with joy, say, from Blue Bell® Dutch Chocolate ice cream? How about when it wins the temporal, financial lottery? I've never seen it. I want some ice cream, too. Then, I am happy to chat with it, but only about ice cream.

Next time a cultist approaches you, wanting to share their faith, steer the conversation this way...

"I want to share with you about knowing <your brand of pasta here>."

"Wow. Before you do, do you consider yourself a most excellent practitioner of the pasta?"

"I try, through the grace of the pasta sauce."

"Do you think, right now, that I am going to be denied the unending pasta buffet?"

"Well, friend, by knowing the pasta..."

"No, that is not what I asked. Take a snapshot and put it on the scale. This is it, right here. Will I be denied the unending pasta buffet?"

"I cannot say for certain (This assumes an intelligent, non-raving cultist), but without constant attention, we all are in danger of that."

"Fair enough. For the sake of argument, let us agree that the answer is 'no.' Now, with that same snapshot, do you believe that you will enjoy the buffet?"

"I hope that I will be invited to the buffet when the time comes."

"Okay. Again, for the sake of argument, let us agree that that answer is 'yes.' Now, would you, right now, make a complete swap of the disposition of our souls in your afterlife?"

If the cultist answers yes, then the reason is one of the following:
1) They are truly genuine, but probably expect that their sacrifice will earn them another spot.
2) They are lying because this not something that one can do, according to the cult's manifesto.

If the cultist immediately answers no, then you know it is either #2 from the Yes group, or they have no intention of giving up their reservation.

If the cultist pauses before answering no, it was stunned by your question and denial is just a programmed response since all cults are about denying the individual. Most likely, the cultist will give you some excuse.

If the cultist does not give a direct answer to this clearly simple, non-confusing question-what a shock-and instead starts to ramble about the job of the happy, good cultist, take that as a no.

No matter the answer given, a cultist pursues its faith for purely selfish reasons. It does not care about your disposition. Maybe it constantly questions its own faith and now, you just attacked the sole reward for its foolish behavior. For an added bonus, you can tell the cultist, except the ones that answer Yes#1, "Well, that doesn't sound very pasta-like," and watch them squirm and likely become belligerent.

I ask again, why are you talking to me!?

Christian juries = evil zombie children

Source: CBS News (from BoingBoing.Net)

Of course this story takes place in Texas. Seems some jurors consulted bibblical passages concerning murder that happened to have elements of the crime for which they were sitting. The jury returned a death sentence, just like the characters in their cult manifesto ordered. The condemned took his case to the Supreme Court, who declined to hear the case.

Obviously this is a capital case so death was an option. The fact that some members of the jury consulted a mind-controlling cult's text for help to reach a decision is disgraceful and wrong. It now make you wonder how many jurors in untold numbers of cases have done this deliberately. Worse still, how many jurors have reached their own decision without having to look it up because they have memorized their cult manual? That chills the blood.

Juries are a nice concept but they do not work because people are involved. I would rather put my fate in the hands of a triumvirate of judges than twelve ignorant savages. Is that harsh? No. Attorneys love stupid people. The last thing they want is an educated person deciding a case. They cannot be swayed. They are not subject to cultistic mind-control. Those people think for themselves.

Makes me embarrassed to be a Texan.

Earth Day chuckle

Today is Earth Day, a day where we show our concern for our planet - our only home. Our planet is having some issues, like high carbon content in the atmosphere. Actually, the planet couldn't care less, it's the non-carbon breathing animals on the surface who are complaining. Don't worry, the planet will be just fine. It will heal itself, like any living organism, after it purges the pus-filled plague that roams its surface.

The plant life on the surface is designed to enjoy carbon content in the atmosphere. The trees and other plants will take care of it, or they would if they were still here and not being butchered to make room for useless cult centers littering the landscape or for more home for hyper-reproductive cult members. There should be a ban on cult center - one every fifty miles minimum.

This brings me to the "chuckle."

During my four hour, five-pints-o'-Guinness lunch, the tv was tuned to AMC for a showing of Two Mules for Sister Sarah. I had never seen all of it but it is okay for a western. During the final, climactic battle between the French soldiers and the Mexican rebels, I smiled to myself as the pieces fell into place: Earth Day, this movie on tv, Catholics killing Catholics.

Happy Earth Day.

