A couple of items caught my eye that, to be fair, could reflect well on some in the Christian community. The first is that a lot of American Catholics seem to be leaning away from the T-Party / Republican ticket. This in spite of Paul Ryan's Catholicism. Another is that some Christian writers and editors are emphasizing the parts of their religious ideology that call for loving one's neighbor, not abandoning the poor, and not worshiping the rich. Clearly not all of the American Christian Church has abandoned its humanity.
Unfortunately, as much encouragement as can be found in some parts of the Christian community not falling under the spell of the T-party, it still means that Obama is likely to remain in the White House. While this is probably better than the alternative, it still leaves the US following the same basic world view of military dominance, unchecked consumerism, cultural superiority and, (least we forget Obama being pretty fond of his "born-again" status) fundamentalist tendencies. De-fanging Romney and the T-party might keep the US from fighting a proxy war with Iran at the demand of Israel (might), but it will not fix the systemic economic problems facing society based on the exponential consumption of limited resources. Democrats show no interest in stopping Obama's drone war, have no intention of revoking the Patriot Act, and serve the same special interests as the Republicans.
But hey, a little bit of light reflecting into the world is better than no light at all. If it comes from the best parts of religion, maybe the worst parts of religion will be weakened a little. Small steps can still be heading in the right direction.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Religious echoes
There is no "believer" left in me any longer. I am quite content to take the universe as it presents itself to be, so large as to infinite for all practical purposes (even if it isn't), so old on the one hand with so much history left to unfold on the other as to be ageless (particularly in relation to our short lived selves) and unfolding without any particular purpose in mind. This is a stage more than big enough for us to find the room to create what we will of our lives and our understanding of our place.
Though I dismiss all religion as the first feeble attempts of a still childish species just now emerging into a shaky intelligence to explain what they don't know, I have to admit to a soft spot for Christianity. That is not so odd really. I was raised a Christian, spent many years as a fundamentalists, married a fundamentalist (who has moved from fundamentalism herself, but is still a very spiritual person, and who loves me to this day) and raised my Daughters as Christians. Two of them remain in the Christian fold, and are raising 6 of my 7 grand kids in that tradition.
But the spirituality that I recall once pursuing is not the Christianity of 21st Century Americanism. That Christianity is an abomination of greed, hate, intolerance and just plain ignorance. How it got to be such a potent force in what was once an enlightened society is one of the mysteries of history. The only good news is that many of the generation soon to take the reigns seem to be rejecting this religion of their forebears. In America much of what is left of that religious tradition is shrinking into an elitist corner of the T-Party / Republican right and, though a political force for much ill at the moment, may already be seeing its day fading away. Conservative Catholicism is also a tradition of little value and it is no surprise that many T-party / Republican types are converting to Catholicism. (Though, to their credit, a few Catholic leaders are finding T-party ideology a bad fit.) Conservatism seeks to cling to, and return to, the past. It worships those who wield power over others, loves the idea of dictating how people should live, and exhibits an almost pathological self-righteousness in its claim of knowing what is "right" for everyone. Catholicism and the social conservatism of the T-party / Republicans are nearly identical expressions of this kind of social engineering.
No. The Christianity I remember with a bit of wistfulness was that of my early teens, before getting swept up in the fundamentalism that swallows all religion eventually. That Christianity followed the teachings of a rather plain Jesus, a carpenter who worked with his hands, hung out with the riff-raff of society without judging them, but whose words for the rich, the elite, and the arrogant couldn't be more harsh. He pretty much condemned all the rich and all of the powerful, seeing little hope for their redemption. He wasn't too enthusiastic of religious self-righteousness either, saving some of his harshest criticisms for the religious leaders of his time. That Jesus looked into the quality of a person's heart, balanced that against the circumstances of a person's life, was quick to forgive, put no faith in riches, and cherished love above all else. Of American Christianity as expressed by the T-party Republicans, he would have only one opinion for them and those who support their goals, "get away from me you doers of evil" Neither the Vatican, nor modern American Protestantism would let him through the doors.
Indeed, if it was possible that that Jesus was the god some claim, virtually every American Christian would find their soul at risk. They would be left wondering, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?" His answer? "The day you voted with the T-party / Republicans in America."
Of course that Jesus was no more a god, and in fact no more real, then the oppressive Jesus of the Pope or the homophobic Jesus of the T-party. Those who claim Jesus loves and rewards the rich while properly punishing the poor for their lack of initiative are doing what all of human kind has done through all of history, making up a god to fit their own needs. How is their claim any less legitimate then any other god claim? The Creationist's god who put fossils in the ground to test the faithful? Same thing. All of the gods created throughout all of history have the exact same claim on being the "real deal". They all ignore the cosmos as it actually shows itself to be. They all revisit history for their own advantage. They are all based on the myopic vision of a barely intelligent species. Its just that some of them are much more useful to those in power. Others play to our tribalism's and prejudices and so we build mosques and temples to our hate and intolerance. (Which would be why the Jesus of my early years is now long dead and mostly forgotten.)
