Big Time Ranting on Sunday

Tags

Barack Obama, Election 2008, Essays, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Sunday Editorial

This pretty much sums up my mood today. I don’t care much, about much. I’m just grousing and well, doing a lot of deep sighs in between. The Contrarian continues to look for ways to raise my mood. Yesterday he went online and found the electoral vote totals and the hinge states, and so forth and tried to convince me that this was, well more of a done deal than might appear on the surface.

I have been good at talking one game while letting another play incessently reel to reel in my head for weeks now. I go from elation to depression in moments. I am, like many of you, so distressingly tired of this campaign I could weep, slit my wrists, run naked across the cornfields, or go on a non-stop laughing jag. Any of these things, but the first, should naturally land me in the hospital with locked doors, but really, I am near the point of breakage.

Some of what has sent me insane this past week? Oh, stuff like some already retired matron who waits in excitement to see “Sarah” at a rally in Sterling Heights Michigan. ” Oh i used to be for Obama, but Sarah has changed my mind. She’s so normal and like real people. I just love her.” Okay, I want to scream, just explain to me ditz head why you were for Obama? Certainly not for policy reasons, all of which Ms. Sarah and her grand dad running mate would gut given the chance. So are you telling me that you liked Obama’s personality better than Johnny’s before Sarah strolled into town? Do you realize that if dear Sarah is elected to the VEEP, she will be shuttled to some basement closet in the West Wing, never to step near the “boys” who really will be running the show? How damnably stupid can you be? You shouldn’t be allowed to vote lady.

And Sarah, bless her heart, reads the speech real good, and tells us that dumb old Barack “finally admits what we have been saying–the surge is a huge success.” Oh wait a minute girlie. What YOUhave been saying? I recall not all that long ago, when asked your opinion about Iraq, you claimed you hadn’t much thought about it! Now “we have been saying?” Where is the media? Where is there one intelligent journalist who can explain to you missy that the Surge didn’t do shit? It had to do with a number of events coming together. The “surge” was a minor player, much less important than the Anbar Awakening. I bet you haven’t even had that explained to ya yet have ya?

I’m so glad that you are going to be an advocate for “special needs” families. How nice of you. Explain why you gutted funding for special needs programs BEFORE you found out you were having a special needs kid? Is this kinda like, you are learning about Iraq because your son is about to go there. Never to late to learn huh Sarah?

Oh, while you are at it, tell me all about how you are a tax cutter? I’d really like to hear about that one Sarah. You don’t have either state or sales taxes in Alaska, so just what taxes were you cutting? You might want to explain why you left you mayorality city Wasilla, with a multi-million dollar debt when you left while you are at. They had ZERO debt before you came along.

John tell me how you and Sarah are going to shake things up in Washington and cut corruption and special interests and waste. First tell Sarah that she should return all that earmarked funding she is so pleased with having obtained for Alaska. She was quite proud of it you know. Explain then to us how you are going to take on lobbyists. Is that because you are going to give all the hundreds of them in your campaign jobs in your administration? Or is it that you simply want us to continue to believe that you use them but they don’t use you? You’re just “cleaning” up because the rest of your colleagues don’t have the power to stand firm against influence the way you do huh?

And while we are at it, do you accept any of the blame, after being in Congress for nearly 30 years, most of that during REPUBLICAN control, for any of the crap that you are going to clean up? NO I thought not, you’re the maverick after all. But you did vote with the President more than 90% of the time right? Is he now not responsible for any of it either? Must not be, I guess. I guess we were all just living in some weird alternate universe. WE ACTUALLY STUPIDLY THOUGHT YOUR PARTY HAS BEEN RUNNING THINGS FOR EIGHT FREAKING YEARS.

Do you insulting morons ever ever get tired of calling black white and vice versa? Do you never tire of lying, piling one on top of the next until the entire stinking pile threatens to drown the country? Just what is your game? You say the most frightful things about the evangelical right in 2000, and now can’t stop kissing their collective asses. You claim “country first” which is a bit of sarcasm that is steeped in making Obama something “other” and then kneel down before the likes of Rush and Sean and Bill, and BillyC, throwing country first out the window in favor of “I’ll do anything to get you to choose me.”

The Contrarian says, well, you have to be fair, Johnny undoubted believes that he is best for the country. Really? Well, cynical old me thinks not. I think he is a man screwed up in his head from what he endured. I think it’s wrapped up with daddy issues, and getting his due. I think John is a loose cannon who will not be “f**ked” with, and will have the bombs and fighter planes to back it up.

And for anther thing John I am sick to death of hearing about your damned time in North Vietnam. How long do you think you can milk that? How many houses do you have John? “I didn’t have a house when I was captive in North Vietnam.” That is NO freaking answer dude. Talk about noun, verb POW.

Join your smarmy giggly smirking Giuliani and tell dirty jokes to each other. But please do it out of my hearing for a change. You boys ridiculed each other in ways that only a Republican can do. You all were so much worse than Hillary and Obama ever thought of being. Do you really think that thinking people think that Romney is not so pissed he could spit at you? And they stand up there and laud John McCain as some perfect savior. That wasn’t so bad, but the utter nasty dismissive ridicule of Obama was beyond the pale. It was what you did to Kerry four years ago, pretending that his purple hearts were for little scrapes. You decried such tactics as I recall John.

You decried them until you were convinced by your vile caretakers that you had not a snowball’s chance in hell of winning unless you tried to destroy Barack Obama. And I must say, you have had no trouble doing it have you? None. Kind of makes a person think that you are pretty comfortable in that mud. And your Rovian dogs actually utter publicly that this election is not about issues, but about personalities. How freaking insulting can you elitists be?

I hate what you are doing. And I’m terrible afraid you are going to win again. Because you know that voters pay almost no attention to anything that resembles real news. They rely on those 30 second ads, and take them as gospel. Your utter dismissal and revilement of the average person is complete. I can but imagine as your team evil sits around laughing themselves silly over the latest “Paris Hilton” type ad. No facts, no truth, but it works for the Neanderthals out there doesn’t it? And for all your sickening talk of being “my friend” you hate me just like you hate the American People. You hate us because it’s almost too easy isn’t it? Being elite, smart, powerful people like you, beating up on the poor stupid public. You hate me the most John, because I at least know what you are doing.

So tomorrow is another day, and I will suck it up and write the facts as best I can and present them, mostly to people that agree with me anyhow. I won’t do much to make a difference, but it’s all I know how to do. I pray to God you lose John, I pray to God this country isn’t that stupid, and that racist to deny the obvious. One of you is ready to be president, and one of you is not and never will be. I guess we both know who that person is. It ain’t you John, it ain’t you.

Jesus Keeps on Feeding the Flock

Tags

Anglican, bible, Catholicism, God, Gospel, Jesus, Sunday Editorial, theology

I think one of the things that most intrigues me about sacred texts is that they never grow stale. You never find the “definitive” interpretation. And wonderful as some interpretation may be, it can stand aside as another one,  more pertinent to the moment, comes along. It is perhaps the signal most important thing that believers know, and non-believers can never get. They read sacred text, Bible or Qu’ran, Torah or Upanishads, as they would any other historical text. They read it as does the exegete, trying to suck out every last ounce of meaning from words of old.

But those of us spiritually attuned, know this is but the most basic of understandings to be gleaned from the texts. They are “texts for all seasons” in the most broad definition imaginable. They speak to us as freshly today as they did 1500, 2000, 3000 years ago. Let me give you an example.

Today’s Gospel reading from the RCL is Matthew 15: [10-20] 21-28. This is in the Episcopal Church. The Roman Church only uses 21-28, a pity since a good deal of the importance of the sermon is lost when the two are not combined. I am told that the blocked numbers [10-20] are from the Lectionary used before the revision in 1979. The lesson comes in discerning what value the added verses have on the initial ones.

This all became most interesting to me because of a piece I read last week at In A Godward Direction. And it got me to thinking, as you might suspect. For those of you without a handy bible, let me quote the full passage:

[Jesus called the crowd to him and said to them, “Listen and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles.” Then the disciples approached and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees took offense when they heard what you said?” He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if one blind person guides another, both will fall into a pit.” But Peter said to him, “Explain this parable to us.” Then he said, “are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness and slander. These are  what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.”] Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.”  But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him saying, “Lord, help me.” He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

Tobias Haller thought the latter part a jarring thing, unlike the Jesus we are used to, and indeed, that has always been my feeling about it. I often wondered why Jesus would be so dismissive and cruel. It had always been put to me that this was an example of Jesus’ humanity, and that he like us was subject to being taught new ideas. MMMmmmm, well, okay, I could buy that but it truly never satisfied me. It was simply not in keeping with the Jesus I knew.

Haller suggests that Jesus may have been only pretending this, only using the situation as a teaching moment for his disciples. Haller makes a telling argument in comparing this woman of “great” faith with the disciples, renowned for their “little” faith. Was He, as Haller contends, merely testing his disciples–would they do the typical thing and reject the “other” as, they had on other occasions?

Haller goes on to suggest that the lesson for the church today is similar. Will we go on rejecting as “other” those that are different and oppositional to our regular way of doing things? Tobias Haller is asking, in the shadow of  Lambeth, will the church continue to reject the gay and lesbian person, or realize that Jesus message is essentially one of full inclusion?

I thought his remarks were amazingly on point, to use a legal term. I think he captured the essence of the passage as no one I had ever heard before. He made the passage make sense and made it fit with the overall impression one unfailingly gets from the Gospels in regards to the gentle, inclusive, loving Jesus we have all come to see as our Savior.

I did not realize at the time of the reading that I was reading today’s Gospel. So, it was with some surprise that I opened my paper insert this morning in the pew to look over the readings. I looked forward to what Father Bill might have to say on  the reading with anticipation. And I think he added even more to my understanding.

Bill explained what the [bracketed] material was, the Lectionary reading before the revision in 1979. As he stated, the new material was added, the story of the Canaanite woman. And he alluded that this was done with some purpose that they fit together. And he proceeded to explain how he saw it.

Bill suggested that the first part, about the Pharisees and the unclean/clean dichotomy was an attempt on the part of Christ to explain that tradition is a good thing, fine in its place, but and it’s a bit but, tradition needs to be examined from time to time. We need to look at it and see, why are we doing this? It may be that we will find good reason to do so. If that is the case, then we have renewed our strength and value in it and can practice it with greater awareness.

But sometimes we may not be able to satisfactorily explain why we do something. We may be left with the dejected response, of “Because we always have.” That is simply not a good answer. And it begs the question of then, should we change, abandon, or add to it? Jesus was saying that the Pharisees lived by a rule that had it’s place, perhaps as a sanitary ritual, but that it has no spiritual significance. He correctly stated that what comes from the heart had the power to defile, not some food item or method of washing or eating it.

Thus when we look at the issue of gay/lesbian marriage, we need to examine our traditions that seemingly are against it in the same way. What was the purpose? What valid scriptural interpretation exists if any? Do any such purposes exist today? What is the purpose[s] of marriage? What was the ministry of Jesus about? Is this a living Gospel?

Quite frankly the willingness of the Anglicans to examine these issues again and again, gives me great hope. The Romans seem forever stuck in a dogma that they feel glues them to a doctrine they may personally wish could be abandoned, but will cause the collapse, they fear, of all moral authority from the top down if they were to do so.

Of course, many in the Roman and Anglican spheres no doubt think that the old position is correct and see dissent on this issue as nothing more than “people attempting to forge a church to fit their secular desires.” But at least in the Episcopal faith, the question seems always able to be brought up and discussed. The Roman church has the pesky propensity to attempt to shut down discussion by threats of excommunication. Thus one of many reasons I left.

It seems the Anglicans have realized a truth that is being lost in some of the more fundamentalist leaning churches and laity. That the Bible is not something written in stone, but is subject to growing interpretation. It is meant to offer us solace in all ages. It is also, we hope, meant to evolve with new meanings as times change. This is not changing the Gospel to serve man, but it is, I would submit God’s intent–the reason it is so difficult of exactitude–that it be a living document, able to guide us to a larger and fuller understanding.

One often questions why God in his infinite wisdom chose 2000 years ago to send Jesus, hardly a time of modern sophistication. Why not wait when we were more mature? Because the message, I submit is capable of growth as we grow. That is a wisdom of God that is so beyond us that we are finding it hard to see. Those that would write the rules in stone are doing exacting what God did not wish I would argue. After all, the thing between your ears is meant to be used. Take some times and think about traditions, your family, church, and countries. Can you give good reasons for them? Or only because we have always done it this way? See what needs to be done, and as Gandhi said, “be the change you wish to see.”

It’s just what I was thinking about today.

Whose Olympics Are These?

