"You're not making an impact if you're not pissing someone off"

Tag Archives: Christianity

In a flight of fancy from time to time I found myself imagining how things really may have evolved as opposed to the traditions we were raised to believe.

Annuit Cœptis, means "He approves (or has approved) [our] undertakings", and Novus Ordo Seclorum, meanc "New Order of the Ages".

Annuit Cœptis, means “He approves (or has approved) [our] undertakings”, and Novus Ordo Seclorum, meanc “New Order of the Ages”.

It is no coincidence that the “Eye of Providence” is a symbol on American currency

Of the 50 wealthiest people in America all are white except one and 90% of them are males.

Prior to the 2012 election a NY Times piece noted that “[f]or much of American history, white Protestants dominated the top rungs of American government.”  I don’t think it can be disputed either that they were predominantly male.

The belief that “all men are created equal” is a popular theme in the American culture but it’s an ideal that doesn’t live up to societal realities.   The mere fact that only men are mentioned in this ideal already reflects a certain bias that creates barriers for about half of the world’s population.  We can adjust our thinking to reflect contemporary societal norms but there will always be those who fall back on a view that they and their peers hold which asserts they are unique and are thus somehow qualified to make judgement calls that should reflect the norm.

How we got to this point is academic but the fact that we did appears to have something to do with Western patriarchal faith systems.  About three thousand years ago, according to the biblical time table, a man named Abram heard a voice he claimed to be the God of the universe.  This was an anomaly for the period and culture of this time because the Sumerian culture in Mesopotamia, where Abram and his family resided, were worshippers of a polytheistic religious cult.  It was also a culture similar to our traditions in modern times where the father was the bread winner and the woman stayed at home raising the children.

As the progenitor of not only Judaism but its offshoots, Christianity and Islam, the voice in Abram’s head set the stage for how most of the people on earth view their world today.  Time has changed much but the notion that women are subservient to men and that God’s law is absolute remains pretty well entrenched in our age.  But how life developed in this manner is something that evolved gradually and out of a certain necessity to ensure the survival of the family and the tribe.

The story of Adam and Eve is most likely one that developed over time to explain this evolution in simplistic terms, as part of an oral tradition that goes back centuries when humans became more than hunter-gathers.  After learning how to grow their food rather than chasing it down became the norm, they would settle down in a specific region.  A division of labor developed that likely revolved around men’s natural physical strength and a woman’s ability to bear offspring.  The garden of Eden account likely satisfied the curiosities of those raised with it.  It was important to have some comprehension of life’s beginning, no matter how fantastical, in an attempt to rationalize their behavior as a natural order of things.

I like to imagine a scenario where this began to take shape back in ancient times.  The compilation of the Genesis account in the Old testament is a mixed bag of stories that have survived the test of time, especially those chapters prior to the introduction of Abraham.  But if we could encapsulate a scenario of its origins, how might that go?  The following is my creation of such an scenario.

The Rise of an Invisible God Authority

Though most people were content with the stories they were raised with, there was always some individual around who, endowed with an excess of critical thinking, pointed out that just because it’s always been that way doesn’t mean it has to remain as such.  Such people were viewed as threatening to the status quo but their logic could not be easily dismissed.  So, in order to give the customs of the day some authority, the elder men of some pre-historic tribe, who benefitted the most from the current social arrangement, gathered separately amongst themselves to devise a plan.  

At first they thought they could simply dictate terms because they were older, more experienced and stronger but these attributes were not always consistent and deteriorated over time, thus giving this notion no lasting credence.

 “But what if” one half-witted old fellow said, “we could attribute this way of life to a supernatural being who was beyond the weakness of mere mortals and actually had the power of life and death and established this system we have become accustomed to as a design of his own?”

The other men looked at each other and kind of chuckled amongst themselves.  The old man had been known to act weirdly on numerous occasions and attribute it all to the voices in his head.

“And where do we say this god came from?” asked one of the other men.

Looking up to the sky the half-wit said, “Out there, beyond our reach.  In this way we can say he sees all things yet will be invisible to all at such a great distance.   We can claim he comes down only on occasion to visit the eldest of us.  It was during one of these visits that he explained how we all came to be and how we were to live.”

As crazy as it sounded to the other men, they were desperate to save their way of life and discussed amongst themselves how they would carry it off.

“But what of the wiseass amongst us that questions everything?” one asked.

“We have the superior numbers,” another said, “and as long as we mock and ridicule him in unison the tribe is more likely to listen to us.  There is persuasive power in numbers, no? The people will at least have some reservations about who is right and who is wrong.”

The men continued their discussion about a plan.  They determined that at some point they would inform the wiseass that the unseen god is paying them a visit again and if he would like to come with them to see for himself, he is free to do so.  No doubt he will jump at this opportunity they thought.

After departing the camp and having traveled a safe distance they would kill the wiseass.  Upon returning they would explain to the group that the unseen god had struck the wiseass dead for his innumerable questions that challenged his authenticity and authority.  This will also serve the added benefit to instill fear in any other future skeptics that death awaits them should they try to dismiss their fictitious god.

And so it was and so it became.  This seem to serve their special interests for the remainder of their lives.  Within a few generations the myth became the reality.  The god-people formed elaborate institutions, rituals and even a priesthood to validate what had at first been a contrivance to foster the status quo.  Now it had a life of its own.  The founding fathers of this myth would be in awe of what they had wrought.

Since myth had now transitioned into reality the adherents of this tradition were faced with explaining the unexplainable.  Though chaos seem to dominate human life this was merely the sky god’s way of testing people, they conjectured.   They were amazed at how easily the people accepted this absurdity and built upon it.  Suffering was an essential criteria if we were to win favor with the unseen god.  Later an ideal was devised to suggest that those who remained steadfast loyal to this myth of the ancients, would experience an afterlife reward.  One full of golden streets and virgins.

Screen shot 2013-04-10 at 12.26.14 PM

Myth or Reality

And there, in a nutshell, is my version suggesting how we’ve arrived at the point where we are today.  Is there some truth to it?  Perhaps.  Is there some value in believing in things we can’t prove exists?  Again, perhaps, but to a limited degree.  The human psyche is still an unknown factor in many ways and things that help us make it through a world that often seems to pose a threat to our existence requires an imagination that smooths the rough edges of life.  Beyond that need however such fantasies have proven to be themselves the sources of threats to our well-being.

