A 'righteous' response that is just wrong

            City Magazine, a local Central Florida publication, recently printed a letter from Dr.Terry Pooler who is the Lead Pastor of the Sabbath Grace Fellowship Church in Apopka, Fl. in response to a CNN iReport’s article Why I Raise My Children without God by Deborah Mitchell. Her article was a mother’s response to the way religion, particularly Christianity, justified certain actions and was used to shape people’s thinking in a manner that she realized was wrong.

            I sensed before reading it that Dr. Pooler probably had a vested interest in ‘debunking” Deborah Mitchell’s story as it could have a long term effect on any possible growth at his church, and bottom-line, his paycheck. So he had to find ways to dissect and disembowel her article in a way that makes it appeared she just didn’t truly understand the living god and that’s why she was raising her children free of religion.(How he knows…actually knows...the living god, and by what means he confirms this is never addressed.) But he makes the same errors that all other theists make when they try to defend their version of Christianity. They fall back on the Bible and what God and Jesus supposedly said (actually, what Dr. Pooler interprets as he reads the Bible)…by cherry-picking the verses they believe will bolster their view. That is not a wise direction in which to go because, as any ‘True Christian’ will tell you, you have to take the whole Bible into consideration, not just the parts you like.

            In the second sentence of his article, Dr. Pooler starts by stating that Mitchell ‘brushed aside a grieving parent’s plea that taking God out of our public schools was partially to blame.’ As if, up until the removal of all things Christian, our schools were models of Christian morality, thought, and conscience. Sorry Doctor Pooler, but you have to be able to prove God was actually there to begin with. You can’t just say ‘because I believe so’, or ‘because the bible says it is written’. You wouldn’t give that latitude to Muslims or Hindus and their ‘holy’ books. You have to provide evidence. And you can’t. So don’t take her to task because she dismisses a grieving parent who falls back on an emotional plea about the supposed presence, or lack of presence, of a god as an explanation for why a mass murder occurred. Does that grieving parent really believe that, if only the Ten Commandments were placed in the school, if only teacher-led Christian prayers were allowed, and if only every child had a bible on their desk, that somehow, that would have thwarted the gunman from entering the school and killing twenty students and six teachers? It didn’t stop Charles Roberts in Lancaster Pennsylvania on October 2, 2006 from killing five little Amish girls in the West Nickel Mines School. Oh, but they didn’t practice the right kind of Christianity, did they? When the God Dr. Pooler believes in has fixed the child abuse that routinely occurs in His churches, eliminates starvation that occurs all over the world, stops creating “natural” disasters that kill and maim and leave children orphaned, and ceases creating agonizing diseases that disfigure and kill, then He, or those who claim to speak for him, can come back and ask us about schools.

            Dr. Pooler then comes up with a strange non-sequitur. Mrs. Mitchell states she is not campaigning for the elimination of religion, but wants it kept at home like a toothbrush or a pair of shoes. From that statement, Dr. Pooler indicates that what she meant, without any explanation, was, religion ‘should be quarantined.’ Last time I checked, no one’s toothbrush or shoes were quarantined from the public. How do you go from something taught at home (and is practiced in numerous churches and religious institutions that vastly outnumber schools across the country) to, it is being quarantined? Dr. Pooler simply uses outrageous and disingenuous hyperbole to cast Mitchell’s intent in as negative a light as possible.

            He goes on to claim she is a victim of erroneous indoctrination, missing the irony of making such a claim himself. He chastises her for writing that ‘a child should make moral choices for the right reasons’, and not feel as though he or she is being watched over by a heavenly policeman who is much like Santa Claus looking to see who’s naughty or nice. But that is exactly how the bible portrays God. Believe He is watching you, and you’d better believe in him and return that love. Because he loves you SO MUCH, that he created a special place called Hell to send you to if you don’t love him back. I found it quite amazing that Dr. Pooler would use the imaginary Santa character as a contrast to convince readers of the legitimacy of the god character. There is not a shred of evidence that either one exists. Why should we believe in one and not the other? Doctor?

            The God’s Desire versus the God’s Plan comparison argument he makes is a mountain of nonsense piled on an even bigger mountain of nonsense. How do you know God’s Desire OR God’s plan, Doctor? If you draw it from the Bible, how do you know it is accurate? If you claim God talks with you, how do you know it is the Christian God, or any god supposedly responding to you? How do you assess that you are not just making up the conversation in your mind and reading into it?

The rest of his article is filled with one a priori assumption after another. All fall back on ‘God is’, ‘it is from the Bible’, ‘God’s plan’, God’s desire’, ‘eternal God’, yet he offers no proof or evidence that ANY of those are accurate or reliable. He simply believes them because, most likely, he was taught as a young child to believe them. In his later adult years, he sought out and studied books and texts which adhered with what he was taught as a child. If I wrote ‘Allah says’,’ the Koran is explicit’, ‘Vishnu is eternal’, ‘the book of Mormon states’, Zeus is all-knowing’, would Dr. Pooler give them the same weight and credence as he does in his world view seen solely through the prism of Christianity?

