Is Our "Muslim" President Moving Towards Atheism?

Well, here's something a little different. The other night on Sean Hannity's television show he blurted out this:

The Obama administration earlier today rolled out the red carpet for a coalition of atheist groups. Now, among the individuals in attendance was Michael Newdow. That's the California man who sued unsuccessfully to have the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. Now, religious groups, however, have not received this kind of treatment from the Obama White House. Now, last year, the President distanced himself from the National Day of Prayer, canceling the formal service traditionally held in honor of the day and refusing to attend a Catholic prayer breakfast. So what's going on? Has the administration demonstrated a pattern of hostility towards religion, or is this merely a coincidence?

I just don't know. You'd think at some point even the far-right would get a little embarrassed by such ridiculous overreaching. But probably not!

We know that pluralism is a troubling concept for conservatives. But the biggest bugaboo of all is the modern atheist, of which in their warped minds the Church of Liberalism is composed.

How, the reasonable person might ask, does the "red carpet" meeting with atheists demonstrate a pattern? As the Media Matters For America piece I linked to above clearly shows, our president has demonstrated a commitment to listening to various religious voices.

Far from showing hostility towards religion, but rather a true understanding of religious pluralism, President Obama said in a speech at the National Pray Breakfast:

There is no doubt that the very nature of faith means that some of our beliefs will never be the same. We read from different texts. We follow different edicts. We subscribe to different accounts of how we came to be here and where we’re going next – and some subscribe to no faith at all.

And so it is - except in the conservative mind.

I wonder how many of Hannity's listeners are aware that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Baptist minister and did not originally contain the phrase "under God"? So the atheist Newdow is doing no more than seeking a return to the Pledge's original form.

For all their blather about how religious our Founding Fathers were (and they were!), it is an inconvenient fact for conservatives that when the Constitution Of The United States was finalized, it left the matter of authority in the hands of the governed rather than in the hands of God and his messengers.

In that our Founders showed great wisdom.

Our president shows wisdom in trying to navigate a course that attempts to move forward to deal with the problems we face as a nation while still honoring our basic right to believe (or disbelieve) as we will.

Hannity is only propagating another baseless smear aimed at the woefully ignorant, who are the only ones who could buy into it.

The Fool

As you all know, I quite often discuss the subject of religion here, just as I do in my daily life. The reason being that we humans are almost universally religious creatures. That, and also because in my world I'm surrounded by religious nuts and religious hypocrites (those who say they believe a certain way yet live as if they really don't).

Despite the way I may come across, I'm not anti-God or anti-religion. I don't think believers in God are idiots. I believe the religious impulse is perfectly natural and that religious sentiment is more or less hardwired into our brains.

Bible believers often whack me over the head (mistaking my theistic skepticism for strong atheism) with Psalms 14:1, which says (in part): "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." From that I'm supposed to understand that my skepticism is just so much playing the fool.

The problem is, I don't think with my heart. Yes, emotionally speaking, I think it would be grand if there were an invisible best friend, a loving heavenly father who watches over me, protects me, supplies my every need through my earnest petitions. But I've encountered many intellectual difficulties squaring that view with life as it is.

My response is that it is the fool who thinks with his emotions rather than his intellect.

I wrote above that I don't think believers in God are idiots. I should expand on that to say, that I do believe there are some idiotic ideas about God. And fundamentalist monotheism is the prime example, at least in my opinion.

For me, however, I do believe in a higher power in the sense that there seems to be something of a logos about the universe, at least as we have so far been able to understand it. That is enough for me.

Others rely on the heart and go out of their way to use rhetorical skills and pseudo-logic to paint the biblical picture (or that of some other religious tradition) and impose it onto the cosmos. These people are far from idiots. But in my opinion it is they who are truly playing the fool. It is they who put their emotional need for a heavenly father above the stark reality of life.

There is another class of fools, composed of the millions of "followers" who have never done any serious first-hand thinking on the matter and choose instead to just plod along in the tradition they were reared in or introduced into at some point in their lives.

Perhaps I am a fool. But I have over my lifetime devotedly attempted to unravel this God mystery to the best of my ability with my puny intellect. And if others take it upon themselves to call me a fool, I feel I should at least answer back as to why I am the way I am.

You would think that honesty should hold top priority in the subject of religion.

Your Comments Are Very Important To Me...

although you might not think so based on recent problems I've had with my comments section that left you unable to post comments several times.

I've had some problems lately with my blog and especially with those pesky spammers. You see, I want to make it as easy possible for my readers to leave comments. But I had to do something about spammers. I didn't like taking the time to manually delete each incident because I don't have the time to waste and was getting more and more spam. Also, I didn't like it looking as if perhaps I was deleting comments to avoid tough questions or to avoid taking the heat for my views. That just isn't my style. I'm not saying I wouldn't delete a comment I thought was over the top in offensiveness, but so far that hasn't been a problem. And if I did this I would leave a note explaining why I did it.

Hopefully I have things straightened out now. Should there be further problems I suppose it's a bit much to ask you to hold your thought. But rest assured I will fix the problem ASAP. So if you can, hold that thought until the fix!

Rest assured that I read and appreciate every comment my readers leave here. Feedback is always helpful. If no one were reading and interacting with me, what would be the point of my doing this? So agree, disagree, or just add your two cents' worth, but please keep your comments coming.

Hey, Mike Huckabee: Go Take Up Your Cross!

Mike Huckabee has found it necessary to explain why having model Amber Ettinger, AKA the Obama Girl, on his show doesn't mean he's abandoning Jesus.

Seems he has been taken to task by some Christians who "forcefully stated that Jesus wouldn't have anything to do with the "Obama Girl."

Huckabee answered in this way:

I must have read a different version of the New Testament, because Jesus was all about focusing on the very people that the religious people rejected, whether ne'er-do-well tax collectors like Zaccheus, a woman at the well caught in the very act of adultery, Mary Magdalene (who had a salacious reputation) or even social outcasts like lepers. Jesus said that like a physician, he didn't come for the people who were feeling all good about themselves, but for the sick. He didn't come for the righteous, but for the sinners.

To my knowledge Jesus hasn't seen fit to issue a comment on the matter.

But I will.

Despite Huckabee's claim to be a "Jesus person," I fail to find any similarities. True enough, Jesus focused on religious rejects - but certainly not for the same purpose Huckabee does. His fan club has reported that Ettinger would like to see Huckabee elected president. I have to say that Jesus seemed much less concerned with public approval than does the ol' Huckster. Of course I might be reading a different version of the New Testament!

These two-facers make me sick.