This suggests a sad thing about us human beings at the moment. Our gods are the killer gods of the prophet Mohammad, the self-righteous gods of the Pope, the monied gods of the Protestants. Ours are the gods of riches and power and war. We flock to these gods, put money in their collection plates, shrug at their murders and rapes and child molestations as being the work of "a few bad apples". We are the gods we worship, and it shows in our world. Still, there is hope that the some in the next generation will invent different gods to follow, discover a different spirituality that has nothing to do with man centered versions of the cosmos, maybe invent a "Jesus" who lifts people up in wholeness and compassion, rather than holding them up as examples of evil. Maybe they will find a god who values truth over faith, knowledge over belief, love over hate.
No matter what happens this is a society that goes away. It is incompatible with humanity, with progress, with any hope for a future. It can't survive its current gods, and would be incompatible with the new ones.
Though I dismiss all religion as the first feeble attempts of a still childish species just now emerging into a shaky intelligence to explain what they don't know, I have to admit to a soft spot for Christianity. That is not so odd really. I was raised a Christian, spent many years as a fundamentalists, married a fundamentalist (who has moved from fundamentalism herself, but is still a very spiritual person, and who loves me to this day) and raised my Daughters as Christians. Two of them remain in the Christian fold, and are raising 6 of my 7 grand kids in that tradition.
But the spirituality that I recall once pursuing is not the Christianity of 21st Century Americanism. That Christianity is an abomination of greed, hate, intolerance and just plain ignorance. How it got to be such a potent force in what was once an enlightened society is one of the mysteries of history. The only good news is that many of the generation soon to take the reigns seem to be rejecting this religion of their forebears. In America much of what is left of that religious tradition is shrinking into an elitist corner of the T-Party / Republican right and, though a political force for much ill at the moment, may already be seeing its day fading away. Conservative Catholicism is also a tradition of little value and it is no surprise that many T-party / Republican types are converting to Catholicism. (Though, to their credit, a few Catholic leaders are finding T-party ideology a bad fit.) Conservatism seeks to cling to, and return to, the past. It worships those who wield power over others, loves the idea of dictating how people should live, and exhibits an almost pathological self-righteousness in its claim of knowing what is "right" for everyone. Catholicism and the social conservatism of the T-party / Republicans are nearly identical expressions of this kind of social engineering.
No. The Christianity I remember with a bit of wistfulness was that of my early teens, before getting swept up in the fundamentalism that swallows all religion eventually. That Christianity followed the teachings of a rather plain Jesus, a carpenter who worked with his hands, hung out with the riff-raff of society without judging them, but whose words for the rich, the elite, and the arrogant couldn't be more harsh. He pretty much condemned all the rich and all of the powerful, seeing little hope for their redemption. He wasn't too enthusiastic of religious self-righteousness either, saving some of his harshest criticisms for the religious leaders of his time. That Jesus looked into the quality of a person's heart, balanced that against the circumstances of a person's life, was quick to forgive, put no faith in riches, and cherished love above all else. Of American Christianity as expressed by the T-party Republicans, he would have only one opinion for them and those who support their goals, "get away from me you doers of evil" Neither the Vatican, nor modern American Protestantism would let him through the doors.
Indeed, if it was possible that that Jesus was the god some claim, virtually every American Christian would find their soul at risk. They would be left wondering, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?" His answer? "The day you voted with the T-party / Republicans in America."
Of course that Jesus was no more a god, and in fact no more real, then the oppressive Jesus of the Pope or the homophobic Jesus of the T-party. Those who claim Jesus loves and rewards the rich while properly punishing the poor for their lack of initiative are doing what all of human kind has done through all of history, making up a god to fit their own needs. How is their claim any less legitimate then any other god claim? The Creationist's god who put fossils in the ground to test the faithful? Same thing. All of the gods created throughout all of history have the exact same claim on being the "real deal". They all ignore the cosmos as it actually shows itself to be. They all revisit history for their own advantage. They are all based on the myopic vision of a barely intelligent species. Its just that some of them are much more useful to those in power. Others play to our tribalism's and prejudices and so we build mosques and temples to our hate and intolerance. (Which would be why the Jesus of my early years is now long dead and mostly forgotten.)
