Hot Buttons
|
Hot Buttons
|
I think I will just put all the Hot Button stuff that tumbles off my fingers on this page... I would love to discuss anything I have written here. Bear in mind that these are subjects that I find difficult to be dispassionate about... I am trying to make sense of my life
12/9/2003 The history of the rise of Christianity has everything to do with politics, culture, and human frailties and nothing to do with supernatural manipulation of events. Had divine intervention been the guiding force, surely two millennia after the birth of Jesus he would not have a world where there are more Muslims than Catholics, more Hindus than Protestants, and more non-theists than Catholics and Protestants combined. John K. Naland I like the word Non-theist, it isn't as harsh as atheist. Seems like a Non-theist is a person who can get through the day without getting passionate about religion one way or the other, where as a theist or an atheist has an axe to grind. I guess I am a Non-theist. I can acknowledge that there are things I don't understand but I refuse to let others presume to tell me what to think nor do I believe that their convictions have any weight in my mind. I have my own convictions and I deem my mind to be as discerning as any other. I don't believe that anyone has been endowed with the insight to know what is ultimately unknowable. Priests have been taught how to promote the religion that pays them. I don't believe that anyone has the right to tell me what to believe or what to think. 2/4/2002 Super-Bowl Rant (I realize your hoopla during half time was all about getting you to ring up some bimbo and have a chat for an exorbitant amount of money, here it was wall to wall flag-waving and commercialized, homogenized, pasteurized hit-‘em-over-the-head-till-they-bleed’ shameless hype.) Incidentally, the best commercial for me was two guys at a bar, next to a beautiful girl. One of the guys is bashful and tongue-tied, the other acting like Cyrano de Bergerac. The Cyrano one says “tell her “Hi, my names Bill, you have beautiful eyes”, Bill turns and looks her in the eyes and says “Hi, my names Bill, you have beautiful eyes” Cyrano whispers, “Tell her “I’d really like to spend some time with you” Bill says “I’d really like to spend some time with you” The bartender comes up with a Budweiser Beer and the Cyrano guy says “How Much?” then he sort of cringes when he realizes what he just said and we hear the friend, Bill, say “How much?” and a loud slap… Well, I thought it was funny.
HERE"S THE RANT PART: I am trying to understand all the patriotic hoopla leading up to, during and after the game, it really disturbed me. The fact that people were getting caught up in it didn't concern me, what concerned me was that they were being manipulated into a fervor by the promoters and their sponsors. I think I appreciate patriotic displays as much as the next fella, I put out the flag on holidays, I am an ex-Navy guy, I get choked up when I hear the Navy Hymn or Taps. I get angry at my government when it attempts to use patriotism to manipulate us into attacking defenseless countries, and I get angry with advertisers who use patriotic images and rhetoric to coerce us into looking favorably on their products... The way I see it, the Super Bowl is first and foremost the culmination of a season of Professional Football. Professional Football is a commercial enterprise pitting the manifestation of the egos of wealthiest men in the country against one another using athletes who are paid millions to do what no one else on the planet can or will do. It is an amazing show, and I would hate to miss it... but it's not patriotic. Without the billionaires to sponsor the leagues and the TV contracts and the cities and their taxpayers there would be no show, we mustn't lose sight of the reality that even after all the money is spent there is still tons of money being made. Apparently that isn't enough, they need to put on bigger, more extravagant circuses every year, they put the Roman Spectacles in the Coliseum to shame decades ago. No one actually gets torn apart by lions, except metaphorically, and no one has been killed... yet. All I am saying is that I would be happy to see it presented for what it is... a contest pitting the best athletes in the nation against one another, that should be enough. It's not Gettysburg, it's not heroic... hell it's not even patriotic!... it's a damn FOOTBALL GAME!!! Super Bowl Sunday is not the Fourth of July!... if anything it is the antithesis of it.
It concerns me very much that patriotic themes and
emotions are being manipulated to exhort people to open their wallets. What
about the true meaning of Patriotism, the willingness of men to pick up arms and
die for their ideals and their country. How will we be able to go back to a time
when Patriotic feelings were a welling up of deep emotion, pride and resolve. It
seems to me that folks have come to think of patriotism as flags waving,
6/29/2002
Rounder God
Interesting response to the "Under God" business, amazing how ignorant people
are about the Pledge of Allegiance, I was, I knew "under God" was added in the
50's because I was there, but until I looked it up I thought the Pledge was adopted in the 1770's not 1942...
Each
day in America's public and parochial schools, teachers and over 60 million
students recite the Pledge of Allegiance along with thousands of citizens at
meetings of the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, American Legion and many other
fraternal and patriotic organizations. Most do so having no idea of the origin
or meaning of the Pledge. The United States is one of the few nations in the
world to have a pledge to its flag. How has this Pledge of Allegiance to our
flag usurped the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as the cornerstone of
American patriotism?
The Pledge was first published in
the September 8, 1892 issue of Youth's
Companion, a weekly family magazine published by the Perry Mason
Company in Boston. With a circulation of over 500,000, the
Companion had the largest national
circulation of its day. Daniel Ford owned
Youth's Companion, and his nephew-by-marriage, James B. Upham, was a
key staff member and a junior partner in the Perry Mason Company.
In 1891, Francis Bellamy, a
Christian Socialist and Baptist minister, joined the staff of
Youth's Companion. Bellamy was first
cousin of Edward Bellamy, author of the widely circulated socialist utopian
novel Looking Backward 2000-1887.