Rocking Their Way To Hell

If you are one of my regulars you know I've made the case that the Devil is merely a myth. I don't think I've beat the subject into the ground, but maybe several times I've mentioned it. It's nothing I would devote a book to. Moreover, I could sooner (much sooner) buy into aliens whizzing around us in sophisticated saucers than that there is a literal Devil.

But there is a man, Pastor Joe Schimmel, who is busy making the case not only that Satan is no myth, but is in fact "the master musician working behind the popular music scene and influencing our youth."

If you have forty bucks to spare and ten hours of time available, you can absorb his video presentation They Sold Their Souls For Rock N Roll. Hey, the ad warns you'll be "picking your jaw up off the ground, as you see hundreds of artists...being used by Satan to destroy many lives."

Wow! Ten hours of that. Can you imagine?

Or if you are sane you might want to invest sixty dollars and six hours educating yourself with Joseph Campbell and the Power Of Myth. That's a bit of an investment, but worth every cent. I believe PBS still plays it occasionally, especially when they are doing one of their fund-raising drives. Perhaps your local public library might be able to arrange an interlibrary loan if they don't have it.

I've been a musician for nearly forty years, even rising to the semi-pro level at one point in my life. The Devil never offered me any contract. I wonder why the Hell not?!

Could There Be A Case For Adultery?

It surely did put a broad smile across my face reading this little bit about the Dalai Lama and Tiger Woods.

First, "his holiness" was clueless as to who Woods is. He had never heard of the golfer. I guess the Dalai Lama doesn't watch much TV. I think everyone would be better off if they didn't watch so much of it.

But then, after being informed about the Woods situation, the Dalai Lama offered that "all religions have the same idea" concerning adultery.

Heck, I think even all atheists have that same idea.

Every intelligent human being understands the concept of fairness. And it is grossly unfair to treat one's partner in a way you would not like your partner treating you.

I'm tempted here to rephrase Tina Turner's song What's Love Got To Do With It? and ask, what does religion have to do with it?

Wrong is wrong.

The Endless Feast

A number of years back a lady friend and I began to get really close. Friendship evolved into romance and thoughts of "where do go now" began to be discussed. On that we could never see eye to eye. It wasn't the first time that has happened to me. Probably won't be the last. But it can be a bit frustrating to both parties. Simply put, she wanted more than I felt I could offer her. But, friends that we were, we amicably tamed the romance and remained "just friends." Eventually (because we were separated by hundreds of miles) it was easy for us to drift apart and go off into different directions.

During one of those frustrating assessments of our relationship, she burst out with "You are the most self-contained person I know!"

Wow. I was sorry I was had become so problematic in her life, but I couldn't get over the feeling that she had just paid me a supreme compliment. And she was not the last person to notice that particular feature of my personality. I don't spend my time looking for the "perfect" this or that, but spend my time enjoying the life I have made for myself.

Honestly, it isn't absolutely true, of course. But finding happiness within is a goal I set for myself long ago and something I've spent years working to perfect.

Self-fulfillment is something I urge all my friends and acquaintances to work towards. Some will accuse me of being selfish. That's a bad rap, I believe. Extreme selfishness is not a good thing, no. But a healthy self-interest and ability to satisfy one's own basic needs is very healthy.

Neediness leads to unhappiness, disappointments, and endless searching.

I believe that if we can't first find contentment with what we have, where we are, the search for happiness will ensue and become an endless loop.

No new or great truth here. It's straight out of Stoicism 101. Stop searching and start making the best of things as they are. If changes need to be made, by all means work on that. But life should not be wasted in the attempt to build a fairytale.

I end with an old Jewish proverb: All the days of a poor person are wretched, but contentment is a feast without end.

What Makes Me Tick

I tossed out some questions in yesterday's post. Just for fun. But to be fair, I suppose I should give my answers. In context, please remember, I was writing about the idealism of my youth having turned into something more resembling what people call pessimism. I call it reality, but you know how that goes...

And let me begin by stating the source of my earlier idealism. According to my religious upbringing, an anthropomorphic sky-God had created the earth and heavens in a mere six days; the capstone of his creation was man, whom he made, more or less, depending on what a given sermon was emphasizing, to worship him, praise him, obey him, and one day to reign with him. Existence, according to this scenario, had meaning: a morality play of sorts, where a great battle was being waged between Satan and God; Man has to choose - during this life, and not the next - who he will align with and serve, and subsequently spend eternity with.

That may seem weird, but it is a more or less straightforward and literal interpretation of what the Bible teaches. That point aside, I believe that most theists - even the rational theists that played a fundamental role in our nation's founding (Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Paine, Adams, etc.) have some vision of a divine purpose.

A lifetime of thinking and observation have completely overthrown my earlier views. Now I find myself closer to the non-theistic religious traditions like Buddhism and Taoism. Pantheism works for me. Religious humanism, too, so long as the "inherent goodness of humans" is not stressed. That, by the way, isn't a nod to my former worldview of the depravity of man having passed onto us from our first parent's fall. It is just the simple acknowledgment that we are animals, with animal instincts, regardless of the fact that we have more sophisticated brains to (somewhat) offset that fact.

The reason this does work so well for me is that a non-theistic worldview just seems to make more sense of the way things are without having to appeal to some unknown, inscrutable, mystic something beyond our senses. You see, I like answers when it is possible to obtain them. Realistic, logical answers. Now I'm not bold enough to make the claim that what I hold and express here in my blog is THE TRUTH and THE ANSWER. But you have to admit that at least it is AN ANSWER, and has the advantage of being one that is based on the realities that surround each of us and are available for our scrutiny.

For better or worse - and in the words of religious reformer Martin Luther - "Here I stand; I can do no other."

To my first question, would the earth be better or worse without our continued existence on it? I answer that this is a pointless question without some kind of frame of reference. Humanly speaking, taking care of the environment is something we should do for ourselves and our fellow creatures. The earth itself just is, it seems. Once it was uninhabitable and will become so again in the distant future.

To my second question, are we getting any closer to the ideal of becoming a species that learns war no more? I agree with my commenters. No. Based solely on what we are, it just isn't possible.

To my third question, are we really all that significant in the overall scheme of things? Again a frame of reference is needed. For our own sake, we are. Cosmically speaking, I'd have to say no. The universe got on quite fine without us and will again some day.

I have a friend who is forever telling me that I have to believe in something. By this she means some type of religious faith and a personal God. I tell her I do believe in something. I believe in myself, in science, in reason. But no man is an island, so I have to make a way that is at least somewhat accommodating to others around me. This is the balance I seek to strike. It's very rough going, though. The "me" versus "us" is the drama I see all of us playing out.

So, I blog about this drama.

