Hey, Terrorism Is Terrorism

The site of a proposed mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee has been maliciously torched because it is deemed too close to the sacred ground of the former Twin Towers. Or maybe it was because, as one opponent of the mosque is quoted as having said:

No mosque in Murfreesboro. I don't want it. I don't want them here. Go start their own country overseas somewhere. This is a Christian country. It was based on Christianity.

The perpetrator of this cowardly and hateful act probably wouldn't consider it a terrorist act. After all, no one was physically hurt. But there can be no doubt that this was an attempt to intimidate local Muslims.

My friend at work who has been debating me about the propriety of having an Islamic worship center two blocks from Ground Zero warned me that it wouldn't stand for long if built. There is an element of thought among some that, if not outright supporting such actions, at least feel this type of thing is justice.

If persecution is carried out in the name of the one true God, it isn't terrorism, I suppose.

Update: Since writing the above I noticed this report of shots being fired at the same site while some of the congregants were there inspecting the fire damage. Two sets of shots amounting to nine total were heard at 3:15 P.M. The police are investigating. I certainly hope this was a coincidence and not part of a campaign of intimidation, but all this is very troubling.

Glenn Beck Has A Dream

Rather more like a nightmare in my estimation. But what troubles me most is that he is not alone. His D. C. revival meeting did indeed strike a chord with many, with estimates ranging from a few hundred thousand to a half million zealots. Of course the media was there to make sure the rest of us didn't miss much.

Billed as a religious event rather than a political, it was hard to miss the connection. It's hard for me to ignore the implication that the election of the (Muslim, Socialist, Black Racist, anti-American, blah, blah, blah...) President Barack Obama activated some turn for the worse, at least in the minds of Beck's followers.

The New York Times has an interesting article about Beck's rally. Therein he is quoted as follows:

My role, as I see it, is to wake America up to the backsliding of principles and values and most of all of God. We are a country of God. As I look at the problems in our country, quite honestly, I think the hot breath of destruction is breathing on our necks and to fix it politically is a figure that I don’t see anywhere.

This I can say, anyone who speaks and thinks that way doesn't understand jack about our founding principles. Our Constitution never suggests such a view, but instead makes clear that the authority of our government arises from the "consent of the governed" and is not something handed down from Heaven. Which I think that is a good thing, for scarcely any two people in the United States can agree completely about exactly what God's will supposedly is.

Look, we don't need God in our politics, Even believers in the "Judeo-Christian God" should realize that. Too many of our leaders and would-be leaders realize the power of religion as a mechanism of control. All this religious talk (gobbledygook, really) lies nicely on the ears of those who are divinely inclined; however, it never seems to work out so loftily in practice. Look at the religious persecution that existed in Colonial America. Do Beck's minions really think we need a return to that?

You know, it just can't be that believers in the idea that humans were put here on earth for the sole purpose of worshipping and obeying a sovereign deity can at the same time believe in the basic freedom of their fellow humans.

To me that is the matter in a nutshell.

One Reason For The Chip On My Shoulder

It has come to this and I'm not surprised. New York taxi driver and, coincidentally, Muslim Ahmed Sharif was viciously attacked, allegedly by a drunken passenger who decided the cab itself was a checkpoint! This after a very brief interview in which the assailant asked Sharif if he was a Muslim. What Sharif didn't get a chance to say at the time but later told reporters:

I know many people are upset. I didn’t support the mosque at Ground Zero, either. I feel very sad. I have been driving a taxi more than 15 years. All my four kids were born here. I never feel this hopeless and insecure before. Right now, the public sentiment is very serious.

Mere details, I suppose, in the mind of the assailant.

There is a growing segment of our population that hates Muslims. Those who spread fear and hate and use them as tools to attempt to control the minds of others are laying the groundwork for more such violence. People feel better than they think, so stoking the flames of fear and anger will usually get the fastest results.

Just try to reason with haters and you soon will find yourself the victim of their rage.

My recent review of Sean Hannity's Deliver Us From Evil, with its call for us to confront and defeat evil, is a clarion call for hate. And what is the soil from which that idea grows and is nourished?