                                        
    He ends his article with a paragraph that begins with, “I wonder if the number of school shootings and child abusers will dramatically decrease if the next generation, flushed with the belief that they are insignificant parts of a big machine, can successfully squelch the current religious fever in our country that promotes God’s moral values…” If Dr. Pooler recalls his bible reading, God requires that unruly children be stoned to death. The same sentence is also mandatory for homosexuality, witches, and even picking up sticks on Sunday. Or how about when a woman is raped; the rapist has to marry that woman and pay her father fifty pieces of silver? Does that sound fair? Are those the moral values he is referring to? They are all God’s; it says so right in the Bible. Read it yourself and see if it is correct. How many slaves does Dr. Pooler own? Because neither God nor Jesus condemn slavery. If a tree doesn’t produce fruit, even when it is not in season, would Dr. Pooler demand it be cut down? Jesus condemned a fig tree for the same reason, and it follows that Jesus was only reflecting God’s values and morals.

                           According to the Bible, that fig tree has only a few moments left to live

Dr. Pooler has a right to express his views about Mrs. Mitchell’s article. What concerns me is his attitude that she is wrong because the God he believes in says it is wrong. But he offers nothing at all to prove his belief is correct, accurate, or true. He simply believes it because he wants it to be true. As I stated earlier, would Dr. Pooler give that same latitude to someone of a different faith, or even a different denomination within Christianity? If they stated they believed it because they want it to be true, would that make it true? If Deborah Mitchell rejects it, does that make her belief or lack of belief false? As Stephen Roberts once wrote: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” Dr. Pooler, I dismiss yours.

 

Safe for the Little Ears?

In my hometown, there is a popular Christian radio station that uses the phrase “Safe for the little ears” on its bumper stickers and promotional material. The intent is to encourage the belief that, unlike other stations that carry, say, Howard Stern, a wannabe clone of his, or utilize DJs who read questionable material or play provocative songs during their broadcasts, this station is ‘safe’ for even children to listen to, anytime, since all their programming is Christian-oriented music and life-lessons taken from the bible. Their programming is not to my taste but I do listen on occasion just to see how they try to spin bible verses and bible stories to fit their ‘god-is-good-and-the-bible-won’t-offend-anyone’ approach. Apparently, they haven’t read enough of the bible to know it is anything but ‘safe for the little ears’.

They often read or paraphrase biblical quotes between the songs, but I notice they always play it safe by cherry-picking the verses they use (just like most Christians cherry-pick the parts of Christianity they ascribe to). I wonder how many parents would approve of their ‘little ones’ hearing these straight from the bible:

Genesis 19:30-36: And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the firstborn said unto the younger, our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. 

Deuteronomy 22:28-29: If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (This sounds reasonable and fair, doesn’t it? When this is explained to a child, they’d fully agree, wouldn’t they?)

Numbers 15:32-35: And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Ezekiel 23:20 For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.(This must have been really important, to include it in the bible. How would you explain this to your kids, mom and dad?)

Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women…

Numbers 31:17-18 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man.

Judges 4:21 But Jael, Heber's wife, picked up a tent peg and a hammer and went quietly to him while he lay fast asleep, exhausted. She drove the peg through his temple into the ground, and he died.

2 Kings18:27 But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

2 Kings2:23-24 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. 

Psalms 137:9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

Or Judges 19:22-30 Where a Levite gives his concubine to a mob, she is raped all night, dies, he then takes her body home, cuts it up into 12 pieces and sends it all around Israel…. Judges 11:30-40 where Jephthah kills his daughter after promising to sacrifice the first thing that comes out of his house.

And every child has probably heard, or seen the Hollywood version on TV, of Moses going up Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments. Moses then comes down with the stone tablets, one of which we’re told states “Thou shalt not kill”, but he discovers that the Israelites have fashioned a golden calf statue. To punish the people, Moses gathers a group of men and takes the following action, according to Exodus 32:27 "Then he said to them, "This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' “The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. “

So... one minute we have God carving into stone, "Thou shalt not kill." Then the next minute we have God telling each man to strap a sword to his side and lay waste to thousands, not even giving any clue how to tell the guilty from the innocent, just kill at random. Wouldn't you expect the almighty ruler of the universe to be slightly more consistent than this? 3,000 dead people is a lot of commandment breaking. But god is okay with ‘do as I say, even if it breaks a commandment I just gave you, but you can never do this on your own.’

And in case the kids get the idea that God’s son Jesus was simply meek and mild, let them hear how he thought discipline should be meted out regarding slaves: Luke 12:47-48 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. (Yes, lash, whip, and inflict considerable pain on those you own, even if they had no idea they had done something wrong.)

