Dear fellow believers in Charleston, South Carolina, who are also black like me:
I thank God that you have praised Him through this trial. The loss of nine sisters and brothers is a tremendous burden for a church and family to bear. The recognition that racial hatred still breeds in your state and this nation is frightening, but as witnessed on national television, you have a strong faith.
From this tragedy Americans have shared the moving experience of grieving family members offering forgiveness to the killer. That obedient response is a testimony to these families' faith and the teaching they have received. Indeed, I think what we’ve witnessed through you in Charleston is an instance of how God may be glorified in suffering. And yet, I must caution you.
In Charleston, I have also observed on television a troubling response. A few black Christians speaking to reporters have patted themselves on the back for “not rioting.” I cannot help but think that they praise themselves in reference to the #BlackLivesMatter protests that have turned violent in the last year in places such as Ferguson, New York, and Baltimore. So, it sounds to me that what these black Christians in Charleston want the world to believe is that they are better people than those who have rioted since the deaths of Mike Brown, Eric Garner, and Freddie Gray.
Yes, it’s good that more violence did not the result grief and anger over the massacre at Emmanuel AME Church, but comparing the response of mature Christians to the reaction of young black people in Ferguson and young black people in Baltimore is not fair.
First, the comparison sounds similar to the Pharisee praying “I thank God that I am not like that sinner over there,” not that you are pharisees, but it does seem strange that you would praise yourselves and appear not to understand what has happened in the rest of the country. Second, in terms of protest, your situation in Charleston and what has happened elsewhere are not truly the same.
The shooter in Charleston was not a government representative, such as a police officer, and your police department did not behave as though nothing had happened (as Florida police did following Trayvon Martin’s death). Your police chief and mayor sprang into action to condemn the murders and find the perpetrator.
So, who would you have rioted against, the police department and mayor for doing their jobs? Or is Dylan Roof someone to riot against? Did you pay taxes for Dylan Roof to protect you? The white supremacist culture in general may seem like something to riot against to some people sometimes, but who riots against a wind?
It's understood that peaceful people prefer peaceful protest. Still, even Dr. King understood why oppressed people sometimes riot. Understanding rage and condoning its actions, of course, are not the same thing. Then there's the reality that Christian people who actually believe what Jesus taught tend not to become violent.
The question for you is this, Has your dignified response to these murders and the evil acts against you come by your own grace and power or by God's?
My heart goes out to you and the nation, but I hope none of you, including preachers, will use this tragedy to compare yourselves to other black people in pain in order to condemn them. I hope that you will not stand on the necks of other black people to lift yourselves in America’s eyes.
But I'm sure you will move forward in grace because you have the Humble Servant in your hearts. And nothing will separate us from His love.
At least one Twitter commenter noted, "Twitter is making a really big deal about God being black in the Mophie commercial, as if Bruce Almighty didn't happen over a decade ago."
Actually, I didn't see anyone on Twitter really upset about God being represented as a black man, but I'll take the tweeters word for it. Twitter is a digital sea of humanity, so whatever stupidity you hear of in the brick and mortar world, you'll see it on Twitter.
I remember when Bruce Almighty came out. News and talk shows discussed God's representation in it a bit, but only the dumbest people back then were alarmed that God (Morgan Freeman) was black in that movie. The same thing goes for Dogma, which came out four years before Bruce Almighty. In Dogma, God was a woman (Alanis Morisette).
Mophie, a company I knew nothing about until tonight, may have "the best Super Bowl ad," writes The Verge, and Fast Company's talking about the ad, too, encouraging the Twitter crowd to flock to its site and see the mobile charger company's ad in widescreen. The company could definitely use the publicity because when I bought my adult children mobile chargers this Christmas, Mophie mobile chargers did not come up in my search or in reviews. I guess they will now.
Back to God being black, I do not think of God as a physical being, but anyone who is troubled by the notion that God may be anything other than a white male needs to do a lot more soul searching. Perhaps the same people who are troubled that God may be black are also the ones who think every man with flowing, dark blond hair, a beard, and blue eyes looks just like Jesus, who was unlikely to have blonde hair or blue eyes.
For me, the ad caught my attention just for its stunning special effects. The final reveal of what was causing all the commotion on Earth made me laugh. Yeah, great ad.
I've had some pretty remarkable so-called "coincidences" in my life. About half of them I attribute to "Godwinks," those little clues in life that remind us not to rule out significance of the spiritual. But scientists, and I've known this for a long time, say coincidences are just that, coincidence. They are not "mystical but mathematical," chance following rules of probability.
Then psychologists join in and say humans tend to only pay attention to information that supports what they already believe. I agree with that up to a point. For instance, people who want to believe that in general a particular group is inferior or dangerous will ignore or rationalize away any evidence that contradicts that belief.
But what do scientists do with events and phenomena they can't explain? How do they explain people suddenly having insight into a situation they know nothing about? For instance, once I awakened from a dream in which I found a specific object that didn't belong to me but I needed to know about for my own safety. When I woke up, I left the bed and went straight to the place I'd seen in my dream and found the object.
A science-oriented friend of mine said, "That was your subconscious. You were aware of the object on some level and that's how you found it. He said this even though the object I found had been hidden inside a toilet tank, and I am one who rarely lifts the lid on a toilet tank. When I found the object that may have been only the second time in my life I'd ever seen the inside of a toilet tank. He, however, was determined to believe that there was nothing mystical about that moment. Was that a case of him ignoring information that challenged his ideology?
Or how is it that sometimes you have a very specific thought not to do a specific thing, and you listen to that thought, so you don't do whatever it is or go wherever you'd been headed. Then you find out later that the decision saved your life? If this happens to you more than once, it's hard to chalk it up to coincidence. (These expereinces probably don't count if you're a couch potato or afraid of most things.) Science, however, demands that you reject your own interpretation of your personal experiences and accept whatever it is science says is true at the moment.