Written in 1888, this book, which sold over a million copies in its first few
years, described a future America completely socialized with all economic
activity carefully planned. As Vice-President of the Society of Christian
Socialists, Francis Bellamy lectured and preached on the virtues of socialism,
giving a speech entitled "Jesus the Socialist," and a series of sermons on "The
Socialism of the Primitive Church." In 1891, he was forced to resign from his
Boston church because of his socialist views and activities.
Seeking ideas to commemorate the
400th anniversary of the discovery of America on Columbus Day, 1892, President
Benjamin Harrison had initiated a call for the development of a special
patriotic school program to highlight the event. Bellamy and Upham were able to
line up the National Education Association to support
Youth's Companion as a sponsor of
the observance, and arranged for President Harrison and Congress to announce a
national proclamation which centered around an American flag ceremony and (then
unwritten) flag salute.
Bellamy, under the supervision of
Upham, then authored the program for the celebration, including the flag salute
or Pledge of Allegiance. His original version was, "I pledge allegiance to my
flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all." Bellamy considered putting the words "fraternity"
and "equality" into the Pledge, but decided against it as equality for blacks
and women was a controversial rather than patriotic issue of the time.
Originally intended for recitation on that single day, the Pledge was an instant
success and was quickly adopted by the nation.
The Pledge remained in its original
version until 1923 when the words "my flag" were changed to "the Flag of the
United States" at the urging of the American Legion's National Flag Conference.
The following year the Pledge was altered again with the addition "of America"
after "Flag of the United States." This version of the Pledge was codified into
Public Law in 1942.
The Pledge remained unchanged until
the paranoia and hysteria stemming from Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy's "red scare"
hearings swept the nation in the 1950s. Fearing Communism might cross the
Atlantic and engulf America, a feeling arose in Congress and throughout parts of
the nation that by acknowledging "God" as our national symbol, America would be
protected from the Communist menace.
Scoring a religious Tri-fecta of sorts, the Pledge
was amended in 1954 to include the words "under God;" legislation to add the
motto "In God We Trust" to all coins and currency was passed in 1955; and the
national motto "E Pluribus Unum" [out of many, one] was changed to "In God We
Trust" in 1956. Collectively these measures form an interesting trilogy of laws
for a country founded on a secular Constitution and a belief in the separation
of church and state.
Since 1954, the now religious Pledge
has read: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and
to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all." In an attempt to mitigate the effects of this
controversial change, some religionists claim that the words "under God" merely
declare the right of the people to express their belief in a God, not that the
nation itself was founded on a belief in a God. Unfortunately, a look at the
historical record indicates the latter is exactly what Congress intended when it
inserted "under God" into the Pledge.
The resolution to change the Pledge
was introduced into the House by Rep. Louis C. Rabaut. He proposed to add the
words "under God" as "one nation, under God." Note the placement of the comma
between "one nation" and "under God." As part of its deliberations, the House
Judiciary Committee solicited an opinion for comma placement from the Library of
Congress. Three proposals were considered:
The Library of Congress reported the
following recommendation:
". . . Under the generally accepted
rules of grammar, a modifier should normally be placed as close as possible to
the word it modifies. In the present instance, this would indicate that the
phrase 'under God,' being intended as a fundamental and basic characterization
of our Nation, might well be put immediately following the word 'Nation.'
Further, since the basic idea is a Nation founded on a belief in God, there
would seem to be no reason for a comma after Nation; 'one Nation under God' thus
becomes a single phrase, emphasizing precisely the idea desired by the authors .
. ."
The Judiciary Committee and the
House concurred with the Library of Congress, adopting the single phrase. The
Senate co-sponsor of the resolution was Sen. Homer Ferguson, who said of the
joint resolution during Senate debate, "Our Nation was founded on a fundamental
belief in God . . ." Evidently, it was so important for
this Congress to officially
acknowledge the United States as a nation founded on a belief in a God, that
even comma placement was debated to ensure the proper meaning was conveyed! With
insertion of the words "under God," the Pledge has now become both a patriotic
oath and a public prayer.
When we pledge allegiance, what are
we doing? According to Black's Law
Dictionary, 6th edition,
allegiance is defined as: "Obligation of fidelity and obedience to
government in consideration for protection that government gives." Although the
flag represents the embodiment of our national conscience and is easily the most
recognized symbol of our nation, one that I proudly support and defend daily as
a member of our nation's Armed Forces, I find it curious that a "religious"
Pledge of Allegiance to our flag rather than a Pledge of Allegiance to our
secular Constitution has become the institutionalized form of patriotism in our
country.
Members of the military are required
to swear or affirm their support and defense of the Constitution of the United
States. I have gladly "pledged my allegiance" by making this affirmation, and I,
like many other atheists in foxholes,
would give my life if necessary to defend our Constitution and our great
democratic way of life. (Follow-up to my thoughts above)
Well, the article below pretty much says it for me, this article was so
refreshing it helped to sober me up some. He says very concisely exactly what I
was trying to get across through all the vitriol… I know I have a problem with
Religion, Christianity in particular, it is hard for me to be dispassionate
about something that affects me at my core. I have seen some pretty despicable
things done in the name of Christianity. I will try to be more apathetic in the
future and put things in perspective… I am an Atheist, but I don’t want to be
associated with the people who are consumed by Atheism I am the sort of Atheist
that tries very hard not to waste time thinking about it. I have long ago ruled
out Deities, I find the concept improbable at best, I do enjoy the intellectual
pursuit of the spiritual, in that I would like to become more accepting of
myself and tolerant of others… Zen, seems to be the ideal for me but I’m too
lazy and selfish to spend serious time exploring it... saying that in
print is probably going to alienate some folks. I am, like most people who have
deemed themselves to be atheists, It is a little difficult to spell this out,
because it isn't something that matters to me very much. I am an atheist in the
same way I am a Californian, or brown eyed, or nearsighted. As far as I am
concerned Atheism (Hell I even need a spell checker to spell it properly) isn't an
ideology, at least not for me it isn't, it's more of a comment, a statement of
indifference.
