The Falwell Conundrum

The post I wrote when Jerry Falwell died presented a bit of a conundrum. I intensely dislike some people, but I'm not much for harboring true hate - especially when the person is no longer around. I heard my mother's admonition to not say bad things about the dead as I tried to find a way of expressing the intense dislike I had for the man.

Some would say the post was too strong, others that it wasn't strong enough and they'd both be right. I didn't unleash the full measure of anger I have, but I also didn't let him off the hook. That's why I settled on the idea that it wasn't my job to judge him. I figured that if he believed in God, a fit dispensation was his God's problem.

When Jerry and the other purveyors of hate take their anti-social positions, they believe they're doing God's work as they see it. I don't think they get up each morning and say, "How can I condemn homosexuals to swimming in an eternal lake of fire." They get up and say, "How can I save homosexuals from swimming in the eternal lake of fire."

Whether you agree their demonization tactics are right, they nevertheless are their convictions. Those convictions - however misplaced I think they are - are what allows Jerry and his ilk to stick to their twisted ideas in the face of damning condemnation from decent people. We usually think of strong convictions as something admirable, but even crapweasels have them and when they do, they're bad for everyone.

From what I know about religion and the opinions of many deeply religious people, the interpretations Jerry made were wrong, but I also acknowledge that the Bible is more metaphorical than precise blueprint. That perception gap is precisely why mankind has fought over religion for eons. The Bible can simultaneously represent everything or nothing depending on a reader's point of view.

I'm an atheist - a "pagan" in Jerry's words - but I can't prove there is no God just as Jerry couldn't prove there is. It all boils down to a subjective choice, based on how we interpret the "evidence" of our beliefs.

Many of Jerry's obituaries were much stronger than mine. Those writers rightfully ascribed to him the injustices he'd perpetrated and felt all that pent up anger burst forth when he died. I agree with the strength of their dislike for the man. People have every right to be pissed off by his saying innocent people caused 9/11 - it pissed me off too. Had he been around, I would have had to fight a powerful urge to take a poke at the despicable simpleton. I can even understand the temptation of many people to "piss on Jerry's grave". Jerry did no worse himself, although I'm sure he would have made it sound a little more socially acceptable.

The man is dead. I'm glad the attacks he launched on decent people will be no more, but I'm not glad he's dead. I would have been equally pleased - and quite shocked - if he'd simply seen the error of his ways and repented in life. I can't see that flogging him after he's gone accomplishes much. I don't think there's an afterlife, so I don't think he's going to hell or heaven. Neither will dying reverse the hate he spewed. There are plenty more bigots where he came from.

So my conundrum is this - what's the best way to show my mighty disagreement with the man without turning myself into the very same hate mongers he was?

I'm still not sure I know the answer.

---

Labels: religion, society

Truth Told by Omnipotent Poobah, Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Jerry Meets St. Peter

Jerry Falwell is dead.

Since 1979, he made his living as the mouthpiece for the Moral Majority - a group which, in my opinion, is neither. From his bully pulpit, he preached the evils of a secular society. Although he resembled your cuddly old uncle, his attacks on those who didn't share his beliefs were legion. To Jerry, the list of dangers to his world was long and varied and he never tired of condemning them.

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America," Falwell said after 9/11. "I point the finger in their face and say you helped this happen."

For the record, I fall into the pagan category and I sympathize with several other enemies of Jerry. But, as far as I can tell, none of us had anything to do with helping 9/11 happen, his holy middle finger notwithstanding.

To Jerry, no enemy was too small. Teletubbies were plush toys del diablo, hell-bent on homosexualizing kids. AIDS victims were experiencing, "the wrath of a just God against homosexuals." Believing in Darwinism put you in the express line to hell and the UN was creating a global, "cashless society" that was a harbinger of the rapture.

Who knew God didn't want Visa to be everywhere he wanted to be?

Even though I'm atheist, I've always believed that if there is a God, He would be the just, benevolent, and tolerant spirit I learned about on my Mother's knee. I grew up listening to Falwell dominate Sunday morning with his Old Time Gospel Hour. I've heard him deliver hundreds of sermons and screeds - nearly all of them filled with some level of hate against his fellow men. And, I've always wondered what judgment St. Peter would deliver when old Jerry came a-knockin' on the pearly gates.

