Quotes Pertaining to Religion

The First Amendment protects the right of individuals to believe as they see fit, not the right of organized religion to compel them to believe as it sees fit.

If a person believes only because he fears being called a fool if he does not, then he already is one.

A faith that requires frequent revival is obviously unhealthy.

As long as there are fundamentalists to expose the silly side of religion, atheists will never need to recruit.

How can anyone know a universal God if his feeble comprehension of the universe extends no further than the prejudices of his own little tribe?

Losing religion might seem the end of one's world; but indeed, it may well be the beginning.

The power of faith is the friend of stupidity.

One night I prayed to know the truth. The next morning I found I was an atheist.

If atheists believed that there was something to pray to, they would pray for the deliverance of fundamentalists of all persuasions from the frightful and demeaning confusion born of prideful ignorance of the world about them.

Religion's role is to teach traditional morality; it is no more equipped to teach science, history, or ethics than it is to teach physics or calculus.

Had the telescope and microscope been invented first, religion would not have prospered.

The theologian's greatest difficulty in ascertaining the nature of the universe is his insistence upon viewing it through a stained-glass window.

If atheism can endure without government endorsement, shouldn't any religion worth believing be expected to do likewise?

Any self-respecting God would consider political support for its religion an insult.

You Are a Fundamentalist Christian If-----

You Are a Fundamentalist Christian If...

1. You deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

2. You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

3. You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

4. Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees.

5. You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

6. You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

7. You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects -- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

8. While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

9. You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

10. You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Analysis and Interpretation of the Sayings of Jesus in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas

Another editorial by my friend Herb.

Analysis and Interpretation of the Sayings of Jesus in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas

Most adherents of traditional Christianity do not realize that their present-day Bible is the culmination of several hundred years of intensive political wrangling over what the beliefs and creeds of the followers of Jesus should be. Christianity in its present form did not automatically happen with the birth and life of Jesus. It did not coalesce into some semblance of unity of creed and belief recognizable today until 325 C.E. at the Council of Nicaea, which was called by Emperor Constantine, who had grown tired of the constant bickering among the different so-called "Christian" factions. But even at Nicaea many doctrinal issues were not completely settled among the different sects. The Arian and Gnostic Christians still could not fully accept the creedal statements of what we now call Christian orthodoxy. The average believer does not realize that there were a multitude of books considered for the final Biblical canon or Bible as it is today. The books that were chosen at Nicaea for the final canon were more a matter of personal subjectivity, politics, power, and ego than anything else. The analysis here is on the Gnostic Book of Thomas and the sayings of Jesus, which were rejected by the bishops for inclusion in the Bible for reasons which will be discussed later. The Gnostic Christians bitterly opposed many of the beliefs that we now recognize in our present-day traditional Christian churches. Many scholars think that what is called "Gnosticism" probably pre-dated present-day orthodox Christian beliefs.

1. "I am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did all come forth and to me the all extends. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

This saying of Jesus seems to support either a pantheistic or panentheistic definition of God. Pantheism says that God is the universe. Panentheism says God is the universe but is also greater than the universe. The Gnostic "God" concept of the author of Thomas and/or Jesus appears to be somewhere in this pantheistic/panentheistic continuum. This concept is in conflict with the orthodox Christian view at the time of the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century, which held to supernatural theism---that God is totally outside of and separate from the universe. Supernatural theism is the predominant belief in present-day traditional Christianity.

2. "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you."

This saying appears to empower humanity. Since, according to panentheism and pantheism, "God" is in all, it naturally follows that "God" is in us and that therefore we contain the capability or have the power to express or experience this divine essence or mystical nature. The Gnostics believed that all humans contain that "divine spark." That is likely why Jesus says, "what you bring forth will save you." We have the power within us to reach a spiritual transcendence. This is an uplifting and hopeful message for humanity. Compare this with the supernatural theism of orthodox Christianity, which says that there is no hope for man without the substitutional sacrificial atonement of this otherworldly "God." Such a theology diminishes our humanity and puts us at the mercy of an absolutist, self-serving deity.

3. "If those who lead you say to you, 'Lord, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father."

This passage appears to encourage our search for spiritual self-discovery. It contrasts with the orthodox view that the tenets and creeds of belief are already laid out for us. This absolutist religious stance of Christian orthodoxy demanded of its adherents impedes and discourages one's search for personal, spiritual enlightenment. This orthodox creedal rigidity requires that we unquestioningly accept the beliefs of the church or lose any hope for salvation.

4. "What you look forward to (the new world, the heavenly kingdom) has already come, but you do not recognize it."

Rather than living for and expecting some future celestial heaven at the end of our lives, we have the power to experience this spiritual bliss, this sacred transcendence, here and now.

5. "I am not your Master, for you have drunk, and become drunk from the bubbling stream I measured out. Whoever drinks from my mouth will become as I am, and I myself will become that person, and things that are hidden will be revealed to him."

Here Jesus appears to be saying that we can all become "Christs," that we all have the same divine spark that he has, that we all have the power within us to attain the same level of mystical enlightenment or transcendence that dwells within him. This contrasts with the orthodox view that "God" is omniscient, omnipotent and totally separate from us and that we have no hope of ever attaining any kind of divine-like goodness, that we are all sinners and are doomed and totally dependent upon God for rescuing us. Such a message is one of darkness and despair and contrasts with the Gnostic message of light, hope, and empowerment. We have the power within us to "save" ourselves, so to speak.

Jesus declares that Thomas has become like himself. Matthew claimed that Jesus was a rabbinic teacher--wise philosopher--and Peter thought that Jesus was the Messiah---righteous messenger. In the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, the author thinks their descriptions represent an inferior level of understanding. Thomas, who recognizes that he himself cannot assign a specific role to Jesus, transcends the relation of disciple to master.

6. "Knock upon yourself as upon a door, and walk upon yourself as on a straight road. For if you walk upon that road, it is impossible for you to go astray. Open the door for yourself, that you may know what is. Whatever you open for yourself, you will open."

This supports the basic theology of Thomas. One is to become "not a Christian, but a Christ." Scholars believe that the symbolic meaning of this phrase is you are the twin brother of Christ when you recognize the divine within you. One who seeks to "become not a Christian, but a Christ" no longer looks only to Jesus but also within himself for the source of truth. Orthodox believers, on the other hand, depend upon the church and its leaders and their interpretations of Scripture for their salvation. Compare the Gnostic theology to that of the Gospel of John where the author has Jesus declaring, "I am the door; whoever enters through me shall be saved."

It is not hard to see why the orthodox bishops at Nicaea rejected the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas and other Gnostic writings in favor of the Gospel of John to be included in the final canon. Even though many of these Gnostic works more than likely pre-dated the New Testament gospels as many scholars think, they posed a threat to the power base of the church. With the Gnostic gospels there is no real need for the church, its leaders, priests, bishops etc. Traditional church orthodoxy demands its members pass through a hierarchical priestly and church mediation path before anyone can gain salvation. It requires adherence to rules, specific beliefs and creeds by its members. The members have little freedom of choice. They are required, in effect, to set aside their humanity---their powers of reason, conscience, analytical thinking, questioning etc. By blindly accepting traditional church orthodoxy, these believers become in essence robots for the church.