Folks I know who have invested a lot of themselves in their faith seem to cling
to it more out of desperation and habit than anything else. Perhaps it's the
illusion of community that sustains them, that is what kept me going to church
for years. I don't understand it
but I have to respect their decisions... I
wish I could surrender reason to religion, life would be far simpler, but I
can't, I can't find anything in Christianity that makes sense beyond the parables or
where Jesus teaches of love and acceptance, the rest of it just turns me off.
Rip off the first half of the Bible and throw it away then perhaps we can talk.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FIRST PERSON From One
Atheist to Another:
I'm struggling
with my atheism. (From Jerry)
This article makes a lot of
sense to me. I wish more people, believers and not, thought this way.
There are certain subjects that are sure to invoke instant reactions from
people and he found one of the most potent. I really don't care if "Under
God" is in the pledge or not. To me it's the sentiment behind saying the
pledge in the first place that I think is important. That is going to vary
from each individual that recites the words. I guess what made me upset personally was this jerk saying that I and a few million other Americans would
be denied the ability to use the words by law. The reason, because he
didn't want his child exposed to the words. Well anyone who has watched
television or listened to a rap song knows what that child is being exposed
to is much worse than "Under God". So to take a basically innocent phrase
that has as many definitions as there are people, does nothing but cause
rage and controversy. By now it seems obvious that the majority of the
American people disagree with the courts ruling. This in itself really
means nothing. I would imagine that the majority of the American people
disagree that they should have to pay half their income in taxes. But I
don't imagine the courts will support that in the near future.
But this is different. For
one thing it will absolutely have no effect on the evil things that his
child will be exposed to. There will be many other opportunities for them
to hear objectionable words like "Under God". But a large part of learning
to live in a free society is to accept some personal unpleasantness for the
benefit of the whole. I am certain most people cause such unpleasantness
themselves, at times, for others. A few months ago I considered taking
Karate classes. I thought what a great way to exercise and learn a new
skill. But after my second lesson the whole philosophy that accompanies the
training, the rituals, the forced respect for your trainer (mine was a
seventeen year old kid I had to call master) was enough for me to decide
that it was not for me. I didn't grab the yellow pages and pick out a
lawyer to stop this evil practice. I just walked away leaving them to their
life style and continuing with mine. Why would I want to force my way of
thinking on them. I certainly would resist theirs forced on me.
Another aspect is the way the
constitution was manipulated to express such a narrow viewpoint. We have
discussed this before but the constitution has no reference to the
separation of church and state. It does make it quite clear that the
government will not sponsor or indorse any particular religion. All are
welcome or none at all. But some how this has been twisted by some to mean
you must deny it's existence. I don't even believe "Under God" or "God
Bless..." or other variations are particularly religious. God is defined
within yourself, religion is defined by others. So the government using the
word God passes the "establishment of religion" clause but denying its use
does not pass the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". If the
majority of people want "Under God" in there right now, so be it. It's a
free country. No one is going to force me to say it. It will be my
choice. But there is nothing in the law of the land that denies its use and
in fact, it does prohibit its banning.
As a prominent American once
said during a time of crisis in one of our large American cities,
"Can't we just all get along?"
Jerry
Jerry Re: Constitution
But really I’m glad I finally
found the right words to express how I feel about the Constitution. It does
not belong to the Forefathers. It belongs to you and me. It is a living
document and will never be finished. They wrote the first draft and I
think did an excellent job. But their world is not ours and they realized
that too. They made provisions to make changes. But until those changes
are made I believe we should live by what it says not what we would like it
to say.
It is not the Supreme Court’s
job or duty to define the Constitution. That is reserved for the American
people and Congress. But with so many five to four decisions it is not hard
to deduce that this is often the case, injecting their own personal agendas
into their decisions. Not much better odds than a coin toss. In fact if
you factor in the fact is ultimately decided by one judge’s opinion, it
reverts to a fifty-fifty chance, a coin toss. Their duty is to interrupt
the Constitution as defined, to act as referee in matters of dispute. Could
you imagine the uproar if many controversial calls in professional baseball
or football were decided on a 56 to 44 % margin? There would be a demand
for immediate investigations. But we seem to accept this from the highest
court on a regular basis. If, as it should be, they represent the most
knowledgeable authorities on Constitutional law in the land they should more
often than not be in agreement. They are appointed for life but they also
swore to uphold the Constitution when they accepted the position not thrust
their personal ideas of a perfect world on to the American people. This
applies to the lower courts as well. If this concept is not acceptable to
them, then perhaps they should resign or in lieu of that, be removed. I
also don’t believe that a single person that was politically appointed in
Fresno should have the ability to change law that effects million of
Americans. There should be provisions in these matters that the issue is
automatically referred to a higher level before it is implemented
It sometimes is not easy to
decide when it is time to change their words. But other times it’s hard to
understand why they were not there to begin with. Examples of that would be
the abolishment of slavery or the women’s right to vote. Others like
limiting the president to two terms maybe is not so important to some. But
a majority thought so at one time to change the constitution. Democracy, in
part, should protect you from minority opinion being forced upon you, rather
that opinion be religious, political or economic. The Mormons, the
Republicans and the communist are all part of our country and free to
practice what they want. But no one I know would want their or any other
beliefs forced upon them. So I guess the time to get upset is when enough
people think it’s wrong. The writers did not make it easy to make a change,
for many good reasons I think, but did provide a way.
Jerry 7/13/2001 Jim and I lad a heated discussion
at the ROF last night, I really had a hard time with this one, he really got in my face and I couldn't back away... in his mind I think he sees me as the personification of everything that is wrong with this country... he tries mightily to convince me that his conservative viewpoint is the only viewpoint for any rational person to have, a dissenting view means you are ...? I don't know what... an idiot? or worse... a Liberal Democrat... some sort of pathetic unenlightened dupe of the Liberal Media... I think he's mistaken but he won't listen to me. We are just polarized about all things social and political, the fact that we are still good friends boggles me, but we are. He started this conversation with the observation that he thinks it's terrible that "They" (Liberals, Homosexuals, Democrats or all of the above) are conspiring to destroy the Salvation Army. He said that the Salvation Army is the only True Charity in the country and he thinks it's just awful that it is being destroyed.... well ... I like the Salvation Army... they are the only charity that steps in to a crisis and just helps, they ask for nothing and are a very credible organization. The way I understand it, the Salvation Army contacted or was contacted by the Bush administration and there was a discussion about "Federally Supported, Faith Based Charities" and the Salvation Army's policies concerning Homosexuals... The Salvation Army has strong fundamentalist religious ties just like the Boy Scouts and they felt, like the Boy Scouts do, that they needed to retain that affiliation and
to change their policies just to be involved in some Federal program would be counter productive to their Ministry... More power to em, same with the Boy Scouts... I don't see that the Boy Scouts or the Salvation Army is in any danger of being destroyed at all... they (Not the Gays
or the Liberal Democrats) made a decision that their discriminatory and repressive policies and viewpoints are going to stand and that's that. The Law, both Federal and State says that Discrimination is wrong, their Faith says Discrimination is mandated by their perception of God and their interpretation of the Bible I wish I could say more here but it wouldn't be fair because this is my forum. If he reads this and responds with his viewpoint then perhaps we can continue but... till then. Anyway, I always come away from these "confrontations" more peeved than refreshed... I don't mind arguing but I feel like I am alone... Jim is a passionate guy, he is a powerful arguer (if that is a word)... he mostly wins arguments with me by out escalating me, taking the level of passion beyond where I am comfortable going, I wish it wasn't so, I just get the feeling that he doesn't hear me and that is exasperating. 6/27/2001 I was reminded today of
another childhood pleasure that has been lost to maturity... I had five of my kids and four of Bonnie's ...
'bout 9 all tolled and I took them to the park. I was sitting with Autumn and looked up and those kids and about 10 others were climbing all over the playground apparatus playing Tag. 18 to 20 kids, virtual strangers yelling and laughing and helping each other out... it makes me sort of sad to think about how much we've lost by growing up and maturing... our ability to just accept one another and (more importantly) our willingness to let ourselves be accepted gets crushed through the years, at least mine did... we withdraw that vulnerable trusting part of ourselves as we learn how cruel
and judgmental others can be. I shouldn't say "we"... not everyone is as neurotic as I am... I pass judgment and assume others are too...
and when I find myself unable to live up to my own standards, I wonder what that is all about. I am so hamstrung by my biases, preconceptions, prejudices, I can't tolerate intolerance, I can't accept your beliefs because you won't accept mine, I point at your imperfections because then perhaps you won't see mine I am comparing myself in the gym to the kids in the park, I am a shy person. Shyness manifests itself in several ways.
A part of me is still afraid of being inadequate, Mike walked in to the gym like he owned it... he started using one machine after another, he was just a clueless as I am but he isn't concerned about "making a fool of himself" ... my words... I am, I'm still all hung up on
looking like a fool and being an outsider. Walking into that gym is still the hardest thing I do every day... I have always wanted to fit in but never willing to learn how... that's not quite right...
to be more accurate, I have never been willing to compromise... small talk seems like such a waste of time and energy... it's a form of insincerity somehow, I have never been any good at it, perhaps that's why I avoid situations that require it. I enjoy talking to people but I think too hard or something... it is difficult, I envy folks who can walk up and
start a conversation, I love being around them... Christy can do it... Jan Sisco... my sisters... Jim Milewsky... Tony Natoli... lots of folks I know can just make friends effortlessly (At least it seems effortless to me) It seems, on reflection, that they are my friends because they initiated the contact... not me... I am too fearful of rejection... I'm not sure where that fear came from... probably school... I don't understand all the dynamics but I am painfully aware of the
symptoms... I got
an e-mail from a friend that ended with the sentence below...
"DID I SCARE YOU OFF WITH MY REPLY CONCERNING DOOMSDAY?"
(I wrote this in reply a long time ago… I have been hesitant to
send it… but it has been sitting in my Drafts folder too long… it is time… )
I’m 57 years old… that’s too old to be frightened by fairy tales…
Folks have been predicting the end of the world since the first thunderstorm. I
am a Pragmacrat politically and … by nature of my opinion that there are too
many avenues for dissention in this world, if I am to be true to myself I have
to admit to being an Agnostic religiously. Organized religion just adds to the
turmoil… Too many people die every day defending a belief system that sets them
apart, and therefore at odds with, the rest of humanity. Religions that promote
that sort of passion are obscene… and an abomination to me.