In a word, it is the notion that we as a nation are God's chosen people. And if you ever find yourself wondering why I have such a chip on my shoulder about organized religion, I can only answer that I judge it according to its fruit. A part of the of religious thinking I object to always comes with an "us against them" mentality deeply imbedded in its warp and woof.

During the most heated debates over the proposed teaching of creationism along side science in our public schools that raged during the 1980s we were assailed by warnings about the threat the "religion" of Secular Humanism (what religious conservatives call the idea of secularism in government) poses to us.

But I offer that if the religion of the Southern United States had been Secular Humanism rather than Christianity, slavery would not have flourished and the Civil Rights movement would have been unnecessary down here. There would have been none of that silliness that human slavery is a divine institution or that the black race was cursed to be servants of the white race because of the biblical Curse of Ham.

Had Adolph Hitler been a Secular Humanist rather than a Catholic Christian steeped in the anti-Semitic theology that the Jews are the enemies of God for their alleged role in the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, the Holocaust could not have occurred. Not to mention that Nazism would not still be flourishing today, even in our nation.

Moreover, the Islamaphobia that is right now sweeping our nation, and will, before it runs its course, lead to much more violence, would be impossible in a nation of secularists. This is a battle of religious ideologies and the blame cannot be shifted away from that.

My conscience compels me to criticize religious faith in so far as it is opposed to human reason, and that is what I do. Voltaire long ago wrote: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Personally, I hate any argument that ends in "God says," or "the Bible (or whatever "holy" book) says," or "my religion teaches" ... well, you get the idea.

Keep Religion And Morality Separate!

Okay, that's just an idea I have.

Some people think their religion is the basis of morality. They believe that God dictated in the long ago rules to govern human behavior. The Ten Commandments being one such example.

I've been asked why, if I don't believe the Bible is God's word, I don't live a life of raping, stealing, and killing. How preposterous! How magnificently small-minded!

While I don't feel religion per se is evil, I feel it does promote some evil ideas. For example, the idea that one must believe under threat of eternal punishment certain things are so rather than examine the evidence and decide for oneself what is true. That's evil and a denial of our homo sapience.

That the Bible calls homosexual activity an abomination to God when such a view point contradicts all logic and human compassion is, well, an abomination, I feel.

The big three revealed religions have done much to promote the inferiority of women. I heartily doubt that is any in sense a "divine plan," as it's been called.

Religious war and conquest is another concept that seems odious to a civilized mind.

Yet religious morality endorses these and other outrages.

If freedom of religion is a good thing, how much better is freedom of thought?

Ann Coulter Is Nudging Us Closer To The Apocalypse

That warning comes from Worldnet Daily publisher Joseph Farah in his Evangelicals and the Coulter Affair.

In case you aren't aware, there has been a lot of heat generated in conservative circles over Ann Coulter's scheduled speaking engagement at the upcoming Homocon 2010 event, a group of gay Republicans and their supporters.

I wrote a post some time back stating my opinion that homosexuality would never reach general acceptance in our nation as long as the Bible is deemed the basis of our morality. Farah makes that much abundantly clear in the final and summary paragraph of his long Christian rant:

What will happen as a result of her appearance is that a compromise will be made with sin. Sin will be condoned or appeased. A conservative icon will find accommodation with a sin that would undermine the foundations of Western civilization, the Judeo-Christian ethic and the most basic biblical standards of sexual morality.

Ah, to the Christian conservative the apocalypse is always at hand. Obviously if the radical Islamists don't destroy us, the homosexuals will....

Should It Matter If President Obama Is A Muslim?

Personally I'm a little - no, very - tired of hearing all the public controversy concerning the Muslim religion. My feelings about it are exactly the same as I have about Christianity: Revealed religions rely on unverifiable assertions from their promoters and simple faith on the part of their followers.

Extremists in any religion are threat. Those who are nominal followers are not a threat. Those who are somewhere in between are usually just an occasional annoyance.

The media has made much of a recent poll suggesting that a surprising number of Americans believe President Obama is a Muslim. I suspect what they mean is that many Americans believe President Obama is really a Muslim, because he claims to be a Christian. Since the president is obviously a nominal religionist, as I think is best if a person is going to be a professional politician, I'm wondering why anyone would think this matters.

