Living in the United States: a Thanksgiving Message

“But if you’re asking my opinion, I would argue that a social justice approach should be central to medicine and utilized to be central to public health. This could be very simple: the well should take care of the sick.” ~Paul Farmer

It was from Dr. Paul Farmer that I learned that living in the United States meant privilege, not freedom, or prosperity, or any other idealization that our government and ruling corporations tell us believe about living in the USA.   We are privileged to live here because there is so much abundance of food, medicine, durable goods, and consumer goods– not to mention wealth.  We have these things in the United States in abundance because many other nations have next to nothing, especially when compared to our excess.

This is the simple consequence of the utterly un-Christian and immoral system that is called Capitalism.   Capitalism requires winner and losers: the United States has won big time since the end of World War II and a host of nations around the world have lost big time.   That our (i.e. the USA) time for winning is coming a close should not be anything more than a prosaic observation at this point, but I will save that discussion for another time.

The fact of the matter is that living in the United States as an everyday, moderately financially stable US American citizen remains a privileged position in the world.

An Excerpt from  Mountains Beyond Mountains by Tracy Kidder

“Paul’s face grew serious. ‘I think whenever a people has enormous resources, it is easy for them to call themselves democratic.  I think of myself more as a physician than as an American.  Ludamilla [a Haitian co-worker from the book] and I, we belong to the nation of those who care for the sick.  Americans are lazy democrats [not the political party], and it is my belief, as someone who shares the same nation as Ludamilla, I think that the rich can always call themselves democratic, but the sick people are not among the rich.’  I thought he was done, but he was only pausing for interpreter to catch up. ‘Look, I’m very proud to be an American.  I have many opportunities because I am an American.  I can travel freely throughout the world, I can start projects, that that’s called privilege, not democracy.’”

Be thankful for this privilege on Thanksgiving, but don’t be thankful for democracy that we do not have, i.e. do not extend, to the poor of the world, or even, increasingly, to the poor of our own nation!  Our contentment in the satisfaction of a stable American middle class lifestyle on the backs of millions of the world’s poor is, in my opinion, an affront to Thanksgiving and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

It was, after all, Jesus who said:  34″Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’”

But, as a nation we steadfastly refuse to do it…

…And here is what Jesus has to say about that:  41″Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

And this part, which is actually at the beginning of this passage, is how Jesus tells us nations will be separated :

31″When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.”

More and more I am coming to believe when and if there is a judgment such as is described in this passage attributed to Jesus, the United States of America will be among the goats on the left.  I am, therefore, happy to count myself as an ex-patriot and naturalized citizen into the nation described by Dr. Paul Farmer.

If you have ears, hear what I am telling you friends.

Happy Thanksgiving.

On quite a few numbers of occasions I have thought about deleting my Facebook account.

I have never been a simple person and I have come to believe that none of us are. We are complex through and through and certain deep human needs join us together as a species. Among these needs is the need for intimacy, i.e. the feeling of being in a close, personal, and empathetic relationship with others. Especially with regard to our wives, husbands, children, friends, and lovers… we long for intimacy.

And if we are able, we cultivate intimacy with these others, while excluding a vast host of important other others we’ve met on our path.

We had walked together with the other others a while until the road forked; we then watched them walk a while until they were gone, out of our lives forever.

Oh we might have, in the days gone by, run into one of these other others by chance, had a cup of coffee together and talked about the good times…

…then came along social networking.

For the past 1 year every person I can think of fondly from my high school years has reentered my consciousness via Facebook. Peering into their lives, seeing their children, interests, political affiliations, religious views, status posts, favorite books, has caused me to discover another human emotion that I cannot put a name to. I sometimes spend an hour or two looking at pictures I have seen before, reading old status comments—simply mesmerized by the sight of old friends who have been suddenly and radically brought out of my memory and into my present reality.

But it’s not just the persons are brought out of memory and into present reality, it’s more than that. My personal memories, part recollection and part fantasies, about these other others are also obliterated out of existence. Then I am left with what I am not so sure I really wanted: reality.

How monstrous that our minds, our very hearts and souls should be intruded upon thus; that the young and tender memories that we kept are cruelly altered, sometimes beyond repair, while we sit physically passive and emotionally activated in front of our computer monitors!