I believe that the concept that there is a right way and a wrong
way to believe in God is ridiculous, I believe that any religion that says there
is has completely missed the point. To me God is simply the wonder of our
existence, that part of our living that is unknown.
I believe that anyone who professes to know the mind of God is a
charlatan and to be avoided like the plague. Anyone who thinks they can divine
the true meaning life by interpreting the Bible is deluding themselves… The
Bible is a document created thousands of years ago by wise men to try to explain
the meaning of life and the mysteries about them… A text book for how to get
along with one another and survive the pestilence of that era. The Bible
has been translated from Latin, Hebrew, Greek and word of mouth by people who
thought the world consisted of the land bordering the Mediterranean. Each
translation was biased by the beliefs and prejudices of the times and the translator. These
people thought that the Sun traveled around the earth, Monsters inhabited the
Oceans, the world was flat, ad-infinitum. We are constantly adding to the
world’s knowledge in medicine, geography, geology, astronomy, archeology, every
answer brings us closer to understanding the origin of our existence. Every
religious zealot who stands between his religion and the enlightenment of
science, denies his creator. Every Religious fanatic who puts his faith before
reason is denying the brain that God gave him and the freedom of will to use it.
Once
we get down to what precipitated the event that caused us (The Universe) to come
into existence we will have discovered God. Once we discover what force or power
is directing my brain to create this e-mail and yours to read, interpret, agree
or disagree with it, we have found our souls… then all we’ll have to do is tie
the two together and we will have defined my religion. Said
much better by A. Einstein: My
religion consists of a humble admiration of the unlimitable superior who reveals
Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble
minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning
power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
And again By Monty Python All things dull and ugly Each little snake that poisons All things sick and cancerous Each nasty little hornet All things scabbed and ulcerous Got one of my Hot Buttons pushed a while back and wrote (but didn't mail) this; I don't choose to pass judgment on Pro Life vs. Pro Death or Pro Tyranny vs. Pro Choice ... I am Pro Adoption... when I see 60,000 unwanted, un-loved, children in Foster, Residential and Out Of Home Care
in Los Angeles County alone, I wonder when are the Pro Life / Pro Choice advocates going to put their money where their mouths are and do something constructive. There are thousands of children waiting for someone willing to adopt them. We have all taken different paths to get where we are, no one has a corner on truth, the things that we believe and get passionate about are conclusions drawn from the experiences of a lifetime and of perspective.
Because we disagree doesn't make either of us right or wrong. When will preventing unwanted pregnancies take precedence over arcane
religious dogma... is inflicting a 14 year old girl with an unwelcomed pregnancy and an
unwanted child the right thing to do? Is setting a child up for abandonment, physical or sexual abuse the right thing to do? Is allowing the birth of an
encephalic child the right thing to do? A woman, a pregnancy, a birth, and all decisions pertaining to them are the sole responsibly of the woman involved, no one has the right, Devine or otherwise to impose their will on them or to pass judgment on their decisions. Another empty thought...I'll get back to it.
... I am trying to make sense of my
life... find a reason... a purpose behind all the stuff... the good and the not so good... when I was a young man I yearned for the day when it all made sense, when I would know the answers to all the questions... the older I got the more it became obvious that for each answer found I was confronted with more questions.
I used to think I wanted to be like the old men and women who knew the answers to all of the ills of the world... right and wrong were carved into their brains like into granite. They had the answers by God... What I have come to find out
is that the idols of my youth were mostly just opinionated old curmudgeons who gave up on finding "truth" and settled on a sort of social expedience. They held their finger in the air to see which way the wind was blowing and gave the answer that would meet with the approval of their peers
most of the time... I want more... enlightenment I guess, I want clarity, I want wisdom... seems like truth is a
burden... a weight to be carried and never known... truth for a bigot or a religious man is simple... it doesn't involve knowledge it involves faith... a blind obedience to a "reality" larger than they. Reality is what it is, not what you think it is. Reality can be perceived by many people in many ways.
For example, the reality of a pregnancy is one thing to the mother, another to the father and another to the parents of both... then you add in the Doctors, and society in general and you have about a thousand different versions of reality. Where is truth, what is truth, who has access to the truth? Everyone... and no one. What I perceive to be the truth may be light-years away from what you believe to be the truth.
Who has the entitlement to say that either of us is right or wrong... The concept that Truth and Reality are subjective things, dependant on
preconceptions, needs and perspectives, is hard to wrap my brain around but they must be. How else do you explain Politics and Religion? No one can prove their faith in their religious beliefs just as no one can positively justify their Political convictions... people sling contradictory facts and statistics at one another.. each with a biased spin to support their conviction that the other is an idiot or a crook... so tiresome. In the Good Ole Boy world where passing off ignorance as a virtue is an acceptable response to any problem... like Mabel says "Well I don't know about that, but the Pastor says, the bible says, God says, that it aint right..." People keep quoting other people, it seems to me that they are mostly quoting entertainers passing themselves off as pundits like Limbaugh, and his ilk... Entertainers have their little fingers in the air... they are on the air because they are telling their audience what their audience wants to hear... if they weren't
they would be selling pencils on the corner. If you ask them what they know they
will tell you what they think... when you press them for what they think they know they will say "I know that Rush Limbaugh (The preacher, the 5 O'clock News, Neighbor, National Enquirer) said ..." Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. Blaise Pascal, philosopher and mathematician (1623-1662)
I have poor Social
Skills... I think I have always known that... perhaps that is why I do most
all my communicating on the Internet. It was painfully obvious today when I
talked to Mike's Therapist... I can't seem to string three words into a logical
thought... it's so exasperating to sit there knowing what I want to say and
being incapable of putting it into words...
