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!?

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