According to our Constitution, the president shall take the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

That should be the only thing that matters: Does the president swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States?

There are two types of religious extremists who worry me: those who suggest the Constitution should be amended to reflect religious teaching; those who believe the Constitution was grounded in and based on Christian principles. And we have a lot of these folks. In fact, Mike Huckabee, who wants to be president, once suggested the Constitution could use a religious overhaul.

If President Obama has made any such claims, it seems to have bypassed the media's attention.

I couldn't care less what religious label a president wears. I just want to know that he stands by our Constitution.

Can A Freethinker Be A Christian?

Novelist Anne Rice, well known for her vampire fiction, has had an on again off again relationship with organized religion. Recently she posted on her Facebook page the comments:

As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.

Okay. And welcome, Ms. Rice, to the side of reason, at least to the extent you expressed it above.

A local Presbyterian pastor fired off a letter to the editor about this (click here and scroll down to Pray that Rice finds way back to read his entire letter) and expressed the following sentiment:

She is confused about Christ. The Bible is true, and modern American culture is false. When confronted with the issues of homosexuality, feminism, birth control, politics and world-view, the Church must go to the Bible. Let’s pray that Anne Rice would realize that Jesus wants to bring all opinions under the authority of His Word.

Some might find that last sentence shocking and offensive, but can it be refuted? Does that not pretty much sum up Jesus' stance, at least as it is represented in the canonical Scriptures? He is he quoted there: "... It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4).

This always puzzles me. Some people, despite asserting their right to think for themselves, still want to submit to the authority of Jesus. Anne Rice later clarified her above remarks with:

My commitment to Christ remains at the heart and center of my life. Transformation in Him is radical and ongoing. That I feel now that I am called to be an outsider for Him, to step away from the words, "Christian" and "Christianity" is something that my conscience demands of me. I feel that my faith in Him demands this of me. I know of no other way to express how I must remove myself from those things which seek to separate me from Him.

I've never been able to understand this. If one is going to think for himself, how is it possible to commit to a person who is against freethought?

For my part, I find the above quoted pastor's words offensive because I perceive that revealed religion is at odds with freedom of thought. In other words, I can't and won't submit my mind to religious authority. But if I accepted the authority of the Bible, I would be forced to agree with his assessment.

People who take Rice's approach seem confused, at least to me.

Cursed Be The Peacemakers!

I did it. I finished up at work early yesterday and after trips to the bank and the grocery store came home to read Deliver Us From Evil. Not that this was something I was looking forward to, but I promised my friend I would read it and report back my thoughts. After arriving home I cracked open the book and began.

Truthfully, my opinion is that this a long-winded tome that really says nothing meaningful. Despite the title, it is a political book. It is an apology for President George W. Bush's "shoot first and ask questions later" foreign policy. In a nutshell, Hannity's thesis is that evil must be confronted and - as he puts it - defeated.

Writing from a Catholic perspective - which he doesn't elaborate on - Hannity paints with very broad brush strokes. I copied this snippet which is from pages 2 and 3 (it is in the context of the Bush administration's attack against Iraq and Saddam Hussein):

It's difficult for liberals to see such moral questions clearly, because most of them are moral relativists. They reject absolute standards of right and wrong. In their worldview, man is perfectible, human nature is on a linear path toward enlightenment, and the concept of sin is primitively biblical. In their view, society's unfairness compels people to break the law. To them people like Saddam and Osama bin Laden are not morally depraved murderers, but men driven to their bad acts by the injustices of Western Society.

This absolute morals thingy is something I have encountered numerous times with religious conservatives. This is the reason for their inflexibility. "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it" is their motto. God's will is the ultimate trump card that defeats any and all arguments based on human reason.

On page 85 Hannity writes:

Repelled by the moral absolutism of religion, contemporary pundits still reject basic notions of good and evil as "primitive" - which renders them ill-equipped to understand the real forces at work in the world. Religion, to them, is a mysterious ritual best confined to church premises, or in the privacy of one's own home - and certainly one that should have no bearing on politics or government.

