Quote of the day

From the Associated Baptist Press website:

"And, frighteningly, Christians seem at the very least to be as susceptible as the population at large to the habit of spreading false stories."

Read the full story HERE.

Gotta Love Those Fundamentalists.

I find it a bit of a shame how fundamentalists and other scallywags have perverted the meaning of the New Testament. I’m not saying that I particularly buy into the worldview of this famous tome, but I’m not willing to discount whatever lessons can be gleaned from it just because some freakishly empty robots want to fight over it.

It’s especially ironic that folks who would spend time memorizing quotes from the gospels are so resistant to doing even a modicum of research that would help provide context and deeper understanding. How many people have ever heard of the Council of Nicea? Constantinople convened it in 325C.E. I can’t claim to be anything near an expert on this topic, but I am aware of certain details that compel my attention.

The official record seems to suggest that the sun-worshipping Emperor was making a sincere attempt at achieving a consensus of opinion of all Christendom. It might not surprise you that I find this interpretation impossible. Constantinople was most concerned with consolidating the empire. A means of social control was necessary for the continuing influence of the Roman leaders.

Christianity ceased to be something that could possibly attain consensus when Jesus Christ died. As soon as he wasn’t there to speak for himself and answer questions, varying interpretations of his meaning arose out of the individual personalities that had encountered him. Eventually all types of people that had never even seen him alive began to hold forth on the subject. Did you ever play the “telephone game” in elementary school? There you go.

So a bunch of influential priests and power brokers sat around a table three hundred years after Christ, and decided to arbitrarily designate some “truths”. They summarized their conclusions in the Nicene Creed. One of the differences of opinion represented at the Council included whether or not Jesus was the literal “son of God” rather than a figurative one. That alone should give the fundamentalists pause.

Don't get it in my eye...

Today is "Ash Wednesday", the observation day for a ritual that has always (quite frankly) freaked me out. It's easy to wonder why folks would want to walk around with the residue of ashes on their foreheads, especially when it is applied to make the sign of a long-past sacrifice. That in itself speaks to the mystery of our modern condition. So many people venerate a symbol of capital punishment. But this wasn't just any execution, was it? This brand represents the material death of a figure that many people now consider their savior. This is a puzzle that you can unravel to expose a chain of associations that stretches to infinity. Still, I think it's important to take a step back and think about it all pragmatically.

This day kicks off Lent, a period of abstinence that ends on Easter, which brings about the symbolic return of the aforementioned savior. This resurrection (if you will) marks the official formation of "the Church". But that's getting ahead of ourselves. The essential question is, "Why celebrate the death on Earth of a righteous man, condemned for others' sins, and made to suffer agonies that are ironically referred to as 'The Passion'?" It kind of sets a precedent for a society built upon obliteration. The historical Jesus is said to have performed many miracles before meeting his end at the age of 33 (?)... imagine what he might have done if he had lived to a ripe old age.

If The Christ could turn water into wine by his early 30's, think about the wondrous tricks he could have performed in "middle age". Perhaps he could have written his own books instead of having his followers (many of whom had never even met him) do it for him. We can only imagine that Word made flesh. Yet that wouldn't have suited the narrative. His public demise was necessary as an instrument of control for all of those who lived in his midst. People needed to learn to atone for their indulgences. What would you have done with a man who made folks aware that they were already part of "God"? That's way too empowering for the flock- better a dead shepherd than a liberator, right?

Now we are told that a "Day of Reckoning" is at hand. We will all have our turn to be judged. However, we won't be evaluated based upon our Earthly deeds. "Our Father" will determine our fealty to the message. Did Jesus die for you? Was his agony on that cross necessary to cleanse you of your "sin" (never mind if it is sufficient, because that's an entirely different subject)? Can you get a pass that easily? Today you will see lots of people who believe that they can. Their foreheads will be marked quite conspicuously. They'll make a concerted effort not to eat meat on Fridays, or they'll quit looking at porn, or make some other kind of great sacrifice. This will signify their awareness of the "need for redemption".

Anyway... it's all very strange in a mytho-poetical way. I only have the vaguest recollections of all of this ritualized behavior. I suppose that the faithful line up in front of the proxy (or priest, minister, and/or pastor) to be blessed with the charred remains of year-old palm leaves. This all sounds shamanic to me. There are certainly pre-historical antecedents for this type of behavior. But even more bizarre is the addition of "Oil of the Catechumens" to the ashy mix. What is it and what's with it? A "catechumen" is someone who is undergoing preparation to be baptized. At least that's what Wikipedia says. Yet I can't for the life of me figure out what the oil is made out of, or made from*. It's another mystery.


* Besides olive oil... that much I could find out.

Speak of the Devil.

I've been thinking lately of the Devil. There are many names for what I am referring to and I'd like to make it clear exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not necessarily speaking of the "Anti-God" so present in the conception of many Christians. My subject here is not one who presides over a mystical place of eternal damnation featuring a "lake of fire". In fact I'm not interested in any "otherworldy phenomenon", but rather in the moral calculus of our own earthly existence. If something akin to "evil" exists, then there must somewhere live the embodiment of that quality, or at least the single individual that represents its greatest accumulation. This creature would be the best candidate for the position of "the Devil".

At heart I am a relativist. I tend to discount broad and sweeping terms, and the words "good" and "evil" are examples of the type that tend to create what I consider "false dichotomies". But perhaps they serve as useful shorthand for the effects that the actions of certain people have on others. Certainly many agree that someone like Adolf Hitler fits the common definition of "evil", regardless of the reality that the memory of his deeds are still honored by his philosophical heirs. Similarly, a majority of folks who are familiar with the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. consider him a paragon of "the good", yet there are still those who resent the things that he did to permanently change society.

Still there is likely a greater proportion of humanity that puts stock in these categorizations than rejects them. Some believe that "evil" and "good" exist outside the human mind in an objective sense, and work as external forces that possess people. They are somehow beyond the everyday decisions and actions that individuals choose. Others think that these are traits that manifest themselves in the "heart" and/or brain. Obviously this introduces a factor of subjectivity into the moral equation. Furthermore, there is a minority that views these things as more of an allegory. Maybe they aren't willing to commit to the absolute existence of "good" and "evil", but they find them useful labels in describing the choices that people make.

I think the best case for the existence of "evil" is the violation of consensuality. But that's not necessarily within the purview of this particular post, so I won't expand on it. Often "the Devil" takes the physical form of temptation. Someone who is a "bad influence" can be referred to as "the Devil". He/she may try to persuade the individual to do things that he/she believes that they should not do, even though they may want to. I see this as a cop-out. This type of externalization seems like a convenient justification for all manner of misbehavior. The desire to act out obviously manifests itself internally. If you don't have the desire to engage in whatever you define as "sin", then there's no reason to carry it out.

To me, the most intriguing form of "The Devil" is more of a poetic representation. This is an archetype that has found its expression in arts and letters. One notable embodiment of this specter is Dr. Faustus. This is "The Devil" that you make a deal with to get something at the expense of your soul. In this story, "The Devil" is a type of bogeyman who serves as the ultimate heavy in a cautionary tale. He makes you face the truth, and exposes what you are willing to give up to realize your most self-interested dreams. And for this he extracts a terrible price. In giving up the core of your ethics, you merge with "evil" itself. The game is over, and any distinctions melt away. You have become the symbol of your darkest urges.

What is "Informed Faith"?

One of the things I particularly enjoy and appreciate about my circle of friends (and I'm fortunate enough to have a wide circle of them) is the level of conversation that often occurs, even when we are all kicking back on a weekend night. This past Friday was specifically enlightening as our banter turned to the issue of faith. Given the turn our nation has taken over the last decade or so, faith is a concept that has increasingly assumed a level of pejorative association among certain quarters of society. The reactionary turning toward fundamentalism has turned a lot of people away from the idea. I suppose that this issue isn't specifically contained to the US, but has rather become an international crisis.

Taking into account that context, it's not surprising that someone I would respect would lump all forms of faith together under the same banner, and ridicule all and sundry adherents. Yet I think that this type of generalization can lead to a narrowing of an important dialog. I've come to believe in a wide variegation of attitudes, definitions, and approaches to faith. I've been trending this way for a while, but it's mostly been at a subconscious or an intuitive level. I have to give a shout-out here to J.C. Hallman and (as an extension) William James for helping lead me to the language necessary for framing my thoughts. Ultimately truth is a function of an individual's perspective of the consequences of his/her actions.