My guess is the Big Guy might want to talk to him dio a mano about what a complete ass he's been during his time on Earth. I'd imagine that God might be a little curious as to how Jerry could pervert His message so completely and then have the audacity to shield himself with God's book and wrap himself in God's cloak of righteousness. Since I'm an atheist who doesn't believe in heaven and hell, I have no dog in this hunt, but I still wonder about where Jerry will end up.

I think I know the answer.

---

Labels: religion

Truth Told by Omnipotent Poobah, Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Theocratic Street Gangs

Today's post is in support of the Blogs Against Theocracy blogswarm. Let your voice be heard. Visit First Freedom First for more on this important topic.

---

One of the many reasons Europeans came to the New World was for freedom of religion. They fled a theocratic world for one that didn't clash with their own beliefs. Facing a dangerous new world, rather than succumb to another religion, was a brave statement and their example is a cautionary tale of what can happen when religion and government merge.

History is full of theocracies. In nearly all of them, a single sect emerged and consolidated their power to the exclusion of non-believers. This consolidation often resulted in decidedly undivine acts. Non-believers where often enslaved or killed. The luckiest were merely subsumed into a belief system they did not share - a familiar story to the pilgrims of the New World.

Theocracies as Perpetrators of Wrong

Theocracies perpetrated the wrongs and justified them as a divine right bestowed by their God whom they exalted above all others. For centuries, persecutors and the persecutees looked at this behavior as solely a religious divide. But, there's a sociological reason as well - people like belonging to a group. They may lack self-confidence and seek inner strength to help them navigate a cold world. They may join to avoid persecution at the hands of another group. Some seek group wisdom as a way to explain the vagaries of an unknowable universe. And some just have a vague feeling of wanting to belong - after all, everyone needs a little fellowship.

But, if we strip away the theological trappings for a moment, there is a modern-day parallel from an unlikely place - street gangs.

Bloods and Crips

Gangs offer protection from non-believers, the psychological comfort and inner strength of belonging, and a belief system that helps them deal with the vagaries of their often violent and capricious world. Gangs attack each other in the firm belief they have the right to kill or enslave others before others kill or enslave them. Like a religion, they work tirelessly to fatten up their membership - a sort of mid-growth power grab they hope leaves them the ultimate masters of their dysfunctional block of the universe.

Many religious people in favor of theocracies will find this insulting. They cling tightly to their concept of right makes might because they believe in a supreme God. However, even that argument is on shaky ground. People choose to follow a belief system - even if they believe the "choice" emanates from their God. That's why there are so many competing religions. In this way, Christians and Muslims aren't much different than Bloods and Crips. One serves a particular God, while others worship at the gangsta rap altar of inner city violence.

I choose to be an atheist, but I have no interest in banishing religion. If I did, I'd favor a belief system just as dangerous as a theocracy. I believe in an openness that is anathema to the core values of a theocracy. I choose to view holy books as good literature with handy rules for living a good life. My belief system allows me to follow the moral principles of a Bible or a Koran without the slightest tinge of hypocrisy. My moral values are basically the same as the religious, I just believe they emanate from man rather than God. I don't need a theocracy to tell me which book to read and how I should feel about it.

Theocracies Run Amok Threaten Everyone

Theocracies are a human construct. At their most benevolent, they offer the chance for people of the same beliefs to harness their combined power and do the good will of their chosen God. But the dividing line between benevolent and evil is a fuzzy, subjective one. So fuzzy, in fact, that even devout practitioners can be blind to stepping over to the dark side. Left to their own devices, theocracies can easily spin out of control - as can unchecked atheism.

Humans are at the top of the food chain. We are smarter, more adaptable, and more powerful than any other species on the planet. However, we're all fallible. If there is a God, I believe that He/She/It would be against theocracy. If God did create the basic, shared tenets of most religions, I believe He'd prefer followers who chose to follow them rather than those compelled by a human construct to buckle under the weight of a monotheistic theocracy.

I'd advise theocratic proponents to give their God more credit. If He is as an all-seeing and knowing good guy, He should be able to create an organizing principle much more elegant and inclusive than a myopic theocracy led by a few people with pretensions to the divine and a thirst for banishing all those who disagree.

I think your God demands it.

