In new atheist children’s book, belief is for the dogs

The Kirkus review of Me & Dog, a new children’s book, includes a bit of understatement: “Picture books questioning the very existence of the Almighty are rarities.”

Me & Dog does just that—in an unusual and potentially provocative way.

In the book, created by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Gene Weingarten and illustrator Eric Shansby, a young boy accidentally steps on his dog’s tail—and the dog reacts by thinking he has done something wrong and is being punished. The boy realizes that, to the dog, he is all-powerful. As Weingarten, who is an atheist, explained in the Washington Post:

Depending on how you choose to read it, Me & Dog is either: 1. A sweet little book about a boy who goes on a walk with his dog, and accidentally steps on the dog’s tail, and the dog apologizes because it has an adorable, fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of existence; or 2. An insidious, deviant little parable brainwashing vulnerable innocents into doubting the existence of God. Or, conceivably, it is both of the above, or something in between the two.
Me & Dog is certainly unusual—but, by comparing belief in God to the relationship between a dog and his owner, is it unfair to believers?

I spoke with Weingarten to learn more about what inspired Me & Dog, how he discussed belief with his children when they were younger, and what he would say to those concerned that the book compares belief in God to the relationship between a dog and his owner.

Chris Stedman: What inspired this book?

Gene Weingarten: The inspiration was that, on a walk, I accidentally stepped on my dog Murphy’s foot. And she apologized. The entire storyline and parable flashed before my eyes in just a moment.

In a larger sense, though, I wrote the book because Amazon is filled with books about how to teach religion to children, and nary a one for children about the absence of faith. Also, Heaven Is For Real is a bestseller, and that revolts me.

- See more at: http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/10/13/new-atheist-childrens-book-belief-dogs/#sthash.0082v932.dpuf

Religious people being over sensitive about this?

A must to read, as the author's answers are excellent.

The dog apologised? He sounds barking mad to me. Haha!

Is funny you should say that, how apt.

Brasidas wrote:Is funny you should say that, how apt.

         

@OP
I think it is unfair to say there aren't atheist inspiring books...  all the dinosaurs books for a start, plus those 'book of facts' and 'amazing planet' type books...  And 'pagan' mythology books... I can remembers as a kid understanding that the Greek Gods Where worshipped in the past and people changed their minds which even to a 6 year old meant that God(s) are mad by man and not eh other way round.

I don't know about books for children, but as far as books older teens could handle, there's the Tomas Rivera collection I studied when I was 17 or 18 entitled "...y no se lo tragó la tierra." Several good translations exist, usually called "And the Earth Did Not Part." Basically the story has a devout Catholic boy becoming disillusioned with his faith and go so far as cursing God, believing it would cause the Earth to swallow him up for such a sin.

I might be persuaded to buy a few copies of that one for certain members as Christmas gifts

Brasidas wrote:Is funny you should say that, how apt.

Woof!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Is funny you should say that, how apt.

Woof!

Rags lol.....gave me the giggles


Didge thanks for the heads up.....am putting together book order for next month and this may be on it. I have a lot of children's religious books but none for the other side of the coin. depends on cost though.

Cass wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Woof!

Rags lol.....gave me the giggles


Didge thanks for the heads up.....am putting together book order for next month and this may be on it. I have a lot of children's religious books but none for the other side of the coin. depends on cost though.

You are welcome me Lady.

x

Raggamuffin wrote:
The dog apologised? He sounds barking mad to me. Haha!

THE same thought crossed my mind, as well...

What a load of dog poo.

Hi folks. Ben said back up the page: 'Basically the story has a devout Catholic boy becoming disillusioned with his faith and go so far as cursing God, believing it would cause the Earth to swallow him up for such a sin.'

I must confess that when I was in my twenties, and having gone through a trial period, I pulled into a quit layby, got out of the car, looked up to a starry sky, slung my fist into the air and shouted, 'I don't believe in you anymore.' I fully expected to be blasted into a billion atoms and scattered throughout the Universe. But nothing happened, and from that moment on my life began to change, for the better I might add.

Until that momentous occasion I had always been a good practicing religious lad. Having dumped the religious twaddle I was then free to explore many other beliefs, practices, and especially mythology, which certainly helped to put god (deliberate small g.) in the right perspective, just another mythological god, one of about 200 worldwide.