As a starting point I'd like to suggest that there is a simplistic but substantial difference between "Faith" and faith. The former entails the fundamentalist variety I mentioned earlier. In the case of "Faith", the individual formation of ideals isn't as important as the level of commitment one brings to them. One determines his/her "Faithfulness" according to how rarely (s)he questions his/her belief system. The individual earns his/her identity with acceptance bred from a revocation of rationality. In fact this is belief beyond reason (in a Kierkegaardian "leap of faith" sense). All of this is well understood and sounds almost cliché to the postmodern reader. I realize that I'm not expressing anything particularly revelatory by spelling this out.

But at the same time, those who embrace a form of pure rational scientific thought seem to be missing a crucial piece of the puzzle... for there is a level of faith involved in the paradigm of cause-and-effect as well. I believe that there are many people that never consciously acknowledge this proposition. The very nature of the empirical sciences entails a quality of mystery. We form our questions about our external reality, and then we seek to study them under certain controlled conditions to isolate a chain of causality. That's all well-and-good. However I think some folks tend to misrepresent the conclusions of such experiments as "ultimate answers".

Even if we have ample scientific data concerning specific phenomena, we still rely on a level of speculation that requires a degree of faith to help us guide our decisions. As soon as we anticipate a time beyond the present, we are unavoidably engaging in the practice of faith, no matter how informed (or alternatively misinformed) our expectations are. So I'm a bit uncomfortable when someone discounts faith outright. We may be able to apply a statistical analysis to a problem (and of course that system itself is vulnerable to a wide range of manipulations), but our understanding is still limited by the constructs of prior experience (and received preconceptions). Just as Eskimos have an expanded language to communicate the different forms of snow, I think we have to honor the idiosyncrasies of "faith".

J.C. Hallman, "The Devil is a Gentleman" (2006).

Last year I reached my reading target in May, and by June I had consumed 50 books. I felt pretty certain that I would set a personal record with my annual total. However, I got complacent and limped along to the end of the year, largely neglecting anyone's written words but my own. Being largely a creature of habit, I have allowed that lack of forward momentum to infect this first month of 2009 as well. I intend to turn this around, and acknowledge that it is going to be hard work doing so. Falling out of the practice of daily reading has made me slow. It doesn't necessarily help that I've made a couple selections of rather dense material so far. One such title is J.C. Hallman's The Devil is a Gentleman.

The intellectual center of The Devil is a Gentleman is made up from observations the author made about the life and work of philosopher, psychologist and writer William James. This eminent scholar has been the focus of much study over the last century, and Hallman wisely forgoes an in depth analysis of his work. Instead he concentrates on presenting a skeleton account of James' life, along with a smattering of his more important ideas and thoughts. Ultimately Hallman is compelled most by the accounts of observations that James compiled in The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902). The fact that it's so hard to identify this great man's ultimate conclusions allows the reader to personally identify with various facets of his journey.

This ambiguity inspired Hallman's own personal quest of "seeking". Today's world presents just as many opportunities to study man's relationship with god as existed in the era of William James. If you scratch the surface, you will find no end to the strange assortment of approaches to spirituality lying just beneath society's orthodox veneer. Hallman travels to Southern California on a pilgrimage to the site of the Heaven's Gate suicides and tries to interview the neighbors. Finding a predictable resistance, he broadens his exploration of the area by visiting an extant UFO cargo cult. He thus establishes a baseline of weirdness for what follows throughout his book. The insights he constructs are often as fascinating as the individual tales he unearths.

In my opinion, one of Hallman's keys to success is found in his open minded attitude toward what many Americans would consider disturbing and confounding takes on faith. It's manifestly apparent that Hallman wanted to engage the objects of his study on their own terms. This strategy allows him a level of access that many writers would preclude due to their own preconceptions. Instead we get to be present alongside Hallman when he attends the bible study of a group of "Born Again" Christian professional wrestlers who seek to transform souls through their performances. He also participates in a Wiccan ritual and a Satanic "Black Mass". He even takes a Scientology Training course.

Alongside these perambulations (and those of William James), Hallman includes lots of contextual information and historical data about the religious groups he interacts with. The stories of the founders of many of these odd belief systems provide some of the most interesting higlights of The Devil is a Gentleman. Who knew that there was an Atheist community dedicated to the support of non-believers? For that matter, who imagined a group of neo-Pagans holding their convention in a casino? Ultimately though, the concise descriptions about Jamesian "Pragmatism" are likely to stick with me the longest. For years I've always considered the outcomes of belief more important than their rationalizations or origins. I just didn't realize that there was a name for that perpsective.