Now based on those thoughts and his Catholic background, you might imagine that Mr. Hannity would delve into the biblical concepts of sin and evil. But this he does not do.

Let me give a little info from the book's index. Evil is listed for the following pages: 2, 3, 7-8, 9, 13, 25-26, 52, 53, 87, 114, 134, 138, 150. That's a lot but it's not surprising in a book titled Deliver Us From Evil.

What did surprise me, however, is that the Bible is cited in the index zero times. Satan, the Devil, or Lucifer as some Christians refer to him, is mentioned the same number of times, that is zero. God is listed six times (By way of comparison, former president Bill Clinton is listed twenty times! I suppose he, like Saddam, Hitler and bin Laden, to Hannity, is a personification of evil.)

Obviously this is a piece of propaganda, written by a religious conservative for religious conservatives, and is only meant to reinforce what they already believe. So in my opinion, this was a poor choice of a book to convince me that the religious conservatives have a valid point.

If you are going to make the case that the moral absolutes of religion (in this case Judeo-Christianity) is superior to what Hannity keeps calling (without explanation) "moral relativism," it just seems that argument should be explicated and not merely asserted.

An answer I have never received from the moral absolutists - although I have asked on many occasions - is how the ugly bit of United States history regarding human slavery and the unequal treatment of black people fit into all this. As President Lincoln observed during the Civil War, both sides cited the Bible to support their positions.

So much for moral absolutes, I suppose. And the examples could be multiplied.

Now it is interesting to me that Hannity takes his book title from the Lord's prayer, where Jesus teaches his followers to ask God - rather than political forces - to deliver them from evil. Yet this an apologia for the war on terror and in general the right of the United States to step in and "defeat" evil anywhere in the world she thinks she finds it.

It's funny that Jesus also proclaimed peacemakers as blessed (Matt. 5:9), whereas Hannity continually rails against us damned liberals that believe war should be a last resort. Appeasement is referenced a whopping 28 times in the book's index. I believe that puts things into perspective fairly so far as to what Hannity thinks about things.

Hannity's picture on the dust jacket with the Statue of Liberty in the background is an outrage in my opinion. His book doesn't represent the United States' best tradition.

Deliver Me From Evil

My coworker who thinks I'm pro-Islam and anti-American has attempted to restart our discussion. I only made a face and shook my head, not willing to be drawn into another debate. Maybe next week. In the meantime I brought him a book to read about the untruthfulness of the political right. In return he brought me a right-wing book. Okay, I can do that, and - as he said he was going to do with book I brought him - I will make notes.

The book he brought for me to read is Sean Hannity's Deliver Us From Evil. Blech! While it's hard for me take seriously a book written by a guy whose picture on the dust jacket looks like Jerry Lewis posing in front of the Statue of Liberty, I'll try to make my way through it is this weekend. Incidentally, the subtitle spells out the evil he would deliver us from: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, And Liberalism. (Eyeroll over that as a selling point!)

The last hard right book I read was Coulter's Godless. It was an almost unbearable task. Over and over I laid the book on my lap and just stared into space, wondering if people could really take such things seriously. Apparently they do. I'm afraid I will have the same experience with this book. But in order to have a serious discussion with my friend I will have to try to understand the arguments he finds so clear and persuasive.

This is a chore I don't really look forward to.

Just Asking...

Bet you wouldn't you guess it from reading my blog, but I'm a Godless Muslim ... or so says a friend of mine at work (supposedly lightheartedly) after we disagreed about the proposed Muslim community center at the alleged ground zero of the 9/11 disaster. I say alleged because I'm not sure exactly what constitutes ground zero. I've read the proposed sight is a couple of blocks from ground zero. I'm just not sure. But I am sure that I can't think of any reason beyond bigotry for denying the right to build the center there.

There is an interesting comments section about the debate over at Christianity Today that I've been reading. Lots of interesting points made there. One of the many comments that caught my attention was this one that you can read in full here. Just scroll down to Charles Cherry, who suggests:

Islam is not a religion - it is a social/political/legal/cultural amalgum that includes religion as just one aspect of the whole.