---

Labels: politics, religion

Truth Told by Omnipotent Poobah, Saturday, April 07, 2007

A Bible Story

A recent Time magazine cover story raised some interesting questions about the role of the Bible in public education. Although the article wasn't nearly as skeptical as I would have liked, the premise was interesting - the Bible might be a valuable teaching tool offering valuable insight into why our society is the way it is and why understanding those issues is worthwhile for budding adults.

Although teaching the Bible has been adopted by several public school boards across the country, the story largely focuses on an evangelical Oklahoma religion teacher. Comments from the teacher and her students - including some non-Christians - indicate she is relatively neutral, presenting the Bible as a starting point for discussion and open to other points of view, even those she doesn't personally agree with. While I applaud the teacher for her intellectual honesty, using the Bible as an educational tool is still bothersome. Many committed atheists - including me - agree that fostering understanding between the religious and irreligious isn't a bad thing. But, there are many problems with no easy answers.

What About Everyone Else?

While teaching the Bible may indeed foster more discussion and better communications between Christians and non-Christians, it does so in a particularly limited way. The singular focus on Christianity tends to exclude other points of view - Judeo, Islamic, atheistic - no one is presenting their take on the world. If Christianity has much to offer, the same is true for other belief systems. The Bible is a rich work of literature and includes many common sense recommendations for daily living, but so do other religious and irreligious belief systems. The question becomes, what makes the Bible the chosen text?

Many Christians argue that American culture flowed directly from the Christian cultures in Europe. Many of our national trappings - from the Constitution to our money - contain explicit and implicit Christian references and some believe this is what makes the Bible "special". The country didn't start from a base of Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists, but from Christian sects - primarily protestant - that fled Europe to escape persecution. That much is true, but that argument doesn't address the rich native American religions already here, nor the diversification of religion since. We may still be a "Christian" nation, but that's a rapidly changing condition that suggests the Bible may not be the universal religious text needed for the job of fostering religious understanding.

Trust Is An Issue

Quite frankly, there is an issue of trust too. Over the past decade, evangelical Christians have become more vocal in evangelizing the public square. From bogus Wars on Christmas to hanging the Ten Commandments in every courthouse, they believe the country is literally going to hell in a handbasket and God has chosen them to save us all. In the process, they trample the religious views of those who don't believe in hell as well as those who picture a God that happens to be different than theirs. This work isn't done in the spirit of understanding, but as a different - although no less virulent - strain of religious persecution their forefathers fled centuries ago. However, denigrating religion as the universal province of the weak and stupid is every bit as wrong as imposing a personal religious belief system on others and that doesn't help.

The core issue - as is usually true - is not whether the Bible contains useful knowledge or fosters open discussion (it obviously does), it's about people believing their way is the only way and being too pigheaded to back down. If our society was as truly inclusive as we like to think, bringing a Bible into class for a rational, sociological discussion would be a no-brainer. So would a discussion on the merits of Islam. So would enlightening others on the benefits of atheism. But, we don't live in that society. We live in one where distrust, anger, and stubborn pride rules. In many ways, it's no more advanced than in the days Christians believed Jesus walked the earth. All religions - and atheists too - have much to learn and change. As things stand now, using the Bible as a teaching tool has some promise, but until these thorny problems are addressed, it's just promise, not reality. Regardless of what you believe, we're just not ready yet.

Unfortunately, that's part of what makes us human.

---

Labels: politics, religion, society

Truth Told by Omnipotent Poobah, Thursday, March 29, 2007

In the Beginning...

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"...and then quarrelsome humans created religion. Death and pestilence then did descend upon the earth.

---

The briefest of CNN glimpses or shortest of WaPo articles shows the awesome power of religion. Even before the Romans tried to ethnically cleanse the Jews, religious wars had already riven mankind for centuries. Today, the deeply religious continue that inglorious tradition as Shia fight Sunni or a hundred other pairings pit religion against religion or sect against sect.

Oddly, many of these wars aren't even about who's God is most divine, but about who's mortal prophet preached the most charismatic dogma. So strong is the urge to fight that even progressive religions bog down under the crowns of thorns and heavy crosses of Wars on Christmas or whether "faggots" should be stoned.