Those are just a few of the more ‘popular' vicious stories in the bible, but they are by no means all. The bible is filled with violence, immoral teachings, and harmful passages that demand revenge and death. How would Christian parents explain them to their children if the “Safe for the little ears” radio announcers read those verses? Would those parents understand what morals they were teaching? Because promoting Christianity is nothing more than a socially acceptable form of preaching hate, bigotry, ignorance, superstition and intolerance. What child needs to learn those lessons?

If the bible is considered ‘safe for the little ears’, I’d just as soon read to my children Fifty Shades of Grey.

When massacres occur, god is behind it?

           

          On Friday, December 14, 2012, a tragedy occurred in Newtown Connecticut where twenty children and six adults were killed in a shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The echoes from the gunfire had barely stopped when the kooks came out to air their impressions on what happened. One group in particular, certain Christians, conveyed the strangest explanations or rationalizations that I have ever heard. God BLESS Sandy Hook? Not since airliners were crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon in September 2001 have there been so many Christian enlightenments and justifications to explain what happened, and why it happened. In a nutshell…god did it.                 
          
                I all but choked on the coffee I was sipping as I listened to one radio talk show and heard a woman, who identified herself as a God-fearing Christian, claim that God saw he needed twenty new angels (apparently He wasn’t aware of the shortage prior to casting His gaze around paradise) and set in motion the events that led to the slaughter.
                For even a second, do you consider it in good taste the implication of what she is suggesting? That God looked around, saw he had twenty fewer angels than he needed to be worshipped or entertained by, (Never mind the six adults, I guess) and sent a mentally unstable man into an elementary school to mow down 6 to 7 year old children?

Now that the killing has stopped, it's time to get on our knees to thank God, or ask God why it happened...and never get a response.

 But of course, other Christian callers quickly hastened to add their own beliefs that God didn’t know this was coming and He was simply making something good out of a bad situation by turning adolescent murder victims into instant angels. (Like making lemonade when you are handed a lemon.) They didn’t stop to think “Why would god work this way?” As the great Greek philosopher Epicurus wrote over 2400 years ago:

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

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

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

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

Why don’t Christians consider this when tragedies occur?

                On another talk show, a caller suggested that because secularists had forced god out of the schools, this is what would inevitably happen. When kids can’t pray Christian prayers in the classroom, when bibles are banned from the library, and when thanking God and Jesus at ceremonies and graduations is prohibited, then we reap what we sow…ergo, mentally unstable, heavy-armed, young, white males will automatically begin thinning out the human herd with gunfire. This caller said that God has turned His back on us because we turned our backs on Him. These kinds of Christians believe that God knows these acts will happen and, if not causing them, simply allows them to happen. I don’t see any difference between the two. It’s an act of malevolence either way.

              Do they really believe God thinks this is reasonable? Killing, or allowing to be killed, children who have done nothing to offend Him, and that they should die in such a horrific manner? What the hell kind of Christian sits around thinking this pile of garbage up? Of course, throughout the Christian bible, God DOES kill children without batting a holy eyelash. For example, God killed children in the tenth plague of Egypt. Their deaths were senseless because there were peaceful alternatives that could have accomplished His goal of getting the Hebrews released by Pharaoh and out of slavery.  When you kill children to accomplish a goal, and that goal could have been achieved without killing them, then their deaths were senseless because they weren't key to reaching that goal. The Proverb about babies being ripped from their mother’s womb certainly sounds like killing innocent kids is part of god’s plan. Also, the great flood in Genesis that only Noah and his seven family members escaped from is another classic example showing that babies and adolescents are not exempt from god's wrath. God doesn’t mind killing children at all. It just has to be for the right reasons. I deliberately didn’t seek any information about how the lunatic fringe at the Westboro Baptist Church would interpret this because I was certain they would blame the whole situation on gays. They most likely insist that, since the U.S. allows homosexuality to exist in our society, God sent this gunman into the school to bring us back to God (their version anyway) in a most shocking manner, by killing children. Homosexuality = murdering kids. WBC has perfected the non sequitur.

                After the massacre, area churches opened their doors for special services in order to make people feel better by telling God what he should do. God apparently didn't know this would happen.

                 If Christians are saying their God allowed these kids to be killed because Americans don’t have the Ten Commandments plastered everywhere, don’t go to church as frequently as they should, don’t pray enough, allow homosexuality, alcohol drinking, and even bowling on Sunday, then they are just as bad as that god they worship, if not worse. Blaming an invisible, nebulous, mysterious supernatural creature is delusional and amounts to passing the buck. However, human beings thinking it up, believing it, insisting others should believe it, and act on it as well, is nothing short of evil...man-made evil.
                God-fearing Christians...if this is the kind of god you believe in, you should be fearful. The rest of us just think you're nuts.

The Big Difference

                What does the future hold? How does one's vision of the future impact the way they live their life? Beliefs influence how one reacts and how they interact with others. Belief systems seem to boil down to one of two types of world views.