My Half-Century

WARNING: If you find retrospectives boring, you might want to pass on today's post.

Today is the day. I turn what some have called the BIG 5 - 0. And I was born on a very frosty Saturday morning (we were experiencing a cold and snowy winter that year of 1960 similar to the one we are having now) at 9:39 A. M. Saturday's have been my favorite day of the week for as long as I can remember. I think, though, rather than it being because I was born on the Sabbath, it was because (back in the day, as they say) Saturday was known as "Cartoon Day.") My favorite cartoons as a young child were Astro Boy, Mighty Mouse, Top Cat, and of course those wonderful Looney Tunes (the latter being my favorite to this day).

When I was born, then as now, the Winter Olympics were in full swing, but in a little hole-in-the-wall place called Squaw Valley, California. Later in the year, the Summer Olympics were notable for the rise of a young light-heavyweight boxer named Cassius Clay. Clay took home the gold and went on to become boxing legend Muhammad Ali. I followed Ali's career to the end. In fact, he was the inspiration for my short-lived boxing career in the local Golden Gloves. That didn't last long as chasing girls soon became my favorite sport.

About two weeks after I was born Elvis Presley came back home from a stint in the Army. Back in January, on his birthday, I posted a little bit about his impact on my life. I won't repeat it here. Let's just say I also followed his career to the end (which unfortunately ended in his senseless death). Music was always a big part of my life, but not so much because of Presley. I am a guitarist, but my vocal skills are mediocre at best. Presley's return, however, was big news, and before long he was again on top of the music charts - until the British Invasion put his music somewhat out of fashion. The first album he recorded after coming out was titled, appropriately enough, Elvis Is Back. It had some neat tunes on it (including a heated cover of Peggy Lee's sensual Fever ) and is probably my favorite Elvis album.

In an eerie parallel to the horrible earthquake in Haiti on January 12, fifty years ago on February 29 there was a devastating earthquake in Agadir, Morroco. While the Agadir earthquake was 5.7 magnitude (as compared to Haiti's 7.0) it was responsible for the deaths of proximately a third of the population (an estimated 15,000 souls).

1960 was also an election year. The summer of my birth year witnessed the rise of John F. Kennedy to the presidency which started when he was nominated by the Democratic Convention on July 13. In November he was elected in a real squeaker that had all the earmarks of a swindle. But Kennedy was a favorite in our household, and even though I was just short of four years old when he was killed, I have memories of sitting on my dad's lap watching his funeral on TV. And of asking questions - lots and lots of questions. I had not experienced much death at that point in my life. I had some rudimentary understanding from animals and my religious upbringing, which heavily emphasized the importance of "making a decision for Jesus" before death ended all hope. I got firsthand experience of death when my maternal grandmother (who lived with us) died in '65 and my paternal grandmother passed in '68 (My grandfathers died before my memory kicked in). As I've written before, I had a great interest in our presidents and wanted to be president when I grew up. That started with my fascination with President Kennedy and my parent's admiration for the man. They were literally crestfallen when he was killed.

Well, so much for how the world was when I entered it.

I could drone on and on about how much better I found the "good old days" in so many ways than today. I suppose most of us think of our youth as something of a Golden Age. That is largely an illusion. Technologically speaking, life seems to be getting better every day - but as always, much less so for the poor. At the same time we are losing privacy at an alarming rate, and I think our instant and disposable society has made people more superficial. Greed and thrift seem to have switched places as virtue and vice.

The lofty idealism of my youth is slowly being replaced with a pessimism (actually, realism) about life on earth. More and more I think of myself as an observer. I loved Barack Obama's stirring "yes, we can" rhetoric during his campaign. But the reality is: no, we can't. That much is now obvious. Oh, I'm not saying we shouldn't try and keep trying. But the truth is that we advance and retreat as a people. And the majority are always slow moving and inclined to look back towards the safety of the known, as opposed to the daring of the unknown - that path less traveled.

Answer this question: If, like some propose happened with the dinosaurs, humans were obliterated from the scene by an asteroid strike, would the earth be better or worse for it? (Hint: I think it is fair to at least say that we haven't been very good stewards.)

Answer another question: Are we getting any closer to the ideal of becoming a species that learns war no more?

A third question: Are we really all that significant in the overall scheme of things?

Now I know I'm part of a whole. And I will do my part as long as I am able to contribute, to work hard and pay my fair share of taxes in order to better our overall situation; I will take care of myself so that I am not a burden on others for as long as I am physically and mentally able; I will continue to lend my voice to those causes I feel are just and to oppose the things I think are unjust. But I now know, as I didn't quite seem able to grasp in the days of my youth, that for my own sake, I have to remain focused on defining the meaning of life for myself; to fully realize that so much is out of my hands and that the only ace-in-the-hole I have is my ability to make the most of the situation I am in. That has to come first.

As I stand at the half-century mark, I'm fairly certain I have more sunsets behind me than I do in front. That doesn't worry me in the least. I've tried to make the most of my ride and will continue to do so. But entropy is against me. Against all of us. It's built into the system. So what I value most are the relationships I have developed with those I know. And that includes my dear friends here, my regulars, who mean more to me than I can express. I appreciate you for sharing a part of my journey and I hope you will continue on with me. And I hope others will join me. But inasmuch as I am much more concerned with quality than quantity, I don't spend a lot of time searching others out. My blog has become quite important and fulfilling to me and that is because of all of you (or "y'all" as we say down here). And unlike so many other aspects of my life, my blog is something I am fairly in control of.

Again, thanks for reading and for sharing a bit of yourself here in the comments section.

On True Authority

I love the religious liberal - those brave souls who will not allow their religious impulse to be subjugated to the narrowness of dogma.

Lucretia Mott was such a soul. Not only known for being a Quaker preacher, she was also active in the causes of the abolition of slavery and equality for women.

Her personal motto was one I just love:

Truth for authority, not authority for truth.

Most folks seem to get that backwards, and it makes all the difference in how well we all get along in this world.

Man Of Steel. Man Of Science.

Christopher Reeve. How can I even begin to express what an inspiration that man was for so many of us?

Had he just left behind his acting legacy, that would have been notable. But then there was that terrible day in May, 1995 when an accident left him wheelchair-bound and mostly paralyzed for the rest of his life. From that wheelchair he taught us so much about living. Not merely surviving, but living. He became the ultimate symbol of hope and determination.

When most people face life-shaking adversity religion becomes a natural focus.

Reeve said repeatedly that he was not religious. He considered himself "spiritual" instead. That was something about him that went way back to his youth and the great influence his father had on him. When his father would pass the churches on Sunday drives, he would "make disparaging comments about the people coming out of services." Reeves recalled his father calling the worshippers "sheep" and said, "of course I would instantly agree."

