Stop the spread of nature centers: They are teaching our children to be anti-American terrorists

Just kidding.  What an absurd thing for me to  say.  However, just yesterday, in Silver Spring Maryland, an act of ecco-terrorism took place.  OK, so this  guy was a lone pathetic wack-job but we have had  those wing-nuts spiking trees out in California and occasionally Greenpeace steps a little over the line.  So do we have cause to label all environmentalists potentially dangerous? Do they all belong to a violent, hateful and anti-American cause?  Should the Audubon Society, World Wildlife Foundation and the Cousteau Society condemn the actions of this lunatic who attacked the Discovery Channel?

No more so than we should expect the Muslim community to be held accountable for the actions of Islamist terrorists.  If we are afraid to allow mosques into our community because of the violent actions of a very minute element of fringe Muslim radicals, then why not the same fear of nature centers? I’ll bet James J. Lee spent some considerable time in one or two when he was a child. Is this where the seeds of violence were planted?

Of course, you can bet some loon will try seriously try  to connect the Discovery Channel incident with environmentalists at large (which would include me).  Just as you can bet that a few misanthropic ecco-nuts will applaud this poor fool’s “courageous martyrdom”.  You will find misguided people everywhere.  But the exception does not, in these cases, prove the rule.

All this country needs is for some of those good old-time religious people to take charge

“What is our purpose in life? It is to restore the fallen culture to the glory of God. It’s to take command and dominion over every aspect of life, whether it’s music, science, law, politics, communities, families, to bring Christianity to bear in every single area of life” – Charles Colson

“As soon as Jesus sits on his throne he’s gonna rule the world with a rod of iron. That means he’s gonna make the ACLU do what he wants them to. That means you’re not gonna have to ask if you can pray in public school. We will live by the law of God and no other law.”— John Hagee

“Lord, give us righteous judges who will not try to legislate and dominate this society. Take control, Lord! We ask for additional vacancies on the court.” –Pat Robertson

“We’re not attacking Islam but Islam has attacked us. The God of Islam is not the same God. He’s not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It’s a different God and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion.” -Franklin Graham

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.” – Sarah Palin

“There are some who would accuse us of trying to Christianize America. Am I trying to Christianize America? You bet your boots I am!” – D. James Kennedy

“The most used phrase in my administration if I were to be President would be ‘What the hell you mean we’re out of missiles?”-Glenn Beck

There is a memorable behind–the-scenes moment in one of Frank Peretti’s books where a little  demon perched on the shoulder of an addict is swirling his hand around inside the man’s skull.  (For those of you who don’t know of him, Frank Peretti writes “Christian” horror tales.  This book, if I remember correctly, was “Piercing the Darkness”. It may just as well have been called “Piercing my Eyeball” for all the pleasure I got from reading it.)

Anyway, this supernatural premise is one that many conservative Christians (Fundamentalists, Neo-Evangelicals, Moral Majoritarians, reactionary Catholics –you get the picture) do not take lightly.  There is no doubt in their minds that the minds of others, especially those who suffer from mental and emotional disorders, are in demonic clutches.  Many of these Christians consider psychologists and psychiatrists to be quacks, or even worse, in the employ of Satan (though perhaps unconsciously). People with chronic depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, OCD –  these people  don’t need medical attention, and they certainly don’t need any drugs. All they need is to turn to Jesus. Or maybe endure a good exorcism. (In their contempt for the psychiatric profession they have a lot in common with Scientologists).

The funny (and sad) thing is that most of these people are not complete idiots.  I know, because I was once one of them, and I am no idiot. (depending on who you ask)  Now, I didn’t completely right-off the mental health profession. But I didn’t put much stock in mental health practitioners, unless he or she was an overt Christian.  Because if therapists didn’t believe that Satan could mess with people’s minds, then it was tantamount to them working for Satan.  There was really no hope for healing.  I guess a Jewish doctor who believed in Satan would be OK except that he would not recognize the healing power of Jesus.  So, no, it would have to be a Christian and a neo-Evangelical, God fearing, born-again Christian to boot. And this is a wide spread conviction among Christian fundamentalists.