                One system sees a better tomorrow with true human harmony being a reachable goal, even though it may still be distant today. It will be a time when people can, and will, work with each other and find a just, lasting, and symbiotic way to make life better for all who exist here. If we can cooperate in space, at the far reaches of the planet, in technology, health care, finances, and communication; then we can equally cooperate in human progress and in human understanding. We all have more in common than we have that differentiates us. There isn’t a short term solution. It will require a long term commitment on our part. However, we have proven that we have the capability, the reasoning, and the desire to make things better, for ourselves and for those around us. Wouldn’t it be nice if it turned out we’re all only separated by something like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon?

                The other belief dictates that mankind is naturally evil and sinful. In this country, the predominant belief system is christianity, but it could just as easily apply to islam or judaism. Those who follow the christian belief hope, pray, and work for the biblical Armageddon to happen in their lifetime. They believe Jesus will then come tearing out of the sky to save some of the remaining human beings who will live for a thousand years with Jesus in control of Earth. Finally, for reasons not very clear, the devil (a supernatural being who was thrown into a pit when Jesus came back) will be let loose to destroy things on Earth again. And then, everyone who ever lived on this planet will be tried by God where a vast majority of them will be judged unworthy of anything but damnation, and thrown in a lake of fire for all eternity.

                Does this sound like the design of an intelligent supernatural being that transcends time and space?  Yet, this is the love and mercy of the Christian god, according to their bible, and it is the core of the Christian belief. Defenders of Christianity will try to explain that god doesn’t send people to hell (or the lake of fire); they send themselves to hell (or the lake of fire). Really? Is it any different than this scenario?

The Robber says                                                                               God says

“Give me your money, or I’ll shoot you!”                                   “Worship me, or burn in hell forever!”

People have free will.                                                                    People have free will.                   

They can choose to obey the robber's                                       They can choose to obey God's
commands, or not.                                                                        commands, or not.

So Robbers do not kill people.                                                  So God does not send people to hell.

People choose to die by                                                               People send themselves there, by         
choosing to disobey the robber.                                                choosing to disobey god.
               

Would you excuse and pardon the robber for murdering his victim in this case?

            But the ultimate problem is this; the Christian sees a bleak future that requires a supernatural event to change it, but they don’t explain how or why it will happen as they claim, except to repeat passages from their bible, as if that clarifies everything. You just have to believe, you just have to have faith, you just have to worship their god and trust that he will make everything right.

                The offer to worship the Christian god is not a choice, it is an ultimatum. The whole idea is based on a threat. That’s what terrorists do. That’s what the recent christmas holiday represents; not the birth of a child, but the birth of a method to threaten you with unimaginable horror. In its most concise form, it is ‘Worship me or go to hell forever’ which is no different than pointing a loaded gun at your head and saying “Do as I say, or I’ll pull this trigger.”

                I choose to believe in a very different future for the human race. I do not, for example, believe we’re on auto-pilot destined for total destruction, nor do I believe a supernatural event will occur that will resolve, temporarily, the apparently ghastly conditions we humans have created on Earth. I am certain that humans, with all their flaws and faults, will continue to progress and build toward a better future. There will be set backs and miscues, but we are aiming in the right direction. As long as we don't get sidetracked by allowing religion, ANY religion, to divert our course, we will continue to lay down the building blocks that will lead to a much grander and more equitable future for us and our descendants.

  It’s time for the human race to rise above these two thousand year old superstitions, and throw off the fear, the belief in a forsaken future, and faith in an unseen, unknowable supernatural force. We no longer need to be scared of the 'monster under the bed', because it was never there to begin with; nor do we need magical, invisible friends whom we converse one-sidely with (in prayer). The bible was written as a means of controlling people. In it, we’re condemned as being inherently sinful by the very being that, it is claimed, authored the bible, and we owe that being our lives in perpetuity. Of course, the message of the bible is then touted as the only salvation available, again according to that supernatural being that supposedly authored it. When other religions try to use the same argument with their own holy book, do you believe their claims are true?

The future is far too important to leave to interpretations that are no different from reading Tarot cards, tea leaves, or the entrails of a slaughtered sheep. I choose the vision that does not treat human beings as unworthy and must ultimately be saved by an undefinable supernatural source. We are superior to that and our eventual growth away from religion will only make our lives and our future that much better. The day when humankind’s belief in the supernatural is just a quaint memory, and a footnote in a history book, can’t come soon enough.

The dead elephant in the room

It is rather fitting that the Republicans were prevented from winning much on Election Day since they ignored a majority of the American voters throughout the campaigns. Though I am exactly in their target demo: older white male, professional job, college degree, fiscally conservative, and from a very conservative family, there is no way I can support most of the Republican Party’s platform. (Don’t mistake that to think I vote Democratic; I don’t. I usually vote Libertarian but it depends on the issue and the candidate.)

                Listening to certain radio ilk the past month made one think Romney was a shoo-in. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved and other mouthpieces of the far right fringe have been citing poll after poll showing that Romney had not only caught up with Obama, he had surpassed him in various demographics and was on a roll that would take him into the White House. It is a perfect example of the old adage ‘If you believe a lie long enough, it will become the truth to you.’ It has now been exposed that many of the pollsters didn't have a clue as to what was happening. They asked the wrong questions of those polled, and in a good number of cases because the questions were ‘loaded’, they got the result they wanted to hear. When polling is based on what you want to hear, you’ll get a skewed result.

One of the talk show hosts tried mightily to show that the evangelicals were going to come out in record numbers and vote for a Mormon for president; not because of his conservatism, but because he was a ‘man of faith’. Supposedly, they should be able to relate to that even though the evangelicals’ own ‘holy book’ denounced anyone who didn't think like them. I know from dealing with many 'born-again christians' that they DO NOT believe a Mormon is even close to being a christian. I can’t wait to read how the talk show host will interpret Romney’s loss, if he bothers trying. My bet is on him claiming that it became evident that god could not allow a Mormon to become president. (Then why the call to support him? Didn't he check with god first?)

                Not helping the Republican cause were the various incidents of ‘hoof-in-mouth’ disease that made some of the candidates look like air-headed lemmings and became well-deserved targets of scorn and ridicule. Voters remember that kind of buffoonery when it comes time to cast their ballot. If the Republicans hope to win in the future, they’d be advised not to take the advice talk show annoyance Dennis Prager. Just days after the election, he was telling callers on his show that the Republican Party didn't abandon the voters, they abandoned the party, and encouraged his listeners to go out and ‘re-sell’ Republicanism to everyone they know. They should pitch all the things that reflected Republican Party values, and convince people that those values are what make good candidates, and a party worth following. He didn't advise them to take a look at how many Republicans interpreted planks in their party's platform. Maybe they should. 

        Because just how do you sell to anyone that ‘rape is a blessing from god’, gays who simply want the right to marry just like heterosexuals, can’t, an attitude of ‘I don’t want the federal government taking away my freedoms, just the freedoms of any woman who wants an abortion’, that you should be fiscally conservative, except when it comes to the Drug War and funding every military weapon system that can be conjured up, and regardless of the Establishment Clause, insisting that the Republicans are the only faith-based party and that god only supports right-wing (Republican) decisions?

       Good luck with that.

Faithfully Dumb

What is it about the Republican mindset that causes the men in that party to abandon common sense when it comes to pregnancy and rape?

Last month, Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock became the latest in a collage of Republican dimwits to say something astonishingly idiotic regarding women and rape. In a debate with his Democratic opponent Joe Donnelly, Mourdock explained his abortion stance saying that “even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen.” There you have it…God intended it to happen. God knew the rape was going to occur and did nothing to stop it…which means rape should be taken off the books as a crime, since it is something God foresees and wants. Following biblical law, maybe Mourdock should also introduce legislation demanding that the victim then marry her rapist and he must pay the woman’s father fifty pieces of silver. After all, that’s precisely what it says in Deuteronomy 22:28-29. God’s law is great, isn’t it?

God often sneaks over to watch down on some of his "intended" rapes as they occur

Prior to Mourdock stuffing both feet in his mouth, we had Tom Smith, a candidate for the Pennsylvania state senate comparing rape to having a baby out of wedlock. Smith said if you “put yourself in a father’s situation”, it’s a similar kind of thing. So guys, when you rape a woman, look at it as though she’s having your baby without the hassle and inconvenience of a wedding. The whole point of rape is just recreational procreation, right?

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan, on August 23^rd during an interview on WJHL in Roanoke, VA stated  "I'm very proud of my pro-life record, and I've always adopted the idea that, the position that the method of conception doesn't change the definition of life." What he is referring to is rape as a "method of conception" when asked if it should it be legal for a woman to be able to get an abortion if she's raped. If that sperm makes into you, the method is acceptable for obtaining protection from the government and it is now your responsibility to see it through to its 21^st birthday. The rape victim’s health, mental and otherwise, isn’t up for consideration in Ryan’s view. Only that of the newly engaged sperm and egg. They must now be federally protected and the 'method of conception' carried to full term. The Republicans don't really give a damn about what happens after the birth of the baby though.

                And lest we forget (although, much to his chagrin, I doubt most people will), there was Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin in an August interview stating, “if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Leaving aside what exactly constitutes ‘legitimate rape’ (maybe that’s Paul Ryan’s definition as well), not one Medical School I know of teaches that a woman’s body can shut down the consequence of a rape. The implication behind his statement is; if the victim is not really being raped but just fooling around with her rapist and enjoying the ‘sex’ involved, then any conception is automatically intentional, should have the full protection of the federal government, and the woman must carry the result full term. Republican logic isn’t baffling, it can be completely understood from the viewpoint of an alternate universe where only men understand a woman's reproductive capabilities.

                         Mourdock, Ryan, Smith, and Akin…a Mount Rushmore of Republican stupidity.