Herb Panko

Some Historical Perspectives on Our Abrahamic Religions

An editorial by my friend Herb.

Some Historical Perspectives on Our Abrahamic Religions

Muslim terrorists justify flying planes into the World Trade Center killing several thousand people because they think Allah sanctions this action. Israelis think they are entitled to their homeland because supposedly "God" promised it to them. Palestinian Muslim fundamentalists have no fear in detonating their bomb belts, killing themselves and their Jewish targets because Allah will reward them in heaven. In Islam, Judaism, and Christianity women and gays, at least at some point in their histories, have been treated as second class citizens because God or Allah according to their interpretations of their sacred texts allows this discrimination. Those who have murdered abortion clinic doctors consider this a God-approved sacred act. A U.S. Congressman says that our country should be governed with a Biblical worldview, and President Bush(according to a Newsweek article)thinks as President he is on a special mission from God.

All of these examples have several things in common. They are a frightening display of the inherent intolerance, naivete, absolutism, and violence that are endemic to the Abrahamic religions. It has always been so---from the bloody Crusades of the Middle Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, and the ongoing anti-Semitism and racism that continues to this day. The church used its sacred texts to sanction the Crusades, the Inquisition, and anti-Semitism and even to justify racism in this country for the first 200 years of our country's history. We cannot hope for an end to such religious evils until we accept some stark realities about how man's innate psychological, biological, and religious needs intertwine.

To begin with, at some point during man's evolutionary development, his brain evolved to the stage where he acquired something no other animal had---self-awareness or self-consciousness. It was a frightening evolutionary development for humans. The theologian Paul Tillich called it "the shock of nonbeing," and Sigmund Freud referred to it as the "trauma of self-consciousness." Man now had the dreaded capacity to be consciously aware of something no other living organism had the developed brain to contemplate---his own mortality. In order to cope with this overwhelming hysteria caused by his evolved selfhood, he imagined or created a paternalistic otherworldly protector. This coping device was no doubt crude at first. Early man, according to archaeological findings, performed ritualistic acts to appease demons or spiritual powers that he thought were responsible for destructive natural forces that could injure or spell his doom. It took thousands of years for this primitive animism to reach the earliest stages of a more refined but still barbaric tribal god worship practiced by the early Jewish people and yet another 500 to a 1000 years for them to conceive of the more complex paternalistic monotheism that is recognizable to us today.

We must remember that man's struggle to define the nature of his god concept has been an ongoing process from his primitive beginnings to the present. Down through history man has always adapted his definition of a supreme divine being to fit his changing needs and his better understanding of the natural world. As our knowledge base increases; and our better understanding of the natural world continues, increasing secularization will follow. The vestiges of the old tribal religions that are still with us---supernatural, omnipotent otherworldly gods controlling our lives and nature's laws---will continue to wither and become more and more irrelevant. That is the way of time, knowledge, and biological and social evolution. It has already happened in most of the industrialized world. Church attendance in nearly every European country has dwindled to around 4%. In Japan it is 2%. It is mainly in this country, in 3^rd world countries, and pockets of fundamentalism around the world where there is still a desperate clinging to a religion that is no longer defensible. The challenge for postmodern societies is to find a spirituality or religious perspective that does not compromise our ethics, morality, or humanity but yet makes sense for an advanced technological world community. It is a step forward we must take.

For Christians and Jews it will be easier to make this step if they have a basic understanding of how Judaism and Christianity began. The Jewish people in the early stages of their history around 980 B.C.E. developed a concept of their god that was heavily influenced by pagan Canaanite Baalistic theology. To them God was a transparent, simplistic human-like tribal deity who frequently intervened in the daily affairs of men. At a later stage the Hebrews felt a need for a more mysterious, distant god. But not until four hundred years later in the sixth century B.C.E. during the Babylonian Captivity did the Jewish people confer the qualities of holiness and purity upon their deity. At some point in time the Jewish concept of their supreme being reached possibly its most advanced abstract state. They thought of their god as being inexpressible as indicated by their reference to him as Yahweh, which means literally "no name."

What is interesting is that several other great religions and philosophical movements reached a similar conclusion. An Islamic scholar was recently quoted as saying that to imagine God is to create him, which we cannot do. Buddhism also says that God is indefinable and can only be experienced in a mystical or metaphysical sense. In the third century C.E. the pagan Neoplatonists led by Plotinus said the same----that God was unknowable and any attempt to describe His nature or character or pretend to know His thoughts, desires, and feelings was blasphemous and arrogant.

Any discussion of Christian theology should take into account how its definition of "God" has also evolved throughout history and is still doing so. In the first century when the Christian movement began, the Middle Eastern world where Christianity had its beginnings was a cauldron of unrest. The suppressive fist of the Romans, the restless longing of the Jewish people for a messiah to free them from the Roman stranglehold, and the numerous pagan Hellenic and Asiatic mystery cults with their baptismal and initiation rites, their observance of virgin births, gods coming to earth in human form, and physical resurrections all helped to influence and shape early Christian thinking. According to most New Testament scholars the incorporation of pagan beliefs and practices into Christianity no doubt occurred. After all, the rites of Adonis, Tammuz, Osiris, and Mithra were popular and widespread, predating Christianity. Christianity was in competition with these religious cults for converts, and it undoubtedly became politically advantageous to adopt many of their pagan rites and beliefs.

Even as late as the third century, there were many widely different variations of Christianity with many sects not accepting the divinity of Jesus. Not until 325 C.E. at the Council of Nicaea did a group of orthodox church bishops, after a protracted debate, vote to give Jesus a divine standing. That did not solve the problem, however, for Arian and Gnostic Christian adherents, who could not accept the bishops' doctrines and beliefs.. The process of changing and adapting our religious beliefs to fit our needs and prejudices, as the bishops did, is clearly shown in present day Africa and Brazil where many Christian churches have incorporated the old tribal deities in their rituals.

The Council of Nicaea gives credence to the saying that religion is mainly just politics made sacred. At that period in Christian history with so many variants of Christianity, a few of the more powerful bishops led by Athanasius decreed that all "scriptural writings"(of which there were many)that were at odds with their prejudices be destroyed. In other words our present-day New Testament is the result of arbitrary, political "cherry picking" to include only those writings that fit the individual beliefs of a relatively small number of church leaders of the time led by Athanasius who had their own agendas. It was a political power grab that left out such beautiful works as the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, a compilation of the sayings of Jesus in which He says that anyone can achieve the same(Buddhist-like)divine or sacred qualities He has. This and other Christian writings of the time were rejected because they were a threat to the power base of the bishops. Why were Athanasius and the bishops able to hold sway over the other Christian sects and marginalize them? Church history tells us that the Roman Emperor Constantine, more than likely sick of all the squabbling between the different sects, gave his imprimatur to the bishops' creeds. Luckily many of the rejected Christian leaders whose beliefs were not accepted did not listen to the bishops and hid some of their manuscripts, which were found hundreds of years later in the caves at Nag Hammadi.

