On the Road Again

Tags

environment, faith, journeys, racism, religion

“Are you Catholic?” Alex asked. “Yeah,” I mumbled. “You know,” he added, “I grew up at St. Genevieve’s, went to school there too. But. . . .” So went another of the ever-occurring reasons for “why I don’t go to church anymore”. I can relate.

Substitute, writing for Catholic, and you have my last few weeks in a nutshell.

Confused?

Welcome to my world.

So am I.

I mentioned a few weeks ago that I had returned to the Church once again, seeking. . .something? Hell if I know what.

I didn’t find it. Nothing bad happened. The priest was okay as priests go. I don’t expect much.

If you don’t know what you are seeking, it’s pretty likely you won’t find it. How would you know?

Writing is just about as confusing. I’ve written a lot over the years. All sorts of writing. Big bold essays of a hundred pages, footnoted to Hades and back. Short, “reflections”. Legal arguments chock full of citation to other learned writings. Notes of books I’ve read. And then all this blogging. Years of it. thousands of posts, millions of words, ideas formed, bent, twisted, reconfigured, spit out. Arrogance, pomposity, mendacity, with a rare humble crumb offered here and about. My guts displayed for any who bothered to note it.

Do I have nothing left to say?

Perish that thought. I’d shrivel up and croke. My enemies (having enemies is a true joy if you think about it seriously) wish I would just “shut the fuck up”. That alone should spur me forward.

I start, I stop, I flounder. As good as I came, I saw, I conquered (veni, vidi, vici) doncha think?

Why are we so three oriented? Tragedies come in three, examples are most often offered in threes. Trinity? Trifecta? Triple creme? Triple crown. Banana split which has little to do with the split banana and everything to do with three scoops.

I’m reading a very intriguing book. What is God? Not Who, but What. It all stems from that flip. Turn a globe upside down and leave it like that. It will make you rethink a few things.

I’m processing faith versus religion. I’m pretty down on religion right now. Composed of fallible humans what would you expect? Is it necessary? Church votes yes. I’m pretty much votin’ no at this point.

I choose to express my faith through some rituals of this faith system. I call it Catholicism. You can call it the Whore of Babylon if you are not well educated. I don’t care. There is too much wrong to defend it. There is more right than I often admit.

I’m pretty sure that God is not what we think. But I am not at all sure. I don’t think I’m supposed to be sure. Augustine said we can only say what God isn’t. That is hardly a recipe for success.

Church is like stopping off at a rest stop. It is good to get out and stretch your legs, relieve your bladder, and munch a snack. But it’s not home. You got to get back at the grueling drive that never ends. Thinking, watching, staying awake. Driving requires concentration  if you plan to do it successfully over time. So is God-seeking.

One premise is that there is always something not quite real about reality. We sense there is more, but we can’t see it. We recognize the unreality. We have become desensitized to unreality. It passes by us with nary a nod.

A man says, “I am going to kill you because you are raping our women and taking over our country.” Another man says, “that’s hate against Christians,” (since the dead are Christians). Whose reality are we talking about?

I don’t reject the Catholic Church because of its theology. There is a Catholic Church here that is “not aligned with Rome”. They love my politics. But I don’t go and sit in the pews there. There is one of those Universalist Unitarians, or something here. There is Bahai here. I am not interested.

I plant my butt in a pew and I sit, and I wonder why I’m there. I count off the various “parts” until we get to communion and then the closing prayer, and then the closing hymn and then. I’m free again.

Why do I go?

I stopped going.

I feel something missing. Vicious and jealous mistress you faith!

Faith and religion. Two separate but unequal things. Faith matters, religion is some bonus at least once upon a time. Ever? Never? I did good once. It does good sometimes, somewhere.

The problem as always is the people. Fallible humans muck up the mud. Turn it ugly and personally motivated.  I hate welfare not because I don’t want to help the poor but because I want to decide who to give my charity to. So they say. What they mean is I can then avoid giving welfare to lazy queens and princes who lay in bed half the day before they saunter down to the welfare store and pick up their checks. As I JUDGE them anyway.

I don’t want the government to tell me how much to give. I bet ya a million bucks you couldn’t come begin to tell me how much the “government is taking out of you in taxes” to support medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, and so forth. You couldn’t even give me a ball park figure of what they take. But somehow, you assure me, you would give more if it were voluntary. Yeah, sure ya would.

Religion starts off with laudable goals. Seek God. Take care of God’s people. But your old fallibility rose like the skunky smell it is, and you changed that to “God’s chosen people” however YOU JUDGMENTALLY DECIDED THAT.