So, good on the author, and may other authors follow suit.

stardesk wrote:Hi folks. Ben said back up the page: 'Basically the story has a devout Catholic boy becoming disillusioned with his faith and go so far as cursing God, believing it would cause the Earth to swallow him up for such a sin.'

I must confess that when I was in my twenties, and having gone through a trial period, I pulled into a quit layby, got out of the car, looked up to a starry sky, slung my fist into the air and shouted, 'I don't believe in you anymore.' I fully expected to be blasted into a billion atoms and scattered throughout the Universe. But nothing happened, and from that moment on my life began to change, for the better I might add.

Until that momentous occasion I had always been a good practicing religious lad. Having dumped the religious twaddle I was then free to explore many other beliefs, practices, and especially mythology, which certainly helped to put god (deliberate small g.) in the right perspective, just another mythological god, one of about 200 worldwide.

So, good on the author, and may other authors follow suit.

If you didn't believe in God any more, why did you expect to be blasted into a billion atoms?

stardesk wrote:Hi folks. Ben said back up the page: 'Basically the story has a devout Catholic boy becoming disillusioned with his faith and go so far as cursing God, believing it would cause the Earth to swallow him up for such a sin.'

I must confess that when I was in my twenties, and having gone through a trial period, I pulled into a quit layby, got out of the car, looked up to a starry sky, slung my fist into the air and shouted, 'I don't believe in you anymore.' I fully expected to be blasted into a billion atoms and scattered throughout the Universe. But nothing happened, and from that moment on my life began to change, for the better I might add.

Until that momentous occasion I had always been a good practicing religious lad. Having dumped the religious twaddle I was then free to explore many other beliefs, practices, and especially mythology, which certainly helped to put god (deliberate small g.) in the right perspective, just another mythological god, one of about 200 worldwide.

So, good on the author, and may other authors follow suit.

Hi stardesk,
Tbh I cannot understand why people would think that a superior being like God would "smite someone" just because he was told that he was a poo-poo head (or disbelieved, same thing)

I don't believe that God, being the good boss that he is, would sack an employees because the employee got the hump with him and told him to bog off.

I often tell God to fuck off. I expect him to expect and accept my anger; he made me able to get angry. Just makes sense that he'd be patient while I experienced it.

I'm not religious btw.

I suppose of you are brought up with a particularly strong sense of belief, and more so, that god is in the literal sense the spiteful, vengeful god of the Bible, then there may be a sense of fear in breaking away from him as stardesk did. If you begin to feel you don't believe but still
have a sense of doubt (like, what if I'm wrong) then it is perfectly reasonsble to fear as star did.

The Biblical god is not the same as a benign personal god that in a sense is something you have created for yourself. Many Christians have a genuine fear of hell and damnation, it is one of the biggest problems with the Judeo-Christian religions.

"...Many Christians have a genuine fear of hell and damnation, it is one of the biggest problems with the Judeo-Christian religions..."



Whereas les would like to see sin being rewarded.... all in the name of 'equality' mind....

What? First of all I don't believe in 'sin'. I believe in humanist morality, which can be summed up by saying don't treat other people how you wouldn't want to be treated yourself.

Tell me one occasion I have suggested inmorality should be rewarded?

Tommy Monk wrote:"...Many Christians have a genuine fear of hell and damnation, it is one of the biggest problems with the Judeo-Christian religions..."



Whereas les would like to see sin being rewarded.... all in the name of 'equality' mind....

Oh shut up Matt. He never said that, ever.

Raggamuffin wrote:

stardesk wrote:
Hi folks. Ben said back up the page: 'Basically the story has a devout Catholic boy becoming disillusioned with his faith and go so far as cursing God, believing it would cause the Earth to swallow him up for such a sin.'

I must confess that when I was in my twenties, and having gone through a trial period, I pulled into a quit layby, got out of the car, looked up to a starry sky, slung my fist into the air and shouted, 'I don't believe in you anymore.' I fully expected to be blasted into a billion atoms and scattered throughout the Universe. But nothing happened, and from that moment on my life began to change, for the better I might add.

Until that momentous occasion I had always been a good practicing religious lad. Having dumped the religious twaddle I was then free to explore many other beliefs, practices, and especially mythology, which certainly helped to put god (deliberate small g.) in the right perspective, just another mythological god, one of about 200 worldwide.