In his book Still Me he waxed quite philosophical and made this statement describing how religion impacted him during the early days of recovery:

I think these selfish thoughts are part of the survival mechanism. That "me-me-me" is an inevitable first response. And then you need to evolve to higher thoughts - a different way of thinking. For some people this comes through religion; they're able to subsume the self into their faith. But that didn't work for me, although I tried. I'm not a religious person, but I thought: I have to develop a relationship with God right now, otherwise I'm lost. There were some nights when I would pray, but I felt like a terrible phoney. I felt that I was performing, that it wasn't really coming from the center of my being, from a genuine place. My friend Bobby Kennedy once said to me, "Just fake it till you make it. The prayers will seem phony, but one day they'll become real, and you faith will become real." But something different happened to me I began to think: Whether or not there is a God is not so important. Spirituality itself, the belief that there is something greater than ourselves, is enough.

I remember how I felt the first time I read that statement in his book. I've never experienced anything approaching what Reeve went through, but he stated so clearly something I had come to believe, something that has helped me cope with life.

And there is more.

Later in his book he made these remarkable statements:

I have to rely on self-discipline and faith, although my faith is based on science rather than religion.

I knew that my ability to adjust to life in a wheelchair might depend on my spirit and determination, but my future would lie with medical science.

Realizing this, he spent most of the remainder of his life rallying support for the cause of treating spinal injuries. The Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation is his legacy in that endeavor. And he never gave up hope that through his gritty determination and scientific advancements he would one day walk again.

His book should be read by everyone. He had so much to teach us. He left us way too soon and is greatly missed, but will always be fondly remembered.

Park Your Brain

One of the most shrill, inaccurate, and idiotic pieces ever written defending "traditional values" while attacking gays can be read here. One could use it to play a game of "find the errors."

No matter how hard a person tries to make a logical case for homophobia, it always ends up looking like a third-rate conspiracy theory.

And always at the bottom of it you will find an appeal for Biblicism.

We find it in this piece as well:

The stage has been meticulously set. God, church and authority no longer have the meaning they did scant few decades ago. The Bible – the definitive guide to leading a Spirit-filled life – is now viewed as little more than a book written by sexist men. It is intellectualized, instead of believed. As clearly presented as sin is in the Scriptures, church leaders with the disregard of a second-story robber routinely dismiss the teachings of same.

I'll say the same thing I've said before. That same type of argument was used in our country to defend slavery as a divine institution and also to deny women equal rights.

It's not a popular thing to attack the Bible. Faith also, for some reason, is seen to be a supreme virtue. How much better, we are told, to believe than to think!

The truth is, the Bible is mainly a collection of ancient writings by men who were full of superstition and ignorance.

A Too Big God?

My conception of religion follows that of my hero Einstein and his hero Spinoza in believing that God is a non-personal spirit that "reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists."

This pantheistic viewpoint was not appreciated by the first popular TV preacher, Catholic Bishop Fulton J. Sheen.

In a book containing messages from his Life Is Worth Living program I find this:

Not many men want to die to their lower selves; it costs so much. Some prefer to have a cosmic religion, which neither puts restraint on their pride nor curbs their passions.

Apropos of that, some few years ago, on the radio, I was talking about such a cosmic religion, observing, "Man can never love the cosmos because the cosmos is too big and too bulky. No man can ever love anything he cannot get his arm around. That is why God became a man, in order that he might be loved by us."

This will not do. It brings us right to a point I criticize here repeatedly, that morality is biblically based.

The kind of restraint Sheen has in mind, while good to a certain extent, is not nearly enough to deal with the problems of modern humanity, and is a poor substitute, in my mind, for a cosmic religious feeling that embraces not only all mankind (not just those of one's particular sect), but also the fellow creatures and the earth and its environment.

Some of the most "restrained" of religious folk have a belief (biblically based, of course) that they are the elect who should have dominion over the earth, the other animals, and for that matter, unbelievers in their brand of religion.

And Sheen's idea that "Man can never love the cosmos because the cosmos is too big and too bulky...[to] get his arm around" is absurd, as any nature lover will tell you, as any true patriot will tell you. Heck, for that matter, it really didn't even make good sense for a Catholic like Sheen to say it, because surely he loved his Church - something he could never have gotten his arms around!

Ah, but such is the folly of rhetoric.

Carl Sagan is quoted as saying:

A religion that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by traditional faiths.

That is my religion.

Talk To The Gut

Perhaps the most frustrating thing for me is attempting to reason with the unreasonable.

Attempt to have a rational discussion with someone concerning abortion, God, gay issues, capital punishment, taxation, or terrorism - to name just a few "hot button" issues - and the discussion will most likely turn into a heated shouting match.

In fact, I don't see how it can be denied that if the rules of logic were strictly adhered to, most of modern talk radio would vanish from the airways. And I would add that Congress might actually accomplish some meaningful things, and religion would be transformed. This is just to name a few benefits. Perhaps, too, peace on earth might then be possible.

Charles P. Pierce has written a fascinating book, Idiot America: How Stupidity Became A Virtue in the Land of the Free. I would like to quote from page 34:

The Gut is the roiling repository of dark and ancient fears. It knows what it knows because it knows how it feels. Hofstadter saw the triumph of the Gut coming, "Intellect is pitted against feeling," he writes, "on the ground that it is somehow inconsistent with warm emotion. It is pitted against character, because it is widely believed that intellect stands for cleverness, which transmutes easily into the sly or the diabolical." If something feels right, it must be treated with the same respect given something actually is right. If something is felt deeply, it must carry the same weight as something that is true. If there are two sides to every argument - or, more to the point, if there are people willing to take up two sides to every argument - they both must be right or, at least, equally valid.

Is that not it?

A little later, on page 49, Pierce writes:

If we have abdicated our birthright to scientific progress, we have done so by moving empirical debate into the realms of political, cultural, and religious argument, where we all feel more comfortable, because there the Gut truly holds sway. By the rules governing those realms, any scientific theory is a mere opinion, and everyone's entitled to those. Scientific fact is as mutable as a polling sample.

This is a sad but true state of affairs in our nation. It is a state I fear we as a people will not soon return from.

So What's The Problem?

I was reading about Don McLeroy, a board of education member in the state of Texas and self-professed Christian Fundamentalist. He feels that secularists pose a threat to the country and the theory of evolution is so much hooey and a dangerous notion.

His thesis seems to be:

There are two basic facts about man. He was created in the image of God, and he is fallen. You can’t appreciate the founding of our country without realizing that the founders understood that. For our kids to not know our history, that could kill a society. That’s why to me this is a huge thing.