Frederic Baumgartner, "Longing for the End" (1999).

Last week I mentioned that I was reading a book about millenialism (or millenarianism, which is a synonym), called Longing for the End. Frankly, I often found myself in sympathy with the book's title- not because I wasn't interested in its subject, but rather because of the author's exceedingly dry style. Frederic Baumgartner knows his stuff, however I wouldn't characterize him as a particularly adept storyteller. While that wasn't enough to make me put his work down before I finished it, I was certainly tempted to do so on a few occasions. In Baumgartner's defense, I had a lot on my plate while making my way through this modestly-sized book. Still, with the nature of the subject, it could have been a lot more captivating.

Longing for the End starts with a glossary (this probably should have been a red flag) that lists all kinds of words having to do with apocalyptic end-times. Some of my favorites were "parousia" (a Greek word meaning "coming", specifically referring to Christ's return) and "chiliasm" (Greek for "one thousand", used to denote the belief that the savior's thousand year reign on earth is imminent, and that violence is necessary to expedite his arrival). These were appropriate words to seize upon, as Baumgartner's chosen task was to detail the history of eschatology within Western civilization. Obviously the "end of the world" is closely tied to the future activities of God and Jesus within our society.

I was amazed by the length and breadth of this tradition. Since the beginning of recorded history, the faithful have been busy anticipating the wholesale destruction of life as they knew it. This makes an odd sort of sense, because religious adherents are drawn to the idea that the world should be made over in the image of their god(s). If they were satisfied with the status quo, they likely would not be drawn to worship the heavens. In order to get there, some process must be put into play that brings about the massive changes required. There's a quality of desperation in the fanatical that prohibits an embrace of incrementalism. It's really an all-or-nothing proposition. These folks do not work within the system.

I find it interesting that believers invest much more time imagining the exact qualities of the period leading up to salvation than the conditions they expect to be rewarded with once it has passed. Most millennial thinkers are vague about what "paradise" will look like once all the sinners have been removed by fire. Perhaps there is just something infinitely more compelling about suffering. After all, it isn't that interesting to describe complete satisfaction and bliss. Humans are more interested in the horrific specifics of revenge and hell. The tribulations that many predict to precede the savior (as outlined most notably in the Biblical book of Revelations, with its accompanying wars and holocausts) are often lovingly described. I guess it's like staring at a fatal accident- one can't look away.

There were plenty of formulations and figures within Longing for the End that I'd be interested in learning more about. Baumgartner's volume is a survey, and many of the passionate personalities he wrote about were sketched briefly and with little detail. I'd like to explore the story of John Nelson Darby, who the author identifies as the founder of the modern fundamentalist evangelical millenarian movement. It would also be interesting to hear more about the human scale of these influences. What was it like to be a follower of a prophet that turned out to be essentially mistaken? How did devotees process their disappointments? I'm feeling a further compulsion to dig deeper into modern-day parallels. Perhaps I'll have time before the apocalypse arrives.

The Faithful, The Damned, and The Hip.

Are you stumped about what to get that idiosyncratic relative for the holidays? Do you know someone who has everything, and therefore leaves you puzzling over an appropriate gift every year? Maybe you should consider the spirit of the season and buy a bible. Sure, it's likely that everyone who wants one already has his/her needs covered. But how about the folks who have never seen the need? Remember, this famous book isn't just about personal faith, but also about lifestyle, politics, and history. You wouldn't be the first person in America to believe that the Bible is irrelevant, only to find that it snuck up behind you and bit your ass. Its words lurk in some truly odd places, including courthouses throughout the Deep South.

Why should you be the one person taken by surprise when the holy word rears its awesome head? Perhaps you've tried and cannot find any personal connection to it. After all, it was ostensibly written a couple thousand years ago (more or less). Who's to say that it isn't completely outdated? It could be that you've already tried to read it, and got stuck in that infamous early section where it starts tracing the lineage from Adam and Eve. That's understandable. Only a fanatic would be compelled to keep scanning those lines. In today's world, it seems that we only have time to devote to pursuits that directly affect us, or we're simply looking for mindless escapism. What's a truth seeker to do?

