What I learned in Sunday School

Sometime it takes longer for concepts to soak into head than others. Like when I talk to someone about construction, I have a history working in this field and so I can normally keep along with the conversation, likewise with many automotive principles, while complicated can be understand at least in concept and talked about as an intelligent customer or consumer.

However, today was the first time I think the real driving and motivating force of Christianity came through my head. I had an atypical day off one recent Sunday and took advantage of the time to go and check out a local “Sunday School” class. The main issue with finding a Sunday school class is that there is no unifying time for them to start. So you have to drive around and look at the signs or go up to the door and see when this or that church decide it is time to learn about their God and the Bible. This particular day took me past four options before 9:20 am. The first place didn’t have anything posted, which I always take as a sign that they really don’t care what you know only that you believe what they say. This was a more Charismatic church, go figure. The next two were Lutheran, about two blocks apart, one was Missouri synod, the other was Wisconsin Synod, and the first one was having Sunday school at 9:30 and the other and 9:45 am. Across the street near both of these church is a Catholic Church and School; it seems that is one religious road. Since it was just after 9:00 I decided to look a bit further, this took me to a Baptist Church. Not like Westboro Baptist Church but I would guess a more typical Baptist church. I got there about 9:20 am and they started at 9:45 am, of course. Three churches three different start times.

I spend a few minutes in my care listening to “Ask an Atheist” podcast before I go into join them. I walk around and use the toilet before the class to get the only relief I will find in that place, more than likely. Of course this being Sunday at church, people tend to “dress up” well I wore shorts and a polo shirt, you know, typical clothes. I saw they had three CO-ED classes. So I had to look at the rooms and guess which one I thought would give me the best “bang” for my buck. [No money traded hands during the making of this story.] So I saw a classroom with some questions listed concerning the Gospel of John. I thought, A-ha, questions, I’ll be able to speak. So after making my choice I went into the room and in typical Baptist fashion, no one was sitting on the front seats, so I did. “I ain’t no Baptist.”

Prior to the class starting some older woman came up to me to get me to fill out a card with my name and personal information. I asked her, “What is this for?”

She said, “It is so we can have a recorded of your attendance.”

“I really don’t see any reason for that.” She looked at me oddly and went back and sat down.

Now, one thing that has soaked through my head is that Church is the place to tell stories about other people and pretend you’re doing something. You know, prayer requests. Well they mentioned a few and some other shit that really wasn’t anybody else business. So this is my conclusion on prayer, it is the way people can find out about other people’s lives while acting like they care about them.

Back to the class, the teacher was about in his mid-60s and was what you might think about an older gentleman, raised in the church Baptist member, short hair, and hearing aid and in an old but nice suit. I have noticed that if you “break” a social norm in church, you either get totally ignored or much more attention than you desire. This day I got ignored.

The leader of the class began by stating that he would have to leave after 20 minutes due to some baptism. Hearing this made me so sad to hear such news.

“Crap, I thought non-believers are growing faster than this.”

So the leader of the class began his discussion of John the book, There were several topics mentioned including Nicodemus, spiritual mysteries, physical mysteries, salvation, titles, and several other issues, not to mention, John 3:16, which oddly didn’t come up. But the discussion of salvation sure the hell did.

But as I listened to the lecture, because the only questions, which were few, were answered with the “whisper” voice you hear if you attend Sunday school, you don’t want to be WRONG in Sunday school. That might mean you’re learning something.

As the leader of the class continued his lecture I could tell that it wasn’t the content that he was getting wrong as much as failure to see the illogical connections he was making.

Picking and choosing from this story or that story of the Bible or just simply taking a story out from life and incorporating that as support for a the statements of foolishness. That is when I realized, they don’t care about facts, and they just care about their story.

It is like living with role playing people but these people think their game is real.