It is important to realize then that to proclaim the present-day Bible as the direct word of God is inaccurate and does not square with history. What we should say is that today's New Testament is the rendering of the beliefs of a small group of bishops who represented just one set of Christian beliefs of which there were many at the time. They had their own frailties, prejudices, egos, and agendas just like any group of leaders of any organization. Not to understand and accept that fact opens the door to the continued acceptance of such outdated, nonsensical, and often barbaric practices of an ancient people who could not have anticipated the changing mores, values, and psychological underpinnings of a postmodern society that must deal with such complex moral and scientific issues as stem-cell research, terminating a pregnancy to save a mother's life, the moral issue of medically prolonging the life of a terminally ill patient, and similar modern day problems. Using a 2000 year old sacred text to find answers to such dilemmas which the writers of Scripture could never have anticipated is tantamount to using a 15^th century medical guide to treat cancer victims.

Another point to consider is that according to Oxford New Testament scholar Jeffrey John and other church historians, gospel writers used a narrative method called Haggadic midrash, which is a recasting, with variations, of Old Testament stories and themes with New Testament characters and events. For example, Jesus' parting of the heavens is simply a reworking of Moses' parting of the Red Sea and was not to be taken literally. Most, if not all, of the New Testament stories have their Old Testament counterparts and are midrashic in nature. The Western mind places great value on whether an event can be empirically verified as fact. First century Middle Eastern Jewish writers simply did not. Their main goal was to continue what they considered a powerful faith story in a way that would best connect with the people of the time. In short most Biblical stories were never intended by their writers to be understood as literally true. Symbolic or mythological truth carried a more powerful message, they felt, than literal truth.

The previous brief outline of some of our Judeo/Christian history should give us pause and perhaps reconsider some of our traditional religious beliefs. According to Bishop John Shelby Spong in his book A New Christianity for a New World a faith that narrows its focus to demanding strict adherence of its members to the blind acceptance of the supernatural births, resurrections, miracles etc. of a first century tribal people who had little understanding of the natural world will not last in a postmodern culture. This does not mean that the Bible is to be thrown into the trash heap. It still serves as an inspiration to many, but solving the world's great social problems requires abandoning the Biblical literalism to which so many adhere. It too often has bred violence, intolerance, racism, anti-semitism, and a host of other evils committed in the name of Christianity and the Bible. The church needs to break away from its stifling dogmatism and instead concentrate on tolerance, understanding, and compassion for all religions and individual beliefs as the Dalai Lama so eloquently implored us to do.

Herb Panko

25 Mill House Lane S.W.

Chatfield, Mn. 55923

507-867-4196

hepchat55923@yahoo.com

God's Grace

This is part of a paragraph is from a lesson about the early history of Israel on the Covenant Worldwide website.

God graciously preserved Noah and his family through the waters of the flood. God destroyed the whole world in the flood, but he preserved one family. He did this though He recognized that, according to Genesis 6:5, "Every inclination of the thoughts of [man's] heart was only evil all the time." That is a dramatic, general statement. We see further astonishing evidence of God's grace in His promise that He will never again destroy the earth with a flood -- though the condition of the human heart had not changed. That is quite remarkable!

Remarkable!?! How could anyone say this is remarkable?!. This is not evidence of god's grace. This genocide pure and simple. God destroys the whole word except for one man and his family and it is called this grace? What if Hitler had decided to spare one Jewish family from the Holocaust? Would that be evidence of Hitler's grace? How can you come to the conclusion that god is gracious when he just wiped out the entire population of the Earth except for Noah? I don't think the people who were killed in the flood think it was very gracious.

After the flood God says in 8:21, "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood (god created humans: every inclination of his heart is evil Isaiah 45:7). And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done." The flood did not solve the problem of human sin and wickedness. People were still born sinful (because that is how god created humans from the beginning). And yet God promises that graciously He will never again destroy the world in that way.

That is very nice of you god to say you will never again destroy the world but once a perpetrator of genocide, always a perpetrator. I believe you attempted genocide against the Egyptians, the Ammonites, and several other societies. The greatest mass murderer in history was not Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot, but the god of the bible. I would not characterize god as very gracious.

You create the world in your image, then destroy your creation, and then promise never to do it again, even though humans are sinful and wicked. If humans are wicked and sinful, it is because we learned it from the master. After all you created humans in your image. Thus your image must be one of evil, sin, and wickedness. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

There is nothing gracious about god. He creates humans to be weak-minded fools who are expected to blindly follow his so-called teachings. When humans, that he created to be sinful and wicked, do something sinful and wicked he destroys the whole lot except for Noah. God creates evil, gets mad when humans do evil things and destroys the world. I wouldn't call god gracious.

The True Story of Christmas

This morning on NPR, one the republicans running for President, either Romney or Huckebee, said this the season to remember the true story of Christmas. I wonder if, whomever it was, knows the true story of Christmas. In any case here is the true story of Christmas.

Dec. 25 - In 325AD, Constantine the Great, the first Christian Roman emperor, introduced Christmas as an immovable feast on 25 December. Nobody knows when exactly Jesus was born but we can be sure it wasn't on Dec. 25. The Roman god, Mithras, has his birthday on Dec. 25. Constantine co-opted this date and called in the birthday of Jesus in a political move. Several other gods, including Ishtar and Sol Invictus, also had their birthdays on Dec. 25.

Virgin Birth Story - All through the Mediterranean area, stories of miraculous and virgin births abounded. Ceasar Augustus was supposedly born of a virgin. Caesar Augustus was also considered a god. When the gospels were written, some 30 to 60 year after Jesus died, there were no witnesses to the actual birth. The writers, in trying to appeal to a as wide an audience as possible, included mythology the Romans and Greeks would have understood into the Jesus story. If the Romans or Greeks at the time believed their king was the son of a god, born through a miraculous birth, it wouldn't have been much of a stretch to get them to believe in Jesus. Especially if the people the gospel writers were writing to were disgruntled towards their rulers. Also, miraculous births are nothing new to readers of the bible. Both Sarah and Rachel were barren, yet were able to have children. Mary was supposedly a virgin and was miraculously impregnated. The virgin birth story is a modification and a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14. In it Isaiah is talking about his own wife and the imminent birth of his son.

Gospel Story of the Virgin Birth - When Peter and Paul were preaching and writing their letters in Greece and Rome, 5 to 20 years after the death of Jesus, they never mentioned anything about Jesus' miraculous birth. Why? Because the virgin birth didn't happen. The gospels writers added it later.

Bethlehem or Nazareth - Where was Jesus born? Peter and Paul, writer and preaching shortly after Jesus' death don't mention where Jesus was born. Later, the gospel writers try to create a birth story to make it appear he was the expected messiah. The gospels writers knew the old testament very well and they created a birth story to match old testament prophecies. Mainly that the expected messiah would be from the house of David.

3 Wise Men - This a retelling of the story in Genesis when 3 angels visit Abraham in his tent.

Slaughter of the Innocents - This is a retelling of the passover and the killing of all the first born sons in Egypt. There is no historical evidence of either event. Matthew tells the story of the escape into Egypt shortly after Jesus' birth yet Luke tells of Jesus' baptism, circumcision, and presentation to the temple after his birth. After they return to Nazareth. The escape into and back from Egypt is a retelling of Hosea 11:1 to make it fit the perceived prophecy of Jesus as messiah. Jesus and his family escaping to Egypt is also a retelling of Jacob and his family going to Egypt for protection.

Shepherds in the Fields - The only time shepherds would be their fields keeping watch would have been when the ewes were giving birth. The shepherds needed to sleep in the fields to protect the newborn lambs from predators. Ewes give birth in the spring not the middle of winter.

Genealogy of Jesus - Matthew and Mark both have genealogies of Jesus yet they are very different from each other. They also differ from the genealogy listed in the Old Testament. Again, this was done by the gospels writers to make it appear that Jesus was the messiah from the house of David.

If you take all this evidence and put it together, you can only come to the conclusion that the gospels writers were clever man and powerful writers for creating a history for Jesus when none existed.

The Death of the Egyptian First Born Sons

One thing that bothers me about people who take the bible literally is the story of the first passover. I am bothered that no one seems to care about the number of Egyptian males that must have died to prove that Yahweh is all powerful. According to Wikipedia, "Egypt at the time might have supported a total population of around 3-4 million, maybe even up to 6 million." Simple chance (50 out every 100 births is a male) tells us that at least half of the population should have been male, some 1.5 - 2 million upwards to 3 million males. Chance tells us that at least half of these males should be first born son. So, according to Exodus, some 750,000 to 1.5 million first born males were killed by the angel of death at the first passover. Of course the number may not be that high as not every male would be of child producing age or have had enough children to have had at least one son. What we can agree on is that a very large number, in the hundreds of thousands, of male children were supposedly killed. I have never seen any historical evidence of that many males dying at one time. Where is the evidence? One would think that somewhere in Egyptian history someone would have recorded this kind of disaster. Has a mass grave with this many mummies or bodies ever been found? Is there evidence of the economic disaster that would have befallen Egypt with this many deaths? If the bible is to be taken literally, where is the evidence? This is another example of why the bible cannot be taken literally, because logic and reason tells us that if that many males were killed, there must be mass graves, or someone must have written another independent account of what happened. Show me evidence of a mass grave or mass mummies, or historical records apart from the bible, and I will be less skeptical.

I am a Values Voter

After the last election, pundits and pollsters determined that W's (is for wrong) re-election hinged values voters. I would agree, W (is for wrong) was re-elected based on values. Unfortunately he was re-elected based on the wrong values. I am a values voters, and I will be voting based on values I hold dear. Here are the values I will be voting on:
1. I will vote on the value that a book written between 4000 and 1500 years ago is of little or no use in guiding the President.
2. I will vote on the value that the environment is our most precious resource and we need to protect it.
3. I will vote on the value that all people in the US need to be treated equally and fairly regardless of gender, sexual orientation, color, religious or non-religious affiliation, immigration status, or education.
4. I will vote on the value that torture, waterboarding, and rendition are illegal and immoral.
5. I will vote on the value that invading a sovereign country that has not attacked us or threatened to attack us is illegal.
6. I will vote on the value that importing oil from theocracies in the Middle East is not in our country's best interest.
7. I will vote on the value that our young men and women in uniform should not dying in a far off country because the US invaded for no good reason.
8. I will vote on the value that immigrants sneak into our country to make a better life for themselves and the families they left behind, and these immigrants need the help of our country.
9. I will vote on the value that religion has no place in the public life of our country.
10. I will vote on the value that public schools are the most important institution in our country and teacher deserve respect.
11. I will vote on the value that tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country are not in the best interest of our country.
12. I will vote on the value that three-quarters of a trillion dollars is too much money to have been spent on a war in a country the US never should have invaded.
13. I will vote on the value that health care for all is needed and long overdue.
These are some of the values I will be voting on.
The values I will not vote on are the values of religious fundamentalism, intoleration, division, discrimination, hatred, torture, and lying.
Now if I could only find a candidate that holds the same values as me.