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.  – Thomas Jefferson

To those who have fervently bound themselves to their fantasies, miracles and believing that “God works in mysterious ways” is a typical response from a people who refuse to believe that their existence may have been the result of something other than the superstitions their fore bearers devised to explain much of their world at the time.  This muddled response is part of what we call “apologetics” and serves to defend the long held traditions of religious views; views that rational minds simply find incredible.

My friend John Zande over at his blog, The Superstitious Ape, has summed up the use of apologetics nicely in a short piece he wrote earlier this month.  If the bible is the inerrant word of an infallible, omnipotent god, [then] by extension such a god should be able to state exactly what it wants to say and do so free of any and all ambiguity”, Zande surmises.

Its word should be unencumbered by cultural idiosyncrasies and remain unmolested by divergences in language, calligraphy, obscure and dead lexicons, future dialects, exotic morphemes, or even illiteracy and deafness. Its word should contain no contradiction, no absurdity, no oversight or declarations that are in conflict with observed facts. Its word should penetrate all tribal, domestic and international legal code and remain morally true in a timeless continuum. Such an entity should be instantly recognisable to all sentient creatures regardless of locale or epoch, and its actions should exhibit no fault or favour, no bias, prejudice, second-thought or indeed, if omnipotent, no mind-set at all.

Now here comes that awkward moment for the bible-wielding fundamentalist. If this claim were in way true there wouldn’t be apologists practicing apologetics. It’s as simple as that.  SOURCE 

So What to Make About “Equality”

I admire John’s critical thinking on this and align myself along this mode of thought.  I leave it up to those who read this to draw their own conclusion.

But if any of this resonates at all then you would be hard-pressed to conclude that equality is limited to one gender, one race or one socio-political view.  Any law today that finds its origins derived from ancient religious premises which imposes restrictions because of one’s gender, race or socio-political view should be rejected outright if it cannot qualify its existence upon the virtue of human dignity.

If we are indeed the product of an all-powerful god who is viewed to be in control of all things then it becomes an insult to such a god to have those who claim to represent him or her for doling out what they claim only that god has the authority to do.   If only God can take a life then wars, the death penalty and even abortion are wrong.   You can’t ignore the first two with this line of thinking while pontificating its veracity for the third.  It’s either all or none.

Taking human life is the ultimate hostile action of a society that is incapable of finding remedies to avoid it.  Wars are the result of differences people have contrived between themselves and their neighbors, not because one is inherently evil and the other always holds the moral high ground.  The death penalty concedes that rehabilitation is beyond us and the motives for taking another life lies in societal norms that pit one against another.  Competition often over extends itself where the vanquished or weaker participant is left humiliated, often wallowing in low self esteem.

For those who believe life begins at conception let me suggest that abortions are the result of a society that at times not only fails to properly educate young people about sexual intercourse but who also insists our natural sex urges be restrained until we are lawfully married.  When the means of contraception is frowned on if not outright denied as a result of religious codes that have little merit, then abortion is the only option left for women with unwanted pregnancies.  And what does it say about a religion that insist even a rape victim must accept the violation of her right to choose who will father her child.

If such miscarriages of justice are ingrained in the religious dogma passed down over the centuries then what does it say about other such long held distortions.  Can a perfect god create an imperfect urge.  If not then why should homosexuality be viewed as an “abomination” in the eyes of those who carry on the tradition of others who once held it was legitimate to own slaves, treat women as chattel and kill disobedient children.  Could the answer simply be that a select few adult males who claim to be the heirs of the “one true religion” have decided this for all the rest of us?  If so, how did we let this happen?   When did we allow our brains to shut down?

old rich white guy

I’ve been fortunate that my birthright as a white male has allowed me to escape the persecution that others have had to endure and still do at some level.  It is easier for me to avoid the taboos associated with pre-marital sex or even holding views at odds with the status quo because I am viewed as part of the designated “superior elite”.  I am after all part of that traditional group who fall back on a view that they and their peers are unique and are thus somehow qualified to make judgement calls that should reflect the norm.

I reject this status however and am ashamed of those backward thinking men who would claim to have the authority of God himself to do what they do.  A god mind you that was likely the creation of an ancient Sumerian, living in the land of Ur of the Chaldeans, who found it expedient to justify his urge to distance himself from annoying relatives by claiming he heard the voice of “the sky god” directing him to do so.  But that’s a subject for another post.


A standup comedian asks the question to perhaps the most critical concern of our time.   Why do people who profess to believe in the biblical God trash the home he is alleged to have entrusted to their care?

 angry God

I was watching CK Louis’s standup routine “Live at the Beacon Theater” the other night on Netflix.  In it there was this 3 minute segment about two-thirds of the way through where he played out a scenario as God chastising some of those he entrusted to act as good stewards for his earth creation.  CK pretends to be God and comes back to earth to see how his creation has been taken care of and is simply blown away with what he sees.  Portraying both Jehovah and the earthling he grills, here’s the gist of that interaction in typical CK Louis fashion

God:  “What the fuck did you do?  I gave this to you mother fucker!  Are you crazy?  The polar bears are brown, what did you .. what did you do to the polar bears?  Did you shit all over every polar bear?  Who did this?   Who spilled this shit”?

Then he points at an imaginary earthling and tells him, “Come over here!   Did you spill this shit?  What is that”?

Earthling: (in a rather doofus voice) “It’s oil, its’ just some oil.  I didn’t mean to spill it.”

God:  “Well why did you even take it out of the fucking ground?”

Earthling:  “Because I wanted to go faster” as he gyrates his arms in a locomotive fashion.  “and I was cold” wrapping his arms around himself imitating being chilled.

God: “What the fuck do you mean cold?  I gave you everything you needed you piece of shit” 

And then the earthling dribbles out a few words that are meant to explain everything like most Republicans do when they talk about tax cuts for so-called “job creators” and the very wealthy.

Earthling: “Well, because of ‘jobs’”

God:  “Jobs?  For what?  Why do you need jobs?”

Earthling:  “To make money.  Money is needed to buy food”.

God:  “I gave you free food.   Just eat the stuff off of the floor I gave you”

Earthling:  “Yes, but … it doesn’t have like bacon around it.  I like when it has bacon on it.”

It’s laugh out loud funny to think fossil fuel extraction has been all about our cravings for bacon.  This skit does in its simplicity though unmasks where most of our values lie – in the self-interests of creature comforts that often wreak havoc on the only planet we’re ever going to be able to call home.