This suggests a sad thing about us human beings at the moment. Our gods are the killer gods of the prophet Mohammad, the self-righteous gods of the Pope, the monied gods of the Protestants. Ours are the gods of riches and power and war. We flock to these gods, put money in their collection plates, shrug at their murders and rapes and child molestations as being the work of "a few bad apples". We are the gods we worship, and it shows in our world. Still, there is hope that the some in the next generation will invent different gods to follow, discover a different spirituality that has nothing to do with man centered versions of the cosmos, maybe invent a "Jesus" who lifts people up in wholeness and compassion, rather than holding them up as examples of evil. Maybe they will find a god who values truth over faith, knowledge over belief, love over hate.
No matter what happens this is a society that goes away. It is incompatible with humanity, with progress, with any hope for a future. It can't survive its current gods, and would be incompatible with the new ones.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Simple fixes
Both of America’s political parties are preaching that all the problems of the country can be solved by the election of one man or the other. According to the Republicans all of our problems will become fatal unless Obama is driven from the White House. According to the Democrats all of America’s problems will soon be solved if Obama stays and will become fatal if Romney takes up residence. And Americans, it seems, are buying into this drivel as if it were that simple.
A wise man once said that anyone who thinks there is a simple answer didn’t understand the question. American problems are complex, decades in the making, and are beyond the control of any one person, even if that person sits in the White House. The American justice system is utterly broken, overwhelmed by a society that celebrates violence and endorses a multitude of hatreds for anyone slightly different. Obama and Romney both provoke and profit from some of those hatreds, Barack by being the first Blank President and Mitt by being the whitest White Man in history. Each is hoping the racists on their side will be enough to provide part of the margin of victory. Neither has any reason to try and address the deep divides in our society. Then again the only way most of us want to see those divides address is by the other side getting crushed out of existence.
Both Mitt and Obama are believers in supply side economics; as are (it seems) most Americans. It matters not at all that supply side economics has always been a sham, has never worked as an economic model, and never can work. Americans hold their economic view as a matter of faith. Like all matters of faith, facts and history need not be bothered. The economic failures of the US are endemic, part and parcel of the robber baron capitalism that is endorsed by most Americans. One man or the other sitting in the White House, (who are both members of “The Faith) will not fix it.
The United States is sinking slowly under the weight of religious intolerance. Since the Christians hold the numbers advantage, they get to be the ones who both claim discrimination and then get to discriminate against other religions. Oddly enough the right-wing Christians in the USA, a sizable chunk of the electorate, roundly reject the Christian Obama and are standing behind the Mormon Mitt. (Personally I find this amusing, fascinating, and further evidence that right-wing American Christianity is bat-shit crazy.) Obama or Mitt, either way the religious bigotry is deeply entrenched in the American mind-set and stands only to get worse.
Both Mitt and Obama are big fans of war. Maybe it comes with wanting to be “the most powerful man in the world”. Either one wins, the impact on the world and the military budget will be about the same.
Mitt is big on saying how much he will cut domestic spending. Obama is big on saying what parts of domestic spending he will preserve. Both are going to cut domestic spending because there is no money to spend. It doesn’t really matter what they say. The USA has spent itself into bankruptcy, over-extended itself with military adventurism, shipped much of its intellectual and manufacturing abilities overseas, has allowed its infrastructure to decay, and is too beholding to oil, coal and gas companies to change its energy habits, laws, and regulations. Domestic spending is a reflection of society’s choices. For as long as I can remember ours has gone to the ballot box and chosen robber barons and war over fairness and peace. That choice was not made in Washington alone.
To some degree American’s are simplistic people and we like easy answers. A constant stream of TV stories that solve the most complex problems in 21 minutes (1/2 hour show) or 42 (hour show) seems to strike most Americans as a reality. Movies might take an hour and a half or even two hours, but generally they are saving the entire world from some catastrophe so of course it would take a little longer. In any case the thought that it may take years, even decades, to find a solution to some problem is way too big a thought for our media shrunken minds. We gave Obama and the Democrats two years to fix a world largely trashed by conservative / religious politics. When they couldn’t get it done we gave half the government back to the conservative / religious politicians. Two years after that and we don’t know what to do with ourselves when it comes to this election.
President Bartlet would have it fixed it in 42 minutes, or maybe 84 if the problem popped up at the end of the season. Season ending problems are always more complicated. I admit that I stopped watching TV about the time Bartlet offed an international terrorist by having his privet jet shot down over the ocean somewhere, so my take on TV problem solving might be slightly out of date. I’m guessing it isn’t though, not when people are expecting answers in a 30 second, political campaign sound bite.