Pharyngula: Billy Graham answers his email

Link: From Pharyngula
Original source: Kansascity.com

DEAR BILLY GRAHAM: Why do people get involved in cults? My cousin has gotten involved in one, and no matter what we say to him, he refuses to listen. He says we are the ones who are in the dark, and he alone in our family has found the truth. — S. McM.

And then, Billy Graham spoke. Paragraph One...

DEAR S. McM: One characteristic of cults is that they strongly believe they alone are right in their beliefs and everyone else is wrong. Thus they reject the central truths of the Bible that Christians have held in common for almost 2,000 years and substitute their own beliefs for the clear teaching of Scripture.

The poor, drooling bastard. You know he did not see this at all. Hmm. He must be right.

(Thanks, PZM)

Not the joyful bondage for which I hoped.

There have been many times that I was ready to knock this one out and would not. Finally, it takes a death close to home to help one find the strength to take keyboard under hand and let it all out.

Overview: Marriage is a redundant, antiquated, superfluous, unnecessary, bogus institution that has no place in an intelligent, modern society.

Much is made of the institution of marriage by people with a vested interest in its perpetuation: theo-factional group leaders. You hear volumes of rhetoric about marriage is a sacred institution and marriage is between a man and a woman. Those two bites, right there, are the worst. If you examine the language used – matrimony, (joyful) bonds of matrimony, wedlock, conjugal – much of it has roots which are demeaning to a free-thinking, free-willed individual. I will come to that momentarily.

Marriage is sacred?!! What a load of crap. Pagans had marriage long, long before the psychotic cultist turds of today came along. Going back to pre-xian Roman times, it was partly to ensure legitimacy of offspring. Yes, it worked just as well then as now. If marriage is so awesome, why do couples have paternity tests?

Marriage is between a man and a woman? Here is another bovine with diarrhea. Matrimony is between a man and a woman. The word comes from Latin and is translatable as "to lead or guide into motherhood." You do not hear matrimony used as much now. After all, an elderly couple who marry cannot have matrimony. What about a couple who do not intend or are unable to have children? What about a couple who already have kids from prior situations and need/want absolutely no more? No matrimony there either. That's probably why marriage is heard more today. It covers more of the bases.

With that out of the way, is it really between just a man and a woman? Who cares? Considering how infinitely personal religion is, this is nothing more than an individual's religion – an individual's particular hangups – insinuating itself into someone else's business. What despicable arrogance. Originally, matrimony was not a religious ceremony. It was social. Superstitious peoples involved their gods in the ceremony for good luck. Today, the cultists are forced to adopt (now that is a funny word choice) a new term: marriage. Without asking anyone else, the new term now has to take on the same reverence as the displaced word.

Some people are married to their work. Is their job their partner? Does it complete that person? Too bad if that is the case. One might go so far as to think that this person is a bit deranged. Why this person and not the members of a couple...or the cultists doing the screaming? It's a double standard. As it has been said before: if two people love and care for each other, let them be together.

Something else that comes up when discussing marriage is that it is a sacred contract, a covenant, between two people. This is the part that I loathe the most. Two people do not need a contract—a set of rules and stipulations—to live together, have fun together, produce offspring, and finally grow old together. Two rational, sane, intelligent people do not need it because they will simply do it anyway. Another term that relates to marriage is conjugal. This is another word from Latin that literally mean "yolked together" - as in cattle. Does that sound like something intelligent people do? Intelligent people can easily work together to make a happy life for themselves. Dumb animals have to be tied to one another and have a driver whip them to go in the right direction—okay, just "a direction." Who is that driver? Take your pick: religion, society, tradition, guilt or any other members of the Anti-Progressive Club.

Between having to use a new term and the mainstreaming of the gay culture starting in the Eighties, the cultists have felt pushed into a corner. Many things in society that used to belong to them have been whittled away in the name of equality. There is very little left to them - thank the spaghetti for that! They deserve nothing special in an age of enlightenment. If anything, their behavior only highlights their hatred and bigotry. You cannot really blame them since their guide is a book that is confusing, anachronistic, and self-contradictory. One thing that is somewhat clear is that their supposed deity said "love thy neighbor as thyself." Pretty embarrassing, if you ask me. If they are so full of self-loathing, maybe they should kill themselves and leave the planet to people who do not have hang-ups, who have compassion, who can tolerate others and have it not impact their lives. How can I help them on their way? I know, let's eliminate all marriage-related benefits. That is equality and they hate it.