It struck me then how some Christians strain a gnat but will swallow a camel as they ignore the word of God, according to their own scriptures, failing to be good stewards of this planet but can milk a few words from the psalmist to rationalize the massive campaign to prevent a scared teenager from aborting an unwanted pregnancy.

In a christian apologetic written back in 1977 by assistant professor of political theory at the University of Michigan, J. Patrick Dobel, entitled “Stewards of the Earth’s Resources: A Christian Response to Ecology” the author drives home, through the use of multiple biblical references, where humans lie within in the scheme of earth and its resources and who in fact owns them.  Capitalists and free-marketers may want to close their eyes and block their hearing, chanting la-la-la-la-la-la-la as loud as they can.

The proper relation between humanity and the bountiful earth is … complex. One fact is of outstanding moral relevance: the earth does not belong to humanity; it belongs to God. Jeremiah summarizes it quite succinctly: “I by my great power and outstretched arm made the earth, land and animals that are on the earth. And I can give them to whom I please” (Jer. 27:5). For an ecological ethic this fact cannot be ignored. The resources and environment of the earth are not ours in any sovereign or unlimited sense; they belong to someone else.

Humanity’s relation to the earth is dominated by the next fact: God “bestows” the earth upon all of humanity (Ps. 115:16). This gift does not, however, grant sovereign control. The prophets constantly remind us that God is still the “king” and the ruler/owner, to whom the earth reverts. No one generation of people possesses the earth. The earth was made “to endure” and was given for all future generations. Consequently the texts constantly reaffirm that the gift comes under covenanted conditions, and that the covenant is “forever.” The Bible is permeated with a careful concern for preserving the “land” and the “earth” as an “allotted heritage” (Ps. 2:7-12).

This point is central to the Judeo-Christian response to the world. The world is given to all. Its heritage is something of enduring value designed to benefit all future generations. Those who receive such a gift and benefit from it are duty-bound to conserve the resources and pass them on for future generations to enjoy. An “earth of abundance” (Judg. 18:10) provides for humanity’s needs and survival (Gen. 1:26-28, 9:2-5). 

Now I no longer consider myself a religious person.  I’ve seen too much within the institution of the church to know that self-preservation tends to crowd out the general welfare principles that have been espoused thoughout human history.  Lip service is given to much what passes as “God’s law” but people are clever in their ways to circumvent it when it serves their needs.

So Dobel’s biblical assertions carry no weight with me other than the point he makes about the earth belonging to “no one generation”.  I would paraphrase the last line in the first paragraph to read instead that “the resources and environment of the earth are not [the private property of select individuals] in any sovereign or unlimited sense; they belong to [everyone].  But I am in sync with the lines in the last paragraph that asserts that “The world [and it’s resources are] given to all. Its heritage is something of enduring value designed to benefit all future generations. Those who receive such a gift and benefit from it are duty-bound to conserve the resources and pass them on for future generations to enjoy.

The Christian capitalist mentality in this country is often silent on those scripture that points out mankind’s responsibility for being good stewards of the earth.  Dobel enumerates quite a few.  But he also notes there are those verses that some Christians are ready to use to justify their right to own private property and do with it what they will, even if it deprives others of the necessary resources they need for survival.  Dobel feels however that the convenant spelled out in 1 Chron. 16:14-18 negates any self-serving use of what is supposed to be their “inheritance”.

capitalist christian

The Christian capitalist will exploit the earth to fulfill their need for wealth and power yet prevent unwanted pregnancies based on a single metaphor from the psalmist that suggests God knew David personally while he was still in his mother’s womb. (Psalm 139:13)  They will also cherry-pick the handful of scriptures that refer to using violence in order to invade countries and claim their resources while overlooking all that is written about the compassion of Jesus.  Unlike “christian soldiers”, Onward Christian Earth Stewards is nowhere to be found in contemporary christian lexicon.

Today’s representatives for God here on earth are willing to usurp and drain the resources of one region as if it was their “manifest destiny” ordained by a God who is supposed to have commanded that “Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.” (1Cor:10-24)

When special interests pollute the air and water we all own and food sources dry up because man-made conditions have contributed to drought, floods and famines for many, it will be the righteous Christian who will assert that such bounty comes not from our exploitation of others but as manna bacon from heaven.

It may be crude and offend the sensitivities of many but CK Louis’ version of God’s response to those responsible for the stewardship planet Earth seems appropriate.

“What the fuck did you do”?


You would think that the Catholic Church would take a lesson from the recent failed GOP game plan and not publicly disparage women or presume that roles for women haven’t moved beyond older, male-centered views that refuse to see women as social equals. 

 thinking ape from naked capitalism blog 12:6

After a 92-year old priest recently allowed a woman to participate by his side in a church liturgy, the Catholic church, that shielded pedophiles for years, acted quickly to strip Father Bill Brennan of his priestly functions because he dared challenge the church dictum that says women cannot participate in any role designated for men only.  A ruling that has no basis for continuing in todays modern church.

According to Catholic Ecclesiastical Law, Canon 1024, women are unsuited for the priesthood.  They may be suited for many functions within the church but Canon 606 points out that this equality stops at such things as the priesthood because such restrictions are supposedly “evident from the context of the wording or the nature of the matter.”    The nature of the matter appears to be the dated view of old men, unlike Father Brennan, who presumed that if women were intended to be priests then Jesus would have selected one or more to be part of his core group of apostles.  This follows the degenerative thinking of the hayseeds that believed if man was meant to fly God would have given him wings.

Seriously, a judgment call made by the dominant patriarchal culture of the patristic era of the early church viewing choices made within an even stronger patriarchal society in ancient times are going to hold this as an absolute for males only in the priesthood today?  The point of all of this is that times change and so should certain traditions that have no intrinsic value in and of themselves.  If institutional Christianity were to develop from some occult out of the mainstream today, as it did over 2000 years ago, women would clearly be on equal footing with men in their clergy selections because that’s how we roll today. (despite the fact that a few neanderthals like Limbaugh and Santorum still remain)

But the institutional church was formed when men were the only gender that counted back then and like all things that survive more than a generation or two, people become set in their ways and their existence becomes formalized in rules, codes and laws that evolve over time.  The ecclesiastical laws, the antitheses of Occam’s Razor, are an example of decades and centuries of layer after layer of minutia within traditional organizations that tend to obscure the group’s original purpose and thus its attraction to large numbers of people.  The duration of such minutia also tends to give credence to the notion that change is unacceptable and what was originally nothing more than a selective thought of handful of early leaders now becomes so ingrained in its institutional setting that merely willing a change in policy is considered heretical.