Notice I say at the moment. All it takes is a study of how science has shaped racist propaganda and how scientists, after consuming the very propaganda science helped create, then go on to misinterpret the word around them and you'll see that science itself should also be given the side-eye sometimes.
Since scientists discuss the human tendency to cling to information that only supports what a human already believes, what beliefs do most scientists hold that influence how they interpret phenomena such as coincidence? I mean, they're human, too. What are the ideologies that propel scientists?
In general, I support science, proven facts, and numbers, but I do not automatically rule out "God" or the mystical. I make room in my life for the possibility of miracles. I have to because I am not a natural optimist. Life's difficulties have stripped me of idealism and my earlier leanings toward the romantic, I think.
And I don't care that some people I otherwise respect think that believing in the mystical and spiritual is for cowards who can't accept what athiests call "the fact that there is no God." It's impossible for a living person to know whether God exists, which is why belief in God requires faith. However, it's not unreasonable to say that old concepts of God, such as the image of a white man in a robe and long beard sitting somewhere in the sky is hard to swallow and highly improbable. On the other hand, theories in theoretical physics open the door to believing almost anything is possible in terms of alternate dimensions.
I recognize that it's a choice to believe in the spiritual just as it is a choice to accept a specific system of ethics, but as long as such beliefs are not putting me and my family's lives in jeopardy--for example causing me to refuse medical help or to not take action to solve problems or assume agency in my own life--how does it harm me?
Actually, when scientists and atheists ask us to reject belief in the unseen and ignore perceived patterns or that strange sense of presence we sometime feel (which can be explained by causes other than God), they are asking us to work against our own evolutionary survival instinct. That doesn't mean we should believe all kinds of superstition. It simply means that perhaps we should not, in our effort to prove how intellectually sophisticated we are, rule out the possibility that some aspects of the mystical may be valid. Until we fully understand everything about the human brain or disprove string theory with irrefutable evidence, those of us who prefer to believe in God are not as nutty as those who don't would have us think we are.
If you're haunted by the song played in HBO's promotion of its new drama The Leftovers, I'm not surprised. James Blake's Grammy-nominated song, "Retrograde," has that eerie, otherworldly, and soulful wail that may appeal to those with mystical leanings. And the video for the song seems as apocalyptic as the premise of The Leftovers itself. The story focuses on a small town years after the world experiences a "rapture-like" event.
Rapture-like means that the event in the television show will not be quite same event as the Christian belief it alludes to, "The Rapture." The Rapture is a prophecy in the New Testament of the Bible that some sects of Christianity embrace (usually sects who believe in a literal interpretation of scripture). But even among literalists or fundamentalist Christians, the Rapture doctrine remains controversial.
If you've ever watched movies about the Christian apocalypse featuring Armageddon and the Antichrist, then you may have already heard of The Rapture. Also, if you're old enough to recall the popular Left Behind book and movies series of the mid 1990s, then you may already be familiar with the concept or belief. But if you've never been to a church that teaches this prophecy,
I am feeling Jill Scott's song "Shame" today. I mean the lyrics and attitude of the song, which is absent of the emotion shame. In particular, I'm feeling the line, "And you don't even know my name." However, I'm not thinking of that line in its literal context.
I'm thinking about the implications of saying "you don't even know my name" figuratively, meaning that someone does not see who you really are because they've adopted a negative opinion based on whatever issues they brought to the table and refuse to see that's not you but their negative construction of you. Some people see only what they want to see when they look at another person, and if they have a vested interest in seeing you as the "bad guy" or "the devil," then they will block themselves from seeing anything about you or your actions that contradicts their assessment.
I'm sure you've seen it work the other way when someone you know has been deeply in love with a man or woman who lacks integrity and uses them, but the one in love is blind to the beloved's faults. But back to names and character.
The prayer of Jabez from the Bible gives some spiritual insight on a name as character and destiny. The name Jabez means pain. Although his appearance in the Bible is brief, we do know that his mother gave him that name because she had a painful labor. In context of biblical culture, one's name carried one's nature, infusing the individual with how he or she would progress through life. But, as the story goes, Jabez prayed and asked God to change his course, to free him from going the way of his given name:
Jabez cried out to the God of Israel, "Oh, that you would bless me and enlarge my territory! Let your hand be with me, and keep me from harm so thatI will be free from pain." And God granted his request.
I believe that whether we consider ourselves religious or not, call ourselves Christian, Jewish, Muslim or of some other faith, we all struggle with change when we want to change ourselves, our life course. It takes courage and self-discipline to write new stories for ourselves and not live out the stories our family, friends, bosses, or society in general write for us, or even the gloomy tale (negative self-mythology) we may have subconsciously written for ourselves.
Humans can transform ourselves. However, I doubt that I can change myself when I'm going through a deeper depression, which zaps me of hope. So, depression can be a stumbling block, even a mountain because in order to transform ourselves, our minds must be in a state that lets us at least imagine hope. Depressed people, however, are not always able to see even a sliver of light, so they can't walk toward it.
Is it possible you suffer from a depressive disorder and it's interfering with your ability to move forward? You can check your symptoms here. Shove aside your pride, too, if that's what causes you to resist getting help. And if you realize that you are depressed and you have been for weeks or more, then you may need to take anti-depressants to pull through. Take them if you need them.
Whether you're depressed or not, I also recommend this book: The Power of Habit. It's fascinating and inspiring.
I'd love to evolve into my best self and get to the place of confidence Jill Scott represents in her jubilant song, "Shame." Wouldn't you? But I also believe genetics play a role in how long we maintain a jubilant a state or urge ourselves into it. Yep, I believe there's a happy gene, even the one that influences how we fare in relationships.