This was the church: http://southcountybaptist.com/#/new-to-scbc

Atheists and sexuality

Often when religious adherents encounter an atheist for the first time a common comment they say is that they don't think pornography is right. I have heard this several times from different religious adherents in various places and times around the country. Of course this represents a very gross misunderstanding of what an atheist is. As I have stated before it has little to do with what one does but with what one fails to believe. Usually this is due to the lack of evidence to conclusively show that there is a supernatural nature to, well, anything. This being the very defining characteristic of an atheist. If you notice there is nothing in it that relates to or is dependent on anything sexually.

So why is there such a misconception among the religious adherents about the sexual mores of atheists? There are several paths that we can take to lead us to the answers. One is due to the belief that adherents see their morality as being derived from a supernatural source they make the mistaken assumption that the absence of this moral code would result in the practice of what that code set up as prohibitive. This is, of course, nothing but a logical fallacy, a non-sequitur. The facts of the issue are much less enticing.

While it is true that as a generalized group, atheist are more likely to be accommodating or practicing in some sort of sexual behavior that is otherwise prohibited in most religious dogma. The reality is much less fatuous and frivolous. As we are “fortunate” to learn that the promoters of such sexual moral codes are often the ones that are the ones that are often most entangled in the same behavior that the try so hard to restrict. It has been said before that the more one protest or wishes to restrict a behavior are the ones most likely to be the ones involved of most willing to accommodate it's practice in their own lives. From this, I personally view that the more a person or group promotes restrictive sexual behavior the more likely it is that somewhere in the group these taboos are practiced. Is there a sexual restriction that seems unusual from an ethical point of view? I would say that this is either used as a cover for some other sexual behavior or for the particular sexual behavior that they are against in their dogma. This is my opinion but it is based upon the reports and experiences that are reported in the news from time to time.

To this end, I find that atheist are fortunate in that these dogmatic hang-ups that so many religious adherents are forced to suffer through. The prohibition of natural behavior is something the religion is quite good at. When it comes to food, sex and clothing, religion has something to say almost every time on these subjects. So it should come as no surprise that normal sexual behavior is one of the most restrictive areas that the adherents of religion focus on. Things such as homosexual partners, sexual actions, number of sexual partners, time for sexual behavior, age of sexual actions and so on have “answers” in the dogma of religious adherents. Theses answers, of course, are already part of the moral and ethical codes of human behavior. There are reasons for and against certain sexual behavior and the reason for practicing them. Atheist are more likely to be less restrictive of sexual actions that are committed by mutual consent by adults.

Biologically there is no reason for most of the restrictions that religious adherents push including the right or a woman to control her own body and the time and place she wishes to have children, if she even wants to have any at all. It is a real problem for the male dominated religions to accept the idea that woman are able to exercise the freedom that men have been able to enjoy for so long. This is really a none issue with atheists other than wishing that a person makes the best decision for their particular situation.

So under the banner of atheist, there is plenty of room for persons of atypical yet totally acceptable sexual behavior to find acceptance. It is not uncommon to find a person at an atheist meeting that is homosexual or a couple that by choice desires to not have children or even a relationship that involves more than two persons. The only level of acceptance is that the people are pleased in the conditions and are not trying to force or otherwise promote illegal activity. Rape is still viewed as a violent action and is generally viewed as a action that requires the perpetrator to be punished. Sadly, even this has exception with in the range of religious dogma.

To surmise, atheists are not the sexual perverts that the religious adherents may believe that they are. That would more likely be the actual religious adherents themselves. Atheist are generally more accepting of a wider range of sexual behavior than the religious adherents. This acceptance is borne out of the idea that it really doesn't matter after all. As long as one can function and productively contribute then that should be the moral standard for acceptance of a person. Not the person they have sexual relations with.

Chapter Six; RELIGION AND POLITICS IN AMERICA part eighteen

Recently, Nevada United States Senator John Ensign had a 'consensual affair' with a campaign staffer who was “married to an official Senate staffer,” the statement from his office said.i Ensign who, like me, was a member, of the Christian men's movement Promise Keepers, said that, "I deeply regret and am very sorry for my actions." Somehow when the term consensual affair, I don't really think the woman's husband was consenting to the affair.