Father Brennan’s punishment for trying to bring the church back to its roots and enable it to survive in the 21st century was based on the same premise they claim to judge the offenses of a pedophile.

Pope John Paul II issued a letter in 1994 saying that the church “has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women,” and in 2010 the church included the “attempted ordination of women” among the list of grave crimes against its law, under the same category as the sexual abuse of minors. Grave crimes are punishable by defrocking or excommunication.   SOURCE 

So “the church” that established the rule in the first place now declares that it “has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women”.  Isn’t there some pathological disorder with people who commit harmful behaviors to themselves and others but declare they are unable to control such senseless acts?

Jesus didn’t deliberately exclude women from his close followers.  He had several.  The church fathers that began to formalize christian teaching however, following Constantine’s acceptance of the once outlawed faith, saw fit to delete certain traditions and views that didn’t adhere to an orthodox agenda.

In her book, The Gnostic Gospels,  Elaine Pagels illustrates that as persecuted Christians eased into the mainstream, they themselves began to condemn certain practices.  The views of more conservative christians began to outnumber less orthodox views and ultimately ostracized the gnostic christians who essentially held that God was both father and mother and “believed that salvation lay not in merely worshipping Christ, but in psychic or pneumatic souls learning to free themselves from the material world via the revelation.  According to this tradition, the answers to spiritual questions are to be found within, not without.” 

gnostic

This threatened the church fathers and their hierarchical design which followed the cultural norm of the day that put men at the top of the social pyramid.  The women who played a prominent role during the life of Jesus were down-sized to minor roles.  Culture and time took care of the rest that allowed the male leadership to justify excluding women.  Clearly their control of the message over all this time has allowed this hoax to manifest itself.   By wrapping their machinations around church dogma and doctrine any challenge to alter them are confronted with the alleged authority of God himself.  What God has wrought let no man … try to make sense of.

If the Church really wanted to validate their claim to male superiority they would have killed off the virgin birth myth long before it became part of new testament canon.   Apparently though the humanity of Jesus as the son of God required a human birth which of course requires the presence of a womb.

It seems clear that the new testament allows Jesus to give limited recognition to women but non-canonical sources gave greater latitude to their role and one of the gnostic gospels Pagel’s refers to in her book was the Gospel of Mary.  In it, it shows even the apostle Peter looked toward her for words of encouragement shortly after the resurrection of the crucified Jesus.

mcconnellpope bentdicka dying breed of leaders?

So listen up you silly old men who strut around in your dated robes.  It’s the 21st century and the male-dominated precepts that disparaged the female gender all these years are a rotting carcass whose stench needs to be removed by burying it along with laws that force women to carry unwanted pregnancies and forbid them humane forms of contraception.

Human and social experiences evolve over time and try as you may to prevent this change you only diminish your own authority in attempting to do so.   Time does indeed give value to things that endure but it also erodes those things that are false and cheaply made.   There is no mandate from God that insists women should be excluded from the priesthood just as there is no super-natural authority that insists abortions are likened to murder.

We make the rules.  We can change them.  We read into ancient texts those things that fit our time/space continuum.  Institutionalizing that which is destined to change is simply an admission that we fear the unknown and our own consternation that we can face it with any degree of courage.


In a predominantly Christian culture, why do some continue to stir up the notion of “persecution” when they carry their beliefs too far?

Shooting for humor, I posted an anecdote this last Sunday that poked fun at Georgia Republican congressman Paul Broun and his interpretation of the bible and the venue he used to give his sermon.  But of course what comes across as wild-eyed imaginings to some are dead serious claims by those who make them.  It doesn’t make any difference that there is no factual basis for some of these claims.  All that matters to “believers” is that, well, … they believe it. “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.”    Such contrived assurances fit nicely into their world view of things and it gathers strength when you get affirmations from other like-minded people as Broun appeared to be getting from his audience.

It’s not an argument that any non-believer really wants to get into with a religious believer.  Because they have an ancient tradition on their side and a thinly credible counter argument of some “biblical authority”, you would be hard pressed to correct any rigidly held beliefs by them.  But Broun makes the mistake of asserting an assumption that has no biblical authority and that flies in the face of some evidence about science that even many Christians have come to accept at varying degrees.

All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.  – Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga.  

It would be a stretch at best to link any bible verse to support Broun’s notions that evolution, embryology and the big bang theory are from the devil.  Embryology is not even a theory or belief system but a scientific field of study that’s been around formally since at least 1827.  But interests in embryonic development began with Aristotle hundreds of years before Christianity and the notion of a savior became part of popular thought.  It doesn’t challenge the belief in Jesus as a messiah.  It simply helps describe the  marvelous development from egg to human fetus which Christians are always fond of celebrating.  So why the disparagement of this from Broun?

Let the Flogging Begin

Fundamentalist views have always held that if you were properly indoctrinated with church dogma and later found a different way of thinking that only Satan and his minions could have persuaded you from rejecting biblical truths.  I bought into this myself at one time as a devout “born-again” christian with the aid of C.S. Lewis’ excellent story telling in “The Screwtape Letters”.   Even within the Roman Catholicism I was raised in, the Church taught us that ours was the one true branch of christianity.  As my Dad used to put it, “they’re called Protestants because they protest the original church founded by Peter.”

Christians, which count for nearly 80% of the U.S.population, often cry discrimination when some of the fundamentalists elements within try to lay claim to neutral territory, raising objections from the other 20%.  Much like the white settlers that came here from Europe and claimed land that was long held as the domain of various native Indian tribes, Christians today also impose themselves in the public domain that is shared by other faiths and systems of belief. They simply didn’t then or don’t today see themselves as intruders but as rightful heirs to some divine manifest destiny.  A sense of righteousness often overshadows the reality that theirs is a system of faith not indisputable fact and forgets to allow others the same privilege of putting their system of faith on top of their hierarchical pyramid of choices.  Point this out to them however and the wails of “persecution” ensue.