Fortunately for us modern sophisticates, others have anticipated our difficulty relating to the Old and New Testaments. King James got the ball rolling for many a contemporary reader, and other sects have since published their own versions. I've heard that you can even find an edition written in inner city slang. And why not? In this day and age you have to consider marketing demographics. Take for instance The Green Bible. After a hard day pounding metal chips into trees in our great forests, or ripping apart those plastic rings that hold together our six packs of Pabst, some among us may feel the need for some spiritual sustenance. But we want it in our language. Thus the need for an environmentally aware scripture.

The folks responsible for The Green Bible put it quite succinctly- "With over 1,000 references to the earth in the Bible, compared to 490 references to heaven and 530 references to love, the Bible carries a powerful message for the earth." After all, it is a numbers game, isn't it? This effort is dedicated to facilitating the growing "creation care" segment of evangelicals. Its editors have taken the helpful measure of highlighting (in green) the passages that may tie into environmentalism. While it may seem like an invitation to strange bedfellows, I'm happy to see publishers branch out. Anymore, one need not be a pagan to care about the biosystem. If you're not going to turn to science, what other options do you have?

And then there's Dag Söderberg, "project leader" for the glossy Swedish periodical, “Bible Illuminated, Gamla Testament: The Book.” He's created a magazine, aimed at the masses who are more likely to flip through a monthly left lying open on the coffee table. Söderberg and company have "sexed up" the Bible, breaking it up into easily-digested parts, and placing provocative images throughout. Luckily for those of us who are constrained to the English language, there are plans for a translation. There's even going to be a sequel... the New Testament is due to come out soon as well. Who says hipsters can't get down with the Holy Spirit? The Bible is not just for hypocritical fundamentalists anymore!

The Stuff of Dreams.

We are now several weeks into the President-Elect's administration. Doesn't that sound exceptionally weird? This is the first time in my experience that a newly-elected executive seems like the head of state a full two months before officially assuming office. When Clinton was in his last months, I remember people dreading his departure. No doubt that had much to do with the fact that the 2000 election was contested, and it wasn't clear who Clinton's replacement would be. A lot of folks certainly had a bad feeling about the idea of another Bush in office. Still I think few had any idea just how disastrous his first term would be. Anyway, there is a wide consensus that it's a good thing he's leaving.

I feel entitled to a couple of months of self-delusion. Can't I simply bask in the dream that we will be put back on a brighter path? Actually, the answer seems to be a resounding "No"! Despite the impression I have of Barack Obama as a resourceful and thoughtful man, if I'm really honest with myself, I have to realize that the problems are almost incomprehensibly vast. The economy is tanking, and the fed is "injecting" so much additional currency into the system that it will almost certainly overdose. This is a paradigm shift. After 9-11 we were promised that "the nation will never be the same again". I think that might have been overstated at the time, but it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Every time I consider the trillions of dollars that our government is spending to forestall the greatest crash in US history, I get that much more sick to my stomach. How could anyone have a plan to help us escape the mess? It appears that the best we can hope for is to reassure foreign investors that the entire edifice isn't built on a pile of shit and wishes. How long can we fool the rest of the world? If we are successful at this task for another few years, what are the chances that we will correct our course in the interim? Perhaps the essential human flaw comes down to a limited perspective at the core of our beings. It doesn't seem like foresight is an essentially well-developed quality of mankind. Nobody really wants to suffer for a better future.

The only thing I can do for a break is to let my cultural obsessions overcome my political ones. I need to distract myself (if only for a bit) for the sake of my own sanity and health. I promise that I won't let it go on too long, as that would mean I'm only contributing to another fundamental problem within our populace. But I feel like I deserve it. So I'm spending more time reading a book about the history of millenarian thought, with a special focus on Judeo-Christian traditions. If you're not aware of this theme, I would describe it in very simplistic terms as a belief that the world is coming to an end, and the accompanying concern with the details surrounding preparation for, and the significance of, Armageddon. If you are still unclear about the subject, have a look at the Biblical Book of Revelations as a reference point.