Perhaps tomorrow I will delete my profile.

*surfs over to check out the pics of his most recent FB friend*

“Viewed from an existential standpoint, questions of choice, freedom and responsibility cannot be isolated or contained within some separate being (such as ’self’ or ‘other’). In the inescapable interrelationship that exists between ‘a being’ and ‘the world’, each impacts upon and implicates the other, each is defined through the other and, indeed, each ‘is’ through the existence of the other. Viewed in this way, no choice can be mine or yours alone, no experienced impact of choice can be separated in terms of ‘my responsibility’ versus ‘your responsibility’, no sense of personal freedom can truly avoid its interpersonal dimensions.”
~ Ernesto Spinelli, 2001, The Mirror and the Hammer: Challenges to Therapeutic Orthodoxy, p. 16

Inadequate Truth

Since I left the Christian religion I have done a lot of hanging out with the disenfranchised, the disillusioned, the unbeliever, the backslider, the irreligious, the spiritual, the agnostic, and especially, the “Atheist”– and of all the groups that I have been spending my time with these six years, the one that I most clearly have grown to despise is “the Atheist.”

I want to be able to clearly lay out what it is that I hate Atheism but I cannot.

Oh it would be easy enough to sum it up by saying “I have never been to an Atheist gathering that didn’t feel like ‘Christian bashing hour’.” But that is not really a sufficient answer and, on the contrary, I give Atheist organizations a pass on this point because I realize how hard it is to be a minority philosophical position when it comes to matters of faith, or the lack of.

Consequently, I never tell anyone how much I hate, despise, and even loathe Atheism.  Instead I explain that Atheism, for me, is inadequate.  This is a bit of a problem because I cannot help but to be an Atheist most days of the week, and yes, this includes my Sundays, which increasingly features a trip to the Quaker meeting house.   In fact, I am an Atheist, it’s that simple—but I didn’t choose this despicable disbelief, it chose me, grabbed hold of me and won’t let go.

In the Roman Catholic Tradition, this place that I find myself in might be called “The Dark Night of the Soul.”   This is, of course, the title of the famous poem written by Saint John of the Cross, pictured above.  He was a Spanish Christian mystic who lived and wrote in the 16^th century.   Not only is this poem considered to be among the best poems ever written in the Spanish language, it has also been deeply meaningful to millions upon millions of people struggling with the existence of God …

If I was at liberty to choose what I would be when it comes to belief in God, I would not choose Atheism.   But what I have found is that when a person is really being honest with him or her selves, when they are being intellectually fearless (as it were), then matters of faith happen to them, and not the other way around.  It would be no more possible for me to choose to be a Christian than it would be for me to choose to become another sex, or race, or species.   All of the benefits that come with belief in God are therefore irrelevant to this stark, dreadful fact: I am an Atheist.

But I am happy with this miserable state because, as the late great Carl Sagan once said “It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. “  And I agree… it is far better to grasp reality as it is… in fact I demand this of myself:  that I honestly deal with what is, that I don’t believe simple answers without evidence, that I don’t believe stories that are clearly fabrications of reality… that are outlandish myths which not are not only naturally impossible but are part of a collection of writings that has held humanity back, and continues to do so.

(to be continued)

Read a story of the bitter rift between old and new Atheists

The Rational Response Squad (RRS) i.e. Brian “Sapient”

Recently I deleted some blog entries I had regarding the RRS, Rook Hawkins (real name Thomas Verena), Kelly (a.k.a. Kacey the pron whore), and Brian “Sapient” because I figured it was all over for the atheist cult “squad.”

Rook Hawkins has grown up and is trying to actually make something of himself self.  Good for him.

Kelly has disentigrated into her sexual squalor and is now a prostitute and porn “star.”  She was leaning toward the libertine side when she was into activism and now that she has left the RRS (and Brian) it shouldn’t be that big of a surprise to anyone that she has ended up in the sex industry as a product.  I wrote a short piece in response to her ridiculous notion that it was perfectly normal for human beings to let themselves be sexually exploited here.

Brian had been laying low for several, several months for unknown reasons.  My guess is that he was deeply depressed and couldn’t muster the energy to be active on his website or to make any inflammatory stickam videos.