Nowadays a belief in Satan would immediately disqualify that professional from my consideration. I couldn’t care less if my mechanic or my post-man or my butcher believed in Satan or Santa. But when it comes to helping people deal with issues that challenge their sanity, well, I just don’t think the supernatural is something worth pursuing.  At least not at $150 an hour.

What I am trying to get at here is that there are quite a lot of Americans (some estimates say around 100 million) who believe that Old Scratch is a legitimate threat to our personal, local and national security.  Heck, our last president thought this way.  Right now there is a lot of angry talk going around about how Muslim people actually belong to a satanic religion and that the Prophet was under satanic influence.  Which, when you think about it, is pretty scary. Not the idea that Islam is satanic – that’s not scary, it’s just plain ignorant. No, what’s scary is that maybe over 100 million Americans have their heads in the Dark Ages. Quite a few readily say that most non-Christians are doing Satan’s work and all are destined for hell. That the world’s problems won’t be solved until America’s problems are solved which won’t happen until America is a Christian nation run by Christians. My God, what if they ever organized?

Which is what they have been, for the last 40 years or so. Though you won’t hear them say it officially, the Christian Right has dominionism on their minds.  Dominionism according to Wikipedia, is:

the tendency among some conservative politically-active Christians, especially in the United States, to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action. The goal is either a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.

I don’t think the leaders of the Christian Right would disagree too much with that assessment. And I guess that if you are a conservative Christian you probably don’t have much of a problem with it. But, as a fairly moderate man who struggles with keeping the teachings of Jesus close to heart ( I am hesitant to call myself a “Christian” these days) I am, frankly, fairly frightened. I can’t imagine what a Hindu or a Buddhist or (particularly at this time) a Muslim, thinks of this. (Though I have spoken with some Muslims and they don’t appear to be too worried) Apparently a lot of Jews are willing to overlook the rhetoric of the Christian Right as long as they continue to fervently support Israel.  I guess they, like so many others, don’t take them too seriously. And that’s a mistake.

Considering their stated goals and their political successes (they helped elect a lot of governors and a lot of people to Congress and the last administration was very much under their influence) I think they need to be taken very seriously.  Though they only crow about it to the choir inside churches and those listening to their radio and TV programs, their ultimate agenda is for all elected officials be fundamentalist Christians, all government policies be based upon Biblical law and that eventually all citizens convert to Christianity. Which would mean only Christians would be capable of effective leadership, or even citizenship.  Now, what is that starting to sound like?

Before you think I’m crazy remember that not too long ago I used to be in their camp. And if that’s not enough, go check out their websites:  the American Family Association, Focus on the Family,  Coral Ridge Ministries,  Answers In Genesis, Center for Moral Clarity, Christian Broadcasting Network, John Hagee Ministeries etc.  And follow the links on these sites; you might be surprised what you find there.  Of course most of what you find will sound relatively harmless, maybe even noble.  I mean, what’s wrong with family values?  Patriotism is a good thing, usually.  And it’s kind of hard to object to the Gospel of Jesus. .

So there’s nothing to worry about, right? This is America, after all.  Couldn’t happen here. Well, the Tea Party is growing stronger and some influential people are actually talking about a possible  Beck/Palin presidential bid (in recent Gallup polls Beck was the fourth most admired man alive, right below Nelson Mandela and just above the Pope, while Palin was the number one Republican presidential contender)  So interesting things could happen. We might be surprised. Perhaps unpleasantly.

An old Baptist  preacher once warned be about  ‘false teachings’:  “Remember, rat poison is 95% sugar. It’s the other 5% that’ll kill ya.”