I'm aware of the irony of my choice. Why would I feel like turning to this type of stuff for the purpose of escapism? The answer may sound contradictory. I think that "escapism" is the appropriate descriptor for the application of imagination to "apocalypse". For as long as history has been recorded, there have been thinkers dreaming up "The End". Interestingly, they tend to twist it around into an ultimately positive scenario. Sure, you've got to go through hellish tribulations, but if you are able to come out the other side, you are in for a treat of 1000 years of peace and happiness. You see, the truth of the matter is that there is no escape. Society is (and always will be) as flawed as the individuals that make it up. Embrace that reality, and rely on dreams only whenever you find them absolutely necessary to get by.

Ding-Dong, the Witch is Dead. Now What?

There have been a lot of theories tossed around during the last several months to explain the economic crisis that has finally hit the United States. Perhaps it's because the effects of the long-brewing situation intensified during a presidential election, but it's notable just how political so many of the explanations have been. So many citizens are curious as to how the arcane manipulations of the system are going to hit them. For too long, otherwise intelligent and informed folks have taken it for granted that the markets work themselves out over time. There was no great perceived need for the populace to follow along too closely. I am certainly guilty of giving the workings of the economy little consideration.

It's become imperative that I drop my personal distaste for the details of the economy. Everyone seems to agree that we are in for a long period of tumult, and many are sure that we are entering a period of depression. How is that going to affect me and my family? How can I ensure the value of the money I have saved over a period of years? What is my life going to look like if shit really hits the fan? No doubt there are a lot of people asking themselves the same exact questions nowadays. But where can someone with little background in economics turn for substantial answers to these questions? It stands to reason that anything that has been said in the midst of a presidential election should be viewed with skepticism.

I do have recourse to a couple of friends that have been paying attention to the markets for a long time. These individuals have developed perspectives that go beyond the simple conclusion that we are "screwed". They offer insights into what may happen over the next several years. Still, it's obvious that no one can say for sure. People can't even agree on the reasons why we are in this terrible position in the first place. If you've been paying attention, you have no doubt heard from some "free market" capitalists that it's actually the fault of what little regulation has existed in the housing markets over the last decade. These guys are still pimping 80's-era mythology. The last refuge of the ideologue is denial.

Yet there are still "conservatives" that will blame the entire Wall Street debacle on Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and the Community Reinvestment Act. The blame (under this theory) rests solely at the feet of low income (minority) borrowers that got in over their heads with mortgages that they could never afford. If you research the numbers, you discover quite quickly that this is a smokescreen. The percentage of subprime mortgages that were mandated by the CRA is minimal. There were people from all over the class spectrum taking out loans that exceeded the amounts that conventional wisdom dictated as prudent. Who was responsible for perpetuating the myth that housing values would increase by exorbitant amounts forever?

Naturally there were others (besides Clinton) identified as culprits. Alan Greenspan refused to raise interest rates despite the cautionary warnings that observers were delivering. Greenspan, a disciple of objectivist Ayn Rand and true believer in the "free market", failed to recognize the housing bubble until it was much too late to stave off the crisis of its resounding burst. As late as 2004 he was still encouraging prospective buyers to take out adjustable-rate mortgages. Greenspan's love affair with derivatives extended to mortgage-backed securities as well. He absolutely refused to entertain any regulations concerning these unproved and shaky financial instruments. Such tools have been identified as a further compounding cause of today's perilous economy.

Despite the fact that Greenspan was still trying to defend his outmoded libertarian views as late as this past April, he finally admitted his culpability on October 23, 2008, in testimony to Congress. In his dotage, Greenspan finally had to admit the fallibility of his lifelong commitment to "free market" ideology- "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity -- myself especially -- are in a state of shocked disbelief." Always admired for his qualities of understatement, when asked whether that meant his views had been wrong Greenspan responded, "Absolutely, precisely”. Little good that does us now. We'll pay the price of for his faith. But now that the "free market" witch is finally dead, what happens now?

Be Good For Goodness' Sake.

You know we've officially entered the Holiday Season when "conservative" talk radio starts its annual ranting about the supposed "War on Christmas". The tip-off for me came yesterday when local host Fred Honsberger started bitching about a new ad that's been appearing on public buses. Apparently it reads "Why believe in God? Be good for goodness' sake". It's a fairly innocuous message as far as I'm concerned, but it's reportedly quite offensive to a segment of fragile Christians. Honsberger is rolling out the lamentations about what he perceives as "attacks" on Christianity. He wants to know why folks would want to pick on these God-faring citizens. He's challenged the audience to come up with examples where Christians have harassed non-believers*.