The Meek and the Zealous

One could rightfully argue that religions have bestowed much compassion and comfort throughout history. Even amongst the wars wrought by their fellow sectarians, most rise above the hate and show the true light of their beliefs. There are many more adherents to these tenets than the tenets of their violent brethren, but the violent are better armed and infinitely and bloodily more persistent than the meek. It may be true that the meek shall inherit the earth, but that inheritance is a long time in coming and coupled with a horrific cost.

I consider these arguments this morning because my daughter - the child of an atheist and an agnostic - is going to church. We've always treated her with respect in matters of religion. From a very young age, we've answered her religious questions as truthfully as we could, absent as much bias as we could manage. Our parental belief is that she should chose her own path, armed with the best knowledge we can provide.

Off to Church

So, she's off this morning to the neighborhood mega-church accompanied by several friends. It's the cool church, the one with a band and gleeful singing and a minimum of sermonizing and prayer - light on the fire and brimstone, heavy on the fun. It's where many of her suburban friends go - a safe place where they socialize and escape their tumultuous teenage years for a few hours in relative comfort.

Despite her recent interest in religion, I suspect it's more curiosity than a religious awakening. She asks intelligent questions and weighs the responses with a maturity far beyond her 17 years. In the end, I'm not sure she'll be convinced of God or absorbed into a religion, but if she is, that's OK with me. She's a young adult and free to make her own choices - just as I did after spending years in the church before embracing atheism.

My only hope is that whatever path she chooses, she'll retain the calm rationality we've tried to teach. It serves no one if she falls into the trap of warring over theocratic technicalities. If she does, I'll feel as though I've lost the war. I'll still love her. I'll still support her. But, I'll feel like any parent sending a child off to war - anxious and worried for her safety. It doesn't much matter to me if she's in the military or becomes a militant. What will matter is how I failed to enlist her in one of the types of wars I can readily get behind - the war of rationality over ignorance and tolerance over intolerance.

And, that's just too important a war to lose.

---

Labels: politics, religion

Truth Told by Omnipotent Poobah, Sunday, March 18, 2007

Creationism v. Evolution, You're Both Right

Hi kids, this is God again.

I know some of you expect me to speak through priests or Pat Robertson, but I don't trust those guys. They're always cooking up some kookie shit to make a buck. I know some of you expect me to communicate a little more formally - a little more fire and brimstonish, if you will - than via blogging. But, I try to keep up with the new technology (I even have an iPod loaded with Gregorian chants and gangsta rap...illegal downloads if you must know, but that's between you and me) and I like the personal touch of blogging.

With all this bickering over Creationism and Darwinism I thought it might be useful for me to explain a few things - after all, I am the one who got the ball rolling.

I hate to break it to you Darwinists out there, but the earth really is 10,000 years old - 10,227 years old for those craving exactness. I made it one day when I was bored and needed a hobby. And boy, it's been a real hoot over the years - except for that war thing. That one got a little out of hand. My bad. But, the cat's out of the bag now, so I suppose I'll just let it run it's course.

However, all you fish people (what's up with that? I HATE fish!) don't break out the champagne quite yet. You guessed right about the age thing, but see, I played a little trick on you. That Adam dude? Pure bunk. There was no Garden of Eden, only a small flat in the Castro and the first guy was named Chuck, Chuck Darwin.

Chuck was a pretty smart fella. He ate an apple - the tasty kind, plucked from a tree and not given to him by a snake - I can't BELIEVE you fell for that, snakes don't even have thumbs - and was immediately able to figure out that whole evolution thing. He got it right the first time. You should see this dude rip up a Rubik's Cube^TM or do a little sudoku. Ab-so-frickin' brilliant.

Some of you might ask, "what about those dinosaur bones, aren't they more than 10,000 years old?" That's true enough, but I borrowed the bones from a planet called Rigel 9 and salted a couple of places as a red herring to throw Chuck off the scent. Damn guy figured it out though, so we had a talk and he agreed to keep it a secret and make up a plausible cover story.

Oh, and what about Eve? Well frankly, there was no Eve. Chuck was gay and married to some trash-talking dude by the name of Haggard. Not one of Chuck's best moves. He was brilliant about the sciences, but the poor bastard never could find the right guy. You know what they say about looking for love in all the wrong places. No, women came a little later. The first one was named Marjorie. She was a cute little chippy, but kind of an airhead. I improved the models later. I never could teach them to read a map, but at least they stop and ask directions, so I guess it isn't so bad.