Also,
I really am pathetic at making small talk... I would like sit with the men
down at the 76 and spend an hour or two chatting about trucks and weather and
the state of the world...
I want to learn more about what's going on in town but I have such a hard time
remembering names and places I sound like a newcomer. I have tried to join
conversations down there but I feel so awkward and sound so inane I usually end
up excusing myself after a few minutes... I can sit and talk for hours about stuff nobody cares
about... I love to debate/argue about things I have strong feelings about, I am
genuinely interested in how people have come to the conclusions they have about
politics and religion and world affairs.
My memory for names is pathetic I have had trouble with names all my life... my
favorite line is "I can remember names and faces I just can't put them
together". It's a cute line but not really true.... I can actually remember
faces but names are a mystery... they get stuck in some cubbyhole in my brain
and are lost forever... I used to think there was a trick to it but if there is
I haven't been able to figure it out. I am a lost cause... I don't even try any
more. When I meet someone I should know I just say..." I'm sorry, I have
forgotten your name." It's embarrassing but not as embarrassing as pretending I
know who they are while trying to have a conversation with them. I learned something at a
funeral I went to recently, I want to plan mine out... I want a promise that my
beliefs will be respected. I have no religious affiliation. It is not a big deal
to me so I don't give a damn what is said but I don't want to be posthumously
initiated into any allegiances. Religion and all the baggage it brings is evil
and an abomination to me... I can not think of a thing that any religion has
done to improve the world... sad isn't it. "It always
seemed strange to me that the things we admire in men, kindness and generosity,
openness, honesty, understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in
our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness,
meanness, egotism and self interest are the traits of success. And while men
admire the quality of the first, they love the produce of the second." - John
Steinbeck
10/81/2006 Dan Everard (Dan@DanEverard.co.uk)
wrote to me, he is the author of the piece below... The first thing that you have to get the hang of is that it is possible for two or more people to view one thing in different ways; to describe it, therefore, differently; but to be accurately describing the same thing in ways which may seem self contradictory. A simple way of illustrating this is to think of two people looking at a diamond under a bright light but from different directions. One describes, maybe, a circular shape with purple highlights which hardly change as he moves his head, the other a cone shape with orange and red flashes which come and go as he moves. They are both describing the same thing, neither is lying, and if you know that the object is a diamond, there is no problem with the fact that purple is not orange or red, and that the difference in direction of view gives a different shape. Oddly, there is very little chance that the two of them will start to fight
over their different views --- strange, isn't it?! I contend that any two people's views of religion, the Almighty or what makes the world tick will differ (possibly hugely) through the fact that they must have different viewpoints, but that their different descriptions of their views do not deny the commonality of what they are trying to describe. Nor does the fact that two people disagree while trying to describe the same thing mean that they are not both correct in what they say, and it is no reason to therefore claim that they are talking of something that does not exist. Also, if you can not see the diamond it does not mean that it is not there. People find it very difficult to be dispassionate about religion, I don't know why. Maybe it is because it is very important to them or they wouldn't have sorted out such a complicated interlinking of the world with such a simple answer, I know I get very uncomfortable myself if others try to point out that since they don't understand my view, it must be less good than theirs. Secondly, as it is based on their own faith that the paradigm of the whole world containing their view of God works, there is some threat to themselves if their image of God is challenged. I find it amusing, seen from a distance, that followers of a religion with pacifist rules should find it necessary to fight to impose that religion upon people who have a different view of the diamond. I find it unavoidable, from my view of the diamond, that this will be so, and it is no surprise that the religion will have a
special sub-set of behavior rules to make this allowable. (I leave Buddhism out of this, it doesn't fit into my understanding yet, and it's interesting that many people claim that it isn't a religion but a philosophy. . . heigh-ho!). It is not reasonable to base an atheist view simply on disagreements with mainstream Christianity. There are flaws in Christianity based on its early beginnings, just as there are virtues shown in its ability to survive a couple of thousand years. To my own taste even if those virtues are frequently questionable, they should not be denied out of hand. The prime flaws I see are founded in the fact that Paul took a minority Jewish sect and sold it to the biggest market around (the Romans), knocking it about a bit in the process. Because of this I find it difficult to take the new testament, from the Acts onwards, without being a little cynical about it. Don't get me wrong, I do not deny the virtue of much of the teaching the epistles contain, it's the general tenor of the thing that gives me trouble. (And if you lived through the sixties, the Revelations are the sort of thing that you tried
to help people get over.) However, Christians are not in a position to take some of the new testament, and deny the rest. This is because the structure of the religion is based firmly in Paul's teachings, and like all human organizations it is structured to be self perpetuating and capable of defending itself against change. (Frequently it seems that Paul might have been the "founder" of Christianity if the frequency of references to him in sermons were the gauge.) The only way out is revolution, schism, etc., and a new sect will usually fall for similar self perpetuating organizational traps as those it was trying to leave. OK there are notable exceptions. . . . Quakers, I believe, and others with a very un-hierarchical basis. But as many sects go for stronger discipline as their reason for dividing off, and as this leads naturally to a strong central organization to the "church" they found, the seeds of the
