Slow News Month, But Not For God

At least to me, it's been a rather slow month in the news. There have been a few stories here and there that have sparked my attention, such as the institution of Sharia law in Pakistan, but other than that not much to talk about. Well, to be honest there is plenty to talk about, but what else is there to say about the economy? Not to mention I have been unusually detached from the world of those over the course of the past, say four to six weeks, but I digress here. What has been on my mind is the concept of a god. It's something the enters my mind quite frequently because I find it one of the most cryptic things to understand amongst human ideas. It's not hard to understand the the reasons why so many believe in a higher power, but it's very difficult to comprehend why it persists, and how so many people can rationalize their faith a la carte.

Anecdotally, it seems that Americans like their ideology like their lunch, a la carte. They pick and choose what fits their needs or particular lifestyle, and to hell with the rest. While this is good for lunch, I'm a fan of all you can eat bonanzas just as much as the next person, I find it disturbing in the context of religion and belief.  Sure we all pick and choose from various streams of thought to form our value and belief systems, so it is not that incorporating many ideologies into one conglomerate is wrong. But what this does to the concept of god and religion is it undermines it. Or at least it should. The religious like to allude to the "word of god". But what is that? First of all there is no word of god because it was all written down by men. Second, there are so many conflicting opinions about what the word of god represents that it is watered down to the point of being meaningless. 

Another thing that I find hard to digest is that many only seek the advice and guidance of a god when it is convenient. Drug addicts will lie, cheat, and steal to provide for a habit, yet look to god to get them about of a bind when they're bad habits come back to haunt them. Mean, rude, and malicious people will make the lives of others miserable, then on their death bed plead to a god that he sees that deep down they are a good person. The dishonest and unscrupulous reek havoc upon the public and individuals, yet describe themselves as "Christians" and "god-fearing men". It seem to me that many use religion as a tool first, and also as a futile attempt at justifying their worth and virtuosity. What really gets me is when politicians or celebrities try to make their case to the world that they are good by proclaiming faith in a religion; And people eat this up. So what does it mean if they are religious? That they are good and honest? Well what does it mean if I am atheist? I remind you that George Bush was a god-fearing man who is a committed church goer. I'm amazed at how religion perseveres despite the inherent fallacies and inconsistencies in the teachings and practice of all religions. What I believe is that human beings are fallible, and inconsistent, and prone to wrong doing, but lets get over it, I'm not going to burn in eternal hell for being a human being.

Which brings me to another thought. This weekend I heard that since I don't accept Jesus Christ as my savior, I will not find peace after death. Or so they think. I find funerals and deaths an awkward thing because I don't believe that the deceased go to a better place, I believe they're dead. This is not cold or heartless, I am anything but, this is just the truth. I still feel compassion for those who have lost loved ones, but as an atheist I don't speak to the deceased, because frankly they can't hear me. This is how I have come to terms with death around me, and the prospect of I myself dying. It happens. Sadness surrounding it is no less profound, I simply believe that life ends at death. 

Back on topic...In the scientific community and idea starts as a hypothesis, develops into a theory, is then challenged, and then is eventually either deemed a fact or a fiction. Religion is the only thing that will not be challenged by those who adhere to it.  Despite our resistance, most human beings cannot help about adjust their thinking when their ideas are bombarded by counter-evidence, but the religious can stare logic in the face and wag their finger at it. It is in effect, incapable of challenge, because it would challenge their beliefs, and questions their faith, which could unleash a the inner apostate. The same reasoning that buttresses religion would not survive in science or the courtroom. So why the double standard? Human beings love the superlative. They love thinking there is always a higher power. In fact they desire control, because if there were not the almighty controlling them (the government is controlled by believers and thus the almighty!) what would happen to the world. Utter depravity most seem to think. Additionally, they can find comfort knowing that if they sin, the almighty will punish them, and they will have penance for their human iniquity. It almost justifies the wrong that humans are capable of.

I'm not advocating dogmatism here. I certainly don't want religion to be any more dogmatic than it already is. So when I say assail the religious for their "a la cartism", do not confuse what I am saying. Ideas need to be challenged. For that to happen one must seek alternative thoughts. It promotes healthy intellectual inquiry and should engender new ideas which are more substantively sound. Religion and god does not promote any of this. The so called faithful live lives that conflict with the teachings of their faiths, oblivious to the conflict. Their faith endures despite a multitude of logical reasons for why they should question it. They react to questions by squelching healthy dissent to their beliefs. The constitutions protects my right to speak out on this issues. Thankfully the founders were practical, for I fear had they not been, my voice would be silenced. I love debate, most would say debate is healthy, but their is no debate to the faithful, because they believe.

Michael Phelps and Michael Steele

I'm sitting here watching some CNN before bedtime and I originally intended to write solely on Michael Steele and the Republican philosophy toward the stimulus bill, but first a few words on Michael Phelps.

So the kind of the swimming world, whatever importance that holds, smoked a little dope from a bong. Get over it. More of an uproar is being cooked up over this rather than, I don't know, say the fact that we are pulling business out of debt while our own personal debts will never see the same kind of treatment. Smoking a little marijuana doesn't make someone a bad man. Redistributing wealth toward the top and being the citizen to continue to condone such practices does make one a bad person. Well certainly ignorant, maybe not bad, unless you're the one pulling the proverbial wool over the eyes of the populace.

So a hopefully quick note on Michael Steele. As I watched him defend his position toward the proposed stimulus bill, I could not help but feel a little perturbed. He says that more and more tax cuts will stimulate the economy as if it is self evidently true; like it's axiomatic. I have a hard time understanding and swallowing this position. First, these tax cuts Republicans propose usually don't benefit those at the bottom. Understandably so, since I do understand their whole theory, cut taxes for the business class so that they'll expand business, open up credit, altruistically create jobs, yada yada. But I do not accept this position since many people I feel are duped into supporting this nonsense because they think those tax cuts are going to apply to them. Second, what tax cuts do, versus the alternative of spending, is essentially redistribute wealth upward. What a little spending on infrastructure, green transitioning, and social programs will do is put people back to work, preserve their dignity, and redistribute some of the wealth downward. And though I take issue with the our super-consumer based economy, how much can a government fleece from the people before there is no many left at the bottom to buy all of their silly items; But if you want them to spend, they need money, and for money to be had they need jobs.

Governments should work for their people. I find it awfully disheartening that so many people are willing to support programs that work to the direct opposition of their interests, as individuals and communities. No, a bill full of nothing but spending will not solve our problems, but I believe more in the Democrats' proposed plan to create jobs than the Republicans'. Smart tax cuts can work, but I don't think tax cuts unequivocally work better than spending on programs to put people back to work directly. What government spending does is guarantee is that money would be put directly toward putting people back to work, keeping people in their homes, and giving them a little boost until the economy recovers. Tax cuts assume that rich people sprinkle fairy dust on the country creating jobs out of the kindness of their heart so that butterflies and good cheer fill citizens' hearts. Can you say chimera? 

However much the Republicans irk me, both parties still support many disheartening programs like bailouts. Bailout is the word of the year and is on the tongue of every informed citizen. I think bailouts do more harm than good, and display the pure ignorance and enmity that this country displays toward socialism for the people. I wish the government would do what is right; if these banks and businesses are that important to THE PEOPLE, then in the name of the people you take them over and steward them instead of some fat cat. 

I'm getting tired and thus ambiguous, I'm supporting sleep for recovery at this point.

Why I Don't Support the Troops.

I've been thinking about this for quite some time, and just now being inspired to write, I'll try to elaborate on my thought here about why I don't support the troops. First, it seems to be the "cool" thing to do, like popped collars and fleece jackets, support the troops is everywhere, only with far more severe repercussions. Supporting the troops is an easy way for someone who is not normally civically engaged to feel like they are making a difference, after all, the troops see your bumper sticker transmitted to the front lines from thousands of miles away. I'm almost inclined to create a bumper sticker that says, "Don't Support the Troops", just to see what some local jingo does about it. It could be like that guy at the Dunkin' Donuts drive through at 4am who knocked on my window almost warranting a left cross, who noted my bumper sticker that said "Freedom of Speech Means Freedom to Disagree" he thought I was a staunch conservative (I don't get that), but anyway I digress.

On a more serious note, I don't support the troops because of the sense in which most people wave the flag and write, type, and paste "support the troops".   What does supporting the troops really mean? Does it mean supporting their mission? Does it mean supporting them unquestionably no matter what the individual character of the soldier is? And does "support the troops" sometimes mean that if you disagree with the missions in Iraq or Afghanistan, or the myriad other places our troops are, that you are Anti-American, and that you want them to fail, in essence die? 

I don't support the troops because I want them out of most of the places they are in. To me that is supporting the troops. It's taking them out of harms way when they don't need to be. It's supporting the ones who have done their job when they come back home, instead of letting them fall into physical and psychological despair. It's prosecuting the ones who savagely murder innocent civilians, or who defile and debase their remains. Supporting the troops is not just pasting a bumper on your car, and instead voting, canvassing, and lobbying for more support for veteran's hospitals and health care. It's supporting just causes and judicious use of the military, not as a tool for imperialistic expansion, and world hegemony. It's not supporting crazy gun toters who get a thrill off of shooting innocent civilians like they are white tailed deer.

Support the Troops has become a mantra for the right and the propaganda that they have spread. We are in the midst of a new era ( I hope) in America, it will take years to overturn the civic regression this country has been experience lately, but there is just something about "Support the Troops" that really really bothers me. This country is obsessed with guns, the military, and beating up the rest of the world. Call me a pacifist, but I find every war debatable from a "just cause" standpoint, and I think this mantra only fuels the fire.

What is it about the soldier that they have always been glorified. The American worker does just as much, if not more, than the American soldier to help build this country (Though they are essentially in the same category; Soldiers are workers) Why not a "Support the Worker" bumper sticker. I must say I greatly respect the World War II generation, even the Vietnam vets, because most of those soldiers had no choice. The one's who were drafted just put their heads down and went to war as a duty, there is something that a person has to respect about that. Though the world politics that surround these events are disgraceful, and wrongful on both sides, you have to respect a man or woman that does something they may not want to because they are called up.

So maybe I do support the troops, I just don't "support the troops". I support the troops like I support my mom or dad going to work, nobody wants to do it really, but they have to in order to survive.  And who doesn't want those men and women to come back safely? And leaving a quagmire isn't disgraceful for the troops. That prospect is nonsense, but what isn't is the fact that it is dishonorable that they have been used like pawns for all of history, especially in recent American history. Rich men and women make war, and the poor generally fight them, and then they are cast aside like the dispensable worker in civilian society. You want to support the troops? Stop saying it with a bumper sticker, and start questioning the pretense for any war, question authority, and just think about the power "support the troops" had for our incompetent former president. It squelched dissent and honest debate, it was used as a weapon, and that's why I don't "support the troops".