So, good on the author, and may other authors follow suit.

If you didn't believe in God any more, why did you expect to be blasted into a billion atoms?

HAVING done my primary schooling at a Catholic primary school (followed by high school in a NSW gov't run high school, then onto studying Agriculture at uni'..), and growing up all the while in a Catholic family, I have always considered Star's (and several others'..) concepts of religion and Christianity to be a rather muddle headed load of bollocks...

AS for his somewhat wild belief that there are some "200" gods worldwide == I would like to see at least some semblance of justification for that claim, before taking it at all seriously !

Personally, I'd already given up on the "literal belief" in religion while still at primary school, been pretty much an agnostic since high school; and as a believer in Darwinist Evolution find it easy to reject most religious dogma from all corners as the twaddle that it is.. [Including anyone foolish enough as to deify Richard Dawkins ~ the man has certainly written some passable books, but put him on TV and h's as boring as batshit !]

AT  the same time, quite a few of those prophets over the centuries did have some good ideas ~ wot wiv' respecting other human beings and all living things, and doing unto others before they do unto you...

AND taking care of this world that we live on ~ after all, we only have the one planet to live on and share. Irregardless of how many millions of 'inhabitable' plants there may be out there in the great beyond, they will still be out of reach well beyond the lifetimes of anyone reading this today..    

Well why is it is a problem that they believe sinning will result in hell and damnation and that they have a fear of that?


Is it better that sinning results in same reward as good behaviour?

eddie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
"...Many Christians have a genuine fear of hell and damnation, it is one of the biggest problems with the Judeo-Christian religions..."

Whereas les would like to see sin being rewarded.... all in the name of 'equality' mind....

Oh shut up Matt. He never said that, ever.

TOMMY M. is totally fucked up in all of his thought processes...

THAT'S why I've had him on "Ignore the silly twat !" (I mean my 'Foes' list !) for the past several months..

You ask why they fear, because they place faith before reality.

To bee


Most of us were raised Catholics also, especially with my ethnicity, where the eldest in my family like many were expected to enter the priesthood. Most people follow Pauline Christianity.
Also Stardesk meant there is beliefs that account for 200 deities being followed today, not that he believes any do, he has studied better than any here on ancient religions and myths..

Tommy Monk wrote:Well why is it is a problem that they believe sinning will result in hell and damnation and that they have a fear of that?


Is it better that sinning results in same reward as good behaviour?

There are a lot of reasons it's a problem, but I'll start with a reason that maybe you haven't thought of. Basically, fear is an awful way to get anyone to do anything.

There are so many better reasons for people to treat others fairly and kindly, but religions basically just put a gun to your head and say, "Do it."

Just to explore that a bit farther, it also teaches children that humanity is full of people who will only do the right thing if they're afraid someone will hurt them otherwise. In the case of Christianity, it teaches that human beings are so awful that God wiped all of them out in the flood and packs them into Hell by the billions.

Thanks Eilzel. It was a case of fearing a vengeful God, as I had been taught. Thanks to, to Brasidas, I'll try to justify my claims just to prove a point. By the way, many of the gods were worshipped in earlier times, not necessarilly today. But the point is they were worshipped at the same time as the Christian god.

Wolfy, if admin will allow it, I'll make a start tomorrow morning (Sunday), listing some of the gods. Just for a start Moslems claim Allah is/was not Jehovah, therefore we have 2 gods for starters.

See you all in the morning.

Tommy Monk wrote:Well why is it is a problem that they believe sinning will result in hell and damnation and that they have a fear of that?


Is it better that sinning results in same reward as good behaviour?

Do you actually not see the problem in that?

Firstly, as Ben has said, 'being good' purely through fear of being punished is not actually being good at all- it is morality at gun point as Ben says.

Being good because you know it is right to treat people as you would be treated yourself, now that is real morality (and accordingly is included within every religion/philosophical ideal the world over).

As for hell itself, it is usually accompanied by some religion or other- and 'sin' is so broadly defined as to include working on whatever holy day (Friday, Saturday or Sunday depending on your faith), blasphemy, disobeying your parents, eating shellfish etc. For some devout believers who genuinely believe in the existence and threat of Hell and take the word of the Bible/Koran literally, this could become a day to day minefield.