Blasphemy

Recently I posted a message on the message board of a group I belong to. The gist of my message was that westerners are ignorant of the Middle East and Islam. My reason for this thinking was the recent bruhaha over the teacher from England who was teaching in Sudan. The teacher allowed her students to name a teddy bear Muhammed. What transpired next baffles the imagination. Fundamentalist Muslims called for the teacher's execution for blasphemy. My contention in my message was that the teacher should have known better than to name anything Muhammed in a Muslim country. She should have known she was going to be teaching in a theocracy. The teacher, in my opinion, was ignorant of the country she was going to and she was ignorant of Islam. I stated she was one in a long line of westerners that showed how ignorant they were and that these examples only reinforce the perception in the Middle East that the west is ignorant of Islam.
Another member of the group wrote back and said to the effect, if a person's religious belief is such that they feel threatened by a child's toy, then they need to re-exam their beliefs. The writer from the group is absolutely correct. If you believe something and you believe it strongly enough, then your beliefs should be able to withstand any criticism. If however your belief is threatened by a child's toy, you need to re-exam your beliefs. How in the name of (insert favorite sky pixie name here) can a religion be threatened by naming a child's toy after your founder/god/prophet!? Get over yourselves! Are your beliefs in your sky pixie that weak? What exactly do you believe? One would think that naming something after your sky pixie would be a form of flattery. Think about it, everyday the children would see Muhammed and perhaps think about the person the bear is named for. Are the fundamentalists ready to call for the execution of every father that names their son Muhammed? Blasphemy I say! How dare the father compare their son to the prophet! How about Muhammed Ali? Should he be executed because he, a westerner, selected the name Muhammed when he converted to Islam? How ignorant could he be?
I believe that westerners are ignorant of the Middle East and Islam. However, everyone in the world should be free to say anything they want, no matter how provocative. It is up to the people who hear the message to search their beliefs and decide how they will respond. Words are wind through our pharynx, as the writer put it. They are only as meaningful as the attention we give them. Naming a teddy bear, Muhammed, pales in comparison to the continued slaughter of innocent men, women, and children by suicide bombers in the name of god. Where is the talk of blasphemy when a suicide bombers kills himself and others in the name of god? Where is the outrage? Prove to me that your religion (every religion) is a religion of peace. The only way I will ever believe that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc., are religions of peace is when there are no more wars, attacks, bombings, etc., in the name of god. There will still be wars in the world but no one will die in the name of their sky pixie.
Stop taking your religious texts literally! It is ridiculous to base your belief on things written between 1400 and 4000 years ago or more. These texts were written at time when humans lived in tents and were nomadic. Most of the population was illiterate. They were written before science was around to verify things. They events in the texts may have been based on actual historical events but they are also layered with mythology from all corners of the Middle East. Elements of Persian (7 day creation story), Babylonian (the flood), Egyptian (9 creation events), Roman (king is the son of a god, virgin birth), Greek (twins), and other mythology have made it into the bible and the koran. There is enough archaeological evidence to show their was a flood that was localized in the area of Caucasus area in Central Asia. There is also evidence that oral traditions can survive for thousands of years, i.e., Inuits in the Arctic have an oral tradition of Mammoths. Mammoths have been extinct for 10,000 years. The flood is very likely an oral tradition embellished from the end of the Ice Age. If the flood covered the whole Earth, how come only Middle Eastern place names are used?
The gospel writers built the Jesus story out of events in the old testament. Jesus walking on water is a retelling of Moses parting the waters. Jesus feeding the multitudes is a retelling of Moses feeding the multitudes in the desert. Jesus' family fleeing to Egypt for protection is a retelling of Joseph's family's going down into Egypt for help in Genesis. The story of the slaughter of the innocents is a retelling of the passover story in Exodus. Jesus entering Jerusalem on the donkey (colt) is a retelling of Zechariah 9:9-11. Jesus throwing the money-changers out of the temple is a retelling and embellishment of Zechariah 14:21. Jesus' sermon on the mount is nothing more than Psalms 119. Luke incorporates many elements of the story of Elijah into his gospel. John begins by retelling a hymn from Proverbs. Jesus' “I am” statements are directly from the burning bush in Exodus. Judah sells Joseph into Egypt; Judas sells Jesus. King Saul and Paul both tried to capture and kill servants of god. Both were overcome by god. As the saying goes, there is nothing ever new under the sun. There is nothing ever new in religious texts. The new testament is built on the old testament. The old testament is built on many myths from many different cultures. The koran is built on both the new and old testament, as well as other Middle Eastern myths.
The bible was built on other culture's mythology in the same way JRR Tolkien and JK Rowlings have taken northern European myths and created best selling novels. These authors took old stories and created something new. The writers of the old and new testaments did the same, They took old myths from neighboring cultures, or from the culture they were living in (Egypt, Babylon) and reworked them for their own culture, and called the new stories religious stories. The bible is in no way, shape, or form a work of god. It may have gods in it but it is nothing more than a book of mythology and fairy tales.
We shouldn't believe what is written in any religious text any more than we should believe what is written in the Odyssey or the Iliad, both of which were written several thousand years ago, around the same time as the old testament was being written down, These books are based on historical events but one does not believe there were cyclops, sirens, golden fleeces, etc. It is the same with the bible. There are historical events in the bible but there is too much mythology for me to accept it as anything other than a book of mythology created in the mind of men.

72 Virgins

In one sect of Islam, if a suicide bomber blows themselves up along with any infidels, the person who did the bomber gets to pass to heaven where they spend eternity with 72 virgins. Apparently this is some kind of a reward for killing innocent people. I don't see how spending eternity with 72 virgins is a reward. Having been a virgin myself and having been with a virgin or two, the first-time experience wasn't all that rewarding. Basically my partner just laid their with her legs open. They wasn't much excitement to it. My partner was inexperienced and didn't know what to do. It seems to me, a much better reward would be 72 experienced woman, who could show the man a much better time. Being with an experienced woman who knows how to use her body and use a man's body is a much better reward. Perhaps the man that came up with this idea of heaven had never been with a virgin and just assumed it would be heavenly to deflower virgins.
The other thing I don't quite understand is: what happens after the bomber has deflowered his 72 virgins? I mean after 72 years, or 72 months, or 72 days, or 72 hours, or however long it takes to deflower 72 virgins, what happens next? Do the virgins stay deflowered for eternity or do they come back to you the next day with their maidenheads restored? If they come back everyday with their maidenheads intact, what does that say about the bombers manhood? “What's the matter, can't you deflower a virgin and get her to stay deflowered?” “What kind of a man are you?”
Also, where do the 72 virgins come from? Is their a bottomless pit of virgins that is continually drawn from? And, how rewarding is it for the virgins to lose their virginity, which I have been told is painful for the woman, and then have it restored, only to painfully lose it again? Doesn't seem like paradise for the woman? And what about female suicide bombers? Do they get 72 male virgins? And why 72? Why not one virgin per day for all eternity? I need someone to answer these questions for me to help me understand what this paradise is all about. In suicide bomber training school, are these questions answered? Someone help me to understand.
The claim that paradise has 72 virgins waiting for suicide bombers is absurd. This just another example of the perversion that is religion. Religion is dangerous but extreme religious beliefs like this have deadly consequences. The sooner the absurdities of belief are pointed out; the sooner those beliefs can be done away with.

Big G

At a RAFT meeting recently I brought up Psalm 82, where “big G” god calls a meeting of all the gods and takes all the “little g” gods to task for not helping humans the way they should. He then demotes all the “little g” gods and condemns them to death “like Adam.” Upon reflection of this passage, you have to wonder how much power “big g” actually has/had?
I have been reading a book by Thor Heyerdahl. Many of you probably know Heyerdahl as the anthropologist that sailed a balsa and reed raft from South America to Polynesia to prove that, the Polynesian Islands were settled by people from South America not from Asia as many anthropologists thought. The book I am reading is called Fatu-Hiva and it chronicles his wife's and his adventures in the 1930's on a small island in the Marquesas Island. The island being Fatu-Hiva. Heyerdahl originally went to the islands as a zoologist but quickly became interested in the culture of the island peoples, especially pre-Columbian culture. He began to collect cultural artifacts and noted cultural similarities between the Incas of Peru and the Polynesians. The native islanders told Heyerdahl stories about when the first people arrived. The people came from the east, from South America. The migrating people brought their gods with them, many continue to have similar names to the Inca gods from Peru.
Anyway, the point being, later the Spaniards and the English arrived bringing Christianity. If you read Psalms 82, you would think that the Polynesians, not to mention Native Americans, Aztecs, Incas, etc., etc., etc., would not have needed to be “converted”. They would already, at least have been Jewish or Hebrew, because “big g” would have been in control. And it would have been really easy to “perfect” them into Christians. But, alas for “big g”, that was not the case. Polynesian, Inca, Aztec, Native American, Japanese, etc., gods were still in existence and going strong. Apparently, big g didn't have a good press office or some sort of rotweiller to ferret out all the other gods. What a shock it must have been to the true believers and literalists when they got outside the borders of Israel and discovered that big g was not in charge. How could that be? Big g demoted all the pagan gods and sentenced them to death in Psalm 82, yet here they are.
In the book, the natives tell Heyerdahl about their skepticism of the early Spaniards and the missionaries that followed. The missionaries taught the natives, “Thou shalt not kill.” Yet the Spaniards put to death natives that refused to be “perfected.” The missionaries tried to convince the natives to do away with cannibalism, yet the priests practiced ritual and symbolic cannibalism. What a bunch of hypocrites! Hypocrisy continues to this day of course. You only have to open the paper and read it.
All big g would have needed to do, would have been to appear to all these other peoples around the world and put their gods to death. I guess, if you believe the Mormons, Jesus did appear to the Native Americans in North America. Of course, Joe Smith is the only person to record this event. Jesus did appear in Israel and tried to “perfect” his Jewish brethren but only after he was sacrificed for our sins did his followers try to spread the good news. But outside those two instances, there is no evidence that big g killed off any other gods. The Greeks eventually stopped believing in Zeus et al, the Romans gave up Jupiter et al, the Germanic peoples gave up Thor et al, and the Anglo-Saxon's gave up their gods, not to mention the myriad of Native American gods no longer in service but that was several hundred or several thousand years after the big sit down in Psalms 82. A true believer might then say, Christianity has spread around the globe and become a dominant religion, so Psalms 82 is true. Many gods have been destroyed by the spread of Christianity. But are these gods truly dead and gone? Or do we still acknowledge little g gods to this day?
Just look at any calendar and the answer is there in black and white. Our days of the week are named after gods that should have died 3500 years ago but didn't. Monday – Moon day (the moon was thought to be a god), Tuesday – Germanic god Tiw (related to Mars), Wednesday – Wodin's day (Germanic god Odin), Thursday – Thor's day (named for the Norse god Thor, the god of thunder), Friday – named after the Germanic goddess Frigga, Saturday – Saturn's day (named after the god Saturn), and Sunday – day of the sun god. Now for the months. January - named after the Roman god of beginnings and endings Janus (the month Januarius).
February - the name comes either from the old-Italian god Februus or else from februa, signifying the festivals of purification celebrated in Rome during this month.
March - it is named after the Roman god of war, Mars.
May - the name probably comes from Maiesta, the Roman goddess of honor and reverence.
June – this month was named in honor of Juno, Jupiter's wife.
Almost all of the celestial bodies you see when you look up at the night sky are named for little g gods. Why would big g give a place of honor to all these demoted gods? Is it because big g didn't have the power to put the gods to death or is it because the bible is a work of fiction created by talented writers?
Was Jesus real? Most people say yes. I believe there was an historical person on which the story of Jesus was founded. The early gospel writers superimposed the Jesus story onto existing myths to make it appear Jesus was more than he was. They did this to make Jesus appeal to as large a population as possible. The virgin birth story did not enter the Christian story until the 9th decade. There were however lots of virgin birth stories in the pagan religions of the Empire. The cannibalistic ideas associated with the Christian Eucharist in which the flesh and blood of the savior figure are eaten and drunk clearly have pagan origins. The account of a hero figure dying and returning from death is also present in many ancient pagan sources. Easter was a pagan word for spring and the return of the earth to life after the winter. That is why the crucifixion of Jesus was moved to the season of the Passover so that his victory over death could be celebrated at the same time the forms of life showed victory over the death of winter by coming to life again.
It would seem that big g did a poor job of killing off his rivals and their traditions.
Psalms was written maybe 3000 – 3500 years ago, so why did it take until the 16th century CE before Christians started to “perfect” other people? One would have thought the “perfection” process would have begun immediately. Why did it take until the invention of suitable sailing vessels for the good news about the death of other gods to begin to spread? Couldn't big g have worked a little faster? Or did humans need to “evolve” a bit more before we could invent big sailing ships?

Or maybe, the Bible is work of fiction and there is very little truth in it.

What is a Conservative?

A while back, maybe a year or so ago, I wrote a blog entry about a judge’s decision in Nebraska. The judge tossed out a law banning same-sex marriages. In the blog, I said the right wing nuts as was expected, practically had heart attacks about the decision. In response to my blog, a reader wanted to know what makes a religious nut. Well, here goes, this is my explanation of what a religious, right wing nut is. First, I shouldn’t have called the religious right, wing nuts. I should have called them what they really are which is bigots. Anyway, what I meant by right wing nuts is a conservative. So this blog will be about what a conservative or a right wing nut is.
If you look up the definition of conservative in the dictionary you will find many definitions. The definition of conservative is “one of the political party that desires to preserve the institutions of government against innovation. Conservatives don’t want to change. They want to conserve things the way they are.
History is littered with examples of conservatives wanting to keep the status quo. The first example I can think of is the Pharisees’ opposition to Jesus. Jesus was one of the greatest liberal thinkers of all time. His ideas about the poor, women, the disabled, the diseased, and the down trodden were truly revolutionary. In response to Jesus, the conservative Pharisees, who only wanted the rich to be able to worship in the temple, had Jesus arrested and executed. The conservatives were opposed to Jesus for his support of the same people that today are still opposed by the conservatives.
In the 1500’s, the Catholic Church wanted to conserve its monopoly on power. The church liked the money it was getting by selling redemption to the wealthy and powerful. However, Martin Luther stood up and said no. Martin Luther was a liberal thinker. He broke the conservative grip on power. In an attempt to conserve its power, the Catholic Church excommunicated Luther. Many new and liberal minded churches sprang up. The downside is that the Catholic Church, unfortunately, remains the most conservative entity in the world.
In the 1770’s, who were the conservatives? They were the people who wanted to remain joined to Great Britain. The conservatives wanted to maintain the status quo. They didn’t want to become independent from Great Britain or King George. The conservatives preferred the King and parliament making decisions instead of the freedom to make their own decisions. Who were the liberals? George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, John Hancock, James Monroe, James Madison, John Adams, and many others.
In the 1800’s up to 1865, who were the conservatives? The slave-owners. What were the slave-owners trying to conserve? Slavery. Who was a liberal? Abraham Lincoln.
After the civil war, who were the conservatives? The Ku Klux Klan, and the people who passed poll taxes and had literacy tests at polling places to keep blacks from voting. What were these people trying to conserve? White power.
1900 – 1920, who were the conservatives? The men who wanted to keep women from voting, those that were against women’s suffrage. What were they trying to conserve? Male control on power.
In 1925, who were the conservatives? Williams Jennings Bryant was a conservative. He was the prosecutor in the Scopes Monkey Trial. He was trying to conserve the absurd story about creation in the Bible. He was arguing against John Scopes, a free thinking teacher and his lawyer Clarence Darrow.
In the 1930 and 40’s who was the greatest conservative ever? Hitler. What did Hitler want to conserve? The purity of the Aryan nation (Germany). How did he go about doing that? He killed 6 million Jewish people and countless other gays, Gypsies, mentally ill, mentally retarded, Russians, Poles, and others.
Later in the 1940’s, who were the conservatives? The English in India. What were they trying to conserve? They wanted to conserve British rule and continue to subjugate the Indian people. Who was the liberal? Gandhi.
In the1950’s the conservatives were the people who wanted to maintain segregation: George Wallace. What did they conservatives want to conserve? They wanted to conserve the separation of blacks from whites in society. Who was a liberal? Thurgood Marshall
In the 1960’s, who were the conservatives? Those opposed to civil rights. What did the conservatives want to conserve? Whites control over blacks. Who was the liberal? Martin Luther King
1970’s, who were the conservatives? The people opposed to woman’s rights and abortion. What did these people want to conserve? Control over women and there bodies.
In the 1990’s who were worst conservatives in the world? The Taliban in Afghanistan. What were they trying to conserve? A way of life and thinking from the Dark Ages. Women could only be seen in public with their husband, brother, or father. Woman had to be completely covered. Woman couldn’t go to school. Everyone had to be a conservative Muslim and believe what they were told.
Now, in the 21st century, who are the conservatives? The people opposed to gay rights, same sex marriages, and abortion. What are they trying to conserve? They claim family values but which family values are they trying to conserve? The only family conservatives are trying to conserve is one father, one mother, and children. Every other form of family is unacceptable to conservatives.
As you can see conservatives have supported a number of causes that result in the subjugation and exploitation of different groups of people. Conservatives wanted to conserve the Catholic Church’s hold on power, slavery, disenfranchisement of blacks and women, continued domination of India, control over a woman’s body, the subjugation of women, and the continued treatment of gays as second-class citizens.
Let’s run through a list of some of the greatest liberals in history: Jesus, Martin Luther, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Monroe, James Madison, John Hancock, Thomas Paine, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Thurgood Marshall.
How about some conservatives from history: the Popes who took money from wealthy nobles allowing them to get into heaven, King George III, slaves owners, Adolph Hitler, George Wallace, and the Taliban.
If I called myself a conservative, I would be embarrassed to have to keep company with that distinguished list. I prefer the liberal list. After all, you are known by the company you keep.
So here are a few things conservatives are for: Conservatives say they are pro-family, what conservatives don’t say is that they are only for one kind of family. The family conservatives are for is the one father, one mother, and children family. That is the type of family conservatives want to conserve. To conservatives, all other family forms are unacceptable.
Conservatives are pro-money, which means conservatives want to conserve monopolies, which hurt small businesses.
Conservatives are for religion. They religion conservatives want to conserve is Christianity. Just ask Pat Robertson or Bob Jones or the Pope what they think of Muslims. (Or Jews or Buddhist, etc)
Conservatives say they are for freedom, yet they want to limit gays’ freedoms, a woman’s freedom to choose, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression.
Why anyone would consider himself or herself a conservative is beyond me. I prefer freedom of expression, freedom of choice, and freedom of religion. I will always be proud to call myself a liberal.
Conservatism has no place in the 21st century. Conservatism is a relic of the past. What the world needs today is open-minded and enlightened leaders and populations.

The Pope's Remarks

Recently the Pope for whatever unknown reason managed to inflame the Muslim world by quoting an obscure 14th century emperor of the Byzantine Empire. In his speech, delivered in Germany, the Pope quoted Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus. Palaeologus said “everything Mohammad brought was evil and inhuman such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The Pope has said he meant no offense or harm with the comment. The Pope comments have led to widespread protests and demonstrations against the Pope in many Muslim countries. Just when the uproar over cartoons depicting Mohammad as a terrorist had subsided the Pope goes and throws gasoline on the simmering embers that remain. It is beyond me how the Pope, who must be a somewhat learned man and theologian, would wrongly believe his comments wouldn’t provoke any backlash. Either the Pope doesn’t read the speeches that are prepared for him before he delivers them or else he lacks any understanding of the Muslim world. It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to know that if you speak out about Islam and Mohammad it will cause a furor. Besides that, what business does the Pope have in criticizing another religion? A person of one faith is in no position to criticize another faith. Only people in that faith and culture have the right to criticize. There is plenty in Christianity for the Pope to criticize. Criticizing another religion borders on pandering to your base. If you speak out against a supposed evil religion, you can turn attention away from what people really want to discuss. You can draw attention away from scandal by distracting people by making another religion seem like a threat. The Pope is demonizing Islam. He is not interested in building bridges between faiths as his predecessor was. The Pope is a Yahwahist. He believes in the punishing, all-powerfully god of the old testament. His thinking is straight out of the 14th century. I guess that is why he would quote an obscure Byzantine emperor. The Pope in no way should be criticizing another religion. He fails to understand history and what happens when you criticize another’s religious views. Far too many times in the recent past have people criticized another’s religion with disastrous results. Sunnis criticize Shias and vice versa, Jewish criticize Muslims and vice versa, Hindus criticize Buddhist who criticize Muslims who criticize Christians and it goes on and on. I believe the problem isn’t about god but what people do in the name of their god. Christians believe that the only way to salvation is to accept that Jesus Christ is the savior and only through him can people get to heaven. Well, that leaves how many hundreds or millions of non-Christian in a lurch. How can they get to heaven if they don’t believe in Jesus Christ? Muslims have a different belief about how to get into heaven. If you don’t believe what Muslims believe how will you get to heaven? Each faith grew out of its own political, social, and religious reality hundreds to thousands of years ago. Each religion, when it was founded was created to meet the political, social, and religious needs of its audience. Mohammad needed to convince nomadic tribes living in a desert that his way was the right way. Early Christian needed to convince people living in the Roman world under Roman influence that Jesus was the way. The writings of each of these figures reflect those realities. All the books in the old testament are based on different political, social, and religious realities. Plus they are all myths created by nomads as they moved about a desert environment. The stories reflect the scientific understanding of that particular time. None of which is particularly relevant today. Science is the new religion. Belief should be based on what a person can see and experience not what an archaic text written anywhere from 8000 to 1600 years ago. I can accept that Jesus probably existed, was a charismatic teacher, and had some good things to say about how to treat people. What I have trouble accepting is the miracles he supposedly performed. Indications are that the gospels were based on stories that were circulating around the Mediterranean from Rome, Greece, Egypt, and Persia. The writers of the bible stories were smart and literate enough to copy and change the stories to make them fit their political, social, and religious realities. The same should be done today. The bible stories either, (a) need to be relegated to the dust bin of history, along with the god of the old testament and the god-man Jesus, or (b) reinterpreted to fit our current political, social, and scientific realities. If we reinterpret the stories to fit today’s reality, the stories become nothing more than myths like the stories of Zeus, Hades, Jupiter, Ossiris, etc. All of these gods have been discarded as human knowledge and scientific knowledge has expanded. Yahweh needs to be discarded, as does the god-man Jesus. If we strip away the miracles and religious underpinnings of the god-man Jesus, we are left with a humanitarian who preached love, tolerance, kindness, and compassion for others. And really isn’t that what we should all be doing, practicing love, kindness, compassion, and tolerance not sowing the seeds of hatred and distrust as the Pope has done.

Mr. Bush's War

Mr. Bush’s War in Iraq is no Comparison to the Fight Against Nazi Germany

Last week in Salt Lake City Mr. Bush compared the war in Iraq as being on the same level as the World War II fight against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. He said victory in Iraq is as important a victory as at Omaha Beach and Guadalcanal. If I were a veteran of either of those campaigns I think I would be awfully upset at the comparison. What Mr. Bush fails to recognize is that Japan attacked us first and Hitler declared war on the United States before we actually went to war with either country. Iraq never attacked the United States. Iraq never declared war on the United States. World War II was a battle against two forces that were out for world domination. Hitler wanted to conquer and control Europe, Central Asia, and North Africa. Japan was out to conquer Asia and the Pacific. The two times Saddam Hussein tried to conquer new territory (Iran/Iraq war and Kuwait) he was defeated. Germany over ran much of Europe, into Central Asia, and North Africa. Japan over ran much of Asia Pacific and China. Japan and Germany were a direct threat to world peace and stability as can be seen by the 6 or more years of war it took to finally defeat these two powers. World War II was a struggle to liberate countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Pacific from three (Germany, Japan, and a lesser extent, Italy) countries intent on conquering the world. Before Mr. Bush violated US and international law by invading Iraq, Iraq had no plans for world domination, no plans to attack the United States, and was in no way a threat to the United States. His decision to go to war with Iraq was based on false and misleading information. Making a comparison to the noble struggle against Germany and Japan and the disaster of Mr. Bush’s making in Iraq is disrespectful, at the least, to the many veterans who fought and died on the beaches.

The Definition of a Fundamentalist

Fundamentalist - A person who believes the mistranslated myths of a nomadic tribe, and takes those myths at face value.

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee

Has anyone read the book Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee? I have been reading this book and it makes me sick to my stomach. For those of you haven’t read it, the book is about how Native American lands were stolen away from the Native Americans in the mid to late 1800’s. It is written from the perspective of the Native Americans. The book tells about the lies told to Native Americans, the treaties they were forced to sign, how the treaties were broken, and how the Native Americans were treated by the US Army (massacres, forced marches, killing of horses and livestock). What really gets me about how the US Army, farmers, miners, railroads, traders, etc treated the Native Americans was: each of these groups did their genocidal best to exterminate the Native Americans but then what did the white people do? We named our states for Native American groups or with Native American words. For example: Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Oregon, Utah, Indiana, and Alaska. All of these states are Native American words or names. We named our cities after Native American groups, Native American leaders, or with Native American words. For example: Cheyenne, Omaha, Chicago, Detroit, Sioux Falls, Indianapolis, Tallahassee, Chattanooga, Mankato, Oglala, Manhattan, to name a few cities. I am sure there are many other examples of cities, most likely where Native Americans haven’t lived for a hundred or more years. We name our counties after Native American groups or names. For example in Iowa: Chickasaw, Kossuth, Winnesheik, Allamakee, Black Hawk, Pottawattamie to name but a few. We name our sports teams after Native American groups. The Fighting Sioux, the Fighting Illini, the Atlanta Braves, the Cleveland Indians, the Washington Redskins, the New Hampton Chickasaws, the Chicago Blacj Hawks, etc. Apparently the Native Americans were not good enough to live near the white farmers, miners, and traders, but their words and names were good enough to use as state, county, city, and sport names. What a bunch of hypocrites we were and still are. What the US did 150 years ago to the Native American peoples is no different then what is happening in Darfur, Sudan. Or from what happened in Rwanda and Bosnia. If the United Nations had been around 150 years ago, the US would have been accused of genocide, and that is just what was happening. The government was giving its tacit approval and many times overt approval for the destruction and forced removal of Native American groups. Every American whose ancestors came to the US before 1890 has Native American blood on their hands.

What is Popular is not Always Right

Last week a judge in Nebraska tossed out a law that banned same-sex marriages. As could be expected the religious right-wing nut zealots went off the deep end. They accused the judge of judicial activism and legislating from the bench. The right-wing nuts claimed that the judge had no right striking this unfair law down because the law was the popular will of the people, therefore legal. Since it is the popular will of the people to discriminate against one group, the judge was not right in ruling the way he did. What these right-wing nuts don't seem to understand is that it is the judicial branch's job to strike down unfair laws. When the state or Federal legislatures pass and the governor or President signs discriminatory law, it is the judicial branch's job to rule the laws unconstitutional and thus unfair. "But it is the will of the people," the right wing nuts shout. Just because something is popular does not make it right. At this time in history, it is popular to discriminate against homosexuals. This does not make it right. At one time it was popular in the United States to keep Africans as slaves. Did this make slavery right? It was also popular to deny voting rights to women. Was this right? In Nazi Germany, it was popular to discriminate against Jews, steal their property, and send them to concentration camps. Was this right? It was the popular will of the people. At one time it was popular to deny voting rights to blacks. Was this right? Just because it is popular to discriminate does not make it right.

Now, what is right is not popular. It is the judge's job to decide if laws are fair or not. This is not activism. This is common sense. It is the judge's job to stop discrimination. The right wing nuts want the judicial branch to follow the popular will of the people. This would make the judicial branch irrelevant. Our country wouldn't need courts if laws were passed based on the popular will of the people. Courts have to make decisions based on right and wrong, fair and unfair, even if the decision is unpopular. That means banning discrimination against homosexuals.

What is popular is not always right; what is right is not always popular.

Founding Fathers not Christians

In last week’s edition of my local paper, a writer stated that “Our country was founded on Christian principals, most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were Christians”, however, the historical record does not bear this out. Here are some quotes from some of the men who had a hand in writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution:

Thomas Paine , author of Common Sense, “I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."

John Adams, 2nd President of the United States, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" It was during Washington’s administration that the Treaty of Peace and Friendship was written and it was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified it. In the Treaty it states in Article XI "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and 3rd President of the United States, in a letter to John Adams dated April 11, 1823 - "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

James Madison, 4th President of the United States, “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

Eathan Allen, hero of the American Revolution, "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." Allen noted that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian."

Ben Franklin, helped write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now.."

As you can clearly see, many of the Founding Fathers did not support the Christian Religion. It is a patently untrue when conservatives and the religious right claim the United States was founded on Christianity and that the Founding Fathers were Christians. A trip through the historical archives and writings of these men disprove this. I believe the Founding Fathers would be horrified and dismayed at the blatant use and disuse of their names in support of the religious rights agenda.

Matthew 23:23-28 Revelant to Today

I received this interesting Bible verse from a website I have joined. If you change the words a bit it has immense relevance to the President and his conservative cronies. Here is the verse Matthew 23: 23 – 28.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity. You blind Pharisee! first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Now if you replace the words scribes and Pharisees with President and conservatives it is a much better passage and much more relevant to out world today. It really is kind of fun to see and make the Bible relevant to today. I agree with the religious right who say the Bible is as relevant today as it was when it was written.

Here is the new updated Bible verse for today:

Woe to you, President and conservatives, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! "Woe to you, President and conservatives, hypocrites! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity. You blind President first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean. Woe to you, President and conservatives, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Hypocrisy Update

When I wrote yesterdays article I used some outdated information. Today on NPR I heard that the Democrats had approved 205 of Pres. Bush's judicial nominations and had blocked 7. That is still a better approved to blocked ratio than the Republicans accorded Pres. Clinton.