America’s problems, and those of the world for that matter, are far too large and complex for any one person. They are the result of movements, ideas, the illusions of entire populations and the emotions of millions of people raging out of control. No one person and “fix” religion. Billions of people flock to the doctrines of millions of religious preachers and teachers. Not a single one of those preachers and teachers, from the Pope to the lowly street preacher on the corner in New Orleans, knows one iota more about god than anyone sitting in the audience. But they are all, teachers and students alike, caught up in the illusion. The combined weight of their corporate thinking simply overwhelms that of any one individual. God, as it turns out, is the simplest of answers to any question. The American religious right has it down pat; “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” It doesn’t get any easier than that.
Of course religion has led to the brutalization of millions and is driving our civilization to destruction. But I didn’t say it was pretty, just simple. Politics is much the same. Obama and Romney both claim that they can “fix it” as does the party each represents. No one mentions that the ideology of simple fixes is what helped break it in the first place.
A wise man once said that anyone who thinks there is a simple answer didn’t understand the question. American problems are complex, decades in the making, and are beyond the control of any one person, even if that person sits in the White House. The American justice system is utterly broken, overwhelmed by a society that celebrates violence and endorses a multitude of hatreds for anyone slightly different. Obama and Romney both provoke and profit from some of those hatreds, Barack by being the first Blank President and Mitt by being the whitest White Man in history. Each is hoping the racists on their side will be enough to provide part of the margin of victory. Neither has any reason to try and address the deep divides in our society. Then again the only way most of us want to see those divides address is by the other side getting crushed out of existence.
Both Mitt and Obama are believers in supply side economics; as are (it seems) most Americans. It matters not at all that supply side economics has always been a sham, has never worked as an economic model, and never can work. Americans hold their economic view as a matter of faith. Like all matters of faith, facts and history need not be bothered. The economic failures of the US are endemic, part and parcel of the robber baron capitalism that is endorsed by most Americans. One man or the other sitting in the White House, (who are both members of “The Faith) will not fix it.
The United States is sinking slowly under the weight of religious intolerance. Since the Christians hold the numbers advantage, they get to be the ones who both claim discrimination and then get to discriminate against other religions. Oddly enough the right-wing Christians in the USA, a sizable chunk of the electorate, roundly reject the Christian Obama and are standing behind the Mormon Mitt. (Personally I find this amusing, fascinating, and further evidence that right-wing American Christianity is bat-shit crazy.) Obama or Mitt, either way the religious bigotry is deeply entrenched in the American mind-set and stands only to get worse.
Both Mitt and Obama are big fans of war. Maybe it comes with wanting to be “the most powerful man in the world”. Either one wins, the impact on the world and the military budget will be about the same.
Mitt is big on saying how much he will cut domestic spending. Obama is big on saying what parts of domestic spending he will preserve. Both are going to cut domestic spending because there is no money to spend. It doesn’t really matter what they say. The USA has spent itself into bankruptcy, over-extended itself with military adventurism, shipped much of its intellectual and manufacturing abilities overseas, has allowed its infrastructure to decay, and is too beholding to oil, coal and gas companies to change its energy habits, laws, and regulations. Domestic spending is a reflection of society’s choices. For as long as I can remember ours has gone to the ballot box and chosen robber barons and war over fairness and peace. That choice was not made in Washington alone.
To some degree American’s are simplistic people and we like easy answers. A constant stream of TV stories that solve the most complex problems in 21 minutes (1/2 hour show) or 42 (hour show) seems to strike most Americans as a reality. Movies might take an hour and a half or even two hours, but generally they are saving the entire world from some catastrophe so of course it would take a little longer. In any case the thought that it may take years, even decades, to find a solution to some problem is way too big a thought for our media shrunken minds. We gave Obama and the Democrats two years to fix a world largely trashed by conservative / religious politics. When they couldn’t get it done we gave half the government back to the conservative / religious politicians. Two years after that and we don’t know what to do with ourselves when it comes to this election.
President Bartlet would have it fixed it in 42 minutes, or maybe 84 if the problem popped up at the end of the season. Season ending problems are always more complicated. I admit that I stopped watching TV about the time Bartlet offed an international terrorist by having his privet jet shot down over the ocean somewhere, so my take on TV problem solving might be slightly out of date. I’m guessing it isn’t though, not when people are expecting answers in a 30 second, political campaign sound bite.
America’s problems, and those of the world for that matter, are far too large and complex for any one person. They are the result of movements, ideas, the illusions of entire populations and the emotions of millions of people raging out of control. No one person and “fix” religion. Billions of people flock to the doctrines of millions of religious preachers and teachers. Not a single one of those preachers and teachers, from the Pope to the lowly street preacher on the corner in New Orleans, knows one iota more about god than anyone sitting in the audience. But they are all, teachers and students alike, caught up in the illusion. The combined weight of their corporate thinking simply overwhelms that of any one individual. God, as it turns out, is the simplest of answers to any question. The American religious right has it down pat; “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” It doesn’t get any easier than that.