Evidence to suggest he might have major depression is here:

Something like this has to come from a place of deep need…

But in other news about Brian “Sapient,” he has been stomping around Facebook, answering questions and being just as beligerent, obnoxious and arrogant as ever… apparently his abject failure with regard to every close relationship he had within the RRS has taught him nothing.   Watching Brian trying to resurface is like watching a person just run over by a train get up like nothing happened and start walking towards the station.

Poor guy, I am actually starting to feel sorry for him now, but not enough to lay off him if and when he starts spewing vitriol and hate again.

For further reading:

Atheist RRS Member “Rapper” Friend Punches Brian
Former RRS member Kelly’s adult Website (NSFW)
Thomas Verenna leaves atheist activism (Good for him!)

For a comical history of the whole sordid affair that is the RRS check out Encyclopedia Dramatica’s version (NSFW, and remember, comedy and satire contains lots of truth and in the case of this article, it’s more truth that comedy, unfortunately)

Jesus and “The Common Good”

In the Gospel of John there are seven stories of miracles that are referred to in the text as signs.  These signs are as follows: the turning of water into wine at Cana, the healing of the Nobleman’s Son, the healing of the palsied man, the feeding of the five thousand, the storm on the lake and Jesus walking on the sea, the healing of the blind man, and the raising of Lazarus from death.  Each sign is a word picture about some aspect of the Jesus of Faith that the early Church community wanted record for their posterity.

These early Christian recorded the story of a Jesus who was first, perhaps foremost, interested in the lives of the common person.  Each of the seven signs were miracles for the common person.  They were to show his power and benevolence towards the common, the poor, the lame, the hopeless, and even the faithless.   He was a Social Justice Jesus and his message was that he was the answer to their desperation.

In other words, John’s Jesus of Faith seemed to have had what is a fundamental principle of Catholic Social teaching: a preferential option for the poor.  In my opinion, this is a different Jesus than the one worshipped in the Conservative Christian Church.

If you believe that this is an unfair, wide sweeping and hasty generalization about American conservative Christianity then I guess that I owe you an explanation.

My evidence: An organization that (dubiously) speaks on your behalf unamimously opposed a public option for healthcare.  (More about conservative Christians and health care reform). Why?  Where in the bible are we taught that the government shouldn’t provide medical care to the poor?  What does this have to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ in the first place?

And finally, what would Jesus say about an organization that seems to always find moral and/or religious reasons to maintain social systems that seem obviously inherently unjust?

Would he say “Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ”?
…or rather “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”?

Interestingly enough, this ambiguous statement attributed to Jesus comes from the Gospel of Matthew, a Gospel wherein Jesus is portrayed as “the Righteous,” and which is the foundation of the Church’s historic involvement in Social Justice issues.

So in our rendering, what is Caesar’s part and what is God’s part?

Caesar’s Part

Caesar’s part in this case was coins, i.e. taxes paid in coins with his picture stamped on them. Jesus was answering a question about the necessity of paying taxes and his response was “pay them.”  The question was important for a Rabbi of his standing to address because some Rabbis (see the Zealots) of standing were refusing to pay taxes because they felt that Rome was not entitled to collect them, for various religious and cultural reasons.

Jesus seems to have believed that paying taxes was a duty and it is very likely that his rationale for paying them was very likely for “the preservation of the common good” and not for the purpose of fighting Rome’s foreign wars (see this article on how America has lost touch with the morality of the common good).  “The common good” is an ancient morality that teaches that what is good for the majority of the people is the most just.  Pope Leo XIII brought this concept into the modern age in an encyclical entitled “Rerun Novarum” (of New Things) in the year 1891 in order “to combat the excesses of both laissez-faire capitalism on the one hand and communism on the other” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good).

Of course there were many problems with how and when Rome provided for the common good, but Jesus seems to have believed in this role for secular government. This government role is also a component of the Apostle Paul’s instructions to the Romans: 13:1 “Let every soul be subject unto the higher (i.e. government) powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”

Still, sometimes what Caesar demands as his part is contrary to the Law of God and thus can be seen as by definition not for the common good, as with the story Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego (Daniel 3).  Fair enough.