Ensign was one of the vocal republican Senators calling for Senator Larry Craig of Idaho to resign after Senator Craig was arrested in a Minneapolis airport men's room sex sting in 2007, which Craig plead guilty to. Ensign also figured prominently in the book The Family, by Jeff Sharlet. ii


Craig was also a vocal Republican . In 1998, he called for the resignation of President Bill Clinton after news of his liaison with Monica Lewinsky was revealed. Ensign has not resigned his senate seat but resigned his leadership position in the Republican party. Ensign's wife, Darlene, is standing with him and has said, "I love my husband," in statements, “and that the affair has made their relationship 'stronger.'”


While the affair is bad enough, one would conclude that it reflects a serious ethics violation in as much as the woman, he had the affair with, was the wife of one of his campaign staff. Yet even with this the biggest issue is the hypocrisy of this man.


The same scandal with a Democrat would still admit the issue, but the career of a Democrat is much less likely to be destroyed. Bill Clinton survived his scandal and ended his term in office with high approval ratings. Other Democrats have similarly been able to overcome the sex scandals and either keep their office, and at times even been reelected. The point, of this example, is to show the hypocrisy of this party that reflects the values of the American religious right. Time and time again they fall prey to their own natural human desire. These people lead the charge for traditional American values yet time and time again are the worse of violating the values that they say they support. Not to mention that traditional American values doesn't really mean anything to begin with. It is a slogan to help polarize and separate one group of Americans from other Americans. So the honest way to look at traditional American values is that these value followers seek to attack and criticize people they see as different from their key talking point.


Getting back to Sen. John Ensign, I do not fault Ensign for being human. I do fault him for not realizing that humans cannot be held to a unrealistic standard of behavior imposed by religious dogma and promoted by political parties. His calls for the resignation of both Bill Clinton and Larry Craig should serve as his own standard of conduct. Anything less shows the continued double standard that the Republican party and its religious right holds for violation of certain ethics.


Non-believers have an advantage over religious adherents in that they can be trusted. Most non-believers are non-violent. They do not wish to fight or kill others. Non-believers also have a desire or quest for facts, or as I call it, truth. Therefore, their motives are usually clearer.


So, I ask, Why would a non-believer be a candidate for someone to be more trusted? Surely this runs counter intuitive to conventional wisdom. Or does it? As I have mentioned through the earlier definition, non-believers do not have a dogma, in which they subscribe to, so they only have the natural world to base their motives and actions on. You will not see an atheist trying to limit the rights of a group based on two or three lines in an ancient book. To be honest,an atheist my actually disagree with a person’s particular view but still be supportive of their right to have the view.


An atheist cannot justify killing , more than 3,000 people in a single day attack, to follow the belief of a religion. They surely wouldn't dream of a gift of several virgins after the attack. And if they survived the attack, they would expect nothing less than to be put persecuted to the fullest extent of the law.


You will not see an atheist sequester scores of followers that feel they are obeying the words of a supernatural being. You will not find an atheist using dogma as an excuse , to have young girls married off to older men just because the men say they have reached “womanhood”. Religion cannot motivate an atheist to blow up trains or buses or strap bombs to their chest, walk into crowed shopping areas and kill innocent people. Any religion that asks its adherents to subject their will to the dogma of religion is not worth following. There is a common good for all people. Society works best when we follow these ideas. These need not be dogma, only rules of social behavior.