Only a complete wingnut would try to make the case that Christians are persecuted in this country. Despite the protections of the 1st Amendment, people of "faith" are continually trying to get government to adopt their beliefs and language. It's obvious to me that religion has a much better chance of encroaching upon our public life than it has of being repressed by our leaders (or marketers). I'm fine with giving the flock a wide berth. They should be able to do anything they want (within the bounds of the law) in their places of worship. I don't even mind the occasional reference to "God" in political speeches. But I don't want anybody forcing their doctrine on me. I was raised as a Christian, and I've had plenty of time to either embrace or reject it on my own.

I don't understand how a secular humanist reminder to value good for it's own sake is particularly threatening to anyone in society. Not everyone is going to accept your own personal savior. And if you study the holy books, you find out pretty quick that the God they speak of wanted humans to make their own choices. It's not that impressive to commit to fate. If your salvation or damnation was decided for you at birth, then it really wouldn't matter how you behaved in life. I would think that this is an essential argument used quite often in the push for conversion. I know for a fact that it's an important underlying premise for those practicing within evangelical sects.

So what happens to "the lost"? There will always be a certain proportion of people that refuse to be "saved". What is to be done with those that recognize no divine parameters? If they aren't concerned with avoiding sin, or with the consequence of eternal suffering as a punishment for ignoring "The Word", what could we possibly do to influence their moral decisions? Surely we need to socialize them somehow. On what foundation can we build our ethical edifice? Fortunately we have the preserved writings of plenty of artists, writers, and philosophers that have grappled with these issues without relying on God for their authority. There is a wide range of approaches that can lead to the desired outcomes. There is no single path, as far as I'm concerned.

Honsberger claims that the aforementioned advertisement (which is illustrated with a Santa Clause character) somehow denigrates his beliefs. We can only assume from his reaction that he is convinced that his is the only way. He considers December 25th the birth date of the the only son of God, and therefore one of the two most sacred days of the year. I can respect that, but I disagree that the appropriation of the Santa Claus iconography for this ad cheapens anyone's faith. There is a long tradition of consumer manipulation based around this fat jolly guy dressed in red. What he has to do with the historical figure that died on a cross completely eludes my grasp.

When Walmart offers you a Merry Christmas next month, they won't be concerned with sharing the love of Christ with you. They are more interested in sustaining a marketing mythology that they have determined is helpful in reaching their sales objectives. Fred Honsberger would be better served confronting that whole mess, rather than a small secular group that is trying to promote cooperation and civility.


* I'll leave this task to the readers of Serendipity. I feel no need to insult your intelligence or historical awareness.

Who Put That Summum in My Backyard?

Christians are feeling harassed nowadays. At every turn they are facing persecution, denial, and even hostility. Their religion is on the brink of irrelevance, and the historical role it has played in American history is being ignored. So say the loudest among the 77% of the nation that self-identify as Christians. Frankly, this is a refrain I'm losing patience with. For someone with roots within the religion, but a lifestyle in which that heritage takes a background role, the constant whining is starting to grate. The reality is that it's difficult to go an entire day without running into a series of "God's messages"- along the road, through traditional media, and even in the workplace. But for some adherents, too much will never be enough.

One more in a string of controversies over this issue is playing itself out in Pleasant Grove City, Utah, and in the US Supreme Court. Within that small community lies Rose Garden Park, which has been home to a sculpture featuring the Ten Commandments since 1971. In 2003 a group of believers from the Summum religion donated a statue containing "The Seven Aphorisms" (which contain the tenets of their faith) to Pleasant Grove with the intention of having it displayed alongside the other works at the park. Unfortunately for the faithful, the mayor and the other town fathers rejected the gift. But when the Summum group brought the matter to the courts, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in its favor.

At issue was the characterization of private speech in the public sphere. If the Judeo-Christian message of proscription is private, then those who decided to display it in Pleasant Grove, and to exclude "The Seven Aphorisms" of Summum, have violated the intent of our Free Speech guarantees. The Appeals Court judged the action to be content-based discrimination. Yet a dissenting judge in that decision claimed that the Ten Commandments sculpture represented "government speech" because the monuments in the park were subject to city control. Somehow the contestants in this case both cite Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, wherein American beef producers sued to defy a congressionally-mandated marketing campaign.