Fundamentalists just need more faith

Having once been an adherent myself, this is my understanding of why Christian Fundamentalists are so zealous about Creationism:

If you:

… accept the theory of Evolution as the most reasonable explanation for the variety of life on Earth

….accept the geological evidence that says that the Earth is billions of years old

…accept the astronomical evidence that the Universe is much older than even the Earth

Then you:

…obviously do not read the Bible literally

…do not believe that the Biblical creation account is true

…cannot trust that anything else in the Bible is true

…cannot accept God’s Word as true

…under the influence of Satan

…are unsaved.

So, in fundamentalist eyes, conventional scientific inquiry is not necessarily flawed but profoundly dangerous.  In order to protect the philosophically unassailable conclusions of Creationism, which are based solely upon Biblical texts, any tactic that can discredit the conventional scientific wisdom is acceptable, particularly the ad hominem argument

But the defense of Creationism becomes more difficult as scientific research continues to reveal evidence for the natural history of our planet and the workings of the Universe.  This evidence cannot be ignored so it must be re-interpreted, but always through the lens of the Bible. In this way the geologic and fossil evidence can be explained ‘scientifically’ through the extrapolation of Biblical stories, particularly the story of the Flood.

As it turns out, the Flood is a convenient refutation of just about all the physical evidence that supports evolution and an old Earth, at least for those who believe in Biblical Creation. It is the point at which the Creationists and the Evolutionist continue to  bump heads.  Because, though the Evolutionists can say that the Flood is merely a convenient myth that neatly gives religious answers to questions about the Earth, the Creationists can reply that yes, indeed it does.  The Flood explains everything. But it is no myth

Without the Flood and the story of Noah and his Ark, there would be little if any support for the theory of Creationism.  This is the mechanism that provides an air of ‘scientific’ legitimacy to their position, one that incorporates physical evidence coupled with a theory that is irrefutable, as it cannot be tested.  When this theory is questioned on the basis of obvious evidence to the contrary, the Creationists are left with no choice but to fall back upon a supernatural explanation that is often the result of a non-contextual rendering of a Bible verse. ( i.e. “all things are possible with God”)

It obviously boils down to a question of faith, not science.  If one definition of faith is that it is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, then Creationism cannot be called science.  Yet another definition of faith is trust, confidence in someone or something, without the necessary evidence to support it.

If ultimately the Creationist position is supported by an article of faith that cannot be tested, then why spend all this energy on modifying school science texts so that they teach Intelligent Design or the ongoing construction of numerous Creation museums (one intent of which is to ridicule modern science and scientists)?  It is a classic example of “preaching to the choir” and comes across as a desperate attempt to present evidence necessary to “prove” the existence of God.  Because there just isn’t enough faith.

Most Americans do not think Glenn Beck is a Christian

Because he is a Mormon.

Which is interesting, when you consider all the ruckus Beck is making over Obama’s faith and how the President’s ‘version’ of Christianity is unrecognizable to most Christians.   And then there’s Beck’s passion for wanting to lead America back to the allegedly Christian ideals of the founders.  By belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, Beck is not regarded a Christian by the Roman Catholic Church, most mainstream Protestant denominations and just about all conservative Evangelicals.  Many, if not most, think Mormonism is “clearly”a cult. This is exactly what James Dobson and Focus on the Family believes:

“While Glenn’s social views are compatible with many Christian views, his beliefs in Mormonism are not. Clearly, Mormonism is a cult. The CitizenLink story does not mention Beck’s Mormon faith, however, the story makes it look as if Beck is a Christian who believes in the essential doctrines of the faith.

“Through the years, Focus on the Family has done great things to help the family and has brought attention to the many social ills that are attacking the family.

“However, to promote a Mormon as a Christian is not helpful to the cause of Jesus Christ. For Christians to influence society, Christians should be promoting the central issues of the faith properly without opening the door to false religions.“

Yet conservative Evangelical leaders stand shoulder to shoulder with Beck as he rallies his Christian soldiers on to a new American Dominionism.  ( Where  does Sarah Palin’s church stands on the “is a Mormoan a Christian” issue?)   Anyway, strange bedfellows.  I wonder if  Glenn ever considered the possibility that, if he and Sarah are successful, Mormon’s might find themselves in the same boat with Muslims and other threats to “Christian” authority?