I’m for Israel because they are God’s chosen, you utter with perfect surety. Bullshit.

If you believe God has favorites then you believe in an awfully wicked and strange being. One who creates so poorly that He finds one poor slob called Abram and tells him, he will “create a nation” of him. Hope he does it better than the first couple of times. Dont’ forget the whole fiasco of Noah and that damned ark that couldn’t be built large enough to begin to house “all God’s creation”.

Yet you got a passel of morons whose brains are so gucky with sludge that they gotta cling to that stuff as literal and then make it their life’s work to make you take it literally too.

And God is not in that damned Book you fool. PEOPLE wrote the book. They wrote it about the God they were seeking. Since you can’t tell me much about God on your own, why do you think they were any better at it? They’re just trying, same as you and me. Yet you kneel before the freakin’ book.

So here I sit. I read that the Pope has offered up an encyclical on the environment. As sure as it’s June and it’s hot, right wing Catholics are finally letting out what they really think. They really really don’t like this pope at all. Unlike their precious JPII and Benedict however, Francis doesn’t inherit the “God’s chosen” appellation. We don’t have to pay attention to Francis when we don’t like what he says.

“He’s not a scientist. He’s just giving his opinion on a subject that he has no expertise in.” So the upshot is to ignore what he says. He’s a dupe of some libtards in the Vatican who haven’t explained to this poor illiterate fool that words matter. “He’s a marxist, anyway.”  If you tried to continue the conversation say about women priests, they would tell you. “Pope John Paul has spoken on that issue and we will not allow further conversation because he says it is a closed issue.” Some personal opinions count. Oh yeah, the one’s you agree with.

Whose reality are we talking about?

Everywhere I go, I see the same thing. Distinctly different takes on reality. Both can’t be right. Or perhaps they can.

God is in the mysteries of life.

Oh, seeking Him there is not as easy as sittin’ in the pew. Reading and thinking and meditating, and working out the details. Only to realize that each and every insight provides fresh mystery, new questions, and potential conflicting yearnings.

Open your eyes, and your ears. But mostly open your heart. Take little if anything for granted. Seek serendipity, and sweet harmony. Enjoy the sugary taste until the bitterness creeps in. Seek further, and never stop. Ever.

That is human becoming.

Bring on the Christianists!

Tags

Christianists, religion

There is a troubling amount of evidence that even at the highest levels of elitism within the Republican party, there exists a strain of what can only be described as Christianistism.

That’s a mouthful. Christianist: a person who professes to be a follower of the Christian faith but fails to actually follow the tenets of Jesus, using the appellation of “Christian” to mask their own personally held beliefs while claiming that such beliefs are Christian.

Got that?

Of course all too many of our teabagger friends profess to be Christians, yet fall into the odd category of those who are against feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned, and tending the sick. They support GOP efforts to reduce food stamp allotments, unemployment insurance payments, blocking health care to the uninsured, discrimination against the LGBT community, and the reduction of women’s autonomy from state regulation, to name just a few.

But their “leaders” also have this dangerously intellectually indefensible attitude as well. One never things of the Kochs as men who are Christian necessarily. They support public TV for instance, especially science shows, recognizing that their “base” the teabaggers, are probably fairly unaware of this fact since the Tea People are not known for their penchant for education or higher-brow television fare. But the Kochs are an exception I think.

George W. Bush came on the scene spouting “compassionate conservatism” and certainly made known his deeply held Christian beliefs. Yet, he sent men and women into war, resulting in American deaths numbering over 4,000 and Iraqi deaths nearing now, possibly some 1.4 million persons. One would expect a Christian to use violence as a last resort and not the first. Nobody today is unaware that there was at bet highly questionable “evidence” and even less reason to invade that country.

Upon completion of his two terms, Bush, unlike his Democratic predecessors, did not seek some manner to work for the betterment of society and the world at large. Instead he engaged in a self-absorbed dedication to being a painter, exhibiting as at least one expert pointed out, a sort of charming childish ability. Some would argue that same childish charm was his main offering as President.

Mike Huckabee, once upon a time, an actual pastor, seems to be nothing more than a Christianist. He has at various times indicated a belief that the President of the United States was born in Kenya, made impassioned pleas to send money to his group designed to “end Obamacare” while telling lies aplenty about the program. His television ad claimed the ACA was “rammed down the throats of the American public” and done in “back rooms”.  Today he is spouting that living in America is no better than living in North Korea.

I may be wrong, but I have always thought that being a good Christian starts with being a person who tells the truth. It certainly doesn’t mean being a person who lies for one’s own benefit, to further one’s own career.