I believe that's an oversimplification of things. Among the founders were men of the Enlightenment, whose religious views tended more towards the rational than the revealed.

Frankly, I believe the notion that man is a special creation, rather than another animal, is perhaps the biggest problem we face. It is the father of intolerance.

Taking a religious myth, the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, and treating it as a literal historical event, leads to a big misunderstanding of what we are.

If the problem is only that we have inherited a fallen nature from our original parents, then all that is necessary to redeem us is to do what that first pair didn't do: obey God completely.

In a nutshell, that is the Christian Fundamentalist position.

If you are like me you've probably noticed that those Christian zealots rarely lead lives of true piety. They are driven by the same animal instincts we believers in evolution are. They have no corner of morality, although they fail to see it because they equate morality with obedience to a set of rules.

And just think about. Because they take reason and science out of the equation, they are blinded to truth. The problem isn't that we have rejected religious truth, it is that we are ignorant of what we are. And evolutionary science can go a long way in helping us to understand. While understanding is not THE solution to the problems humans face in the modern world, it is at least an approach to problem solving.

And a good one at that.

True Love Ways

I've inadvertently created a new holiday. When I was speaking to my gal pal on the phone yesterday, I reminded her that we had a date to go out to dinner this weekend in celebration of Valoween.

Oops!

My readers who recall my Insanity With A Lovely Melody post will hardly be surprised that I could accidentally merge the lightheaded giddiness of Valentine's Day with the monstrous horrors of Halloween.

My lady friend (who shares a lot of my ideas about romantic love) and I laughed for several minutes over my parapraxis.

I shared my new concept with several of my friends at work and they all got a kick out of it, especially the non-dreamers.

At the risk of sounding like a cynic, I have to say that I think romantic love is way overrated.

What is romantic love? Just a jumble of feelings caused by chemical reactions in our brains, the same as jealousy, anger, depression, fear.

I try to avoid Cupid's poisonous arrows the way I avoid mind-altering drugs and over-intoxication with alcohol. I like, if possible, to keep a clear mind.

Yet I do love and believe in wholesome love. I believe in the kind of love that is based on a bond of friendship that develops slowly overtime and which doesn't seek to change the other person but learns to accept the differences and perceived shortcomings.

Speaking from my own experiences, I've yet to have a rationally driven love affair end horribly in the way I've had lust-driven affairs end. And there's the rub. Too many people have love and lust entangled into a sticky web of self-deceit and are emotional trainwrecks waiting to occur (How's that for a mixed metaphor?).

Romance can be an important component in a deep relationship, but should not, I think, be mistaken for an end in itself.

God's Joke Is On Who?

Jill Stanek has shared some of her mental excreta with everyone in her latest column concerning the Tim Tebow ad. She's gloating over the way some pro-choice folks were outmaneuvered by the no-choicers.

Then she writes this:

But there was a brilliant strategist involved here Who must be given credit.

God's masterful and mischievous hand was clearly on display Sunday. God loves a good laugh, and He must have had a great deal of fun outsmarting, exposing and embarrassing pro-aborts in such a grand fashion.

Having read tons of theological classics in my lifetime, I don't recall God typically being characterized as "mischievous."

It seems to me that Stanek is afflicted with a good case of the typical "my God wouldn't (or in her case, He would) do that" syndrome, wherein a person takes their own character traits and attribute them to their God.

The God of the terrorists is - to the surprise of no thinking person - a terrorist. Likewise the God of the bigots is also a bigot, of the chauvinists a chauvinist, of the idiots an idiot, and so on.

So the God of no-choicers obviously is categorically against abortion.

And Stanek quotes several Bible passages that feature God laughing at his enemies. What she doesn't do is give us the passages where God states his pro-life position.

But I will give a few a Bible examples that I would enjoy seeing her expound in a way consistent with her view of God's idea of the "sanctity of life."

Everyone is familiar with the story of Noah's ark. God repented about the matter of having made mankind, seeing they were (and still are, by the way) excessively wicked and unrepentant. So he had Noah build a ship for his family and select animals, and then he totally obliterated everyone and everything else. Incidentally, common sense tells us that would include pregnant women and little children as well.

That isn't a pro-life story.

I suppose most everyone is also familiar with the story of Moses and Pharaoh. Many of us have seen DeMille's The Ten Commandments repeatedly. How about the part where God curses the stubborn Pharaoh by sending a death angel to kill all the firstborn of Egypt? Is that the behavior of a pro-life deity?

Does anyone recall the story of Elisha, who received the Prophet Elijah's mantle? You can find that in 2 Kings, chapter 2. And we read this bit from Elisha's story:

And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them (verses 23,24).

That doesn't strike me as very pro-life, especially with regard to young ones. In fact, it seems atrocious.

One can read the Old Testament story of Samuel. God wanted to punish Amalek and told Samuel:

Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass (I Samuel 15: 2,3).

Again, I would like to see Stanek reconcile this with the God she is describing in her column.

I could give other examples, but I think I've made the point. The Bible is filled with blood and guts and the Bible God hasn't the least qualm about smiting anyone, young or old.

Well, taking a page from Stanek and those who think like her, I will say that my God wouldn't do the things attributed to him in the pages of the Bible. Nor would my God get a kick out of the way religio-politico zealots treat the subject of abortion. My God is a logical God.

We The Vile Secularists

Ken Ham is, I believe, the United States' foremost creationist. He is one of the "brains" behind that Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. On his blog Ham is moaning because The International Darwin Day Foundation is sponsoring a petition asking President Obama to recognize Darwin Day on February 12.

And, aw geeze, wouldn't you know it, the President does believe in evolution!

To further annoy and exasperate Ken Ham, he notes that the IDDF is "a group of secularists (primarily atheists), a minority in the culture"

He writes:

However, I doubt the President would bow to such a small minority in the culture, many of whom are extremely vile and blasphemous in their language on their blogs/websites—but I guess you never know, given what the President himself has said about evolution.

This is a good place to drop a Robert Ingersoll quote:

Blasphemy is an epithet bestowed by superstition upon common sense.

Amen!

What about the "extremely vile" language on secular blogs and websites?

According to Merriam-Webster, the primary definition of vile is "morally despicable or abhorrent."

I doubt the case can be effectively made that the majority of secular or even atheist sites are "extremely vile."

It would take the narrowest definition of morality to make Ham's charge stick. Of course, those who think like Ham are unwilling to distinguish between ethics and Biblical ethics and are opposed to freedom of thought.

On the other hands, lots of what one finds coming from Christians - yesterday's post subject being a good example - fits the description of "extremely vile," as well as being assaults on common sense.