The irony is that most Muslims  would probably give Beck the benefit of the doubt and accept his Christian bona fides. Which is not necessarily a very good thing for anyone, including Mormons.

Who IS Lindsay Lohan?

Seriously, I haven’t a clue. Really. I kid you not. So could someone please fill me in?

Nah, never mind. I really don’t care.

Is something wrong with me?

Mountain of Turkey found on Noah’s Ark

(UPNews) August 25, 2010

Sven Splinquist, a Creation Scientist and entrepreneur in Stockholm, contacted Swedish authorities today,  saying that his meticulously detailed  life-size reproduction of Noah’s Arc was vandalized over night.   An estimated 50 tons of thinly sliced deli turkey had been mysteriously layered atop the 450 foot wooden vessel, completely burying its superstructure.

Authorities have no suspects in the case but Splinquist believes it has something to do with his theory  that not all animals were taken aboard by Noah, particularly birds.  Instead  just 2 each of all  “kinds” of animals were saved.  Every species of dog would not need representation,  but just a few, as the other varieties would have developed in the ensuing 4300 years.  But this view has some people upset, including many of Sweden’s 1500 turkey farmers, who have waged a market war with neighboring Norway’s booming chicken industry for years.

“Ja, dere vas no need for all da birds to be on d’ark. Just a few.  So da tink is, dere vas no turkey on ark, just chickies.  Da turkey of today is just a big chickie.” says Splinquist. “Da turkey varmers are mad ’cause dey tink I’m sayin Gud don’t luff de turkeys. But he luff effertink. Efen pastrami.”//

Splinquist is not too terribly upset about the cold-cut prank. In fact he has a big grin on his face.

“Look! My ark not tip ofer! Dis proof dat de ark vas ferry sea worty. An tomorrow ve haff smorgasbord fer de whole friggin’ town! Gud bless!”

Nationalism, fascism and Christian fundamentalism: 17 common denominators

I’ve wondered about the similarities  between some of the more angry elements in America today.  Perhaps it is no surprise that these elements tend to overlap,  though by no means do they have to.

What is it that they have in common?  So far, I’ve come  up with 17 points.  I’ve deliberately left them vague, so that each statement could be  used to describe a nationalist, a fascist or a religious fundamentalist in any nation or of any faith in the world.

1. They are strongly attached to tradition and want to return to better times of the past.

2. Yet, they are resistant to change.

3. The are willing to unquestionably submit to authority, though they are openly critical of  the authority they have yet to supplant.

4.They express a general disenchantment with present times and circumstances and the firm belief that better times (Utopia) will be ushered in through apocalyptic and cleansing violence.

5. There is a professed need for unity among the ranks exemplified by oaths  and pledges and physical gestures.

6.  Popular dissent is suppressed  and those who disagree with their established authority and doctrine are readily condemned.

7.  They are suspicious of ‘intellectual’s and their institutions (who are most likely to dissent)  and dismiss any evidence that might conflict with their doctrines.

8. They  fear  the unknown as what lies there may challenge their existing convictions. So unauthorized books, periodicals, broadcasts etc are off-limits.

9. They are paranoid, they believe they are besieged by hostile forces and that anyone who is not with them is against them.

10. A fear and dislike for the alien (the nonconformist)  from outside or within their midst is common (hostile forces are often personified by the alien). These aliens become convenient scapegoats for most of society’s problems.

11. Their rhetoric largely consists of  an insider language peppered with head-nodding jargon ( like Orwell’s “Newspeak”)

12. There is a professed obsession with morality and purity,  of both the body and the mind, that can only be accomplished through strict discipline and devotion to authority and doctrine

13. An affection for the language of empire, implying the supremacy of their place over any other, helps them to essentially squash  any idea of egalitarianism

14. They tend  to use  the violent language of sacrifice, conquest and triumph.

15. They exalt the martial elements of society.

16. They profess a firm belief in their destiny and their natural (chosen) place at the head of other people and nations of the world.

