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

Tag Archives: God

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.


lack of empathy

Many liberals and gay rights advocates are celebrating Senator Rob Portman’s reversal on same-sex marriages.  Many are also pointing out how this reversal was motivated by an empathy that appears to only extend no further than immediate family members.  It was the revelation that his son was gay that encouraged the Republican congressman from Ohio to reevaluate his view of gay rights and decide not to support any federal law that prohibits gay couples from receiving the same federal benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy.  Here are but two of those reactions:

While I would like to say that it makes me happy to have the first Republican senator come out in support of marriage equality, I am having a difficult time getting past the whole “I need this EXACT situation to affect me PERSONALLY before I can do anything” mentality that seems to persist in the halls of Congress.”   Kenneth Walsh from the HuffPo blog

I’m glad that Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio has reconsidered his view on gay marriage upon realization that his son is gay, but I also find this particular window into moderation—memorably dubbed Miss America conservatism by Mark Schmitt—to be the most annoying form.”   Matthew Yglesias at Slate.com 

Though Portman’s turn around on this issue is quite dramatic since he was one of the original backers of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the 1990s, it is still noteworthy that this change in attitude would likely have never been forthcoming had his son remained in the closet.  Kudos to the son who understood that his coming out could be a national embarrassment to his father and yes, some applause should be extended to the dad for not trying to conceal it to benefit his political career.

But I’m on the side with the critics here.   Empathy is something that conservative Republicans appear to have very little of until it impacts some of their own.  There are those of course who appear to lack any at all.  There was Newt Gingrich’s hypocrisy towards Clinton sexual misconduct while the former speaker himself was boning another woman before serving divorce papers to his second  wife – while she was hospitalized.   Most recently there was Mitt Romney’s 47% soul-less comment about those who had fallen on hard economic times as a result of financial malfeasance in the investment banking sector, declaring them as moochers and takers because they supported someone who provided relief for them when they lost their jobs and homes.

Many top officials in the Bush administration, including the president himself, VP Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld – none of who saw active combat duty – supported the shock and awe campaign that killed tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the government’s assault on Iraq back in 2003 and ultimately the death of 4488 American military personnel.   Rumsfeld’s cavalier attitude toward most of the civilian deaths was typical of the neo-conservative mentality that wrote off such tragic loss of human life as mere “collateral damage”.

Pentagon Holds Departure Ceremony For Rumsfeld Compassionate Conservatives?

CONFESSION AND MEA CULPA

All of this has taken me back to a time when I myself was anti-gay, even as I professed liberal ideas.  I also considered myself to be a somewhat devout Christian at the time but I didn’t want scripture alone to be the basis of my opposition to same-sex unions.  I was intent on pressing the compassion of Christ however if I was going to pass judgment on others who appeared to violate “the word of God’.

I came to reason then that homosexuality was indeed a distortion of that natural state men and women developed from.  Rather than cite scripture I attempted to appeal to the intellect by insisting that homosexuality violated the laws of nature.  How could we be designed for anything else other than being drawn to opposite sex partners out of the life-serving need to procreate and sustain the species?  Did not the male and females anatomies alone validate this?

It was important to me too that homosexuals were not to be demonized but merely were the unfortunate recipients of a gene mutation that led to same-sex propensities.  But as I expounded on this notion it drew into question the perfection of God’s creation that we have been led to believe is there.  If homosexuality was more than mere choice; a choice that eschews God, then why would people who were raised with this belief suffer the torment they developed overtime that drove them toward gender like partners rather than opposites?

I could have easily rejected such a rational response and declared, as many fundamentalist do, that Satan was trying to deceive me.  But my journey to understanding my faith had already convinced me that a God of love and mercy could not also create his or her evil opposite.

The deeper I dug into my faith origins the more I discovered that much of the dogma we’re taught as children and the fear of hell we’re raised with should we “stray”, had little basis outside the conventional wisdom of a time when people still thought the earth was flat and was the center of the universe.  Once I concluded that many fundamentals of my religious teachings were wrong or metaphorical at best, it was not such a great leap to conclude my adversity towards homosexuals had no raison d’etre except for the fear-based attitudes of many of my elders and peers.

gaymarriage-cartoon

Inherent in my decision to change, as mentioned above, was the need to express compassion or empathy for those who suffer from want or hatred of others.  Raised in the Catholic church I had fully incorporated the core principles behind our faith being love and mercy.   How could we be so cruel to blacks back then and still call ourselves Christians?  How could we treat women as second class citizens and still not share the mindset of Jesus who saved the whore from stoning and rebuked the Pharisees who admonished the woman who washed his feet in Luke 7:38?

If God was, is and always will be, how could it be that such things were seen as they were but no longer are now?   Were we wrong then or are we wrong now?  In view of the evidence we now possess about our universe and human equality, the logical conclusion one would have to draw is that we had it wrong then.

To admit that our previous and preconceived ideas about many things we held so tightly to are now wrong and should thus be revised to fit the reality, to me, takes real courage.  The fact that Senator Portman has made this change about gay marriages in light of the evidence he has been willing to accept with his own son is exemplary … but courageous?

I have not always been courageous when I should have been.  I have been guilty of trying to reconcile my lack of courage with some feeble rationale that excuses such weakness.  I have been able to forgive myself to some degree however because of those times when I have shown some courage in the face of adversity.  One of those times came when I finally admitted openly to many gay people I had looked down on that my views about them were wrong.

SHARED HUMANITY; NOT RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS

It didn’t take the revelation about 4 years later that my own daughter was gay for me to develop empathy for homosexuals.  It simply required that seed of compassion planted, oddly enough, by the same church people who taught me to condemn those different from me.

Why the one stuck with me more than the other can only be attributed, in my opinion, to the legitimacy of what is morally right.  Love and mercy that hones our empathy for others carries the moral high ground and for people who wait until something personal happens to them or theirs means needless suffering continues for millions of others who share similar deprivations.

Many conservatives will raise the objection about their lack of compassion by pointing out their charitable giving through their churches or private giving.   That’s a whole other issue we could debate but let this response suffice to answer that objection.  So what?

Liberals give equally in these areas and yet still all of this charity combined is insufficient to meet the human deprivations that exist not only in our country but around the world.  Where some might ask as Cain did “Am I my brother’s keeper”?,  a liberal is more likely than a conservative to answer yes to that question.  That’s part of what distinguishes the two. Besides, treating people as equals costs nothing in monetary terms.

It’s time that the moral high ground showed itself more naturally within the ranks of conservatives instead of those arguments they diligently make to avoid it.  A good place to start is to change the right-wing narrative within the GOP that persecutes anyone who raises the issue of income disparity.  It’s real and it’s not a choice people make.  It’s unnatural and needs to be confronted courageously.

compassionate_conservatism_sjpg1323

RELATED VIDEO:

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:

Are fringe elements within the Republican Party represented by the myth of Sisyphus, thought by Albert Camus to personify the happy fool?


For those who stay up with the news it should come as no surprise to discover that many on the religious right who are deeply imbedded within the Republican Party view a pregnancy from a rape as an act of God, or as VP nominee Paul Ryan puts it, “a method of conception”.   One that should not be tampered with by an abortion.   Many of these people are also opposed to measures that could prevent such an unwanted pregnancy in the form of the pill and the day after pill contraceptives.

Following this ludicrous position that puts God in play with the act of rape I have finally seen a pattern with these people who are unwilling to intervene in what they perceive as the will of the Almighty.  The recent tropical storm Isaac, turned hurricane by the time it hit the Louisiana coastline 7 years to the day when Katrina played havoc with New Orleans, raised the interest of Scott Lilly over at the Center for American Progress blog.  In so doing he showed yet another area where the Republican Party has pretty much taken a hands off approach to such divine action, as some within the Party see it.

It’s late August. The Republicans are having their national convention. A huge tropical storm is bearing down on the U.S. Gulf Coast. So what’s new? We have had major hurricanes bearing down on the United States during four of the past six Republican conventions: Andrew in 1992, Frances in 2004, Gustav in 2008, and this year, Isaac.

But the Republican problem with hurricanes seems to go well beyond convention timing. A number of hurricanes have erupted into huge political issues, and it has almost always been at the expense of Republican candidates. This is not a coincidence: Republicans seem determined to underfund, undermanage, and understaff the government agencies that respond to hurricanes, putting lives and property at risk, as well as their political careers.   SOURCE   

Lilly concludes that Republicans seem determined to underfund, under-manage, and understaff the government agencies that are designed to deal with hurricanes, before and after because …

“they have become so good at convincing themselves that the public sector doesn’t matter that when they run into problems such as hurricanes they simply don’t know what to do. If you admit that you need government to solve that problem, you might have to make concessions in other places, as well. On the other hand, if you treat agencies that manage such problems as though they don’t matter by appointing incompetent administrators and starving them of the resources necessary to provide adequate service, you end up in the kind of mess we have seen repeatedly in Republican handling with hurricanes.kind of mess we have seen repeatedly in Republican handling with hurricanes.”

This would explain the laissez-faire, Ayn Rand mindset of the Tea Party officials within the GOP.  They are more concerned with the notion that some “invisible hand” controls our fate and avoid the God issue altogether.  Rand was after all a devout atheist.  But this won’t do for the fundamentalist christians who view the bible as the inerrant word of God and that in all things, God is in control.  

We do not expect to understand fully the purpose for our trials until our Lord calls us home to be with Him. But we do know that He loves us too much to harm us, and that He is far more concerned with our welfare than we are. God’s choices are always right. He is capable of carrying out any project to a successful conclusion without the possibility of fault or failure. Nothing in His universe happens by chance or accident. For every effect there is a cause. God “worketh all things after the counsel of His own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory” (Ephesians 1:11-12). Yes, God is in control.    Source  

I’m pretty sure that victims of Katrina and brutal rapes would have to be brainwashed to believe that part about God loving us too much to harm us.  Looking a little deeper within this frame of reference we discover another bible-thumper who claims that God, not man, is responsible for a serious deviation from the natural cycle of global warming

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) appeared on Voice of Christian Youth America’s radio program Crosstalk with Vic Eliason yesterday to promote his new book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, where he repeated his frequent claim that human influenced climate change is impossible because “God’s still up there.” Inhofe cited Genesis 8:22 to claim that it is “outrageous” and arrogant for people to believe human beings are “able to change what He is doing in the climate.”   SOURCE 

 

 

Now I have been convinced for years that the biblical account of God is nothing more than the creation of man’s mind and therefore holds no validity for me.  I do love the poetry in the Old  Testament and some of the inspiring homilies found within New Testament pages.  But the notion that an omniscient God who had already eradicated most of his creation in a fit of rage, save Noah and his family, only to later allow “his only begotten son” to be crucified by the spawn of Noah, just doesn’t appeal to the rational mind that supposedly is a product of our creation. The only thing I can logically conclude by those who refuse to act intelligently about the natural and man-made consequences we face is something my mom once accused me of when I was about five years of age.

I tried to watch electricity come out of a frayed wire.  As I was focused on watching myself plug in the wire at the electrical socket I discovered too late that my other hand was resting on the exposed wires at the other end.    When mom came running into the room after hearing my blood curdling scream and discovered what I had done, she told me “You must have been AWOL when God was handing out the brains”. 

And then, bless her heart, she did something that we have since learned NOT to do to a burn which serves as a perfect metaphor to explain how the extremist in the Republican Party respond to critical issues today.  She put butter over the open wound which does more harm than good.


What is it with the extremist element in Republican politics that just can’t express any empathy for women who have been raped?

Rep. Todd Akin from Missouri.  Just another religious zealot who can’t understand why women don’t want to carry their rapist’s child for 9 months?

Back in January, 2010, when Sharron Angle was running against Harry Reid in Nevada she was asked if there was any reason for abortion, including rape and incest.  ”No”, was her reply.   She replied that as a Christian she believed “that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.”

Ouch!  Who would have thought God had a plan for rape as a part of unwanted pregnancies.

But two years later in January of this year, then candidate for the GOP Presidential  nomination, Rick Santorum, expounded on this notion.   In an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, Santorum said that “I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you.”  

Wow!  Women who hope to have a child someday through the biblical-sanctioned practice of a loving marriage must not reject God’s preference for birth through rape?  Lest you think this may be too far fetched, check out what a member of the Missouri state Republican central committee said in this regard. (see below)

You begin to get the sense that the zealots who oppose abortion feel that pregnancy by rape is none-the-less legitimate in the eye’s of God simply because a life has been generated.  In their view, God is the creator of all life, ergo, rape serves a “plan and a purpose”  albeit “in a very broken way” for creating life.

So the next logical step in this sociopathic mindset is to see rape in some “legitimate” terms?

Missouri Republican Senate nominee Rep. Todd Akin was answering a question regarding his position on abortion rights in instances when a woman is a victim of rape and seems to have carried the utter unconcern for the woman to a preposterous conclusion.

“People always want to make it into one of those things — well, how do you slice this particularly tough ethical question,” Akin said in an interview on KTVI-TV, video of which was circulated by the Democratic super PAC American Bridge. 

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors, [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” Akin said. 

Regarding his opinion on whether to allow for an abortion in such instances, Akin added: “But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”   SOURCE 


When you watch the video on this one you can almost visually see Rep. Akin resisting his body’s attempt to tie itself in knots.

Here’s what Sharon Barnes, a member of the Missouri state Republican central committee, said regarding Mr. Akin’s statement that very few rapes resulted in pregnancy.

“at that point [after being raped], if God has chosen to bless this person with a life, you don’t kill it.  That’s more what I believe he was trying to state,” Ms. Barnes said. “He just phrased it badly.”   SOURCE

Hey Missouri!  Better check the water source you’re drinking from.  As the “Show Me” state can you show the rest of the nation why you would “legitimately” consider this man as a serious candidate to represent you in the U.S. Senate?   Here’s hoping you show him a one-way ticket back to his private life that hopefully doesn’t consist of making decisions for women.


Not all change is good but it is inevitable and some of it is necessary.  The political and Christian right in this country risk appearing backwards as they dig in their heels to fend off 21st century changes.

 

Hostile anti-Obama protesters feel threatened by policies they feel will undermine their traditional American way of life which tends to exclude other cultures and religions.

I have been guilty many times in the past of labeling most extremist on the right as ignorant slugs whose grasp of reality, history and many facts often reflect some levels of mental deficiency.  But I have come to the conclusion that such people, though at times poorly informed, are not always ignorant.  In fact many of them are just as intelligent as the liberals they attack for being intellectual elites.  There are of course those who still hold to debunked notions of global cooling and the President being a practicing Muslim, but these do not make up that larger population I want address this post to.   Liberals are not without their ideologues but unlike their conservative counterpart, change is not something to dread but to embrace and rebuild with.

So what I am finding then is not for lack of a brain from those on the right wanting to “take America back” to a period in our history that has long ago disappeared or who proclaim God is punishing this country with terrorist attacks and mass murders by madmen because we have strayed from some earlier set of values.   It is, I honestly think, a conscious decision they have made to limit their contemporary views to only those notions they locked into at a more immature age, with perhaps some childhood anxiety disorder holdovers.  It’s as if they have gotten a glimpse of a future that resembles nothing like their accustomed to and have made a conscious decision to freeze time in their mind and refuse to allow it to take its natural course.  They then proceed to create an apologetic culture over time to confront the reality of inevitable change.

When you look at the language of Tea Party types and fundamentalist Christians you see notions spelled out in ways that sound more familiar in a junior high school setting; having a more sophomoric argot to them.  Ideas are expressed in more simplistic ways that accommodate an adolescent view and seem trivial in light of broader experiences.  Their mental faculties have not been diminished physiologically and they are quite capable of expressing an intellect with high IQs in most areas.  But in their socio-religious view of life their growth appears stunted and all too ready to reject a social dynamic that develops layers of knowledge over time.  The concept of WASPs – white Anglo-Saxon protestants – comes to mind when considering many on the right today as they try to deal with the changing make up of American families in the 21st century.

Why does the changing traditional image of American families seem threatening to many conservatives today?

The simpler, broader concepts of “mom, apple pie, God and country” still holds a pleasant but narrow image from a past era for today’s hardcore right-wing contingent within conservatism.  To such people however, mom is never a teenage girl who had an unwanted pregnancy, diabetes from too much apple pie is beyond comprehension, the Judeo-christian concept of a universal creator remains the only acceptable view (orthodox interpretations primarily) and many still see the country as it existed for many years as the domain for white male property owners.  Capitalism has been woven into biblical scripture and wealth is nearly universally seen as the ultimate end to one’s pursuit of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.  To discredit those who have vast fortunes is to engage in a social blasphemy of sorts.

This state of mind is, I feel, an intentional choice because it preserves a familiarity of the bygone era.  We all harbor this to some degree.  We also all tend to resist most changes.  But for many on the Christian and political right in this country today, the magnitude of change we are inevitably experiencing as a democracy with its emphasis on freedom is change that cannot be tolerated.  No amount of critical thinking seems to be capable of altering this dogmatic stand either.

When it comes time for us all to go out into the world on our own, beyond the control of those who have filled our minds up to this point, we inevitably run into challenges to those perceptions that were narrowly defined in our subconscious during the brain’s formative years. By the time I was seventeen I was sure Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism, was the one true religion.  Americans, especially Texans, were the greatest people ever and the envy of the world and that equal economic opportunity was there for everyone who expended the right amount of energy, no matter what your gender, religious beliefs or race were.  Naturally I heard this from the authority figures within a paternalistic white American, christian culture and since I was a physically white male American born in Texas and raised in the Catholic church, I failed to see how women and other people of differing races, cultures and belief systems seldom shared this view.  How could I?  I had never interacted sufficiently, if at all, with such people.

But then somehow the mechanisms of control lost sight of me and allowed me to gain a higher education and this, to the shock and dismay of many, opened doors that had heretofore been closed.  Some of them had in fact been nailed shut.  Perhaps this was the dread of former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum expressed in his campaign about higher education. 

I found that these  countervailing views that grabbed me at a young adult age seem to fit in areas that my traditional upbringing could not quite reconcile.  Not everything I began to absorb satisfied a hidden hunger.  In fact I found some objectionable, at first.  But there was enough there that allowed me to see that perhaps I had in fact not been given all of the information that was out there to make an informed decision.  Just coming to the realization that an open and honest debate on issues was an option was something of an awakening for me.

Deeply held views that demonized and rejected gays, held minorities and women to an inferior status and saw all other manifestations of religious faith as broken and even corrupt, began to fragment.  As this became more unsettling to me, my parents and others would try to assure me that though some customs and tradional views they raised me with were not absolutes, I was not to concern myself with such doubts because the older notions had been around “forever”.  Surely, they presumed, this must carry greater weight that time often honors.  To think outside this preset mold I was warned was to invite Lucifer and Stalinists thoughts into that world that had been carved out for me.

It took about two-thirds of my life to finally accept that much of what I was taught as a child and young adult was subject to debate and some of it, not all, was unlikely to stand up to scrutiny.  I had what I call “a road less traveled” epiphany.  Rather than view this as a failure of family upbringing or a conspiracy of some sort, I found it beneficial to accept this as part of the maturation process in life.  Those adolescent ideas and ideals that got me through my young life served a purpose that allowed me to focus on less complicated matters that tender young brains were better able to handle.  The real failure I have discovered comes in believing too deeply that much of what we are taught are absolutes and are inflexible.  It takes a certain amount of courage to step outside that box we have become too familiar with where pushing the envelope was often discouraged.  The status quo was held up as my security blanket.

Think of the temper tantrum young children throw when their notion of getting a toy is altered because the condition of good behavior gone bad has effected this outcome (provided you have a parent willing to enforce discipline).   Your world is momentarily shattered and you engage in a kicking, screaming fit to re-established that happier moment before Mom or Dad enforced the conditions that prevented you from getting what you wanted.  Such behavior seems harmless at such an early age but when such mechanisms carry over to the adult world,  especially regarding critical matters that will effect long term outcomes for ourselves and others, it can create some conflicts that lead to acts of aggression on local and even a global scale.


When immature christian thinking sees Islam as nothing more than an evil based upon their view of what is or isn’t a “true” religion, then the positive aspects of the Muslim faith are ignored and even twisted to suggest some hidden agenda exists with the consensus.  When immature heterosexuals claim that the legality of marriage was only intended to be between a man and a woman, they ignore the vital element of relationships that strengthen self-esteem and make us productive members of society.  When immature patriots think only older, narrowly defined traditions masked as “original intent” have greater value than those conditions that the social dynamics of today present us, they blind themselves to modern reality and pigeon-hole all cultures to fit out-dated concepts.  All of these reactions limit the gifts and talents that others can bring to the table in making this a more just and free society.

By using the language and promoting the notions that had meaning for us as an adolescent and expecting it to always bear fruit as an adult is a trap that is easy to fall into.  The failure to allow new and varied experiences to refine what was thought to be chipped in stone is a trait that will prevent the human race from advancing and sustaining a quality of life that ensures ours and the other species’ survival.  Not all change is good and we need to move cautiously where angels dare to tread.  But the converse is equally true and we need not be afraid of expanding views once deemed sacrosanct.

We need to take with us into the future those elements that have and will continue to serve us as the needs of a 21st century confront us.  All others need to be either respectfully laid to rest or disposed of in the unceremonious manner that we take out the daily trash with.

“Immaturity is the incapacity to use one’s intelligence without the guidance of another.”  – Immanuel Kant

 

 


Two Men and a Bible

Goober #2 Who's the bad seed?

According to evangelist Franklin Graham, President Obama’s “problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name,”  Franklin Graham told CNN’s John King in a televised interview that aired Thursday night.

“Now it’s obvious that the president has renounced the prophet Mohammed, and he has renounced Islam, and he has accepted Jesus Christ. That’s what he says he has done. I cannot say that he hasn’t. So I just have to believe that the president is what he has said,” Graham continued, adding that “the Islamic world sees the president as one of theirs.”   SOURCE 

Along these same lines

Lot’s son Moab is described as being born from an incestuous relationship between Lot and his eldest daughter (Genesis 19:37) after the destruction of Sodom. The Moabites are described as descendants of Lot’s son Moab.

Ruth, a young woman of Moab, was the great-grandmother of David and, according to the Christian tradition, an ancestress of Jesus.

So as seeds go, Jesus didn’t turn out to be anything like an ancestral mother of his.  And if one accepts scripture as true, God didn’t seem to have any problem impregnating the mother of Jesus who carried that seed from a tribe viewed as inferiors to the Israelites, the so-called “chosen people”

Is there is lesson here Franklin Graham seems not to have grasped from his reading of the Bible?

 

BUT GRAHAM AIN’T GOT NOTHING OVER INHOFE

Goober #1

 

Where Graham’s lapse of the Biblical Moab seed is apparent, another phony Christian seems to have read more into the Bible than what is there.

In a radio interview with Voice of Christian Youth America, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) argued that his belief that global warming is a hoax is biblically inspired. Promoting his book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, Inhofe told interviewer Vic Eliason on Wednesday that only God can change the climate, and the idea that manmade pollution could affect the seasons is “arrogance“:

Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that “as long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.” My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.    SOURCE 

I think the key phrase here is, “as long as the earth remains …”.  This of course presumes that the earth may not remain and one of the factors that may effect its demise is the increased CO2 in the atmosphere manufactured by man-made fossil fuels.

In the preceding verse (21) God tells Noah, “And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.”   Clearly God doesn’t personally plan to effect the climate change that would cause floods and rising sea levels but, along with giving man free-will, he did establish a natural order of things and if that natural order is altered any with say ….. elevated green house gases from burning fossil fuels for the last 200 plus years, then it would be man, not God, responsible for the consequences of climate change.

Of course these scriptures were written some three thousand years ago so not everyone can be as sure as Inhofe is that God’s still up there.  He may be off creating another Universe since the inhabitants he is said to have created on one of our solar system’s planet nailed his son to a cross.  We could well be on our own and from the looks of who’s running Congress, it most certainly seems we have been abandoned by the God of reason.


Raised in the Catholic Church and a one-time professed “born again” Christian, I have since discovered through careful historical readings that the fundamentalist views of some Christians today do not always reflect the reality of this system of faith.

 

I hate to come across as a humbug this time of year so if you are in the “Christmas Spirit” and don’t want to be brought down from it, you might want to skip this post until another time.  The subject matter isn’t necessarily related to this “jolly” season but it was a recent letter to the editor in my local newspaper that activated my response here.