Tags

Olympics, Sunday Editorial

If you were like tens of millions of others Friday, you watched the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics. You were certainly not disappointed. The architecture, the fireworks, the unbelievable precision of the thousands of artists who participated, all went on to leave one breathless with wonder. Again and again, the Contrarian and I oohed and aahed at the precision drummers, the boxes that created pictures and rolling waves, the light dancers, and more,all done in seeming non-stop perfect order. Had it not been for the truly interminable calling of the countries that went on without end, it would have been a perfect evening of viewing.

As the countries paraded out into the main arena and around, the commentators looked for things to say. As regards some, it became, “I wonder how the audience will receive ________ country.” And, well it got me to thinking.

These are the games of the 29th Olympiad in case you forgot. And tack on the proviso of their being in the modern era. But, most don’t know the number, they are simply the Beijing Olympics. That is how we have defined Olympics for years now, as long as I can remember: the Athens, the Mexico City, Sarajevo, Munich, as if they were the possessory offering of a single city.

We all vaguely know that the Olympics started in Greece, and that they were a collection of athletes gathered to test themselves and each other in the arts of various “sports.” They are first recorded in 776 B.C. and were celebrated until 393 A.D. Interest in a revival started in 1833, and there was a modern Olympics in 1859. An Olympic committee was organized in 1894. The Winter games began in 1924. Oddly, the  reason for their cessation in 393 A.D. was Christianity, for they were condemned as a pagan festival. For low those hundreds of years training actually took place in more simple accommodations than those pictured above:

And it seems that with each Olympics, the hoopla and extravaganza has gotten nothing but bigger. And that, it seems to me, is something of a problem.

It is said, as the Contrarian reminded me, that there was nothing very egalitarian in their renewing in the mid eighteen hundreds. They were designed as “amateur” not as you might expect, so that high paid professionals would not dominate. No. Not at all. Most of the sports were considered sports that the common person could not afford to engage in unless he did so for a living. So the amateur status was required to keep the field clear of the working stiff. It was the playground of the rich mostly, those who had the leisure time to ride fancy trained horses, and create steeplechase arenas; time to practice the otherwise useless pursuits of shot put and javelin throwing.

But what has happened along the way? Less and less emphasis is placed on the truly amateur athlete anymore, though surely the superstars do still stand out as heroes. No, it’s all about medals and honor, and which country will take the most. What country will finally gain its first? And there must be something important to all this, for the competition for these goals seems to have surpassed the goals of the individual athletes.

Much attention is being given to China’s “home field” advantage. I have no idea how or why that should matter, but it does, and most assuredly it mattered to  the Greeks four years ago. Apparently it is also proven out by the medal tallies too. But worse, we see the efforts made by various countries to crack sports they have traditionally not done well in. Stealing coaches to learn the “secrets” of other teams from other countries. But more, it is the calculation of where, and to what athletes to give special emphasis to. Where can we “steal” a medal here and there, to up our total?

And let’s not forget the athletes and their “shopping” for a country, and countries who shop for athletes. I must have seen four NBA stars  all playing for countries they were born in, but no longer live in and may not even be citizens of any more. I saw one young man, who was born and raised in Michigan USA, but his grandfather, being a German was enough to give him some fake German citizenship sufficient for him to play for them. So we have kids who couldn’t make their country teams becoming “citizens” for the week of other nations who are willing to “buy” an athlete.

I shutter to think of the perks and such that athletes get in return for their services. I’m sure this happens across the board. Free tuition, free housing, spending money, and who knows what else must be provided no doubt. Our own Michael Phelps was fingered at eleven years of age to begin the long process that has led him to Olympic stardom. No taking a bit away from him, he is a phenomenal swimmer, but is there something wrong with this?

Chinese gymnasts tell quite plainly of the “pressure” placed upon them by the Chinese government to not just do well, not just do their best, but to win for the home team. One story had the unmistakable “Chinese Military” in actual presence at the training facility. What a chill that sent down my spine.  It is no matter of simple pride. As an gymnast makes a major mistake, one can see the pain etched on a coaches face, and wonder if his days are numbered in coaching should his team falter and not do as expected.

Years ago, East Germans and others were caught doping and well, er, being a bit less than female in the Olympic swimming competitions. Doping has been a problem in track and field, touching  America and other countries as well. More and more testing is done, more ways are devised to avoid being caught. And you wonder, is this all about the athletes? Is this what they desire?

Of course, it has been this way for many years. Everyone recalls or recalls reading at least about the ’36 games and Hitler’s plan to show off his Master Aryan race. That did not turn out so well, but no lessons were learned apparently. It’s still a race for each of the major powerhouses to “prove” themselves vis a vis other countries.

I’m not sure why it was about communism and democracy, but it was and in some ways still is. I’m not sure how an American winning means democracy is better, or the alternative. They think it is, whoever they are. Governments I suppose. I don’t know how political philosophies and forms of economic style got into all this at all. It seems to have little to do with greco-roman wrestling to my way of seeing things.

I am way impressed with the beauty of the architecture that China has put forth. The Bird’s Nest, and the swimming venue, as well as other places are gorgeous to say the least. They are art to be sure, and something that they have every right to be proud of. Why they think that, seeing it, I will forget what they are doing in Tibet or Sudan or that they still suppress dissent in their land, is well, beyond my comprehension.

I was happy that for the most part there was little booing at all when countries made their way into the arena and around the floor to take their places in the pantheon of nations. It should never be about the nations at all in my opinion. It is about the athlete.

It should be about the human, striving to achieve his or her best. Running faster, jumping higher, throwing farther, this is what I come to see and applaud. I surely cheer for Americans, but I, in the end, give way to praise for the winner, and the unlikely one is more satisfying sometimes than the one given all the accolades beforehand. It is about the kids, and some who are not so much kids anymore. It seems that it still is in the Paralympics. They don’t seem to have the heart to turn that into some circus of chest-thumping heads of state.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ll continue to watch and root for Phelps and Torres, and that Shawn Johnson from Iowa. I’ll even cheer for the men’s basketball team, though I really don’t like the professional aspect to it all. But I will remember that these poor kids, most of whom won’t medal, are poorly served by their respective governments.  They are lost in the mayhem of who won gold, silver and bronze. But most of all it’s all about the totals. Which damned country won–as if any “country” jumped, ran, swam,  or rode, a thing. And it should be just about the athletes, and it’s not. It’s just what I was thinking about today.

Are We Wrestling Enough?