Charles Keating passed away a few days ago. You remember him don’t you? Keating is most remembered for his eye-balls deep involvement in the savings and loan scandals of the 1980’s. Certainly his Catholicism didn’t prevent him from playing fast and loose with the laws regarding making money. Yet he used his “Christian” beliefs as the fulcrum upon which he pushed his social agenda regarding pornography. His Citizens for Decent Literature provided the framework for future conservative social agenda forays into the public sphere.

At one point in time, Keating, in his pursuit of purity, put out a documentary that gave all sorts of statistics about the influence of pornography on the society. Years later, he admitted that he had made them up. Another liar.

Ted Cruz has exploded onto the stage as the savior of the extreme Right.

He spouts a brand of anti-immigrationism, anti-health care, and just plain anti-progressivism that is both stunning and audacious.

 

Yet Ted also draws the mantle of Christianity around his shoulders. He has it on good authority. His father is a preacher, a preacher of such vile hate and vitriol that many wonder that Ted does not shush him up for fear he will so inflame the sensible middle as to make Ted’s future Presidency utterly untenable.

But Ted not only doesn’t stop the old man, he embraces the theology that his father espouses. That theology is nothing less than what is known as Dominionism, the belief that certain people (Ted included) but all Christians who think as they do at least, are destined to be the kings of the world, ruling in the name of their very strange notion of Jesus.  People who don’t believe as Ted does are those to be ruled.

And the earth? Oh the earth and all it contains, are theirs to  rule over as well. Dominated in fact. Ted’s Christianist army is the wrestle control and subdue the earth. That means exploiting all it’s resources as if they are unlimited. For as this brand of Christianist believe (so very conveniently) God will never let the supplies end, or will give us something better when they do. There is no possibility that we will ruin our own planet with these people. They have twisted the Good Book to assure themselves that that can’t happen.

Imagine, we are all at the mercy of their admittedly uneducated, self-serving conclusions of a copy of a copy of a copy, of a copy of dozens of independently written documents over the span of 1,000 plus years, which was argued over and voted upon by other humans tossing in some documents and tossing out others, and then translated again and again by mostly unknown other humans for various purposes and reasons. They would have us believe that their personal opinion about the meaning of obscure phrases and words, means that we don’t have to do a thing about climate change, or much of anything actually, except get ready for the big fight in Israel where the final battle will take place.

This is not Christianity, this is opportunism.

And the fear is that far too many sadly uneducated, gullible, trusting, needy souls are buying into this rhetoric and will prevent those of us who are rational, thinking, caring and compassionate people from doing what needs to be done to actually if not in the name of Jesus, at least in His spirit, do what is morally right:

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’

As Gandhi said,

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Gandhi was wrong. These are not Christians but Christianists. And there is a difference.

Are You Too Good to Be True?

Tags

Christians, giving, religion, right-wing fundamentalists

I find a lot of hubris among Christians. I have a right to speak on it, since I consider myself one.

I find a lot of so-called Christians who claim to know a lot about God. They tell me what God wants all the time. They tell me that the bible is “his word”, not quite in his own handwriting, but near enough.

All the while, I find that they don’t seem to have read it very carefully, although they are certainly masters of the quote. You know what I mean. You say something, and they say: “The bible says. . . . ” a quote that appears to prove their point.

So maybe if you are a real Christian, one of those born-again types, maybe on the way out of your born again experience, they give you the code book, you know, the one entitled “1001 Sayings of God: All you need to get by in a Secular world.”

I came to that conclusion because as they say, when you have eliminated all the impossibilities, what remains, no matter how improbable, must be true. And I have eliminated all the other possibilities. It is the only way you can claim to “know the bible” yet be so ignorant of so much in it. At least the Jesus parts.

That’s what I find so bizarre. It’s true you know. Among the great mass of basically unchurched or poorly churched, “I can read for myself, thank you”, you find an inordinate reliance on what Paul said, and very little about what Jesus said. Even when what Jesus said is attested sometimes by three Gospel writers, while Paul never met the living man.

It’s very true that the Gospels are not history and aren’t meant to be so. They were evangelizing documents, meant to state the case of the believing community of which they were from. They were “this is what we believe and why”. Paul is an entirely different genre. First, many of his letters were not written by him, but the writer wishes to claim Paul’s authority. So read agenda into that. Second, Paul is often writing to address problems within a local church, problems we are mostly unaware of, so therefore it’s very hard to judge the breadth of his statements.