For people like Paul Broun to suggest that the science of embryology along with the theories of evolution and the Big Bang are the work of the Devil denies that people like me can make that transition out of the faith based almost exclusively on the church’s own historical record.  Even the great intellectual apologetics of C. S. Lewis could not overcome the skepticism that eventually developed within me as I studied the origins of my faith in great detail.   As a strong advocate of the faith years ago and a serious student of history, I discovered in my attempts to fully understand the evolution of Christianity that the institution itself was flawed and their alleged bedrock claims of superiority are marred with historical distortions and jockeying for power within the larger social context.

This revelation was not viewed by me as an attack on some unseen God that may or may not exist but on the church’s position that their insights and only their insights cannot be challenged.  The dogma that has layered over the original core values the earliest Christian groups held and the organized authority of the church over time has created a barrier between the simple truths of “the man from Galilee” and postulations of those who now claim to speak for him.

It’s not that Christians in various parts of the world are not discriminated against by various elements in other cultures but should such persecutions be used to make false parallels in this country?  Only in the U.S. where all other faith systems are dwarfed by Holy Mother Church is it alleged that a very small minority of non-believers are crushing the powerful influence Christianity continues to hold.   The bible and its stories do in fact convey a sense of belonging and can nurture those lost souls whose self-serving values demoralize them and those they are close to.  But when notions become ingrained that allow intolerance and promotes fear, any true disciple of Jesus would have to ask, “who is it here then that is really from the pit of hell”?

If the truths that are claimed to exist in the Bible are infallible then any challenge to them cannot stand up to scrutiny.  Yet this is in fact the weak position many Christians like Broun have put themselves in by relying on ancient texts written by the men of that age to speak to future generations whose world is a far cry from the times the words were first laid on papyrian documents.   There are many relevant messages of hope in scripture but there are also assertions that declare women as property, legitimizes slavery and killing a disobedient child.  If these are infallible truths why aren’t Christians today following them? (not that many wouldn’t like to, I feel)

Scholars have found numerous errors in the Bible

To claim that the bible is “the inerrant word” of God fails to account for the fact that Cain found a wife in the land of Nod shortly after being banished by God. (Gen.4:16-17)  If Cain was the first child of the two original human beings where does this woman come from?   And did God rearrange the universe following the battle between the Jews and the Amorites where supposedly the Almighty stopped the Sun from rotating around the earth until Joshua and his troops had avenged themselves upon their enemies.(Jos. 10:12-13)  If the Christian God is the same “as he was, is now and forever will be” how could his word be in contradiction with certain realties?

People like Broun who hold positions of power in government and declare they will enforce “God’s law” over everything else share that characteristic we see in rigid theocracies like that of the Taliban or in iron-fisted rulers by atheistic despots like Stalin and Pol Pot.  If free will is indeed an inherent part of biblical teaching then what gives Broun and others the right to force their views on those who have equally strong beliefs that contest them?

Legislating MoralityDo rush to judgements hurt the character of religion?

Back in 1985 John Denver testified before the Senate Committee for Commerce, Science and Transportation on what he saw as censorship by the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) formed by Tipper Gore and other Washington wives to ban offensive lyrics that referenced sex, drugs and graphic violence in the music of that era.  In his presentation Denver pointed out how some radio stations banned his song “Rocky Mountain High”, thinking the lyrics were violating a FCC censorship order about promoting drug use.   Denver also claimed that  some theaters refused to put the name of his movie, Oh God! on their marquees as did some newspapers ads for the movie out of concern that it may be viewed by rigid fundamentalist as “irreverent”.

If God is really in control then why do religious fanatics undercut this belief by legislating morality?  I was raised to believe that we need God, he doesn’t need us and yet the actions recently taken in many conservative state legislatures aimed at forcing unwanted pregnancies to occur is done by those who claim to be acting on God’s behalf. Is the omniscient and omnipresent God of the bible no longer effectual or too overwhelmed where he was once capable of counting the very hairs on our head and placed more value on each of us than any one sparrow?(Matt. 10:29-31)

As a society it can be destructive if we all act on our own self-interests.  Cohesiveness is vital for survival and this often entails finding good leadership and allowing ourselves to follow their lead as it serves our need for survival.  But we are not sheep and when claims are made to herd us in to a robotic, Stepford-wife direction, then it becomes necessary to raise this concern and challenge those views that would enslave our free wills.

The bible, I found, does indeed have lessons for life and can serve as a guide for many who are as children.  But as we mature we are able to look outside the bounds that an individual or an institution has set for us when it no longer seems to meet the reality of our time.   Women and certain cultures are not second class citizens as ancient scriptures declared.  Nor are claims of “abominations” legitimate when referring to gays today from a view held by people who believed at one time that the earth was the center of the Universe, believing that this too was the will of God.

Science is a method, not an all-powerful force or an absolute measure of what exists.  It is an assortment of peer-reviewed fields of study that seek to make sense of the physical realties in our world and offer reasonably sound answers to phenomena that were once thought to exist only in the realm of the ethereal or metaphysical, such as the sun being pulled around the earth by a charioteer.

Christians can be both scientist and followers of biblical concepts and principles but they can’t claim one has preeminence over the other based on outdated data and ancient texts.  They must assert themselves in light of the here and now and speak to people in a way that allows them to identify with the information both sides present.  Insisting that what one has to offer should not be questioned is not a path that leads to truth but one that leads to suppression.

A couple of years ago I spelled out in an article why I could no longer practice the faith of my fathers.  I concluded it with this which seems fitting for this essay as well.

“If I were to re-write that part of John in chapter 3 that posits Jesus as the final solution, I would do it in the way that I now understand it. For God so loved the world that he sent people into the world like Jesus to serve as a light and a guide to lift you up and fulfill the life you have been given. You are a slave to no man and you are above no man. It is love for the life I have given you and the companionship of others that will strengthen you in times of stress. Without love your existence has no meaning. Without sharing you are the lowest of all species. It is through your interconnectedness that true salvation is found”.  - How I Learned to Move Beyond the God of My Religious Upbringing

RELATED ARTICLE:

Just when you thought the Catholic Church might score a few points for themselves to rise above their miserable handling of sexually abusive priests they go and fumble the ball and show just how distanced they are from those they are supposed to serve.

 

Some of us stood up and took notice recently when some Catholic religious leaders  scolded the GOP’s budget that attacked programs benefitting the poor and disenfranchised.