Tags

God, morality, Sunday Editorial

Jacob Wrestling with the Angel Gustave Dore 1865

Today’s first reading was from Genesis 32:22-31, in which Jacob wrestled with God. Our priest, Barbara, gave a fine sermon on the challenges we face in youth and in illness, when we too wrestle with God. And, well, it got me to thinking.

Yes, indeed, we wrestle with God over our self-identity as young adults, and even before that sometimes. We determine to be “just like” Dad, or not at all like uncle Bill, based on perceptions we have of them and those we discern that others have of them. In some respects, we wish as well to forge our own personality, and so determine that we will be “different” in ways we have yet to decide upon. We all have the urge to be unique, though we are, whether we wish to be or not. Failure surely follows the one who attempts to mold themselves in the fashion of some other person.

And true enough, severe calamities also often cause us to wrestle with God. We lament why this happened to me, have we displeased God, is God really there, does He care? Why has he not rescued us. A thousand questions, and sleepless nights ensue as we sort out how this relationship affects and is affected by the miseries that often befall us. No one is left unscathed in this, for misfortune strikes all sooner or later. It just falls on some harder than others sometimes. But who is to judge the breadth and depth of my agony versus yours. The loss of child, parent, illness, financial ruin, job loss, and a whole host of occurrences strike me differently in some respect than you.

But, are those the only occasions when we do or should be wrestling with our God? It strikes me that we are typically not doing enough of the down on the mat struggling as we should be.

Most people, I would suggest, have a set of principles they live by, or at least say they do. Some can tick them off as if from a list, and indeed, some folks undoubted do make such lists. Others have a general, less defined set that they basically “feel” right about. Like Potter Stewart, they may not be able to define them exactly but they know them when they see them. A general uncomfortableness may ensue when a line has been crossed, a sense that this isn’t right, even though we may be able to fully articulate it.

I’m not sure that is quite acceptable. Perhaps one day it was, perhaps life was simple enough at some distant moment when that was enough. But life is today much more complicated isn’t it? I mean just take the question: paper or plastic? How is one to know which is the better other than the obvious:  neither, bring your own canvas bags. One has to factor in so many things, the cost of production, the ease of renewing, the impact on the environment long term. So many things to evaluate.

Who to invest with? How many have a clue for the most part whether your investments are with companies who are environmentally progressive or not? How many are operating in countries where wages are not what they should be? Where safety is not what it should be? Where they are helping to prop up undemocratic governments?

You ask, what has this got to do with wrestling with God? Ahh, you see, you’re not doing it enough. If you were, you wouldn’t need to ask. Because you see,  many of our choices are made based on what is convenient, financially or otherwise for us. We may buy peaches out of season, because we like peaches, never thinking of where they come from and what are the consequences of that. And that is a compromise we make several times a day.

There are folks who don’t buy paper toweling, not any kind, even the recycled type. Why? Because cotton cloths work just as well. But they require washing each week, and they get stained and don’t look nice. That is wrestling with God. That is saying, I don’t like this inconvenience, but I’m prepared to go out of my way in this way because I think God prefers me to do my part for the environment. My desires have taken a back seat to what I determine to be God’s will.

We should be struggling daily with these choices. And of course, we would all go quite mad, given the complexity of society today if we did so. Nobody has the time to investigate all the ins and outs of every decision to make the morally correct one. How to balance all the variables is too mind boggling. If I devote five hours to determining whether I should choose to buy peaches in December, I’m missing five hours I might spend helping in the formation of my child’s sense of team work by attending to his or her soccer needs.

The point is not so much how we resolve the issues, I would hazard to say, but that we think about them at least. That we don’t automatically choose the convenient but at least put some brain matter to work thinking about the alternatives. Who knows, one might just pop out at us as a better alternative. God has a way of working with us that way. But we have to give Him a chance. God is gracious in case you forgot. He doesn’t intrude where he is not invited.

I’m wrestling with God today. I’ve been hard as stone when it comes to John McCain. I diametrically oppose his policies, don’t get me wrong. But, this goes beyond that. The more I learn about the man, the more afraid I become. Some of the stuff I learn about him seems horrible indeed. It has more to do with his personality, his motives, his honorableness as a human being than his policy. So I’m wrestling with this “stuff” that I have read, and whether it’s fair game to send around the internet; send around in my tiny little vehicle, read by usually under 100 folks a day. But I can’t avoid the issue, by claiming I’m a tiny little fry in the big ocean of public opinion.

The Contrarian has pointed it out to me more than once in the last few weeks. My anger, has crossed a bounds he believes. McCain is not a satanic force after all. He is a man driven to achieve what he wants. I suspect he is willing to cut a lot of corners to do that. But can’t that be said about most politicians?

So you see, I’m wrestling with God. Is it my own prideful arrogance that “I know John McCain” and you don’t? Or is he objectively that bad? I’m not sure. I do know that God led me to a new venue for celebrating liturgy, and that sermon was given, and it gave rise to this discussion. And I don’t plainly know the answer, yet. Maybe never. But I realized at least that I am not wrestling with God enough. I’ve been trying to save that for big issues, seldom employed except in emergencies. And I’m wrong to do that. Winging it on most of life’s daily ups, downs, ins, and outs, is not a good thing.

Thomas Merton said that he wasn’t always sure that he knew God’s will, but he figured God was pleased with his attempt to try to figure it out. And I think he was right. We would be highly presumptuous it seems to me, to assume we know God’s will.

Oh, plenty of folks will claim it’s easy. Just read and do what the “church” tells you to. That’s passing the buck it seems to me. While I have much to learn from those who came before, and two heads are better than one, I cannot avoid my personal responsibility by shrugging that it’s too much for me, and simply relying on others whom I’ve elevated to some superior knowledge platform.

Same for politics. Americans are simply wont to pass off their responsibility as citizens to become informed on the issues and candidates. They rely on party affiliation, newspaper endorsements, worse yet, highly political punditry opinions, or even worse, slimy ads which have little in the way of truth attached to them. That’s why the candidates have learned to tell lies so easily. Nobody much can tell the difference but those who are highly interested and they are small in numbers.

The truth is, we are each, as citizens, required and morally obligated to search our minds and hearts for what God wishes in this world. We are then obligated to learn what each candidate claims they would do, and spend some modicum of time reading responsible, highly regarded news sources to determine the truth of those claims. We are then called upon to vote accordingly. We aren’t asked to do this often, just every four years.

Similarly, we should be looking at all our activities and practices a bit more closely. Likely we will not always correctly discern God’s will all the time. I’m not sure God would always have a will on everything anyway. But we will be damn better humans if we ask the question a bit more, and come down on the side we perceive is the God side. That I think is a truth you can take to the bank.