Fair enough. And now my question is: Is it not true that Christianity - at least as it functions in the United States - is also a social/political/legal/cultural amalgam?

The Cruel God Of Cancer

For the past month or so it has been known that Christopher Hitchens, one of the so-called New Atheists and author of (among other books) God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, is battling the Big C. He has esophageal cancer, the same type of cancer that took out his father.

I'm not a fan of Hitchens' or the New Atheism. I've not read his book about religion and don't plan to. I don't think religion poisons everything. My attitude towards God is more that of Laplace: "I have no need of that hypothesis." Hitchens to me is just another fellow stating his opinions. Still, I have compassion for anyone who is seriously ill and facing their mortality.

While some of us are content to look at nature and find it an end in itself, others can't resist viewing the universe as a divine playground and workshop. There is a repugnant (at least to me) editorial about Hitchens' cancer viewed through this lens, God is great to Christopher Hichens by George Berkin, that attempts to make the case that just maybe "Hitchens’ getting cancer is an example of God’s grace."

Really?

Berkin suggests the following:

But maybe God is doing it this way because he desires that Hitchens give up his “god,” that is, Hitchens’ pride in being different from the run-of-the-mill mortal. Maybe God is doing it this way so that Hitchens can encounter the God he has been denying for so long, before eternity sets in.

And perhaps Berkin could profitably study a bit of biology. Certainly the thinking person has no need for his hypothesis.

Cat Watching

"Do you ever think about finding out what your purpose is in life?" my friend and coworker suddenly asked in the middle of a task we were performing. I immediately thought that I could answer that query simply, but that it deserved a bit more attention than one word.

Having been raised in a religious atmosphere that pictured the world as a divine stage and all creatures as players in a morality play, I new exactly where she was coming from. This was familiar territory for me. An outlook my mother to this day expounds to me with irritating repetition.

This is sort of an inside-out look at the matter.

On the other hand, I spend a lot of my free time observing the cats in my neighborhood. Over the years I've been through several generations of the cat family that lives under the house next to mine. The cats come and go; the life of an outdoor cat is not long and pampered as is true of their indoor counterparts. The males tend to wander off in search of mating opportunities when they reach maturity, often never to return. Illness takes out some. Living near the woods where there are predatory creatures removes a few more. Then there is the occasional death by car, although I've never noticed any of my regulars having been taken out that way. I prefer to think that some of the more docile kitties were taken in by other families. I can't have an indoor cat because I am allergic to them. I have to limit my time with the cats in order to avoid the rashes and extended sneezing fits they bring me. But as I said, I do watch them - a lot.

From my perspective as a mostly uninvolved observer (all I do is provide them food and water and offer them occasional strokes and baby talk), I can see how nature is filled with subjects that are ends in themselves. These cats begin their day with a meal, clean up immediately afterwards, then commence to play. The older the cats get the less they go in for constant play, but by then they have sharpened their hunting skills which leads them to interact with the neighborhood birds and squirrels (not to mention the various insects). When they are not involved in the mating game, hunting, or playing, they tend to laze around in the dirt or sun. With their incessant curiosity about the world around them they to tend to spend a good part of each day strolling around hunting for things to explore. All in all, not a bad life for their limited mentalities. They seem quite content for the most part.

In other words, they simply live. They instinctively know that the purpose of life is living. They don't fret and worry and concern themselves with endless details, they just live each day to its fullest.

How and when did we humans forget this?

The Absentee God

You hear the phrase "a personal relationship with God" a lot, especially if you know any Christians or listen to Christian programming. And such talk causes me to wonder why, if such a thing were possible, there are atheists at all, or, for that matter, religious disputes among believers.

Dr. Billy Graham discusses this in one of his answer columns which can be read in full here.

Graham writes:

Think of a human friendship: How do we grow closer to someone on a human level? The most important way is by spending time with them -- talking with them, listening to them, sharing your concerns with each other and even helping them when they need our help.

How does this differ from having an imaginary friend like back in our childhood days?

Theists face two major hurdles in commending their worldview. There is that tough nut, the problem of evil. But just as devastating is this problem of God's hiddenness.

"He is there" we are confidently told, and what's more, we can have a personal relationship with him. It just seems to be a very one-sided personal relationship.

Which Side Of The Culture War Are You On?

A billboard culture war is under way in the Bible Belt state of North Carolina. The North Carolina Secular Association decided to put into place a half dozen billboards that highlights the phrase from the Pledge of Allegiance (as it was originally written) one nation indivisible. Christians, not to be outdone, doubled that number of billboards featuring the revised phrase one nation under God. Read the story here.

Now honestly, which billboard do you feel most truly represents the American ideals of freedom and E Pluribus Unum?

I unabashedly prefer the secular vision and notion of secular government.

Sauce For The Goose And The Gander

Pastor Bill Dunfee, of New Beginnings Ministries in Warsaw, Ohio, led members of his church in loud protests of Foxhole Gentlemen's Club, even going so far as to photograph the club's patron's license plates and post them online in an attempt to embarrass and harass them.

The club's owner took the church to court in an effort to stop the protests but, correctly I believe, lost on First Amendment grounds.

Then they came up with a more creative solution. The club set up a protest outside the church on Sundays, featuring bikini-clad dancers holding signs. Click here to see a hilarious picture of the scene.

It doesn't have to be that way. Club owner Tommy George has said:

When these morons go away, we'll go away. The great thing about this country is that everyone has a right to believe what they want.

I don't know about everywhere but I assure you that if - as I suggested in yesterday's post - atheists started canvassing the neighborhoods the same way Christians do around here, handing out propaganda and attempting to convert people, there would be loud complaints. And I further assure you it would get heavy press coverage.

There is a double standard in this country and non-Christians and especially nonbelievers suffer harassment and discrimination. So I have to laugh when the shoe gets placed on the other foot!

Going Door To Door With The Truth

I'm a firm believer in the old adage that a person's home is their castle, ergo I have absolutely no patience for door to door peddlers of any kind. The very idea that it is appropriate for a stranger to just pop up out of the blue and invade my solitude and attempt to do business with me annoys me to no end. Sometimes I just don't bother to answer the random knock. Other times I have my front door open and am plainly visible through my storm door, which makes ignoring the knocker a bit problematic.

This past weekend was unusual in that I had two such knocking events. One was one of the neighborhood guys pushing a lawn mower and apparently going door to door asking to borrow gasoline. Hmmm. The other was a committee of three from a local Baptist church out doing visitations. I get church visitors out drumming up business quite often. Within a one mile radius of my home I can count six churches - three Baptist, two Methodist and one Nazarene. Within two miles the number doubles. You get the idea, and I'm not exaggerating. It's not as if one were so inclined to seek out a church and become churchy he would have a problem doing it without a door to door peddler.

There is this double standard regarding religion that irks me. It is for some reason considered rude to criticize religion. People often boast about not knocking other people's religious beliefs. Yet it is obviously considered quite appropriate to criticize people's nonbelief, and even to go door to door in order to do it.

Lots of folks, religious and nonreligious, are uncomfortable with the New Atheism, a more aggressive, evangelical style. I wonder how Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public would take to atheists going door to door attempting to make converts?

Or how about this. My beef is that most folks seem to be illogical. This makes having meaningful discourse difficult. Suppose I went door to door with guides to critical thinking. How do you suppose that would go over? I fancy lots of folks would feel insulted if I told them they needed to learn to think logically. Yet so many don't consider it rude to go to a person's home for the purpose of telling them they need church (their church, coincidentally) in their lives.

The committee that appeared at my door Saturday past invited me to their church, gave me directions on how to get there, and then asked me if I had any prayer needs. No, I wasn't rude. I thanked them for the invite and told them I had no prayer needs. Then with a smile and wave I closed my door.

Then I watched out my window as they worked their way slowly but steadily down my street, no doubt with good intentions and apparently oblivious to the inappropriateness of their task. I suppose I'm in the minority, but I resent such intrusions. I suppose it's not their fault. They've been taught being rude this way is their Christian duty.

Overturn Of California's Proposition 8 Signals Armageddon

... metaphorically speaking, I suppose, at least according to Nixon White House insider turned Christian spokesperson Chuck Colson. In his Breakpoint for August 5, Colson says:

I have warned you for months that our religious freedoms are imperiled. Well, Armageddon may be close at hand if a new court decision holds up.