When House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) released his latest “Path to Prosperity” budget last month, it was immediately admonished as an “immoral disaster” that “robs the poor” by Catholic religious leaders.   SOURCE

 

Being raised in the Catholic Church, this is what I expect of Christians.  It is one of the core values of the faith that works to remove the suffering of those in society who are in need of basic essentials to sustain life

He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward him for what he has done – Proverbs 19:17

‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ – Matthew 25:40

 

Though no longer a member of the Catholic faith (or any organized religion for that matter), I couldn’t help but feel a little pride to hear that there were still those within the faith willing to publicly defend what I have always found to be the most appealing aspect of Christianity.

But they couldn’t leave well enough alone.  Their self-absorbed dogmatic selves had to once again show how dysfunctional the church leadership is.

The Vatican is accusing the largest organization of catholic nuns in America of falling out of line with church teachings — while promoting “radical feminist themes”.

The reprimand was aimed at the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, a group that represents most of America’s 57,000 catholic sisters. The Vatican praised the nuns for “promoting social justice” but slams them for protesting church doctrine – on women’s ordination and homosexuals. The Vatican also complains the nuns have been “silent” on issues like the right to life and abortion.   SOURCE 

 

What goes on in the minds of some of those in leadership positions within the Church?  For years they cover up the sexual abuses between priests and young boys and try to down play it when it finally becomes public but without any public outcry on how nuns are dealing with some social issues the Church brings umbrage to the fact that many of their nuns aren’t demonizing gays and young girls enough who find themselves faced with an unwanted pregnancy

“As public representatives by their very existence they have an obligation to reflect fundamental church teaching on matters,” said Father Robert Kaslyn of Catholic University.

Yes, we’re all familiar with that part of the new testament that has Jesus condemning social outcasts and deviants, even standing in to be the first to cast a stone at the sinful harlot brought to him by the morally upright crowd who found her simply trying to survive as a single woman in a patriarchal society

So, they expect obeisance on something that challenges the teachings of Jesus but say nothing of priests who rob young children of their innocence as long as they don’t rock their doctrinal boat?

Oy vey!

RELATED ARTICLE:

The Vatican’s Latest Target in the War on Women: Nuns


Bill Maher’s recent tweet denigrating Bronco’s quarterback Tim Tebow raised a stink with many Tebow fans and Christians in general.   As the Broncos were getting battered by the Buffalo Bills in last Sunday’s game, Maher tweeted the following:

“Wow, Jesus just f***ed #TimTebow bad! And on Xmas Eve! Somewhere … Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler “Hey, Buffalo’s killing them,” 

I like Maher, despite his frequent displays of arrogance, but such public badgering of the unabashed christian quarterback only heightens Tebow’s popularity and creates a support base that would perhaps not otherwise exist.

It is understandable why Maher, a professed Atheist, would mock the evangelical quarterback who had scripture quotes in his “eye black” during his college days.

Spreading the gospel to heathen football fans?

The evangelical christian community has seized on Tebow’s public display of his faith and lamely accuses people like Maher who criticize Tebow as evidence of the church’s persecution in this country where nearly 80% of those polled in a Pew survey claim to be Christians.     Some might even think this “outrage” is merely another ploy used by the christian right to get their extreme views aired and further promote their litany of wedge issues like same sex marriage and their hysterical claim about the war on Christmas.

But behaving lamely is sometimes the norm for fanatics, be they the religious sort or not.  Case in point – a FOX sports report claimed that “[Maher’s] tweet prompted some to call for a boycott of [his] HBO show “Real Time with Bill Maher.”

Any casual observer of Maher’s HBO program is fully aware of his popularity with his audience, especially when he goes after “religious crazies” like many of the Muslim hate groups and individuals like Pastor Terry Jones in Gainesville, Florida who wanted to burn Korans or the equally bizarre Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, KS, who gathers at the funerals of dead service men and women proclaiming that “God Hates Fags”.  Tim Tebow’s public prayer hardly poses a threat like these people and so far he has not engaged in attacks on the secular community that I have seen.  However, Maher’s attacks on organized religion are a part of his shtick and few are spared his barbed assaults.

Maher learned his lesson with commercial TV when his late night show, “Politically Incorrect” was summarily dismissed from ABC following comments that right-wing zealots found offensive.  His criticism of the government following 9/11 didn’t let up unlike his competitors on late night TV and he paid for it when “a conservative talk show host in Houston hosted by Dan Patrick urged listeners to complain to two of the show’s advertisers, Sears and Federal Express, who subsequently dropped their ads”.   Maher’s criticism of the government turned out to be the norm for many commentators later when the causes for invading Iraq didn’t pan out as sold by the Bush administration to the public.

Does anyone believe that there are significant numbers that can effect a productive boycott of Maher’s show that airs on non-commercial cable TV?  Who watches the show anyway that hasn’t already been offended by Maher’s criticism of religion?  Unless you are a fan why would anyone subscribe to Maher’s tweet page?  Not that his tweet would empathize with evangelicals but why wouldn’t Maher’s comments evoke a shared sense of how Satan celebrates when humans fail?

Devout beliefs in one category do not necessarily carry over into other domains but far be it for some religious fundamentalists to be deterred in their crusades on the infidels of this world.  In this case at least someone has to be earnestly looking for Bill Maher to offend them and then make it more of a public issue than need be.


It’s Saturday so let’s try a little humor today

I love it when I see ads that have multiple meanings beyond what the advertiser’s were intentionally depicting.  It’s a bonus when they are clever enough to employ a second image in how it’s presented.

Here’s one in my hometown of Denton, Texas with an ad for Babe’s Chicken Dinner House

With the Christmas season upon us, the private sector is always trying to make a connection between their product and services with this popular holiday.  In the heart of the bible belt here the connection is often one that tries to show the commercial interest with the true “reason for the season”, as this billboard sign does as it displays the manger scene where the baby Jesus is surrounded by mom and the step-dad and the 3 wise men.

This one for Babe’s also has the subtle message that one of the most popular “babe’s” in history and the chicken dinner house’s name have something in common.

NO, not this one … 
… this one.

I’m sure the intent here is that when you think of the baby Jesus this time of year, you will also think of the Babe’s Chicken Dinner House ad that exploited the manger scene to promote southern fried cuisine as you make plans where to eat later that evening.

