Religion is an Illusion: 3 minute persuasive speech

Before starting off, I would like to inform you that I'm your bro-h with a religious upbringing. It just so happens that a friend of mine needed help on writing a speech about how religion is just a false idea.

Illusion is implied here with the definition of a “false idea.” From the title itself you might get a grasp of the statement’s essence: Religion, as a whole, is merely an idea conceptualized by our forefathers.

Yet here we are, a religious country, might as well say overzealous when it comes to it, who continues to believe even if we do so out of…habit – blind followers. Here, where the Church manages to hold the government to a stand still whenever they find something ‘harmful’ to the Christian belief of the populace – Theocracy.

Having a senate in the Church sounds appealing

So how does one exist without factual proof of his lifetime besides the words passed down from centuries before by his disciples? How do we validate the authenticity of what is written on the pages of the bible’s New Testament when many of the Old Testament’s contents are not only directly contradictory to itself but also contradicts what the latter testament detests?

On the topic of the Bible, since it is what they see as the strongest evidence of Christianity’s history, there are inconsistencies present when describing the events during Jesus’ life between the authors of different books of the New Testament. Written in the Old Testament, what were perceived as scientifically true back then, such as the explanation that the earth is the center of the universe and how the sun revolves around it, are now considered fallacy backed up by factual proof. Every Saint sees polygamy and prostitution heinous whereas their ancestors preached the coming of Christ with their own hands dirtied from the acts they've committed which, during their time, were considered morally correct, although they might have a valid reason: to populate the earth.

Sigmund Freud interprets why people still believe due to three reasons; because our primal ancestors believed, because we have proof that has been handed down through antiquity, and third is we are not allowed to question the authenticity. Emphasizing on the third interpretation, this is how our country is right now. To be conservative to the point of neglecting the desirable growth of the nation is worse than sacrificing some ideals that have been/are likely to be unreal or which it cannot be adopted to the demands of the current society.

Sigmund Freud smoking Tobacco

The only thing that keeps the beliefs of not only Christianity but of all the religion is the faith mustered from each individual, but with the evolving world we live in today I’m unsure of how they will keep up.

Opinion: Gun Control

Gun Control, or Man Control?

How gun control could actually further suppress the rights of the population

Paulo, a friend/bro/co-worker/Proporter*, and I have been filming a documentary on the prevalence of crime within Pasadena, and earlier today we covered a protest over a gun show in Glendale. Although I admire the sentiments of the people who were out under the sun holding their placards for hours, I'm unable to sympathize with their main cause: gun control as a way to diminish crime.

To begin with it, the Second Amendment states that individuals not in service of the military have the right to be gun owners and shall not be infringed. With this in mind the very essence of gun control contradicts the amendment as it is. 

This isn't a collective right but an individual right, and hence once gun control pushes through it would not only suppress the item's distribution and use but also suppress the person to exercise their right of possessing fire-arms as a means of self-defense.

It is not the gun that's doing the killing - an object can't act on its own accord. It is the owner who, as his motives and actions exhibit, has a distorted outlook/comprehension when considering what is seen as "violent."

Fending against a person with an AK-47 with Tae Kwon Do doesn't look promising.

 Albeit I think having guns licensed is a way- or a step - that could minimize the use irresponsible owners of fire-arms for the dissemination of violence since the government authorities will have information on the owner, type of gun, where and when it was bought, etc. As said by one of the protesters, think of it similarly to how your car and pet gets licensed. It legalizes the ownership  take away from them. gun culture.

Another way brought up by someone who was in line for the gun show is having the dealers carry out a thorough background check of the client to see fit his credibility as a prospective owner. Coupled with the suggestion above, manages to regulate without suppressing the individual right of a person.

Regulated malice is better than anarchy (protester)

*Proporter - Professional Reporter; removing "re-" and substituting it with an anomalous prefix "pro-",  which is short for professional. I have a habit of replacing the first syllables of words with it, even if the original word loses all its sense after the modifications...