Uncouth PerspectivesNot on the rug, man.

So I first saw this amazingly offensive campaign in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miULdI-qocg

Then these billboards apparently started popping up.

I only bring this up in light of Dr. George Tiller’s murder. While I’m not going to touch either side of the abortion argument, I have a strong sense of hypocrisy when I look at the contradictions in messages.

Murder in the name of God is not something unknown.  In fact, not only does it happen, but it appears to be quite condoned in (“Western”) religious texts.

For example, in a form of genocide, as recounted in the “Old Testament”:

16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Deutoronomy 20:16-17

Or perhaps this individual encouter, as recounted in The Book of Mormon, in which Nephi murders Laban:

10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.

12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

…

18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.

1 Nephi 4:10-13, 18

The point here is that, going by religious texts, murder and killing is not something outside of the realm of (“Western”) God’s will.

So what kind of hypocrisy is it so show images and make statements which imply that someone who doesn’t believe in God will kill?  I’m much more concerned by someone who feels a moral obligation to kill.  Take, for example, the writings of another famous abortion doctor killer, the Reverend Paul Hill:

The scriptures teach that when the government requires sin of its people that they “… must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29b). No human government can remove the individual’s duty to keep each of the Ten Commandments: these duties are inalienable. When the government, thus, will not defend the people’s children—as required by the Sixth Commandment—this duty necessarily reverts to the people. You don’t need the government’s permission before defending your own or your neighbor’s child. If the people’s children will not be defended by the government, they must be defended by the people, or they will not be defended at all.

And if you want your fellow citizens, and the government, to recognize this duty, you must assert it.  The outrage is not that some people use the means necessary to defend the unborn, but that since most people deny that this duty exists the government will not perform it on the people’s behalf.

If you haven’t read it, I highly encourage you to take a moment and read his article on why, how, and the aftermath of shooting and killing Dr. John Britton and his escort, James Barrett: http://www.armyofgod.com/PHill_ShortShot.html

But, here, let’s look at the truth of it.  Being Christian, for example, doesn’t make anyone more or less likely to kill any more than being an atheist or agnostic does.  Individual people make individual decisions and justify them by whatever means they want.

I think we should put more emphasis, as individuals, on our own value on life than on defeating our enemies.

One of the cornerstones of almost every Christian denomination is the resurrection of body or spirit.  This is almost always based in resurrection of Jesus Christ after three days.  This story is particular powerful because it is a demonstration of God’s power over death and is a complete, amazing, and satisfying answer to question of mortality–one of the most powerful questions which draw people to religion.

I have to admit that I am not a master in the theory or theology of the resurrection, so I write this post with a little trepidation and the disclaimer to do your own research if this gets you thinking.

This post is inspired by the recent discovery of a tablet which talks about the resurrection of a messiah after three days which has, I am to understand, been reasonably dated to before the time of the birth of Christ.  This tablet has apparently created an amazing about of debate and sparked some pretty hefty arguments.

What’s the big deal you might ask?  Much to my surprise, there are Christian apologists who apparently have an argument which suggests that one of the things which makes the resurrection of Christ story so compelling is that there are no other stories about a three day resurrection–that is to say, it is unique.  In scholarship, this is an extremely important point and, even though I was unaware people were making this argument, it is a very good argument to make–if there is no tradition to build on, why three days?  This seems like a rather strange thing for someone to make up, so it makes a lot of academic sense (with the appropriate level of pontification and long-winded arguments) that it likely had to happen.

Except that I do not think it is true.  I think there are a lot of examples in prior traditions.  It is no secret that the resurrection story itself is not unique.  The most obvious–and hotly contested–which comes to mind is Mithra.  I am not going to go into all of the (supposed) parallels of Mithra and Christ, but one of the important ones is that Mithra died and resurrected.  Some even claim that he rose three days later, but I do not have any support for this (anyone?).  I do also feel obliged to say that I think these two figures/traditions are so intermingled, it may be hard to ever understand how each influenced the other.

Anyways, the point at hand is that the resurrection story is not unique.  Mythical heroes have been getting resurrected in some way since there were myths to be told.  But what about the three days?  This is just not true.  There are resurrection stories in Egyptian mythology and the most prominent to the point is the story of Horus, who died and was resurrected three days later.  Another story is that of Attis, a story from Greek mythology, who was raised to life three days after being driven mad by a goddess who loved him and killing himself.  I am not making the broad comparison with these stories that others would–I am not saying that they are Christ-like stories or that Christianity stole them.  What I am doing, however, is pointing out that there is already evidence for other three-day resurrection stories.