Whenever a Christian speaks of Armageddon, he is referring to something of epic proportions. Armageddon is the supposed final war between the forces of good and evil.

It's not that I think Christians are bad people. But their worldview, their basic notions about morality, their attitude towards logic, are troublesome for those who prefer to live according to the dictates of reason.

How is it possible that the extension of basic rights to gay people could threaten religious freedom in our country? But those who think this way also worried about extending voting rights to women and granting equality to blacks.

It seems the Christian God is quite backwards about such things. Even the more liberal-minded Christians have a problem bringing their God into modern times when their basic text, the Bible as God's revelation, is filled with such oppression.

And, no, it isn't just the way some people read or interpret the Bible. Bear in mind when you are studying the Bible that it is an ancient text infused with archaic thinking and traditions. The very notion of religious freedom is totally absent in the Bible. Human rights can hardly play a role in a book that is based on the proposition that humans were created for the basic purpose of being servants to their creator.

If we are really concerned about freedom the thing for us to do is challenge faux authority.

God Rejects Wamp As Tennessee Gubernatorial Candidate

It's over. I've written a couple of times about U. S. Congressman Zach Wamp and his attempt to become Tennessee's next governor. He said he wanted to use the state as a springboard to restore America to its supposed Judeo-Christian tradition.

Well, so much for that. Wamp was overwhelmingly rejected in the primary election by Tennessee Republicans, bypassed for Knoxville mayor Bill Haslam.

In a cliche-laced concession speech Wamp in a gracious Christian manner pointed out that "The best candidate doesn't always win." But what the hey, the will of God is the will of God, right?

Speaking of God, after leading his crowd of supporters in prayer, Wamp suggested (or perhaps I should say cliched) “When God Closes One Door He Opens Another."

So, Zach, God closed this door? Funny, but he blamed his loss on having been outspent, having faced much negative advertising, and of having been affected by the anti-Washington sentiment common among voters.

Come on, Zach, tells us what you really think about it?

We Don't Have A Corner On Religo-politco Nuts

It's comforting for me to know that all the religious nuts aren't clustered here in the Bible Belt. Out west in Nevada there is a lady doing quite well actually in her run against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. But why not, she was called of God (or so she claims).

As is typical of these folks God allegedly calls into politics, she is ignorant concerning his Bible. She is making the claim that Democrats are attempting to make our government into a god. Sharron Angle says:

And that's really what's happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment. We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government. We're supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government.

The first commandment is quite clear that Yahweh was prohibiting his people from worshipping any of the many gods that were popular in that section of his footstool in ancient times - literally, not metaphorically.

I will submit, however, that for many Americans there is an entrenched metaphorical idolatry that is raging out of control. It is a worship of the god Mammon, i.e., riches. But the Republican party, with its partiality towards big business and the wealthy, is the greatest offender.

It seems hypocrisy must always go hand-in-hand with religio-politico nuttery.

Government By God's Decree?

I mentioned a few days ago U. S. Congressman Zack Wamp and his bid to become Tennessee's next governor. A recent letter-to-the-editor writer comments here on a statement made by Wamp in a recent gubernatorial debate:

Is the election over? I am confused. During the Republican gubernatorial debate, candidate Zach Wamp stated that he has “great faith in God that he has already decided who is going to be governor.” If this is true, should I bother to vote? By the way, what does such a sentiment do to the concept of free will?

Sounds as if the writer has stumbled onto the Christian dilemma of reconciling an Almighty God's omnipotent sovereignty with man's purported free will.

I didn't watch the debate but imagine that Wamp had in mind Paul's words in Roman 13:1, which reads:

Every person must be subject to the governing authorities, for no authority exists except by God's permission. The existing authorities have been established by God (International Standard Version).

(Hey, wouldn't that mean God put Barack Obama in the White House?)

The Bible was written during an age of monarchy. It must have been easier for believers back then to see God's hand in the rise and fall of empires than it is today to reconcile God's sovereignty with democracy and "the will of the people."

Where Are The Deniers?

My area of the nation is looking at another week of three-digit and near three-digit high temperatures. Our low temps have pretty much been in the mid to upper 70s. Not really enjoyable weather. We did get a bit of a break Saturday and again yesterday when a cloud cover held the high temperatures down to what is normal. There's no disputing that this has been one hot summer.

We came off a snowy, chilly winter, that was filled, as I well remember, with sarcasm from the man-made global warming deniers. One letter-to-the-editor writer here commented that he had just finished shoveling three inches of global warming off his walkway. The right wing noise machine made much of the snow and cold being inconsistent with global warming, and the ditto heads I work with were quick with the jabs.

So where are they now that we are sweltering? Using their illogic, this summer should prove we are nigh burning up the planet.

There is a good read at Scientific American concerning this past winter. An article by Nicholette Zeliadt puts it all in perspective. I quote the following from that piece:

"What happened this past winter has nothing to do with climate change," says Richard Seager, senior research scientist and lead author of the study, which was published online July 26 in Geophysical Research Letters. He explains that although he does not doubt that human activity is altering the climate, individual weather events like last winter's blizzards cannot be used to make arguments for or against the reality of climate change.

The same is true of this very grueling summer. There is much data that should be weighed when drawing conclusions about global warming. Idiots spout off about such things when they haven't done their homework.

What makes ignorance so attractive to some people?

Are We Listening?

Jesus used an interesting expression to get across his point that some people just were too blind to see clearly the things he was trying to express: "He who has ears to hear, let him hear!" Other of his followers, the apostle Paul and John, the author of the last book of the Bible, used similar expressions. Their point seemed to be that some truth isn't obvious but requires a deeper insight to understand. For lots of religious folk this is some type of spiritual enlightenment that is bestowed upon seekers by God.

I don't have any patience with that type of supposed enlightenment, but I do like Jesus' expression.

It was Thomas Paine who noted that "to argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead."

In other words, such a one has no ears to hear.

The problem with the human animal is that we are only rational animals some of the time. Mostly we are creatures of instinct and emotion. As a result we have a certain deafness and blindness regarding the truth of the world around us.

A Do Nothing Day

I woke up this morning with a list of things I wanted to accomplish. Then I noticed one of my little cat friends who is still raising her kittens - three little darlings, one that looks just like her and two gold cats that look like their pa (there was a fourth one but it drowned a month or so ago in a sudden rainstorm) - as she gathered her babies around her for nursing and grooming on my front deck. It was such a touching sight. I wanted get my camera and take a picture, but decided not to disturb them. I watched this scene for a long while. I continued watching until Fluffy had her fill and left her sleeping kittens in a pile and came over to scratch my storm door - a signal she wanted some food for herself.

Wow, that went on for two hours! Well, I did manage to read my morning paper online and brew some fresh tea while I observed. But it became readily apparent to me that this was going to be one of my do nothing days. A day to kick back, rest, meditate, and accomplish little.

Vaguely I recalled a little essay Bertrand Russell wrote in praise of idleness. I believe, in fact, that that was the title. Too much idleness is not a good thing, but the hectic pace of modern life leaves me emotionally drained on a regular basis. I try to use my weekends to catch up on housework and rest. If I relax and do no more than just what I choose to do, I consider that I have had a good weekend. That always brings looks of astonishment when Monday rolls around and my coworkers ask what I did over the weekend and I reply, "Nothing." It seems that most people use their weekends to catch up on more of the stuff they can't cram into their workweeks. "Simplify your life," I tell them.

No guilt here at all, no feelings of "letting life pass me by." Life for me is taking the time to breathe in the fresh air of the predawn hours, watching the sun rise, and then watching almost spellbound as the day unfolds. A short nap is always a pleasure. It's something I can't do through the week. No, I think life passes a person by when he is busy with so many irons in the fire that he misses the most basic pleasures life has to offer.

I may be doing a little housekeeping here and there today. But it will be done between periods of deep relaxation. This emphasis will be on the latter, you can bet. The rat race is something I want more and more to disassociate myself from. I just wish I had decided to do it years ago.