We do punish REAL acts of immorality in the real world, we jail criminals, we chastise bad behaviour, people who cheat on their loved ones are generally condemned by most in society.

Again I don't know where you picked up the idea that anyone ever claimed to want to reward immorality (or sinning if you prefer the word your faith dictates)...............

Good points, Les. The problem as I see it is that though some may see religion as something useful for "keeping people in line," as I've heard it expressed before, the morality it presents is so far removed from any innate sense of right and wrong that most people already have that it just twists things up.

We're not born thinking that people who are doing no harm are bad people; religions (and sometimes politics) make some of us think that way. And while we do have to be educated on some things due to the complexity of human society, it takes a lot more than educating to make someone think those things you mentioned (like eating the wrong thing or working on the wrong day) are evil.

Most of us know that if the justice system stopped punishing things like stealing, rape, murder, etc., most people still wouldn't do them because most people innately know those things are wrong, and don't need religion or the government to enforce them.

I know I've been harping on this of late, but I can't help coming back to the conclusion that we'd make a lot more progress if we worked on figuring out the environmental and genetic factors that lead people to disregard the suffering of their fellow human beings. We already know that a certain combination of genes can predispose people to becoming murderers .... when (and apparently only when) people with those genes are also exposed to violence in childhood. I think there's so much more to be discovered on that front. Maybe some day we'll come up with genetic treatments that could short-circuit certain violent tendencies that some people are born with today.

In the meantime, there's always Baba Brinkman's idea

http://music.bababrinkman.com/track/dont-sleep-with-mean-people

Ben_Reilly wrote:Good points, Les. The problem as I see it is that though some may see religion as something useful for "keeping people in line," as I've heard it expressed before, the morality it presents is so far removed from any innate sense of right and wrong that most people already have that it just twists things up.

We're not born thinking that people who are doing no harm are bad people; religions (and sometimes politics) make some of us think that way. And while we do have to be educated on some things due to the complexity of human society, it takes a lot more than educating to make someone think those things you mentioned (like eating the wrong thing or working on the wrong day) are evil.

Most of us know that if the justice system stopped punishing things like stealing, rape, murder, etc., most people still wouldn't do them because most people innately know those things are wrong, and don't need religion or the government to enforce them.

I know I've been harping on this of late, but I can't help coming back to the conclusion that we'd make a lot more progress if we worked on figuring out the environmental and genetic factors that lead people to disregard the suffering of their fellow human beings. We already know that a certain combination of genes can predispose people to becoming murderers .... when (and apparently only when) people with those genes are also exposed to violence in childhood. I think there's so much more to be discovered on that front. Maybe some day we'll come up with genetic treatments that could short-circuit certain violent tendencies that some people are born with today.

In the meantime, there's always Baba Brinkman's idea

http://music.bababrinkman.com/track/dont-sleep-with-mean-people

Exactly Ben, and of course the only reason our governments do see fit to enforce such laws is because human society has a consensus on those things being wrong. Of course societal views shift, and things outlawed once may not be so today- but it is noticeable that some things have universally been considered 'immoral' throughout time with no shift (murder, theft, assault and so on).

Which is why tommy's statements are so confusing. I don't remember people being 'rewarded' for anything considered a crime throughout history. Nor anyone suggesting they should be.

We should naturally do what we can to stop any of these things coming about. The problem there is some people (usually with dim religious mind sets) would include other things in 'sins' or crimes that should be prevented.

Precisely, and I would just add that I think that the idea of morality through consensus really can lead to an idea of objective morality (from a human-centric perspective at least). The history of human objection to things like murder, theft and rape, and related acts like slavery and exploitation, point to a notion (something which gives me a lot of hope and, to be honest, feels) of a fairly objective moral code for all people regardless of culture or religion.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Precisely, and I would just add that I think that the idea of morality through consensus really can lead to an idea of objective morality (from a human-centric perspective at least). The history of human objection to things like murder, theft and rape, and related acts like slavery and exploitation, point to a notion (something which gives me a lot of hope and, to be honest, feels) of a fairly objective moral code for all people regardless of culture or religion.

Objective morality is such a tricky thing to pin down though. What was subjectively right in the past may not be now; and likewise certain moral standards today will surely be different 100 years or more from now.