17. They celebrate an officially sanctioned mythology that blends truth with fiction and creates heroic stories used to promote doctrine.

Did I miss any?

VA orders crosses removed from national cemeteries out of respect for fallen Jewish soldiers

In a provocative move today, the Veterans Administration ordered the removal of all Christian crosses from national military cemeteries commissioned during or after World War II. This was in response to a growing fervor on the part of Jewish American veterans of that war and their families:

“I lost two brothers in the Battle of the Bulge” said Robert Hirsch, who served as an infantry captain from 1942 to 1945. ” My mother lost two sisters and an uncle at Bergen-Belsen. We can never forgive the Nazis for what they did and we can never forget that they were Christians. A cross on this hallowed ground is offensive to all Jewish Americans.”

OK, so this hasn’t happened. But, if you are a Christian, how did it make you feel, if for only a moment? I’ll wager that whatever you felt, it wasn’t ‘good’. But isn’t this the same argument being waged by opponents of the proposed Islamic center (not a mosque) in Manhatten?

The folks who want to build this mosque, who are really radical Islamists, who want to triumphfully (sic) prove they can build a mosque next to a place where 3,000 Americans were killed by radical Islamists. Those folks don’t have any interest in reaching out to the community. They’re trying to make a case about supremacy… This happens all the time in America. Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. – New Gingrich

Aren’t they assuming that all Muslims are violent? Or that since so many Muslims are violent (allegedly) that they practice a violent religion? Does anyone remember that Hawaii has a large Japanese population who were living there long before the Navy anchored any battle ships at Pearl. So any visible Japanese presence adjacent to the base (like a Shinto Shrine) is forbidden? I don’t think so. (Even though Newt says that this “happens all the time in America”)

Doesn’t it follow, based upon Islamophobic logic, that all Germans and all Japanese are somehow complicit in the atrocities of WWII? (and what about those Teflon coated Italians?)

No, that would only be the case if they were objecting to Arabs - which would be an openly racist campaign against a certain ethnic group or nationality, and we just don’t do that in America anymore.

Instead the Islamophobes have an ax to grind against the growing presence of what they believe is an aggressive, warlike and anti-American religion, a tiny fraction of which has committed violence against the United States. So, using this logic it would be safer to say that all Christians are somehow complicit in what the Germans (and Italians) did during WWII, as they were Christian nations. (Not enough Shintos around to worry about them, right now.)

Why haven’t Jewish Americans made the same types of accusations and placed the same demands against Christians? Is it because they are in the minority, like the Muslims?

Or am I just mixing up Christian apples with Islamic oranges?

Patriots rally at Ground Zero to oppose Islamic anti-Americanism

OK, I’ll say it: these Islamophobes are fascists. Really, no exaggeration.

Presidential hopeful Gingrich reveals that he is a closet fascist and a Nazi sympathizer

Newt Gingrich is yet another Republican who is using the current Islamic controversy to fuel a possible run at the White House in 2012. In what many think was a Freudian slip of the tongue, Herr Gingrich made a shocking revelation on Fox television the other day:

“Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington,” whined Gingrich in an interview on Fox and Friends.

’nuff said, Newt.

What I would like to hear from President Obama concerning his faith: “Shut up and mind your own damn business.”

Apparently a significant part of America thinks that President Obama is Muslim.  Of course, like many Americans,  on  many things, they are misinformed,  feeding upon the bloody scraps left by the blathering political sharks who churn our airwaves.   But aside from the disappointing ignorance of our populous, should this really  matter much? Is a president’s faith somehow related to his performance?

