"Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself."
--Bo Diddley
I've always been sickened by the tendencies of some Republicans to use faith as a weapon. (I'd say the same about Democrats if this were truly on both sides, but I can't think of any example of this behavior from a Democrat.) I'm not sure when it began, but, at some point, the Republican Party tried to make its brand synonymous with "Christian," implying that the Democrats, their opposition, were, by default, "atheist." They've driven this home to voters through use of wedge issues like abortion, which is an issue that will never, ever, ever, ever be truly resolved, but which doesn't fail to get out the vote from a certain group of Christians who are led to believe it's their moral duty to protect unborn babies... but somehow okay to never provide for their education, and to send these kids to die in unnecessary wars when they grow up.
This year, it's been especially bad, and not just in the most obvious spot of that guy with the same middle name as that other guy's last name, you know, the one we found hiding in a hole and executed. I learned about a little back-and-forth between the two candidates running for US Senate from North Carolina, of all places. I was born in North Carolina, and raised there and in Virginia, and am proud to be a Southerner. I still argue with ignorant "Yankees" that the cause of the Civil War wasn't as simple as history books make it seem (that Lincoln outlawed slavery and the bunch of jackholes who made up the South left the Union because they loved slavery so much). It doesn't mean I think slavery was anything short of one of the darkest deeds this nation ever perpetrated (it's a toss-up for worse when compared to our treatment of the folks who were here first), or that I condone racism at all. But oversimplifying it to demonize one side doesn't do any services to those who want to learn from the mistakes of the past.
I have digressed. Here are links to the two ads, the one from Elizabeth Dole and the response from Kay Hagan. (Go ahead and watch. I'll wait here.)
I'm not sure which sentiment is stronger in my mind: the desire to pimp-slap Elizabeth Dole or to call Hagan personally and say, "You go, girl!" It's one of the lowest attacks I've seen, answered by one of the classiest and yet most scathing counterattacks. If Democrats had stood up for their beliefs and acted like this twenty or thirty years ago when Republicans were busy convincing voters that they were atheists who wanted to force you to abort your babies, we might not be in quite the mess we're in now, politically speaking.
Face it: In over two centuries, we have never had a president who was anything but a Christian. We've had one Catholic president; the rest have been Protestant. There has only been one candidate who had a chance at either the presidency or the vice-presidency who wasn't Christian (Joe Lieberman, who is Jewish).
And, yet, the biggest scare tactic used in this presidential election is the lie that Barack Obama is a Muslim. How many times does a man have to specifically say he is Christian before people will believe him? Call me insane, but anyone who claims to be of any religion gets the benefit of the doubt in my book, until he does something to prove otherwise. If he were secretly a Muslim extremist, why doesn't anyone realize that he should be facing Mecca and praying during many of his public appearances? Does Jesus Christ have to come down from Heaven himself and endorse Obama for people to just take him at his word? There are things you can doubt about either candidate (and both have stretched the truth), but it scares me that there are still people who don't believe the man who seems likely to be our next president on something as basic and personal as his religion.
(And don't get me started on the mass of hypocrisy that is Sarah Palin. Maybe later, but I could go on about her for several pages, and don't feel like it now.)
On the other hand, it worries me just as much that there are still people who believe this is a Christian nation, that we have some grand role to play. No, we're a bunch of people living in a particular geographic area, violently and dishonestly stolen from the natives who were here first, upon which a country was founded by a wide variety of Christians, deists, and atheists, where we are supposed to enjoy and respect certain freedoms, one of those being the freedom to believe whatever you want. One's opinion of a politician should not rest entirely on what his or her religion is. I won't argue that one can't consider the underlying moral teachings of that religion, but most religions agree on the basics and, barring a sudden, unexpected return to the Thuggee worship of Kali, we're unlikely to encounter one that's too different in the moral teachings from Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or any of the other religions practiced in the US.
