As much as I despise junk religion, I hate junk science. The October 24th issue of THE WEEK talks about “scientists in Texas and Illinois” who found that in times of stress, when people feel life is out of their control, they through common sense out the window and succumb to magical thinking and conspiracy theories. This is nonsense.
First of all, who are these so-called scientists, and why don’t they want their names printed in the magazine? If I conducted some legitimate study and a national news magazine wanted to report on it, I would want my name printed in full. I would want to get credit for a good job. I would want people to know not only about the study but also about me. Otherwise how would Oprah know whom to call to get to come on her show to discuss this study?
But if I were a bogus scientist running a bogus study simply to keep my grant money coming in when that money could be better spent on new clothes for Sarah Palin (or, better yet Joe the Plummer) I wouldn’t want anyone to know my name. So right away I think we can be pretty certain that these “scientists” are grifters.
Second of all, “Taxes” is a “word jumble” for “Texas” and “Illinois” is made up of two words, “ill” and “nois”. Now “ill” is about being sick, which is what raising our taxes is going to do to us, and “nois” is either “noise” misspelled suggesting that if pundits and scientists make enough noise we won’t realize how ill our taxes are making us, or it is French which is just as bad.
Third of all, I don’t have to be paranoid to know that the government is bailing out its cronies, and making it possible for them to build their secret island base to which they will all escape when the world goes mad so that they can avoid the great destruction that is coming. I even read somewhere that there are scientists working on disconnecting the island of Manhattan so that it will float out beyond the limits of US territorial waters and then it will declare itself an independent country. Which is part of a larger plan to do the same with Alaska as soon as Sarah Palin is elected Vice President. I learned from very reputable sources who shall remain unnamed that she plans to set off a series of nuclear blasts that will set Alaska free and that her husband and his Alaska Free party will declare itself to be an independent nation.
But I’m not worried. Nosiree. I’m building a perpetual knock on wood device that will start banging up a storm and keep me and mine safe and sound. It runs on a spring like a watch so I don’t need any gas or electricity to power it so I’ll be safe even when the energy is rationed in a way that makes Baghdad look like an electrical paradise. And I’m stocking up on taco chips and looking through them to find the Face of Jesus, and I am bribing a worker at our local Papa John’s to save any pizzas that have the Faces of any Gods or Goddesses on them and sell them to me exclusively.
So don’t you fret about magical thinking and conspiracy theories. Just make sure you don’t step on any cracks, and cover your house with tin foil to keep it safe from the black helicopters bound your way.
Stress? What stress?
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
A Theocratic Voter's Guide
In today’s USA TODAY a group called Catholic Answers Action published a Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics, complete with a list of Five Non-Negotiable Issues that should determine your vote in next Tuesday's election. I found it very troubling. Here are some excerpts and my thoughts on them.
A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. No system of faith and morality is universal. For example, Judaism holds that the life of a pregnant mother always comes before the life of her unborn child, and Judaism considers abortion to save the life of the mother morally obligatory. Does Catholic morality trump Jewish morality?
Some things are always wrong, and no one may deliberately vote in favor of them. Citizens support these evils indirectly if they vote in favor of candidates who propose to advance them. I agree, and one of these always wrong things is torture, yet torture isn’t mentioned in the list of the Five Non-Negotiable Issues. Neither is racism, slavery, sex trafficking, anti-Semitism, genocide, destruction of the earth’s capacity to sustain life, and a host of other issues I would consider nonnegotiable. Am I to understand that torture is negotiable? Is the Church still defending the Inquisition?
Catholics must avoid voting for any candidate who intends to support programs or laws that are intrinsically evil. I agree. No one should vote for evil. But we cannot seem to agree on what evil is. I can't vote for anyone who would willfully kill an innocent mother simply to save the life of her unborn child. I can't vote for anyone who endorses torture, and promotes racism, and fosters hatred of one American for another, and for Americans against other human beings. But the Guide doesn't even mention these things!
When all of the candidates endorse morally harmful policies, citizens must vote in a way that will limit the harm likely to be done. I agree. So which is worse: embryoinic stem cell research that might save hundreds of thousands of lives or torture, destruction of the environment, undermining science and our capacity to enter what President Bush dismissed as the “reality based community”?
The Guide lists abortion as one if five non-negotiables, and defines abortion as the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide, and refuses to allow for abortion in any situation. I understand the moral ambiguity of aborting in cases of rape and incest—the unborn is innocent— but to decide that the life of the mother is worth less than the life of the unborn makes no moral sense. It is not based on anything other than theology: the mother has had her chance to accept Jesus as Christ, the unborn has not. Is it morally right to intentionally and directly kill an innocent mother by forcing her to carry her baby to term even though it will cost her her life? It may well be for Catholics, but what about the rest of us?
The Guide says of euthanasia that true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person. So “Five Non-Negotiable Issues listed in this Guide. What the Guide says is that Catholic voters cannot vote their conscience. They cannot think for themselves. That they must vote for those ideas and ideals and laws and lawmakers closest to the Catholic Church’s position on morality. This is not democracy but backdoor theocracy.
Of course Catholic Americans can vote anyway they wish, and if they feel compelled to vote the way their Church tells them to vote, so be it. But what about Catholic law makers and judges, and the five Catholic Supreme Court Justices. Who are these people obligated to: the Constitution of the United States or the Catholic Church? I am willing and excited about judges debating the meaning of the Constitution, I am horrified at the thought that they are morally obligated to bend the Constitution to the will of the Catholic Church.
I am shocked to find myself saying these things. They are so biased, so reminiscent of anti-Catholic fears that used to be systemic in this country. And yet I cannot help worrying that when the Church issues non-negotiable positions and hints that violating them might well place your eternal soul at risk of damnation we are placing our Catholic citizens in an untenable position, and perhaps placing our freedoms at risk.
I vote my values and want everyone to vote theirs, but I think it is wrong and dangerous to try to limit our voting by making these Christian-right obsessions the be-all and end-all of morality when there are other, equally if not more vital moral issues on the table.
Religion scares me more each day.
A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. No system of faith and morality is universal. For example, Judaism holds that the life of a pregnant mother always comes before the life of her unborn child, and Judaism considers abortion to save the life of the mother morally obligatory. Does Catholic morality trump Jewish morality?
Some things are always wrong, and no one may deliberately vote in favor of them. Citizens support these evils indirectly if they vote in favor of candidates who propose to advance them. I agree, and one of these always wrong things is torture, yet torture isn’t mentioned in the list of the Five Non-Negotiable Issues. Neither is racism, slavery, sex trafficking, anti-Semitism, genocide, destruction of the earth’s capacity to sustain life, and a host of other issues I would consider nonnegotiable. Am I to understand that torture is negotiable? Is the Church still defending the Inquisition?
Catholics must avoid voting for any candidate who intends to support programs or laws that are intrinsically evil. I agree. No one should vote for evil. But we cannot seem to agree on what evil is. I can't vote for anyone who would willfully kill an innocent mother simply to save the life of her unborn child. I can't vote for anyone who endorses torture, and promotes racism, and fosters hatred of one American for another, and for Americans against other human beings. But the Guide doesn't even mention these things!
When all of the candidates endorse morally harmful policies, citizens must vote in a way that will limit the harm likely to be done. I agree. So which is worse: embryoinic stem cell research that might save hundreds of thousands of lives or torture, destruction of the environment, undermining science and our capacity to enter what President Bush dismissed as the “reality based community”?
The Guide lists abortion as one if five non-negotiables, and defines abortion as the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide, and refuses to allow for abortion in any situation. I understand the moral ambiguity of aborting in cases of rape and incest—the unborn is innocent— but to decide that the life of the mother is worth less than the life of the unborn makes no moral sense. It is not based on anything other than theology: the mother has had her chance to accept Jesus as Christ, the unborn has not. Is it morally right to intentionally and directly kill an innocent mother by forcing her to carry her baby to term even though it will cost her her life? It may well be for Catholics, but what about the rest of us?
The Guide says of euthanasia that true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person. So “Five Non-Negotiable Issues listed in this Guide. What the Guide says is that Catholic voters cannot vote their conscience. They cannot think for themselves. That they must vote for those ideas and ideals and laws and lawmakers closest to the Catholic Church’s position on morality. This is not democracy but backdoor theocracy.
Of course Catholic Americans can vote anyway they wish, and if they feel compelled to vote the way their Church tells them to vote, so be it. But what about Catholic law makers and judges, and the five Catholic Supreme Court Justices. Who are these people obligated to: the Constitution of the United States or the Catholic Church? I am willing and excited about judges debating the meaning of the Constitution, I am horrified at the thought that they are morally obligated to bend the Constitution to the will of the Catholic Church.
I am shocked to find myself saying these things. They are so biased, so reminiscent of anti-Catholic fears that used to be systemic in this country. And yet I cannot help worrying that when the Church issues non-negotiable positions and hints that violating them might well place your eternal soul at risk of damnation we are placing our Catholic citizens in an untenable position, and perhaps placing our freedoms at risk.
I vote my values and want everyone to vote theirs, but I think it is wrong and dangerous to try to limit our voting by making these Christian-right obsessions the be-all and end-all of morality when there are other, equally if not more vital moral issues on the table.
Religion scares me more each day.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Et tu Hindu?
When I think of a religion committed to nonviolence I naturally think of Hinduism. Ahimsa, the principle of nonviolence that is at the heart of Hinduism, and which provided Gandhi with the moral high ground in his decades-long struggle with the South African and British governments. How sad, then, to have to finally admit that even this great religion has fallen to the madness of theo-fascism.
Yet it is so. I knew it was coming, but I had hoped they would avoid it. I was wrong to place any hope in religion. The headline in this morning’s THE TENNESSEAN said it all, Hindus in India tell Christians: Convert or die.
Of course the headline drips with hyperbole. There are hundreds of millions of Hindus in India and to imagine that they speak with a single voice on anything to anyone is ludicrous. But the facts remain: rioting by Hindus in the eastern state of Orissa have left 38 Christians dead and 30,000 homeless. And this is just one part of one state, and by no means the only one in which Christians must fear for their lives and livelihoods at the hands of Hindus.
But not all Hindus. Just as there were “righteous Gentiles,” Christians who risked their lives to save Jews from the Nazis, so there are “righteous Hindus” who are opening their homes to frightened Christians.
Analysts urge us to see the violence as political in nature. The Hindu nationalist party, Dajrang Dal, is stirring up anti-Christian sentiment to gain power and followers. But the mere fact that this works suggests that Hinduism is losing its soul. The fact that throughout history political movements have used religion to stir the people to injustice and evil does not excuse religion, but indicts it.
I have been in love with India and Hinduism (the Advaita Vendanta school specifically) since I was a teenager. The watchword of the Hinduism I loved came from the Rig Veda, perhaps the world’s oldest holy book: “Truth is one. Different people call it by different names.” This was a religion beyond tolerance, one rooted in a deep respect for the sanctity of life and the richness of human religiosity. I still admire the Vedanta school, and study with some of its swamis. But I can no longer abide by religion.
What madness to murder one another over “different names.” What insanity to excuse evil and injustice, theo-fascism and terror in the name of god.
As I write this theo-fascist Jews in Israel are terrorizing Palestinian farmers trying to hard their olive crop, while the government of Israel stands idly by; Wahhabi theo-fascists in Islam continue to degrade women, foment Jew-hatred, and deny freedom and democracy to millions; theo-fascist Christians in my own country continue to battle science, foment McCarthy-era fear and distrust, and preach hate from pulpits and political podiums around the nation.
Religion may not be the greatest evil in the world, but it is too often in league with it. We need a new spiritual movement in this country and around the world; a spiritual movement rooted in universal values of nonviolence, justice, compassion, and theological humility; a spiritual movement unfettered to nation-states, tribal loyalties, race, ethnicity, and god-sanctioned jingoism and xenophobia. We need a movement that will stand up to the god-inflamed madness that takes over the hearts and minds of millions, and hold up the idea of human dignity and the worth and sanctity of every human being. Not an interfaith movement that pretends religion is at its heart liberal and welcoming, but a spiritual movement that decries the insanity of organized religion and the evil it so often instigates and supports.