Fundamentalists like Ken Ham are bigots and defend the thesis that God is one as well.

I find that extremely vile.

The Bible Is The Only Biology Textbook You'll Ever Need

Evidently that is what California professor Bradley Lopez of Fresno City College thinks. Read about him and his wacky classroom manner here.

According to one student quoted in that story the good Professor "started out asking was Jesus haploid or diploid, a biological term and he directed us to go to the bible for proof and write a paper on it."

Students have complained, but to no avail. Now the ACLU has gotten involved, sending Fresno City College a letter giving it until February 15 to respond about how they plan to address this situation. The ACLU's letter gives the following mind-boggling examples of Bradley's misconduct:

Presented a slide listing "homosexual facts," including that homosexuality is a "biological misapplication of human sexuality" and said that the "recommended treatment" is "psychological counseling" or "hormone supplements."

Presented LGBT people as a burden on and/or threat to society, claiming, for example, that anything but a heterosexual union provides a "one-sided foundation for raising children."

Presented bible passages as "empirical" evidence that life begins at conception in support of his assertion that abortion is murder and "the leading cause of death in this country" (because there are over a million abortions a year).

Followed a slide on climate change in a presentation on "environmental health" with a slide containing a Biblical quote about the world ending in fire, and said "that is the real global warming we should be worried about."

Repeatedly referenced the Bible and used it as a teaching tool, for example assigning as homework a question as to Jesus' genetic makeup.

The really sad part is that an enormous legion of incurably stupid Americans, especially here where I live, would shrug their shoulders and say, "so what?" Make no mistake about it, this is exactly the kind of thing religious conservatives miss since the Supreme Court "kicked God and the Bible out of the schools."

Yesterday's post topic makes perfect sense when you're dealing with people who take a book written by pre-scientifically ignorant men and elevate it to an instruction book for life.

I wish the American Civil Liberties Union success in putting a halt to Bradley's foolishness.

Our Demon Haunted World

I've had the following excerpt stored in my notes for a little while not knowing when I might have occasion to use it. I guess now is a good time.

This is from Rev. John Brown's A Dictionary Of The Holy Bible (1816):

WITCH is a woman, and wizard is a man that dealing with Satan, if not actually entered into formal compact with him. That such persons are among men, is abundantly plain from scripture, and that they ought to be put to death, Deut. xviii. 10, Exod. xxii. 18. It is plain, however, that great caution is necessary in the detection of the guilty, and in punishing them, lest the innocent suffer, as many instances in new England, and other places, shew. Nor can I believe that peoples standing in awe of persons as suspected for this infernal power, is any thing else than an indirect worshipping of Satan. Witchcraft comprehends all kinds of influence produced by collusion with Satan, and excludes the user from the kingdom o God, Gal. v.20....

Nearly two hundred years ago, even with the common sense the Age Of Enlightenment was bringing to people everywhere, it is only a little surprising to find that belief in the existence of literal witches was widely held. But at least the good Rev. Brown advised "great caution" in ascertaining who these witches were, no doubt a bit embarrassed by the witch hunts of the past.

But now fast forward nearly two hundred years and check out this item concerning Hasbro's new pink Ouija board, geared for girls eight years old and up.

Just the thing to get the blossoming young witch! (They also have a regular version suitable for budding warlocks eight years and up.)

Human Life International's communications manager, Stephen Phelan, has expressed great concern over this:

It is just troubling that these things are treated as casually as any other game, like Monopoly or anything else on this Toys R Us site -- and I think it's something Christians should be aware of and really not support.

Well, as a Ouija board player from way back, I think it should be treated casually like any other toy, because that's exactly what it is.

But for Phelan and those who think like him it is thought to be a portal to Hell:

We're supposed to deal with the truth only. We're supposed to have nothing to do with dark spirits. We're not supposed to dabble in anything that would compromise our souls, and that's exactly what this does.

Yeah, yeah, and we're supposed to "not suffer a witch to live," as Rev. Brown reminds us in his dictionary entry, citing Exodus 22:18.

Will humans ever be able to move past superstition?

Our President's Prayer

According to the Associated Press

President Barack Obama said Thursday he prays lawmakers can restore a "spirit of civility" to the nation's capital.

Is our president using a pious sounding figure of speech here? You know what they say, "When in Rome...."

President Obama was at the National Prayer Breakfast, attendance having become a presidential tradition ever since Eisenhower's administration. It would be unthinkable for a president to bypass that. And even more unthinkable that he not utter a few pious platitudes while speaking there.

Of course most of the incivility has come from those forces who oppose him for the very reason that his administration is seen as something of a modern day evil. The GOP (God's Own Party) are merely trying to save our nation from the evils of socialism and an attack on God's blessed economic plan for man, unrestrained capitalism.

It makes me wonder why Obama would even bother to pray. Obviously God wouldn't hear him.

And more sarcastically, I wonder how God would go about answering such a prayer?

Would God send a "spirit of civility" into the lawmakers in question? Would God appear to each legislator in a dream, threatening each with an imminent appearance before the Bar of Almighty Justice should they fail to immediately turn from their hostile ways?

Humanly speaking, President Obama has done about all he can to work with his opponents. Too much, I'm persuaded. Perhaps he should take a page from his immediate predecessor and ramrod a few things through.

If you are going to face incivility it should be for a reason.

Ah, Another Sunday At Home

I've mentioned before that when I was a child my family attended church an average of four times per week. That's a lot of God worship!

We attended Sunday morning and Sunday evening services (always Sunday School on Sunday mornings), a Tuesday night "prayer meeting" which was mostly an excuse to have even more pulpit pounding. We actually didn't pray anymore then than at any of the other services. What made it a prayer meeting was that we took ten or fifteen minutes to allow people to stand up and request prayer for specific things. Then on Thursdays we had a youth meeting. It was a service geared towards children. The "choir" consisted of the young people (i.e., everyone who wasn't an adult), when we would sing ridiculous little ditties about the Apostles or the Patriarchs (think: Rock My Soul In The Bosom Of Abraham). Then there was more pulpit pounding, but that by an adult. But the pounding, er, message was directed towards the kids.

Now my church is wherever I happen to be at the moment. Or as Thomas Paine put it, "My own mind is my own church."

I worship practically 24/7 now because I am always in awe of nature (which, like Frank Lloyd Wright, is the way I spell God). But I never get tired of church or worship now because it is more authentic for me than before.

Why, at this very moment I am having communion with my brothers and sisters the birds and squirrels just outside my window. (I always toss a little bread their way.)

When I was a Christian church attendance was a duty. An often inconvenient one. But now, it's just a part of who I am.