About two weeks ago, former Secretary of State Colin Powell restored eight years worth of lost respect in my eyes. It wasn't that he endorsed the guy I'm voting for. He could've said that Obama was incompetent and endorsed McCain, but I would think he was a great man (that I happen to disagree with) if he had still said what he said about the attacks on Obama:
[I]t is permitted to be said such things as: "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is: he is not a Muslim. He's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is: What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is: No, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing he or she can be President?
It's nice to know there are still some people out there who recognize that people who disagree shouldn't hate one another. And that attacks on faith are not only wrong, but not acceptable Christian behavior.
31 October, 2008
30 October, 2008
About the title
"I just found out there's no such thing as the real world
Just a lie you've got to rise above" --John Mayer
"Crisis of faith" is a term that, so far as I can ascertain, has no hard-and-fast definition. Usually, it's used when one doubts their entire belief system--essentially, what the character of Satan was going for in the book of Job. I've heard some (admittedly, not too many) people argue, though, that any questioning of one's faith is a crisis of faith. If this is true, then many of us go through a constant crisis of faith. I'm of the mind that one's faith in anything or any concept must be constantly called into question, and withstand the self-scrutiny. Faith of any sort is a belief in something that cannot be empirically proved or disproved. If it cannot stand up to doubt, then it is weak faith.
Faith is also a crossover country artist who had some decent Shania Twain-esque hits, but is doomed to eternally burn in hell for what she did to "Piece of My Heart." (Okay, I joke, but I think there's a good chance Janis Joplin will kick her ass when she gets to the Pearly Gates.)
I don't claim to have infinite faith by any means. (I'm not even sure whether that'd be a good thing.) The title refers to a DC Comics 12-issue maxi-series from 1985 called Crisis on Infinite Earths. The premise was anything but simple. For about fifty years, characters like Superman and Batman had been running around in the DC Universe, and DC Comics had acquired other companies that owned other heroes (like Blue Beetle and Captain Marvel) who were in separate worlds. In the 1950s and 1960s, they had "created" a second world, where more modern versions of the characters existed. They could still hop over to "Earth I," where the "Golden Age" (1940s) versions of themselves lived. And there were other universes, such as a reverse world where good was evil, the universes where the non-DC heroes lived, and our own world. By the 1980s, it was confusing, especially when Batman had inexplicably gone from the Adam West TV version of himself to the more realistic, driven version almost overnight, or where Superman had learned that dozens of other survivors from Krypton lived, including Supergirl, Krypto the Superdog, Beppo the Supermonkey, and who knows what else.
To clean house, DC staged a huge crossover, where a superdupervillain was destroying all the worlds in existence, and, to save the remaining worlds (read: the ones we'd actually seen in comics previously), all these disparate realities had to be combined into one world with a new timeline and continuity. This meant some details that had become issues could be fixed: the second Robin could now be a reformed street punk instead of having the same circus origins as the first, and Superman could be "powered down" so that he no longer flew through the sun every Saturday to clean his cape. A lot of characters died. In most cases, this meant they had never existed in the new world. Supergirl was among those who fell, and George Perez's cover for issue #7 (Superman screaming while holding the body of his dead cousin) is probably the masterpiece by this giant in the field.
I think that's right, more or less. Truth be told, the story wasn't especially memorable. The series was more important for what it was than for the story it told. I don't feel like looking up a plot synopsis, because it made my head hurt years ago, and thinking about it makes my head hurt now.
Following Crisis, the late 1980s and 1990s were fertile ground for new exploration of these characters. Their past history may or may not have existed, and DC allowed the use of "retcons" (retroactive continuity) into the mix. If something that had come before didn't work, or needed to be changed, change or ignore it. (The Jason Todd Robin getting an entirely new backstory is an obvious example of this policy.) Bad for the people who sit in their parents' basements trying to write Wikipedia entries on a character's history, good for people who might wonder exactly how Robin could've fought in World War II and still be a teenager.
Unfortunately, as much as I love comics, and the superhero genre in particular, I don't read anything from DC anymore (aside from the occasional title from their non-DC Universe imprint for mature readers, Vertigo). Rising prices and an insistence upon "edgy" stories from both major publishers, as well as their all but cutting out any stores but dedicated comic shops, have led to the average reader being much older than he used to be. (I'm not going for a sexist term, but the average reader of superhero comics has always been male, which is unfortunate as well.) The industry is dominated by the so-called fanboy, who is more concerned with tight continuity, shock value, and the status quo than in reading a well-formed story with broad appeal. (Oh, and big guns. And boobs. Can't forget the boobs.) And, so, both DC and Marvel are made up of monthly ongoing titles that have become little more than filler in between the massive epic crossovers, of which there are usually at least two per publisher each year. DC has been especially loopy, spending the past three or four years (and who knows how far into the future) undoing Crisis on Infinite Earths in a neverending series of crossovers with names like Infinite Crisis and Countdown to Final Crisis. When the guys in charge don't realize what a moronic concept the Superhorse was in the first place and bring him back, it's time to get out of the pool.
(At this point, who cares anymore? Go back to stories about Batman beating thugs over the head or Superman foiling Lex Luthor's latest plot, and can the cosmic garbage. I hate when there are stories about these massively powerful godlike beings wreaking havoc with existence, yet, somehow, guys like Batman and Spider-Man can save the world.)
So, long story short, I was aiming for a cheap, hopefully catchy, pun. Though making sense out of many different, seemingly opposing, schools of thought wouldn't be a bad goal to shoot for.
29 October, 2008
WWJD: Proposition 8
"'Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?' He said, 'The one who showed him mercy.' Jesus said to him, 'Go and do likewise.'"
--Luke 10:36-37 (NRSV)
What is my major reasoning for starting this journal?
I was raised in Southern Baptist church in the "Bible Belt." For the past couple of years, my wife and I have attended a Baptist church in the Inland Empire that has, until very recently, seemed rather forward-looking. I've been able to overlook the putrid music (I much prefer the classic hymns to the inane, repetitive blather of "Christian rock" that is so common in churches now) in order to attend a church that hasn't been quick to judge others. Or so I thought.
Two weeks ago, the pastor gave an excellent sermon on a passage from Galatians, a New Testament book that deals mainly with the early Christians (and, by extension, those of us today) no longer being bound by the Mosaic Law. The wages of sin may be death, but God recognizes that all people, by nature, commit sins, which is why Jesus died for everyone. No one is perfect. The Law is actually constricting to our spiritual growth, as it comprises ethical, social, and even hygienic rules which are difficult, if not impossible to maintain, and the penalties extremely harsh. They were useful in keeping an unruly bunch of former slaves in line to form a strong nation without giving in to the temptations of the various religions already found in Canaan.
By extension, the pastor said (and I cannot agree more), one cannot maintain that some laws apply and some do not (a sort of "picking and choosing"), nor can one attribute more import to one law over another. What is important is to recognize that no one can achieve perfection, and therefore not to judge others for sinning.
Excellent sermon, all said. The trouble is, he gave it as my mind was still reeling from his encouraging the congregation to go to a "No on 8" rally later in the day.
For those of you who do not live in California, Proposition 8 is a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. The argument has grown quite heated, and those groups in favor have resorted to some truly despicable tactics that would make Swift Boat Veterans for Truth blush. Rallies at churches are only the tip of the iceberg. Most obviously, they've been charging that churches would lose tax-exempt status for not performing same-sex marriages (untrue), and that schools will be required to teach them (also untrue, and, besides, are people worried about their kids learning tolerance?).
I won't deny that Leviticus calls for the execution of homosexuals. It also, however, denies women of pretty much all rights and condemns eating quite a few animals that are commonly found on menus today. Some of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy border on ridiculous--for example, if a man has sex with his wife during her period, the couple is to be cut off from society altogether. (This raises the obvious question of how anyone other than the husband and wife could ever know this, once society moved beyond the point where women had to sequester themselves during their period.) There's nothing about homosexuality in the Ten Commandments, nor in the teachings of Jesus. The Law of Leviticus and Deuteronomy was important for its time, and still historically significant to the development of Judeo-Christian beliefs, but it is no longer the law of the land. (If it were, I'd be stoned for marrying a woman of a different ethnic background.)
Homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender identification are not choices anyone makes. Simple common sense should tell us this. Who would ever willingly choose to embrace a lifestyle that, if discovered, has meant until very recently ostracization, or, more likely, death? (Without the promise of an afterlife to make up for it, I mean.) And, if it's a choice, how does one explain gay animals, which don't have the capacity to reason and make such choices?
And, if it's not a choice one makes, it can't be a sin, as sin is contingent upon one's willing disobedience to God. That's my belief. One does not choose their skin color, and, thankfully, our society has finally realized (for the most part) that skin color should be neither a hindrance nor an asset. Hopefully soon we'll realize the same thing about sexual preference.
However, if someone wants to believe it's a choice and a sin, they're free to do so. They are not, under the Constitution of the United States, free to infringe upon another's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If Ellen DeGeneres wants to marry Portia de Rossi, and that's what will make them happy, no one has a right to interfere. It simply does not affect anyone else. Well, except for those who watched Arrested Development and had crushes on Ms. de Rossi, but, hey, did you really think you had a chance anyway?
Our rights as Americans aren't contingent upon everyone else's belief. Regardless of one's own beliefs and feelings on the issue, it is wrong and un-American to strip others of the rights we enjoy. It wasn't right to intern Japanese-Americans during World War II because of where their ancestors were born, it wasn't right to condone and encourage slavery and segregation because of skin color, and it isn't right to take away the legal benefits granted to married couples because they happen to be of the same gender. This isn't a redefinition of marriage as it exists. It isn't an attack on marriage. It's a fight for the rights granted to all Americans by those men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the men and women who have fought to end inequality based on gender and race. Vote for a gay marriage ban and, bluntly, you are voting against the ideals of heroes like Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
You're also voting against the ideals preached by Jesus. This was a man who avoided the religious establishment and hung out with adulteresses, tax collectors, prostitutes, and thieves. He didn't have to agree with them; He saw them as needing love and compassion. Even if one believes that homosexuality is a sin that has to be dealt with by the church, it certainly won't do much good to alienate an entire community from said church.
Jesus said on several occasions that we should give to those in need, and provide for the Lord's work. I agree. That's why I used the money I would've given to the church as offerings for the next month, donating it to the anti-Prop. 8 movement. It may not be much, but if my measly donation helps air one TV spot that sways one person's opinion, it was well spent.
And, besides, if those people and organizations opposed to gay marriage are so concerned with "protecting the sanctity of marriage," then why don't they push to outlaw divorce?
--Luke 10:36-37 (NRSV)
What is my major reasoning for starting this journal?
I was raised in Southern Baptist church in the "Bible Belt." For the past couple of years, my wife and I have attended a Baptist church in the Inland Empire that has, until very recently, seemed rather forward-looking. I've been able to overlook the putrid music (I much prefer the classic hymns to the inane, repetitive blather of "Christian rock" that is so common in churches now) in order to attend a church that hasn't been quick to judge others. Or so I thought.
Two weeks ago, the pastor gave an excellent sermon on a passage from Galatians, a New Testament book that deals mainly with the early Christians (and, by extension, those of us today) no longer being bound by the Mosaic Law. The wages of sin may be death, but God recognizes that all people, by nature, commit sins, which is why Jesus died for everyone. No one is perfect. The Law is actually constricting to our spiritual growth, as it comprises ethical, social, and even hygienic rules which are difficult, if not impossible to maintain, and the penalties extremely harsh. They were useful in keeping an unruly bunch of former slaves in line to form a strong nation without giving in to the temptations of the various religions already found in Canaan.
By extension, the pastor said (and I cannot agree more), one cannot maintain that some laws apply and some do not (a sort of "picking and choosing"), nor can one attribute more import to one law over another. What is important is to recognize that no one can achieve perfection, and therefore not to judge others for sinning.
Excellent sermon, all said. The trouble is, he gave it as my mind was still reeling from his encouraging the congregation to go to a "No on 8" rally later in the day.
For those of you who do not live in California, Proposition 8 is a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. The argument has grown quite heated, and those groups in favor have resorted to some truly despicable tactics that would make Swift Boat Veterans for Truth blush. Rallies at churches are only the tip of the iceberg. Most obviously, they've been charging that churches would lose tax-exempt status for not performing same-sex marriages (untrue), and that schools will be required to teach them (also untrue, and, besides, are people worried about their kids learning tolerance?).
I won't deny that Leviticus calls for the execution of homosexuals. It also, however, denies women of pretty much all rights and condemns eating quite a few animals that are commonly found on menus today. Some of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy border on ridiculous--for example, if a man has sex with his wife during her period, the couple is to be cut off from society altogether. (This raises the obvious question of how anyone other than the husband and wife could ever know this, once society moved beyond the point where women had to sequester themselves during their period.) There's nothing about homosexuality in the Ten Commandments, nor in the teachings of Jesus. The Law of Leviticus and Deuteronomy was important for its time, and still historically significant to the development of Judeo-Christian beliefs, but it is no longer the law of the land. (If it were, I'd be stoned for marrying a woman of a different ethnic background.)
Homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender identification are not choices anyone makes. Simple common sense should tell us this. Who would ever willingly choose to embrace a lifestyle that, if discovered, has meant until very recently ostracization, or, more likely, death? (Without the promise of an afterlife to make up for it, I mean.) And, if it's a choice, how does one explain gay animals, which don't have the capacity to reason and make such choices?
And, if it's not a choice one makes, it can't be a sin, as sin is contingent upon one's willing disobedience to God. That's my belief. One does not choose their skin color, and, thankfully, our society has finally realized (for the most part) that skin color should be neither a hindrance nor an asset. Hopefully soon we'll realize the same thing about sexual preference.
However, if someone wants to believe it's a choice and a sin, they're free to do so. They are not, under the Constitution of the United States, free to infringe upon another's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If Ellen DeGeneres wants to marry Portia de Rossi, and that's what will make them happy, no one has a right to interfere. It simply does not affect anyone else. Well, except for those who watched Arrested Development and had crushes on Ms. de Rossi, but, hey, did you really think you had a chance anyway?
Our rights as Americans aren't contingent upon everyone else's belief. Regardless of one's own beliefs and feelings on the issue, it is wrong and un-American to strip others of the rights we enjoy. It wasn't right to intern Japanese-Americans during World War II because of where their ancestors were born, it wasn't right to condone and encourage slavery and segregation because of skin color, and it isn't right to take away the legal benefits granted to married couples because they happen to be of the same gender. This isn't a redefinition of marriage as it exists. It isn't an attack on marriage. It's a fight for the rights granted to all Americans by those men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the men and women who have fought to end inequality based on gender and race. Vote for a gay marriage ban and, bluntly, you are voting against the ideals of heroes like Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
You're also voting against the ideals preached by Jesus. This was a man who avoided the religious establishment and hung out with adulteresses, tax collectors, prostitutes, and thieves. He didn't have to agree with them; He saw them as needing love and compassion. Even if one believes that homosexuality is a sin that has to be dealt with by the church, it certainly won't do much good to alienate an entire community from said church.
Jesus said on several occasions that we should give to those in need, and provide for the Lord's work. I agree. That's why I used the money I would've given to the church as offerings for the next month, donating it to the anti-Prop. 8 movement. It may not be much, but if my measly donation helps air one TV spot that sways one person's opinion, it was well spent.
And, besides, if those people and organizations opposed to gay marriage are so concerned with "protecting the sanctity of marriage," then why don't they push to outlaw divorce?
28 October, 2008
Kicking and screaming, into the blogosphere
I always swore I would never do this. Blogs have always seemed to me to be self-indulgent flights of vanity. Even the name "blog" sounds like something the cat hocked up on the floor and that you might step in when you wake up and are walking to the bathroom.
But this past week has made me rethink this idea. True, the name still is an embarrassment to the English lexicon, but the idea of a sort of public diary has grown on me. I've sporadically kept journals in the past, and the content tends to drift toward the deeper questions about existence and the human experience. And, frankly, living in a rural and heavily conservative area as I now do, I miss the long discussions with friends I had in my college days, where two people can disagree (even vehemently so) about issues, but remain civil. (Sadly, the Inland Empire is hardly a bastion of tolerance of even mildly differing viewpoints.)
I wouldn't exactly call it a crisis of faith, per se, but I grow alarmed at the cultural divide in our nation, where those who believe in a higher power increasingly isolate themselves from "mainstream" society, which eliminates a crucial balance for society to hold together. Abraham Lincoln once said that a house divided against itself cannot stand; though this isn't quite what he was referring to, the statement is no less true.
And so, I embark on what may be a fruitful quest, or a waste of time. I can't tell yet. Hopefully, articulating my thoughts on the deep issues of modern society (religion, politics, and pop culture--hey, I didn't say they were deep in anyone's mind but my own) and discussing them will lead to something, if only a better understanding of my own thoughts and beliefs. I plan to once again try to read through the Bible front to back (I've attempted this before, but always get sidetracked somewhere around I Chronicles, though I've read most of the rest in bits and pieces), using this as a sort of contract between myself and anyone reading to do so.
My beliefs aren't quite "normal" for the religious set. I encourage anyone reading to agree or disagree as they see fit. I only ask that anyone responding keep the tone civil; any hateful, obscene, or derogatory comments will be deleted. Disagreement is ultimately a good thing, but it shouldn't lead to anger or insults. For my part, I'll try to update this at least once a day. (And, conversely, update it only once or twice a day. I have a tendency to ramble.)
In case anyone is wondering, I will explain the reasoning behind both the title and the somewhat weird image to your right over the next few days. It's not totally random insanity. (It's calculated insanity.)
Somehow, this post still seems self-indulgent. I suppose an introduction must. Perhaps tomorrow, I can feel less like a jackass tooting my own horn.
But this past week has made me rethink this idea. True, the name still is an embarrassment to the English lexicon, but the idea of a sort of public diary has grown on me. I've sporadically kept journals in the past, and the content tends to drift toward the deeper questions about existence and the human experience. And, frankly, living in a rural and heavily conservative area as I now do, I miss the long discussions with friends I had in my college days, where two people can disagree (even vehemently so) about issues, but remain civil. (Sadly, the Inland Empire is hardly a bastion of tolerance of even mildly differing viewpoints.)
I wouldn't exactly call it a crisis of faith, per se, but I grow alarmed at the cultural divide in our nation, where those who believe in a higher power increasingly isolate themselves from "mainstream" society, which eliminates a crucial balance for society to hold together. Abraham Lincoln once said that a house divided against itself cannot stand; though this isn't quite what he was referring to, the statement is no less true.
And so, I embark on what may be a fruitful quest, or a waste of time. I can't tell yet. Hopefully, articulating my thoughts on the deep issues of modern society (religion, politics, and pop culture--hey, I didn't say they were deep in anyone's mind but my own) and discussing them will lead to something, if only a better understanding of my own thoughts and beliefs. I plan to once again try to read through the Bible front to back (I've attempted this before, but always get sidetracked somewhere around I Chronicles, though I've read most of the rest in bits and pieces), using this as a sort of contract between myself and anyone reading to do so.
My beliefs aren't quite "normal" for the religious set. I encourage anyone reading to agree or disagree as they see fit. I only ask that anyone responding keep the tone civil; any hateful, obscene, or derogatory comments will be deleted. Disagreement is ultimately a good thing, but it shouldn't lead to anger or insults. For my part, I'll try to update this at least once a day. (And, conversely, update it only once or twice a day. I have a tendency to ramble.)
In case anyone is wondering, I will explain the reasoning behind both the title and the somewhat weird image to your right over the next few days. It's not totally random insanity. (It's calculated insanity.)
Somehow, this post still seems self-indulgent. I suppose an introduction must. Perhaps tomorrow, I can feel less like a jackass tooting my own horn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