The point is not to discuss Paul, but rather to remind folks of something Jesus talked about as regards “doing good”.

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. (Matthew 6:1-4)

See I gave it to you in the KJV version!

If you read Jesus, you find that a good deal of his anger is directed at Pharisees, those who would be similar to the born-agains in our time. They talked God and rules of Torah all day and night. They made sure everyone saw how pious they were. They demanded strict adherence to the rules of Judaism, so much so in fact that they regularly turned their back on God’s people as being sinful and untouchable. Certainly the undesirables were denied much as being “unclean”.

Our born-agains are similar. They are always talking God, always praising God, always talking about what God hates and that if you aren’t like them you are condemned. They hate the sin, but “love the sinner” which amounts to shunning the sinner and making the sinner’s life miserable all the while lovin’ him to death in their hearts. Which feeds exactly no one, nor shelters them, nor cures  them.

But the Pharisaic failing that I find worse, and maybe Jesus did too, was the degree to which they strutted about showing off how pious they were by comparison. They would have called it “setting a good example” no doubt, but Jesus just seemed to find it prideful.

I know that atheists and agnostics are as committed to good causes as the believer. I know they give of their money and their time. They care about the earth and the poor. The see it as a human thing to do–help their neighbor. Unfortunately the right-wing evangelical often does it for less honorable reasons–it’s the way to salvation. So it gets personal with them. They do it not because they are human but because they are told that there ain’t no heaven without it.

And that’s not terrible. It still serves the cause. The rich, often from a sense of guilt, throw money around philanthropically speaking. They build wings on hospitals and show up at “events” to lend their celebrity. That too still serves the cause.

But what about that Matthew thing?

About not letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing? See that’s the part about NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT A GENEROUS PERSON YOU ARE. Who needs to know that? God already does, I’m sure you would agree. And making me feel small by comparison is certainly no way to encourage me.

See Jesus said that that makes you no different from a Pharisee, or a criminal among other criminals. And your reward is the pats on the back you receive from each other, not what you are ostensibly working toward: salvation.

And you want to know what? If I think of the instances when somebody has told me “chapter and verse” about all the things they have done for the unfortunate, you know what? EVERY time, it was a “born again” type, a “the bible is the WORD of God” type, a “holy roller” who tells me that they read the bible every single day and praise God all day and night. And it was always in response to their saying something racist, or at least selfish in that they didn’t want to pay taxes to help some “other” group. It was their “defense”.

And how un-Christ like is that? I guess they missed Matthew 6: 1-4.

You tell me.

As Gandhi said,

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

I have to agree.

By the by, there is a book about losing sight of the purpose of giving called, The Spiritual Danger of Doing Good, by Peter Greer. Some may like to take a look.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Idiots

Tags

absurdity, atheism, faith, fundamentalism, God, religion

My utter disgust and disregard for fundamentalist is well documented on this blog. I make no apologies for it, though I would argue that I am no zealot in this regard, and I am not on a campaign against them as a mission. My mind is far too eclectic in its selection of “things of interest” for that to be so.

I write of politics and my utter disgust and disregard for much of the GOP as well. It is not a mission with me either.

I believe totally in evolution as the means by which life has changed over eons of time. I believe that climate change is real and we are a major causative factor.  Similarly I believe that today is Thursday and that the sun will set in the West.  These are all factually provable items, available to be tested by a variety of reality-based mechanisms.

None of these things so I obsess about, for as I said, much else in the world interests me, such as who is the killer in the new show The Bridge, who will get kicked off Big Brother tonight, and what restaurant shall we eat lunch at today. I am a liberal or progressive, and I heave mightily to the left side of those spectrums, but sometimes extreme liberals/progressives piss me off with their short-sightedness from my point of view. I don’t obsess about that either.

As I said, I’m not a zealot, but a jack-of-all-trades. I likes what I likes and don’t likes what I don’t likes and I’ll tell you about most of them, and defend them until I get bored and move onto something else. I figure I’m fairly sane, fairly smart, and fairly normal and average.

But some folks ( religious fundamentalists for sure, and atheists of the newer type) are zealous. They are on a mission. And I’m here to tell you, that when viewed from the psychological lens, then are very hard to tell apart. I have almost always referred to fundamentalists as religious in nature. But that is not correct. Fundamentalism is a mental disorder or at least is thought so by some. It relates to a type of mind that is fearful of the world and thus creates a reality that is comfortable. It gathers “facts” to support its desired outcome, and is largely impervious to new facts that might contradict the contrived reality. It takes comfort in being a “minority”, being special, in the know, and therefore “better” than others. It regularly trashes non-believers as hell-bound, or not intelligent. It is a cultish worship of a world that works for it.