We all know that Washington was a deist and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the two  men most responsible for allowing religion to flourish in America, were not religious themselves, neither one a “Christian”.  Did John F. Kennedy ever attempt to place the interests of the United States under the control of the Pope, as so many loopy Protestants believed would happen?  Arguably our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln, was no Christian at all,  at least according to his wife (and others close to  him).  Little constrained by his Quaker roots, Richard Nixon  ordered the carpet bombing of North Vietnam.  George W. Bush never could get the teaching of evolution removed from our nation’s high schools ( as if that was ever one of his goals).

Really, this whole obsession over the faith of our elected leaders is asinine.  Rather than trying to assure Americans that he is, in fact, a Christian, Obama should just tell everyone to shut up and mind their own business.  Faith is a private matter. (Unless you are the Anti-Christ, like some thought Ronald [6] Wilson [6] Reagan [6] was. Now that’s a pretty big deal.)

“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

-Article VI, Section 3, United States Constitution

Ugliness is on the tongue of the speaker: the meaning of words change depending upon who says them

Dr. Laura Shlessinger  resigned from radio yesterday after a controversy erupted over her use of the “N-word”.  I haven’t heard the transcripts, but apparently when advising a caller on how to deal with racial discrimination, she used the N-word 11 times in the span of five minutes.

National furor erupted when Schlessinger used the N-word 11 times in five minutes during a call August 10 with an African-American caller who was seeking advice on how to deal with racist comments from her white husband’s friends and relatives. The conversation evolved into a discussion on whether it’s appropriate to ever use the word, with Schlessinger arguing it’s used on HBO and by black comedians.

Schlessinger apologized the following day, saying “I was attempting to make a philosophical point, and I articulated the N-word all the way out — more than one time. And that was wrong. I’ll say it again — that was wrong.”

While Schlessinger told King on Tuesday that she was still “regretful” over the incident, she said she feels her freedom of speech rights “have been usurped by angry, hateful groups who don’t want to debate — they want to eliminate.”

“I decided it was time to move on to other venues where I could say my peace and not have to live in fear anymore,” she said.

Fair enough, I guess, if Dr. Laura had advised a real “patient”, one that she had taken the time to know,  within the confines of her office. But did she forget that she was on radio?

More importantly, as a popular “psychologist”, doesn’t she realize that one word can have completely different meanings depending upon who says it?  (Though perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised: her doctoral thesis was on the “Effects of Insulin on 3-0-Methylglucose Transport in Isolated Rat Adipocytes”).  A lot of people apparently don’t understand this linguistic rule, either.  Her argument, that it is acceptable for white people to use the ‘N-word’ because many  black people do so,  is one that I hear regularly.  And it is one that completely ignores the realities of life.

Throughout history  we have known words to change their meaning depending upon who is uses them.  Here is a classic example,  from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

bourgeois

1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the townsman or of the social middle class

2 : marked by a concern for material interests and respectability and a tendency toward mediocrity

3 : dominated by commercial and industrial interests : capitalistic

In each case the word takes on a different tone depending upon who is using it. It is complimentary when used by an egalitarian espousing the virtues of the middle class or an epithet when from the lips of Marie Antoinette, Leona Helmsley or John Reed.

When a rabbi exhorts his congregation to live like “good Jews” he is not thinking the same thing  that some gentiles  are  when they say that someone is acting like a Jew.

When the Romans referred to” Christians” it was not complimentary, yet the word was eventually adopted by the 1st century Church.  The word “rebel” meant different things to the British colonials than it did to American revolutionaries just as it did later for  American Unionists and  Southern secessionists.

I have to admit that when talking about Fundamentalists I am  not using the word in a positive way.  Yet not long ago I was proud to call myself a fundamentalist, even though I bridled when called this by other, non-fundamentalists.

So I don’t think it is too hard to understand why, that many (but not all) Americans of color  feel  it is OK  to use the N-word themselves, it is not OK for white people to do so.  Let’s be honest, when a white person says the N-word it ain’t meant as a compliment. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, ugliness is born on the tongue of the speaker.