So there you have it. You're both right. If you want to know more, you can contact Ann Landers and ask for my pamphlet, "The Earth and You - An Owner's Guide". Just include a stamped, self addressed envelope and $3.95. You'll receive your pamphlet within seven days and if you act now, I'll throw in a set of cheap knives and spray on hair (that Ron Popeil is one crazy dude too).

OK, now will all of you just hug and make up (and Dobson, let go off that chick's ass!)? Having you guys bicker all the time is a real buzz kill. If you keep it up, you'll ruin a perfectly good hobby. And, I'm not a happy camper when I don't get my way.


Ecumenically Yours,
God

---

Labels: humor, religion

Truth Told by Omnipotent Poobah, Sunday, March 11, 2007

Marriage Market Plummets, Gays Fingered

Our national debate over gay marriage rages on. I'm a live and let give kinda guy, so my position is that I don't see what all the hubbub is about. I think it's pretty clear why the gay community wants it. They view themselves as full citizens of this country and believe they should have the same rights and responsibilities everyone else. They aren't asking people to like them, they're just asking they be allowed to do what heterosexuals do every day.

I've listened to the counter-arguments. I fully accept that many people find homosexuality wrong and don't want to associate with gays. That's their right, although they're probably missing out on some bitchin' home decorating tips and mouthwatering umbrella drinks. Like I said, I'm a live and let live kinda guy...who just happens to love umbrella drinks.

Bibles Under Lesbian Noses

As far as I know, we aren't a theocracy yet, so at least - in theory - shaking a Bible under a lesbian's nose and screaming repent ye sinner doesn't seem very rational. Our society is supposed to be built on the idea of equality and fairness and part of that compact includes rationally determining which parts of a given situation are unfair.

Perhaps I missed it amongst all the Anna Nicole Smith coverage, but I don't believe I've heard a rational discussion of how making gay marriage legal deprives anyone of their rights. The oft-repeated chestnut goes something like, "gay marriage devalues heterosexual marriage".

I guess my question is, "how much is marriage per pound"? If someone buys a pound and you have no part in the transaction, how does your pound lose value? Is your marriage account somehow overdrawn by this transaction? Does someone come and take your pound of marriage away and give it to someone else? If one of your neighbors divorces several times (i.e., they bought waaaay more pounds of marriage than they could use), should you ban them from commodity trading on the marriage market?

Lesbian Cat on Transsexual Dog Marriage

Rick Santorum's answer seems a bit far-fetched - unless Rick really is in the closet and lusting after Barney Bush. He's apparently a closeted PETA member because he suggested that if we allow gays to marry, the floodgates will open to donkey on man marriage or lesbian cat on transsexual dog marriage. Those pets need to be protected I'm sure and I love the doggies as much as the next guy, but I don't recall a picket line of pooches camped out at the state house howling for marriage rights.

I also don't recall campaigns to ban marriage for sinful, crackhead, reformed gay preachers named Ted Haggard. There aren't any bans against Jew/gentile, democrat/republican, or conservative/neocon marriage (although I might be persuaded to support that last one).

What is it about gay marriage that's more egregious than any other paring of two human beings? I mean, I don't like republicans marrying republicans. All that dirty, pent up lust results in a plethora of mini-republicans and that can surely lead to no good. But, I'm not yelping for a constitutional amendment to ban it. The thought of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh en flagrante delicto gives me the heebie-jeebies, but I defend their right to form an unholy union - I just need a long shower and a stiff drink before I can take that on.

Some argue that current law doesn't provide for it so we must automatically reject it. Well, there are stupid and offensive asshats in society too, but I'm not agitating to outlaw them - though, again, I'm open to discussions.

Asshats for Dummies

Really, I don't get this one. Perhaps one of my conservative brethren could bring me the light. Raise me up from the depths of sin. Make me a true believer that somehow gay marriage is so hurtful to me that I'd join their good fight and try to smite the Godless bastards. Hallelujah!

At this point I should say, "so help me God", but I don't believe in him either and swearing on my Right Wing Asshats for Dummies book somehow devalues swearing on books altogether.

I'm just really moral that way.

---

Labels: humor, politics, religion, sexuality

Truth Told by Omnipotent Poobah, Thursday, March 08, 2007