What do all these poor excuses for XY chromosomes have in common, aside from the fact that they are arch-conservative right-wing GOP standard-bearers? To one degree or another, they are Christian fundamentalists. That can’t be stressed enough; they are all Christian fundamentalists. Why should that be the emphasis? Because it is that bible-infected influence resulting in narrow-minded (or rather brainless) thinking that leads them to make such asinine and morally-bankrupt remarks. When rape is thought of as nothing more than a method of conception, can be legitimized through some magical process, or that the Christian God intended it to happen, I have to wonder why ANY female would vote for a Republican…or attend a Christian church. (Who knows, maybe God rounded up a few rapists with ‘intent’ on their minds and are now lurking behind the altar.) Don’t be concerned ladies, following God’s law, your dad will be bribed with a token amount of money, and you’ll get a guaranteed husband out of the deal. Oh, and most likely that unplanned baby too!

E Pluribus Unum - Let's return to the original motto

How far we've deviated from our origins in the United States. The innovative idea of our founders was built upon a leader being truly elected of the people, by the people and for the people, NOT being governed by a ruler or regime that was put in place by any supernatural being, or so claimed to be. We would come together as a country and rule ourselves with a representative we chose at the helm of government. Hence, the stirring maxim of our great nation, E Pluribus Unum, From Many, One, makes absolute sense. It was the phrase on the front of the Great Seal of the United States adopted in 1782 by an Act of Congress. The words also appear on the Seals of the President, Vice President, Congress, House of Representatives, the Senate and the Supreme Court. 

E Pluribus Unum has never been considered controversial. The motto was intended to represent the federal nature of the new country,  i.e. out of many states came one nation. The framers may have stridently disputed many issues in the formation of the United States, but E Pluribus Unum was not one of them. In fact, as the population grew, the motto took on a secondary meaning as well, reflecting the country's melting pot nature - the interpretation being of many people from different countries and cultures blending together to form a new national identity, that of U.S. citizens. Certainly, if there's one issue we can all agree on, it's that E Pluribus Unum is an excellent statement of America and its values, right? Not if you have a religious goal in mind and want to circumvent the Establishment Clause which separates the church from the state.

In 1956, E Pluribus Unum was unceremoniously replaced by In God We Trust during the Great Red Scare thanks to McCarthyism. It was intended to show those godless communists who bowed down to an oppressive government that crushed any nonconformity and professed atheism that we bow down to a supernatural deity that no one has seen, but still trusted. But whatever god our Congress was hoping to appease apparently wasn't impressed. Or the substitute motto was appealing to the wrong god. The surrogate motto has done nothing to bring cohesion to the nation, or lift it up, and an excellent case can be made that things have gone to hell in a hand-basket since its adoption. (Looking back to 1956, maybe ‘To Hell in a Hand-basket’ would have made a better motto!)

Nowadays, the Religious Right, led by people like Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann and the CPC or Congressional Prayer Caucus (yes, our supposedly secular government actually has a Congressional Prayer Caucus. Guess which god they appeal to the most.), insinuate that E Pluribus Unum is, um, well frankly, un-American. The CPC, which is the leading voice of religious conservatism (read Christian) in the capitol, recently wrote a letter to President Obama, chastising him for referring to the motto E Pluribus Unum, suggesting that using it was unpatriotic and amounted to an anti-God statement. The letter stated that he should instead be promoting the motto "In God We Trust". Apparently, E Pluribus Unum is tantamount to sacrilege to the Christian right. They also claim the President isn't mentioning ‘God’ enough in his speeches and that he shouldn't refer to "inalienable rights" without mentioning that they come from God. Try as I might, I can’t find that reference in the Declaration of Independence. A "Creator” does not in any way suggest the Christian god, since it could just as well mean ‘The Universe’ or the ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’.

Regardless of how it's presented, In God we Trust does promote theistic religion at the expense of non theism and secularism. The phrase originates from religious texts such as the Bible and has always been supported the strongest by Christian leaders and in a Christian context. Critics argue that it promotes the belief in a single, transcendent deity, that of the main Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But in a nation of ‘out of many – one’, it is foreign to many other religions. Buddhists do not believe in a personal deity, Wiccans believe in two deities, Hindus believe in many, and it is absolutely meaningless to agnostics and atheists. As such, it violates the principle of separation of church and state.  

Maybe few people in this country care about the motto. To those who pay any attention to it, appealing to some ill-defined, nebulous, supernatural entity that doesn’t have the good grace to show itself, or indicate it is pleased to be appealed to, is the axiomatic equivalent of saying ‘How do you do’. Almost no one actually wants to hear how someone is doing when met; it’s just a phrase that rolls off the tongue from overuse. And so it may be. But to the Religious Right it is a pronouncement on a national level, endorsed by the government, that there is a belief in a god figure. To me, it is nonsense to claim the slogan has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court may have ruled that it has ‘lost through rote repetition any significant religious meaning’ but that's hogwash! It is vehemently defended repeatedly by Fundamentalist Christians because they have recognized all along that it was a petition to their particular interpretation of god, the one named Jehovah. Any way you slice that, it demolishes the wall separating church from state.