If Hindus can threaten Christians with death, the world is lost. They were my last best hope for religious sanity. They have failed. Religion has lost its last vestige of humility. It is time to abandon the madness.
Yet it is so. I knew it was coming, but I had hoped they would avoid it. I was wrong to place any hope in religion. The headline in this morning’s THE TENNESSEAN said it all, Hindus in India tell Christians: Convert or die.
Of course the headline drips with hyperbole. There are hundreds of millions of Hindus in India and to imagine that they speak with a single voice on anything to anyone is ludicrous. But the facts remain: rioting by Hindus in the eastern state of Orissa have left 38 Christians dead and 30,000 homeless. And this is just one part of one state, and by no means the only one in which Christians must fear for their lives and livelihoods at the hands of Hindus.
But not all Hindus. Just as there were “righteous Gentiles,” Christians who risked their lives to save Jews from the Nazis, so there are “righteous Hindus” who are opening their homes to frightened Christians.
Analysts urge us to see the violence as political in nature. The Hindu nationalist party, Dajrang Dal, is stirring up anti-Christian sentiment to gain power and followers. But the mere fact that this works suggests that Hinduism is losing its soul. The fact that throughout history political movements have used religion to stir the people to injustice and evil does not excuse religion, but indicts it.
I have been in love with India and Hinduism (the Advaita Vendanta school specifically) since I was a teenager. The watchword of the Hinduism I loved came from the Rig Veda, perhaps the world’s oldest holy book: “Truth is one. Different people call it by different names.” This was a religion beyond tolerance, one rooted in a deep respect for the sanctity of life and the richness of human religiosity. I still admire the Vedanta school, and study with some of its swamis. But I can no longer abide by religion.
What madness to murder one another over “different names.” What insanity to excuse evil and injustice, theo-fascism and terror in the name of god.
As I write this theo-fascist Jews in Israel are terrorizing Palestinian farmers trying to hard their olive crop, while the government of Israel stands idly by; Wahhabi theo-fascists in Islam continue to degrade women, foment Jew-hatred, and deny freedom and democracy to millions; theo-fascist Christians in my own country continue to battle science, foment McCarthy-era fear and distrust, and preach hate from pulpits and political podiums around the nation.
Religion may not be the greatest evil in the world, but it is too often in league with it. We need a new spiritual movement in this country and around the world; a spiritual movement rooted in universal values of nonviolence, justice, compassion, and theological humility; a spiritual movement unfettered to nation-states, tribal loyalties, race, ethnicity, and god-sanctioned jingoism and xenophobia. We need a movement that will stand up to the god-inflamed madness that takes over the hearts and minds of millions, and hold up the idea of human dignity and the worth and sanctity of every human being. Not an interfaith movement that pretends religion is at its heart liberal and welcoming, but a spiritual movement that decries the insanity of organized religion and the evil it so often instigates and supports.
If Hindus can threaten Christians with death, the world is lost. They were my last best hope for religious sanity. They have failed. Religion has lost its last vestige of humility. It is time to abandon the madness.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Don't Look Now
If you are reading this—which of course you are because you’re reading this—try not to look like your reading it. Play it cool. Be nonchalant about it. Read on, but don’t let on that your reading on. Even if you are alone, be cool. You are never alone. And that is what I need to tell you.
God is watching. No, seriously. God is watching. He is watching you all the time, no matter what you are doing. The Guy never blinks, and never looks away. Creepy isn’t it? But don’t let on. You might piss Him off.
You see He wants you to act in a certain way, to love Him and to love your neighbor, but He wants this to be genuine. Don’t love Him because He tells you to love Him. That’s not real love, that’s just following orders. So you have to love Him, but you have to love Him freely. The fact that you can’t link “have to” with “freely” is the really hard part of this. And that is why He is watching you.
Two psychologists at the University of British Columbia have proven that people behave more nicely when they are being watched. This is true even if the eyes watching them aren’t real. They tacked a poster of a person over a charity jar and found that people donated three times as much money when the poster was up than when it wasn’t. Which proves that unless someone is watching or at least we feel like someone is watching we would be a lot worse than we are. And we are pretty bad as it is. Scary, isn’t it?
Maybe this is why people hang posters of their gods in their homes, or put god dolls around their rooms? Maybe this is why religions teach that God is watching us all the time? Do they know that unless we feel watched we would behave like wild murderous beasts? Do they know that we would be less apt to donate money to religious causes and institutions if we didn’t believe God was watching?
I think it is. But I can’t be sure. And ever since I read the article about the British Columbia experiment in THE WEEK (October 24, 2008) I have felt the eyes of God on me everywhere. Even in the bathroom. Weird.
But here’s my problem: I know God is looking, I don’t know which God is looking. I know I’ve got to behave and to love God, but I can’t tell which God to love and obey.
I’m afraid that if I think it’s YHVH and it turns out to Allah, I’m screwed. Or if I think it’s the Catholic Jesus and it turns out to be the Southern Baptist Jesus, I’m doomed. I’m hoping it is the elephant headed God Ganesha because he seems so much more pleasant than the others, but who knows? And if you did know and then just loved God because you knew you had to, then your love wouldn’t really be love at all, and you would be doomed anyway.
That’s why I don’t want God to see you reading this. Pretend you don’t know that God is watching, and pretend that your love is spontaneous and genuine and not just a ploy to avoid burning in Hell for all eternity. Oh, and pray that God is really really stupid so He won’t catch on. Oh, and pray that He doesn’t really hear your prayers so He won’t know you know.
God is watching. No, seriously. God is watching. He is watching you all the time, no matter what you are doing. The Guy never blinks, and never looks away. Creepy isn’t it? But don’t let on. You might piss Him off.
You see He wants you to act in a certain way, to love Him and to love your neighbor, but He wants this to be genuine. Don’t love Him because He tells you to love Him. That’s not real love, that’s just following orders. So you have to love Him, but you have to love Him freely. The fact that you can’t link “have to” with “freely” is the really hard part of this. And that is why He is watching you.
Two psychologists at the University of British Columbia have proven that people behave more nicely when they are being watched. This is true even if the eyes watching them aren’t real. They tacked a poster of a person over a charity jar and found that people donated three times as much money when the poster was up than when it wasn’t. Which proves that unless someone is watching or at least we feel like someone is watching we would be a lot worse than we are. And we are pretty bad as it is. Scary, isn’t it?
Maybe this is why people hang posters of their gods in their homes, or put god dolls around their rooms? Maybe this is why religions teach that God is watching us all the time? Do they know that unless we feel watched we would behave like wild murderous beasts? Do they know that we would be less apt to donate money to religious causes and institutions if we didn’t believe God was watching?
I think it is. But I can’t be sure. And ever since I read the article about the British Columbia experiment in THE WEEK (October 24, 2008) I have felt the eyes of God on me everywhere. Even in the bathroom. Weird.
But here’s my problem: I know God is looking, I don’t know which God is looking. I know I’ve got to behave and to love God, but I can’t tell which God to love and obey.
I’m afraid that if I think it’s YHVH and it turns out to Allah, I’m screwed. Or if I think it’s the Catholic Jesus and it turns out to be the Southern Baptist Jesus, I’m doomed. I’m hoping it is the elephant headed God Ganesha because he seems so much more pleasant than the others, but who knows? And if you did know and then just loved God because you knew you had to, then your love wouldn’t really be love at all, and you would be doomed anyway.
That’s why I don’t want God to see you reading this. Pretend you don’t know that God is watching, and pretend that your love is spontaneous and genuine and not just a ploy to avoid burning in Hell for all eternity. Oh, and pray that God is really really stupid so He won’t catch on. Oh, and pray that He doesn’t really hear your prayers so He won’t know you know.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Flush of Freedom
A recent Swiss law, backed by a 1992 amendment to their constitution, grants new rights to all “social animals.” According to the law people looking to buy a dog as a pet have to take a four hour pet care course, anglers must learn how to catch fish humanely; fish must not be kept in aquariums that do not provide them with places to hide, nor can goldfish be flushed down the toilet without first being anesthetized.
When I first read this new ruling I thought it absurd, but I came to see that this was more a matter of guilt than rational examination. I can’t remember how many unanaesthetized goldfish I have flushed down the toilet. But the more I thought about it (and I admit to thinking about it more than I should), the more I felt positively toward the Swiss law.
Take the goldfish conundrum. Prior to the Swiss, I thought about the procedure this way: fish live in water; toilets are full of water; flushing goldfish down the toilet simply freed the fish to swim in less constrictive circumstances. No moral dilemma. No need to anesthetize goldfish.
But I am not a fish, and I can’t pretend to know what the experience of being flushed down a toilet is like. So I tried to test my moral sensitivity by imagining a human equivalent:
Humans live in air; the sky is full of air; if I want to get rid of a human, tossing him or her from an airplane into the sky would simply be freeing him or her to live in a less constrictive environment. No moral dilemma. No need to anesthetize anyone.
But would I like to be tossed from a plane without a parachute? Would I appreciate the spaciousness of my new surroundings, or would I be terrified? And, fairly certain I would be terrified, should my would-be liberator take my terror into account?
It is clear to me that I should be anesthetized before being tossed from a plane. Therefore I, as a liberator of goldfish from tank to toilet to sea, should assume the same terror on behalf of my goldfish and thus refrain from the flush of freedom?
But wait! That is not what the law says. It doesn’t say I cannot flush the fish, only that I cannot flush them without first anesthetizing them. Terrorizing goldfish is still legal, as long as I drug them before doing so. Testing this against my human model, I am horrified: is it OK for someone to throw me from a plane as long as I am anesthetized? No, this cannot be right.
So what are we to do? I would suggest writing to the Swiss government, but, given the economy, I can’t afford the postage. I will register my protest instead by boycotting Swiss Miss hot chocolate mix.* (A protest that saves you money, can’t beat that.)
*I invite you to come with your own protest ideas, and welcome reading them in the comments section of this blog.
When I first read this new ruling I thought it absurd, but I came to see that this was more a matter of guilt than rational examination. I can’t remember how many unanaesthetized goldfish I have flushed down the toilet. But the more I thought about it (and I admit to thinking about it more than I should), the more I felt positively toward the Swiss law.
Take the goldfish conundrum. Prior to the Swiss, I thought about the procedure this way: fish live in water; toilets are full of water; flushing goldfish down the toilet simply freed the fish to swim in less constrictive circumstances. No moral dilemma. No need to anesthetize goldfish.
But I am not a fish, and I can’t pretend to know what the experience of being flushed down a toilet is like. So I tried to test my moral sensitivity by imagining a human equivalent:
Humans live in air; the sky is full of air; if I want to get rid of a human, tossing him or her from an airplane into the sky would simply be freeing him or her to live in a less constrictive environment. No moral dilemma. No need to anesthetize anyone.
But would I like to be tossed from a plane without a parachute? Would I appreciate the spaciousness of my new surroundings, or would I be terrified? And, fairly certain I would be terrified, should my would-be liberator take my terror into account?
It is clear to me that I should be anesthetized before being tossed from a plane. Therefore I, as a liberator of goldfish from tank to toilet to sea, should assume the same terror on behalf of my goldfish and thus refrain from the flush of freedom?
But wait! That is not what the law says. It doesn’t say I cannot flush the fish, only that I cannot flush them without first anesthetizing them. Terrorizing goldfish is still legal, as long as I drug them before doing so. Testing this against my human model, I am horrified: is it OK for someone to throw me from a plane as long as I am anesthetized? No, this cannot be right.
So what are we to do? I would suggest writing to the Swiss government, but, given the economy, I can’t afford the postage. I will register my protest instead by boycotting Swiss Miss hot chocolate mix.* (A protest that saves you money, can’t beat that.)