That doesn't excuse bad behavior or non-believers from violent acts. People's motives that are not directly dogma-based can cause violence and oppression. Clearly, as I viewed the smoke coming up April 19, 1995, at the Murrah bombing that killed 168 Americans, I could not have believed it was directly, religiously motivated. Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh were, however, ideologically motivated by a segment of belief, which is dogmatic. Just seven years before that April day, I took my oath of enlistment into the United States Army by a former Air Force officer roommate, after going through the MEPS processing in the Murrah building. I have seen first hand the vile poison that comes from the radicals from the right of political thought. Not to say that left political radicalism is any good either but the idea is that the right seems much more indoctrinated into the idea that violence is a action that is a viable option. Taking up arms against the “enemies” of freedom can even result in patriotic pride and the previously mentioned polarization and separation from mainstream society.


When a group removes oneself away from opinions that can calm, challenge provoke, educate, and moderate their points of view, they will soon find that the path that their thoughts lead them too is one of self destruction and possibly harm to others.


The same can be said about the April 20, 2000 , Columbine School shootings in Lakewood, CO. I was not in Colorado, when that happened. The same deeply held belief and distortion of reality motivated the shooters in that tragedy. The point is that the belief in a supernatural dogma adds to the likelihood that otherwise “good” people will do bad things. If one is not willing to question what they believe, then they can be manipulated into doing things they cannot believe they would otherwise do.


Every atheist I have talked to feels strongly that we, as humans, must do what we can to better ourselves and help our fellow man. If there was anything like dogma for an atheist, this would be the one and only thing I think that would qualify. Oddly enough, most of the religions that support the right to life would be surprised to find that abortion is really a non-issue to most atheists. By that, I mean that it is a split topic among atheists. The main idea is that if abortion is legal, it should be safe and accessible. People, like admitted murderer, Scott Roeder, arrested and convicted for shooting Dr. George Tiller, act as if the law was insufficient to deal with his preferred issues and he took the law into his own hands. This is another example of how removal from socializing and moderation of different points of view can lead to radical and deadly actions.


One point of view on abortion is, is that is that since humans have one time to go around in this life. A woman should not have an abortion since that is a life that can add to the advancement of humanity. Another point of view, is that as humans (women) have the means and the right to decide what happens to their bodies. I find both points valid. The main difference is that as non-adherents, we do not have to satisfy a religious dogma to deal with the situations of issues. We can do what serves the best result in the situation. Of course this can be viewed as self serving. But, it can also let a person act best for the situation, instead of relying on a dogma. If a woman is raped, should she be punished? This is the dogmatic view of some religions and right leaning politicians. Are you “sinning” if you speed? Some think this is a sin against God and that an incentive to not get a speeding ticket is not enough. Is having an intimate relationship with someone of the same opposite sex any persons business, but the two adults involved? Many religions have strong views, although I would contend they are based upon prejudice and false information. There are millions of people having sex everyday all day long and not only do I not know about, other than by understanding about statistics, I really could careless as long as it doesn't endanger my health or safety.


If one can understand this , then you can get insight as to what being a non-believer is all about. Dan Barker, of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, said,in his biography that near the end of his time as a Christian pastor he was going through the motions. Ostensibly, since announcing he was an atheist would basically end his occupation. After giving even, what he felt, was a half hearted message, people would still come up to him and tell him that the Holy Spirit moved them through his message. When I heard this, I understood what he was talking about. I found the same hypocrisy in religion as well. Barker said that he now could understand how religion worked. It was not only him, as the preacher, that helped set up the false world of religion but also the followers, who were party to supporting the messages they heard. It is a truly self-fulfilling prophecy.iii It was a seed planted many years ago, when my friend Dave, as mentioned earlier, told me that you could use the Bible for any purpose you wished. In our society we certainly do that.


We have a series of marketed religions in the United States, since the state doesn't sponsor, support of endorse a religion. [Or so we try to keep it from doing.] Basically, for any perspective one has, there is a church already in place in America to serve that view. If not, one can easily be made to fit that image. An example of this ranges from churches that allow multiple wives, such as the Yearning for Zion cult in Texas, to Unitarian Universalist congregations found in many cities throughout the county.iv The UUs, as they call themselves, say you can believe any dogma or none at all. It is as close to an atheist church with a remnant of dogma as I have heard of. Of course, a totally non-religious church would be The Ethical Society.v They call their Sunday morning gatherings platforms instead of a service or sermon.