It’s just what I was thinking about today. And hey, you could probably use the exercise!

Our Sexual Schizophrenia

Tags

Catholicism, gay rights, religion, sex, Sunday Editorial

America is a nation obsessed with sex. Everyone agrees. What we don’t agree about is what the problem is. We tend to see it from two very different prospectives. Europe and most of the rest of the world has long taken note of our obsession. They scratch their heads and wonder why we are ALWAYS talking about it, legislating about it, decrying it, or promoting it. Most everyone else takes it for granted pretty much. We don’t and it causes us more trouble than can be imagined. Well, it got me to thinking.

You see, we, are both intent on defining most of sex as a bad thing, and conversely, spending our time promoting it. We are in a word schizophrenic. And that causes us horrific problems in the end.

How did this start? Arguably it began with the beginning of our country. Especially with that weird breed called Puritans. Now we are told of course that the Puritans came to this land for “religious freedom.” Well, not really. The fact is, their repressive take on religion and God was not much liked in most of Europe. It was divisive and problematical for countries attempting to keep the peace among diverse peoples. Puritans were rigid, and like early Christians in Rome, really didn’t fit in well. So they moved to this new land with every intent on forming a religious state of their liking, one in which everyone was expected to toe the line so to speak religiously and that definitely meant sexually as well. 

Indeed they did, and much of New England became the land of rigid puritanism, which we can synonymously equate with prudish beliefs regarding sex and the body itself. This was mirrored for a time in Catholicism and many of the early saints record efforts to beat the body into submission by starvation, actual physical torture self-inflicted, and denials af adequate sleep and so on. Anything that was pleasurable was to be denied as temptation from the devil.

Of course, when you demand that  kind of adherence to such abnormal rules, people tend to act out in rather spectacular ways. They don’t just sin, they sin hugely. Yet apparently we don’t learn the lessons we should from this, instead we make excuses. Fundamentalists by and large are not driven to question the doctrines taught by preachers who find themselves caught in flagrant acts of “immorality.” Instead they blindly tell themselves that satan attacks just those people making the greatest inroads on sin, so such falling from grace is to be expected, and in reality is nothing but confirmation that the doctrine is sound. Nice huh?

So we run to confession each week and confess our masturbatory actions, and race from Church to get back to internet porn. I suppose it wouldn’t be so bad if all we did was this to ourselves. The sane world could look upon us as sad, but no more. Alas, we don’t leave it at our own doorstep. We export it.

Because we are so repressed in our own minds, we try to repress and oppress everyone we meet. Everybody has to agree that this stuff is all bad. We obsess about what you are doing in your bedroom, we wag our fingers and cite self-interpreted pieces of scripture to back it up.

Take a trip to a religious forum. Any one more or less will do. They are chock filled with the ultra ultra orthodox, those more Catholic than the Pope as we would say in my Church. There you will find a variety of themes that will truly boggle the mind. Some might even argue that the intent is to release all that pent up sexual frustration by talking the subject to death. In fact, here and there, a thread is abruptly closed, I suspect because it’s gotten just a tad too racy and specific in exploring “what sex toys does God allow my wife and I to use?” (I kid you not)

A list of topics should explain my point.

• Can HIV/AIDS husband and wife use condoms so they can continue having sex? (NO)
• Can I attend the wedding of a gay couple, one of whom has been my lifelong friend? (NO)
• Is masturbation okay as long as I’m using it for a medical reason?
• Is it okay to sleep in the same bed with someone of the opposite sex without sex?
• Can I fantasize while having sex with my spouse about someone else, even imaginary? (NO)
• Do I need document every sexual thought for confession? Will I be in confession for hours?
• Is Contraception selfish in that one is not open to God in the act? (YES)
• Can I attend my fathers second marriage even though he is not Catholic and neither is his new fiance? (NO)

I’ve answered with the majority opinion those threads I actually read. The rest, I can assume, but can’t answer directly. You see what I mean? Go to any Christian forum and a full 50% of the discussions are about sex. Most all of it revolves around the sinfulness of some sexual behavior, whether it be pre-marital, divorce and remarriages that aren’t legal, homosexuality, contraception, and a host of other such things.

Now I admit, that these ultra orthodox obsessions are not by and large shared by most Americans. But they do represent the thinking of a growing cadre of fundamentalist opinion that sex is naughty. Yet, as we mentioned, it is they more often than not that get caught in the sex scandals we have come to love in both Washington and within the environs of the Religious Right.

The rest of us scratch our heads in disbelief. Europe seems to get this so much better and we wonder how did this puritan thing get so far out of hand. Why are we titillated daily with sex? It’s normal. It’s how we each came to be. There is nothing especial about it. Nor is there anything especial about our bodies. Nobody wears closes in the animal kingdom except humans. Clearly we didn’t start wearing skins and hides because of modesty. We did it for warmth and because we could attach convenient loops and pockets to hold things.

I don’t give a tinker’s damn what you do in your bedroom, and it’s none of your business what I do in mine. The only caveat is that no one gets physically or emotionally harmed. Nobody is forced to do that which they don’t wish to do. Studies actually show that those who voluntarily engage in what might be termed “alternative” sex roles (masochistic, slave-master, open marriage) are not to any greater degree unhappy or otherwise emotionally harmed. That is not some endorsement by me, but merely to point out that the “evils” these actions are claimed to cause are not born out by the studies.

I have said again and again, that I don’t see how gay marriage affects me at all. There are no valid studies as far as I know that say that children raised in homosexual unions or single parent homes, or any other grouping one might concoct are by nature harmful. It’s all about love and time and support it seems. Kids from gay parents aren’t more likely to be gay, sexually promiscuous or anything else. If it pleases you to believe that God creates gay folks and then expects them to be celibate for life, then what happened to free will huh?

I had an argument with NFP people. Natural Family Planning is basically a jazzed up rhythm method of contraception. They claim its okay for Catholics to use this because it allows God to cause its failure and pregnancy to occur. Somehow in their minds, God cannot penetrate condoms. Somehow that means you’ve shut God out. Some actually claim that sex is not for ANY other purpose than procreation, although the Church clearly doesn’t agree. Yet in the end, both are designed (rhythm and condoms) to avoid pregnancy.