Of course religion has led to the brutalization of millions and is driving our civilization to destruction. But I didn’t say it was pretty, just simple. Politics is much the same. Obama and Romney both claim that they can “fix it” as does the party each represents. No one mentions that the ideology of simple fixes is what helped break it in the first place.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Religious murder
A person reported to be a religious fundamentalist from one of the Christian sects, working with a person reported to be a religious fundamentalist from a different Christian sect, produced some low-rent, piece-of-shit YouTube movie in a deliberate attempt to provoke the Islamic insanity so often demonstrated in the last few years. It worked. At least 4 people are dead so far, who knows how many injured, and a good part of the world is sitting at the edge of chaos once again. It is exactly what the Christians intended, and the Muslims played along like the good little lunatics they keep denying that they are.
Tell me again how religion is a good thing in the world? Christians and Muslims worship variations of the war god of Abraham. War is what they know. War is what they love. War is what they continue to inflict on the rest of humanity. Yet I am supposed to be "sensitive" to their religious illusions? For some reason I am supposed to be more tolerant of them then they are of each other. Shit, I am supposed to be sensitive to them though each and every one of them cherish the idea of their god torturing me, the humanistic atheist, forever in a lake of fire and brimstone. And yet, in a weird way that actually bothers me a little bit, I think I might understand.
Of course the Muslim world exploded in lunacy. The sad fact is most of the people in the Islamic world have been raised from infancy to believe that exploding in lunacy is what god wants them to do when anyone dares be the least bit critical of their religion. And in that world exists a small group of truly evil people who know how to exploit that world view to serve their own perverted lust for power. Not much different from those at Fox News and the backers of the T-party who know how to exploit the world view of many barely educated, religious Americans. (Gabby Giffords took a bullet in the brain, 6 died, and 17 were wounded - all after the right wing started their "paint a target on them" campaign. Lunatics, even those who are lunatics only because they were raised that way, are pretty easily manipulated.)
Of course the Muslim world exploded. The only way to free Muslims from their demented world view is by deliberately, but oh-so-gently, exposing them to the universe as it actually exists. Clearly Muslims raised in a closed society like those of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, current Iran, and Egypt have a world view even more restrictive and insulated from reality than is that of fundamentalist Christians raised in the USA, people who do not have much of a grasp on reality either. Why should we expect anything more of Muslims in an Islamic world?
As for the mongrels who deliberately provoked violence and murder in order to show that their religion is better than that of Islam? They should simply be arrested and tried for being agents of terrorism. The movie they produced was not an attempt at speaking the truth about Islam. It had nothing to do with artistic impression or free speech. It was simply hate-filled propaganda, no more worthy of being protected as "free speech" than the propaganda the Nazi's made about the Jews. They intended to get people killed. They got people killed. That pretty much makes them murderers.
For you see, at least as far as I understand it, these two jackasses had the opportunity to know better. They do not live in a closed society where information is restricted to that approved by the ruling, religious elite. They may be religious fundamentalists but they live in a free and open society. To put it bluntly, they have no fucking excuse. They are, simply, murderous propagandists with a demented agenda. The rational world is free, indeed compelled, to prevent such people from doing even more harm.
Tell me again how religion is a good thing in the world? Christians and Muslims worship variations of the war god of Abraham. War is what they know. War is what they love. War is what they continue to inflict on the rest of humanity. Yet I am supposed to be "sensitive" to their religious illusions? For some reason I am supposed to be more tolerant of them then they are of each other. Shit, I am supposed to be sensitive to them though each and every one of them cherish the idea of their god torturing me, the humanistic atheist, forever in a lake of fire and brimstone. And yet, in a weird way that actually bothers me a little bit, I think I might understand.
Of course the Muslim world exploded in lunacy. The sad fact is most of the people in the Islamic world have been raised from infancy to believe that exploding in lunacy is what god wants them to do when anyone dares be the least bit critical of their religion. And in that world exists a small group of truly evil people who know how to exploit that world view to serve their own perverted lust for power. Not much different from those at Fox News and the backers of the T-party who know how to exploit the world view of many barely educated, religious Americans. (Gabby Giffords took a bullet in the brain, 6 died, and 17 were wounded - all after the right wing started their "paint a target on them" campaign. Lunatics, even those who are lunatics only because they were raised that way, are pretty easily manipulated.)