Die, hypocritical bastards, die, and take your bullshit institution with you.

For Karl.
This post was originally conceived: 2008-Jun-02

It just shows that all faiths are uptight

Link: PLAYGIRL BUDDHA SPARKS OUTRAGE



Even though this is a parody and it is about Buddhists, there are Buddhists who would not only be offended but react in a militant and violent way. This is the inherent problem with religion itself. They all have a figure on which to focus. If that figure is attacked or parodied, the pathetic followers wind themselves up and go on the warpath.

That is why everyone should ignore the ceremony and false idols of the pageantry of the religion and focus solely on the philosophy that it pushes. Buddhism is a great philosophy. The philosophies of Xianity and Islam are not bad and worth pursuing by their followers. It is the phony bullshit that is slapped on to give a job to some schmuck in a robe that is inherently bad.

Technorati Tags:
cults, faith, philosophy, religion, rational thinker

Though for the day

St. Francis Xavier, founder of the Jesuits, said "Give me the child until he is seven, and I will give you the man," meaning, of course, that if you brainwash small children with any idiot set of beliefs (like, say, the virgin birth, divinity of Christ, necessity for ritual cannibalism, and triune nature of the Godhead), you'll have them by the frontal lobes of the brain for the rest of their lives. They will never escape it.

-- Greg Costikyan

Link to original article about the Candy-Land board game: http://playthisthing.com/candy-land

Technorati Tags:
cults, religion, social evil, thoughts

Judge to Texas FLDS cult moms: choose your kids or your religion

Fantastic pronouncement. However, in the spirit of equal protection under the law, all parents should choose between practicing a religion and having children. Once the children are grown and reach adulthood, parents may then elect to submit their free will to Fantasy Daddy. Politicians constantly shoot fire out of their asses about protecting children. Why are they not protecting children from all religions?

Some additional thoughts regarding the Fundamentalist mormon cult in Texas

There definitely is no religious freedom in American but fortunately it works both ways. Personally, I would rather have splinter xian groups, like this quiet, contained, yet nutty Mormon enclave, dotting the landscape than wacky, disturbing, loud-mouthed fundamentalist groups like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or any of those sanctimonious luddites with TV ministries. I digress.

I have not kept up with this story because it is not an important issue to me. I have a position on child abuse but nowadays, abuse is as over-used and over-extended as hero. I once saw an billboard saying that teachers are heroes. No. They can be someone's hero but their actions are not heroic. Fighting fires and patrolling the streets also is not heroic. Running back into a burning building four times to rescue people and keeping innocents safe in a violent situation is. Unfortunately, those actions come as a high price. That is heroic. I digress.

Was this all a setup to allow the government to poke its head in and pull off a raid? Maybe but how did they know that this was going on? Someone would had to have reported it, even before an operation to plant someone inside. If Sarah - a good Jewish name - is real, she is probably sequestered as a government witness. I doubt that weapons were the reason because the Feds would have moved differently, despite Waco - because the government goes by the manual and never learns. No, I am sure that their interest was the the welfare of the children. The government loves children and in much the same way the adult males of the sect were. George Carlin has a wonderful routine about the government's love/hate relationship with children: it loves the pre-born but once you are born, you are F-ed (George Carlin : Back in Town/, one of his best shows).

This is biggest issue of the bunch: the kids. America has developed a culture and society that oppresses children. Some kids are impressive because, even at eight or ten, they can carry on an educated, adult conversation because its parents cared about their child. It was exposed to information and knowledge, allowed to explore the world of ideas and develop their own, even treated as an adult. Just imagine if kids today were given the opportunity to reach for the boundaries. I think that America would not be the five hundred pound retarded gorilla that it is today. We would be Europeans.

No matter how much people dislike the concept, humans are animals - just like a dog, cat, monkey, bird or fish. When animals reach menarche, they start mating. When young apes reach the age to reproduce, they are driven off because they are sexual rivals to the parents. That is adulthood. Society and its culture define an artificial - i.e., unnatural - boundary. It goes against our innate nature. Males reach their sexual peak at seventeen or eighteen - the societal age of adulthood.