God is great, He is. I believe He’s a good deal greater than these reactionary orthodox even guess. But he does have a whole universe to manage. And perhaps many such universes for all I know. Do you think he draws some distinction between the condom and the “I’m not fertile today by the calendar dear, we can do it tonight” dichotomy? Do you think he is tricked into thinking that one couple is sinful and the other not? Give me a break!

Worrying about what sex is okay and what is not is a good diversion however. You can avoid working out your responsibility for wars and poverty and how you are not really acting like your brother’s keeper much. You can lie to yourself and say you are doing God’s work by “admonishing the sinner” every chance you get, instead of marching against genocide in Darfur or raising hell that members of the Congress support regimes that engaged in the sex slavery of children in Indonesia.

Most laughable of all you can (and I swear I can prove it to you) advise poor black people that Planned Parenthood is some evil genocidal organization and they should stop using birth control. Blacks are notoriously unable to think for themselves you know. You can become enraged should anyone question your motives of course, while at the same time, you can claim that the Church still allows one to favor the death penalty (which of course falls most heavily on African Americans too). You can do that and not bat an eye at the hypocrisy of such dual positions.

A Catholic theologian some years ago, said that the worst thing that had befallen the Church in his opinion was its delving into sex. It has gotten itself caught in a logical and theological quagmire and seems unable to gracefully escape. It ends up demanding behavior that is arguably immoral from a health standpoint, and is incapable of being fulfilled by most of its members. Worse, it gives the small minority who psychologically need and desire such rigidity, the puffed up self-importance of the “true believer” over and against the world. So it’s so ultimately divisive as to be counterproductive.

So, when folks start in on the idea that we are a morally degenerate society, swirling faster and faster into the deep well of sexual perversion, causing the Impeding destruction of civilization, I just say, hey, look to religion if you want to know why. And I’d not be looking to religion to solve it. Religion serves a great purpose in so many ways, but it has ill served us in sexual matters.

Somehow, I think God thinks of all this with passing amusement, when not outright angry at the pain we cause each other over it. After all, he had no need to grant us ensouled creatures with pleasure in the act did he? I can see why he needed to use that as a ploy to entice the “lower” animals. But us? Not necessary, unless of course he meant for us to enjoy it.

 Obsess about it? I don’t think so. It’s time we take away the titillating exercise of “moral majority” admonitions. Time to tell them to stick it in their ear, and get a life. The entire subject is just boring. I’m not gonna be your porn fix for the day by indulging in your need to talk about sex. Have some with your partner and shaddup. It’s just what I got to thinking about today.

Tell Me About the God You Don’t Believe In

Tags

Catholicism, faith, fundamentalism, God, Non-Believers, religion, Sunday Editorial, theology

First let me say that I stole the title from Brian D. McLaren who was writing for On Faith Forum in the Washington Post. His post responded to a fascinating Pew finding on atheists. Seems that contrary to what one might assume, 21% believe in some kind of God or Higher Power. In addition, 12% believe in some concept of heaven and 10% pray at least once a week. The panel was asked to comment on this strange finding. And it got me to thinking.

I read most all of the panelists and their comments. Some of them were obvious remarks such as “Gosh, don’t people even know the definition of words any more?” Indeed, to say that one is an atheist and then to claim that one believes in any sort deity is well, a total misunderstanding of the very definition no? Sure, but let’s get beyond the simplistic. Atheism is a belief that there is no God. Faith is belief  that there is a God. Agnostics throw up their hands in confusion and give up trying to figure the whole thing out.

Notice first of all the absence of any real proof on any side. That is the definition of faith, it is belief in things not seen, not provable. So the believer is in no better intellectual place than than the non-believer it seems. The agnostic is in a strange place that I’m not sure quite how to define. On the one hand, one can say that the agnostic recognizes that the other two are in an intellectually untenable position and simply refuses to play the game at all. The other two might call the agnostic lazy, since both the atheist and the believer both feel the question is worth considerable time and effort to investigate.

Trust me, go to any forum and find a discussion on the existence of God. The only people arguing are self-defined atheists and believers. So there might be some credible argument that the agnostic is in the worst of all places, finding the entire issue not worthy of his/her time and effort.

Of course if we actually start the debate, the atheist has the upper hand. As the saying goes, nobody can be forced to prove a negative. I’m not required to disprove the existence of the Easter bunny. The deluded soul who believes in the Easter bunny must prove this weird idea. But this is not a debate about atheist vs. believer. It’s an attempt to understand who we are as believer and atheist.

The poll results, as some of the panelists alluded to, may merely reflect that some people don’t like labels, especially pejorative ones that are bandied about and always place the person who self-identifies with the label on the defensive. We know a lot of these. Atheism is certainly one, denoting, (gasp, and then the awful look and whisper) “someone who doesn’t believe in God.” People recoil in horror. They look at you as if you have suddenly sprouted horns and a tail and turned a brighter shade of red. I recall my atheistic days and I do remember not wanting to admit that, as a child or an adult.

We have plenty of other labels, Feminism to some is buzz word for man-hating, bra burning, evil, home wrecking, abortion championing women. Yep, even in this day and age, you find some folks who say that. Modernism, secularism are words Fox has pounded into the human psyche as anathema to American values.

So it’s not so clear what the word atheist means any more. To some it may simply mean I don’t adhere to any particular religious philosophy. I don’t want to be identified as being within any group. In this sense, the poll results might well signify that many are redefining in a sense what and who God is. Some of those who self-identify as atheists may in fact simply be suggesting that they don’t view God through the prism of Christianity or frankly from any other faith tradition they are personally familiar with through experience or study.

This leads to an interesting post by both McLaren and also alluded to by Willis E. Elliot, that some folks refer to themselves as atheists because they reject a particular definition of God and actually are not aware of any other. If you talk to some atheists on forums at least, you often discover that their arguments against God reflect a fundamentalist interpretation of God. They remind me of kids raised in strict fundamentalist homes wherein God is HE, men are the natural and right head of the family, the bible is literal, evolution is a hoax, and prophetic scripture lays out in perfect detail exactly what the future holds.

These kids, protected from reality for all their young lives, go off to college and meet the world. It’s like being slapped in the face for many. Read what happened to Bart D. Ehrman. Now his story is a bit different, in that he came to fundamentalism as a young man, but then went off to study at Moody college, and then Wheaton College, both extreme right wing fundamentalist schools. When he arrived at Princeton and was confronted with the truth of biblical exegesis, he ended up losing his faith completely. He’s a fine scholar and a nice man whom I’ve had the privilege to communicate with. (He sent me a signed copy of his book, Misquoting Jesus, which I reviewed on my now deceased blog The Cornfield Philosopher.)

Both McLaren and Elliot point out that some atheists are only disbelievers to the some particular type of faith they have experienced or witnessed. When presented with other ways of envisioning God, they are not atheists at all.

Perhaps the panelist who hit closest the mark of what I consider the truth is that of Lisa Miller. It goes along in some respects with the ideas of both McLaren and Elliot but goes a bit further. Anyone who is a student of Christianity at least, probably is aware that there are more than 35,000 various sects of Christianity around the globe, and the number increases at about the rate of 300 or so a year. What does this tell us?

It tells me that we as humans don’t respond well to organized religion. Churches continue to try to force us into a set of beliefs and claim that deviation from them in any way puts our very futures in dire danger.  Now some find great comfort in this, and the orthodox of every faith whether it be Catholicism, Judaism, Evangelism, Muslim  etcetera find personal “safety” in the very specificity of the tenets that must be adhered to exactly and totally. Now I can understand Churches and their motivation. I can understand even the psychological need that drives some to need this kind of absolutism.

But the reality is in the evidence of things. There are virtually no faiths, or few at least that are complete and unchanging in themselves. Somebody and a bunch of other somebodies sooner or later has and will decide that they have a better take on what God really wants and is, and will go off and form a different version of the parent faith. They may impose just as strict a requirement on their new followers in terms of orthodoxy, but none the less, it is another “personal” vision of God that has translated into another sect.

What does all this suggest? It seems to me that it suggests something major that most people are missing. Someone pointed out that every person is unique, every snowflake is, every finger print. That person finds evidence of God’s hand in the world. Many would agree. I do in some respects as well. But it might well suggest that something much more powerful is at work.

Many human biology specialists, especially those involved in brain study, suggest that in some fundamental way, we are wired for God. This of course does not prove a God exists, only that we are prone to identify a God as the source of what is inexplicable to us. Many also admit that God is not  especially forthcoming in an overt way. Atheists especially question why God doesn’t make Him/Herself known in a clear way.

My answer is always the same. God doesn’t appear hovering on my ceiling for a good reason. It’s called faith. It’s meant to be that way. It’s our journey of discovery, preparing us for bigger and better things. We have to struggle with this, its how we grow. If God does it for us, what is the point for either us or God. If I am correct in this assumption perhaps that is why God means something different to each of us.

 We all blend a lot of things into our own personal vision of Deity. It is the way it’s meant to be perhaps. It’s okay if some religion meets most of our needs and desires regarding Deity. But we all mix a bit. Hispanics traditionally place a bit too much emphasis on Mary (some would say). We practice yoga as Christians, and there is definitely an element of Buddhism in the practice. Asian Christians continue in some respects to practice some forms of ancestor worship. Each culture and people blend old faith with new, family rituals with church rituals. Even the orthodox do this. And perhaps this is what is supposed to happen.

If indeed we are wired by God for God (being ensouled creatures), then our very uniqueness as created being demands that God be something a bit different to each of us. God as they say is closer to us than our very breath. Is it so wrong then that God molds himself to us in the most perfect way? Can that way be the same for anyone else? No, I would say not. The tragedy or perhaps the bump in the road is that so few really get this.

Of course, this goes over not so very good at an ultra orthodox site. I’m invited to leave the Catholic Church at least once a week because as they see it, why call yourself Catholic if you don’t adhere to every tenet (as they interpret it of course) of the faith? I don’t find this in parishes of course, its the habitat of the the extreme view and is an internet phenomenon for the most part, although there are a couple of ultra right wing dioceses (the one’s who threaten they will withhold communion from certain politicians–note that these same politicians received communion right in front of the Pope Benedict with no recriminations in April.) but no matter. I digress.

Instead of seeing God as more personal,  some seem to believe that hell awaits anyone not towing some line defined by some Church. All of life is then devoted to railing at and satanizing the other. Little attention is left for personal attention to deity, one is simply too busy detailing in excruciating detail the failings of everyone else. It is essential to this type that everyone come to agree they they and their self-interpreted faith are right. They must be right, their very sanity depends on it. I don’t think this is what God had in mind.  I do think many of these folks would benefit from some good psychiatric care. (Again, I don’t make this statement lightly. Threads on forums that wonder “is it sinful to read a fortune cookie” and websites devoted to traveling one’s diocese and reporting on whether the wafer was held high enough over the priests head to be “properly adoring” speak for themselves.) I do think that this type of obsessive religiosity  are the greatest creators of “atheists” on the planet.

I might be wrong in everything I have just said. I claim no special pipeline to God. I hope I get a point or two for being honest. I assume God likes honesty. As I have said, I have concluded that as a creation of God, with a finite capability of understanding with my tiny human brain, that God must be at least as great as anything I can envision. If so, he must be honest. And can anything be more special, more perfect, than a God that is individual to each of us, unique in just the right blend of compassion, love, joy, adventure, humor, awe, as suits us to a T? It is why my prayer is the same every day:

God, I love you. I desire above all things to do your will. I’m just a creature, small and not too bright. I try my very best to do what you want. Please help me to understand exactly what that is. I admit to getting confused sometimes. I’m told a lot of different things, mostly contradictory, by people who are very sure they know what you want. I don’t know what else to do but ponder these questions and do the best I can. If you can nudge me in the right direction when I go off course, I’d appreciate it. I know I have to find my way to you, even though I know you are always with me. Just give me a thumbs up now and then, Okay? Love, Sherry.

It’s just what I was thinking about today.

Unmasking the Bigotry Among Us

Tags

bigotry, racism, Sunday Editorial

The unfortunate truth is that bigotry has been with us from the start. No question that it was not a new concept, developed in this country exclusively. No, bigotry and prejudice against the “other” has been with us from time immemorial it seems. Some sense of “other” was undoubtedly the cause of the first sinful act committed by human against human.

However, a good deal of this type of bigotry was not permanent. It related more to time and place and circumstance. Slavery was traditionally, not a product of a particular genetic condition, but more likely the product of who won the war. Losers became slaves to their captors, but ransom and amelioration were always options.

Bigotry in this country has followed some of the same perameters. Some of it is driven by economics, manifest destiny issues and war. But in some cases, there has been and remained a pervasive undercurrent of deeply imbedded hatred of some groups, that nothing ever seems to change. It is masked for a time occasionally, but it only awaits again the right circumstances to return in open ugliness.