For instance you mention slavery. In Ancient Greece and Rome enslaving your enemies was simply the norm. Of course this stopped but then we deemed Africans 'sub-human' and so for centuries considered it perfectly acceptable to buy and sell them as slaves. In some countries (Saudi Arabia for instance) it is still deemed that some (Indians) are fit for crap work which may as well be considered slavery while their own people are not. They see no moral objection to this.

Meanwhile things like a man having multiple wives and marrying children were typical in the past (and still occur in many places) but repulse most today- certainly the marrying off of children is rightly considered disgusting by modern standards- meanwhile in the past (and yet again in some places) homosexuality was a terrible crime, yet further back part of the institution.

In parts of Asia the idea of questioning your parents or husband (note husband, not wife), is extremely offensive, even if they are wrong- in the west I expect most of us would do so without thinking anything of it if we thought they were out of order. Yet in terms of moral objectivity I'm sure 'honouring your parents' regardless would be considered an unbreakable act of respect.

There are so many areas where problems like this would occur when discussing 'objective morality'. The actual number of things people would agree on would be slim (but happily very much set in stone). I would love to see an eventual consensus on objective morality that wouldn't need to shift, but unlike you Ben I don't think it can ever come about. If ever such a thing did- how long before something we had thought we 'fixed' (though vigorous public discussion) was decried by younger liberals as 'archaic'?

Good point, and I don't really think we'll ever get to the point where we can actually make rules that substitute for the kind of in-the-moment judgement needed for just governance (which is good, we need as a species to stop trying to create ideas that supercede the need to think things through).

On slavery, many cultures had it and many thought it was fine -- but at the same time, I don't believe any culture that had slaves managed to avoid slave revolts, which says a lot. Mainly that morality goes two ways when it comes to people dealing with one another, and (at least the evidence convinces me) that there is something in most people which tells them they can't be owned.

I don't think this is something that can be changed at the fundamental level. Based on what I have learned and observed, the notion that "I own myself, you own yourself" is going prevail (just like "murder is wrong" will prevail) when there's not someone using force or coercion to make people behave otherwise.

I actually think all immoral acts can be described in terms of slavery. If you rape another person, you are taking ownership of them by force; if you kill them you're overriding their personal sovereignty. If you steal from a person you're taking away a free person's right to their own property.

Maybe these are really just my opinions, but I would say that they're at least rational and supportable

I actually agree with your reasoning as to why slavery can be considered objectively wrong. I was just using the example as to how hazy the subject can get.

I definitely agree your opinions are rational, which is more than can be said about those of the 'kind of people' who would disagree- usually religious bigots or conservatives.

Eilzel wrote:I actually agree with your reasoning as to why slavery can be considered objectively wrong. I was just using the example as to how hazy the subject can get.

I definitely agree your opinions are rational, which is more than can be said about those of the 'kind of people' who would disagree- usually religious bigots or conservatives.

Good moaning, as promised yesterday here’s a few Gods and Goddesses. Let’s begin with the Celts, which includes Ancient Britain, Ireland, and Wales.

Lugh: a sun god, worshipped especially in Ireland.
AINE: Irish Goddess of love and fertility.
AMAETHYON: God of agriculture and son of the Welsh goddess DON.
ANU & also called DANU & DANA: Goddess of Irish mythology.
AONGHUS:  Irish god of love, son of DAGDA, the father of the gods, his mother was the water goddess BOANN.
ARAWN: Ruler of the Welsh otherworld.
ARIANRHOD: Daughter of the Welsh goddess DON.
BADB: Irish goddess of battle.
BALOR:  The one-eyed god of death, The Irish equivalent of Cyclops.
BELENUS: also known as BEL, Celtic sun god, also known to the Romans and compared to Apollo. He was known to the Welsh as BELI;  BILE to the Irish, and  BELENUS to the Gauls.
BOANN: An Irish water goddess and mother of AONGHUS the Irish god of love.
BRAN: The Irish son of the sea god LIR.
BRANWEN: Daughter of LLYR, the Welsh equivalent of the Irish LIR.
CIAN:  Irish. The father of the god LUGH.
BRIGANTIA: The chief goddess of the Brigantes, a dominant tribe in northern England.
BRIGID: A goddess of healing and fertility. Worshipped in Ireland and Britain, where she was known as BRIGANTIA. Her name was adopted by the early Christians and corrupted to St. BRIGID or BRIDE.