*I invite you to come with your own protest ideas, and welcome reading them in the comments section of this blog.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
One Nation, Four Gods
According to the recent Baylor University study on American religious beliefs, values, and behaviors, our beliefs about God are among the clearest indicators of how we will vote in this year’s presidential election. The Baylor study argues for four different “American theologies” what I will call the engaged and malevolent God, the engaged and benevolent God, the distant and disengaged God, and the distant and judgmental God.
The engaged and malevolent God is the God who punished the Jews with the Holocaust because they were not sufficiently observant; the God who decimated New Orleans with hurricane Katrina because the people there were wicked and lax in their hatred of homosexuality; and the God who used the horror of 9/11 to punish Americans for their support of Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. According to the Baylor study, people who believe in the engaged and malevolent God vote Republican. This does not mean that all Republicans believe in the engaged and malevolent God, only that the vast majority of such believers align themselves with the Republican Party.
The engaged and benevolent God is the God who helped some Jews survive the Holocaust, and who rescued some people during Katrina and 9/11. This God is forgiving and loving, rather than angry and judgmental, and is actively involved in doing good in the world. People who believe in this God lean Republican, but may vote Democratic.
The distant and disengaged God is the God who created the universe but takes no active role in it. This is Einstein’s God, or the God of the Deists. This is the Force of Star Wars, and the Tao of the Chinese Taoists. You do not pray to this God to make things other than they are, nor do you imagine that things are as they are because God is making them as they are to teach us a lesson. People who believe in this God vote Democratic.
The distant and judgmental God does not intervene in the doings of nature or of humans on this earth, but is waiting to reward and punish us after we die. This God, like the engaged and malevolent God has strict moral code to which we are held accountable, but, unlike the engaged and malevolent God, this God’s judgment is reserved for the after life not this life. People who believe in the distant and judgmental God lean Democratic but may vote Republican.
Of course not everyone believes in God. Four percent of Americans are atheists, but this number is so small as to make the impact of atheism almost negligible. I suspect that the popularity of the New Atheists reflects not the rise of atheism among Americans, but the savvy marketing strategy of believers in the engaged and malevolent God who see in these often bellicose authors the perfect foil for their own theology, and a great way to galvanize their base in what seemed to be a waning of the Culture War.
The Culture War, in fact, is not really a conflict pitting secularists and atheists against theists and people of faith, but rather a civil war among theists. The Culture War is a theological war over competing ideas of God.
Which side am I on? If these are my only choices, I would have to side with the distant and disengaged God folks, but I am not really convinced they are right. For me God is both transcendent and imminent. For me nature is that aspect of God available to us through our senses and our technology. God is not in the world, God is the world, and that which is greater than the world. I believe that natural laws and moral principles are imbedded in reality, though I limit conversations about ethics and morals to the human domain. Animals and plants are not moral or immoral, but humans can be both. And while I do not believe God consciously acts to reward or punish either in this life or after it, I do believe that most of us find more happiness when we act in accordance with divine principles such as justice and compassion than when we act in violation of them.
So, if you want to know for whom your neighbors are voting, don’t be so crass as to ask them outright; ask instead about their understanding of God. Given my theology, for whom will I vote this November? Barack Obama. It also helps that he is pro-science, pro-Green, pro-education, pro-peace, pro-justice, pro-diplomacy, and incapable of giving simplistic answers to really complex issues.
The engaged and malevolent God is the God who punished the Jews with the Holocaust because they were not sufficiently observant; the God who decimated New Orleans with hurricane Katrina because the people there were wicked and lax in their hatred of homosexuality; and the God who used the horror of 9/11 to punish Americans for their support of Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. According to the Baylor study, people who believe in the engaged and malevolent God vote Republican. This does not mean that all Republicans believe in the engaged and malevolent God, only that the vast majority of such believers align themselves with the Republican Party.
The engaged and benevolent God is the God who helped some Jews survive the Holocaust, and who rescued some people during Katrina and 9/11. This God is forgiving and loving, rather than angry and judgmental, and is actively involved in doing good in the world. People who believe in this God lean Republican, but may vote Democratic.
The distant and disengaged God is the God who created the universe but takes no active role in it. This is Einstein’s God, or the God of the Deists. This is the Force of Star Wars, and the Tao of the Chinese Taoists. You do not pray to this God to make things other than they are, nor do you imagine that things are as they are because God is making them as they are to teach us a lesson. People who believe in this God vote Democratic.
The distant and judgmental God does not intervene in the doings of nature or of humans on this earth, but is waiting to reward and punish us after we die. This God, like the engaged and malevolent God has strict moral code to which we are held accountable, but, unlike the engaged and malevolent God, this God’s judgment is reserved for the after life not this life. People who believe in the distant and judgmental God lean Democratic but may vote Republican.
Of course not everyone believes in God. Four percent of Americans are atheists, but this number is so small as to make the impact of atheism almost negligible. I suspect that the popularity of the New Atheists reflects not the rise of atheism among Americans, but the savvy marketing strategy of believers in the engaged and malevolent God who see in these often bellicose authors the perfect foil for their own theology, and a great way to galvanize their base in what seemed to be a waning of the Culture War.
The Culture War, in fact, is not really a conflict pitting secularists and atheists against theists and people of faith, but rather a civil war among theists. The Culture War is a theological war over competing ideas of God.
Which side am I on? If these are my only choices, I would have to side with the distant and disengaged God folks, but I am not really convinced they are right. For me God is both transcendent and imminent. For me nature is that aspect of God available to us through our senses and our technology. God is not in the world, God is the world, and that which is greater than the world. I believe that natural laws and moral principles are imbedded in reality, though I limit conversations about ethics and morals to the human domain. Animals and plants are not moral or immoral, but humans can be both. And while I do not believe God consciously acts to reward or punish either in this life or after it, I do believe that most of us find more happiness when we act in accordance with divine principles such as justice and compassion than when we act in violation of them.
So, if you want to know for whom your neighbors are voting, don’t be so crass as to ask them outright; ask instead about their understanding of God. Given my theology, for whom will I vote this November? Barack Obama. It also helps that he is pro-science, pro-Green, pro-education, pro-peace, pro-justice, pro-diplomacy, and incapable of giving simplistic answers to really complex issues.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Mea Culpa: I Killed Jesus
Mea Culpa. I confess. I did it. I killed Jesus. I have denied this for years, but I can do so no longer. The evidence is overwhelming. At least that is what this fellow told me the other day as I was trying to free my bicycle from an incredibly crammed bike rack at Middle Tennessee State University.
“Why did you Jews reject Jesus,” he asked without even so much as a “Hello you damned Jew.”
“We didn’t,” I said. “Look at Palm Sunday we welcomed him with open arms.”
“Yeah, then why does John say, “He came to His own, and these who were His own did not receive Him,” (John 1:11)?”
“Well, John had an agenda when he wrote….”
“And why did you Jews kill Jesus?”
“We didn’t,” I said, “The Romans….”
“Then why does Acts say the “Men of Israel” nailed Him to a cross and put Him to death (Acts 2:22-23)? And why does Paul say, “the Jews…both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets” (Thessalonians 2:15)?”
“Name one prophet the Jews killed,” I said.
“Are you saying Paul is a liar?”
I was about to get into a real argument with this guy, but suddenly the wind just went out of my sails.
“You know,” I sighed, “you’re right. We killed Him. We rejected him and we killed him, and I for one am damn glad we did and so should you be as well, and if you aren’t grateful to me for killing Jesus you are insulting God and damning yourself to Hell for all eternity for rejecting God and God’s Son and the gift of redemption that He secured with His death.”
I think my confession confused him, and he just stared at me blankly. So I continued.
“Paul taught it was necessary for Jesus to suffer and die and be resurrected (Acts 17:3). If you don’t die you don’t resurrect. And Acts says that Jesus was “delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God” (2:22). This was God’s plan. The Jews did God’s work. If not for the Jews there would be no Jesus and if not for the Jews there would be no Christ. If you get into heaven it is because we Jews were willing to do what God demanded. Just as Abraham was willing to kill his son so were we, commanded by God, willing to kill God’s Son. We could have said ‘no.’ We could have said, “You want Him dead, then kill Him Yourself.” But we didn’t; we did what we were created to do: we killed God.
“You think killing God was easy. No, sir. You have it easy. All you have to do is believe. We had to do the dirty work. And then people like you have the audacity to attack, condemn, brutalize, and even murder the very people God chose to bring redemption to the world. Jesus came to die, the Jews were destined by God to kill Him; this is God’s plan and you, my friend, are insulting the very God whom you pretend to love. Shame on you! And you call yourself a Christian. You are no Christian for you deny the power of God to carry out His will, and you spit on the servants of God who are tasked with doing His will. You are going to Hell for your blasphemy, and I pity you your fate. We Jews are going to heaven for our loyalty. And we will be embraced by the still bleeding hands of Jesus and the blood from His side will stain our newly white robes and we will have to find a place to wash them or perhaps a discount store where we might purchase new ones for we are destined to stand before God as the chosen servants of God who did His will by killing His Son so that people like you could have a chance at salvation which you have just blown by insulting me.”
It was a masterful speech, and, with its conclusion, I mounted my bike as if it were one of the four horses of the Apocalypse, and peddled away calling back over my shoulder, “Woe to you, blasphemer of God, woe to you and your seed and your seed’s seed’s seed’s seed unto a thousand generations of seed which is a lot of seed if you are lucky which you will not be for God hateth those who mocketh His will and those who carry it out. Woe to you, O Blasphemer, woe. And forgeteth not that this will go on thy permanent record. Woe!”
I didn’t look back but I imagined this poor fellow falling to his knees and asking Jesus for forgiveness. Most likely, however, he just went looking for another Jew.
“Why did you Jews reject Jesus,” he asked without even so much as a “Hello you damned Jew.”
“We didn’t,” I said. “Look at Palm Sunday we welcomed him with open arms.”
“Yeah, then why does John say, “He came to His own, and these who were His own did not receive Him,” (John 1:11)?”
“Well, John had an agenda when he wrote….”
“And why did you Jews kill Jesus?”
“We didn’t,” I said, “The Romans….”
“Then why does Acts say the “Men of Israel” nailed Him to a cross and put Him to death (Acts 2:22-23)? And why does Paul say, “the Jews…both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets” (Thessalonians 2:15)?”
“Name one prophet the Jews killed,” I said.
“Are you saying Paul is a liar?”
I was about to get into a real argument with this guy, but suddenly the wind just went out of my sails.
“You know,” I sighed, “you’re right. We killed Him. We rejected him and we killed him, and I for one am damn glad we did and so should you be as well, and if you aren’t grateful to me for killing Jesus you are insulting God and damning yourself to Hell for all eternity for rejecting God and God’s Son and the gift of redemption that He secured with His death.”
I think my confession confused him, and he just stared at me blankly. So I continued.
“Paul taught it was necessary for Jesus to suffer and die and be resurrected (Acts 17:3). If you don’t die you don’t resurrect. And Acts says that Jesus was “delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God” (2:22). This was God’s plan. The Jews did God’s work. If not for the Jews there would be no Jesus and if not for the Jews there would be no Christ. If you get into heaven it is because we Jews were willing to do what God demanded. Just as Abraham was willing to kill his son so were we, commanded by God, willing to kill God’s Son. We could have said ‘no.’ We could have said, “You want Him dead, then kill Him Yourself.” But we didn’t; we did what we were created to do: we killed God.
“You think killing God was easy. No, sir. You have it easy. All you have to do is believe. We had to do the dirty work. And then people like you have the audacity to attack, condemn, brutalize, and even murder the very people God chose to bring redemption to the world. Jesus came to die, the Jews were destined by God to kill Him; this is God’s plan and you, my friend, are insulting the very God whom you pretend to love. Shame on you! And you call yourself a Christian. You are no Christian for you deny the power of God to carry out His will, and you spit on the servants of God who are tasked with doing His will. You are going to Hell for your blasphemy, and I pity you your fate. We Jews are going to heaven for our loyalty. And we will be embraced by the still bleeding hands of Jesus and the blood from His side will stain our newly white robes and we will have to find a place to wash them or perhaps a discount store where we might purchase new ones for we are destined to stand before God as the chosen servants of God who did His will by killing His Son so that people like you could have a chance at salvation which you have just blown by insulting me.”
It was a masterful speech, and, with its conclusion, I mounted my bike as if it were one of the four horses of the Apocalypse, and peddled away calling back over my shoulder, “Woe to you, blasphemer of God, woe to you and your seed and your seed’s seed’s seed’s seed unto a thousand generations of seed which is a lot of seed if you are lucky which you will not be for God hateth those who mocketh His will and those who carry it out. Woe to you, O Blasphemer, woe. And forgeteth not that this will go on thy permanent record. Woe!”
I didn’t look back but I imagined this poor fellow falling to his knees and asking Jesus for forgiveness. Most likely, however, he just went looking for another Jew.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Nobody Home
Lots of people are complaining that House of Representatives is off for the Jewish Holy Day of Rosh Hashanah. I’m one of them. In a country where we Jews are forever defending the secular nature of our democracy, we should be outraged that Congress is taking Rosh haShanah off. If Jewish members of Congress take the day off, fine. But to close the House is absurd. And do so for two days? All the more insane!
The only reason we have two days for our New Year is that ancient Jews hedged their bets when it came to calendar accuracy. The Bible says that Rosh haShanah is the first day of the seventh month of the Hebrew calendar. (Yes, having a new year in the seventh month is also insane, but this was just one of God’s little jokes.) Since the only way to tell when a new month began was to send witnesses out to look at the moon, one could never be certain when the first of any month actually was. So to be safe we celebrate two days of most holidays. But that was then. We’ve actually landed a few golfers on the moon, do we still have to pretend like we don’t know what day it is?
And why focus on Rosh haShanah, anyway? Yom Kippur is more important. Why not take Yom Kippur off? And, technically speaking, Shabbat is more important still, so why not take Saturdays off? If I wanted to live in a country that closed down for the Jewish holydays I’d move to Israel.
Then again, the country isn’t closed. Banks are open, though they have no money. Schools are open, though our minds are increasingly closed. The mail is still being delivered, though the flood of offers to open new credit card accounts is slowing. Even the Senate is open, though without John McCain they can barely function. So, in fact, it is only the House that is closed. What are Gentile Representatives doing on Rosh haShanah? Trolling synagogues for Jewish votes?
And what about Moslem Americans, and Hindu and Buddhist Americans? Shouldn’t we close for their holy days as well? How about the Native American peyote church? Shouldn’t our legislators be eating peyote to honor the First Americans?
As long as there is an American who belongs to a religion that has a holy day I think Congress should close in honor of it. Add these religious days off to Congress’ already limited work schedule and legislators wouldn’t be in Washington more than a couple of weeks a year at most. This could be a good thing. The less time they have to make law the less time they have to make a mess of this country.
So let me offer a hearty l’Shana Tova to the House of Representatives. And I look forward to them fasting next year on Ramadan, and taking off this coming May 23 for the anniversary of the Declaration of the Bab. And a daily dose of peyote just might be what Congress needs after all. It might even be covered by their most generous healthcare plan.
The only reason we have two days for our New Year is that ancient Jews hedged their bets when it came to calendar accuracy. The Bible says that Rosh haShanah is the first day of the seventh month of the Hebrew calendar. (Yes, having a new year in the seventh month is also insane, but this was just one of God’s little jokes.) Since the only way to tell when a new month began was to send witnesses out to look at the moon, one could never be certain when the first of any month actually was. So to be safe we celebrate two days of most holidays. But that was then. We’ve actually landed a few golfers on the moon, do we still have to pretend like we don’t know what day it is?
And why focus on Rosh haShanah, anyway? Yom Kippur is more important. Why not take Yom Kippur off? And, technically speaking, Shabbat is more important still, so why not take Saturdays off? If I wanted to live in a country that closed down for the Jewish holydays I’d move to Israel.
Then again, the country isn’t closed. Banks are open, though they have no money. Schools are open, though our minds are increasingly closed. The mail is still being delivered, though the flood of offers to open new credit card accounts is slowing. Even the Senate is open, though without John McCain they can barely function. So, in fact, it is only the House that is closed. What are Gentile Representatives doing on Rosh haShanah? Trolling synagogues for Jewish votes?
And what about Moslem Americans, and Hindu and Buddhist Americans? Shouldn’t we close for their holy days as well? How about the Native American peyote church? Shouldn’t our legislators be eating peyote to honor the First Americans?
As long as there is an American who belongs to a religion that has a holy day I think Congress should close in honor of it. Add these religious days off to Congress’ already limited work schedule and legislators wouldn’t be in Washington more than a couple of weeks a year at most. This could be a good thing. The less time they have to make law the less time they have to make a mess of this country.
So let me offer a hearty l’Shana Tova to the House of Representatives. And I look forward to them fasting next year on Ramadan, and taking off this coming May 23 for the anniversary of the Declaration of the Bab. And a daily dose of peyote just might be what Congress needs after all. It might even be covered by their most generous healthcare plan.
Monday, September 29, 2008
My People, My Self
Pity Tzipi Livni who has the hapless task of trying to put together a coalition government in Israel with herself as the new Prime Minister. To achieve her goal Ms. Livni must kiss the tzitzit (fringes worn by observant Jewish men as a reminder of God’s presence) of former Chief Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, spiritual leader of the orthodox Shas Party, and the Jewish equivalent of the reverends Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (alav hashalom, peace be upon him).
Rabbi Yosef believes that the Holocaust was God’s way of punishing the reincarnated souls of Jewish sinners. He, like his coreligionists Robertson and Falwell (no, the rabbi isn’t a Christian, but I suspect he along with Robertson and Falwell are really followers of a fascistic Faith of Fear, a Taliban-like cabal whose members highjack the spiritual high ground for their own globalist ends), holds that hurricane Katrina blasted New Orleans in retribution for its affinity for Sodom, and targeted the United States in general for this country’s support of the Israeli pullout from Gaza.
And do not imagine that I am knocking a minor Jewish extremist. Not at all: Rabbi Yosef was Chief Rabbi of Israel and rules his people with the authority of a Pope—and not even a modern Pope but a good old fashion medieval Pope.
Anyone following American politics knows that our political discourse has devolved into a competition among animal metaphors. We no longer argue about foreign policy or economics, but about lipstick on pigs and pit bulls, and the rank odor of unrefrigerated fish. As a loyal American Jew please allow me to add two more animals to our discussion based on the teachings of my rabbi Obadiah Yosef who once said, “Walking between two women is like walking between two donkeys or between two camels,” (see “Israeli party lays out its demands,” USA TODAY, Sept 19, 2008).
I do not know Rabbi Yosef personally, so it is possible that what he thought were human women were in fact donkeys and camels wearing lipstick, which might make his teaching less troubling. But the fact that he couldn’t make up his mind whether women were donkeys or camels, two very distinct animals, is worrisome nonetheless.
In any case the very fact that to become Israeli’s next Prime Minister the clearly human Ms. Livni has to put up with this misogynist saint is just another reason to bemoan the fate of the Zionist ideal, and to question the knee-jerk raising of funds for a country that is, for all its technological genius and creativity, in danger of becoming a Jewish loony bin. And the fact that the good rabbi is a rabbi, and was in fact Chief Rabbi, makes me wonder if it isn’t time to turn in my Torah and reclaim my foreskin.
I have spent the past ten days teaching Judaism to primarily Gentile audiences in Tennessee and California. The Judaism I shared with them has no room for Chief Rabbis and medieval misogynists. My talks were well received and I managed to fool my students into thinking that Judaism was a faith of reason, argument, moral integrity, and spiritual daring. Thank God no one read USA TODAY. I wish I hadn’t.
Rabbi Yosef believes that the Holocaust was God’s way of punishing the reincarnated souls of Jewish sinners. He, like his coreligionists Robertson and Falwell (no, the rabbi isn’t a Christian, but I suspect he along with Robertson and Falwell are really followers of a fascistic Faith of Fear, a Taliban-like cabal whose members highjack the spiritual high ground for their own globalist ends), holds that hurricane Katrina blasted New Orleans in retribution for its affinity for Sodom, and targeted the United States in general for this country’s support of the Israeli pullout from Gaza.
And do not imagine that I am knocking a minor Jewish extremist. Not at all: Rabbi Yosef was Chief Rabbi of Israel and rules his people with the authority of a Pope—and not even a modern Pope but a good old fashion medieval Pope.
Anyone following American politics knows that our political discourse has devolved into a competition among animal metaphors. We no longer argue about foreign policy or economics, but about lipstick on pigs and pit bulls, and the rank odor of unrefrigerated fish. As a loyal American Jew please allow me to add two more animals to our discussion based on the teachings of my rabbi Obadiah Yosef who once said, “Walking between two women is like walking between two donkeys or between two camels,” (see “Israeli party lays out its demands,” USA TODAY, Sept 19, 2008).
I do not know Rabbi Yosef personally, so it is possible that what he thought were human women were in fact donkeys and camels wearing lipstick, which might make his teaching less troubling. But the fact that he couldn’t make up his mind whether women were donkeys or camels, two very distinct animals, is worrisome nonetheless.
In any case the very fact that to become Israeli’s next Prime Minister the clearly human Ms. Livni has to put up with this misogynist saint is just another reason to bemoan the fate of the Zionist ideal, and to question the knee-jerk raising of funds for a country that is, for all its technological genius and creativity, in danger of becoming a Jewish loony bin. And the fact that the good rabbi is a rabbi, and was in fact Chief Rabbi, makes me wonder if it isn’t time to turn in my Torah and reclaim my foreskin.
I have spent the past ten days teaching Judaism to primarily Gentile audiences in Tennessee and California. The Judaism I shared with them has no room for Chief Rabbis and medieval misogynists. My talks were well received and I managed to fool my students into thinking that Judaism was a faith of reason, argument, moral integrity, and spiritual daring. Thank God no one read USA TODAY. I wish I hadn’t.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Playing the Jew Card
Some Jews have a problem with Barack Obama. Some Jews have a problem with me. Some Jews think Barack Obama is a Muslim (nothing wrong with being a Muslim, by the way, but he is a Christian just so you know especially if you are one of those Jews who think there is something wrong with being a Muslim which there isn’t, but if there were you should know he is not). Some Jews think I’m a Buddhist (nothing wrong with being a Buddhist, by the way, but I’m not). Some Jews think Barack Obama is bad for Israel. Some Jews think I am bad for Israel. But the real reason why some Jews have a problem with Barack Obama is… drum roll… because he’s black.
True Obama is only half black, but the half that is black is the outside half rather than the inside half and that is troubling to some Jews. Especially older Jews. Especially older Jews in Florida. Especially older Jews in my parents’ condo. If only his black half were on the inside and his white half on the outside, then we’d have no problem.
But wait! You think Obama is scary for the Jews? Listen to Florida Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings, “If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention. Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through.” [Cited in USA TODAY]
Wow. OK. I will.
True, Jews don’t usually tote guns unless they are in the Israeli army or part of the Settler Movement that wants to turn Palestine into Boca East. It is actually against Jewish law to hunt for sport. This is one of the few Jewish laws I have never violated, so placing this at the heart of what it is to be a Jew is fine with me. But what about this moose stripping thing?
I have seen many moose in my time, but none of them were dressed. Even my favorite moose, Bullwinkle J. rarely wore clothes, and when he did he only wore a t-shirt from his alma mater Whatsamatta U, and he only wore this in restaurants that had signs saying “Shirts Required.” So why would Sarah Palin strip moose? Who is dressing them up in the first place?
As urged by Rep. Hastings I actually thought this through and discovered that Gov. Palin actually can field dress a moose. This, I assume, means she can dress a moose in the field. This is important: she dresses moose in order to strip them. She has a problem.