Television preachers as an alternative? Oh, I have no reason for that, either. A good nature program on PBS is always uplifting, though.

Perhaps best of all is that pesky collection plate never passes by now.

I think I'll get up from the computer now and go get my guitar in order to play a hymn. I think I'll practice Vivaldi's Four Seasons.

Bad Logic

There is such a thing. I alluded to it in my recent post about slavery defended with the Bible and logic.

Lots of times people think they are thinking, think they are being rational and using logic as a tool, when more often they really are only putting on display their ignorance about the subject at hand.

A hilarious story told to me sometime back by one of my former co-workers well illustrates my point.

My friend had a neighbor who was a real old timer. He watched one of the old-fashioned television sets with rabbit ears and tuning dials, no remote.

My friend was trying to explain how much better it would be for Mr. Oldtimer if he would purchase a modern set and subscribe to cable. "Why, you could get a hundred or more television channels if you did," my friend informed him.

Ah, Mr. Oldtimer, deeply entrenched in his mental rut, replied, "That's crazy. Why, the dial on a tv that received a hundred channels would have to be this damn big!" And with that he made a circle with his arms by setting his fingers tip to tip. A big dial, indeed!

There was a certain logic in what Mr. Oldtimer was saying. IF you had a TV set that tuned in a hundred channels using a dial control, it would indeed need to be very big to accommodate that many settings. But we know that isn't the case at all. Faulty logic.

Mr. Oldtimer also once "proved" to my friend that the earth is stationary. He did this by laying a box fan on the floor, removing the cover, and then balancing a cup of water on one of the blades. When he turned on the fan, of course the cup was sent flying. Thus, his point was that if the earth were truly spinning, we all would be flung off into space. Bad logic based on too few facts.

And so it often is when discussing things with ignorant people. As an old saying goes, "it ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

Chuck Norris' Buddy

Chuck Norris' latest column, the overdramatically titled God Save the Us and Our Constitution, is all about how President Obama is trying to undermine the American justice system with bad judgeship appointments.

Whatever.

Being a southerner and anti-fan of "Ten Commandments Judge" Roy Moore, I was caught by this paragraph:

The U.S. needs more honest and traditional justices like my friend Judge Roy Moore, who is running for governor of Alabama. Undoubtedly, readers remember him as the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama who was ousted for refusing to remove a copy of the Ten Commandments from the state's judicial building. Roy's resumé reads like a who's who of American life and justice, from private practice to district attorney and then circuit judge and chief justice.

Uh, no - that's not the way I remember him.

If Norris and Moore truly are friends, I marvel that Norris doesn't know his buddy's famous lawsuit (Glassroth v. Moore) very well - or perhaps he is just an outright liar.

That "copy of the Ten Commandments" Moore famously refused to remove from Alabama's judicial building was in truth a 5,000+ pound granite monstrosity.

The court - which had gone in person to inspect that "copy of the Ten Commandments" - upon investigation found that

The monument is in the shape of a cube, approximately three feet wide by three feet deep by four feet tall. The top of the monument is carved as two tablets with rounded tops, the common depiction of the Ten Commandments; these tablets slope toward a person viewing the monument from the front. The tablets are engraved with the Ten Commandments as excerpted from the Book of Exodus in the King James Bible. Due to the slope of the monument's top and the religious appearance of the tablets, the tablets call to mind an open Bible resting on a podium.

The above is taken directly from the court's ruling (which you can read in full here), as is this:

...this court holds that the evidence is overwhelming and the law is clear that the Chief Justice violated the Establishment Clause. But, in announcing this holding today, the court believes it is important to clarify at the outset that the court does not hold that it is improper in all instances to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings; nor does the court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important, sources of American law. Rather the court's limited holding, as will be explained below in more detail, is that the Chief Justice's actions and intentions in this case crossed the Establishment Clause line between the permissible and the impermissible.

Well, clearly there is more (much Moore, actually) to this than the fact that Moore wanted to display the Ten Commandments in the judicial building.

In fact, later in its ruling, the court also applied Justice Kennedy's proselytization test and concluded:

Justice Kennedy's proselytization test is met here. Both in appearance and in stated purpose, the Chief Justice's Ten Commandments monument is an "extreme case"; it is nothing less than "an obtrusive year-round religious display" installed in the Alabama State Judicial Building in order to "place the government's weight behind an obvious effort to proselytize on behalf of a particular religion," the Chief Justice's religion.

Now I ask my esteemed readers: Who is the real threat to justice in these United States?

The Amazing Adams-Jefferson Correspondence

My bedtime reading has returned me for the umpteenth time to the remarkable correspondence carried on between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

While I admit to being partial to Jefferson's mind over Adams', both were extremely well informed, intelligent men. And just reading their thoughts on politics, history, philosophy and religion is helpful still today.

Their genuine esteem and affection for each other leaps out from the letters they exchanged, and in one of history's more bizarre - yet uncannily fitting - coincidences they died mere hours apart on the same day in 1826, that day being the fourth of July.

John Adams seemed to me to have been the brasher of the two. I didn't watch HBO's miniseries based on his life, not having cable. But now more than ever I feel compelled to order it on DVD from Amazon.

I did see the Ken Burns film about Jefferson a couple of times on PBS and enjoyed it thoroughly. I think I must have this one too.

Reading their writings leaves me empty inside when I think of the quality of today's politicians compared to these giants of yesterday. I can't fathom how our nation would have survived those hard formative years without men like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison guiding it.

Perhaps most moving for me is when these long time friends discuss old age and mortality. And I end with the following passages.

First, from Adams' letter to Jefferson dated May 3, 1816:

But after all, what is human life? A vapor, a fog, a dew, a cloud, a blossom, a flower, a rose, a blade of grass, a glass bubble, a tale told by an idiot, a Boule de Savon [a soap bubble], vanity of vanities, an eternal succession of which would terrify me almost as much as annihilation.

Last, from Jefferson's letter to Adams dated August 1, 1816:

There is a ripeness of time for death, regarding others as well as ourselves, when it is reasonable we should drop off, and make room for another growth. When we have lived our generation out, we should not wish to encroach on another.

They did both live to ripe old ages - Jefferson lived 83 years and Adams lived until age 90 - and we as a nation are richer for their long, fruitful lives.

Defending Slavery With "Logic" And The Bible

The man pictured at left was Bishop John Henry Hopkins; he was a leader in the Episcopal Church in the U. S. and an ardent defender of the institution of slavery. In 1864 he penned a defense with the puffed-up title: A Scriptural, Ecclesiastical, And Historical View Of Slavery, From the Days Of The Patriarch Abraham, To the Nineteenth Century. The matter was of the utmost importance to him because it "was above all party considerations, because it involved the authority of the Scriptures, the consistency of the Church, and the morality of the American Constitution."