It might be worth noting too that there are no animals in this depiction of the manger scene.  It’s probably not in good taste showing animal meat before they’re slaughtered when you’re trying to make a connection between the reality and your wishes for the season.  Also, an ox and ass are hardly representative of the product that Babe’s serves.

And what about the written message directly above the Babe’s logo?

“Behold, the King of Kings”

Could this be referencing a super size dinner at Babe’s as it is also refers to the “new born king”?

Yes, this billboard ad has some subtle and subliminal messaging going on.  But it may backfire if those who choose to eat at Babe’s also have some reservations about stuffing their face as they are reminded of one of this season’s primary messages that it is better to give than to consume, or something along those lines, as millions go without basic nutritional sustenance around the world.

Or it could well inspire those to acknowledge the little prince of peace as they sit at their table and feast.  “Praise Jesus and pass the mashed potatoes and gravy”.


While pressing the flesh in New Hampshire in his campaign for the presidency, Rick Perry of Texas was asked by a mom who was supposedly speaking for her son to explain “why he doesn’t believe in science.”  Without looking at the mom Perry tells the kid, “Evolution is a theory that’s out there.  It’s got some gaps in it but in Texas we teach both creationism and evolution…”

When pressed again by the mom to encourage her son to explain why Perry doesn’t believe in science, Perry again looks directly at the boy who appears to be about 7 or 8 years old and says, “…because I figured you’re smart enough to figure out which one is right.”  SOURCE

Perry is right about evolution being a theory and everyone who accepts the premise of evolution knows it is not an absolute.  I don’t think we can say the same about how Perry and many of the fundamentalist Christians he mingles with regard their creationist’s view.

To rigid conservative Christians like Perry the Bible is “the inerrant word of God” and if the Bible says it they take a literal interpretation and claim it to be essentially an absolute truth.  According to scripture the Earth was created in 6 days a little over 5000 years ago, Adam and Eve were the first humans, dinosaurs roamed the earth with man and Moses stopped the sun from setting so they could complete their battle and go on to be victorious over the Amorites (Josh 10).  There is even a report in 2 Kings 20:9-11 that time went backwards.

 

If Perry thinks the theory of evolution has gaps in it he would have to reject the physical evidence that blows big old holes in these few examples of beliefs held by those who say the bible is a literal truth.  Through radiometric dating along with other non-radiometric dates of objects, such as historical accounts, tree rings, ice cores, etc., the results repeatedly demonstrate the validity of radiometric dating which shows earth to be around 4.5 million years old.  Even though creationists have challenged the reliability of this data they have used it themselves to verify certain biblical historical claims such as the “tunnel believed to be built by King Hezekiah and described in the Bible (Kings II 20:20; Chronicles II 32:3, 4), was dated using carbon-14 and uranium-thorium dating to show that it was built near the time of the Judean king (700 B.C.).”  SOURCE

There is no archeological evidence that shows humans were around the same time that dinosaurs were.  Some creationists try to refute this with the claim that human and dinosaur footprints have been found together in Cretaceous rocks of the Paluxy Riverbed near Glen Rose, Texas.  The close scientific scrutiny of these sites however have disproved this contention to the point where most creationist “no longer use the Paluxy tracks among their arguments, and major creationist organizations such as ICR and AIG have advised that the Paluxy tracks not be cited as evidence against evolution. Continuing ‘man track’ claims by a few individuals such as Carl Baugh and Don Patton have not stood up to close scrutiny.”

The notion that Adam and Eve were the first people is easily disputed by claims made later in Genesis that says Cain met his wife shortly after he was “driven out from the face of the earth.  And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.  And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. (Gen.4:16-17).  If he was the son of the first people, where did his wife come from?  Creationists can answer the question anyway they want but there is no evidence provided in the Bible to support them.

And lastly, for people to believe that the sun was stopped so Joshua could defeat the Amorites strongly implies that they believed the sun revolved around the earth.  We now know this is not true.  Even the hard-core fundamentalist will not argue this point today.  The next step to take would then conclude that the earth stopped its rotation on its axis, leaving the sun at a point in the sky and making it appear that it had stopped.   But for the earth to stop rotating meant that every living thing on the planet that was not tied down solidly would have gone floating out into space.  It is the earth’s rotation that keeps us on earth through the gravitational pull that occurs as the planet spins.

Is this really how fundamentalists see our universe? 

So, if the New Hampshire kid that confronted Perry by proxy is left to decide what is and isn’t sound judgment, it is likely that he will conclude Perry was an idiot.  Sadly many kids in Texas will be less likely to come to this decision because their young developing minds had to contend with the superstition that their eternal soul would be thrown into the fiery pits of hell if they accepted the physical realities over the creationist view.

By suggesting that religious notions contrived by ancient civilizations had a more realistic take on how we came to be, Perry has demonstrated that he is no smarter than a 5th grader.  Clearly though this doesn’t disqualify him to be President of the U.S. in the eyes of many voters.  George Bush, Jr. is living proof of this.


I recently watched the 2007 documentary “For the Bible Tells Me So” which addresses the cultural perception of homosexuality in America as it does in many other cultures.  The one striking thing I got from this film that I have hit on in just about every piece I have written on the subject, is how contemporary Christians take biblical phrases and notions out of context.

They are also guilty of attributing meanings to words and stories in the Bible that were not intended by the sources they take them from, especially from the hebrew version of the Torah that Christians refer to as the old testament as well as any ancient greek text used by early christians as they began to document the New Testament.  Too many lives have been ruined because of the unfounded notion that the Bible is the “inerrant word of God”.

Like many heterosexuals, I was raised in a conservative christian environment that condemned homosexuality and routinely compared it predatory sex offenders, bestiality and pornography.  I have found however that like other subject matter provided me through a focused set of standards, reality is often far different.  It was only after faithfully researching the available data outside some forms of religious dogma did I discover why we were raised thinking as we did about gay people.

The word “abomination” used by the church and her followers is one word that has been used in excess when it comes to homosexuality, especially in comparison to the other abominations referred to in the Bible.  The seven Noahide Laws do not mention homosexuality explicitly nor is it in the Holiness code found in the Book of Leviticus that permitted slavery while it authorized killings for the “abominations” of a disrespectful child, an adulterer, a person who takes the Lord’s name in vain or the daughter of a priest who commits prostitution.