A point I am even less knowledgeable in, but think should at least be brought up, is the potential significance of the number three.  In my limited knowledge, I have heard the number three used to suggest small numbers or a short time.  Keep in mind that in antiquity numbers were not always used as definite in story and myth.  For example, it has been suggested that the number of 144,000 people who will be saved was not meant to be taken literally, but it is such a big number that it is supposed to represent infinity.  That and something about the importance of twelve.  So the theory is that three days is not a literal three days, but simply “a short time.”  But, again, this is not really an area I know much about, however I wanted to bring it up because it might be relevant, but I admit it is pure conjecture on my part.

I guess I am rather dismayed over the hoopla around this tablet.  I think it is a very neat discovery and the more things we find like this, the better we can understand the people of that time–so it is not the discovery or the tablet itsel which I am bothered by, but it is the big deal around the three day resurrection of Christ being unique.  Sure, it makes a great academic argument, but I think it is simply a wrong argument.  The tablet is interesting and unique in that it potentially demonstrates the idea of a three day resurrection in Jewish thinking at the time (do not forget that apocalyptic stories were a dime a dozen back then and the coming of the Messiah was highly anticipated, especially under the heavy persecution over hundreds of years–for example, some thought the Persian king Cryus was the Messiah because he ended the Babylonian Diaspora), but I do not think this discovery changes anything–unless, of course, one has put faith only in the story of three day resurrection being historically unique.

Let me tell you a little story.

So to Pope decides to visit an Italian University and give a speech.  This is not a churchy event, but is  the opening of the academic year and, in my opinion, a pretty big win for the University.  Say what you will about the Pope, it is a big deal for him to come give a speech, whether you agree or not, which, really, is what this story is about.

What is the response from the school, do you think?  Why for the students and faculty members to protest so loud that the Pope cancels the visit.

Here’s the story: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pope16jan16,0,296931.story?coll=la-home-center

And some choice quotes:

More than 60 professors signed a letter to the public school’s rector saying the pope’s appearance, which had been scheduled for the opening of the academic year Thursday, was an affront to people of science and to the “secular” nature of the institution.

…

The students who led the protests celebrated their “victory for laicism,” whereas the rector of La Sapienza, Renato Guarini, said he was dismayed that a “small publicity-seeking minority” had managed to derail a papal visit to an institution founded, as it happens, by one of Benedict’s predecessors, Pope Boniface VIII — 700 years ago.

Let me start by getting my feelings out in the open:  screw you.

One of the challenges the students and faculty put forward is legitimate:  the Pope was going to give a speech but was not open to a question and answer session.  Although, if I were the Pope (Oh, how I dream about it!  Where’s my hat?!), I think I would be disinclined to play hardball with people so determined to hate me on principle that they’ll cancel my appearance anyways.

But, seriously, I believe strongly in the Academic mission and, question and answer session or not, I think that having the Pope come speak is valuable and useful part of that mission.  When people are critical of Universities as “liberal brain washing” institutes, it’s this kind of asshat actions that they are talking about.  I am not saying that people should not be vocal against the Pope, or whoever, if they feel like it–I am certainly do not support the Catholic church–but let the man talk!  And use it as an opportunity to hold more sessions about the Science vs. Religion debate, or on the issue of morality in atheism, or whatever you want!  But do not silence a voice because they say things you do not like.  That, to me, goes against the entire idea of Academia.  Especially when that voice is the selected leader of a major world religion.

I just get so angry when I read or see this kind of hypocricy.   This is one of those ultimate opportunities for education, learning, and growth.  I mean, if the Dali Lama came, would these same people have protested… or is he western and modern enough?  What if the next one isn’t so interested in constitutions and has takes a hard line.  Well, too bad, same guy, just reincarnated.  Haha!  You fail!

Seriously, though, I expected in Academia, of all places, for any civilized voice to have a platform and opportunity to speak.  It’s not a victory to celebrate–you did not win a skirmish in the great war against religion;  you did not even fight.  Walk around with all the pride and prejudice you want.  It is not for me.

I have been very lax in my study of religion of late. It turns out that when you have assignments and constant pressure that comes with grad school, it’s much easier for it to be hobby. I’m going to file that under ironic and move on. My focus when I was actively working on my Master’s Degree was apocalyptic cults. This is a subject I am very interested in and the recent news of a Russian doomsday cult has really sparked my interest again. Hopefully I can fan that into a real flame of interest.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/16/doomsday.cult/index.html

What I find most interesting about this incident is that the leader is no longer with the group. He’s been arrestd and undergoing “psychiatric evaluation.” He told the group to hole up in their self built cave and they are doing it. One of the reasons I find this interest has to do what what a “cult” is and how it is formed. Or, rather, how hard it is to define those things. Like many things with religion, defining what makes something a cult is generally a subjective affair. Most often, a descriptive definition is used. I.e. a cult is something that has x, y, and z characteristics. For example, one might say that a cult does not have mainstream acceptance. However, there are people who call Mormonism a cult, yet it clearly has mass appeal. Even better, others, such as myself, would not agree that mainstream acceptance is a characteristic at all.

However, one that is widely adopted in this method of defining a cult is charismatic leadership. The Branch Dividians had David Koresh, Christianity had Paul, and the Insane Clown Posse have Violent J. One theory about containing/controlling cult behavior (if you would choose to do so) is that if you take out the leader, you take out the cult. I do not believe things are that black and white, but the theory is probably a good rule of thumb.

So, then, what kind of control did Kuznetsov have that his followers continue their practices and follow his commandments even after he is gone? They apparently communicating with him via letters but are mistrustful that he may be under the control of the authorities. It makes me think that a new leader has emerged with the remaining members that allows them to hold strong to their beliefs. If this is true, it poses an interesting twist to the idea of a charismatic leader’s role within a cult. It also shows one of the things at the root of cult behavior: a cult is sociological based “thing” which is guided by principles of the relationships between members more than the philosophical doctrine they supposedly cling to.

Since I began writing on the topic of atheism, the landscape of who is involved in writing about or evangelizing atheism has changed dramatically. Today, there are “heroes” of atheism. Richard Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens. And many, many more. The ability to form virtual communities has obviously bolstered the atheism “community”–a group of people who are not likely to find people close-by through simply talking to another person on the street. There are no “atheist” churches, synagogues, etc. There are those of you who might claim there are and they are called “universities,” but this is just ignorant or hyperbole; universities are places to learn and thus you’ll find: a) a whole variety of views, be they atheist, theist, republican, democrat, etc. and b) people interested in learning.

However, with the rise of these heroes and apparently representatives of atheism, the issue of “what is” atheism is even more stark and apparent. Many Christians in America seem downright confused about what atheism is or is not and deservedly so, I ‘d have to say. Why? Because “atheism” describes a person who holds a single, particular view and does not describe the type of values a person holds. Some theologians would disagree with me here, but this is the point I have been making for years–you cannot judge an atheist by his/her stance on God but rather by his/her value (ethical) system.

So, as I read through atheist postings, I get so upset when I read atheists proclaiming “atheism means this or that.” Some (atheists) say atheists are modest, or ethical, or nice, or the like. And, as an atheist, I say this is absurd. Because, as I’ve said, being atheist has no bearing on these sorts of things. It may be a harder argument to make, but I believe it hurts our ability be relevant in conversations about morality if we say atheist = moral. Because if you can make the argument atheist = moral, you can make the argument atheist = immoral. Whereas, my argument is that atheist does not equal immoral NECESSARILY. This is an important distinction.

The are other dangers in this line of thinking as well. If one steps forward and makes blanket statements about, say, how atheists are moral people who just to be left alone and not force their views on anyone, this can be retorted with something smart-ass like “well, what about the Communists?” And, in the context of the original statement, the retort is appropriate. I’m an atheist. Stalin was an atheist. I and Stalin do not share the same values. Not only do I not want to make poor arguments, but I definitely don’t want to be lumped in with someone like Stalin.

I was reading some ethics work by Stanley Hauerwas, and I came across an interesting topic: Do doctor’s have more power than ministers? To start, let me relate the passages that stood out to me.

My way of explaining this is that when someone goes to seminary today, he can say, “I’m not into Christology this year. I’m just into relating. After all, relating is what the ministry is all about, isn’t it? Ministry is about helping people relate to one another, isn’t it? So I want to take some more Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) courses.” And the seminary says, “Go ahead and do it. Right, get our head straight, and so on.” A kid can go to medical school and say, “I’m not into anatomy this year. I’m into relating. So I’d like to take a few more courses in psychology, because I need to know how to relate better to people.” The medical school then says, “Who in the hell do you think you are, kid? We’re not interested in your interests. You’re going to take anatomy. If you don’t like it, that’s though.”

Now what that shows you is that people believe incompetent physicians can hurt them. Therefore, people expect medical schools to hold their students responsible for the kind of training that’s necessary to be competent physicians. On the other hand, few people believe an incompetent minister can damage their salvation. [Emphasis added]. This helps you see why that what people want today is not salvation, but health. And that helps you see why the medical profession has, as a matter of fact, so much power over the church and her ministry. The medical establishment is the counter-salvation-promising group in our society today.

The Hauerwas Reader, 2001. Pg 611.

He makes some very interesting claims in these short paragraphs. As a person who does not believe in an after-life, this is nothing short of simple sense to me; that is, personally I place no stock in the salvation principles of a minister and, in fact, anything that a minister can do to better their personal and psychology skills to help people better deal with this life, the more I support it.

What about people of faith, however? Coming from a point of pure logic, it makes sense that a person would seek salvation as a means of prolonging one’s life. That is, mortality is a horrible and scary idea and anyone who truly faces the idea is scared witless. Which is one of the reasons that idea of salvation is important–to know and understand that “the end of life” is not the end. However, in this modern age, do people of faith see life, in today, as more important than salvation? Is the idea of salvation as believable, or worth working for?

One argument possible idea circumvents the above questions, but it deals with Christian Protestantism, or the influence therein. That is, when salvation became a personal issue, the priest/pastor/minister diminished in power. To clarify what some might argue, salvation may have always been important to the individual, but one of the changes made in the Protestant reformation is that salvation became something possible through an individual’s relationship with God, not because of a priest or the church.

My conversation obviously focuses on Christianity and leaves a glaring hole where other religions fit in, yet I am curious as to thoughts on this issue.

What do you think; do doctor’s have more (earthly, secular) power than ministers?

I do two readings for her. I suppose I look back again in humor on the fact that I, Mr. I’m-not-spiritual-so-back-off, loves… loves to read tarot cards.

I dunno, maybe it’s to watch to the expression on the face of the people who I do the reading for. It would be a lie that to see her face twist in thought is not pleasureable even above and beyond the normal twist I get.. but that’s aside from the point.

We talk a little more about the meanings of the readings. How odd it is that they can sometimes be so right on. I tend to think back, though, to the horoscope type studies that show a whole class agreeing their horoscope is right on… and it turns out to be the same exact one.

Then… we start talking about ghosts…

See, many people believe my apartment is haunted. I’d be so inclined to agree if I didn’t simply not believe in it. I have torturous dreams. I lay awake for hours sometimes. There are, occasionally, odd things that happen.

My good friend Kristin spent the night once, and she had the same thing happened to her. Apparently it freaked her out. She lent me some White Sage to “cleanse” it, but I do not even know the first thing about that… so it’s just been sitting on my desk.

And, in fact, it is part of what tripped the ghost talk. She does believe in the possibilities of ghosts. In fact, she relates a story to me that was very trippy. It is simply one of those things that make you wonder…

Do you wonder?

Those were my thoughts. But I tried to be good. I said to Jaz, “If I talk to him, I will destroy his world.”

She laughed, and, honestly, I did know if it was quite true. It had been a while since I had gotten into a good religious debate. But, I held myself back.

That is, until, “AND YOUR GOD KILLS BABIES!”

I’m walking up, and there is a crowd around him. Some are for him, some are against him, and everyone is screaming at everyone.

Mmmm… fun.

Jaz pulls and pushes me into the fray and, admittedly, I want it.

He is postured quite humorously… He knows what he believes and he’s willing to fight for it..

“Blah, blah, blah… Blah, blah…. that is why you must be a ‘Born Again’ Christian to be saved–”

“Excuse me..?”

“How can you atest to that, when the theory of ‘born again’ christianity has really only been around for the last century or two, and was not popular evangelized until the mid 1900′s by Billy Graham, who became at odds with the fundamentalists over it?”

“Uhm, well, er… In John 3:3–”

“I know what John 3:3 says, but those are not the same things.”

“Uhm, well, er… you’re asking me some very deep theological questions, and I appreciate it. I will admit I do not have a lot of knowledge. I simply want to share my experiences.”

Well, unless I am just a lot more haughty than I think, I hadn’t even begun to delve into “deep theological questions.” Those who know me, know I really do not like doing that. It’s really about daily life and living.

However, this “I do not have a lot of knowledge” is the same person who early stated he has read the Bible 23 times and now reads it once a month.

Not very closely?

I then let him talk his schpeil at me for a while, only adding comments or small questions here or there, while the crowd continued to yell at each other. That’s quite a surreal experience. Those close, though, seemed to be enthralled. I guess I was doing really good–I just wanted him to think.

However, he then brought up the rapture theory. Oh dear, I guess he had it coming. As most of my discussions with believers of the rapture theory, that part of our conversation ended with me holding his Bible and pointing to a scripture, while he vehemently shook his head repeating “No, No, No, No..”

Well, he admitted he didn’t want to learn anything and simply proved it.

“Well, I would really like to thank you. I want to tell you, I did not do this to attack or belittle you. I want you to know what you profess to believe. Research the rapture theory. I’ll be back to talk to you.”

I don’t think he believes me.

That, and, I do not ask that much of him. He asks me to give up my life and soul to his religion, which has a horrific history of death, oppresion, and senseless culling of the masses.

I just ask him to learn his religion.

We are left with the images of the devastation wreaked by the terrorists and a persistent, nagging question: when will it happen again?

To answer that question, I wonder if we really need to look beyond our own border. America does have its infamous militias. These inbred, bucktoothed, self-proclaimed protectors of America (protecting what, exactly? The right to bear children with your cousin?) already have at least one building in Kansas City to their name. Unfortunately, we can no longer expect these people to be satisfied with outrunning Roscoe P. Coltrane and getting Daisy all molared up off some high-powered corn whiskey from the local still. Now they also would like to advance their political agenda and send America back to the 1950�s, or worse.

But the group that really scares the hell out of me is the right-wing extremist faction of the born-again Christians. (I�m talking specifically about the abortion-clinic bombers and doctor-killers, and not about the zealots that wander around college campuses and get into theological arguments with drunken frat boys.) These folks could be our biggest homegrown terrorist threat because they hide themselves behind religion and their Constitutional rights. When all else fails, they hold up a Bible and use it to justify their actions.

Isn�t it interesting how dissimilar these groups appears on the surface, yet how much they have in common when you look a little deeper. Think about it: they hate what America has become, they think that they are the chosen people to solve the perceived problem, and they believe the end justifies the means. The common thread is a violent reaction to the source of their hatred; namely, the rest of us.

It is also interesting how often violence is committed in the name of religion. The Middle-East terrorists hate us because of our perceived loose morals and decadent lifestyle, but really it all comes down to America�s support of the Israelis in their fight with the Palestinians over the same holy land. Like anything else, the Koran can be interpreted many ways and the fundamentalist, hard-line groups like the Taliban use it as a justification for their oppressive modus operandi.

In similar fashion, the Bible-thumpers pervert the Word of their Lord to their own foul purposes. They use the commandment, �Thou Shalt Not Kill� as justification for terrorizing and, ironically, sometimes killing abortion workers. Never mind that most people find early-term abortions to be morally acceptable. These wild-eyed maniacs do not really care about what anyone thinks� except themselves.

Frankly, having someone�s religious views pushed on you is onerous in itself. Violence certainly compounds the problem. But perhaps the worst part is all of these fanatics are really missing the point of what their religion tries to teach them in the first place. After all, isn�t religion really just a framework for how to morally better oneself in a civilized society? And at the heart of this philosophy is forgiveness and love for one�s fellow man. The violence is just a symptom; the blatant hypocrisy is the disease.

bigot n. One fanatically devoted to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and intolerant of those who differ.

I am tired of it. I am tired of feigned superiority. I am tired of grasping onto beliefs that are not true. I am tired of hate. People hating each other for stupid reasons.

Like what, you ask? Like God, for example. Yes, God is a stupid idea to die over. Here is what I mean. We should be worrying more about living, than what is beyond what we can grasp. So what if someone else believes that if they achieve spiritual enlightenment, they will attain Nirvana, and you believe that if you pray to Jesus Christ for forgiveness, you will get to go to Heaven. You should be more worried about how to get food into your belly and how to walk. Do not get me wrong, I am not saying “Don’t believe” or “Don’t worry about beliefs.” I, of all people, support knowing and having beliefs. What I mean is, why do we HATE over them. Do you think what is going on in Isreal is REALLY a religious “My god is better than your god” thing. To a small extent, it is. For those who have an understanding, however, Islam has claimed to be the next step in progression. Judiasm, Christianity, then Islam. The struggle there is more about “this is my home, go find your own.” And the whole God thing comes in handy as a nice excuse.

I have a small secret I would like to share. We are all people. We all need to eat. We all need to breathe. We all need to defecate. Literally, shit happens. Our beliefs are important, but the world is full of different ones. It should not be about how better your God is, or how better your apartment is, or “I get to go to heaven, and you get to burn in hell, neener neener!”

It’s funny. Someone hates another person for their race, we call them racist. Someone beats another person over the head with his/her religious belief, and we call them Christian.