That will have to suffice for the moment, got other things to do. See you later. If you want any more let me know. The above list barely touches the surface.

What! No one around? I hope I haven't wasted my time.

Danu is a really interesting one since it shows the spread of the Celtic peoples and must be a very old goddess, Danu is who the river Danube is named after and that is pretty far from Ireland.

Danu is often known as the goddess of the eternal waters.

I don't see that encouraging people to do good things or discouraging people doing bad things is inherently problematic.



In fact, It is everywhere in life...

Don't you think it is bad to have people believe that things like doubting God, working a particular day, masturbating, sex before marriage, loving the wrong person, eating the wrong food, worshipping the wrong god etc will lead them to burn for eternity?

Eilzel wrote:Don't you think it is bad to have people believe that things like doubting God, working a particular day, masturbating, sex before marriage, loving the wrong person, eating the wrong food, worshipping the wrong god etc will lead them to burn for eternity?

to be fair it only effects stupid people

Ultimate Atheist book

Fair point veya haha

Tommy still waiting for you to demonstrate where anyone said we should reward immorality....

If you want immorality to not have negative consequences then it is in effect being rewarded by not being punished.

But it is punished, so I don't really see where you were going with that. A made up hell which punishes for eternity however will either be dismissed as rubbish or cause psychological issues.

Bad behaviour is generally punished throughout life, as is good behaviour.



You only seem to have a problem with it if it is a religious concept too.

I do have a problem with religious concepts; since they dictate things and expect respect in spite of being evidently fallacious. The main point is though is that good behaviour simply due to fear of hell is not really 'morality' it is just avoiding hell. Real morality comes from within, there should be no need of hell.

I don't think good people avoid doing bad things for that reason.


But it might discourage bad people from doing bad things and that can only be good!


It's a concept seen throughout many walks of life.


For example, at work you may be rewarded with good things if you show up a bit early every day, work hard etc while someone who is constantly late and having days off will face negative consequences.

Lesson one, how to confuse the illogical.

Tommy, if people "know" right from wrong, why do they need incentives or repercussions?

At work is very different from some imaginary eternal paradise or torture tommy surely even you can see that.

And it is the attached rubbish- if you have sex before marriage, or eat pork, then these are grave sins. The same doctrines that talk of hell come with hundreds of nonesense rules which end up being adhered to by devout- who sometimes become evangelical about forcing their brand of 'morality' on others- with the threat of hell as their 'weapon'.

Human morality should not and does not require this.

Tommy Monk wrote:I don't think good people avoid doing bad things for that reason.


But it might discourage bad people from doing bad things and that can only be good!


It's a concept seen throughout many walks of life.


For example, at work you may be rewarded with good things if you show up a bit early every day, work hard etc while someone who is constantly late and having days off will face negative consequences.

I'm not so certain that the habits of an effective manager correlate all that well to issues of morality

im good because i wanna be good im bad because i wanna be bad

i couldnt give a damn about hell

groomsy wrote:im good because i wanna be good im bad because i wanna be bad

i couldnt give a damn about hell

Rock on, brotha

Lone Wolf wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If you didn't believe in God any more, why did you expect to be blasted into a billion atoms?

HAVING done my primary schooling at a Catholic primary school (followed by high school in a NSW gov't run high school, then onto studying Agriculture at uni'..), and growing up all the while in a Catholic family, I have always considered Star's (and several others'..) concepts of religion and Christianity to be a rather muddle headed load of bollocks...

AS for his somewhat wild belief that there are some "200" gods worldwide == I would like to see at least some semblance of justification for that claim, before taking it at all seriously !

Personally, I'd already given up on the "literal belief" in religion while still at primary school, been pretty much an agnostic since high school; and as a believer in Darwinist Evolution find it easy to reject most religious dogma from all corners as the twaddle that it is..   [Including anyone foolish enough as to deify Richard Dawkins ~ the man has certainly written some passable books, but put him on TV and h's as boring as batshit !]

AT  the same time, quite a few of those prophets over the centuries did have some good ideas ~ wot wiv' respecting other human beings and all living things, and doing unto others before they do unto you...

AND taking care of this world that we live on ~ after all, we only have the one planet to live on and share. Irregardless of how many millions of 'inhabitable' plants there may be out there in the great beyond, they will still be out of reach well beyond the lifetimes of anyone reading this today..    

+1