And folks it applies to the “New” atheist as much as the religious fundamentalist. Having spoken to a few dozen of these new atheists, I think I can safely speak about them. Almost universally they were either once fundamentalist believers, or were raised atheistic to begin with. But in each case, a traumatic occurrence happened and they became crusaders out to crush religion as some evil creation and one that is responsible for literally every bad thing that has ever happened in the world.

But let’s examine the patient. Atheists are fond of turning the tables in any discussion with them by asserting that the “one who asserts God exists must prove that existence.” And then they go about demanding that God be proven by a methodology that is designed to work in a physical universe. This would be fine if of course God was discernible by test tubes and spectroscopes.

If science tells us anything, it tells us that at the truly small end of things, the laws don’t operate quite the same as they do on our sensory levels. A thing can be at two places at the same time, and observing a thing can alter its behavior. There are posits of more planes of existence, some eleven I’m told, and that each may have its own laws, utterly alien to our own. But they continue to demand that God be proven to their satisfaction by human scientific standards.

They refuse (a no-information zone) to accept that they cannot prove to anyone’s satisfaction that God does not exist. All they can point to is a lack of scientifically generated evidence that he does.

Let me ask it another way.

Prove that the universe is a meaningless existence. Prove that it has no purpose whatsoever. Prove that it just came into being somehow, and is going through this process of evolution and that it all will end somehow and maybe or maybe not start again, in the same unendingly mindless way.

For you posit such a universe.

We are here by a series of accidents, we live for a short period, and we dissolve into nothingness, which billions of others perhaps on billions of other “earths” do the same, all for no purpose whatsoever. This is the world of Albert Camus, life is absurd.

If it is absurd then what is the point? What has ever been the point? Why have we crawled from the cave to get into our Prius’s and drive to work creating balance sheet profits for companies who will fight to avoid giving us a pension all to sit in the sun watching the balance of our lives fade with the sun? How have we found the guts and fortitude to deny ourselves, to be honest, to help others, if only to die inevitably?

Leave a legacy? Give my kids a better life? You have no ability to feel the satisfaction after you die. You have no legacy to watch mature and give birth to your great-great-great grandchildren. You can claim the satisfaction now, but is that but a joke you play on yourself? If you find life to be hard, filled with obstacles, potholes and down-right evil meanness at least some of the time, why not save your progeny that suffering by not bringing them into the world?

Seeing it from your perspective, why feed the homeless man? You but prolong his misery? The end remains the same. Oblivious death?

Or is it as Camus suggests to you? That accepting all of the above is the final freedom–the freedom to not give a damn? But of course you claim that not to be true, for you claim a morality that is as good, nay better than the religious believers you call names and make such fun of. Your freedom cannot be of the Camus variety.

Yes, you are moral people. Morality is I believe a genetic trait that we have found conducive to life. But you have no corner on intelligence my new atheist friends. You like to think you do, but you don’t.

You hold onto this religion of yours, for indeed it is that, because it makes you feel superior. You smugly look down upon others who believe in God as some sort of child who doesn’t have the presence of mind to know a fact from a fairy tale. Yet you who proclaim the scientific method and profess to understand the rigors of research inquiry, utterly refuse to even consider that the bible you ridicule can be read ANY OTHER WAY THAN THE SAME WAY THE FUNDAMENTALISTS YOU HATE READ IT.

That is rich indeed, for you give them the license to dictate the terms of the debate. And the truth is, you can’t allow that there are other, scholarly ways to interpret scripture, for then your fun would be over. You don’t see it that way of course, because you are on a mission, a mission to destroy religion.

And I’m not utterly opposed to that. Religion is an institution, and institutions need people to run them. And people who are beholden to institutions for their livelihood, are inclined to want the institution to grow bigger and richer, for that makes them more powerful and richer. Lots of nasty things happen as a result.

But faith is another thing entirely. You understand only one perverted facet of it and then extrapolate it to the rest because it works for you that way. That is not reality, but you are information proof.

But don’t get me wrong here. I don’t want to convert you. You are fine in your atheism as far as I’m concerned. No God that I understand wishes to punish you for your lack of progress. Humanity is a work in progress. Not all are as enlightened, and that doesn’t mean I’m somehow better than you because I see the world differently. It will all go as it is supposed to, for evolution is always upward. If we don’t blow ourselves to smithereens with our constant bickering.