But I believe as well that we can fake out our brain's genetics, which is why I appreciate this TedTalk by Jane McGonigal: The game that can give you 10 extrayears of life.
And I know for a fact that music changes mood, which is why I was on the early train for Pharrell's hit song, "Happy." But isn't it unrealistic to think that our goal is to be perpetually happy? While I've used the word "happy" throughout this post, my goal is to be content and self-actualized. I may not reach that all my goals before I die, but I must continue my effort, the process of trying.
What about you? Have you been aware of those moments in your life when you need to change but have resisted that change or been afraid that you can't change at all?
". . . the results do not conclusively prove the papyrus isn't a very clever forgery, caution the scientists. Instead, they remove previously raised objections to the text, finding no evidence of it being a fake."
People connect this new information to the craze of the DaVinci Code novel as though the book was somehow possibly rooted in history or was prescient. However, I've written previously that there was nothing that unique about that book to me. I'd heard that religious conspiracy theory before. However, this controversial papyrus says nothing about Jesus possibly having children, and that was the truly big reveal in the novel.
All that aside, the real discussion this papyrus seems to stoke concerns the role of women in the church because part of the snippet says, per the National Geographic article, "The words 'Jesus said to them, My wife . . . she is able to be my disciple . . .' are written on the center of the fragment."
For me, this is an issue that would be of concern most to the Roman Catholic Church because it not only bars women from being priests but also demands priests be single and celibate, but there are other Christian denominations that bar women from ministry as well.
As for protestants (some protestants), clinging to the belief that Jesus never married or had sex feeds into the puritanical notion that sex is bad, that the sin in the Garden of Eden was sex represented by eating the apple. For the rest of us who profess faith in Jesus, does it matter whether he was married or not?
With all this talk of the Vatican's papalconclave choosing another Pope in the wake of Pope Benedict XVI's departure, along with the rumors of why he retired, the song "Pope" (1993) by Prince (His Royal Purpleness), keeps running through my head. The song is included on his album, "The Hits/the B Sides," a compilation of his early hits.
In particular, I recall the song's chorus, which follows, along with audio of the song itself:
U can be the President (Kick it)
I'd rather be the Pope
(I'd rather be, so help me)
Yeah, U can be the side effect (Baby);
I'd rather be the dope
Pope (Album Version) Be warned: vintage Prince = "offensive" and suggestive language (cussing and sex).
Just in case the embedding didn't work, here's a link.
Much of the song asserts that the Pope has more power than anyone else, even a sitting POTUS. About the latter's office, Prince sings, "What am I supposed 2 do when the President can't get nothing passed?" And throughout the song, he equates himself to the Pope in a way that defines them both. He also repeatedly suggests that the Pope's position comes with not only political power, but also a certain level of sexual prowess.
I've always associated the song's chorus with a reflection on Karl Marx's quote, "Religion . . . is the opium of the masses." Marx scholars say the quote is often taken out of context. Marx was suggesting that religion offers false hope when he likens it to a drug people use to escape pain.
Given that Prince is a Jehovah's witness today and has always been spiritual, I don't think he would agree with Marx's belief that religion only offers false hope. In any case, when he sings, "U can be the side effect; I'd rather be the dope," he is definitely saying the Pope, which stands in here for religion, is a central figure with power. Dope has power; its side effects are incidental, and therefore not the thing that wields power. Prince wants to be the cause, not the effect but the dunamis.
You can read the full lyrics at LyricsDepot; I cannot, however, vouch for the accuracy of transcription there.
When I heard about the horrific shooting at the Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisc., yesterday, I immediately assumed it was a hate crime, but I hoped it was a domestic violence incident such as the one in Lakeland, Fla., last year in which a man burst through the doors of a Christian church and shot two people. Earlier he had shot his own wife to death in their home. I had hoped the shooting at the Sikh temple was like that—the actions of a disturbed person with a personal vendetta.
I say personal because although domestic violence is a serious issue that harms the entire community, a man angry about the failure of his marriage or one spouse's attempt to subdue a mate is an isolated matter: "Sounds like a personal problem," we used to say of such incidents, meaning that it is a problem from which we may distance ourselves and declare, "Nobody in my family would come after me with a gun. Nobody wants to kill me."
A hate crime, however, meaning a crime directed at someone because that person belongs to a specific ethnic, religious, ideological, or, perhaps, biological group, feels different. No matter what group you belong to, you may be assured that somewhere there is another group (or individual) that hates your group and that person may have access to guns. If you are a member of a religious community or a person of color, the likelihood some other group hates you is even higher. So, while I had hoped the Wisconsin shooting was not a hate crime, I could not shake the feeling that hate crime was most likely the case.
The video above is a September 2011 report from Democracy Now: "Ten Years After 9/11, Little-Known Sikh Community Still Target of Violence and Harassment."
In the case of this past weekend's shooting, I was even more convinced that it was a hate crime because I remembered the beginning of a rise in hate crimes against Sikhs after 9/11. I recalled the reports of the Sikh man shot to death in Arizona in mid-September 2001 because someone in a pick-up truck thought he was Muslim.
When I heard about that crime more than 10 years ago, I mumbled something about idiocy, hatred, and blindness, I think. Today I contemplate those general thoughts again, in particular how hatred, which by nature couples with rage, distorts reality and blurs vision.
Although I question the rigor of scholarship behind a study that finds a correlation between lower I.Q., bigotry, and racism, I can't help but think there may be some validity to its conclusions in light of white supremacists and self-appointed 9/11 avengers consistently misidentifying Sikhs as Muslims. Or could it be that hatred infects the human eye and brain in ways that make haters incapable of differentiating between groups that are in some ways similar?