Of course the Muslim world exploded. The only way to free Muslims from their demented world view is by deliberately, but oh-so-gently, exposing them to the universe as it actually exists. Clearly Muslims raised in a closed society like those of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, current Iran, and Egypt have a world view even more restrictive and insulated from reality than is that of fundamentalist Christians raised in the USA, people who do not have much of a grasp on reality either. Why should we expect anything more of Muslims in an Islamic world?
As for the mongrels who deliberately provoked violence and murder in order to show that their religion is better than that of Islam? They should simply be arrested and tried for being agents of terrorism. The movie they produced was not an attempt at speaking the truth about Islam. It had nothing to do with artistic impression or free speech. It was simply hate-filled propaganda, no more worthy of being protected as "free speech" than the propaganda the Nazi's made about the Jews. They intended to get people killed. They got people killed. That pretty much makes them murderers.
For you see, at least as far as I understand it, these two jackasses had the opportunity to know better. They do not live in a closed society where information is restricted to that approved by the ruling, religious elite. They may be religious fundamentalists but they live in a free and open society. To put it bluntly, they have no fucking excuse. They are, simply, murderous propagandists with a demented agenda. The rational world is free, indeed compelled, to prevent such people from doing even more harm.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
What to do
Living in a self-destructive society can be a real head-scratcher, particularly if one had drawn some of the trump cards and is doing pretty well. I am white, male, from a middle class family whose parents never divorced, and parlayed a solid technical education and a personal enthusiasm for the aviation industry into a solid upper-middle class lifestyle. Even better, I fell in love with the right person and (more importantly) she fell in love with me. For 40 years we have navigated life's rapids and quiet waters helping, protecting, and encouraging each other. I am not one of the 1 percenters when it comes to income, but I certainly am when it comes to luck. It isn't all luck of course, I played a good hand to full advantage, worked 2 or 3 different jobs at the same time, put in 18, 24, and 36 hour shifts, often took enormous risks, and have the scars to show for it.
I would very much prefer not living in a self-destructive society. I like my life and would hope to make it to my story's end without having the streets erupt around me, society's infrastructure collapse from underneath me, and avoid losing the basic human rights that only a just and somewhat complex society can provide for the individual. Even more important to me now, I would like the same for my kids and grand kids. The failures of my generation are putting their futures at serious risk.
And I wonder what I can do about that.
I am usually told that I have to "be involved" in some way. When it comes to politics we have to vote. We have to insist on the right to practice "our religion" whenever and however we believe we are called. The most motivated among us campaign for some party or the other, work into leadership positions in religious or civic institutions, or just write huge fucking checks to those who we then expect to listen to us when they "win". Obviously there are some nits to pick with several of these solutions. But the biggest one isn't so obvious.
Before we get "involved" a lot of us need to get "uninvolved", and in a multitude of ways. Here is an example of what I mean. Lately a bunch of very principled and much-to-be-admired American Catholic Nuns have gotten cross-wise with the old men who run the RCC out of the Vatican. (To my way of thinking any compassionate, caring, loving human being should be cross-wise with the old men who run the RCC out of the Vatican - but I digress.) They are, as much as they can, "standing their ground". It is a principled stand, it is an admirable stand, but they shouldn't be standing at all. They should be walking away. As long as they stay in the Church, as long as they cling to the label "Catholic", they empower those old men. Staying a part of a corrupted system does not help, particularly when they have no real power to act within that system. The Nuns would have a much bigger impact on the world and the people they care about by renouncing Catholicism and walking out in mass.
If women in general want to break the power of the Church to dictate how they live and to whom they should be submissive, they could do so simply by abandoning the church that insists on treating them as second hand human beings. Pretty much the same thing could be said of women and Islam, gay people and the church, and gay people and the Republican Party. (Log Cabin Republicans are fooling themselves and being played as fools by a political party that despises them.)
I was at a talk the other night, given by a man who was heir apparent to one of the religious right family empires. He abandoned that ideology and is now an outspoken opponent of those he insists have hijacked Christianity and taken over the Republican Party. His descriptions of those folks is just as harsh as mine, invoking the image of "bat-shit crazy" without using those words. Yet he insists that he is an Evangelical and clings to the label "Christian".
He also clings to a world view where an unimaginable cosmos lies in the hand of a completely imaginable god, one he talks with and claims to understand to some degree. He insists that the bible reveals the nature of this god yet dismisses the parts that are virulently anti-gay (yep, its in there), anti-woman (in there again), and pro-slavery (you know where to find it). He rightly declares that the T-Party / Christian Right / Republican party lives in a fantasy land that does not exist in the real world. Yet his own fantasy land, though much less toxic to human kind, is no more based in reality than is that of the T-Party.
Even with that I think he is a good think in the land, but he would be an even better thing if he would walk away from the labels "Evangelical" and "Christian". What would he have to lose? Those labels have been co-opted by the evil loose in the world. Holding onto them helps empower the evil. Or perhaps he thinks god will send him to hell for giving up the name "Christian"? How does that make any sense?
The first step to changing things is to walk away from the corrupted things, stop supporting them in any sense of the word. I think that is equally true of politics in the US today. Anyone who clings to the label "Republican" or "Democrat" or even "Independent" is playing into the hands of the demented ones who are bringing down our democracy. Inevitably, if one grabs onto the name one abandons some of the responsibility for thinking to let someone else do it for them. Thinking is what makes us human. Abandoning thinking makes one a little less human.
I think the rest of us have a right to make assumptions based on the labels you chose. If your kids are a part of scouting I think it fair if I conclude you are probably homophobic, narrow minded and judgmental. Maybe you are not, and I certainly have the responsibility to listen to you if you try to make the case that you are a loving, accepting, compassionate human being in spite of your associations. You might even make your case at which time I will change my mind about you. But my first assumption was still valid and you have no claim to be offended by it. After all, you picked the label.
The same goes for Republicans, Democrats, T-party types, Catholics, Evangelical Christians, Muslims, etc. You may not actually endorse the worst parts of those various ideologies. But why should I assume that if you insist on clinging to the name?
If anything is going to change a lot of us need to walk away from the institutions that are making us a little less human. In our world today, at the top of that list, are religion and political parties.
I would very much prefer not living in a self-destructive society. I like my life and would hope to make it to my story's end without having the streets erupt around me, society's infrastructure collapse from underneath me, and avoid losing the basic human rights that only a just and somewhat complex society can provide for the individual. Even more important to me now, I would like the same for my kids and grand kids. The failures of my generation are putting their futures at serious risk.
And I wonder what I can do about that.
I am usually told that I have to "be involved" in some way. When it comes to politics we have to vote. We have to insist on the right to practice "our religion" whenever and however we believe we are called. The most motivated among us campaign for some party or the other, work into leadership positions in religious or civic institutions, or just write huge fucking checks to those who we then expect to listen to us when they "win". Obviously there are some nits to pick with several of these solutions. But the biggest one isn't so obvious.
Before we get "involved" a lot of us need to get "uninvolved", and in a multitude of ways. Here is an example of what I mean. Lately a bunch of very principled and much-to-be-admired American Catholic Nuns have gotten cross-wise with the old men who run the RCC out of the Vatican. (To my way of thinking any compassionate, caring, loving human being should be cross-wise with the old men who run the RCC out of the Vatican - but I digress.) They are, as much as they can, "standing their ground". It is a principled stand, it is an admirable stand, but they shouldn't be standing at all. They should be walking away. As long as they stay in the Church, as long as they cling to the label "Catholic", they empower those old men. Staying a part of a corrupted system does not help, particularly when they have no real power to act within that system. The Nuns would have a much bigger impact on the world and the people they care about by renouncing Catholicism and walking out in mass.
If women in general want to break the power of the Church to dictate how they live and to whom they should be submissive, they could do so simply by abandoning the church that insists on treating them as second hand human beings. Pretty much the same thing could be said of women and Islam, gay people and the church, and gay people and the Republican Party. (Log Cabin Republicans are fooling themselves and being played as fools by a political party that despises them.)
I was at a talk the other night, given by a man who was heir apparent to one of the religious right family empires. He abandoned that ideology and is now an outspoken opponent of those he insists have hijacked Christianity and taken over the Republican Party. His descriptions of those folks is just as harsh as mine, invoking the image of "bat-shit crazy" without using those words. Yet he insists that he is an Evangelical and clings to the label "Christian".
He also clings to a world view where an unimaginable cosmos lies in the hand of a completely imaginable god, one he talks with and claims to understand to some degree. He insists that the bible reveals the nature of this god yet dismisses the parts that are virulently anti-gay (yep, its in there), anti-woman (in there again), and pro-slavery (you know where to find it). He rightly declares that the T-Party / Christian Right / Republican party lives in a fantasy land that does not exist in the real world. Yet his own fantasy land, though much less toxic to human kind, is no more based in reality than is that of the T-Party.
Even with that I think he is a good think in the land, but he would be an even better thing if he would walk away from the labels "Evangelical" and "Christian". What would he have to lose? Those labels have been co-opted by the evil loose in the world. Holding onto them helps empower the evil. Or perhaps he thinks god will send him to hell for giving up the name "Christian"? How does that make any sense?
The first step to changing things is to walk away from the corrupted things, stop supporting them in any sense of the word. I think that is equally true of politics in the US today. Anyone who clings to the label "Republican" or "Democrat" or even "Independent" is playing into the hands of the demented ones who are bringing down our democracy. Inevitably, if one grabs onto the name one abandons some of the responsibility for thinking to let someone else do it for them. Thinking is what makes us human. Abandoning thinking makes one a little less human.