I don’t seek to convert you but you seek to convert me. And that is a problem. I don’t seek to convert religious fundamentalists either, but I do seek to prevent them from homeschooling their children into their disease. And I do seek to prevent them from making me live in a society of their making. Minding one’s own business is the key, if you get my drift.

And that is the sad thing.

You are not stupid. But you are willfully ignorant. You cannot make it go away by refusing to examine it. Isn’t that kinda basic to a science-based belief system?

Related articles

• Before You Sympathize with Reza Aslan, Remember What He Said About the ‘New Atheists’ (patheos.com)
• Atheists: Who Are They? (musicalhumanist.wordpress.com)
• Is Moderate, Rational Atheism a Fallacy? (hebrewhutong.wordpress.com)
• Why Atheists & Theists are Stuck in the Same Ethical Boat (appliedsentience.com)

I Have Nothing to Wear to a Funeral

Tags

fundamentalism, gay rights, GOP, religion, social issues, teabaggers, women's rights

Disclaimer! This is not original thought. I give all credit to Andrew Sullivan in his thought-provoking remarks here. He makes some very cogent points, and when you add up the evidence, I think he might well be right.

Sullivan argues that the GOP as it exists today has ceased to be a political party. It no longer acts rationally, from a national party point of view, but rather has been captured by a group and is being forced to take on its persona.

He argues that the GOP is now nothing more than a religious party.

Think of a snake devouring a furry mouse, swallow by swallow until it simply disappears and is digested to be no more.

National political parties exist for the purpose of ostensibly giving voice to their constituents. We can of course argue that neither the Democrats nor the GOP exist for that purpose any more, but rather as a vehicle by which to motivate their constituents to vote them into office with the promise that it will benefit them. The book of apologies for not doing that is of course at the ready and is every two or four years, dragged out and used to “explain” why it was not possible to do most of what was promised.

National parties, however, tend to the flock if you will, by making it appear that they truly care.

We have terms for the political spectrum. Libertarian, Progressive, Liberal, Conservative, Reactionary, Anarchist, and so forth. Those terms are defined, and have over the eons of political discourse starting at least in Athens, come to mean something. But in this country, Sullivan argues that the term Conservative no longer means what it means around the world. For in this country, so-called Conservatives don’t act that way at all.

In England and in Australia, the Conservatives support gay rights. It is logical that they do so. They see it as a conservative thing. Since the objections to marriage equality come almost exclusively from the religious sector of society, true conservatives are determined to keep religion out of the governing region, as we too, by our Constitution, claim to desire.

Yet in this country, people who call themselves conservatives are vehemently opposed marriage equality. Moreover, these same people are exceedingly happy to have the state involved in women’s bodies.

Across the country in states controlled by Republican majorities, we find bill after bill  determined to interfere with Roe v Wade, bills  that are patently unconstitutional on their face. Planned Parenthood, the rallying point for so many Tea People, is facing such an onslaught of legislation deemed “regulatory” that it is closing offices all over. Women who wish abortions now face the real problem of transporting themselves hundreds of miles to find a provider. This is intended. It is working.

Every means is being used to embarrass and shame women, by forcing them like children to view sonograms, and endure body probes, and various “counseling” because surely women don’t understand what’s in their uterus.

These are not conservative actions. They are actions of those who wish the government to be MORE, not less intrusive in their lives. Except of course the rub is obvious–they don’t intend the intrusion to be in their lives–just yours.

If that is true of conservatives, what can be said of Libertarians who are even more hysterical at the idea of government. Yet Rand Paul, the libertarian + teabagger, finds himself not only opposing abortion and apparently in favor of all these attacks on women’s rights, but is also against marriage equality, finding, as insane as it sounds, that it will surely lead to marriage with animals.

A true conservative would be in favor (one would think) in their being as little government intrusion into the sacred sphere of voting. Yet across the land, conservative-held states are enacting again and again laws that make it more difficult to vote, at least for certain segments. Tea baggers, without batting an eye will tell you that they aren’t really sure that non-property owners should vote.

While some of the old-timer Republicans see the necessity of reaching out to the gay community and the Latino community as a means of party survival, not so the teabaggers. They figure that there must be a way to.” get more “white people to vote for them.” Do you hear that? Let’s become the White Party! What could be wrong with that?

And indeed, I suspect that the average teabagger, uneducated as they usually are, would agree. In the fundamentalist world they live in, Cain was that dark one who was banished. The mark of Cain has always been “being born black” to that crowd. It remains such, no matter how much the rhetoric changes. It spawns the “playing the race card” defense and the “uncle Tom black Republicans” we see today.