Imagine how those who approve of the replacement motto would feel if it instead said “In Vishnu We Trust’ or ‘In Allah We Trust’. Would it still have that warm and fuzzy appeal? In God we Trust is a motto that divides us, deeper and deeper, and says nothing about who we are as a nation. E Pluribus Unum has never divided us and describes us as our founding fathers intended. Time to return to the original.

Why celebrate Columbus Day?

                                           Left to right, Niña, Santa Maria (Columbus' ship) and the Pinta

             In the early morning hours of October 12, 1492 a lookout named Rodrigo de Triana shouted what every sailor aboard the Niña, Pinta and Santa Maria had been hoping to hear for 33 days since leaving the Canary Islands far to the east. The three ships had sailed from Spain on August 3^rd and the men were now on the verge of mutiny. Except for that quick stop for provisions in the Canary’s; after over two months of seeing nothing but the broad expanse of water in front of them, the men wanted to return home, any shortcut to Asia be damned.

“Land, land,” Rodrigo shouted from the crow’s nest of the Pinta. The soft white moon-lit sand of one of the southeasterly islands of the Bahamas beckoned. No one knows exactly which one it was; most often Samana Cay or Watling Island are chosen as possibilities. Rodrigo was also quite excited because Spain’s king Ferdinand and queen Isabella had offered a pension of 10,000 maravedis (around $1,300) for life to the first man who sighted land. At the time, seamen made about 12,000 maravedis in a good year so it was a sizable amount for any of them. Rodrigo was most likely smacking his lips in anticipation of the reward. But rather than compensate the lookout as promised by Spain’s rulers, Christopher Columbus, leader of the expedition, claimed he saw lights on the horizon a few hours previously and kept the reward for himself. It is not recorded if anyone questioned him about how he could see those distant lights, yet they were missed by all the other sailors, and why he never mentioning the sighting to anyone until after Rodrigo’s detecting the shoreline. This glimpse of Columbus tells us a lot about the man who would be crowned Admiral of the Ocean, and provides insight into his dishonesty and cunning.

                            The arrival of Columbus' ships as seen from the Taino's vantage

The natives he was about to meet would have been better off wiping out the ship’s crews as they came ashore. Those who lived on the island swam out to meet the newcomers as their boats neared the beach. The Taínos, as they were dubbed by the Spaniards, were part of a larger group of island natives called Arawaks, and were described as “naïve and free with their possessions” offering to share all they had with Columbus and his crewmen. They also discover the Taínos women were very free with sex as well. Because of small gold ornaments they wore in their ears and noses, several were taken prisoner and ordered by Columbus to lead him to the gold’s source. Columbus’ true reason for his voyage was revealed. It was not for discovery; it was for human and mineral plunder.

          Columbus claims the new land for God and Spain completely ignoring the desires of the natives who live there (seen in unauthentic dress in the background).

We now know that Columbus was not the first European to detect the American continents and nearby islands. Vikings had beaten him to it by around 500 years and there is evidence that other cultures and seafaring men may have stumbled upon the New World in the decades and centuries prior to Columbus’ voyage. Certainly what Columbus’ visit did was set in motion the annihilation of millions of natives who had flourished throughout the Americas. And Columbus’ justification? This is from his diary: "It was the Lord who put it into my mind, (I could feel His hand upon me), the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies. All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me. There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because He comforted me with rays of marvelous inspiration from the Holy Scriptures.......

I am a most noteworthy sinner, but I have cried out to the Lord for grace and mercy, and they have covered me completely. I have found the sweetest consolation since I made it my whole purpose to enjoy His marvelous Presence.

For the execution of the voyage to the Indies, I did not make use of intelligence, mathematics or maps.
It is simply the fulfillment of what Isaiah* had prophesied......(probably Isaiah 40:22.
In this scripture passage the prophet Isaiah made reference to "the circle of the earth.) No one should fear to undertake any task in the name of our Savior, if it is just and if the intention is purely for His holy service. The working out of all things has been assigned to each person by our Lord, but it all happens according to His sovereign will, even though He gives advice. Oh, what a gracious Lord, who desires that people should perform for Him those things for which He holds Himself responsible! Day and night, moment by moment, everyone should express their most devoted gratitude to Him."

Yes, god through the bible told Columbus to go west. And once there, god and the bible were the justification for all sorts of heinous acts committed by the Spaniards in service to Columbus. Since the natives had no recognizable religion, they were considered fair game for anything. A young priest named Bartolome de las Casas recorded what happened to the natives in their interactions with Columbus’ crew of one of his later voyages. The Spaniards “grew more conceited every day and refused to walk, so they rode on the backs of the Indians, or were carried in hammocks by the Indians running in relays. They thought nothing of knifing Indians by tens and twenties and cutting slices off of them to test the sharpness of their blades.” In another passage he wrote about how “two of these so called Christians met two Indian boys each carrying a parrot; they took the parrots and for fun beheaded the boys.”

                                           The Natives were slaughtered for no reason at all by their Spanish overlords.

                Natives by the thousands were rounded up and forced at sword point to dig for gold in mines while the women were put to work cultivating fields of crops for the Spaniards. Most died within six to eight months. This kind of treatment set the stage for the English, Portuguese, Dutch and French invaders whose treatment of the natives they met was just as harsh as the Spanish. In most every case, they claimed God wanted them to kill all the Native Americans found over here. The land was deeded to Christians and would soon be theirs. One English governor put it succinctly when he wrote “Sickness [in the Indians] was the physical manifestation of the will of God.” In less than 300 years, the American continent’s original inhabitants had been reduced by almost 90%.

                If Christopher Columbus should be remembered for anything, it is not for his guidance, compassion, and honesty, since he deliberately misled his own men with a phony ship’s log so the men didn't know how far they’d traveled on that first voyage. Plus, he had vastly underestimated the circumference of the earth figuring it was about one fourth its actual size. He contemptuously kept the reward for discovering land from the man who actually had sighted it, and his mission turned out to be to claim any land for Spain through God, plundering the new land for riches and capturing the natives as slaves, or just out and out killing them in the name of Christ. He should be remembered for what his actions, grounded in the belief that God has ordained it, unleashed on an unsuspecting population. Genocide.

                Nothing says a religion is true more than death and destruction meted out by its believers.

I'd rather they live

                 

                In several recent e-mails I've received from family members, if they have anything to do with the military, the emails will almost always end with some ridiculous line like this: And remember only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ, and the American Soldier. Putting aside the a priori assumption of the first ‘defining force’, I’d like to address the bald assertion made at the end of that sentence about American soldiers offering to die.

                                        U.S. dead after rocket attack in Afghanistan, but did they offer to die?

               I don’t know about you but I don’t want any of our military people dying for me. I want them to live and kill the enemy combatants who aim to do me harm. It’s a very different thing to attack, defend, and fight, than to just up and die. Is the writer of this assertion claiming that men and women poured into recruiting offices with the goal of dying? Is he insinuating that when they were fully trained they appeared on battlefields and deliberately stood up in an exposed position to commit a planned suicide?  Did ANY of those soldiers, sailors, marines, or airmen join up in order to die? Of course not. They may have joined because they felt it was their duty, or it was an adventure, or a chance to fight for their country. Death was possible, but I would wager not one of them said ‘yes, I’m signing up so I can die for the American people.’ It's like claiming that a driver who is killed in a traffic accident actually offered to die behind the wheel of his car for the American people.

             Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest is quoted as saying “War means fighting, and fighting means killing.” Notice he doesn’t say dying. Fighting men and women are trained to fight and kill the enemy; they are not trained to die. It may happen in the course of fighting but that is not their purpose, and I am sad to think ANY of them did die. In the hit movie “Patton”  the great General, portrayed by actor George C. Scott, makes a statement that the men are not to ‘lay down your life for your country; you are to make the other poor, dumb bastard lay down his life for his country.' That’s the way it is in every war. Even the famed 300 Spartans who held off the Persian army under Xerxes did not meet them in the mountain passes of northern Sparta in order to die. They knew it was a distinct possibility, but they fought as though they’d survive to see their families and homes again, not assume that they’d be slaughtered to a man. So the statement that U.S. soldiers have offered to ‘die for you’ is not just wrong; it is absurd, it makes a mockery of the life of the soldier, sailor, marine, or airman or woman, and it is patently false. How many wars are won by the soldiers all dying?

                     So many U.S. war dead returned from Iraq, one assumes their mass suicides were successful

               One email even ends with this line: “Of all the gifts you could give a U.S. Soldier, prayer is the very best one.” A quick test shows this is nonsense. Just as he goes into battle against a heavily armed enemy, if an unarmed American soldier is given the choice of a loaded automatic weapon you are holding out to him, or you offer to just pray for him, which will he choose? We can make this even easier on a more personal level. We’re alone dining and you start choking. You have two choices. One, I can perform the Heimlich maneuver on you…or Two, I can pray for you. Think carefully about your choice before you pass out.

Our military men and women are in my thoughts but I am not wasting time praying for them. I send letters of encouragement, books to read (but not bibles, korans, or other 'holy' publications) and contribute to funds that supply them with body armor and other necessary items to help protect them. I hope you will too.

              As for the Jesus Christ line, if Jesus is alive and now in heaven sitting at the right hand of himself (since christians claim he IS god), how is that death? What did he sacrifice? Regardless of what christians claim, no one died for me or you. It is simply an element of faith on the part of christians that Jesus did what the bible claims; and faith is simply believing in something without evidence. You just want it to be true. That’s not a pathway to truth.