Perhaps the hatred lowers its practitioners to the point of indulging animalistic behaviors; perhaps they become like Pavlov's dog but dumber, so not only do they react to bells but anything that resembles a bell. Maybe it's not surprising then that ultimately they need a pack as well to reinforce their hatred and fears; hence, the Wisconsin shooter's membership in a white supremacist band and his need to hang with people as insecure and fearful of the other as he is may be somewhat typical.
However, people in general do seek out those with whom they share the same goals and mentality. They do this because it gives them the power to act as one and effect material changes or sustain the status quo in their cultures. A hatred group, then, especially with a mind to act on that hate, is a terrible thing.
But even if these hateful people were to accurately identify their targets, would that make them any less repulsive, any more evolved? Either way they wallow in a pool of baser instincts and hold humanity back. If the Wisconsin shooter had attacked a Muslim temple he would have been equally wrong, equally deserving of punishment, equally evil.
And this is all the time I have today to contemplate such evil because who can withstand looking into the abyss so long? Indeed, that may be the source of the hater's disease, too much time looking into the darkness for communion with those of the same ugly mindset, too little time looking for the light.
Are there any men out there who will boycott Chik-fil-A because Dan Cathy also downed men who divorce and remarry? He said, ". . . and we are all married to our first wives." (I guess he voted for Obama in 2008, not McCain.)
More than likely he disapproves old-school Mormonism, drinking and smoking, and probably scientists who believe in evolution, too. Seriously, it is not news that Cathy is an Evangelical Christian. I don't know why some in the media and gay activists are tripping anew over his statements to the Baptist Press.
Christina Pesoli at the Huffington Post calls Cathy's decision to state that he believes in "traditional marriage" (and so does not support gay marriage) "a bird-brained business decision." I disagree. Cathy made a shrewd business decision considering to whom he was speaking, and it's the same decision he's been making for years.
She asks, "But what does marriage equality have to do with fried chicken sandwiches?" Nothing, Miss Pesoli, nothing at all, but Cathy was not being interviewed by a business magazine; he was being interviewed by the Baptist press. The Baptist Press is interested in how people live out their Christian faith and who's on the same page with them, not the business of business. The interviewer asked Cathy a question, and he answered it honestly.
I don't mean to pick on Pesoli; her blog post just happened to catch my eye. Nonetheless, she notes that the number of people supporting gay marriage is increasing as though Cathy should be concerned about that. In terms of his business, probably, that growing constituency is the farthest thing from Cathy's mind.
Cathy made what Christians call a "faith-based" decision. He attributes his success in the food industry to God blessing him because he is a "faithful" Christian according to what he believes a faithful Christian to be. Cathy has shown America for years that he will stand by what his religious beliefs tell him to stand by—which is why (in case someone didn't notice) his restaurant is closed on Sundays. There are Christian ministries devoted entirely to financial management according to Christian values. Pundits who discuss Chik-fil-A without considering this context are ill-prepared.
Chik-fil-A is not a publicly-traded company, so its stock will not drop over Cathy's frankness, but consumers who don't like what Cathy said and thinks their dollars matter to him probably should not eat at his restaurant for the peace of their own consciences. If you're one of these consumers, know, however, that your dollars do not matter to Cathy; your soul does.
You may call his beliefs hateful, but he thinks he speaks from love. I mean, there's much of which he disapproves based on his Evangelical beliefs, and part of those beliefs preach that guiding others by his life example toward fundamentalist Christian principles is an act of love for which God will reward him.
Furthermore, the New Testament speaks of Christian's suffering for their beliefs. His pastor will undoubtedly tell him to wear this public censure as a badge of honor, and some fundamentalist Christians who never eat at Chik-fil-A will make sure to do so this month.
Would Cathy join a group that burns crosses on gay people's lawns or send money to a group that supports the so-called "corrective" raping of lesbians? That's highly unlikely. Would he donate money to a Christian counseling service that treats homosexuality as a mental disorder? Probably. So, do what you've got to do, but you'll have trouble convincing Cathy and those like him that their beliefs flow from hate.
And no one can call Cathy a hypocrite, either, in terms of acting on what he thinks the Bible teaches. Unlike some Christian schools here in Louisiana, Dan Cathy will not compromise for the sake of getting more cash. Fundamentalist Christian schools are often on one hand anti-government social programs, believing that the more public money the masses receive from the government, the less they will depend on God, but on the other hand there the schools are—willing to take government money in the form of school vouchers. They've got a rationale for it, but it smacks of compromise.
"Now, what can we do to make Dan Cathy and Chik-fil-A pay?" murmurs the echo chamber. (Folks are so "eye for an eye" on this matter that they can't fathom the reality that eyes don't matter to Cathy: he'll gladly be blind for God.) Some Cathy slammers are going for that predictable standby strategy of the Civil Rights movement: the boycott.
Gay Rights = Civil Rights?
More and more people like to compare the Gay Rights movement to the Civil Rights movement. Although I agree that Gay Rights are also Civil Rights in this American republic, I think Gay Rights activists show that they are still operating with the mentality of activism infants when they get sucked into the organized boycotting of a business because its owner thinks homosexuals are morally inferior, or will not accept homosexuality as the natural biological state of some humans, or refuses to support the gay marriage agenda.
Therein lies the difference between the 60s Civil Rights boycott strategy to topple Jim Crow and the calls of some current Gay Rights supporters and activists to boyc . . . Continued at WritingJunkie.net, where you will also find Cathy's full quote and a .pdf of his interview with the Baptist Press.
President Barack Obama more than likely ticked off people on both the right and the left with his recent argument that raising taxes on the rich lines up with Jesus' teaching that "to whom much is given much shall be required." On the right there will be those angry because they believe (and are wrong) that Obama is not a Christian and so he has no right to quote Jesus Christ. On the left there will be those angry because they believe (and are wrong) that a sitting president should never mention religion. From a Christian/Spiritual perspective, I understood what the president was saying, and he was, after all, speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast.