I figure there must be a naked moose fetish from which some people suffer. I guess Gov. Palin is one of these sufferers. I tried to find this fetish on the Internet and could not find any association between this moose dressing/stripping obsession and Jews. Now Jews are no different than anyone else so I suspect there are Jews who suffer from this disorder, but no organization devoted to it will accept Jews as members. That, my friends, is anti-Semitism pure and simple.
So Rep. Hastings has a point. Should Jews vote for a woman who refuses to allow Jews to heal from the very same disorder from which she herself suffers? This would be like Jews refusing Tay-Sachs testing to Gentiles. Outrageous! So think about it. Think about it very hard. Think about it so hard that you start to think about moving to Canada. I have.
True Obama is only half black, but the half that is black is the outside half rather than the inside half and that is troubling to some Jews. Especially older Jews. Especially older Jews in Florida. Especially older Jews in my parents’ condo. If only his black half were on the inside and his white half on the outside, then we’d have no problem.
But wait! You think Obama is scary for the Jews? Listen to Florida Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings, “If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention. Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through.” [Cited in USA TODAY]
Wow. OK. I will.
True, Jews don’t usually tote guns unless they are in the Israeli army or part of the Settler Movement that wants to turn Palestine into Boca East. It is actually against Jewish law to hunt for sport. This is one of the few Jewish laws I have never violated, so placing this at the heart of what it is to be a Jew is fine with me. But what about this moose stripping thing?
I have seen many moose in my time, but none of them were dressed. Even my favorite moose, Bullwinkle J. rarely wore clothes, and when he did he only wore a t-shirt from his alma mater Whatsamatta U, and he only wore this in restaurants that had signs saying “Shirts Required.” So why would Sarah Palin strip moose? Who is dressing them up in the first place?
As urged by Rep. Hastings I actually thought this through and discovered that Gov. Palin actually can field dress a moose. This, I assume, means she can dress a moose in the field. This is important: she dresses moose in order to strip them. She has a problem.
I figure there must be a naked moose fetish from which some people suffer. I guess Gov. Palin is one of these sufferers. I tried to find this fetish on the Internet and could not find any association between this moose dressing/stripping obsession and Jews. Now Jews are no different than anyone else so I suspect there are Jews who suffer from this disorder, but no organization devoted to it will accept Jews as members. That, my friends, is anti-Semitism pure and simple.
So Rep. Hastings has a point. Should Jews vote for a woman who refuses to allow Jews to heal from the very same disorder from which she herself suffers? This would be like Jews refusing Tay-Sachs testing to Gentiles. Outrageous! So think about it. Think about it very hard. Think about it so hard that you start to think about moving to Canada. I have.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Page 3A: A Glimpse of Religion in America
Today is Monday, September 21, 2008, the first day of autumn. Like most Mondays I spend a bit of the day reading USA TODAY. Monday is the day the paper features an article about religion on its op-ed page. But this Monday is different; religion is everywhere. Here is just a sample from page 3A:
Item: Along the Texas coast, a day of reflection. This article is about parishioners along the Texas coast whose churches were decimated by hurricane Ike. The buildings may have crumbled, but not the faith of those who worshipped in them. “I know it’s hard. Looking around, it’s tough,” said one pastor to his flock. “But there is a God, and he has a plan for our lives.” It is not my place to argue with the good reverend, but I can’t help wondering if he and his parishioners are really open to God’s plan. What if God wants them to leave Texas, perhaps that is why He destroyed their church. Or perhaps God hates their brand of worship and meant to end it without relying on His usual homicidal option. How come God’s plan is always the plan that we want God to have? The plan, in fact, that always reinforces what we want in the first place?
Item: Homeless pit borough against Bible. Just under the fold and to the left of the Texas church story, we find that the small western Pennsylvania town of Brookville is fining a local church for housing three homeless men in their church-parsonage. It seems that housing the homeless violates zoning laws in the town. My problem is that if the homeless are provided with housing, how is it they are still “homeless”? Can it be that the town can tell the church whom to house in its parsonage? Or is it that these men are not related or married, something that biology (in the first case) and the state of Pennsylvania (in the second case) does not allow?
Item: Ark. keeps custody of 6 children after raid in porn case. This story, appearing just to the right of the article on the illegally housed homeless, is about a two-year investigation of child abuse and pornography allegations against the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries. Mr. Alamo (pronounced A-lah-mo), who was convicted of tax-related charges in 1994, denied there is any pornography going on in his church. I was surprised (not really) that he didn’t say the same about child abuse (though he may have, and the paper didn’t print it). In any case I love Tony’s explanation of these charges against him: “Where do all these allegations come from? The anti-Christ government. The Catholics don’t like me because I have cut their congregation in half. They hate true Christianity.” Is the anti-Christ government and the Catholics one and the same? Or is Tony being persecuted by both? I hope it is the former so we can at last vote a pro-Christ Protestant into the Executive Branch of government.
What are we to make of the state of religion in America this first day of autumn? Honestly, I don’t know. But I can tell you this: It is awfully hot for the first day of autumn, but just right for the beginning of the Fall.
Item: Along the Texas coast, a day of reflection. This article is about parishioners along the Texas coast whose churches were decimated by hurricane Ike. The buildings may have crumbled, but not the faith of those who worshipped in them. “I know it’s hard. Looking around, it’s tough,” said one pastor to his flock. “But there is a God, and he has a plan for our lives.” It is not my place to argue with the good reverend, but I can’t help wondering if he and his parishioners are really open to God’s plan. What if God wants them to leave Texas, perhaps that is why He destroyed their church. Or perhaps God hates their brand of worship and meant to end it without relying on His usual homicidal option. How come God’s plan is always the plan that we want God to have? The plan, in fact, that always reinforces what we want in the first place?
Item: Homeless pit borough against Bible. Just under the fold and to the left of the Texas church story, we find that the small western Pennsylvania town of Brookville is fining a local church for housing three homeless men in their church-parsonage. It seems that housing the homeless violates zoning laws in the town. My problem is that if the homeless are provided with housing, how is it they are still “homeless”? Can it be that the town can tell the church whom to house in its parsonage? Or is it that these men are not related or married, something that biology (in the first case) and the state of Pennsylvania (in the second case) does not allow?
Item: Ark. keeps custody of 6 children after raid in porn case. This story, appearing just to the right of the article on the illegally housed homeless, is about a two-year investigation of child abuse and pornography allegations against the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries. Mr. Alamo (pronounced A-lah-mo), who was convicted of tax-related charges in 1994, denied there is any pornography going on in his church. I was surprised (not really) that he didn’t say the same about child abuse (though he may have, and the paper didn’t print it). In any case I love Tony’s explanation of these charges against him: “Where do all these allegations come from? The anti-Christ government. The Catholics don’t like me because I have cut their congregation in half. They hate true Christianity.” Is the anti-Christ government and the Catholics one and the same? Or is Tony being persecuted by both? I hope it is the former so we can at last vote a pro-Christ Protestant into the Executive Branch of government.
What are we to make of the state of religion in America this first day of autumn? Honestly, I don’t know. But I can tell you this: It is awfully hot for the first day of autumn, but just right for the beginning of the Fall.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Don't Put a Witch in the White House
Sarah Palin’s pastor is a witch hunter. The Rev. Thomas Muthee, pastor of Governor Palin’s church waged spiritual warfare against a fortunetelling witch in Kenya who he said was casting demonic spells and causing automobile accidents.
I realize that some of you will simply laugh this off as yet another example of 1) the left wing blogosphere attacking a good and righteous Christian; 2) the left wing blogosphere attacking a good and righteous Republican; or 3) the left wing blogosphere attacking a good and righteous nut job. Whatever your position I got to write “left wing blogosphere” three times (four if you count this one) which should be enough to drive you to vote for Palin-McCain in November. But there is more to this story, and you owe it to yourself and your country to think about it.
Let us review the facts: 1) Pastor Muthee hunted witches in Kenya; 2) Barack Obama’s father is from Kenya; ergo Barach Obama and his father are witches. This is the real reason John McCain chose Sarah Palin to join his team as VP: to recruit Pastor Muthee in the spiritual war against the Kenyan.
Want further proof? Think about this: Why hasn’t Barack Obama introduced us to his father? Sure, he says his father died in 1982, but does a witch die? Remember Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Senator Obama’s father) was Kenyan; the only other Kenyan we know is a witch defeated by Pastor Muthee, ergo Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was a witch. Witches don’t die. If the Obama campaign wants to disprove this, let them exhume the body of the so-called dead witch of Kenya. They won’t do this because they know the tomb is empty.
Still not convinced? There's more:
The Kenyan Senator admits to being a community organizer. A witch coven is a community, hence Barack Obama admits to organizing covens in Chicago. It is widely rumored (or it will be after I post this blog) that the Witch from Chicago carries a voodoo doll of John McCain in his pocket, and uses a series of pins to the doll’s eyes, mouth, and trigger finger to blind Senator McCain to the economic plight of Americans, to cause the Senator to lie and misspeak, and to force him to act as if we were living a prequel to The Planet of the Apes. In fact it is easy to attribute all of Obama’s success and all of McCain’s stumbles and lies to witchcraft. Indeed I have just done so.
Governor Palin will bring a proven witch hunter into the White House. He, like others before him, will conduct witch-hunts that will rid this country of Kenyans of all kinds. Pastor Muthee has a proven track record in hunting down witches and thereby lessening traffic accidents which, as we all know, is the number one crisis facing America today.
So please think this through: Remember Salem; Vote for Palin.
I realize that some of you will simply laugh this off as yet another example of 1) the left wing blogosphere attacking a good and righteous Christian; 2) the left wing blogosphere attacking a good and righteous Republican; or 3) the left wing blogosphere attacking a good and righteous nut job. Whatever your position I got to write “left wing blogosphere” three times (four if you count this one) which should be enough to drive you to vote for Palin-McCain in November. But there is more to this story, and you owe it to yourself and your country to think about it.
Let us review the facts: 1) Pastor Muthee hunted witches in Kenya; 2) Barack Obama’s father is from Kenya; ergo Barach Obama and his father are witches. This is the real reason John McCain chose Sarah Palin to join his team as VP: to recruit Pastor Muthee in the spiritual war against the Kenyan.
Want further proof? Think about this: Why hasn’t Barack Obama introduced us to his father? Sure, he says his father died in 1982, but does a witch die? Remember Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Senator Obama’s father) was Kenyan; the only other Kenyan we know is a witch defeated by Pastor Muthee, ergo Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was a witch. Witches don’t die. If the Obama campaign wants to disprove this, let them exhume the body of the so-called dead witch of Kenya. They won’t do this because they know the tomb is empty.
Still not convinced? There's more:
The Kenyan Senator admits to being a community organizer. A witch coven is a community, hence Barack Obama admits to organizing covens in Chicago. It is widely rumored (or it will be after I post this blog) that the Witch from Chicago carries a voodoo doll of John McCain in his pocket, and uses a series of pins to the doll’s eyes, mouth, and trigger finger to blind Senator McCain to the economic plight of Americans, to cause the Senator to lie and misspeak, and to force him to act as if we were living a prequel to The Planet of the Apes. In fact it is easy to attribute all of Obama’s success and all of McCain’s stumbles and lies to witchcraft. Indeed I have just done so.
Governor Palin will bring a proven witch hunter into the White House. He, like others before him, will conduct witch-hunts that will rid this country of Kenyans of all kinds. Pastor Muthee has a proven track record in hunting down witches and thereby lessening traffic accidents which, as we all know, is the number one crisis facing America today.
So please think this through: Remember Salem; Vote for Palin.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Caterpillar or Butterfly
I’m always talking about transformation; it is one of my favorite buzzwords. My idea is that we must be other than we are; that we must transform ourselves into that which is not ourselves. But what if I’m wrong? What if transformation is just one of those words that takes on a life of its own without any link to reality?