problem are sown again and frequently surface in a generation or so, after the founders and their initial fervor have gone. None of this is adequate reason to deny the existence of God, though it may be enough reason to check out the works of man very carefully. So why should one accept the existence of God, and what is his nature? Do not be fooled, just because it is possible to phrase a question does not mean it is valid. "Who created the universe?" seems like a question which should have a valid answer. It has a few flaws however: the word "who" implies a person, "created" gives the whole thing human dimensions, implies a start and seems to assume that the job is finished, and there seems to be the implication that the questioner might understand the answer, even if there were one! If the universe is, as I believe, continuous there is no question, yet alone an answer. "What is God?" is for me a similar question, I'm not sure I'd understand the answer even if I knew what the question meant, however I am convinced of God's existence . . . to borrow from New Riders of the Purple Sage: "Take a look around you". I can do no better than this in showing that God is there; there is something going on that is outside our
immediate knowledge. Perhaps "god" is a word we use for the incompleteness of what we know, but I'm not happy with that as a thought since there is definitely the experience of "knowing God"; I feel it and others report it. I am an engineer and, being a scientist, there were many things of a more spiritual or of an "alternative" type that I was very cautious about accepting. The possibility that dowsing were anything other than a crank's way of taking people for a ride seemed unlikely to me. Unfortunately for me, I then discovered that I could dowse . . . Oops! Finding this did cause me to accept more things as being possible, when before I would not even think about them. This does not mean that I believe things with no real reason to do so, but that I don't refuse to consider things from a position of flat denial --- at least I try not to. Having an enquiring mind, going through the sixties during my formative years, and the dowsing experience have left me thinking that there is not much excuse for believing that I might even begin to know the whole truth. There is something final about an atheist's
statement that there is no god that makes me worry what else he is missing. It's healthier to believe that "there's nothing so odd that it mightn't be so", at least it allows you to understand more of what makes other people tick. So, I prefer to believe in God, in fact I do not know a reason why I should not believe in God. Something inside me tells me there is a god, and my observation of the world over the last fifty years leads me to think there is one god only --- or maybe there is one class of things that I don't understand which fits the "god" concept in my paradigm, if you wish; me, I prefer to call him God. I have already denied the validity of asking what God is, but it ought to be possible to describe some of the nature of God as I perceive it --- my view of the diamond, incomplete and biased by preconceptions, but mine. I have been trying up to now not to be anthropomorphic about God, but I find I am unwilling to call him "it", and "she" implies gender which is irrelevant. I fear that I shall not be able to maintain the non-human allusions here on in. I have also denied the question "Who created the universe?", but that is not to deny the existence of the creation. Because it is continuous, its time span is infinite, it means it has no end (not a problem to those in the habit of saying ". . . world without end, Amen" at the end of prayers and meaning it), but the beginning is just the other end and I think that it doesn't have that either. I apologies to the Big Bang fraternity, but if the Big Bang can be proven to have happened, rather than just being mathematically describable, I shall happily eat my words and will try to figure out what is going on again with the new data. It seems more likely to me that the whole shebang didn't start at all, with a totally uncharacteristic discontinuity, than that it did. Maybe the Big Bang did happen as the cusp at the end of one cycle of creation, and the beginning of the next --- I could go for
that but I do not think it very likely. Once you accept that "the creation" is continuous it is not hard to accept that it is still in the process of happening, and this leads to a reason for the existence of mankind amongst the rest of creation. There is a good image of us being the hands of God, which illustrates what is going on to some extent. But we are not the only "hands of God", the rest of creation is also part of the creating. My belief is that mankind is an aspect of God, and it is in part through the development of humanity within the context of the rest of the creation that the creation is achieved and furthered. It is also, of course, through the development of everything else as well throughout the whole universe, and now you begin to see just how enormous this idea of God has become, and why I fight shy of anthropomorphic images of him. God is everything. There have been those who have accused me of arrogance for daring to think like this, because, of course, I am part of God. So is everybody/everything else. I find this reaction surprising for, far from arrogance, this understanding causes me to feel terrifyingly small, and drives me to have a realization of responsibility which I am not sure I can bear in my lonelier moments. Why I should be surprised I don't know, because these thoughts (though far from my own and hardly unique) challenge the established religions. Of course the normal human reaction to such a challenge is to attack back in terms which will challenge me. I'm lucky living when I do, for I believe many have been killed for the heresy I'm propounding. (Now, there is a defense mechanism human institutions use all too frequently --- to socially cast out anyone who threatens the establishment, and then provide a legal method of killing them. I wonder why I am cautious of the established religions? It would be dangerous to believe that we have grown beyond that type of behavior, it was only the year before I was born that the death camps in Germany were liberated, and if you think that doesn't count since it wasn't (?) religious in origin check out the treatment of the Gnostics by the Church in Province in the 16th century.) There needs to be some way of getting a scale on things. The God of which I speak is as relevant to galaxies as he is to me or to a microbe; the creation has the same scales, too. Yet on occasion I get a strong feeling that God is affecting my own life directly despite the size of these other commitments. There is the classic question, "Why should God pay any attention to one person, when they are so small a part of the whole of creation?", but this too suffers from anthropomorphism, it is very difficult to imagine a person who could do it, so God can't either. How often does the questioner consider the nail on the little finger of his left hand? I suggest that he does so whenever there is some trouble with it, or when it is useful to complete some task, rarely otherwise because it can get on with its existence quite satisfactorily without his consideration. The questioner still exists