Sunday I went to great pains (probably too many pains) dissecting the faulty of logic of those who demonize gay people. It reminded me not a little of the tedious defenses offered up by those who for (they say) Biblical reasons defended slavery. Believing as they do that God's ways, mysterious and inscrutable, are far above ours, they go ahead and attempt to throw in a little logic to make the medicine go down a little easier for those who do at heart feel tempted to think a little for themselves.

For my part, I believe human logic and reasoning without appeal to God is sufficient to settle all matters ethical.

So without comment I offer a passage from Hopkins' infamous book - read it and weep:

If that divine and sovereign Lord had so determined in His wise, though often mysterious providence, that I should also be the slave of a Southern master, I trust that He would have given me grace to bear it with a spirit of cheerful obedience to His will. In that case, however, he would have fitted me for my condition. I should have been born of the negro race, bred up in bondage, surrounded by the associations best adapted to my lot, accustomed to its necessary toils, and willing to take my part in its simple recreations, while, under the care of a kind and Christian master, I should have learned to congratulate myself on the security from want, the certainty of a home, and food and clothing, nursing in sickness, benevolent regard in old age, and perfect freedom from the fear of being abandoned, when my strength should fail, to the "tender mercies" of the poorhouse. And I should have had, perhaps as fully as I now have, the blessed assurance, that in the sight of God, through the redemption of Christ Jesus, I was His slave yet more than my earthly master's that this slavery was the only perfect freedom, that my human bondage would be ended in due time, and that I should then be released to His Almighty Word, to be one amongst the spirits of the just and the society of angels, in His glorious and celestial kingdom.

But the Lord has not so ordered my condition, and therefore I am not a fit subject for Southern slavery. He has chosen to place me in a different sphere - a much higher sphere in the estimation of mankind, although it is possible that many a Christian slave may be exalted far above me, in the kingdom of heaven. My faith teaches me that these earthly differences in the conditions of men are the work of His providence. "He setteth up one, and putteth down another." he "divedeth severally to every man as He will," and no one is authorized to say unto Him, What does thou? For, in the language of the Apostle, "Who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? hath mot the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another to dishonor?" (Rom. 9:20-1.) These distinctions, therefore, are all ordered by the divine Master. And if my condition in life is a subject of thankfulness, because it is exempt from the humiliation of a slave, I have none the less reason to fear the final result, if I fail to discharge the far more difficult duties which devolve upon the freeman.

My objections to being a slave, however, might be extended much further. I should be willing to be a blacksmith, a tailor, a shoemaker, a hatter, a sailor, or a soldier. Nay, I should be unwilling to be a politician or a statesman. And why? Precisely for the same reason. I am not fitted for any of them. It is not because I lack respect for these various conditions. On the contrary, I honor them all, as necessary and laudable parts of the vast system of society which composes the nation. But I am only qualified for the condition in which it has pleased God to place me. And probably you may think me not very well qualified for that. If so, there is one point, at least, in which we shall not differ.

Reading The Bible

Troubled about our economy being in a shambles or "issues and concerns" about our troubled times? A Church in Virginia, recognizing that many folks look to the Bible for solace in stressful times, is responding with "The Bible in 90 Days."

Wow!

I remember way back in my Christian days that a popular thing was a plan to read the entire Bible in a year. As I recall, this was done by reading something like five chapters everyday. I read the Bible completely this way several times - with little edification, mostly out of a sense of duty. I often "cheated," skim-reading through the boring parts. The book of Numbers is a killer of good intentions. If you are still on board after getting through the "five books of Moses," the dry-as-dust I & II Chronicles is almost guaranteed to drive a stake through the heart of your good intentions.

Anyway, the goal of the 90 day plan is to "read the entire Bible, like a novel, from cover to cover." The problem is, the Bible is not written like a novel. Written by numerous authors (some totally unknown to us) over many centuries, the Bible is a mishmash of conflicting ideas. Perhaps just as confusing is the fact the books of the Bible don't follow a chronological sequence.

Ted Cooper Jr. is the creator of the 90 day curriculum, a "former agnostic" who - dare I say miraculously - became a believer halfway through a cover-to-cover Bible excursion. (I had the opposite experience, being a believer who became an unbeliever after reading so much Bible I became convinced that it couldn't possibly be "the Word of God.") He gives this bit of info of which the accuracy I am uncertain, but in my personal conversations with Christians I find very easy to believe:

Depending on the study, somewhere between 74% and 80% of American adults describe themselves as Christian, yet most have never read all or even some of the Bible.

People often have very strong opinions on matters about which they are mostly ignorant. Religion and politics are the best examples. In modern America's climate I could have written that as religion/politics and it would have been more accurate.

But I do recommend that all intelligent people study the Bible. I don't think cover-to-cover readings are of much help to anyone. Nevertheless, a determined effort to understand the Bible, it's development, it's main thrust, and it various interpretations, is extremely helpful in understanding the mind-set of its followers. The Bible holds a unique place of reverence in our nation's history, and that alone should make us concerned to be Biblically literate.

If this seems like a daunting task, I recommend The Complete Idiots Guide to the Bible by James S. Bell, as a tool that alongside a good modern translation like the New International Version of the Bible would get anyone off to a good start. But be prepared to spend a good bit more time than 90 days on this effort.

America's Best Religious Tradition

I have really thought long and hard about Diane's comment on yesterday's post. Religion (especially Christianity) truly does seem to be a crutch or opium for the majority of Americans.

In yesterday's post I expressed frustration over the fact that most people aren't able to distinguish simple morality from Biblical morality. Too many don't understand there is a difference.

Our nation is governed by its Constitution, not by the Bible. The phrase "Nature's God," which is mentioned in our Declaration of Independence, was the product of minds steeped in the reason rich Age of Enlightenment, not Biblical theology.

Nature's God I am comfortable with. But that God soon fell from whatever favor he enjoyed at our nation's founding, replaced by the emotionalism and supernaturalism of the Great Awakening. As a nation, we never recovered.

Of course I'm not unaware of our Puritan heritage that was opposed to the rational theology of certain of our Founding Fathers. I'm just glad the rationalists prevailed in our founding documents.

But if faith in the supernatural were suddenly swept away, what could take its place? I would suggest a return to the rationalism of the Enlightenment Age.

Not that I expect that any time soon.

Yet problems like the one I wrote about yesterday would not exist in a land filled with rational minds. And if we are really interested in tradition, how about considering the rich tradition of America's religious rationalists?