Can we really transform ourselves? And if we can, who is the self that is doing the transforming? Can I use my right hand to change my right hand? Can the “me” I am changing into be a “me” I’m not? If Einstein is right that the mind that causes a problem cannot be the mind that solves that problem, how are we to change minds? Do we have to be changed by an outside force, or are we like caterpillars designed for transformation into butterflies?
I think the answer lies somewhere in between these two options. There is an outside force, a force greater than ourselves that must do the work of transformation, but this force does not act outside of us but inside and through us. So maybe the word “outside” should be dropped in favor is “greater;” a force greater than us that at the same time includes us is needed to drag our caterpillar minds into our butterfly potential.
But is being a butterfly better than being a caterpillar? Not at all. First, we need caterpillars if we are to have butterflies. Second, each is a necessary part of nature and we could not do without either. So maybe we need our egoic, fearful, ignorant, and violent self (to name but a few legs that comprise caterpillar mind) to set the stage for transformation. Maybe there is nothing wrong with us except that we haven’t finished becoming fully who we are.
But this puts transformation into time, and I am not certain that is right either. When I simply sit still and look, I find that the “me” I think I am disappears. There is just the looker and the looked at in one unbroken unity; there is only “looking.” When I sit still and listen, I don’t hear the egoic chatter, but the global buzz, the humming of the planet as a whole, life itself; there is only listening. My voice is caught up in a symphony of voices, and I can sit back and marvel at the concert.
My normal mind is the “transformed mind.” It is my egoic mind with its caterpillar legs running in all directions at once that is the butterfly. When I see this I don’t need to be caterpillar or butterfly. I don’t need to be anything at all. I am it already.
So maybe all of our rushing around trying to be other than we are is the problem rather than the solution. Maybe what we need do is sit down and sit still, and leave both caterpillar and butterfly alone.
Can we really transform ourselves? And if we can, who is the self that is doing the transforming? Can I use my right hand to change my right hand? Can the “me” I am changing into be a “me” I’m not? If Einstein is right that the mind that causes a problem cannot be the mind that solves that problem, how are we to change minds? Do we have to be changed by an outside force, or are we like caterpillars designed for transformation into butterflies?
I think the answer lies somewhere in between these two options. There is an outside force, a force greater than ourselves that must do the work of transformation, but this force does not act outside of us but inside and through us. So maybe the word “outside” should be dropped in favor is “greater;” a force greater than us that at the same time includes us is needed to drag our caterpillar minds into our butterfly potential.
But is being a butterfly better than being a caterpillar? Not at all. First, we need caterpillars if we are to have butterflies. Second, each is a necessary part of nature and we could not do without either. So maybe we need our egoic, fearful, ignorant, and violent self (to name but a few legs that comprise caterpillar mind) to set the stage for transformation. Maybe there is nothing wrong with us except that we haven’t finished becoming fully who we are.
But this puts transformation into time, and I am not certain that is right either. When I simply sit still and look, I find that the “me” I think I am disappears. There is just the looker and the looked at in one unbroken unity; there is only “looking.” When I sit still and listen, I don’t hear the egoic chatter, but the global buzz, the humming of the planet as a whole, life itself; there is only listening. My voice is caught up in a symphony of voices, and I can sit back and marvel at the concert.
My normal mind is the “transformed mind.” It is my egoic mind with its caterpillar legs running in all directions at once that is the butterfly. When I see this I don’t need to be caterpillar or butterfly. I don’t need to be anything at all. I am it already.
So maybe all of our rushing around trying to be other than we are is the problem rather than the solution. Maybe what we need do is sit down and sit still, and leave both caterpillar and butterfly alone.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Sarah Palin, I Love You!
I love Governor Sarah Palin.
I love the fact that she can stand on the shores of Alaska, watch the ice melt precipitously, and still deny the danger of global climate change and the role of human beings in it.
I love the fact that she can argue for the drilling of oil, a product that takes millions of years for nature to produce, and still believe in Creationism, which doesn’t allow enough time for nature to produce it.
I love the fact that she can love her pregnant teenage daughter and still advocate Abstinence Only sex education.
I love the fact that she can be married to a union member and still promote policies that weaken unions.
I love the fact that she can look all soft and feminine and still be, as she herself said, a pit-bull with lipstick. I love that the most.
I love that the most because I live next to a pit-bull. His name is Rusty and he is just the cutest dog. I keep dog treats with me all the time, and I always give him one whenever I go into or out of my house. True I’m afraid that if I don’t bribe him to let me pass he will rip my throat out, but still I genuinely love this dog. That’s why I plan to purchase some lipstick today, smear it on his mouth while he is preoccupied with a dog biscuit, and take him to the Republican Party headquarters for a one man one dog pro-Sarah Palin rally. It’s only half a mile from my house, and I’m sure the people there will love the gesture.
John McCain made a brilliant choice in picking Governor Palin as his running mate. I am more convinced than ever that the Republicans will retain the White House, and while I fear for my country having to endure four more years of an anti-science, anti-reason, anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-education, anti-Constitution government, I also know that America gets the leadership it deserves.
But the future may be more interesting then a simple return to the good old days of back alley abortions and the Cold War. Here are three possible scenarios.
One: John McCain wins the presidency in November. He starts wars with Iran and Russia triggering a joint Arab-Russian invasion of Israel thus initiating the Second Coming of Jesus who slaughters billions of nonbelievers as part of God’s Pro-Life agenda.
Two: John McCain wins the presidency in November. He starts wars with Iran and Russia triggering a joint Arab-Russian invasion of Israel, but Jesus fails to return, perhaps angry with John for not putting Joe Lieberman, a fellow Jew, on the ticket.
Three: John McCain wins the presidency in November. If he survives his first term, and given his age and the stress of the job and the coming wars with Iran and Russia he may not, he will decline to run for a second term. Vice President Palin then becomes either the first woman president (because John is ill or worse), or runs as the Republican nominee in 2012. In either case, Saran Palin will run for president in four years and opposing her will be another lip-glossed pit-bull, this one in a pantsuit (Rusty will love wearing one of those), and we are in for the most wicked battle in American politics since Burr shot Hamilton.
Oh, and then Jesus back comes after that.
I love the fact that she can stand on the shores of Alaska, watch the ice melt precipitously, and still deny the danger of global climate change and the role of human beings in it.
I love the fact that she can argue for the drilling of oil, a product that takes millions of years for nature to produce, and still believe in Creationism, which doesn’t allow enough time for nature to produce it.
I love the fact that she can love her pregnant teenage daughter and still advocate Abstinence Only sex education.
I love the fact that she can be married to a union member and still promote policies that weaken unions.
I love the fact that she can look all soft and feminine and still be, as she herself said, a pit-bull with lipstick. I love that the most.
I love that the most because I live next to a pit-bull. His name is Rusty and he is just the cutest dog. I keep dog treats with me all the time, and I always give him one whenever I go into or out of my house. True I’m afraid that if I don’t bribe him to let me pass he will rip my throat out, but still I genuinely love this dog. That’s why I plan to purchase some lipstick today, smear it on his mouth while he is preoccupied with a dog biscuit, and take him to the Republican Party headquarters for a one man one dog pro-Sarah Palin rally. It’s only half a mile from my house, and I’m sure the people there will love the gesture.
John McCain made a brilliant choice in picking Governor Palin as his running mate. I am more convinced than ever that the Republicans will retain the White House, and while I fear for my country having to endure four more years of an anti-science, anti-reason, anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-education, anti-Constitution government, I also know that America gets the leadership it deserves.
But the future may be more interesting then a simple return to the good old days of back alley abortions and the Cold War. Here are three possible scenarios.
One: John McCain wins the presidency in November. He starts wars with Iran and Russia triggering a joint Arab-Russian invasion of Israel thus initiating the Second Coming of Jesus who slaughters billions of nonbelievers as part of God’s Pro-Life agenda.
Two: John McCain wins the presidency in November. He starts wars with Iran and Russia triggering a joint Arab-Russian invasion of Israel, but Jesus fails to return, perhaps angry with John for not putting Joe Lieberman, a fellow Jew, on the ticket.
Three: John McCain wins the presidency in November. If he survives his first term, and given his age and the stress of the job and the coming wars with Iran and Russia he may not, he will decline to run for a second term. Vice President Palin then becomes either the first woman president (because John is ill or worse), or runs as the Republican nominee in 2012. In either case, Saran Palin will run for president in four years and opposing her will be another lip-glossed pit-bull, this one in a pantsuit (Rusty will love wearing one of those), and we are in for the most wicked battle in American politics since Burr shot Hamilton.
Oh, and then Jesus back comes after that.
I get it. And it scares me.
I get that John McCain is a war hero. And I get that he is a better American than I am. I readily admit that if captured and threatened with torture (let alone actually tortured) I will tell Dick Cheney anything he wants to know.
And I get that women and men who risk their lives in military service are to be honored. And while I think the best way to honor them is not to send them into wars based on lies and fabricated evidence, I know they are just doing their duty and I respect that.
But what I don’t get is why we should be allowed to exploit them politically.
Last night at the Republican Convention former Governor Mike Huckabee told a story about a school teacher in Arkansas who removed all the desks from her classroom and wouldn’t allow any of her students to have one until they could figure out how to earn one. They suggested good grades and good behavior, but she said that wasn’t it. After five class periods of deskless guessing, she told her assembled students that in fact they couldn’t earn their desks because veterans had already earned the desks for them. She then opened the door to her classroom and twenty veterans carried in twenty desks. The convention crowd went wild.
I doubt this story was true. What classroom in America has only twenty desks in it? But, assuming it was true, what was the message? If good grades and good behavior don’t earn one a place at the education table, why would someone else’s military service?
I think the idea was that freedom isn’t free. OK, but public education is paid for by all citizens not just soldiers. And if someone else has secured my desk for me, and grades and behavior have nothing to do with it, what am I doing in school? If everything of value has to do with the military then why not just make all public schools military academies and funnel high school grads right into the service? Israel does this and it is one of the most important features of their society. Honestly, such a move would end racism, sexism, and homophobia in this country within a generation, two at the most.
Listening to the speeches at the Republican Convention last night I thought I was living in ancient Sparta. Rather than referencing John McCain’s war record as a sign that he would keep us out of war, rather than pointing to his brutal torture as proof that he would stop America’s use of torture; speaker after speaker glorified war and rumors of war. Rather than use the moral high ground to be moral, they used it to excuse the immoral.
By the time last night’s political speeches were finished I imagined thousands of Republican delegates leaving the conventional hall so hopped up on war rhetoric that they would attack, torture, kill, and maybe even eat anything that looked liberal on their way back to their hotels.
We don’t honor our service women and men by exploiting them, by sending them into harm’s way for the sake of corporate greed, by allowing the wounded to languish in substandard hospitals or alone on the street, by fighting against veterans’ benefits, or by telling stupid stories about them. We honor by being an honorable nation worthy of their blood, sweat, tears, and lives. I do not believe we are that nation, and this election is scaring me to death.
And I get that women and men who risk their lives in military service are to be honored. And while I think the best way to honor them is not to send them into wars based on lies and fabricated evidence, I know they are just doing their duty and I respect that.
But what I don’t get is why we should be allowed to exploit them politically.
Last night at the Republican Convention former Governor Mike Huckabee told a story about a school teacher in Arkansas who removed all the desks from her classroom and wouldn’t allow any of her students to have one until they could figure out how to earn one. They suggested good grades and good behavior, but she said that wasn’t it. After five class periods of deskless guessing, she told her assembled students that in fact they couldn’t earn their desks because veterans had already earned the desks for them. She then opened the door to her classroom and twenty veterans carried in twenty desks. The convention crowd went wild.
I doubt this story was true. What classroom in America has only twenty desks in it? But, assuming it was true, what was the message? If good grades and good behavior don’t earn one a place at the education table, why would someone else’s military service?
I think the idea was that freedom isn’t free. OK, but public education is paid for by all citizens not just soldiers. And if someone else has secured my desk for me, and grades and behavior have nothing to do with it, what am I doing in school? If everything of value has to do with the military then why not just make all public schools military academies and funnel high school grads right into the service? Israel does this and it is one of the most important features of their society. Honestly, such a move would end racism, sexism, and homophobia in this country within a generation, two at the most.
Listening to the speeches at the Republican Convention last night I thought I was living in ancient Sparta. Rather than referencing John McCain’s war record as a sign that he would keep us out of war, rather than pointing to his brutal torture as proof that he would stop America’s use of torture; speaker after speaker glorified war and rumors of war. Rather than use the moral high ground to be moral, they used it to excuse the immoral.
By the time last night’s political speeches were finished I imagined thousands of Republican delegates leaving the conventional hall so hopped up on war rhetoric that they would attack, torture, kill, and maybe even eat anything that looked liberal on their way back to their hotels.
We don’t honor our service women and men by exploiting them, by sending them into harm’s way for the sake of corporate greed, by allowing the wounded to languish in substandard hospitals or alone on the street, by fighting against veterans’ benefits, or by telling stupid stories about them. We honor by being an honorable nation worthy of their blood, sweat, tears, and lives. I do not believe we are that nation, and this election is scaring me to death.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Save Us Sarah
I saw him from a distance, and should have walked the other way. I had spoken with him before, and should have kept my mouth shut. I knew better, but I couldn’t help myself. It is the curse of the Yankee in the Confederate Gentleman’s Court. Our eyes met. We nodded. And then it happened—he spoke: “So Sarah Palin, the first female Vice President of these United States. Gotta hand it ta McCain.”
“You do,” I said, hoping to get away with a mere two syllables.
“Saves the country from being taken over by Mooslems.”
“Obama’s not a Muslim, and even if he were what is wrong with that? There is no religious test for public office in this country.”
“Didn’t you watch Oh-bama and McCain at Rick Warren’s church? That Mooslem didn’t have a chance. Christian country, Christian people, Christian leaders. No others need apply. Did you know he won’t show his birth certificate? You know why? Because it shows he’s a Mooslem born in Mooslem Africa. Went to Muslim schools. Trained to take over this country, and almost got away with it, ‘cept for Sarah Palin.”
“What are you talking about? Obama’s birth certificate is a matter of public record. It shows he was born in Hawaii.”
“And since when is Hawaii part of the United States? Hurts to be caught don’t it? Barach Hooosayn Oh-bama is a Muslim trained to take down this country. You think the terrorists think they can knock down all our buildings? You think that is how they is going to take over America?”
“Hawaii and Alaska both became states in 1959. And terrorists aren’t trying to take over America, they are trying to…”
“Alaska—now that’s American. They got oil, You know what Hawaii’s got? Mooslems! There ain’t no Mooslems in Alaska. You know why? Sarah Palin, that’s why. That’s why Oh-bama’s a Mooslem and Sarah Palin is a God-fearin’ Christian. But you’re right that Mooslems can’t take over America by knockin’ down buildings. That’s why they planted one of their own and helped him become a senator so he could become president. Oh-bama is a Moolem sleeper cell. You know what he’ll do as soon as he’s elected? He’ll stop all aid to Israhl, arm the Ayrabs, make an amenment to the Constitution outlawn Christianity as the oh-fficial American religion and English as the oh-fficial American language and…”
“But Christianity isn’t the official religion of America, nor is English the official language, we are a secular…”
“You awready in his pocket, ain’t cha, boy? Awready in his pocket. Well, vote fer a Mooslim is you want. It’s a free country, but we have computer recerds of yer vote and we’ll have to hold ya to it. You have a good day now, y’hear?”
I might have, but not now.
PS: I am not trying to make fun of the Tennessee accent, only trying to give you a flavor of what this fellow sounded like.
“You do,” I said, hoping to get away with a mere two syllables.
“Saves the country from being taken over by Mooslems.”
“Obama’s not a Muslim, and even if he were what is wrong with that? There is no religious test for public office in this country.”
“Didn’t you watch Oh-bama and McCain at Rick Warren’s church? That Mooslem didn’t have a chance. Christian country, Christian people, Christian leaders. No others need apply. Did you know he won’t show his birth certificate? You know why? Because it shows he’s a Mooslem born in Mooslem Africa. Went to Muslim schools. Trained to take over this country, and almost got away with it, ‘cept for Sarah Palin.”
“What are you talking about? Obama’s birth certificate is a matter of public record. It shows he was born in Hawaii.”
“And since when is Hawaii part of the United States? Hurts to be caught don’t it? Barach Hooosayn Oh-bama is a Muslim trained to take down this country. You think the terrorists think they can knock down all our buildings? You think that is how they is going to take over America?”
“Hawaii and Alaska both became states in 1959. And terrorists aren’t trying to take over America, they are trying to…”
“Alaska—now that’s American. They got oil, You know what Hawaii’s got? Mooslems! There ain’t no Mooslems in Alaska. You know why? Sarah Palin, that’s why. That’s why Oh-bama’s a Mooslem and Sarah Palin is a God-fearin’ Christian. But you’re right that Mooslems can’t take over America by knockin’ down buildings. That’s why they planted one of their own and helped him become a senator so he could become president. Oh-bama is a Moolem sleeper cell. You know what he’ll do as soon as he’s elected? He’ll stop all aid to Israhl, arm the Ayrabs, make an amenment to the Constitution outlawn Christianity as the oh-fficial American religion and English as the oh-fficial American language and…”
“But Christianity isn’t the official religion of America, nor is English the official language, we are a secular…”
“You awready in his pocket, ain’t cha, boy? Awready in his pocket. Well, vote fer a Mooslim is you want. It’s a free country, but we have computer recerds of yer vote and we’ll have to hold ya to it. You have a good day now, y’hear?”
I might have, but not now.
PS: I am not trying to make fun of the Tennessee accent, only trying to give you a flavor of what this fellow sounded like.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Should We Apologize for Slavery?
Should America apologize for slavery?
The question came up on an American Airlines flight from Nashville to Dallas two weeks ago. I was reading the September-October issue of Sojourners, a liberal Christian magazine, and my seatmate was reading over my shoulder. We were both taken with a letter to the editor that opposed such an apology.
“She makes a good point,” the woman next to me in the middle seat said. “I wasn’t alive during slavery, and my grandparents didn’t come to this country until the twentieth century, so I really had nothing to do with it. Why should I have to apologize for something I didn’t do?”
“I agree,” I said. “I had nothing to do with slavery either. Of course neither myself nor my parents or grandparents were here when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, so I guess I shouldn’t take any pride in that either. And while I can opt out of having to feeling bad about reducing African-Americans to 3/5ths of a person in the Constitution of the United States—I mean I wasn’t there, it wasn’t my idea—I guess I can’t celebrate the genius of the document or the Bill of Rights that followed it.”
I tried to say this with a straight face, but, frozen facial muscles or not, my voice betrayed me.
“Sarcasm is not an argument,” the woman said.
“True enough,” I said. “But if I think about it I have enough to be sorry for.”
“Like?”
“Well, my grandparents, parents, and I were in this country during segregation, the reign of terror perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan, Vietnam, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments inflicted on black men, the assignations of King and Kennedy, the breaking of treaties with the American Indians, the rape of the Constitution by George W., the terrorizing of Americans by McCarthy in the fifties and Cheney today. And that’s just off the top of my head.”
She was not convinced. “I was alive during segregation but I didn’t discriminate against blacks, so I shouldn’t have to apologize. And I had nothing to do with McCarthy, and I think Bush and Cheney are the greatest Americans since Ronald Reagan, so there is nothing to apologize for there. In fact I had nothing to do with anything regarding blacks or Indians or poor people at all, so I resent the country apologizing on my behalf.”
“But you are willing to take credit for the good things the US has done, even though you personally had nothing to do with them?”
“Sure. Why not?”
“It’s not a question of why not, it is a matter of consistency. If you take credit for the good you had no hand in, you should take responsibility for the evil you had no hand in. All of it was and is being done in the name of the people of the United States, and, unless you plan to give up your citizenship, that means you.”
“No it does not. I’m an American.”
Somehow that non sequitor was supposed to end the conversation with my seatmate taking the gold in logic. And in her mind it did. I was happy just to have her lean the other way and let me get back to my magazine. But I admit to fantasizing about opening the emergency exit and letting gravity, for which this woman also had no responsibility, suck her to her doom.
The question came up on an American Airlines flight from Nashville to Dallas two weeks ago. I was reading the September-October issue of Sojourners, a liberal Christian magazine, and my seatmate was reading over my shoulder. We were both taken with a letter to the editor that opposed such an apology.
“She makes a good point,” the woman next to me in the middle seat said. “I wasn’t alive during slavery, and my grandparents didn’t come to this country until the twentieth century, so I really had nothing to do with it. Why should I have to apologize for something I didn’t do?”
“I agree,” I said. “I had nothing to do with slavery either. Of course neither myself nor my parents or grandparents were here when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, so I guess I shouldn’t take any pride in that either. And while I can opt out of having to feeling bad about reducing African-Americans to 3/5ths of a person in the Constitution of the United States—I mean I wasn’t there, it wasn’t my idea—I guess I can’t celebrate the genius of the document or the Bill of Rights that followed it.”
I tried to say this with a straight face, but, frozen facial muscles or not, my voice betrayed me.
“Sarcasm is not an argument,” the woman said.
“True enough,” I said. “But if I think about it I have enough to be sorry for.”
“Like?”
“Well, my grandparents, parents, and I were in this country during segregation, the reign of terror perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan, Vietnam, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments inflicted on black men, the assignations of King and Kennedy, the breaking of treaties with the American Indians, the rape of the Constitution by George W., the terrorizing of Americans by McCarthy in the fifties and Cheney today. And that’s just off the top of my head.”
She was not convinced. “I was alive during segregation but I didn’t discriminate against blacks, so I shouldn’t have to apologize. And I had nothing to do with McCarthy, and I think Bush and Cheney are the greatest Americans since Ronald Reagan, so there is nothing to apologize for there. In fact I had nothing to do with anything regarding blacks or Indians or poor people at all, so I resent the country apologizing on my behalf.”
“But you are willing to take credit for the good things the US has done, even though you personally had nothing to do with them?”
“Sure. Why not?”
“It’s not a question of why not, it is a matter of consistency. If you take credit for the good you had no hand in, you should take responsibility for the evil you had no hand in. All of it was and is being done in the name of the people of the United States, and, unless you plan to give up your citizenship, that means you.”
“No it does not. I’m an American.”
Somehow that non sequitor was supposed to end the conversation with my seatmate taking the gold in logic. And in her mind it did. I was happy just to have her lean the other way and let me get back to my magazine. But I admit to fantasizing about opening the emergency exit and letting gravity, for which this woman also had no responsibility, suck her to her doom.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Nothing Hidden, Nothing Complicated
I spent the past few days teaching in at Unity of Tustin, a delightful church in Santa Ana, CA. As the retreat came to a close one passionate man sitting close to me in the front row was clearly unhappy with my level of teaching. He kept asking questions that he said were designed to bring out the “Master Teacher” in me.
Seeing that he was failing to find more to me than there is, he asked if I deliberately keep my public teaching so simple. I tried to explain that all my teaching is simple because I just don’t have the patience or personality for complication.
Honestly, there is nothing that deep about spirituality and enlightenment. Of course there are complicated systems of spiritual talk and practice for those who wish to spend decades learning about enlightenment rather than just waking up to it, but in the end even these, if they are at all legitimate, end up saying the same thing: namely (to quote Jesus quoting Deuteronomy and Leviticus) “Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul; and love your neighbor as your self.” That’s it.
Of course we have to define “love,” “God,” and “neighbor,” and different teachers will do so in different ways, and some of them won’t use this vocabulary at all, but the point being made will be the same.
For me love is engaging life in a manner that allows living things to flourish to the best of their ability; God is Reality, all that was, is, and will be; and neighbor is all beings and things that Reality manifests. Loving God and loving your neighbor means loving reality, the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Loving our neighbors requires upaya, the skillful means by which we can love effectively in the context an ever-changing reality. To do this it is often helpful to consult sacred texts, wise teachings, and authentic sages.
I am not one of these sages. I am a writer, a teacher, and an entertainer. I share what I know is true, what I think is true, and some of the texts, teachings and teachers from which I have learned what I know. I teach only those spiritual practices that I personally practice, and only to the level that I practice. And I try to do all this in a way that is fun, engaging, informative, and, when lucky, illuminating.
And then I go home. I don’t want followers. I don’t want disciples. I don’t want to take responsibility for someone else’s spiritual life. I have enough of a challenge taking responsibility for my own.
So I hope you will continue to buy and read my books, to invite me to visit your communities to teach, and to attend my workshops and retreats, but please do so for the fun of it. If you are looking for enlightenment, you are already lost.
Seeing that he was failing to find more to me than there is, he asked if I deliberately keep my public teaching so simple. I tried to explain that all my teaching is simple because I just don’t have the patience or personality for complication.
Honestly, there is nothing that deep about spirituality and enlightenment. Of course there are complicated systems of spiritual talk and practice for those who wish to spend decades learning about enlightenment rather than just waking up to it, but in the end even these, if they are at all legitimate, end up saying the same thing: namely (to quote Jesus quoting Deuteronomy and Leviticus) “Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul; and love your neighbor as your self.” That’s it.
Of course we have to define “love,” “God,” and “neighbor,” and different teachers will do so in different ways, and some of them won’t use this vocabulary at all, but the point being made will be the same.
For me love is engaging life in a manner that allows living things to flourish to the best of their ability; God is Reality, all that was, is, and will be; and neighbor is all beings and things that Reality manifests. Loving God and loving your neighbor means loving reality, the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Loving our neighbors requires upaya, the skillful means by which we can love effectively in the context an ever-changing reality. To do this it is often helpful to consult sacred texts, wise teachings, and authentic sages.
I am not one of these sages. I am a writer, a teacher, and an entertainer. I share what I know is true, what I think is true, and some of the texts, teachings and teachers from which I have learned what I know. I teach only those spiritual practices that I personally practice, and only to the level that I practice. And I try to do all this in a way that is fun, engaging, informative, and, when lucky, illuminating.
And then I go home. I don’t want followers. I don’t want disciples. I don’t want to take responsibility for someone else’s spiritual life. I have enough of a challenge taking responsibility for my own.
So I hope you will continue to buy and read my books, to invite me to visit your communities to teach, and to attend my workshops and retreats, but please do so for the fun of it. If you are looking for enlightenment, you are already lost.
Monday, August 25, 2008
God, My Hero
I love comic books. I started reading them when I was a kid, and I never stopped. My favorite comic book heroes are Dr. Strange, Master of the Mystic Arts, and The Shadow. I tell you this lest you think me anti-comic book when I bemoan a new poll ranking the top superheroes of the American comic reading public.
Five things trouble me about this poll. First, I was not asked to participate. Second, Spiderman was ranked number one. Third, neither of my heroes made the top ten. Fourth, the fact that Batman tied for sixth place with Catwoman. And, fifth, God and Jesus rank below Batman and Catwoman.
This is scandalous. Clearly the Dark Knight trumps Catwoman in brains, brawn, bucks, and literary depth. If people can’t see the superiority of Batman over Catwoman, I have to question their wisdom altogether. Which brings me to the ranking of God and Jesus.
Whatever your thoughts about Batman, neither he nor Catwoman can resurrect the dead. And as dark as the Dark Knight is, even he pales next to the Jesus of Revelation who wallows in the blood of his enemies in a manner that would make Vlad the Impaler flinch. But are God and Jesus really superheroes?
Thor, the Norse God of Thunder, is now a superhero with a very successful comic franchise and Marvel movie in the works. And Jesus and God have both had hit movies in the last few years. But how many people go to the Temple of Thor or worship the God of Thunder any more? Maybe getting your own comic is what happens to Gods when they’re put out to pasture. Is this what is happening to God and Jesus now that they are listed as superheroes?
And it is not just superhero fans who feel that God is somewhat lacking. Two television shows that actually featured God or Jesus (Joan of Arcadia which featured God in various guises, and NBC’s Book of Daniel that featured Jesus as a Rogerian psychologist, “Well, what do you think ought to be done to save your soul?”) were both short-lived. And the current Saving Grace features Earl, a totally powerless angel who can't even help Grace, who is clearly anorexic and an alcoholic, stop drinking and get herself to a nutritionist. God and Jesus are powerless in these shows. Forget Catwoman, they couldn't even take on a Teletubbie.
Compare these shows to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Ghost Whisperer, two long lasting shows of the supernatural that never mention God or Jesus. Of course these shows have a sexual subtext that God and Jesus lack, so maybe we might have to forgo the Virgin Birth for something a little more Zeus-like.
What can we God-lovers do to raise the status of our hero? I think we need to hire better writers and artists to tell his story. A Frank Miller version of Job or an Alan Moore take on Esther could be promising. Or how about a Stephen King version of the Gospel According to John? We could call it The Last Godslinger. With the right artists and colorists, Jesus might give at Catwoman a run for her money. Spiderman, however, is probably beyond even God’s reach.
Five things trouble me about this poll. First, I was not asked to participate. Second, Spiderman was ranked number one. Third, neither of my heroes made the top ten. Fourth, the fact that Batman tied for sixth place with Catwoman. And, fifth, God and Jesus rank below Batman and Catwoman.
This is scandalous. Clearly the Dark Knight trumps Catwoman in brains, brawn, bucks, and literary depth. If people can’t see the superiority of Batman over Catwoman, I have to question their wisdom altogether. Which brings me to the ranking of God and Jesus.
Whatever your thoughts about Batman, neither he nor Catwoman can resurrect the dead. And as dark as the Dark Knight is, even he pales next to the Jesus of Revelation who wallows in the blood of his enemies in a manner that would make Vlad the Impaler flinch. But are God and Jesus really superheroes?
Thor, the Norse God of Thunder, is now a superhero with a very successful comic franchise and Marvel movie in the works. And Jesus and God have both had hit movies in the last few years. But how many people go to the Temple of Thor or worship the God of Thunder any more? Maybe getting your own comic is what happens to Gods when they’re put out to pasture. Is this what is happening to God and Jesus now that they are listed as superheroes?
And it is not just superhero fans who feel that God is somewhat lacking. Two television shows that actually featured God or Jesus (Joan of Arcadia which featured God in various guises, and NBC’s Book of Daniel that featured Jesus as a Rogerian psychologist, “Well, what do you think ought to be done to save your soul?”) were both short-lived. And the current Saving Grace features Earl, a totally powerless angel who can't even help Grace, who is clearly anorexic and an alcoholic, stop drinking and get herself to a nutritionist. God and Jesus are powerless in these shows. Forget Catwoman, they couldn't even take on a Teletubbie.
Compare these shows to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Ghost Whisperer, two long lasting shows of the supernatural that never mention God or Jesus. Of course these shows have a sexual subtext that God and Jesus lack, so maybe we might have to forgo the Virgin Birth for something a little more Zeus-like.
What can we God-lovers do to raise the status of our hero? I think we need to hire better writers and artists to tell his story. A Frank Miller version of Job or an Alan Moore take on Esther could be promising. Or how about a Stephen King version of the Gospel According to John? We could call it The Last Godslinger. With the right artists and colorists, Jesus might give at Catwoman a run for her money. Spiderman, however, is probably beyond even God’s reach.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
The Agony of the Ecstasy or “Except for the Obvious, Mr. Lincoln, How was the Service?”
Matthew Lincoln is a man of faith. One evening last June, Mr. Lincoln attended a prayer service at his church, Lakewind in Knoxville, TN. The visiting preacher, Robert Lavala, was offering private prayers for people in which he touched people’s foreheads thereby initiating the practice of being “slain in the spirit.”
I have seen this many times. People are filled with the Holy Spirit, slip into an ecstatic state, and fall backward to the ground. To keep them from hurting themselves, “catchers” are assigned to help the slain land gracefully.
Chances are Mr. Lincoln has engaged in this kind of behavior before, but this time was to be different. Yes, the pastor was powerful; yes, the spirit came unto Mr. Lincoln; yes, he fell backwards, but no, there was no one there to catch him. Mr. Lincoln fell back hard, and hit his head on the carpeted concrete floor.
This would have been bad enough, but Mr. Lincoln has a pre-existing spinal condition that the fall exacerbated.
Normally one to give generously to his church, Mr. Lincoln and his attorney thought it time for a little pay back. So Mr. Lincoln is suing his church for $2.5 million. The church is liable, his attorney says, because they should have provided catchers for each of the soon to be slain.
Lakewind Church turned as we so often do in times of spiritual crises to their insurance company, which in turn turned as they often do to their lawyers, who as they so often do, turned down Mr. Lincoln’s claim saying he should have noticed that there was no one there to catch him.
There are many challenging issues in this case. For example, it was the Spirit of God that knocked Mr. Lincoln down, so why is suing his church? He should sue God. And why would God slay Mr. Lincoln knowing, as God always does, that there was no one there to catch him, and that the fall would damage him severely and make it impossible for him to care for his disabled daughter as he alleges in his lawsuit against his church? And what is Pastor Lavala’s obligation in all of this? What is his defense, “Pastors don’t slay people, the Holy Spirit does”?
I feel for Mr. Lincoln and worry about his daughter. I also sympathize with Pastor Lavana and Lakewind Church. It seems to me there are no winners here (except of course the lawyers). What is the just thing to do?
Honestly, I have no idea. But I do have a suggestion as to how Mr. Lincoln should invest his money if he wins his case. He should design special clothing for people choosing to be slain in the spirit. It would be like an airbag sown into a shirt, or blouse, or jacket that would deploy when the pastor hits your head (ala, “Oh I could have had a V8”). Not only would this benefit the slain, but it would cut back on the cost of catchers. Everybody wins.
I have seen this many times. People are filled with the Holy Spirit, slip into an ecstatic state, and fall backward to the ground. To keep them from hurting themselves, “catchers” are assigned to help the slain land gracefully.
Chances are Mr. Lincoln has engaged in this kind of behavior before, but this time was to be different. Yes, the pastor was powerful; yes, the spirit came unto Mr. Lincoln; yes, he fell backwards, but no, there was no one there to catch him. Mr. Lincoln fell back hard, and hit his head on the carpeted concrete floor.
This would have been bad enough, but Mr. Lincoln has a pre-existing spinal condition that the fall exacerbated.
Normally one to give generously to his church, Mr. Lincoln and his attorney thought it time for a little pay back. So Mr. Lincoln is suing his church for $2.5 million. The church is liable, his attorney says, because they should have provided catchers for each of the soon to be slain.
Lakewind Church turned as we so often do in times of spiritual crises to their insurance company, which in turn turned as they often do to their lawyers, who as they so often do, turned down Mr. Lincoln’s claim saying he should have noticed that there was no one there to catch him.
There are many challenging issues in this case. For example, it was the Spirit of God that knocked Mr. Lincoln down, so why is suing his church? He should sue God. And why would God slay Mr. Lincoln knowing, as God always does, that there was no one there to catch him, and that the fall would damage him severely and make it impossible for him to care for his disabled daughter as he alleges in his lawsuit against his church? And what is Pastor Lavala’s obligation in all of this? What is his defense, “Pastors don’t slay people, the Holy Spirit does”?
I feel for Mr. Lincoln and worry about his daughter. I also sympathize with Pastor Lavana and Lakewind Church. It seems to me there are no winners here (except of course the lawyers). What is the just thing to do?
Honestly, I have no idea. But I do have a suggestion as to how Mr. Lincoln should invest his money if he wins his case. He should design special clothing for people choosing to be slain in the spirit. It would be like an airbag sown into a shirt, or blouse, or jacket that would deploy when the pastor hits your head (ala, “Oh I could have had a V8”). Not only would this benefit the slain, but it would cut back on the cost of catchers. Everybody wins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)