The original meaning that comes form the jewish word, “sheqet”, finds certain behavior not acceptable to their customs and therefore made them less than pure in the eyes of their God.  Jews who followed the Torah and the Mosaic laws therein were more likely to be rebuked or ostracized from their people for their abominations rather than killed or condemned to hell.  There is nothing in the Old or New Testaments that condemns homosexuals to such a level that makes it preeminent above all the abominations mentioned in the Bible.

What are considered abominations as stated in Proverbs 6: 16 – 19 are

A proud look, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,
feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies,
and he that soweth discord among  brethren.

Much of this is behavior that we see in the anti-gay crowds who protest anything associated with the gay lifestyle of our friends, neighbors and relatives.

Fundamentalist Christians today have somehow justified their hate for homosexuality but seldom do they convey any hate towards those who charge interest on a loan (Lev 25:37),  crossbreed livestock (Lev 19:19) or get tattoos (Lev 19:28), all violations of “God’s law”..  They have made an unfounded statement that “same sex marriage threatens the institution of marriage” without providing any real argument that stands up to close scrutiny.

What is an abomination in this country is the discord among people created by some to fit a narrow, hateful frame of reference.  Biblical scholars have found this possibly derives primarily from a single biblical source using a Protestant English translation of Paul’s comments in 1Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:28.

These translations generally interpret the Greek words “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai” as referring to homosexuals.

We can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word “paiderasste.” That was the standard term at the time for males who had sex with males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior. Down through the years, Christians have interpreted these words as referring to people of lacking a high moral standing, or to masturbators, or to men who sexually abuse boys, or to boys who are the victims of sexual abuse. Interpreting these passages as referring to sexually active homosexuals appears to be simply the latest in a long series of attempts to make sense out of obscure words. The precise meaning is unknown; it was buried with Paul.  SOURCE

I sincerely hope that as the public becomes more educated about homosexuality apart from strict religious stigmas, that their tolerance of such increases, as recent polls indicate.   Similarly, I feel that as more states like New York refute the inequality of gay marriage taboos, many of those who have been misled by their religious upbringings will search their hearts deeper for the core message of love in the so-called “word of God”,  and acknowledge that not all people are required to present themselves within the narrow perceptions of the misinformed and the homophobic.

RELATED READING:

“THE BIBLE SAYS IT, THEREFORE IT’S TRUE” . . . AND OTHER STUPID STATEMENTS  


 

There is a bible verse that sits at the center of what the Christian faith once symbolized to me.   Though I no longer associate myself with the Christian Church, this verse still has meaning to me.  It is the story of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10. Samaritans and Jews hated each other especially during “the first century because Samaritans had desecrated the Jewish Temple at Passover with human bones.”

It’s a message that speaks to tolerance; the characteristic that is always missing when people promote wars and persecute those outside each others way of life.  It seems however that this is where this teaching remains for many – in the past – as we experience those who claim to represent the faith as they disregard it completely in their actions today.

One of the worst and constant examples of this is the Pastor Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas.  With total disregard for the privacy and sanctity of  burying loved ones, this band of Cretans gravitate to the funerals of soldiers and cast ugly epithets at the deceased soldier’s family to show their contempt for a military that allows gays to serve.  Clearly there is a lunacy here that only the members of this cult can make such a connection to.

But there are many others that have popped up since 9/11 that are equally scornful of their perceived enemies and who make a mockery of their religious core values to show mercy toward those they have inbred biases toward.  Many Americans who were outraged by the heinous acts of that awful day have allowed a level of fear and ignorance to overcome them to the point where they now see all Muslims as terrorists.

It’s a hate focused on a culture they hardly understand; very similar to what we saw from white Christians when slavery was accepted by many of them during the 19th century and that prevailed toward the freed blacks well into the 20th century.

The most recent display of this hate-filled intolerance was held February 13th of this year in front of a Yorba Linda, Calif. mosque in Orange County where Muslims were having a fund-raising dinner for a woman’s shelter.  As Muslim families entered their place of worship with their small children the crowd jeered them with some obscenities and yelled “Go back Home” to many of the Muslims who were born here in the U.S.  Others shouted out “Mohammad was a child molester … a pervert … a fraud”  Some of the women attacked Islamic Sharia law by accusing several Muslim men of beating their wives and having “sex with [their] nine-year old daughters”.

Across the street these vilifiers held a rally that was attended by several Republican politicians.  One was Villa Park Councilwoman Deborah Pauly who called the Muslim fund-raiser “pure, unadulterated evil” and indicated she knew many Marines, of which she proudly claimed her son was one of, who “would be willing to, uh, help these terrorists to an early meeting in paradise”.  All to the laughter of many in the crowd.  Did she mean murder them?

Another Republican attendee was Congressman Ed Royce who misrepresented what’s stated in public schools about freedom of speech, saying kids were taught that “every idea was right; that no one should criticize other’s position, no matter how odious.”  His implication here was that there are limits to this notion.

Multiculturalism, Royce said, was a barrier to enable people to make the “critical judgment we need to make to prosper as a society.” What the hell does that mean?  Congressman Gary Miller was also there who praised the angry crowd saying he was “proud of what they were doing” and ironically told them not “to let people who disagree with them destroy [this country]”.

The tape can viewed in it’s entirety here.  I’ve watched several videos of Westboro protestors and other than their deranged sentiments expressed on their signs I saw no human behavior that was as viciously expressed as it was by the Orange County Christians.  It is the dehumanizing actions of such people who renders a faith hollow after having one of their greatest biblical heroes call charity the greater quality than faith and hope (1Cor. 13:13)

It is the acts of so-called Christians like this that validated my decision years ago to disassociate myself from Christianity.  Not that all Christians, or other members of the world’s religions are inherently evil but that religion itself can be the seed for much of what is destructive in our culture.  The fact that fanatical minorities like the Orange County christians within each religion exists to express themselves in such hurtful ways drags the better elements in the faith down into the mire with them.  But it does serve as testimony that debunks Congressman Royce’s contention that only “others” are guilty of this.

The Orange County Christians represent more the conventional views of the Sadducees and Pharisees in New Testament scriptures that Christians hold responsible for Jesus’ execution as well as the mob that stood before Pilate shouting  “crucify him, crucify him”.   The core values I found in the New Testament are not honored over the bigotry that people like this grow up with.  Many were and still are indoctrinated to a level that leaves them clueless, much like that legal expert in Luke 10:29 who inquired of Jesus , “who is my neighbor?”



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers