Rest in euphemism

After enjoying a hearty and delicious dinner over at my girlfriend's house last evening, I settled in for a good old-fashioned Sunday newspaper reading.

As I was scanning the obituaries, I noticed that euphemisms had all but taken over. When once someone simply died, or - to use probably the most common euphemism - "passed away", now, with input from the families, a new batch of colorful expressions have been employed to gloss over the fact that people simply die.

One lady, full of years at 78, had "passed away peacefully at home." That should have a definite calming effect for those who knew her. Much better than when someone suffers until finally dying in a local hospital, putting an end to their pain - something no one (I hope ... but who really knows if this present trend continues) would be cold enough to put in a funeral notice.

There was a notice for a lady nine years younger than I am, who "fought a long battle with cancer and was called home." Very sad indeed. The image of a dead loved one resting at home in eternal bliss seems very comforting. I just think that being "called home" is an odd way of painting that particular picture. I understand the religious sentiment and theology behind it, having been reared on that type of thing - but is some place you have never been really "home"?

Much better was the obituary for a lady who lived almost one hundred years and then "peacefully departed this life on earth." That sounds more like she is ready to start a new phase of the adventure.

Another man "passed away suddenly." That should smack all readers with the reminder that, as the Bible says, life is "a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away" (James 4:14). It sounds stark and shocking, but no more so than the typical southern religious funeral where, for some reason, it is considered good form to use the example of deceased to warn others about eternal Hell.

But I saved the best example for last. These are the details of a man who was quite busy being an entrepreneur, a police officer who escorted both Al Capone and FDR through Chattanooga (I assume not at the same time), a designer of homes, and a public servant who was the local election commissioner. I'm not making this up, but his obituary says: "There was no great illness, he just wore out." No doubt. And he "slipped into heaven on Thursday morning." What? A man like that shouldn't have "slipped" in. Sounds as if he dug under the fence or climbed through an unattended porthole. He should have triumphantly marched through the front gate to much pomp and circumstance.

I suspect I will "cease to exist."

Why would God create man?

Hopeful agnostic that I am, I ponder long and hard the idea of a creator God.

If God exists, that fact should add gravity to the question: What is the meaning of life?

Long ago the Psalmist cried out:

I often think of the heavens your hands have made,
and of the moon and stars you put in place.
Then I ask, "Why do you care about us humans?
Why are you concerned for us weaklings?" (Psalm 8:3,4 in Contemporary English Version Bible).

Good question.

When I was a young child in elementary school one of my teachers introduced me to James Weldon Johnson's The Creation. Johnson gave this answer that touched my young mind:

And God stepped out on space,
And He looked around and said,
"I'm lonely -
I'll make me a world."

And later in the same poem:

Then God walked around,
And God looked around
On all that he had made.
He looked at His sun,
And He looked at His moon,
And he looked at His little stars;
He looked on His world
With all its living things,
And God said, "I'm lonely still."

Then God sat down
On the side of a hill where He could think;
By a deep, wide river He sat down;
Till He thought, "I'll make me a man!"

What a beautiful piece. What an impression it made on me! It seemed I had found an answer: God made us for companionship.

As I got older and searched the Scriptures for myself, I was disappointed to find no such thought in the Genesis accounts of the creation. I realized there was some philosophical stuff in the Old Testament prophets, so I searched there as well. I was crestfallen that the words put into God's mouth - "I'm lonely still" - are not in the Bible.

Moreover, I found that according to the theologians angels were created before man, and man was made "a little lower than the angels" (Hebrews 2:7). That being so, why would God stoop to create us? Did he not get it "right" the first time? Certainly loneliness shouldn't have been a problem with a heavenly host surrounding him. And certainly the alleged Lucifer rebellion should have provided excitement.

But dogmatic theology is a totally different animal from pop theology, and most believers cling to pop theology. Therefore, despite the highly anthropomorphic picture of God this paints (the Old Testament is actually full of these anthropomorphic ideas, such as God's anger and jealousy), most believers feel that somehow or other God needs us humans.

I've mentioned my skepticism about an afterlife. To me it doesn't seem so farfetched an idea that God exists, that He created us, and that He might not deem us such good company as to choose to keep us around for eternity.

Most believers don't seem to buy into that one either, supposedly because they feel God needs us.

Wouldn't it seem to be the case that a perfect God - Anselm's being "than which nothing greater can be conceived" - would be above such human emotions as loneliness, jealousy and anger?

I had an old school chum, a preacher's son, who would tell me that these are things we just aren't supposed to think about. I'll be damned if I don't think about them! I just avoid feeling the need to give final answers. I prefer to ask the questions ... and to ponder.

The bus tour of life

Best selling Christian author Phillip Yancey's latest column, On The Grand Canyon Bus, uses a very interesting analogy to make a point:

A friend of mine uses the analogy of a busload of tourists en route to the Grand Canyon. On the long journey across the wheat fields of Kansas and through the glorious mountains of Colorado, the travelers inexplicably keep the shades down. Intent on the ultimate destination, they never even bother to look outside.

As a result, they spend their time arguing over such matters as who has the best seat and who's taking too much time in the bathroom.

The church can resemble such a bus, says my friend. We should remember that the Bible has far more to say about how to live during the journey than about the ultimate destination.

As my friends here know, I am not a Christian (except maybe in a cultural sense or in that I am an admirer of Jesus). But most of my family are Christians and the majority of my friends are (they all pray for me a lot). There is much I am impressed with in their efforts to live a moral life (their hypocrisies I can do without, and I point these out often). My personal feeling is that Christianity is harmful or helpful to the extent that one is a fanatic or an enlightened believer.

Anyway, I like Yancey's friend's little parable. Having been a long time supervisor and manager of people, I can certify to you that more time ends up being spent on mediating interpersonal employee disputes than on training or actually getting the work done. I believe that is true about churches as well, or really any endeavor where people join together for a mutual purpose.

Too many people do live their lives for the most part with the shades down. Belief in an afterlife is so strong and so widespread that this life gets short shrift. I am personally very skeptical about the probability of an afterlife, but I'm open-minded. In the meantime I have the life I am living, filled with all its beauty and challenges, and even its pain, which at least at this point is more desirable to me than non-existence.

Yancey makes a point that I have made to my Christian friends many times (much to their discomfort) that the Bible actually has little to say about what is commonly thought of as Heaven. First, there is very little about an afterlife in the Old Testament (and what little there is comes from a much later period of religious development) - that fact alone should point out that religion has more to do with how we live THIS life than it does post-life concerns. Second, there really is no doctrine of Heaven, as such, even in the New Testament, but rather a vision of a restored paradise and kingdom of God here on a refurbished earth.

Ingersoll had a little motto, "one life at a time." I like that. We should raise the shades and open the blinds here during this life - the one we know for a fact that we have - and enjoy as best we can this journey. And to my Christian friends: Get your heads out of the clouds and think a little bit more about your conduct here. Any afterlife will take care of itself. (See also Robert Hasting's The Station.)

How rational are you?

I recently mentioned that I find strange beliefs interesting. The other day I had a conversation with a person who had quite a number of these beliefs. For example, this person said that if she were walking beside me and we came to a pole or tree or some such object that would divide us, she would have to stop and go around on my side of the object in order to keep from splitting it. "Why?," I asked. "What would happen?" "I don't know," she replied. "I wouldn't want to find out." Quaint.

Again, I can't recommend too highly Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things." Another good one is "Dumbth: The Lost Art of Thinking" by Steve Allen. Thinking is a science and there are helpful rules that should be followed to get good results. But alas, as Will Durant said, "The trouble with most people is that they think with their hopes or fears or wishes rather than with their minds."

I did find this little quiz that allows you to test your rationality. It's not really that deep, but it's a little fun. According to my results, 39% answered the way I did, meaning I am "outside the average." Hope that's good. Probably it just highlights my skepticism. That seems to be, according to feedback from my acquaintances and family, my most annoying trait. I think of it as realism. They seem to think of it as my being a killjoy.

Oz never did give nothin' to the Tin Man

Before the days of home video and DVD technology, events such as the annual showing of The Wizard of Oz on television were stop-whatever-you're-doing-and-watch-it big events. You waited impatiently for weeks while it was being advertised, and then savored every minute of it when the big day finally arrived. Year after year that was the ritual. I confess to regularly having had a twinge of fear each showing that maybe that year would be the last year they would show it on free TV.

My favorite character was always the tin man. He was tenderhearted, just as I always was; however, he supposedly didn't have a heart. But there was one thing I always found odd, even as a young child. This came at the part of the movie when he finally got his chance before the humbugging "wizard" and asked for a heart. Something the Wizard said made little sense to me as a child, and still puzzles me today.

The Wizard to the Tin Man:

A heart is not judged by how much you love; but by how much you are loved by others.

Does anyone else find that an odd saying?

Inasmuch as a cunning shyster could charm his way into the hearts of many, the true measure of one's depth of emotion, it seems to me, should be demonstrated by how much one loves.

Do any of my readers care to share their take on this?

This gets God off the hook?

I've always felt that problem of evil is biggest foe that the most common conception of theism faces.

Epicurus put the matter succinctly:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?


Canadian preacher Reverend Roger Gelwicks offers some thoughts in his sermon Who Can We Blame? Really there is nothing here that hasn't already been said many times. I suppose it is the only answer available for this type of Bible believer.

Take this example:

Don’t blame God, either, for cancer, diabetes, AIDS, malformed babies, or any other disease or ailment that causes pain and suffering. They weren’t a part of God’s created order. They came along with humankind’s fall. God hates those things as much as we do. God works along with us to defeat them. And often we see God’s power as we see scientists make break-through discoveries and cures.

That approach always irked me. Why not blame God? If God is omniscient, he surely knew before creation that humankind would fall. So these things Gelwicks mentions (along with others he doesn't) are, in effect, truly a part of God's created order. The matter can't be sidestepped in this way.

How is God's power demonstrated in the "break-through discoveries and cures"? Mankind has made great technological advances down through the centuries and will continue to do so. What has that to do with God? To realize how recently things like penicillin or the germ theory of disease was discovered is enough to make any thinking person angry at a God who supposedly sat on this knowledge for millennia. But God cares about us!

I say that the collective efforts of humankind is a sufficient reason for the above mentioned breath-throughs, and having that sufficient and logical answer renders useless the need for an underlying reason.

This "answer" always bugged me too:

Some would blame God when he doesn’t prevent some young punk from raping and brutalizing a young girl on the way to her car in the University parking lot. Could God have stopped that man from doing what he did to the young girl? Yes, I believe he could have. Then why didn’t he? Because he gave us the kind of world we want to live in. It is a world where people can touch us to make us feel good or touch us to cause us great pain. He made us free spirits in a world of free spirits. God is not to blame when people choose to abuse that freedom. So in so many instances, even though God allows much to happen to fulfill his permissive will, we still should look elsewhere if we want to blame someone.

It seems to me - if that is so - that the price of freedom is too high. But as I said the other day in my post on angelolgy, the problem with guardian angels is that they sleep on the job too much. These Christians cannot have it both ways. They cannot insist on an intervening God, a God that cares about his creatures and hears and answers their prayers and, at the same time, hold he is passive and allows "nature to take its course."

Lest I be misunderstood, let me hasten to add that I don't think the problem of evil disproves God's existence. But I do say this: 1) it radically challenges popular notions about God; 2) it shows the inadequacy of pat answers regarding why there is so much evil in God's creation.

Rev. Gelwicks concludes with this thought:

It’s time to stop playing the blame game. It’s time to start trusting God.

Tough questions are not so easily put aside. But I agree we should stop playing the blame game. Instead we should accept the universe as it is, make the best of it, and stop looking for special treatment.

A visit from Vice President Cheney

Vice President Dick Cheney was in my neck of the woods yesterday, speaking at the Chickamauga Battlefield.

What this meant to me personally was mostly frustration because of the crowds and heavy traffic. There was so much security and so many cars on the road that you had to creep along to your destination. My lady and I had planned a meal across town at our favorite Mexican restaurant, but, getting caught up in the mayhem, we aborted that and ducked into a buffet we often frequent. But you know how it is when you have your heart set on one thing and have to settle for another.

Was I the least bit tempted to go see our vice president? Nay. I can honestly say my respect for the person (not his office) is practically nil. In fact, I care for him less than for our president. There are many reasons for these feelings, reasons I discussed frequently when I blogged about politics.

I enjoy going to our Battlefield now and then. I enjoy its history. But war is a thing I only have contempt for. And the warring policies of the Bush/Cheney administration is at the top of my list of complaints about them. Hey, this is a great place for me to insert a quote that I really like concerning war. It was from that great liberal Baptist preacher and theologian Harry Emerson Fosdick:

I renounce war for its consequences, for the lies it lives on and propagates, for the undying hatred it arouses, for the dictatorships it puts in place of democracy, for the starvation that stalks after it. I renounce war, and never again, directly or indirectly, will I sanction or support another.

The Chickamauga Battlefield is supposedly haunted. Everyone around here knows that. This is why I find this bit from the report of Cheney's visit interesting and quite humorous:

Things were a bit unsettling about 30 minutes before the Vice President arrived. A gust of wind caused a giant American Flag banner to come crushing down, sending secret service into a scramble.

How beautifully symbolic the American flag would fall to hail Cheney's arrival! It also reminded me of William Howard Taft's remark concerning the foul weather which greeted his inauguration: "Even the elements protest." I don't know about the elements, but certainly I silently protested.

Oh yeah ... the Golden Rule

Take a look at these poll results:

A new poll finds that nearly six in 10 white Southern evangelicals believe torture is justified, but their views can shift when they consider the Christian principle of the golden rule.

The poll released Thursday, commissioned by Faith in Public Life and Mercer University, found that 57% of respondents said torture can be often or sometimes justified to gain important information from suspected terrorists. Thirty-eight percent said it was never or rarely justified.

But when asked if they agree that "the U.S. government should not use methods against our enemies that we would not want used on American soldiers," the percentage who said torture was rarely or never justified rose to 52%.

Gee, guess they never thought about it that way!

The Golden Rule transcends religion and is a universal rule of human conduct. It is simple empathy towards our fellow humans.

A religion - any religion - that has its roots grounded in fear is of no practical use whatsoever and eventually leads to inhumanity.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

Why apologize to Charles Darwin?

A well intentioned but pointless gesture:

Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practice the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends. But the struggle for your reputation is not over yet, and the problem is not just your religious opponents but those who falsely claim you in support of their own interests. Good religion needs to work constructively with good science – and I dare to suggest that the opposite may be true as well.

Darwin has been dead now over one hundred and twenty-five years. That technicality aside, The Reverend Dr. Malcolm Brown does present a very readable argument for why Good religion needs good science. The real apology, however, should go to those poor souls who were (and still are even in our day) encouraged to misunderstand (an understatement, to be sure) Darwin and his explanations of how evolution works.

Thinking people in Darwin's day were able to grasp the importance of natural selection and that it did not pose a threat to religious belief. One contemporary of Darwin's, the theologian Charles Kingsley, actually considered it "just as noble a conception of Deity." The uncouth and unlearned opposed science and created the supposed "war" between religion and science. They still do and keep the "war" going.

There is no need to make amends with a long dead man, but his still living enemies could use some compassion and enlightenment. Their fears about what they call "Darwinism" should be allayed and their "misunderstandings" about evolutionary theory should be cleared up.

And who better can do that than informed believers?

Cleaning out the old library

My life echoes Jefferson's quote "I cannot live without books." Ever since my mom scraped together the funds to enroll me in the Weekly Reader Book Club when I was eight years old, I have been an avid reader and hoarder of books. Problem is, I have more books than I have room to store them. My solution: periodically I go through and weed out books I longer care to keep (but a great many of my books are "must keeps") and give them to friends who may enjoy them or benefit from them.

I have two very conservative Christian friends who eventually get most of my old books on a subject I have always kept abreast of, Bible Prophecy. This interest is the result of being raised in a church that taught the "end of the world" was imminent and that the Bible is "as up to date as tomorrow's newspaper."

Today I am delivering my latest batch of culled tomes, and in the book bag I see the following:

There is a volume on some alleged Bible Code that discovers the tragic terrorist attacks of 9/11 in the Bible's pages. I've never understood why people think of "Bible Codes" as significant. What value could prophecy after the fact possibly be? The things that are "discovered" in such codes are always strained at best, anyway. I suppose the main value of such a concept is that for many it serves as a type of "proof" of God's agency in writing the Bible. To my thinking, it is more of a testament to man's cleverness.

There is a book about the dissolution of the Soviet Union last century. Anyone who read prophecy books in the 70s and 80s has to remember what a huge role was (allegedly) assigned by the Bible to the great bear Russia, who was supposed to lead the forces that would attack Israel and usher in Armageddon. This book concerns how prophecy should be viewed in light of the collapse of this major end-times player. I fear it is somewhat dated, having been replaced by a plague of books detailing how Islam is now the major player in these last days. But with rumblings about Russia in the news again, I suspect the latest batch of apocalyptical books will soon be discarded in favor retro Russia/Armageddon scenarios. You know what they say: Everything old is new again.

I see a thick paperback sounding the Final Warning about a coming economic collapse and one world government. It proclaims that: "The world's economy is already beginning to feel the first tremors of the coming economic collapse that will set the stage for the rise of the Antichrist." I note that the copyright dates are 1979,1980, and 1982!

Then there are a couple of other books that present a very different and non-sensational interpretation of the end-times from what is commonly laid out.

My purpose in giving these discards to my friends is not a coy attempt to tear down their faith. I'm always urging them to keep an open mind and look at alternative viewpoints. Now, admittedly, it would be just fine with me if a thirst for freedom of thought could be created by this process. Really, I just like to get people to think. But when you think about it, who really is the destroyer of the Bible's credibility: the sensationalizers or those of us who study it as literature and a history of religious development?

Why I am an agnostic

My post yesterday on angels was a light-hearted look at a popular subject. Lots of people take angels seriously and many believe in them quite literally. Okay, for my part I view them as mythical beings. However, far be it from to say "it just can't be." I'm a skeptic, but an agnostic - meaning, I don't claim to have knowledge about the subject (and a good many other subjects). I prefer to remain at least somewhat open-minded, even on matters which I tend to be skeptical about.

Here are two reasons why. I don't want egg on my face, nor do I want to mislead anyone. Things that once seemed quite improbable and sometimes bordering on the impossible are sometimes later found to be true.

An example that sticks out in mind concerns our third president, Thomas Jefferson, a man I greatly admire for his devotion to reason. Back in 1807 Benjamin Silliman, founder of the American Journal of Science and Arts and a chemistry professor at Yale, investigated a rock that had apparently fallen from the sky. Thomas Jefferson, a bit of a science enthusiast himself, allegedly said: "I would more easily believe that a Yankee professor would lie than that stones would fall from heaven." Ouch!

This was a case of what we now know to be meteorites.

History is filled with examples of authorities speaking with finality, only to be proved wrong later.

Well, I feel I am on more firm ground here than Jefferson, but most probably would disagree. I don't see what harm is done by believing in angels. At the same time, I don't see the advantage either. Most of all, I just don't find evidence to assess.

Most people would probably accept Dunninger's old quip: "To those who believe, no proof is necessary; to those who doubt, no proof is sufficient."

I lean more towards Congressman Duncan's sentiment: "I'm from Missouri ... you'll have to show me."

A very good book I recommend to open-minded folk is Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer. But be careful: we humans have a tendency to think only other people's beliefs are weird. I am fascinated by people who hold strange (to me) beliefs, and I love to hear their reasons for holding these beliefs.

Angelology today

This story caught my eye, Angels among us.

Who would have dreamed that "40 percent of those who don't claim a particular faith believe angels are active in the world today," according to a study by the Pew Forum?

The story consults several authorities on angels and some "facts" I gleaned are:

"We know they're guardians; we know they heal; we know they show the way" ... Angels are extremely intelligent. They are powerful protectors; Catholics believe everyone has a guardian angel. Angels also act as comforters ... Some Muslims believe angels will beat a person shortly after entering the grave to purify the person of sin to move him on to the next level. Two angels are in charge of recording every deed committed by humans ... Angels are intermediaries between God and humans ... They are a part of an unseen spiritual world that is active today, whether we realize it or not ... "They're very real. They're very powerful."

Having been raised in a fundamentalist Christian home, I have a background in angelology. But by the time I was 10 years old I had begun to resent the thought of angels intruding on intimate moments such as my leisurely toilet, for example.

The idea of a guardian angel struck me as dumb even when I was a child. It was obvious to me that the problem with guardian angels is that they too often sleep on the job. It is perhaps a pleasant thought, but I never saw them as any more effective than a rabbit's foot or lucky penny. An easily preventable misstep here or there can save a life or spare one from a lifetime of suffering, yet guardian angels apparently sleep on the job time after time.

Recording angels are a relic of the past. Have theologians never heard of surveillance cameras and instant replay? Of course they have. Modern technology has replaced the quills and papyri of the past. Besides, much of angelology began to be revised as the Greek concept of a perfect omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God began to take hold. That concept alone renders recording angels obsolete.

I have never cared much for the idea of intermediaries between humans and God. Middle men always create confusion and add to the cost. I prefer to deal direct, and that is why when I got old enough to take control of my life I quit going to church and set out to grope the elephant for myself. Now, don't misunderstand. I've gone to church many times and for many reasons since I reached adulthood. However, I didn't go searching for anything, but rather as a kindness to certain people.

Near the end of the story there was this thought that I rather liked:

Angels may be recognized in a myriad of ways: through the kindness of a stranger, the caring of a doctor, or the love of a grandparent, for example. In her experience, Milano [Kathy Milano, an Angel Therapy Practitioner] said, people who connect with angels also connect with hope, love, comfort and joy -- all qualities of the divine.

Beautifully put. And since that is so, I don't believe the symbolism of angels is improved by an over-literalization of ancient literature.

Human understanding

I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them. - Baruch Spinoza


I have to say that my inner sense of justice at times forces upon me the desire, urge, and yes, the need, not only to ridicule, but bewail and scorn certain human actions.