At the beginning of our colonial period, new European settlers found a mixed reaction from Native Americans. Some were friendly and helpful to the sadly inept newcomers. Others were war like, sensing no doubt that life was never going to be the same should these trespassers gain a foothold on the land. But they did gain the upper hand, and from nearly the start, referred to Native Peoples as heathens, savages and worse.

Little by little, American Indian populations were either exterminated or gave way, gave way until the Pacific was literally at their backs. Manifest Destiny, the right of the powerful to acquire what they needed for economic prosperity, painted all the tribes as vermin and in most cases authorized their extermination or willingly saw that happen with barely a lifted finger of compassion. Oh, there were those who objected, but they were few and their voices were drowned out.

It is so much easier to steal from people when you have defined them as unworthy of being called fully human. Of course this was expanded when we began importing human beings to work the fields of the south and serve the meals and clean the houses of the rich and not so rich. Native Americans and African Americans were subjected to the double wammy of being sub-human in portrayal and either being essential to an economy or in the way of its expansion.

As the years went by, similar things happened to  immigrants in this country. Irish, Italians, Jews, all faced violent and ugly discrimination while they were worked to death, paid little and housed in the poorest most wretched sections of our major cities. They too were decried as being heathens to one degree or another. The filthy epithet of “Catholic” was often slung. America was after all, a Christian nation, just not a Catholic one. Catholics were accused of popery and baby killing in sadistic ritual. “Other” was alive and well in the 18th and 19th century in America.

It has not been just ethnicity that has fueled the fires of hatred in this country. The poor have also suffered. The rich and middle class have always looked down upon the poor as somehow people who have not the same human desires as themselves. They are dirty bums, lazy scoundrels, welfare mothers, and trailer trash. Read The Grapes of Wrath to find out what average Californians thought of the the poor from the Midwest, displaced by economic ruin.

Immigrants have been sneaking into the US for years. They picked your crops and worked the fields. Nobody much paid any attention. Nobody cared much that landowners housed them in tiny trailers, paid them virtually nothing, gave them not a modicum of health care. Not until Caesar Chavez did things change at all.

Nobody seemed to care at all when Japanese were interred in America during WWII. Nobody cared that thousands were taken from their homes, some of which they had had for several generations. American citizens herded into camps and held against their will. We used the excuse of war of course. But was this accurate?

One need only look back to the building of the transcontinental rail system in this country to know otherwise. Asians were “Chinks” simple fodder to be used by the robber barons. It’s so much easier as I said, to conclude that those you are treating sub-humanly are actually sub human in reality. It leaves a better taste in one’s mouth and allows a better nights sleep.

Additionally, you can look at the history of WWII and discover that Asians or rather the “Japs” were portrayed in quite a different way than were the Nazis. Japanese fighters were caricatured as people with  excessively large and slanted eyes and big buck teeth. Germans were not caricatured by and large. They were human even though lead by a madman.

After the Civil Rights movements of the 60’s things did improve for black folk. Over time, race regressed  in the human psyche to a degree. But of course, it never really left. It remained underground. It was not politically correct any more to make sly racist jokes. People learned. It became illegal and punishable to attack someone by race alone. It was called a hate crime. All but the most hardened of heartless racists learned to be careful how they spoke, regardless of their internal beliefs.

But there is a psychological component to this issue, one that is not addressed. A number of things have happened in the recent decade to promote a return to bigotry in all it’s broad ugly manifestations. And the victims are varied. We have in effect a perfect storm.

Terrorism, and economic misery have combined to give us the perfect excuse for resurrecting “other” in our language. Who are the recipients of this? Muslims, and thus all Arabs, immigrants and thus all of Latino heritage, and of course, anything is always a good excuse to resurrect our suspicions of blacks. Throw gays in for good measure, and we are back in business.

Terrorism allows us to hate with openness all those who are Arab. A-rabs as some call them. No matter that Iranians are Persians. They are all sand monkeys right? No matter than they have lived here un-noticed for generations and are citizens. Rag heads must go. Statistics that show conclusively that radical Islam is a tiny whisper of a minority in the Arab world are simply to be ignored. It’s more fun to hate you know.

The same is true for Latinos. No matter that some are from Guatemala, some from Mexico, Cuba, Nicaragua, Brazil, Peru. They are all the same. Right? Dangerous? No, not terrorist dangerous, though that is the reason given for the racism expressed. It’s really economic, it’s that economic psychological reason. I’m doing badly and I don’t want to be thought of as at the bottom of the ladder, so I’m putting you there you lousy Mexican. And you’re stealing my job, even though I wouldn’t pick crops if my life depended upon it. Forget of course that in the case of Mexicans much of Southwest USA was MEXICO at one time, before we stole it. Forget that, for God’s sake, don’t mention that.

You see we have arrived at the Perfect Storm. Plenty of allowable bigotry to go around. So we can have a sizable percentage of people in the good old US of A who claim they think Senator Obama is a Muslim. Of course they don’t really believe that stupidity. Not unless after they first heard it they have retired to a cave and haven’t seen the TV or read a newspaper. No, they don’t believe it for a minute, but they sure find it useful to mouth. Since it’s pretty much okay to hate Muslims, why not mask a little old fashioned black racism behind a legitimate fear the dude might be a secret terrorist sympathizer?

And while we are at it, what better time to make a huge issue out of homosexuality again? It’s been a while hasn’t it? It’s time to put on the screw thumbs once again. They are attacking marriage–by getting married! Yes, I can feel them breathing down my neck. Let’s call it sinful! Let’s say we love them but hate their sinfulness, because by God, that is acceptable.  Never mind that hating the sin takes the form of publicly humiliating every gay person who comes along by tapping them on the shoulder and asking, “You are aware that your behavior is an abomination in the sight of God, aren’t you?” Yes, that is Christian charity. 

Oh boy, have we ever resurrected bigotry! We’ve made it central in campaigns again! We can all breathe easier. We are not the bottom of the heap because we can’t cut it in America. We don’t work our fool heads off and achieve status as factory workers and Walmart  greeters and have to stomach that some black dude is running for President. We can hate again. It’s not my fault, It’s them. It’s them.

 All the while the rich white folks on the hill laugh, count their money, and shake their heads in disbelief. “It’s so easy to turn them against each other isn’t it? They never bother to look up at us at all. No sirree. Are we going to Palm Beach next weekend dear? Remember we’re meeting the Franklins in Zurich in August for the wedding. Make sure our pilot has the jet ready.”

Is any of this sinking in yet?