I understood what he was saying for a number of reasons but specifically because that quote from the Gospel of Luke has been on my mind recently. Last month I posted a video poem to YouTube with this description:
A short poetic expression addressing the need for introspection on poverty, wealth, and gratitude. In some ways this piece considers the spiritual saying that to whom much is given much will be required, and seems appropriate in this era of an increasing gap between the rich and the poor.
You may watch the video below.
So, before I even read the CNN article reporting that President Barack Obama reasoned that Jesus would be okay with taxing the wealthy at a higher rate, I had guessed from the headline, "Obama: Jesus would back my tax-the-rich policy," that the president had probably quoted Luke's Gospel:
Obama said that as a person who has been "extraordinarily blessed," he is willing to give up some of the tax breaks he enjoys because doing so makes economic, and religious sense. [...] "For me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus' teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required," Obama said, quoting the Gospel of Luke.
And when I talk about shared responsibility, it’s because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it’s hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense.
But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.
Undoubtedly someone will say that Obama quoted that verse out of context. In that section of Luke, Chapter 12, King James Version (If you would prefer today's English, try the New English Translation), Jesus is speaking of the punishment of those who call themselves believers and who know and understand his teaching but do not follow it. He is saying that people who do not do the right thing because they don't know any better won't receive a harsh punishment like those who knew better but did not do better.
Can this concept of equitable consequences be applied to taxation? I think so. In essence, Jesus is saying people who have more of a good thing should do more and they will be expected to have done so—the privileged are held to a higher standard. Put another way, according to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus said God judges us and determines our consequences based on a sliding scale; have more, owe more. Given his comment at the prayer breakfast, President Obama seems to know that this concept applies to him as well. And we know people hold presidents to higher standards in everything than they do other Americans.
I could go on and talk about other passages in the New Testament that indicate Jesus and his apostles expected people to share and to help those who have less as well as parts in the Old Testament that indicate within Israel's theocracy helping the poor or extending one's material gain to the community was a requirement, but why go there? Bibles are easy to find in America. Most translations are free and online.
However, for those in the country who are not Christian or who do not come from a belief system that acknowledges the teachings of Jesus to have any significance or for those who don't believe in anything other than decency, perhaps, then the president will have to make a different logical appeal. From what I can see he has done that already; he's argued in the past for fairness.
On the matter of whether a president should mention religion at all in relation to policy, no way will there be agreement on that. Nevertheless, consider again that President Obama was speaking at a National Prayer Breakfast and not delivering the State of the Union address. Consequently, he located his ethos in that situation and identified with his audience as his life experience allowed (and possibly he let his words do the double duty of reminding some conservatives that he is not a Muslim).
Furthermore, consider that the president is not saying that he thinks the rich should pay more because the Bible says so. Such a position would mean a president was running the country based on his personal religious beliefs. No, he's saying that what he thinks Jesus said happens to line up with the concept that those who possess more wealth should pay more in taxes. In other words, that a policy happens to be in accordance with a religious saying is coincidental, and to make that clear, the president even used the verb coincides in his statement.
Here's an analogy. Jesus didn't believe it was right to stone women either. In America, we don't stone women. A president pointing out the coincidence that Jesus would agree with laws that prevent stoning is not the same as saying, "I am proposing anti-stoning laws because Jesus wants me to do so." Arguing that Jesus would agree with a certain proposal while speaking to folks at a prayer breakfast is simply an icing-on-the-cake argument delivered to an audience of non-atheists who are probably familiar with this common teaching in the Christian tradition.
So, the rhetorical stance the president is taking here is very different from the rhetorical stance of those who want to force people to follow the Bible or those who want to pass/enforce laws supposedly based on "Biblical principles" or any other religious book's principles even if the supposed principles violate the civil and human rights of citizens. Becoming POTUS does not mean one can never publicly acknowledge his/her belief in God or acknowledge that one sees a similarity between a governmental proposal and a religions teaching. A president is allowed to be religious, whether we like it or not. He or she just can't impose what s/he believes on the laws of the land if that belief conflicts with the Constitution.
So, what kind of taxation is equitable, what kind is fair under our Constitution? That's the question, and if the answer sounds similar to anything in any "holy" book, then that's something to ponder when you're feeling spiritual one day.
I remember hearing the news in November 2008 that someone had burned down Macedonia Church of God in Christ in Massachusetts in backlash for President Barack Obama's historic win, and I thought then, "And so it begins." With Obama's election it seemed there would be a rise in white supremacist violence, and there was for a while. That's the bad news.
The good news is that the church has been rebuilt. See CNN video above. It seems fitting that its rise from the ashes is reported on Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday. He was born this day in 1929.
If you read the article at CNN, I recommend also that you skim the comments section.
I just read a provocative article by John Blake at CNN.com, "Actually, that's not in the Bible," and I left a comment, but with 6,200 comments and rising, I doubt he or anyone else will read my thoughts there. (The article's been shared on Facebook nearly 46,000 times already) So, here is what I said:
I agree with this article, but have two considerations. I think the saying "This too shall pass" is a distillation of a concept in the Book of Ecclesiastes 3, verses 1-8 that begin. "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven." It's the idea that there is a season for trouble and and a season for peace and so troubling times don't last forever.
Also, while I agree completely that the saying "God helps those who help themselves" goes against a greater theme in the Bible that tells people to help the poor and needy, I also think that Ben Franklin extrapolated the idea of helping oneself from 2 Thessalonians 3: 10–"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."
But we should remember that in the period in history in which this verse was written, society was still largely agrarian. People were not dealing with (the level of) poverty (we see today) and industrialization had not happened yet which contributes to people not being able to "work" for their food. Also the idea that faith in God is manifested through physical deeds is seen in the Book of James. The problem for many Americans is that they try to take concepts from the Bible, repurpose them for their own agendas, and then try to force them onto the country.
In addition to my comment, lots of people are sharing how other sayings have been extrapolated from other Bible passages, such as the idea that Satan is the serpent in the Garden of Eden, but the Genesis story does not actually mention Satan. I shrugged reading Blake's section on Eve and the serpent as one of the misquoted or misrepresented stories because last semester I had to read Cain by Lord Byron, and an objection to saying Satan was in the Garden is one of the foundation pillars of that play. Read Blake's piece at the CNN website.
The video above features Dallas Willard lecturing at Stanford University in 2002 on objective versus subjective constructs. He is comparing and contrasting the teachings of Jesus Christ to those of Nietzsche. From a description from the video's sponsor, the Veritas Forum:
"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life," Jesus said. "God is dead," claimed Nietzsche, thousands of years later. How can we make sense of these two prominent figures in intellectual history? Which really represents the path to the truth? Join Dr. Dallas Willard and explore two of history's most influential people in the world of ideas.
Willard is a Christian scholar and philosphy professor, per Wikipedia.
In one of my classes we're reviewing postmodernism, a set of ideas that's prompted scholars to reevaluate society's grand narratives and to question whether there is any one ojbective, eternal truth. When I came across this Nietsche v. Jesus Christ video, I thought it related to my studies, decided to listen and then decided to share with you.
Just when I thought some Tea Party leaders could sink no lower, I learn that one of its most prominent leaders, according to the Huffington Post, is calling for the United Methodist Church to be disbanded. I take this personally since I grew up in the UMC.
My grandfather and great-grandfather were UMC ministers and many of my family members are still on its rolls. In fact, I've been thinking about returning to the UMC. I guess my roots are calling me.
I drifted away thinking I needed a denomination that embraced a pentecostal tradition more and had clearly defined guidelines for living. Ironically, many such churches ostracize members that don't get with their political agenda to force a conservative Christian doctrine onto the nation, and I don't think that's what the Apostles advocated.
HuffPo reports that Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation and someone who claims to be a former member of the UMC, calls the denomination the "religious arm of socialism" and "the first Church of Karl Marx."
TPM Muckraker says that after seeing a sign at a UMC building in Washington D.C. for the Dream Act (The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, which failed to pass in Congress), Phillips wrote at his blog that he said "I have a DREAM. That is, no more United Methodist Church."
It seems that he divined from this sign that the UMC is "pro-illegal immigration," but he also maligns the UMC because it supports health care reform and helping the poor. He probably holds similar animosities toward the Christians who support the views of Sojourner's Magazine. Apparently in Phillips's mind, Jesus of Nazareth would have objected to helping the poor or being willing to pay more in taxes so your fellow citizens could have access to health care. (Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly also imagines that Jesus believed in locking people out rather than loving people in.) So, Phillips wants "no more" UMC.
Naturally, Phillips tosses around the word "freedom" a lot as though only he knows what the word means. I continue to be amazed at how often people who proclaim themselves "patriots" and "freedom-loving Americans" seek to diminish the rights of others. Speaking of the Methodist church, Phillips writes:
"They want amnesty, they want "economic justice", they opposed "global climate change" (earth to the Methodists, man isn't doing it), fighting global poverty (here is another hint, most poverty is caused by a lack of freedom and lack of a free enterprise system). Not shockingly, the Methodists side with the Islamists against Israel, and of course oppose America in Iraq."
So, there you go. Another Tea Party leader is showing his true colors as anti-freedom of religion. So much for the Constitution of the United States of America they claim to love so much. Perhaps this tendency to want to control other people's religious beliefs is why so many Tea Party members love Sarah "Dominion Theologist" Palin.
You can read Phillips's blog to verify his statements; however, you will have to subscribe. Can you stomach that?
At LoveRadically, writing about Phillips's attack on the UMC after he supposedly saw a Dream Act sign , the blogger says:
I am not going engage Mr.Phillips on his ignorance of the United Methodist Church or his blatant over-generalization of all the members of the UMC as people who hate American. As an aside, I dare you sir to step into my church on Sunday morning and tell our veterans they hate America. Nor will I debate Mr. Phillips's stance on the DREAM Act or any other legislation. I will only ask Mr. Phillips why HE hates America and democracy? I only make that assumption because Mr. Phillips seems to dislike the way a democratic government works, that is debating and discussing the issues of the day instead of condemning an entire denomination because of one sign outside one building.
Yep. But I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Phillips knows the history of the church and its founders, Charles and John Wesley, and thinks that he, Phillips, a Tea Party leader, somehow has greater wisdom.
From what I've read of his rhetoric elsewhere, the man misunderstands "separation of church and state." He denounces the UMC for sending emails to its members about church leaders' positions on political issues. So, he doesn't seem to get that separation of church and state does not mean people of faith lose freedom of speech.
Earth to Mr. Phillips: The evangelical Christian right has been politically active for a long time! Maybe you should read some history books (not those from Texas, however). Also, again, see Sarah Palin.
Is this controversy with boycott the same as objections to The Last Airbender casting? As Rosanna Rosanna Danna would say, "It's always something!"
I just read at The Root and the U.K. Guardian that a white supremacist group in the U.S.A. is boycotting the superhero movie Thor because British black actor Idris Elba has been cast as the Norse god Heimdall. Wikipedia says Heimdall is called "the white god." An older Guardian article describes Heimdall in Thor as "guardian of the burning rainbow bridge between the world of men and the world of gods."
I must add here that if that designation is in spiritual language, the description "white" most likely signifies a non-physical, positive nature and character, but we can't escape that Vikings are generally white. This website constructed by a University of Idaho class discusses the role of Odin worship or Norse mythology among some white supremacist groups:
"The page is not meant to be a comprehensive analysis of all modern Odin worship beliefs and practices (see that here). Nor is it an examination of current understandings on Norse mythology. Its focus is on how Odin worship in understood, manipulated, and employed by modern white supremacist groups, both in America and in the United Kingdom. Germany will also be included, since that is where much of the white power music scene started. I also want to make it clear that plenty of Odinists are not white supremacists. There are a number of people who truly want to return to their ancestors’ religious beliefs without any political agenda. This is a distinction that seems blurred in much of the current research. ... Why is this topic important? First, understanding the views of those in the white supremacy movement is vital to putting a stop to it. And we cannot understand their views without understanding the reasoning behind them."
British director Kenneth Branagh cast Elba in the role most likely because the actor has name recognition and is talented. Readers will remember him from HBO's The Wire, the husband in Obsessed which also starred Beyoncé, the father role in Tyler Perry's Daddy's Little Girls, as the soon-to-die Tango in American Gangster with Denzel Washington, and from guest appearances on Showtime's The Big C as the main character (Laura Linney) Cathy's love interest. I thought he was pretty hot in The Reaping in 2007 with Hillary Swank as well. In addition, he's the star of a British detective show, Luther. So, we're not talking light-weight nobody here.
Nevertheless, the Council of Conservative Citizens belittles Elba's work, ignoring his acting career and only referencing his DJ experience. The group also calls Marvel Comics, creators of the superhero comic book Thor, an advocate of leftwing ideologies that has attacked the Tea Party (Does the Tea Party welcome their support right now? In 2009 the Roanoke Tea Party disavowed the CCC.). And it's not just the CCC that's unhappy with Elba as Heimdall. Baddass Nerd says that when news spread that Elba had been cast as a Norse god, quite a few geeks had fits.
The writer at The Root says of the CCC:
"We guess they're really pissed that Jewish Natalie Portman is playing love interest Jane Foster. Too bad she and Elba won't be kissing. That would probably send the white supremacists into a frenzy."
Ah, echoes of the infamous "near" kissing scene between Captain James T. Kirk and Uhura in the original Star Trek. Many television stations in the integration-resistant American South refused to air the episode in 1968.
I think The Root writer, speaking of Jane Foster, means Thor's love interest. In the movie, by the way, Portman's character will not be a nurse, as Foster is in the original comic book, but she'll play a doctor instead. I don't think anyone's protesting that change.
The very Aryan-looking Chris Hemsworth stars as Thor; so, there's something the CCC and Geeks can rejoice about. The Marvel website says:
"The epic adventure "Thor" spans the Marvel Universe from present day Earth to the realm of Asgard.At the center of the story is The Mighty Thor, a powerful but arrogant warrior whose reckless actions reignite an ancient war. Thor is cast down to Earth and forced to live among humans as punishment. Once here, Thor learns what it takes to be a true hero when the most dangerous villain of his world sends the darkest forces of Asgard to invade Earth."
"There has been a big debate about it: can a black man play a Nordic character?" he told TV Times. "Hang about, Thor's mythical, right? Thor has a hammer that flies to him when he clicks his fingers. That's OK, but the colour of my skin is wrong?
"I was cast in Thor and I'm cast as a Nordic god," he said. "If you know anything about the Nords, they don't look like me but there you go. I think that's a sign of the times for the future. I think we will see multi-level casting. I think we will see that, and I think that's good."
In that same Guardian article, comic book fans are reported to have said:
"This PC crap has gone too far!" wailed one. (Another said) "At the risk of sounding like a bigot, I think this is nuts! ... Asgard is home to the Norse Gods!!! Not too many un-fair complexion types roaming the frigid waste lands up there. I wouldn't expect to see many Brad Pitt types walking around in the [first mainstream black superhero] Black Panther's Wakanda Palace!""
The question that's ripping through my mind is this: How is this protests and boycott different or similar to the ones against M. Knight Shymalan's casting of The Last Airbender? Shymalan cast white actors in roles the series creator had written as people of color, and he said he did it for marketing purposes.
I've got my own answer to the question, but it's very long with scholarly documentation and history notes, and so, I'll leave it to others to say what they think about this topic with more passion. For the record, to me the The Last Airbender and the Thor issues are not quite the same thing when we consider prevailing hegemony and power distribution in movies and reality over the years. It's sad that some white men, given all the power that white males have amassed and still have, continue to to feel supremely insecure and easily threatened.
My son, 20, who can't wait to see this movie in May 2011, says he can see how his fellow superhero geeks could arrive at this objection (he won't even address the white supremacists thinking) but also says, "It's Norse mythology. I don't care."
Below an injured Elba's interviewed on a British talk show, Jonathan Ross. He talks about the difficulty with doing the American accent, his role on Luther, his time as a D.J., and in Part 2, he discusses Thor.
Part 2: Ross says Elba is so good looking that Ross considers kissing a black man.
O.K., while it's inaccurate to say the American government infected black men and women with syphilis at Tuskegee (failure to treat is horrific enough), it is clearly accurate to say the U.S. "purposely infected" people in Guatemala with STDs in the 1940s. Shameful! And some of us are shocked to discover that some people of color don't trust the USA.
The U.S.A. has apologized to the people of Guatemala.
A statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called the action "reprehensible."
"We deeply regret that it happened, and we apologize to all the individuals who were affected by such abhorrent research practices," the joint statement said. "The conduct exhibited during the study does not represent the values of the United States, or our commitment to human dignity and great respect for the people of Guatemala."
This nation has sins for which recompense is required. So, Rev. Jeremiah Wright was not really that wrong, was he, in the general sense that our government has indulged in unethical practices at the expense of people of color. While Wright mixed facts, it's still true that America has a record of criminal behavior in the area of human rights violations.
If you believe in God, do you think He or She approves of a nation injecting people with sexually transmitted diseases in the name of science? How about lying to patients in an experiment and not treating them even after a cure is discovered? Is it unpatriotic to ask these questions and ask that our nation do better?
By, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must be experiencing deja vu. Her husband, Bill Clinton, is the president who apologized for the Tuskegee Study.
Astronomers, have discovered an Earth-like planet, according to Yahoo! News via the AP. It's called a "Goldilocks" as an allusion to "The Three Bear" story when Goldilocks talks about porridge being not too cold, not to hot but "just right."
I hope that human kind leaves this planet alone. This one is already stressed to the hilt from misuse. Why should another planet suffer?
Someone else considered that it would be just like us humans to want to start using up all our resources because we think we can go someplace else. I said, "Well, you know how people ran to the suburbs rather than face the problems in the cities they supposedly loved. ..."
Reading more of the article, I don't think we'll be able to raid that planet anytime soon or escape to it. The question is, will humans survive long enough on Earth to even consider inhabiting other planets?
Elsewhere, I considered Stephen Hawking's latest comments about intelligent design, his assertion that god didn't create the universe:
In his latest book, he said the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting another star other than the Sun helped deconstruct the view of the father of physics Isaac Newton that the universe could not have arisen out of chaos but was created by God.
"That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions -- the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.
Do you agree, does the discovery of Earth-like planets mean there's no supreme being behind creation?
You may also read NASA's post about the Goldilocks planet.
"Why Can't I Own a Canadian?" and are conservative Christians leading people to Jesus or away from him? The first question is the title of a letter penned sometime before 2002 in response to Dr Laura Schlesinger's comments about homosexuality in the Old Testament. She is a conservative who once said she was an Orthodox Jew but supposedly distanced herself from orthodoxy later.
My friend Regis Auffray, a Canadian, posted the letter at AuthorsDen and told me about it in the wake of Dr. Laura's recently giving up her radio show. Apparently she couldn't handle the people who disapproved of her use of the "n" word as she talked to a black woman about the woman's marriage to a white man. She says she's giving up her show so she can regain her right to free speech, and I guess she's desperate to use that word.
Anyway, I decided to look up "Why Can't I Own a Canadian?" and when I did, I discovered the letter went viral long ago. While Dr. Laura is associated with the Jewish faith, however, I've seen responses that focus on Christianity, and I guess that's because in America, conservative Christians have become closely associated with opposing gay people.
My curiosity about this letter led me to a website called Christwire.org. On the surface the site seems like a "Christian" website, but it's actually satire set up to ridicule conservative Christians. The site frequently presents ineffective satire as a form of sociopolitical protest because it's hard to determine the joke and is more often mistaken to be actual conservative Christians objecting to liberals taking over the country. That is, some of its content is so close to the nonsense that comes out of some bigots and ultra-conservatives' mouths that the content is painfully not amusing.
For instance, the letter I came across "responding" to "Why Can't I Own a Canadian?" is written under the same title as the original but is supposedly penned by a woman named Amber who goes on about Mexicans.
Growing up in Southern California, my family was blessed to own three house Mexicans. Though they did not speak much American, they still had hearts of gold.
They would cook, clean, garden and tend to my siblings and me, all with a kindly smile and steadfast determination. At the end of the day, dad would give them a bit of money and usually some food or other nice things to take home with them.
The older lady of them, Dona Josefa, lived with us throughout a good portion of the school year. Memories of her smiling eyes and taco-scented hugs still fill my heart with warmth to this very day.
Technically, her response qualifies as a satirical composition because satire should go over the top for common speech and behavior, but sadly, her commentary doesn't go over the top enough to let the reader in on the joke. The problem is that it seems too believable. I've heard real people express the kinds of sentiments expressed in Amber's fake post who are racist but so seriously blind to their own racism that they make the same kinds of statements she makes. The comments about Mexicans in her post remind me of statements I heard blue-haired white women make about their black maids and gardeners in the south years ago.
So, it's not obvious Amber's letter is a joke until you read the comments section in which she responds to people angry at her and her racist-sounding statements. In the first comment, Amber seems offended that the person could not tell she was kidding. The more difficult it is for a reader to discern that "you're kidding," the more likely it is you've failed to deliver effective satire.
Months later, however, she's less defensive when she responds to, Rick, someone claiming to be an offended Canadian, with this:
Holy shit, I’m sorry. Seriously, I had no idea Canadians had access to the internet. My most heartfelt apologies… Thank god Mexicans still don’t know how to use computers, I’d really be fucked.
I guess by that time, her attachment to her work had dwindled and she remained in character.
As I visited this site, I pondered how much must a group of people despise conservative Christians to create a website ridiculing them. Is this hate really about hating people who profess to believe in Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ or is it about loathing a particular type of person who calls him or herself Christian and projects disdain for others?
After talking to people on Facebook and elsewhere who say they are Christians and embrace ultra conservativism, I observe how often such people talk about their hostility toward liberals, President Barack Obama, progressive ideology, and Democratic Party policy all the while declaring a deep love for love of America. They talk about how much they hate liberals and love America far more than they ever talk about Jesus, who supposedly they love with all their hearts.
What's wrong with this picture? Do politically conservative Christians seek to lead people to Jesus or to an ideology. There's need for distinction. I'm just saying.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative: Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I just published a post at Examiner.com about the latest Anne Rice flap regarding her Facebook post saying she "quit Christianity." A more careful reading of her remarks reveals that while the novelist is disillusioned with organized Christianity, in particular the Roman Catholic Church, she's still a believer.
Rice will still quote the Bible and share her faith in Christ Jesus, but she's fed up with more conservative positions within Christianity that rebuke gays and pro-choice advocates. A recent interview she gave to the AP also indicates she was shaken by current reports on Catholic priests and sex scandals. Please read my post at the New Orleans Literature Examiner.