Still, when often I find myself climbing into the saddle of my moral high horse about this or that instance of human frailty, there is a still, small voice inside my head reminding me of my own failings. So say that here is a person caught in the act of being human, and let's say that person's failing is different from some of my many failings ... I want to point an accusing finger at my fellow human while three more fingers point back towards me?

How distinctly human!

My belief is that there is a biological component to human behavior. I read something Ingersoll said that was along the lines of: you can scare a man enough that he won't do wrong, but you can't scare him enough that he won't want to do wrong. All of us to a lesser or greater extent battle something of a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde syndrome. What Twain referred to as "the damned human race" certainly is - at the same time - a sad, curious, and wondrous lot that has the capacity to both rise to dizzying heights and sink to hellish depths.

Passing judgement on others is a bit of double-edged sword. Perhaps if each of us made the effort to understand ourselves better first, we could better understand the actions of others.

Teasing headlines

I realize that the purpose of a headline is to tease one into reading the accompanying story, but things aren't always what they appear to be at first blush. I was scanning the headlines and...

Well, things got off to a strange start when I spied this headline: 'Butt bandit' leaves greasy imprint on Neb. town. Alright, a kissing bandit steals kisses. So a "butt bandit" steals what? Well, this story turned out to be about some guy who "has been skipping from one business to another in the dark of the night, plastering his naked behind, and groin, on windows." A more accurate headline for this story was given here: Lewd vandal leaves greasy imprint on Neb. town. I think there is a distinct difference between a bandit and a vandal.

Not skipping a beat I saw this headline: Esquire's 75th Anniversary Gala, Or, Bill Clinton Does Evita. Okay, so who is it former President Clinton is "doing" now? Hey, without a doubt Clinton was a very good president ... it's just that other incident and its prominent place in my memory that caused me to read something into this that wasn't there.

In this frame of mind I glanced down at another headline which read, Oil brokers sex scandal may affect drilling debate. I saw that as a double entendre. However, the first line of the story cleared up the misunderstanding: "A scandal involving sex, drugs and — uh, offshore oil drilling" See what a difference the adjectives "offshore oil" make?

But what can I say when I look just a bit further and see the headline: Strange Market Makes for Strange Bedfellows? Strange bedfellows? Sounded exciting. Actually, according to James Rogers' helpful The Dictionary Of Cliches, the phrase "strange bedfellows" can be traced back to Shakespeare and his The Tempest, and it was hardly a ribald thing at all:

Alas, the storm is come again! best way is to creep under his gaberdine; there is no other shelter hereabout: misery acquaints a man with strange bed-fellows.

My bad. Guess my mind was firmly in the gutter at this point.

And then I saw this one: What Language Is Hooker Speaking? What the heck?! But this turned to be about Hooker Furniture and its fiscal second quarter report.

Maybe I just have a dirty mind. Or maybe I'm burned out from the work week and ready for a little weekend fun! Either way, I quit scanning the headlines after that last one. I need to get my mind in its proper frame for this last work day. God, how I love Fridays!

Fight pessimism with proper perspective

One of my all-time favorite books is Dale Carnegie's How To Stop Worrying And Start Living - the original edition, not the updated one. My copy came from a used bookstore.

Towards the back of the book Carnegie has True Stories from people who tell "How I Conquered Worry." I want to relate one of these stories that I took to heart and find very useful.

When apocalyptic preachers are ranting endlessly about these perilous times, when political candidates and their supporters are talking about how high the stakes are, when the network news is just too harsh to watch in its entirety, or maybe when I'm just down and feeling life has become a chore, I follow the advice of Roger W. Babson as found in Carnegie's book, page 242.

Roger Ward Babson was the founder of Babson College in Massachusetts, an economist, entrepreneur, and author of the book Fundamentals of Prosperity: What They Are and Whence They Come. He related his method for overcoming worry by detailing how, whenever he was depressed, he would go to the library, close his eyes, walk to the history shelf and pick a book at random. He explained:

With my eyes still shut, I reach for a book, not knowing whether I am picking up Prescott's Conquest of Mexico or Suetonius' Lives of the Twelve Caesars. With my eyes still closed, I open the book at random. I then open my eyes and read for an hour; and the more I read, the more sharply I realize that the world has always been in the throes of agony, that civilization has always been tottering on the brink. The pages of history fairly shriek with tragic tales of war, famine, poverty, pestilence, and man's inhumanity to man. After reading history for an hour, I realize that bad as conditions are now, they are infinitely better than they used to be. This enables me to see and face my present troubles in their proper perspective as well to realize that the world as a whole is constantly growing better.

How true.

I modified his method somewhat as I keep a copy of The Pessimist's Guide To History handy and open it at random and read several pages straight. Same effect, and no trip to the library. I'm serious and really do this. Just knowing that somehow this old world keeps turning through all manner of disaster and trouble gives one reason to hope for another, better tomorrow.

Why not give it a try next time you are down?

Wish I could write poetry

I've always been in awe of poets, those versifiers who are able to paint poignant pictures or tap into deep emotions with their unique gift.

I was never very good at it myself. I can come up with the "roses are red, violets are blue" type of mushiness when necessary, and back in my drinking days I could hold my own in the dirty limericks contests (haven't found a practical use for this now that I'm sober), but here is an area where I clearly lack talent.

But I had a grammar school teacher - had her for both the fifth and sixth grades - who it seemed could write poetry at will. Old Mrs. Roth. She really wasn't that old, I was just really young. She was a nice lady and a great teacher.

One year it fell to Mrs. Roth to produce one of those hideous Thanksgiving plays I wrote about in my post concerning fall.

Her brainstorm was to have our class perform a Thanksgiving play - complete with Indians and Pilgrims - using only puppets we would make out of paper mache. For a couple of days our classroom was a wreck with wire, balloons, paper mache, and cloth for costumes strewn all about, but somehow it all came together under her direction. We had quite a few nifty looking puppets. But now the problem was: what to do with them for the play?

You guessed it (or maybe you didn't; I never would have) ... Mrs. Roth grabbed a tablet and an ink pen and said,"class, let's write a poem describing our experience making the puppets." The poem would form the basis for our play.

She started by asking us questions and jotting down (one of her favorite expressions) various ideas. Literally within minutes she had written:

Take some paper mache and some glue
and we'll show you how our puppets grew, and grew, and GREW!

I remember the beginning well, unfortunately time has erased the rest from my mind.

But my wonderful teacher led her class through the rigors of paper mache puppet making, composed a poem which she read as we worked our puppets in a reenactment of the First Thanksgiving (why is it always the first? I always wondered how the second Thanksgiving turned out.). It went off without a hitch, and our play was the envy of all the other classes that school year.

I remember one time when Mrs. Roth's poetic skills were not so appreciated by me (at the time). I had a friend - my best friend all during grammar school (he moved to Florida before we started junior high) - and we had a tendency to get into mischief. Our antics were generally appreciated by the other children, but not by our teacher.

One day she fell silent during one of our assignments (during which Jimmy and I provided some of our patented disruptions). There she sat at her desk, scribbling on her tablet, but saying not a word ... until she finished - after which she stood up, cleared her throat, and read off her latest creation, titled Doug and Jimmy: the class clowns.

Again, unfortunately, time has erased this one from my memory. I do remember one part in particular that went:

Whenever you get bored, just look to the back of the class, where Doug and Jimmy, the class clowns. will perform for you....

She sent copies of this poem home to our parents!

Well, maybe I never wrote a decent poem, but at least I was the inspiration for one.

And dear Mrs. Roth ... I've wondered so many times what happened to this lady from so long ago in my past. She was my favorite teacher and I was blessed with her for two straight years.

If only I could write poetry!

Biological voting?

As much as I believe in reason as the antidote for error and that right thinking should lead to right decision making, I've always felt there was something more to it. I have witnessed people boxed into a corner in discussions where they were unable to give rational reasons for embracing a particular idea or belief, only to see them cling steadfast to that idea or belief anyway. Emotions are stronger than reason alone for most people it seems.

Darryl Neill, a professor in the department of psychology at Emory University, explores this as it pertains to political convictions in his piece Politics: Nature or Nurture. He sums up something I have long suspected:

I do behavioral neuroscience. That means I see much of human behavior through the lenses of neuroscience and evolution. In the journals and magazines I read, interest is stirring in why people are liberal or conservative. The most intriguing speculation is that political leanings are biologically based and genetically transmitted. This doesn’t mean that genes for liberalism and conservatism exist — rather, that basic aspects of our character are biologically based, and these play out on higher levels of behavior such as political leanings. I’m particularly intrigued by the phenomenon of political conversions, where an individual shifts from liberal to conservative or vice-versa. Does this mean they ignored their underlying biology for years?

It makes sense to me that basic character is biologically based and that it is played out in political - and also religious, I believe - leanings, and explains satisfactorily why debates on those subjects usually produce more heat than light and rarely outright conversions.

I'm so burned out following the current presidential election process that while I'm still following what is going on, I'm persuaded that in the end the election will be decided by which candidate registers the most like-minded folk and gets out the most of their supporters to vote. I don't expect to see many minds changed outright.

Searching for God?

On my short drive to work every morning I pass a Baptist church that always has some witty little saying on its roadside sign. I noticed this morning the saying is, "Are you looking for God in all the wrong places?"

My first thought was this: Why is anyone "looking" for God in the first place ... has he been misplaced?

Charles Darwin once wrote:

The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest, but the most complete of all the distinctions between man and the lower animals. It is however impossible, as we have seen, to maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the other hand a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal; and apparently follows from a considerable advance in the reasoning powers of man, and from a still greater advance in his faculties of imagination, curiosity and wonder.

The concept of God means many things to many people, but the majority of humans have some sense of a higher power (or powers) or Divine Logos back of the cosmos. Somehow human reason and imagination rest uneasily on the proposition that it is accidental that there is our universe instead of nothingness.

Those who are not into church going are often derided by others for maintaining that they can be as close to God on the golf course or out on the lake as they can sitting in a church. But I tend to agree with them. I never get a better sense of the divine than when I am walking through the woods or hiking in a canyon. That the cosmos is just that - an orderly system - rather than a chaotic heap of matter is divinity enough for me.

So if we cannot find the divine in nature (of which all we creatures great and small are a part) can we ever find it in any building made by human hands?

I rather like something the Dali Lama said:

This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.

I don't say that is the last word on the subject, but it is as good a place to start as any I know.

Rethinking Sodom and Gomorrah

The hearing of sermons against the "sin" of homosexuality was a staple of my youth. These diatribes were based largely (but not entirely) on the tale of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This apparently is still a hot topic today among some religious folk. Alas, most of those who are quickest to use the Bible as a sword grasp their weapon very poorly.

As I got old enough to dare question the things I was hearing supposedly "straight from the Bible," I found what I perceived to be holes in the logic.

If you read this story as found in Genesis chapters 18 and 19, and study it on its own merits without the addition of preconceived notions, it doesn't seem to me to come across as usually presented.

First, homosexuality is never once said to be the "cry of Sodom and Gomorrah" and their "very grievous" sin (Gen. 18:20). That is pure preconception.

We can put this idea to rest easily enough using the Bible itself. If biblical literalism has such appeal to some Christians, I would point them to Ezekiel 16:49,50 where the matter is explained in unambiguous terms:

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

Back to Genesis, Abraham, sensing that God was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, asks, "Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked" (verse 23)? Those who fear and/or loathe gay people should probably paraphrase it, "Wilt thou also destroy the straight with the queers?"

Then starts the famous round of bargaining between Abraham and God. First, God offers to stay his hand if fifty righteous (or straight) souls can be found "within the city." Playing on God's sense of fair play, Abraham asks, what if "there shall lack five of the fifty righteous" (or straight)? And God agrees not to destroy the cities for the sake of the forty-five (verse 23). This give and take between the two continues until finally, with apologies from for trying the Lord's patience, Abraham gets it down to ten righteous (or straight) people. God agrees to stay his hand for ten lowly souls.

Now even as a youth the idea of these cities having a gay population that close to one hundred percent struck me as extremely unlikely. Come on now, admit it. That seems mind boggling. So shouldn't common sense alone lead us against accepting the anti-gay interpretation?

The supposed cincher for the anti-gay interpretation is when the two angels visits Lot down in Sodom in Chapter 19. Later that night an angry throng gathers round Lot's house:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

There are a couple of observations to be made here. First, the anti-gay interpretation is based on the mistaken preconception that "to know" always means to have sexual intercourse with. It doesn't. Second, I notice that both the "old and the young" were encircling Lot's house; this is significant because it indicates that there must have been some heterosexuality there, in order for there to be young people (unless gay parent adoption was a common practice then, which I doubt the anti-gay lobby would advance as an explanation).

Then there is this bit of the puzzle that never made sense to me. Lot offers up his two virgin daughters for the ruffians to "do ye to them as is good in your eyes" (19:24). Suppose Lot recognized what the anti-gay Bible interpreters tell us is the case, that these men were a band of depraved homosexuals bent on debauchery. What kind of offer was Lot making? Does that make any sense?

I suggest that if the case is to be made that God's anger burns against gay people, proof will have to be sought from some other example as it simply is not here in this tale.

One other Bible verse needs to be analyzed as well. That is Jude 1:7, which says:

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

The question I would ask is this: If that angry throng was made up of gay thugs bent on raping Lot's male visitors, how would "going after strange flesh" be appropriate as a description? It seems to me they would have been going after same flesh! However, there is a Jewish tradition that once the angels had sexual intercourse with humans - the sons of God and daughters of men of Genesis chapter six - and "strange flesh" would well describe that, exactly as it would the case of Lot's angels and the angry mob.

I say that when read with an open mind, the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah is not an anti-gay polemic.

After death, what?

Nope, not thinking about the after life.

My interest was piqued by this Scientific Am
erican article on green burial options.

The article says:

Modern western-world burial practices are arguably absurd, all things considered: We pack our dearly departed with synthetic preservatives and encase them in impenetrable coffins meant to defy the natural forces of decomposition that have been turning ashes to ashes and dust to dust for eons. And in the process we give over thousands of acres of land every year to new cemetery grounds from coast to coast.

According to National Geographic, American funerals are responsible each year for the felling of 30 million board feet of casket wood (some of which comes from tropical hardwoods), 90,000 tons of steel, 1.6 million tons of concrete for burial vaults, and 800,000 gallons of embalming fluid. Even cremation is an environmental horror story, with the incineration process emitting many a noxious substance, including dioxin, hydrochloric acid, sulfur dioxide, and climate-changing carbon dioxide.

Well, my choice, cremation, gets a bad rap, but I'm still wanting that for my leftovers. I want to quickly return to the elements. I'm thinking my loved ones might desire to keep my cremains together in one spot. Ultimately, however, I would like my ashes to be scattered in some scenic location (and there are lots of those around here, majestic mountains, lovely lakes, wonderful woodlands.) As the linked article points out, lots of resources are used in modern burial practices. This is controversial I know, but I think "absurd" is exactly the word that best describes the typical western burial custom.

Also, some, perhaps most, people find great comfort in the pageantry of the modern-day funeral. I don't. For the longest time I've adopted the cliche "life is for the living" as my own. Oh, I would expect (okay, really, deep down, I hope) those closest to me will be saddened by losing me. That is it to say, I hope I've added a quality to their lives that they find pleasant and that they will miss when I die. But beyond that, I want my family and friends to carry on and enjoy life, their remaining dear ones, sunrises, sunsets and the changing of the seasons, good food, enjoyable hobbies, whatever is their thing.

Therefore, I've requested that no funeral be held when I die. I try to make the way I live my life every day the proper summation of who I am. I can do that better than any preacher or officiant can.

I've no desire to be a display corpse for the curious, or even for loved ones to compare how good I look in death to how I looked when alive. And those damned morbid pictures! Look, I don't care much for being photographed now, when I've had a chance to dress myself and comb my own hair. I certainly don't want to be photographed in death, prepared by strange hands.

Then there is the sad music! I believe funeral services are hard on those left behind. They are emotionally draining "spectaculars" that I just feel serve no good purpose. I know many disagree, and I have no quarrel with those who do, but I choose not to be a part of this custom.

A simple memorial service, given a little time for the initial shock and grief to wear off, to note my passing would be acceptable to me. But no sermons or eulogies (as such), please. Up beat music and maybe a few friends and family members sharing their favorite Doug stories would suffice. No memorial service is fine with me too. I know people say they need a chance to say goodbye, but this feeling is misplaced. Saying goodbye to my remains or my memory is inferior to the sharing warm feelings of mutual appreciation, and there is no need for us to ever say goodbye to that. Let's keep that warmth alive now and we need never feel bad should death suddenly separate us.

Curiously, the majority of people I've spoken to about this subject seems rather inclined to leave all in the hands of their loved ones. For my part, I choose to take charge of this aspect of my existence as much as any other part of it.

Maybe the Devil didn't make them do it!

How many women's magazines have run "Why Do Men Cheat" articles down through the years? The overwhelming majority, I'm sure.

Now a scientific answer:

Men are more likely to be devoted and loyal husbands when they lack a particular variant of a gene that influences brain activity, researchers announced yesterday -- the first time that science has shown a direct link between a man's genes and his aptitude for monogamy.

The finding is striking because it not only links the gene variant -- which is present in two of every five men -- with the risk of marital discord and divorce, but also appears to predict whether women involved with these men are likely to say their partners are emotionally close and available, or distant and disagreeable. The presence of the gene variant, or allele, also seems predictive of whether men get married or live with women without getting married.

Full story here.

Okay, we all know with studies of this sort that down the road there will be other studies that call this into question.

Even if this interpretation holds up, at most it just would tell us that some men have a bit more to overcome than weak morals alone.

In the meantime, I suppose, cheating men have yet another excuse to whip out of their sack of alibis.

Rutgers University biological anthropologist Helen Fisher optimistically offers:

"Knowing there are biological weak links can help you overcome them."

A man who knows he has this allele, she added, might be able to use the knowledge to ignore tugs of restlessness he might feel in his marriage: "You can say, 'Oh, it is just my DNA, and I am going to ignore it.' "

Oooookay ... hope springs eternal I guess.

Specifics aside, and whether male or female, I believe we all have to battle the urge to give in to self-gratification over reason. It's the advantage we have over the "lower animals."

Reaching out to those who disagree

Edward Markham's little poem "Outwitted" is one that has always stuck with me:

He drew a circle that shut me out--
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in!

Seems all my adult life I have been drawing bigger circles to include people who would just as soon leave me outside theirs. I'm thinking of narrow-minded folks.

Most of these people I know seem to be afraid. They are afraid of people who are different from them and frightened by things they don't understand.

It has been my experience that if I show a genuine interest in people and their ideas and am willing to probe and ask non-threatening questions in order to draw them out, many times people will show a surprising openness. I realize it is far easier to quote wrong-headed cliches by rote than to honestly defend the indefensible. That is why gentle interrogation can be so effective. However, I know if I attack and deride those with whom I disagree, they will only dig in deeper.

Sometimes narrow-minded people are truly ignorant and misinformed. Here too, I think, the key is gentle persuasion. Most people get their feelings of self-worth and their emotions too deeply intermingled with their opinions. Attacking the opinion of that type of person is indistinguishable to them from attacking them personally.

When I wrote the other day that I am not out to convert anyone, I was speaking about specifics. But fostering greater tolerance ... now that I am definitely interested in.

My cup of ikigai runneth over

I love to read because it is one of the surest methods of increasing one's overall knowledge. I happened upon this Reuters news story explaining that a lack of joy and a sense of well being, ikigai in Japanese, may kill you, according to research from Japan:

The investigators looked at 43,391 men and women 40 to 79 years old living in the Ohsaki region who were followed for seven years, during which time 3,048 died. All were asked, "Do you have ikigai in your life?" Fifty-nine percent said yes, 36.4 percent said they weren't sure, and 4.6 percent said no.

Those who didn't have a sense of ikigai were less likely to be married or employed, and were also less educated, in worse health, more mentally stressed, and in more bodily pain. They were also more likely to have limited physical function.

But even after the researchers used statistical techniques to adjust for these factors, people with no sense of ikigai were still at increased risk of dying over the follow-up period compared to people who did have ikigai. The relationship also was independent of history of illness and alcohol use.

I can readily see how gloomy Guses and Gertrudes might be undesirable as mates because of their lack of ikigai. But according to my observation, some of the most long lived people seem to be cantankerous curmudgeons. Maybe they're just too ornery to die.

I admit to a bit of skepticism when I read stories like this one, but whether to win friends and influence people or to maybe prolong your life, increasing your ikigai seems worth the effort.

And learning a new word to toss around is priceless.

Free Thinker Blog Award

Once I was asked in personal correspondence with an ultraconservative political and religious blogger/columnist: "But Doug, don't you think the world would be a better place if everyone thought like you?" (This served as a kind of defense for his own rigidity of thought and narrow-mindedness.)

My answer then, now, and for all time is, "No, I think everyone must think for himself."

How intolerable life would be if we all thought alike and saw everything the same way!

Perhaps there is some truth in the old saw "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery," but certainly it can't be true with regard to the forming of one's opinions about life.

I'm a firm believer in having a personal creed, some guiding principles to assist one on life's journey. However, I also strongly feel that this is so highly important a matter that it isn't something that should be obtained by osmosis or through parental inheritance. To be an authentic person, you just have to use that gray matter between your own ears!

Proselytizing is not my thing either. Ol' Doug is not out to win converts. My opinions are always subject to revision, because I believe in continuous learning. The Groping Elephant is here mainly to stimulate thinking. If I say something you agree with or find helpful, I'm elated. If you disagree with something I write, that is fine and you won't hurt my feelings one bit. I prefer dialogue to monologue anyway.

My big sis Diane (of A Stellarlife blog) has seen fit to bestow on me and my blog the prestigious Free Thinker Blog Award (proudly displayed at the top right hand side of the page). The Groping Elephant is a gentle place where everyone is welcome. Conformity for conformity's sake is discouraged and incivility will not be tolerated. All of us have lessons to teach and lessons to learn.

Thanks, Diane, for this award.