I think the rest of us have a right to make assumptions based on the labels you chose. If your kids are a part of scouting I think it fair if I conclude you are probably homophobic, narrow minded and judgmental. Maybe you are not, and I certainly have the responsibility to listen to you if you try to make the case that you are a loving, accepting, compassionate human being in spite of your associations. You might even make your case at which time I will change my mind about you. But my first assumption was still valid and you have no claim to be offended by it. After all, you picked the label.
The same goes for Republicans, Democrats, T-party types, Catholics, Evangelical Christians, Muslims, etc. You may not actually endorse the worst parts of those various ideologies. But why should I assume that if you insist on clinging to the name?
If anything is going to change a lot of us need to walk away from the institutions that are making us a little less human. In our world today, at the top of that list, are religion and political parties.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
The rehabilitation of bigotry.
It is no secret that I think both the Democratic and the Republican / T-Party / American Christian parties are failing miserably when it comes to serving the ideals that made America a place to admire. On a deeper level both have sold themselves to business and military interests and so, to me anyway, are just two slightly different wings of the same political entity. In the US there are no other politics.
But I hold a particular disdain for the Republican / T-Party / American Christian party. It isn't that I think their monetary policies are bad. (They are, but so are those of the Democrats in those rare instances where they differ.) It isn't that they blatantly serve the rich at the expense of the middle class as the poor. They do, but at least they are open about it. The Democrats are of the same group of rich but try a little hard to disguise themselves.
My problem with the RTAC is that they have made bigotry, racism, and sexism respectable once again. And somehow they have managed to do it and still avoid being seen as the party of bigots, racists, and sexists. Recently two men got thrown out of the Republican Convention for tossing peanuts at an African-American man while claiming, "This is how we feed the animals." They were, quite rightly, immediately ejected from the Convention while Republican leaders scrambled to distance themselves from such. But how did such get into the Convention in the first place and why would they feel free to express themselves like that to a journalist? A woman attending a Mitt Romney speech claimed she just wanted to see a "real" First Lady in the White House again, someone "who looked like a first lady". This woman, nor the men mentioned before, seemed the list bit ashamed. They have found a comfortable place in the RTAC.
Worse, if anyone steps up and calls these people ugly, ignorant, bigots who shame human kind, who likely need mental health care and should certainly be kept away from children; somehow that "anyone" becomes the real bad guy. That person, one who calls out bigotry and racism for what it is, becomes the true bigot and racist. George Orwell would be astonished.
I don't really know the the rehabilitation of bigotry in our society is part of the disease that is killing the ideal that was once America, or just a symptom of a deeper malaise. But my guess, given that one of the only two political parties in America is particularly responsible, is that it is part of the disease. A disease of intolerance, ignorance, and open hypocrisy that is so far advanced that the death of this society is just shy of being a sure bet.
But I hold a particular disdain for the Republican / T-Party / American Christian party. It isn't that I think their monetary policies are bad. (They are, but so are those of the Democrats in those rare instances where they differ.) It isn't that they blatantly serve the rich at the expense of the middle class as the poor. They do, but at least they are open about it. The Democrats are of the same group of rich but try a little hard to disguise themselves.
My problem with the RTAC is that they have made bigotry, racism, and sexism respectable once again. And somehow they have managed to do it and still avoid being seen as the party of bigots, racists, and sexists. Recently two men got thrown out of the Republican Convention for tossing peanuts at an African-American man while claiming, "This is how we feed the animals." They were, quite rightly, immediately ejected from the Convention while Republican leaders scrambled to distance themselves from such. But how did such get into the Convention in the first place and why would they feel free to express themselves like that to a journalist? A woman attending a Mitt Romney speech claimed she just wanted to see a "real" First Lady in the White House again, someone "who looked like a first lady". This woman, nor the men mentioned before, seemed the list bit ashamed. They have found a comfortable place in the RTAC.
Worse, if anyone steps up and calls these people ugly, ignorant, bigots who shame human kind, who likely need mental health care and should certainly be kept away from children; somehow that "anyone" becomes the real bad guy. That person, one who calls out bigotry and racism for what it is, becomes the true bigot and racist. George Orwell would be astonished.
I don't really know the the rehabilitation of bigotry in our society is part of the disease that is killing the ideal that was once America, or just a symptom of a deeper malaise. But my guess, given that one of the only two political parties in America is particularly responsible, is that it is part of the disease. A disease of intolerance, ignorance, and open hypocrisy that is so far advanced that the death of this society is just shy of being a sure bet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)