To go on , I have met very liberal, non-believers and very conservative non-believers. One of the more famous atheists is Christopher Hitchens. He has many views that I disagree with. It is interesting to listen to him on a talk show and be in total agreement with what he is saying about how religion ruins everything. Next, he is defending President George W. Bush. But, that is the point I want to make. It isn't a dogma that an atheist has, it is the lack of dogma that makes us the people that we are. I also have the feeling that I could convince Hitchens to the validity of the points we disagree on. While he has reason that can be disputed, he would likewise listen to logical arguments. If he felt I made a valid point he would accept it. Like me, he has no dogma to defend. It doesn't change his strength of character, to admit he is wrong or to adopt another point of view. I do not lose my faith if something I currently believe in is show to be false. I just adapt a more accurate point of view. But faith is so manically that if a tentacles of faith is shown to be wrong that the person can see this is a valid reason to doubt their entire system of viewing the Universe. It can truly be quite disturbing and even dangerous for someone to face the fact that a thing they believe may not be as true as their faith as assigned meaning to it. This all by itself is a strong enough reason to take a stand against religion.


This helps explain the motivation of non-believers. Non-believers do not have to “spread the word” to every human on the planet , for a heavenly fireworks display to take place and we can do the inverse bungee jump to heaven. We do not have to make a long distance journey to walk around a rock in a black box. We do not need to have a messianic cartographer make our map for us. Then kill those that he says are on our “promised land.” We can be happy on any suitable piece of land as long as it provides what we need. It is more likely that a non-believer will act in his or her own self interest or the interest of something tangible, than the delusional dogma of a religious adherent.


The religious adherents often have to remind themselves of what it is they believe and why. It is not at all uncommon to find a Christian bookstore in a small town with many books on a variety of subjects and other items of interest to the believer. They will buy books, t-shirts, music, paintings, stickers, rings, and other items to help them remain blinded as much as possible to the possible “evil” influence of the “world.” But, it is hard for me, or other like minded people, to walk into a store and find books on the subjects of disbelief and fighting the influence of religious dogma. To be quite honest, most major authors on these subjects range from preeminent scientists, to former pastors, to journalists, to doctors and other career fields. Due to the approach of being a secularist, the diversity of topics can range from dealing with medical aspects of homeopathy and psychic surgery, to aspects of the nature of life and The Universe , to political ramifications of a religious groups’ actions. This can cause the books written by such people to be in many different sections of a mainstream bookstore. Quite different from a Christian bookstore indeed.


Walk into a Christian book store , the theological thinking has been done for you. Rarely will you find any book that will challenge the faith that brought you into the business, initially. The thing is a Christian bookstore is very deceptive. They are not really Christian at all but they are actually denominational book stores. This means it is easy to be immersed in the familiar and friendly ideas that do not threaten your way of thinking. But try looking for topics that do not fit their dogmatic point of view and you will be looked at as if you just stepped off the mother-ship. But if you go to a secualr bookstore you will have the ability to find books that might actually challenge your knowledge and help you to become a more intelligent person. I am glad I have to look for books and items that I wish to read. It certainly can be eye-opening. But of course many adherents seeking out a book on a topic are not so much interested in seeking an opposing view as they are to shoring up the view that they think shores up the view they think the Bible hold already. After all there is no reason to challenge a faith that is well grown and well entrenched.

xxivhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061602746.html

xxvhttp://jeffsharlet.com/

xxvihttp://www.ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/

xxiixhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061602746.html

xxixhttp://theethicalsociety.com/

Coming next time: Chapter Six; 

HERE IS YOUR SIGN part nineteen

Chapter Five; WHAT GOOD ARE NON-BELIEVERS? part seventeen

After the discussion of the church does good, let’s to follow with the good, non-believers. It seems there would be less to say in this area, than the prior one. I actually had to force myself to move on, as the topic is a bit unending and likewise, unnerving to tackle.
To begin, it is important to define what I view as a non-believer. This has been attempted many times, by both adherents and non-adherents. For discussion purposes, I will simply say that a non-believer is someone that does not believe in, either passively or actively, any religious dogma or believes in any supernatural beings, such as ghost, trolls, elves, demons, giants, fairies, griffins and so forth. Non-believers, also, do not acknowledge make-believe lands, such as Heaven, Hell, Krypton, Atlantis, Xanadu, El Dorado, Shambhala, Santa's North Pole, Nirvana, Shangri-La and so forth.
Anything beyond this , I prefer not to group or include in the definition. Basically, non-believers do not share any one set of world views. There is no dogma for non-believers. As it has been said by many more intelligent people than I, everyone is an atheist about most gods. Atheists and non-believers take it further one more god, than most. One final point, it will be a hard and long search find an atheist that says “categorically” there is no god. The point is that any evidence or proof put forth, falls short of convincing proof of a divine or supernatural. A strong atheist, like me, says there is a logical or reasonable explanation for whatever happens; no appeal to a supernatural is needed.
Now that we know what I mean by non-believer, let's see what good non-believers are. It is not that adherents of other religions are not good. By no means, the view that is common in much of the United States is that atheists cannot be trusted. Since becoming a non-believer in the late 1990's, I have made two observations. First, non-believers, for the most part, are more truthful and honest than believers. I guess I have a somewhat unique perspective, having the last name True. I always felt that it was something to live up to. Most non-believers I have talked to agree with the idea that lying should be avoided, if at all possible.
However, when as a Christian, I would lie, mislead, embellish and so forth, I never worried much about it. I knew that I had the Lord on my side and His great pink eraser in the sky to clean up the missteps. How great it is to know that whatever you do, can be erased with a few whispered words. That is an offer that is hard to refuse. Christian believers, with a smile on their face, can lie to a person without any regret, whatsoever. This is not the case with non-believers. We have one time to get it right. If we wrong someone, we have only that person to deal with, to make it right. That means, we have to deal with them face to face or at least admit to them, through writing. I notice that honesty is a much more common policy with non-believers, based upon personal experience. I have seen some recent polls supporting this view.
When believers surveyed about their personal behavior, they are more likely to say what they “should” say. Non-believers reveal a more realistic view of their morals and honesty. A non-adherent doesn't have a “goal” to reach as far as their personal integrity. They just have to decided what works best in society and for themselves. I have heard and seen this through a variety of sources, dealing with different surveys over the years. In a way, it makes sense that an atheist would be “the least trusted group” in America, because we are more likely to be honest. There may indeed be a commandment that tells the believers not to bare a false witness, but the believers would be hard pressed to have it apply to them in their daily life. Maybe if they were killed for a violation of breaking the truth, then there would be more people willing to adhere to the truth. But, the truth is the enemy of religion and faith.
It is said that, “the truth will set you free” . In religion, the truth will get you in trouble. That is why there is so much secrecy in the upper echelons of churches. Many ministries try to hide their meetings behind councils or boards to advise the ministers or spiritual leaders. Misdirection and subterfuge are the tools of many churches, and works well most.
Many adherents admit that they are not perfect but they are forgiven. The truth of the matter is that they are indeed forgiven. The person doing the forgiving is themselves. So as long as they go “genuflect” then they have received the forgiveness that they think that they deserve. By genuflect I mean any traditional process that one can do that is said to produce a desired effect though it really is vestigial in reality. It shows it self in more as a traditional process instead of a faith based reality when one asks a person to actually help and there is no action on that person part.
I was told one time that you can judge a person by the actions that they take with their life and that their actions speak louder than their words. Based upon this I would have to conclude that most of the faithful do not even know much less believe in the religion that they adhere to. Anyone that says they love God and has hate or ill will toward their fellow man is a liar and doesn't know what the Bible teaches. Even those that hide behind the current phrase about God hating the sin but loving the sinner fail to take into consideration that Jesus was the one that reached out to and spent most of his time with the poor, homeless the outcasts of his society. I am sure that most of the atheist that I have meet had Christians show the love they profess in their lives when they were searching for the truth that most of them would still be adherents Today. By this I say, believers are to blame for most people leaving the faith.

Coming next time: GOD IN CHAOS: 

Chapter Six: RELIGION AND POLITICS IN AMERICA part eighteen

Chapter One; THE NATURAL WORLD part one

The purpose of this book is to examine and understand the purpose of religion in the view of the Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection. It is hoped that you and I will work to explore some of the ideas of God, Religion, and the supernatural in America and the world. I am not going to take the time to explain the detailed biological aspect of Natural Selection. To be quite honest the nuts and bolts of the process from the lab and such are beyond my current knowledge. One thing that makes this book so great is that I use interpretive analysis of the evidence to explain the concepts. There are a great many books and videos available at your local library or bookstore that can give you the background you need on the subject.12 For one of many Internet resources the University of California at Berkley provides a nice primer to begin with.3 One of my favorite, as you will learn in section three, is Cosmos: A Personal Journey.4 Just as with the probability of life must be common enough for it to occur at least one place in the Galaxy or universe, because we are here and alive. Likewise, there must be a reason for religion in human evolution because it is also here in every culture known on Earth.
It may seem like a strange idea for me as an atheist to to try to explain and even justify a reason for religion. I am not sure I will be able to go as far as to justify it but I will try to take a even handed look at its aspects and influences on modern life. I assure you I am far from the first one to do this and I may not be the best one to attempt this subject. I do, however, feel I have a somewhat a unique perspective on this subject as my background has been deeply involved in both science and religion. Without a doubt much more so in religion than science but both still very much self researched and pursued. My purpose in writing this is to help explain in more common terms how and why religion is used and some would say even needed at times by mankind.
Concerning science, I always had a curious nature of how things work. I remember as a young boy of eight or nine years old getting tools and taking apart things like radios, furniture, turntables to see how they worked then putting them back together. I was lucky that even at that age I knew it was a good idea to have the electric cord unplugged or I may not have had the chance to write this Today. I was glad when after putting the item back together it worked as it should. When I was not successful at reassembling something it would cause my mother no end of distress. The question usually was, “Thomas why on Earth would you take [insert item here] apart?” To which my answer would be, “ I wouldn't to see how it worked.”
Part of this curious nature came from my older brothers and I making plastic models as kids. We would go to the local T.G. & Y. discount store and buy all types of models they had, from cars to planes and ships of all sorts. Plus I learned to use the detailing tools with paint and sanding to make the models look their best. Then after spending hours upon hours making the cars look great we would have a “crash and burn” day. That is when we would take the cars and at different levels of destruction watch them come apart. Finally the result would be a glue enhanced fiery crash of two or more cars.
What this means to me is that a lot of attention to detail was a big part of my youth just to have it all go up in smoke for my own enjoyment. Even the smoke held fascination for me. As the plastic burnt it had a black smoke which was different than the smoke of grass burning or cigarettes or other things I had seen burn prior to that. Plus it was easy to capture by simply putting another piece of plastic above the flame and letting the black smoke gather on it. All this lead me to understand that there was a very specific process to be able to make models and to disassemble and reassemble household items.
I also spent hours walking all over the small town of Durant, Oklahoma to see what was around town. I was like a tourist and wanted to see everything that was around me. It was a curious world with the trees, rocks, streets, cars, homes and people all around me at different levels of condition all on the same street and city I was in.
As I remember, some of my most favorite things to do as a young boy was to watch the construction workers on the streets or on a housing site. I would stand by a backhoe and watch them dig deeper or longer and move the dirt out of the hole to the truck or to the side of the hole as it went along. Also I would watch as these men built homes putting up the frames and even walking around inside the wall less house. It is there when I notice that the plumbing fixtures came up through the concrete and the plumbers really didn't spend that much time at the work site. Only in the begging and the end. But it seemed the rest of the workers were there all the construction. So watching these men work provided me an early experience of how cause and effect was in reality. You raise a board, nail it to another board, continue the process soon your have a frame for a wall.
One of the other places that I would find myself at many times is when I heard a fire truck near by I would try to find it to see what was going on. If there was a fire I would watch the fire fighters working. It always fascinated me that they worked so fast but the fire would still destroy the building anyway. The town I lived in was very small so a fire anywhere in town wouldn't take that long to find anyway.
While on one of my walks I came upon a mimosa tree with leaves that were very small and would pull off easily into my hands. The result left the leaves in my thumb and forefinger a conical appearance to them. After pealing off several layers of these leaves I went to wash off the green from the leaves and to my amazement there was a soapy lather as I rub my hands together. I am not sure if this is a natural soap or just a normal reaction to that particular plants being rubbed underwater. I did take it to mean that if I ever needed to wash my hands and there was no soap but one of the mimosa trees I would use that. And I did use that information many times while I was a young boy. Another plant I gained knowledge from was the magnolia tree. They had these trees all over the town and they had peculiar flowers and buds. I found that is I picked the flower and rubbed it with my finger or tore it, very quickly it would turn from the white color to a dark brown. One thing for sure I learned about the magnolia tree id there flowers are very sent filled. I didn't mind playing with the buds of the tree but I didn't so much like the smell afterward, another lesson in cause and effect.
Walking around town looking at the creeks and streams, following them to see where they went and what was in and around them was also a past time I enjoyed. One time with some from friends from my neighborhood, we were at a nearby creek and found a huge turtle. We had found many other smaller ones in the past but this one had to be 14 to 16 inches, head to tail. It wasn't like the little snapper turtles that we normally found. We decided that turtle had to gotten there from a recent rain the day before. That was the only way we could figure out that the huge turtle could make it all the way down to that part of the creek. There very well may have been other ways but this was the conclusion we reached. Even at the age of eight my mind was piecing together cause and effects of the natural world. I know that things had to make sense naturally.