But I ask you, is the providing of health care for every person such a time?

http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/familyvaluesreport.pdf

God’s Part

He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God (Micah 6:8).

And finally I ask, how is opposition to healthcare reform providing for the common good and obeying Jesus’ law?  I mean, unless you are worshipping a different Jesus than the one of the Bible…?

40th Birthday

I had my 40th birthday last week, January 7th. This was the first birthday where I stopped and reflected on my life a little bit. All of the previous birthdays I have basically passed over with a thank you to my loved ones and personal “meh” because they just didn’t mean much to me– just another day with but with cake and few presents. But my 40th birthday got me excited.

I took time to look back and to look forward.

I spent my 20’s and the majority of my 30’s living out a grand fantasy about myself which included God, country, apple pie, and everything else that goes with that. As some of you know, my parents were adult converts to the American “Bible Belt” Christian faith and I was raised in and taught that tradition. From an early age I bought into that worldview and (to make a long story short) ended up a graduating from Seminary in the fall of 1998. After seminary, I headed up north to start a start a church, joined the Air Force Reserve Chaplaincy, and then found myself in the Regular Army as a Chaplain in the spring of 2002, in the aftermath of 911. Little did I know then that 2002 would be the beginning of the end for my comfortable, secure knowledge about how the world, and the universe, works.

When I returned from Iraq in March of 2004 I had changed my opinion on one thing: Religion. The unraveling of so many years of firm belief had a tremendous impact on me, my family and my career. It cost me my Army career in no uncertain terms and almost cost me my marriage. That my apostasy didn’t cost me marriage is the miracle of patience for which no god gets credit, my loving wife alone is responsible for it.

5 years later I am still a skeptic (i.e. an agnostic, or an atheist, or w/e) and thankfully, I have lost the zeal and harshness that comes with new found truth (i.e. Atheism); I have also become more tolerant and loving towards people of faith– which in my neck of the woods means “Christians”– while freeing myself of “belief” as defined by them.

In retrospect I have lost a few things through unbelief. I have lost the comfort that faith brings to the follower.

But I have given up comfort for what I believed to be Truth on numerous occasions in my life, why should this be any different?

At my point of departure from Christianity I just admitted to myself for the first time that the whole story of Protestant Christianity was incredible and couldn’t be true, and was, therefore, left without the answers (comfort) that the Christian religion posited without evidence. But as the late Carl Sagan said, “For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” I can live with the uncertainly and I can live with the finality of this life, no problem.

In fact, letting go of my religion was good for me. I actually became a more peaceful, loving and happier person. All that certainty was bad for me… and on the flipside, my initial journey into organized and zealous atheism was equally bad for me for the same reason that religion was. Simply speaking, I discovered that when I didn’t have all the answers, I became a lot more tolerant of other people and what they said and believed.

And so looking forward, in my 40’s I plan to continue to become a more loving, compassionate, and empathic counselor, teachers, parent and husband.

I plan to continue to not know anything about the supernatural and to deny it any power over me unless it clearly presents itself to me with unambiguous (irrefutable) evidence while being gentle in counseling those who do use faith as a resource in their own lives; to use my experience as a minister to help them on their faith journey without judgment or malice.

At this point in my life I know that it is in helping others that we find ourselves, whether we be people of faith or hell bent lost sinners, like myself.

“There is more happiness in giving than in receiving.”
Acts, 20:35

Fighting for Atheism? Ahab Strikes at the White Whale, once again

Since my dreadful apostasy, suffered in full measure about 6 months upon my return from Iraq in the spring of 2004, I have been creeping around the internet on the fringes of a modern “movement” fixed on the promotion of the metaphysical or ontological naturalism (Atheism). 

 At first this “movement” and its adherents was quite appealing to me.  It made sense to me as newly “de-converted” and appealed to my radicalism and “all-or-nothing” personality.  Nevertheless, I never quite threw in my lot with this movement because of practical concerns unrelated to the movement or my inclination to join. 

At this point in my life, almost five years later, I am glad to have never really become a part and I’ll tell you why…

It didn’t occur to me when I was first introduced to the ideals of organized Atheism, but I know now that my attraction to the movement was that type of attraction that one feels for the familiar; the similarities between the new Atheist movement and American fundamentalism are striking.  First among these similarities is their certain, but opposite, ontological position with regard to the existence of God.

As anyone who is a fan of Herman Melville’s Moby Dickis likely aware, the question of God’s existence is a major theme of the book and at least three ontological positions are presented to readers in the characters of Ahab, Starbuck, and Ishmael.  God, in the case of Moby Dick is represented in the form of a White Whale, and while this White Whale means different things to the various characters, one consistent theme with regard to the animal is that it is the personification of raw, often destructive, power.

Ahab’s view with regard to the whale is that the whale is a purely malignant, destructive power.  He seeks to destroy the whale with all of his being.  Starbuck, a Quaker, knows that the pursuit of the whale is madness and will lead to destruction, but caught in the Cartesian vortex of Ahab’s obsession, can do nothing to stop it.[1]  “Ishmael sympathized with Ahab’s view but does not share it.” [2]  He is the philosophical naturalist of the novel.

What Ishmael knows, and what is unknownto both Ahab and Starbuck, outrages him and causes him to take little stabs at the institution of Christianity throughout the book.   He knows “that the Christian faith, as he sees it, is capable of ousting fact, of inverting evil (the destructive principle at the core of existence) in good, and of finding salvation in falsehood.” [3] He also knows that “if one must personify the destructive principle of the universe, then Ahab’s defiance is the only right worship.”[4]

But Ishmael also knows that “there is a wisdom that is woe; but there is a woe that is madness.” [5] His “woe” is the knowledgethat we, i.e. all human persons, are making their way through life towards inescapable and certain annihilation; madness? believing otherwise or battling the inevitable—this is the sickness of Starbuck and Ahab. 

Starbuck says, “I will have no man in my boat,” …”who is not afraid of a whale.”[6] The Quaker no doubt remembered his bible lesson, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Prov. 1:7). He doesn’t know that he is moving towards annihilation or that his respectful fear of the Whale will not avert his destruction at the end of the voyage, this is madness to Ishmael.

Ahab says:

Speak not to me of blasphemy, man; I’d strike the sun if it insulted me. Look ye, Starbuck, all visible objects are but as pasteboard masks. Some inscrutable yet reasoning thing puts forth the molding of their features. The white whale tasks me; he heaps me. Yet he is but a mask. ‘Tis the thing behind the mask I chiefly hate; the malignant thing that has plagued mankind since time began; the thing that maws and mutilates our race, not killing us outright but letting us live on, with half a heart and half a lung.

And that’s the short of it.  Fighting for Atheism? It’s striking again the mask; it is the hating of “that malignant thing,” God, to the point of taking action against it.  Whether or not the fighters actually believe in God is beside the point.  But alas, we know the fate of Ahab, raging in the sea, and we can therefore know what will be the certain fate of these modern “Atheist activist” organizations: certain annihilation.

The only sane position— my pseudonym, which was chosen for others reasons— is the ontological position of Ishmael.

Charles David Leonard, The Cartesian Vortex in Moby Dick, American Literature, vol. 51, no. 1 (Mar 1979), pp. 105-109.

Allen Austin, The Three Stranded Allegory of Moby-Dick, College English, vol. 26, no. 5 (Feb, 1965), pp. 344-349.

Thornton Y. Booth, Moby Dick: Standing up to God, Nineteenth Century Fiction, vol. 17, no. 1 (Jun, 1962), pp. 33-43.

T. Walter Herbert, Calvinism and Cosmic Evil in “Moby Dick,” PMLA, vol. 84, no. 6 (Oct, 1969) pp. 1613-1619.

Denis Donoghue, “Moby Dick” after September 11th, Law and Literature, vol. 15, no. 2 (Sum, 2003), pp. 161-188.

Mark Lloyd Taylor, Ishmael’s Other: Gender, Jesus, and God in Melville’s “Moby Dick,” The Journal of Religion, vol. 72, no. 3 (Jul, 1992), pp. 325-350.

---

[1]Charles David Leonard, The Cartesian Vortex in Moby Dick, American Literature, vol. 51, no. 1 (Mar 1979), pp. 105-109.

[2]Allen Austin, The Three Stranded Allegory of Moby-Dick, College English, vol. 26, no. 5 (Feb, 1965), pp. 344-349.

[3] Austin, 349.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Moby Dick, Chapter xcvi – THE TRY-WORKS

[6] Moby Dick, Chapter xxvi – KNIGHTS AND SQUIRES

A Response to a Friend

One of my favorite people whom I started to be friends with while I was a Seminary student sent my wife and several other people this long message concerning the upcoming election-  he also posted this message on his blog here.

I have not been one to forward many of the political emails that are currently circling the net regarding either candidate for President. First, I have family and friends who I know are at both ends of the spectrum in regard to their political affiliation. Second, while I may disagree with them on issues and principles, I did not feel it was my place to coerce or argue over their free will to vote as their own conscience dictates. Although this email may be considered a departure from that view, I offer it not as an argument about how you should vote, but rather as a realization about what you are truly voting for. I’ve heard every kind of emotional and downright racist reasons for voting for and against both of the candidates but these have not played into my decision for who I will support.

While I appreciate that my friend does not usually forward political opinions, he did in this case.  And since my friend (we’ll call him Jim) forwarded this message to a very many people and posted it on his blog, I feel perfectly just in addressing in this public way. 

As a bit of a spoiler I am going to mention now that this careful, emotional message is about a single issue:  Abortion.   Jim makes a few claims near the bottom of his op-ed to buttress his “non support” of the Republican candidate for the upcoming election, therefore, I want to briefly address the question of abortion in general before moving on to the remainder of Jim’s comments.

The Abortion debate in our country is a complex legal and moral disagreement about not only when life begins in a woman’s womb,  but what rights the woman has with regard to her body and reproduction.  Most of the political framing in the debate from both the “pro-life” side and the “pro-choice” side are simply meaningless rhetoric used in order to draw a stark distinction between the two camps, which in reality does not exist. 

On occasion I have asked the occasional “pro-life” person to describe to me, using biological science, when an embryo, fetus, etc. becomes a human being, since we mostly all agree that an unfertilized “egg” is not a human being.  I have never gotten the same answer twice and I think the reason for this is that the answer is complicated and even very knowledgeable scientists are not exactly sure.  This uncertainty has been delt with by scholars in the literature regarding the abortion debate and many people have found a compelling reason on this point to argue that because of uncertainty one should err on the side of “life,” or as Ronald Reagon noted “if you don’t know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it.” (“Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, 1983.)

On the other hand, what we know through biological science is that the body naturally aborts “fetuses” regularly, we sometimes experience this natural occurrence as a miscarriage; I say we sometimes experience this as a miscarriage because sometimes a woman never knows she was pregnant in the first place.  At any rate, a miscarriage happens generally before 20 weeks of gestation and full term, natural and normal (just as God intended) pregnancy goes for 38 weeks.   Therefore, by my calculations the body’s natural function allows for an “abortion” up to about half way through the natural pregnancy cycle.

 As I listened to the second presidential debate last night, I was overcome with a sense of foreboding about what lies ahead for our country regardless of which candidate is elected. Specifically, when all the rhetoric and political posturing is done, both the Republicans and Democrats have played significant roles in the current financial crisis and neither side has any comprehensive or decisive plan to solve this mess. In essence their own ideologies and self serving desire to stay in power will always prevent either party from taking the difficult steps necessary to heal our economy and bring our stock market back from the edge. Most notably both candidates have within their inner circles individuals who played pivotal roles in the current financial meltdown and continue to have an influence on their policies and plans. So in the end, although the economy is foremost in most peoples minds, the differences between the candidates and how they will address the problem are very similar and will likely not result in the quick and decisive turn around that we all desire. Instead the difference in the candidates will come down to the social issues that each of us consider and believe in one fashion or another.

I disagree.  Barack Obama is from a very different political organization which find it’s roots in the work of Saul Alinky, who was a social radical but is considered to be the founder of modern community organizing in America.  Obama is quite moderate compared to the people he learned from in, but in fundamental ways he is different from the status quo’ on Capital Hill in the way he thinks and acts because of the way he came into politics.  For further reference: http://www.industrialareasfoundation.org/ .

I found McCain’s scoffing at the work of community organizers during the Republican campaign to be both offensive and sad.  Offensive because of the thousands upon thousands of people, living in abject poverty that have been helped through community organizing all across our country.  But also sad because I know that the majority of the “Republican base” are simple, working class people who will go to the polls and vote against their own best interests because of… well, perhaps a single issue, like abortion.

Although it was not a topic in the debate, the true difference in the candidates is only truly measured by their stances on issues such as abortion. Without rehashing or rearguing the reasons for or against, I will make this one statement: 98% of the public arguments are over the issues of whether it should be allowed in the cases of rape, incest and the health of the mother, but less than 4% of the actual abortions occurring apply to these conditions. Therefore, the remaining 96% are for convenience and simply a CHOICE based on simple selfish reasons by the mother and father. Regardless of whether you consider this right or wrong, the only true difference between the candidates is on this issue. Whoever you support be aware that they have this stand on this issue and your support of that candidate will enable their action on this issue.

I expect that when a claim of this magnitude is made that it will be backed up with documentation.  I do not agree that 98% or public arguments are rape and incest arguments, except perhaps in the popular media.  In fact, I have made a silent argument on the basis of uncertainty in this very article.

I too am fearful about the future economy and the impact it will have on my family but when faced with the moral issues I am forced to make the decision… will I support righteousness? Or will I follow my own fears and cares over my family’s welfare. This is one of those issues that I have to step back and come to the decision “As for me and my house…”

Upon what basis does my good friend Jim make this a dichotomy between being ”righteous” or being in favor of a hotly debated medical procedure?  I have a Seminary degree and cannot recall even one bible passage the specifically addresses the issue of abortion.  I can, however, point out a couple of passages in the Bible that can be applied to the question of abortion, so let’s look at those, briefly:

 Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was shapenininiquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

Psalm 139:13-16: “For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.”

Jeremiah 1:5 :“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”

Good pro-life verses, correct?  Well, if so then God has a bit of a problem.  As I mentioned before, females routinely spontaneously abort “infants” in the womb up to about half way through a normal gestation cycle.  So what is “perfectly created” at the time of conception doesn’t always come out right, is aborted by the creator, etc… this is sorta theologically confusing if you follow it long enough…

…but I know, I know, it’s God who is “the giver and taker of life” and all that… God always gets a pass in the end, somehow. 

<sigh>

At the end of the day, I am just glad that I am not the one having to defend such a scurrilous use of the bible to defend one’s opposition to a medical procedure that would be beyond the imagination of a Bronze Age people.

McCain is pro-life and consistently votes pro-life.

Meaningless political framing of the issue in my opinion.

Barack Obamawasone of a small number of Illinois legislative members who opposed the bill that is listed below.
The bill in essence created a law that when a child who was trying to be aborted was born alivethat the child would be entitled by law to receivenecessarymedical care. The alternative embraced and supported by Obamawasthat the child would be left to die even though it was born alive and by even scientific terms was no longer a “fetus.”
Unlike many other arguments or emails, I’m not just giving you my opinion, I’ve listed below the body of the bill that Obama opposed.

This sounds pretty awful to me, I suppose Jim has evidence that to support his assertion that Barack Obama lets living failed abortions die on the procedure table?  Or perhaps is there more to the story…? Probably, but I am not going to dig up the real story.

Regardless of your beliefs on the matter, this is where Obama stands on this issue and if you support him, then you are adopting and supporting his position.
Your decision is yours alone.. But now you have to make this decision with your eyes open… 

No, I can support a candidate for office and not agree with every position he or she takes.  That is the beauty of our system, I am not obliged to accept the dichotomies of the Right because its a free country– (at least until Obama takes office, harhar… )

 All the best.

Antispore.com ??

Me and my daughter have been anticipating the release of Electronic Arts game Spore.  Spore is a game that is based on evolutionary science in the same way that Star Ship Troopers the Move is “based” on Robert Heinlein’s famous book of the same title…. in word, loosely.

The basic concept of “evolving” is present in spore, but the fact that you (the player) get to “create” each creature as it “evolves” by storing up DNA points is far more akin to creationism than to evolutionary theory (and by “theory” I mean scientific fact).  Therefore, I am bamboozled, once again, by the utter stupidy of people in the Christian conservative movement.

Here is my face when I saw antispore.com :

I was going to write a bit more, but I think that graphic explains it all.

A Response to Kelly78 from, formerly of RRS

Wanna See Me Naked?

Submitted by kellym78 on July 10, 2008 – 1:19pm.

Well, kind of. In animated form.

The SheVibe poster is finished. I guess now I’m an atheist super-hero or something. Like Wonder Woman. Except less clothing. Hmmmm….*having thoughts about what kind of weapon I would have. Like a Reason Ray or something that would suddenly make people logical*

Start by using that Ray on yourself, Kelly.  There is a sufficient, overwhelming body of social science research on the subject of how the sex industry (and that is what it is, a business) exploits women, especially poor women.

As for your point that your life choices are okay because “Sex” is natural, way to be completely unaware of the macro perspective, silly cult-leading narcissist.

Sloan (2004) uses the actual scientific method (not just what she thinks) to examine the actual life circumstance of topless dancers and determined that there were four categories: (1) survivors, (2) workers, (3) non-conformists, and (4) dancers.  She states: “These categories suggest that there is a continuum of experience with varying degrees of choice, and demonstrate the limitations of dichotomous thinking when it comes to understanding the lived experiences of women in the sex industry.”

You see, the reason that people like me who work with poor women say that the sex industry exploits women is that we encounter “survivors” and “workers” much more often than the other categories.  Sloan describes them as:

“Workers were predominately working class, never married,white, or Latina women, who became topless dancers because itwas the job that offered the highest income.”

“Survivors Nine women emerged as survivors, all of whom had extensive histories of childhood abuse. These women were most likely tobegin topless dancing as underage teenagers, with no prior workexperience.”

Anyway, I anticipate the usual reaction from the prudes and sexually repressed people.

You’re wrong.  People who believe in social justice for all people react to your bad manner in flaunting for and perpetuating an industry that hurts poor women.  The prudes are the one preaching about the industries’ immorality on Sunday and then looking at pron on Monday morning– They don’t know who you are, on average.

The reason you get flack from your real critics on this issue is because people who understand this problem fully tend to be political liberals (atheist or not) who are in tune with social justice issues, unlike yourself.

You have often held yourself out as a spokesperson for “the cause” let’s not pretend.  But it’s more than obvious you don’t care about anyone but yourself.

Father, the issue is not “sex” but the sex industry, as I am sure you are well aware.  It’s a macro problem that you might want to study in your honor’s (laugh) undergraduate programs.  Here is an abstract from a study of another “brand” in your industry:

The Sex Trade Industry’s Worldwide Exploitation of Children.

Abstract:

The twenty-first century brings with it some of the dark realities of the last century with respect to the commercial sexual exploitation of children. Worldwide, untold numbers of children are being systematically deprived of their human rights, dignity, and childhood through child prostitution, child pornography, and other sexploitation. Many of these children are routinely subjected to rape, beatings, displacement, drug addiction, psychological abuse, and other trauma, including exposure to the AIDS virus and a life with no future. This study examines the current state of international trafficking of children and other child sexual exploitation. Child sex tourism plays a major role in the child sex trade as prostituted youths are routinely lured or abducted into sexual slavery and sex-for-profit. Other prostitution-involved girls and boys are at the whim of pimps, pornographers, and other sexual exploiters. The global exploitation of children continues to plague society, in spite of international efforts to combat the proliferation of the child sex trade industry. Organizations such as ECPAT remain committed to addressing the central issues pertaining to the prostituting and sexual exploitation of children.

I guess I’m just a prude.

For the rest of you (ie the human beings who accept that sex is a biological function and physical attraction is coupled with that), enjoy. I’ve got to get back to plotting my nefarious plan to destroy the public image of atheists and women.

False dichotomy, once again.  Are you sure you aren’t a fundy?

References

Sloan, L., & Wahab, S. (Wntr 2004). Four categories of women who work as topless dancers. Sexuality & Culture, 8, 1. p.18(26).

OWERS, R. B. (May 2001). The Sex Trade Industry’s Worldwide Exploitation of Children. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, p.147.