What was hyped to no end in the media was that young women were being married to older men and having children. Oh, no! Young women were having sex. That is the red alert. I think that there were a few mentions of young males being married off but those quickly disappeared from the story because that is a badge of honor for men, or it was completely false to try and lessen the perceived gravity of the situation. Women were being the sexual creatures that they are. Is it abuse? No. Obviously it is not an issue to reproduce so young or the body would not work that way. Oops, I meant to say that gawd would not have fashioned to body to work that way. Society is to blame for the age of consent problem but it is understandable. Populations would become unmanageable and drain resources, lowering the quality of life of adults. Then we would become a third-world country. In reality, medicine is to blame for this. Old people live too long, but I digress.

Xianity is wholly to blame. Saint Paul, the Apostle, was celibate but at least he did not pound his chest about it. He has plenty of crimes to answer for as is. There is another Saint, maybe Augustine or someone else, who is responsible for the establishment for xianity's attitude towards sex on top of its existing fear and hatred of women. He is a mega-hypocrite because he only came to this realization after literally screwing everything under the sun (I do have a source to quote this that I will find and insert here) and finding gawd. It is unclear if the two are related. Augustine definitely is responsible for the concept of Original Sin - not the act of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge but A&E gettin' their freak on. The reason why is another topic altogether. I try not to digress.

So, to sum up: this incident is a hollow show of protecting female "children" because they were being married off to older men, breaking the artificial rule of the society surrounding their enclave regarding sexuality and children, also artificially defined, all because some old man, 1600 years ago, was tired of sex and additionally because of the fear of the inexorable power of female sexuality.

Technorati Tags:
idiocy, oppression, religion, cults, freedom

Religions to get behind

A cheery hello to all rational thinkers out there…the rest I ask kindly for you to go visit the Great Big Sky Daddy and stop bothering us! We will be sad to see you go, we truly will, as you provide us such merriment (can you hear the sardonicism?) …all things must come to an end…even the Big Invisible Sky Daddy.

Well I have been asked to guest post. I want to bring to light those religions we can get behind or support.

Here are the rules:
1) The religion requires its adherents to keep this contagion to themselves.
2) The religion must be Polytheistic in nature.
3) The religion must be oriented towards the worship of nature.
4) The religion must require sacrifice (lots of sacrifices).
5) The religion must require lots of sex between its worshipers. Note: Sexual preference is a personal matter. A truly wise God would not care what is going into where on whom. Only Gods with psychological problems would make [sic] time to care how the sex gets done. Remember folks, these are Gods. We must wonder about those Gods who have time enough to be concerned about sexual practices of their worshipers. We all know they are far to busy running the universe to care. So you Gods out there who do in fact care and have taken the pains to have your “free willed” disciples write about sexual taboos go get some therapy. May I suggest Adachigahara, or Patecatl for your personal therapist or perhaps Freud “Sometimes a God with a lighting bolt is just a God with a lighting bolt.”
6) Faith, although necessary, is not founded in a big invisible Sky Daddy who loves us all but in a belief that most people are simple minded and need to be tended like sheep on their way to the abattoir--hence the creation of religion.
7) Not all rules 2-5 need be met but at least one of them must be met along with rule 1, which is mandatory.

Religions I can get behind. Although there are many religions out there that one could select as proper I will bring a few to our attention as examples of the kinds that we should get behind either singularly or as a whole.

Druidism: Note: The original Druid Religion not the watered down modern version.
Cult of Dionysus: That crazy god??? Who wouldn't love a drunken sex maniac like that!
Aztec Religion: But hey let’s not get too out of hand folks.
Loki: Even though this is not a religion he can be worshiped. And hey, everybody loves a trickster.
Adekagagwaa: Here is the spirit of summer. Everybody loves the heat and the skimpy clothes that follow.
The Ancient Greeks had it correct. Any of their Gods will do.
Witchcraft (or Bitchcraft depending upon the time of the month--can you hear the screams?). Now this is not a true religion. But the empowerment of oneself by oneself…Ahh divine!
(side note: Hey! Where are the feminists??? They need to be standing up for us men so we can practice mencraft.)

ABOVE ALL….PLEASE…if you find yourself desiring a religion that is monotheistic, Don’t.
Reference: For a detailed listing of the many reasons against this look up any of the tragedies of human history since monotheism became an option. Note: Monotheism is an optional religion this means that it is secondary to Polytheism.