Couple that with the conservative love for loyalty to one’s “tribe” and suspicion of those not “one of us”, and you have all the makings for a racism that simply over rides common sense and evidence.

It brings you the likes of Phyllis Schafly and her continuous assertions that Latinos aren’t “our kind“, and should be ignored by the new GOP.

But it brings forth more than racism.

It brings forth the true agenda of the new GOP.

It has everything to do with theocracy. It has everything to do with scrapping the Constitution in favor of a new one that keeps the white folk in charge, and the “right” church pews filled.

In Pennsylvania, a right-winger blocked the floor speech of a fellow legislator, using a technical procedural objection, simply because he believed that his colleague was going to “speak against God’s law.”

Did you get that?

A elected legislator stopped another duly elected legislator from speaking on the floor of their state house, because he was going to, (he thought) speak against God’s law (as he interpreted it of course.)

How insane is that?

I assumed that following the whippin’ the GOP took in 2012, they would purge themselves of the virus.

I was wrong.

You see some attempt to do so in the Senate, but Cruz ignores the Old Guard.

Boehner is too in love with being called Mr. Speaker to stop them. He’s allowed them to control the House, and will reap the rewards of that decision in the future one hopes.

But an effective party?

The GOP is fading into oblivion and is being transformed into a party of crazy white people who have an unhealthy and wrong understanding of Christianity. They are pretty much convinced that all would be well if only “we” weren’t here, or in charge, or having any say in the way things are done.

So, yeah, it’s a funeral. And frankly, I’m going to miss the GOP. The New GOP? Be afraid. Be very afraid.

The Funky World of Creationism

Tags

creationism, evolution, fundamentalism, religion, science

Creationist people are funny. I mean that literally. It’s only fair, they take everything literally too. Well, sort of. It’s a well-known fact and easily provable, that creationists only take what they like in the bible literally–the rest, they ignore.

I continue to post really great stuff on Facebook, most of it from scientists who happen to also be believers. I spread it around. There are Catholics, and Lutherans, and Presbyterians, you know, mainstream religious folks. And they all point out the silliness of trying to claim that the earth was formed in six days.

Normal people nod their heads and wonder what all the fuss is about, since logic is a part of daily life you know. I mean if evolution were not true, then when the human genome project was completed, there would have been a hue and cry of world-wide proportions had the DNA not supported our evolution from “lesser”beings. As it turns out, we learned something we had not thought true–some homo-sapiens today actually have DNA from Neanderthals in their bodies, proof that a more primitive humanoid actually mated with those who would ultimately become us.

All this is beyond the average creationist of course, since they are unable to wrap their compartmentalized minds around actual facts. Life is so much simpler when you simply decide what would make you happy and then “make it so” in your mind. There are dozens of shysters out there willing to take you money in return for a good sounding story that meets your needs.

Of course, such mindless ones are also prone to “doubt” anything else that they find troubling in their white-centric (and that is most always the case) world. They stout-fastly deny that the earth as portrayed in the bible is FLAT and that the “heavens” are a dome which keeps out the “waters” which surround everything. No, that doesn’t work for them, so literalism takes a flying leap off the edge on that one.

Since I was peppering the Facebook page with a lot of actual *gasp* science, one of our creationist types figured to “get enlightened” so on the advice of others of her myopic kind, she ordered her some books from a site that specializes in helping people remain god-awful ignorant of the truth.

And she read them.  Or at least tried to.

And then she told the Facebook crowd all about what she had learnt. It had to do with “if the earth was so old then we would all be buried under tons of cosmic dust”, and something about you know crab nebula only occurring once every 100 years, so where are they all? And if you count people the right way, and not the scientific way, somehow, it comes down to just 2 people some 6,000 + years ago. General junk like that.

Which proved that not only did she not think of any of this stuff herself, she didn’t understand most of what she read in the first place.

After I had deciphered the “arguments” I went to the science. Most of the really good and big ones just have an archive of these silly assertions and a scientific proof to explain the errors.  (Talk Origins is great for this by the by should you get asked one of these “yeah so, explain this” questions).

Some of you may recall that there was a thing that ran around Facebook a few weeks ago about a test given to grade schoolers about “science” and most thought it a joke, until the school system (a Christian school) fessed up and said it was theirs. Anyway, at the end, was a question which tells you that this is all about indoctrination and not about actual science. The question was “And what do we say when people tell us that the earth is millions of years old?”

The answer is “Were you there?” Yeah that’s what crazy fundie parents are teaching our children to say in response to a scientific fact. And lo and behold that question also exists on the Talk Origins “creationist arguments”.