Affirming his belief that we should keep the Christ in Christmas, the writer of that letter seems to ignore the fact as many do that though the season is all about the birth of the baby Jesus as described in the new testament, it is in fact NOT the actual birthday of the Nazarene.  Nobody really knows when that is but historical records indicate that some believed it to be the first week in January.

Bruce David Forbes, author of “Christmas: A Candid History,” says those who delay Christmas festivities can take some comfort in the fact that Dec. 25 isn’t the date of the birth of Christ.

When Christians started celebrating his birth in the 300s after the Roman emperor Constantine converted to that religion, they didn’t know the birthdate, so it appears that they picked a day to coincide with Romans’ midwinter celebrations of their own gods. Meanwhile, Christians in more eastern countries, like Turkey and Greece, were already celebrating on Jan. 6.   SOURCE

It seems we have the pagans to thank for this holiest of Christian holidays.

Also, in a news story back in 2008, astronomers speculated that, based on their calculations of when the “star of David” appeared over Bethlehem a couple of thousand years ago, that the birth of Jesus was sometimes in June.  If that notion had been picked up by the Roman Catholic church initially, all of the “White Christmas” references would never have materialized and Santa’s red suit would now be a tropical shirt and shorts attire.

But this isn’t the part of the writer’s letter that rubs me the wrong way.  It is the notion that we are primarily a nation “founded on Judeo-Christian values”.  There is no argument from me that much of what our laws are based on come from the Mosaic laws and are inherently fitted to some core christian values.  But it is distortion of the worst kind, in my opinion, to presume that everyone who came to this country did so to establish Judeo-christian values.

Sure the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock were escaping religious persecution in England but let’s remember that that rigid group of people had a set of values in many ways that resembled more how the Romans treated early Christians than they did the teachings of Jesus.  The most well-known display of such un-Christian behavior was the innocent killing of people that were hysterically deigned as “witches”.  Fear, not compassion, compelled the actions by which people burned some of their own for alleged heretical beliefs.

Expressing the Christian virtue of Tolerance?

The social structure back in the early colonial days was strictly paternalistic and the legal codes “especially in the Puritan north – served as enforcement arms of religious orthodoxy.”  Women and non-whites were viewed as lesser human beings.

Community leaders acted as stern fathers to the children God had entrusted to their care. Members of the community were supposed to be taught God’s paths for their lives and brought back into the fold when they strayed – but the rod was not spared.

Laws against Quakers were … worse than those against Anabaptists – they could be executed if they dared to return after having been banished. Quakers appear to have been especially feared as threatening to “undermine & ruine” the properly instituted authorities of the colony. Two Quakers were made examples of and hanged in 1659, but they weren’t the only ones.

Blasphemy was another crime which merited swift and harsh punishment – as with the previous examples, any act which might undermine unquestioning faith as promoted by the local religious leaders was regarded as threatening to undermine general social stability. Blasphemers could, at court discretion, be put in the pillory, whipped, have his tongue bored out with a hot iron, or be forced to stand in the gallows with a rope around his neck.  SOURCE

People like this letter writer cherry pick those parts of our socio-religious culture to create an illusion that is a far cry from what life was really like back when.  If they were really so adamant that our nation should reflect the Judeo-christian tradition then they should be putting to death their disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21:18) and punishing bankers that have profited greatly from loans to people of low income. (Deuteronomy 23:19-20, Exodus 22:25, Leviticus 25:35-37)

A closer reading of the founding fathers who put our constitution together will show that many of these men were not great men of faith and many, like Ben Franklin, were Deists, not Christians.  Their primary concerns as they spelled out the laws of this land were based more on property rights than on concepts found in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount since they were pretty much all land-owning aristocrats and not humble men who “fear the Lord”.

Enjoy your religious holidays and prescribe to those tenants in your faith that reflect compassion and tolerance but don’t presume to be a victim in a society where most people claim to be Christians while giving more support to Wall Street bankers than Occupy protesters and attack all Muslims because of the radical views of a minority.  I can’t be sure, but it’s possible that that is not what the baby Jesus would want.

Related Articles:

The Tea Party, the Constitution and the Founding Fathers: An Argument Without End 

How I Learned to Move Beyond the God of My Religious Upbringing 



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers