Category Archives: Religion

Is God A Conservative?

Posted on by

Archeologists and religious historians know that the gospels of the Bible were written by a variety of authors over a period of hundreds of years. The Vatican then sorted through dozens of gospels, ignoring those they found contradictory or unsuitable, before settling on the Bible as we know it today. Originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, the Bible has been translated into Latin, English and virtually every language on the planet.

With each translation, many of the subtleties and much of the original meaning was lost. Still, many churches (especially conservative churches) and their followers consider the Bible to be the divine word of God – a message that they accept without question. Ignoring the many contradictions contained within the “good book,” conservatives use the Bible to condemn those with whom they disagree. They use it to justify discrimination. They use it to justify the accumulation of wealth. They even use it to justify war.

For example, in order to deny homosexuals their civil rights, right wingers cite a verse from Leviticus that bans homosexuality. But what of the many other things that are banned in Leviticus? What about the bans on eating beef, pork, oysters, clams, shrimp and lobster? What about the ban on tattoos and torn clothes? And what about the prohibition of working on the Sabbath? I don’t see any exemptions for pro football, restaurant workers, retailers and pastors or priests. Won’t all of these people be condemned to “eternal damnation” along with homosexuals and liberals?

But fear not. The Bible-thumping right wingers led by Andy Schafly and his Conservative Bible Project are going to fix everything. They are in the process of rewriting the Bible to make it more conservative. Apparently, they alone know the true intent of the Bible’s original authors and they would have you believe that it has been corrupted by liberals.

Hmmm. This is going to be interesting. The New Testament has been called the most liberal document ever written. So what will conservatives change?

Of course, they’ll have to eliminate all of those troublesome teachings of Christ…especially the ones about turning the other cheek, serving the poor and denouncing the rich. So, too, will they have to eliminate the part about those without sin casting the first stone. And what of that “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” part? Certainly that must go.

After they’ve finished eviscerating such liberal teachings, how will conservatives explain their new Bible? Will they tell their flocks that, after more than two thousand years, Christ has reconsidered his liberal views? Will they claim that God has spoken to them in a more conservative voice? Or will they simply say that they found a new God…a God who supports the Tea Party?

A New Kind Of Pope.

Posted on by

Much has already been written about Pope Francis, but I can’t resist adding my two cents worth. For much of my life I found myself contrasting various religious leaders. The most remarkable contrast was between the Dahli Lama and Pope Benedict XVI.

Where the Dahli Lama sought to find the similarities of all religions, too often Pope Benedict focused on issues that divide. While the Dahli Lama dressed in the simple robes of a monk and eschewed the trappings of power and wealth, Pope Benedict seemed to embrace them. While the Dahli Lama displayed humility and humor, Pope Benedict too often allowed the Church to condemn those who strayed too far from his conservative viewpoint. Indeed, under Pope Benedict, the Vatican chastised a group of American nuns for placing too much focus on poverty and economic injustice, the core teachings of Christ.

Under the leadership of Pope Benedict, many bishops and priests felt comfortable engaging in partisan politics; some even threatening parishoners that they would “go to hell” if they voted for the wrong candidate. Worse yet, under Pope Benedict, several Archbishops continued to give cover to predatory pedophiles within the Church.

Enter Pope Francis.

Suddenly, we have a Pope who speaks for the poor and the downtrodden. In fact, he intentionally chose to be called Pope Francis in honor of the patron saint of the poor. This is a Pope who denounced runaway greed and economic inequality; who condemned the “idolatry of money;” who stated that the Church has spent too much time focused on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage; who even went so far as to say that atheists and non-Catholics would be redeemed by doing good. He has embraced the homeless and even washed the feet of prisoners. Pope Francis not only speaks about the principles of Christ. He follows them.

What a refreshing change!

I’m not Catholic, but I believe that our purpose in life should be to help others; to be kind. And I agree with author Thomas Cahill who said, “There are really only two movements in the world. One is kindness. And the other is cruelty.” Let’s all try to embrace the first.

For more insights into the “People’s Pope,” I encourage you to watch Bill Moyer’s interview with Cahill. I’m sure you will enjoy it.

Environmental Suicide.

Posted on by

Many years ago, a scientist named Paul Ehrlich convinced me of the dangers of uncontrolled population growth. He helped create an organization named Zero Population Growth (ZPG) which called for couples to have no more than two children – the number needed to replace the parents while maintaining the existing population. At the time, the world’s population stood at approximately 3.6 billion.

In 2011, the world population exceeded 7 billion!

Even today, few of the world’s governments have taken serious action to limit population growth. Discounting the effects of our never-ending wars, the exception is the one baby policy instituted by China and Indonesia. By enforcing a policy of one baby per couple, the governments hoped to improve economic conditions for their people while preserving dwindling resources. Although the populations of China and Indonesia have continued to grow, by most accounts, the policy has worked. China claims that 400,000 births have been averted. As a result, it recently announced that it will begin to relax the policy.

It seems that one of the biggest obstacles to population control is the lack of access to contraception. Population Action International estimates that as many as 215 million women around the world who want to prevent pregnancy need contraception. Many of these women are denied access to education and contraceptives by religion. This is even a problem in the Americas, especially Latin America.

That’s because the Vatican and other religious leaders have called for a ban on contraceptives and family planning. (It seems they believe that only God can decide the number of children to be born.) These religions often consider science the enemy of faith. Further, many of the same religions tell us that we have nothing to fear from over-population; that if the Earth is destroyed, the faithful will all end up in heaven. Indeed, some religious leaders are anxiously awaiting the “Rapture.”

The attitudes of politicians and corporations are nearly as bad.

In the US, some conservative politicians are trying to ban access to both contraception and abortion. In addition, many corporations see population control and environmental regulations as threats to sales growth. Any real effort to stop global warming would curb the sales of the oiligarchy. And how would corporations continue the escalation of their share prices if they couldn’t clear-cut forests, extract minerals, pillage our oceans, and create sprawling subdivisions?

Large profits require large populations.

Meanwhile, scientists the world over are screaming about the effects of over-population and the increased burning of fossil fuels. They point to alarming evidence that our environment may soon reach a tipping point. They cite statistics of rising temperatures, rising sea levels and shrinking ice shelves. They warn that lost species are like canaries in the coal mine; that the extinction of such species is a precursor to the extinction of our own.

If none of that alarms you, maybe this video will. The scientist in the video makes one of the most compelling (and frightening) arguments yet.

Dumb Dynasty.

Posted on by

Last week, social media were overwhelmed with the Duck Dynasty scandal after the program’s “star,” Phil Robertson likened homosexuality to bestiality and talked glowingly about the days of Jim Crow. In an interview with GQ, he said, “I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once … They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

It seems that Robertson missed the Fifties and Sixties when black people were beaten or lynched for being “uppity.” Apparently he missed the entire civil rights movement when dogs and fire hoses were aimed at those participating in peaceful marches; when black churches were bombed or burned; when organizers were murdered for registering African-Americans to vote.

But Robertson’s failed memory isn’t the real scandal here. Neither is the fact that a ZZ Top lookalike said something stupid, insensitive and hateful. Nor is the fact that his employer chose to “suspend” him for his statements. It is somewhat more scandalous that the program is on a network named Arts & Entertainment, and that Robertson was interviewed by a magazine named Gentleman’s Quarterly. But none of those things represent a real scandal.

The real scandal is that anyone actually cares.

Contrary to the beliefs of its supporters, Duck Dynasty is not a reality show. Most of it is as phony as the family member’s beards which were grown just for the program. It doesn’t represent the South or American family “values.” What it actually represents is the further dumbing down of America. Centered on a family that made a fortune by making and selling duck calls, the program’s alleged entertainment comes from watching a wealthy family act like spoiled, overgrown children imparting hillbilly homilies. It is, in fact, a prime example of what former Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Newton Minow once condemned as television’s “vast wasteland.”

As for conservatives who have their tighty whities in a bunch over A&E’s “suspension” of Robertson, they can relax. The network has already announced that Robertson will not miss a single episode, and publicity of the controversy will likely only increase the program’s ratings. Further, the “suspension” was not a violation of Robertson’s First Amendment right to free speech. He was admonished by his employer, not the government. (Get back to me if he’s ever arrested for making dumb statements.)

Don Imus, Keith Olbermann, Martin Bashir, Alec Baldwin and many others have been removed from the air and lost substantial income as the result of making insensitive statements in public. On the other hand, Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, the pundits of Fox News Channel and other conservative icons never seem to face any real consequences for being chronically and publicly stupid.

Putting Pagan Back In The Solstice.

Posted on by

It’s that time of year when, once again, we are treated to the annual Fox News Channel “War on Christmas” diatribes. For some reason, the Fox pundits believe that wishing someone “Happy Holidays” is an insult to Christianity. It’s not. It’s simply a sentiment intended to include those of all religious backgrounds. Certainly, the majority of Americans call themselves Christian. But our population also includes Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Pagans, Atheists and more. If you don’t know someone’s religious beliefs (and not everyone wears a necklace with a cross, a star or other symbol of faith), wishing them “Happy Holidays” is not insulting. It’s simply being polite.

This year, the Fox nitwits have become even more extreme than usual. They now claim that Santa Claus (a largely mythical and secular character) is white. They have also stated that Jesus was white. (Yes, white as in Caucasian white.)

Really?

The story of Santa originated with Saint Nicholas, a man of Turkish origin who was known for his generosity to the poor. His ancestry would indicate that he was not white. And, although the real St. Nick was always depicted with a beard, he was hardly the portly, cherubic character that most kids think of today. Since today’s Santa Claus is a figment of the imagination, people can imagine him to be white, black, brown or green. It really doesn’t matter.

As for Jesus, he was Jewish, not Caucasian. Even the most devoutly revisionist Christians should know that! Yes, over the centuries, artists have often portrayed Jesus as white. But artists tend to represent historical figures according to their own cultural heritage. Such renderings should not be confused with reality.

Moreover, few historians believe that Christ was actually born on December 25. The exact date of his birth is unknown. Historians have placed the date sometime between March and October from 7 to 2 BC. Likely the celebration of his birth was moved to December 25 in order to coincide with the Winter Solstice, thus encouraging Pagans and others to adopt Christianity without giving up the celebration of one of their most important holidays. When we celebrate Christmas on December 25, we are also honoring an important tradition of Pagans and other ancient cultures.

The point of all this is that, if it wants to be taken seriously as a news source, Fox should get its facts straight. And it should stop trying to pit one religion against another and one group against another. It causes me no harm if you want to put the Christ back in Christmas. Nor does it cause me any harm if you want to put the Pagan back in the Solstice. However you celebrate the season, it should be a time to gather with family and friends. It should be a time of happiness and joy.

Happy Holidays everyone!

The Tao Of Politics.

Posted on by

I am not a Taoist. Nevertheless, I have learned that the philosophy of Taoism has much to offer. The Taoist concept of Yin and Yang holds that nothing is ever entirely black or white; hard or soft; good or bad. Taoism teaches that good people can do bad things. It also teaches that those we consider bad can, on occasion, do good things.

This is particularly true as it pertains to politics.

For example, I know many who are otherwise caring, loving people who would deny food, shelter, health care and other human necessities to the unfortunate simply because their Republican Party preaches personal responsibility. They have become convinced that the poor are merely taking advantage of those of us who have been successful. They want to believe that the majority of the poor are lazy. Such thinking allows them to look the other way when they see someone who is in desperate need of help.

They cannot conceive that someone can work hard and still struggle to feed their families because they are underpaid by large, greedy corporations. They falsely believe that minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs that are the first step up the economic ladder. In past times, that may have been true. But in today’s economy, with many of our high-paying jobs now shipped offshore, for many people, the economic ladder has been pushed aside by greedy corporate executives.

Many Republicans refuse to accept that the American Dream no longer exists for many people; that the US is not the land of opportunity it once was; that no amount of hard work can pull many of the unfortunate out of poverty; that the US now has less upward mobility than most of the rest of the industrialized world.

As a result, many good Republicans cheered when the federal government cut $5 billion from the annual budget of SNAP (food stamps) – an amount equal to all of the charitable organizations in the nation (501c4 “charities” such as American Crossroads and FreedomWorks, not included). The same people who would gladly give food and money to a family member or neighbor are still clamoring to cut another $4-40 billion from SNAP at a time when 1 in 6 Americans and 1 in 4 American children are dealing with hunger.

These grinches are not bad people. They are simply uninformed or misinformed.

These champions of personal responsibility and faith are convinced that social safety nets are not only unnecessary. They believe that social programs are creating a culture of dependence. They believe that the minimum wage, labor unions and government regulation are threats to our economy.

They believe that subsidies and giveaways to large corporations are good. But that subsidies and giveaways to people are bad. Why? If it’s true that corporations are people, shouldn’t they both be treated equally? If a half dozen banks are considered too big to fail, shouldn’t group consisting of millions of poor Americans also be considered too big to fail?

Taoism teaches that all things are part of a greater whole – the great Tao – and that if you harm another, in reality you harm yourself. Caring Republicans would be wise to keep that in mind.

Impeach Obama?

Posted on by

In the fantasy world of right wing crazies, the impeachment of President Obama is becoming a greater possibility. For example, Michele “Batsh*t Crazy” Bachmann recently told viewers of Fox News Channel that President Obama has “rewritten the Constitution to serve his own purposes.” First, I doubt that Bachmann has ever actually read the Constitution. Second, the “evidence” she used to support her claim is the Affordable Care Act (ACA)…a bill passed by Congress, signed by the president and upheld as constitutional by the conservative-dominated Supreme Court.

Some evidence.

Bachmann isn’t the only mental hospital escapee making such claims. At Tea Party rallies throughout the US, it’s common to see people holding “Impeach Obama” signs or verbally calling for the president’s impeachment. Even worse, numerous Teapublican congressmen have suggested that impeachment may soon be “necessary.” To justify their calls for impeachment, they point to manufactured “scandals” such as Benghazi.  But, unlike his predecessor who ignored numerous warnings prior to 9/11 and led our nation into war under false pretenses, President Obama has done absolutely nothing to warrant impeachment. And, just one year ago, voters had the ultimate opportunity to remove him from office.

It’s called an election.

Unfortunately for Teapublicans, they lost…badly. Nevertheless, Teapublicans continue to blame the president for their own failings. They ran up the debt with their wars and tax cuts and blamed it on Obama. They collapsed the economy and blamed Obama for unemployment. They created the debt crisis in 2011 and blamed Obama for the damage done. They have used the filibuster to nullify many of the president’s initiatives and to block many of his appointments and nominations.

They cry that Obama “refuses to defend our border” despite the fact that the Obama administration has doubled the size of the Border Patrol and invested billions in a border fence. They forced our government into sequestration then howled when the cuts resulted in long lines at airport screening. Most recently, they shut down our government then blamed Obama for parks and monuments being closed.

They continue to complain that Obama was foreign born (he was not) though their most vociferous whiner and presidential wannabe, Ted Cruz, was born in Canada. They attacked Obama for attending a “radical” black Christian church yet claim he’s a Muslim (as if that’s something bad). They howl about the start-up issues with the ACA website despite the fact that they have done everything in their power to sabotage it. They not only withheld much of the funding needed for its creation, Teapublican-controlled states refused to implement their own health insurance exchanges, forcing millions more Americans to log onto www.HealthCare.gov to find health care coverage.

Now Teapublicans are back home holding town halls and giving speeches about the evils of Obamacare. They are also inviting people to bring their “horror stories” about Obamacare. One can only imagine that they will spend their last 8 working days of 2013 reading these anecdotal, and likely false, stories into the congressional record and voting to repeal the law for the 48th time. And don’t be surprised if, next year, Rep. Darrell Issa, Rep. Paul Gosar and others use these stories as the basis for impeachment.

Knowing that impeachment is doomed to fail unless they gain control of the Senate, Teapublican congressmen are also continuing their attempts to destroy the Obama presidency by refusing to negotiate a budget and refusing to raise the debt ceiling which would force the US treasury into default. Never mind that such a move would have severe and long-lasting consequences for the world economy and our nation’s ability to borrow. It might even cause the world to replace the dollar as the world’s prime currency. But in the minds of many Teapublicans, such realities are dwarfed by their dislike for President Obama.

Teapublican hatred has no bounds.

Blessed Be The Peacemakers.

Posted on by

In one of the most encouraging deals in decades, the US and other western powers reached a deal with Iran President Hassan Rouhani to limit Iran’s enrichment of uranium in exchange for a relaxation of economic sanctions on Iran.  Although merely the first step in a long process, it could make the Middle East and the world a safer place. Not only will it prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, it demonstrates that peaceful negotiations are better and more productive than threats and bluster.

Improved relationships between Iran and the US have been a long time coming. There are serious grievances on both sides. But we have much in common with the Iranian people…too much to consider each other enemies.

Of course, not everyone is happy with these promising developments. The GOP warmongers in Congress, like John McCain and his pal Lindsay Graham, would love to have an excuse to “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.” Some have even derided the agreement as an attempt by the Obama administration to distract us from the problems of the roll-out of “Obamacare.” Iran likely has its own hardliners who are dissatisfied by the agreement. The Saudis, who belong to the Sunni sect of Islam, are unhappy that we are on the verge of making peace with a nation dominated by the Shiite sect of Islam. And the greatest warmonger of all, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has called the agreement “a historic mistake.”

With friends like these, who needs enemies? These are people whose livelihoods depend on conflict. They thrive on it. And they most certainly profit from it.

We should ignore them all. Instead of embracing their paranoia, we should reject it. We have had far too much war, anger and mistrust. We have tried the path of George W. Bush and Richard “The Dick” Cheney. And what has it gotten us? It has brought the world nothing but death, destruction, rising debts and displaced populations seeking vengeance. In this nuclear-armed world, it’s time to try another approach; one in which we talk with our enemies instead of threatening them. It worked for JFK and Khrushchev in 1962. It could work again.

Both President Obama and President Rouhani seem to understand this. Is it possible that, for once, we have the right people in the right positions at the right time?

Abortion Foes Obscure Complexity Of The Issue.

Posted on by

For 40 years, religious conservatives have fought against a woman’s constitutional right to end a pregnancy. They have pushed laws that would deny government funding for medical clinics performing abortions. They have demanded waiting periods. They have demanded that women be forced to view pictures of fetuses.

They have subjected abortion providers to increased scrutiny. They have demonstrated outside clinics. They have bombed clinics. They have hurled abuse at patients, nurses and doctors. They have published hit lists with the names of providers, along with their addresses, phone numbers and auto license numbers. They have even murdered doctors.

More recently, conservative politicians have placed limits on the time period with which women could seek abortions. They have required abortion providers to be accepted by local hospitals (many of which deny providers access on religious grounds). And they have voted to subject women to invasive and unnecessary medical procedures before they can have an abortion.

In their narrow minds, God willed the pregnancy, so the woman just needs to deal with it.

They refuse to accept a woman’s desire to abort the offspring of rape or incest. They refuse to accept a family’s desire to save a woman’s life when a pregnancy endangers her, even when other family members depend on her. They refuse to accept the financial and emotional difficulties of bearing a child so disabled that it will never be able to survive on its own. They refuse to accept the financial and emotional burden of giving birth to a child that will need constant attention…not only from the family, but from medical specialists.

Ironically, the very same people try to limit sex education and contraception. And they fight Obamacare because they fear that the government will come between them and their own medical decisions. Yet they’re willing to force the government between a woman and her doctor.

It’s long past time to acknowledge the complexity of the issue and work to minimize the issues that lead women to seek abortions…issues such as rape, incest, poverty, prenatal diseases, lack of education and the woman’s physical ability to carry the fetus to full term. It’s time to recognize that each pregnancy is different; that each woman has a right to her own religious and moral beliefs; that each woman should be free to make medical decisions in consultation with her partner, her family and her doctor.

Simple-minded religious and ideological-driven laws will not stop abortion. They will merely drive it underground, and into the back alleys. Such laws will only ruin lives…the lives of already living, breathing, thinking  people.

Is Muslim Extremism A US Export?

Posted on by

As sensational as that may seem, it’s a reasonable question. Here’s why: When the USSR invaded Afghanistan, the US moved to counter the invasion with Operation Cyclone which was portrayed in the movie, Charlie Wilson’s War starring Tom Hanks. The operation consisted of the US providing weapons, military aid and training to the mujahedeen, a ragtag group of guerrilla fighters based in Pakistan.

But it turns out there was one aspect of “assistance” not covered in Charlie Wilson’s War. I only recently learned about propaganda funded by USAID and created by the University of Nebraska at Omaha’s Center for Afghanistan Studies. According to the UNO website, the Center “organized more than 1,300 educational sites in Afghanistan and Pakistan and reached 130,000 Afghan refugees with K-12 textbooks and basic education services.” What the UNO website fails to mention is that those textbooks included images of dead Soviet soldiers, tanks, missiles, and AK47s. The books taught reading and math. They also included propaganda to turn Afghan children against the USSR and Afghan communist government. They incorporated Islamic verses from the Quran, as well as calls for jihad against the infidels.

For example, the books taught Afghan children the Pashtu language through two fictional characters named Maqbool and Basheer intended to be the Afghan equivalent of our Dick and Jane. An estimated 15 million of the textbooks were published in the Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtu from the early 1980’s to 1994.

In an article that appeared in the March 23, 2002 Washington Post, Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway wrote “An aid worker in the region reviewed an unrevised 100-page book and counted 43 pages containing violent images or passages.” They quoted Ahmad Fahim Hakim, an Afghan educator saying, “The pictures [in] the texts are horrendous to school students, but the texts are even much worse.”

Following the end of the Soviet occupation, many of the violent images were removed from the books, but much of the jihadist language remained unchanged. And many of the original books are still in use today throughout Afghanistan and western Pakistan. It doesn’t take much imagination to realize that the anti-Soviet messages can be used as calls to action against Americans and our allies. Indeed, the books are more than likely used in the most extreme madrassas in the region, many of which are funded by Saudis exporting their extremist wahhabi form of Islam.

UNO is unapologetic for its role in the publication of the books. According to a 2007 article by Matthew Hansen from the Lincoln JournalStar.com, “To the center’s longtime director, the textbooks are byproducts of a dark era when Russian bombs killed Afghan schoolchildren and rebel forces fought to save their country. ‘I won’t apologize…for something done in 1988,’ Thomas Gouttierre says. ‘At the time, Afghans were being killed.’”

Of course, many others have been killed since then, including thousands of Americans.