I found every single one of the lady’s “arguments” on Talk Origins. They are simplistic and easily dispelled. The offerer of course doesn’t understand a thing about what they just regurgitated. They aren’t meant to. They are happy to find somebody who agrees with them, who writes in a way that sounds all scientific-y, and is not understandable by them certainly. (This makes it likely to be true).

I cited scientific responses and the appropriate links to read the truth in full. (By the way NCSE is another great site for scientific responses and information on evolution and climate change).  Of course there was no response from the creation lady.

When I asked for her sources, since her arguments were not hers but something she admittedly read in a book, I got the stonewall. “You won’t read them anyway!” she whined. No of course I’m not going to line the pockets of a charlatan, but I will look up his name and read reviews of his book(s) and alert others where to go to read about his credentials.

But she won’t give them to me. Plagiarism is a darn sight less dangerous in her eyes than giving her sources up to scrutiny by others.

Truth is scary stuff to some.

I suppose next she will be telling me that Revelation is all about the Catholic Church being the beast. That seems to be the level where those of her kind end up.

What does all this mean?

Not much. It is just that willful ignorance of this sort is that voice that I hear that tells me that these folks shouldn’t be allowed to vote, and definitely not raise children. They should be set down on farms far away from normal people where they can engage in their fantasies without harming others.

But then that conflicts with the other voice that tells me that I don’t approve of limits to who can vote (heck given their level of duh, I figure we couldn’t go too wrong with letting chimps vote either), and I don’t think we want to go down the road of who can procreate either.

The nice thing is that the two voices conflict and I have to resolve the dilemma, something the fundie mind can avoid. So far I come down on the side of freedom, but if these people don’t stop annoying me with their nonsense, well, I might be persuaded to at least make chocolate unavailable to them. I mean it’s a treat they should be denied, just for being so darn goofy.

Meet the Original Libtards!

Tags

American History, Enlightenment, founding fathers, History, reason, religion

Our friendly Tea Party “Patriots” often tell us that they love the constitution. In fact it takes second place only to that timeless book, the Bible–the one God wrote to tell us how to behave. Probing, (as I am always wont to do), I discover that it’s not only the constitution that is revered, but of course the “founding fathers” who, as you know, among other things, brought us the constitution.

That always amuses me ever so much.

Sadly, it seems common to the PayTREEots not to dig too deeply into the mantras they are taught by Fox and people like pseudo-historian David Barton. If they did dig a bit they would find that their adulation is ironic to say the least. Barton of course would have them believe that the FFs were all deeply religious men and that they basically made the Declaration and Constitution tracts which God hopefully would  approve of wholeheartedly. The truth of course lies quite a ways left of Mr. Barton’s imaginative ramblings.

We all know that many of the founders of our fair republic were anything but religious in their leanings. Jefferson is notable for his refusal to believe in the truth of any of the bible’s miracle stories, actually editing them out of his personal bible. (You can see his bible with all the little cut-outs somewhere, probably at Monticello). The other giant, Franklin might be defined as a deist at best.

This should not be surprising since all the FF were the rich elites of their day, and were well read. And what they read and what inspired them (oh you must remember this from high school) were the likes of Locke, Rousseau and Voltaire. All were “men of the enlightenment”. You could easily add Isaac Newton and Spinoza to the mix as well. They were men who started to see that the world could be explained through normal observation and reasonable deductive conclusion. Some, like Newton, were men of science, who were uncovering the physical laws that governed the universe.

In all cases, they were the heretics of their day as well, rejecting the church’s claims that the bible was the only resource needed to explain the world. Some professed a belief in God, but not in the traditional sense of their day.

The explosion of new thought spread across Europe and Britain, and eventually to America where it inspired Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and others to reject the “god-given” circumstances of both colonialism and monarchy. They were “enlightened” to perceive the world differently and their place within it differently. They could finally conceive of themselves as in control of their own destinies.

They formed a government based on enlightenment principles of freedom, democracy, and most of all reason as the basis for rule. They ushered in the concepts of capitalism, markets, the scientific method, religious tolerance (read tolerance to practice what YOU believed, or be free to believe nothing). It was a movement based on equality and commonality and shared responsibility.

In effect, they were the liberals of their day. They were the heretics to the religious right with all their talk of reason and science. They brought forth a new type of government.

The conservatives of their day? They were Tories.

It thus is so very ironic to think of Tea Party adherents touting their love and admiration for our Founding Fathers, today. In the time of our founding, such people would have been sending their sons to stand with King George III.

But of course Tea People never think that deeply.

I can see why.

It is just too embarrassing.