whether he spends any time considering the nail or not; the nail is still part of him. So it is with God and mankind - or microbes or a galaxy - although God does not need to consider the questioner all the time, the fact that it is difficult to understand how he might is no proof of his non-existence. I find that the Christian concept of the Trinity fits well with God as I perceive him, this is best described from the human perspective but applies to all things. The Father is everything that has come before us and that goes into making us what we are. The Father is our ancestors, our history and that which becomes our education. The Son is all that exists now, the "hands" of God. The Son makes things, changes things, works at continuing the task of creation. The Holy Spirit is the inspiration which continues from the Father through the Son into the future. The Spirit caused cathedrals and bridges to be built, pictures to be painted on the walls of caves and chapels, steam engines and microscopes to be invented. The Spirit is the hope that keeps people enquiring and striving to improve the creation. The Spirit gives the lateral leap which solves the problem or the dogged persistence which
keeps going till it is solved. I must admit that I had trouble with the idea of the trinity whenever it was talked of in religious lessons at school. It seemed so important a concept, and so meaningless at the same time. I could understand the need to have the Father and the Son separated if you were going to make sense of the idea of Jesus being the only son of God, but why the Spirit? The thought given above began as a struggle to understand what the word "trinity" could mean, and has become a clarification of life as I have lived with it. I haven't met any one else who thinks of it like this yet, but I bet I'm not alone. From this description of the Trinity it may become obvious who I believe the Son is: not just mankind, but the whole shooting match as it stands at the moment. We are not gods, but we are part of God, with the responsibilities, and, in the long term, the capabilities implied by this fact. What price global warming and acid rain now? We're doing it to ourselves in the bluntest way possible, and though these phenomena are uncomfortable for the human race they are part of the creative process. It may well be that we are bound to dispose of ourselves if we are incapable of doing the job properly. . . . . . guess what could be happening at this very moment. To take the idea further, we are not gods but we are God in the sense that my hand is not a human but it is human. It seems to me that to claim that one person is "the son of God" does not make sense. I allow that, since we are all part of
God, some of us are closer to the ideal of what we imagine God to be than others, and that the ultimate is exemplified by Jesus of Nazareth; from this he is the son of God, and it is a pretty good idea to follow his teachings. Actually you would have trouble bettering his teachings so it definitely is a pretty good idea, but make sure you are following his teachings, and not some politico-salesman's construct. There are some other contenders for the title (but you must find those for yourself, and judge their worth), just as there are others who pretty much define the other end of the scale. The creation is generally furthered by the process of evolution. Evolution is, in general, achieved by having random perturbations of the existing way things are done, and, if the resulting variant is better than those around it, it survives preferentially. If the new way of doing things can survive there is a mechanism for passing it on the next time the system is renewed . . . sometimes. The result of this is that in the very long term there is a statistical probability that the creation will improve, or at least get better at surviving. Another result is that there will, of course, be perturbations that are not 'survival enhancing'. This is the creative mechanism built into the world, it is the influence of the Spirit that enables us to use it to improve the world. One can claim, and I did for a long time, that there is a "down side" to God, i.e. he makes mistakes. Actually I see this as
a misconception of what God is and of what God is doing. As a person is to his finger nail mentioned earlier, I think God is sublimely indifferent to the small workings of the creation, unless there is some reason to pay attention. If an 'act of God' causes a hillside to fall onto a village and kill the inhabitants this is not God at fault but an aspect of the evolutionary/creative process at work (although probably a down-side perturbation). I can not guess whether this example would actually improve or worsen the creation in the long term, or merely be insignificant, but that is precisely how the mechanism works --- I think, however, that the villagers would probably think it was a lousy idea and, from their perspective, a definite example of God making a mistake. People who pray a lot are, in part, praying in the belief that by doing this they can bring things to God's attention. I think they may be correct, which is part of the reason why I do so myself. I do wonder, however, if prayer doesn't concentrate the mind to enable people to be more at one with the Creator/God, and that the mechanism by which the prayer is answered is often that one becomes more understanding, and better as "the hands". (There is the old truism that "it's funny how often good luck happens to those who work hardest", the same kind of thing may apply with prayer.) If you do pray, then it is important that the "conversation" is complete. A child who is always asking people for things, and rarely talks of anything except his wants, soon gets ignored, the same is true of the inveterate flatterer, I think the same is true of the content of prayer. I, personally, have trouble
with public prayer since I rarely talk to one person loudly in the company of others who are listening to me, it is like having someone else listen to a my telephone conversation, I don't like it. Ritual prayer I accept as an art-form, and I find it constructive but not as a conversation. There is much ritual to religion which is astoundingly beautiful if you like ritual, and stinks if you don't, this does not mean it is worthless, or that the religious sect that uses it is wrong, but that it is another facet of the diamond . . . if you do not recognize the value of it you may simply be looking from a different direction. Sometimes the way to understanding is through immersing yourself in something under the right circumstances, the way many people get to like classical music. Sometimes it just isn't worth it, there may be more effective ways of becoming a better part of the creation. So don't scrap God as an idea because the people around you describe something that fits their understanding and not yours. Getting uptight because someone thinks that you need converting to their view is a good way of missing the truth. Because of this, my belief is that you should not try to impose your beliefs on others . . . offer them if asked, maybe, but do not try to "convert" others, they may have a better understanding than you have. It's better to live by your beliefs than to shout about them, if you're right people will notice and maybe come closer to the truth themselves. If you shout you turn more people off than on, and if you were right would you like to live with that on your conscience? If you've read this far, then the last paragraph may seem a bit hypocritical, but then I guess you chose not to stop reading, thank you. Since this seems to be going on for ever, I think I'd better wrap it up for now. I'll come back and rework it as the spirit moves me! |