This small creek, a clear running stream in Durant, OK, is the same location where I spent time as a child with friends gathering crawdads, other small animals and exploring the natural world.

At this age most little boys want to have a place for themselves, a “fort, tree house” or “club” if you will. But what does a little boy know about construction? I knew that the walls had to be strong enough to support the roof. I had observed a lot of construction but doing is quite another thing. I also knew that if you didn't have enough wood to make it high enough to stand up in you can dig down into the ground to give yourself more headroom. Kevin Winguard, a friend of mine and I built a clubhouse secure enough to stand on its own and walk inside upright. We made the walls, roof and floor ourselves. We even ran a power cord out to it so we could have light and play music on my record player. Not only would it hold us, but my two brothers were actually was surprised how deep it was inside when they came in.



When I was eight or nine years old I lived at this house in Durant, OK. This backyard is where I built one of my many “forts” with my friend Kevin Winguard.

What Kevin and I had done was to put posts or boards into holes we dug into the ground to make sure it was high enough for us to stand in, yet deep enough to hold the weight. The walls were stepped and arranged in a circle and the opening was stepped down into the ground to get in and out easier. This clubhouse last for about six months.
What I have learned from this and other experiences like this is that when I see artifacts of man from the past. I see not only the history of man but my own history as a youth. When I used the tools and items around me to make something greater then what was there to begin with. Each step man has taken in progress is still with us today because we are the same men and woman of that time. We have just learned to build upon the work of other great inventors and ingenious people from before.

1 http://richarddawkins.net/
2 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
3 http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
4 http://www.carlsagan.com/