It seems odd to me that the basis of argument in this case is "free speech" rather than "freedom of religion". I have no qualms about saying that the action of the Pleasant Grove municipal leaders has violated the Establishment Clause. If this is (as they contend) "government speech", then they should not be allowed to favor the doctrines of one religion, while discounting those of another, more obscure faith. That seems obvious to me, and in fact this doctrinaire approach was something that our "founding fathers" were trying to escape when they distinguished us from European society. In the years since our promising start, Europe has evolved out of its reliance on religious law, and we have been "Left Behind", so to speak.

There's an inherent danger in prying open our government to the influences of any established religion. Even among Christian sects there are plenty of disparities that distinguish one from another. And there are still millions of citizens who subscribe to other faiths, or forego them altogether. Legal authority should be kept separate from spiritual authority. Objections that Christianity is indelibly connected to our history are beside the point- slavery, genocide, sexism, and exploitation are also tied to our past. If you open the door to one set of faith-based ideas in the public sphere, you must welcome (and even seek out) the balance of alternate views. It simply doesn't matter how odd you find them, or how much you disagree.

Fright Night and the Polls.

Whoever decided that election day should be held in the first week of November had a very cynical sense of humor. If the prospect of change in the political realm isn't frightening enough for many people, the celebration of the darker side of life that occurs on the weekend before the polls open should help raise anxiety levels. I have always loved Halloween. The holiday is the one throwback to the wild Pagan festivals that history suggests were so much fun. From early childhood I have learned to expect the offering of either tricks or treats. There is the sense that anything is possible. The same dynamic applies to politics. Strong opinions abound, and some will find their hopes met, while others will find them thwarted.

So in the spirit of this special day, I'd like to ask the reader about what they fear most on this coming Tuesday. It should come as no surprise that voters all along the spectrum have plenty of nightmare scenarios to choose from. Obviously they range from the realistic to the perverse. For some reason this cycle has presented us with an inordinate amount of speculation regarding worst-case situations, regardless of who wins the presidency. From my biased position, I would suggest that the McCain campaign has worked harder to stoke fears on their side. Like it or not, he occupies the establishment position during this contest, and so he has been forced to paint his opposition as the manifestation of particularly scary change.

Some of the predictions emanating from the Far Right are so breathless that they seem absurd. I've seen and heard multiple accounts of how Barack Obama will change the United States into a Socialist Republic. He'll make rich people cede their wealth to welfare recipients, and no one will have any incentive to make money anymore. Among the Christian Right, a common sentiment is that the Senator from Illinois will reveal his secretly-held devotion to Islam and make Christianity illegal forever hereafter. The Christian Reformationist Dr. James Dobson (founder and leader of Focus on the Family) predicts "hardship," "persecution" and "suffering" for Christians if Obama becomes president.

Interestingly, religious leaders have also been enflaming the fears of Jews who are still undecided about who to vote for. They have made repeated attempts to link Obama to supposed "associates" who have been perceived as vehemently anti-Israel. No matter how many times the candidate has reasserted his support for our Middle Eastern ally, wingnuts like "Joe the (Tax-Dodging) Plumber" continue to issue grave and unfounded warnings. Obviously such tools of the Republican Party get their marching orders from the top. John McCain's fear-based politics have been intentionally crafted to bring out the very worst paranoid delusions in his followers. I could fill up at least a hundred posts with more examples.


Even if John McCain were to mount an increasingly unlikely comeback, some of his supporters fear a widespread uprising and riots among African-Americans. On the opposite side, McCain's detractors worry that the Arizona senator might die in office, leaving the nation in the hands of his singularly unqualified running mate. Others are afraid that he will signal his approval for Israeli air attacks on Iran, which would likely lead to World War III. My own horror involves McCain prevailing and giving an acceptance speech that culminates with him tearing his own leathery face off, only to reveal that he is actually George W. Bush. Finally, the only prospect of an Obama presidency that provokes my anxiety is the small minority that may wish him harm.

The Worst Endorsement of All.

In 2004, a couple of weeks before the presidential election, John Kerry was edging ahead in the national polls. It looked for a moment like he might be able to unseat the sitting president, who was coming under continuous fire over his decision to invade and occupy Iraq. But then the unthinkable happened and the race tipped in Bush's favor. A "new" video appeared featuring the figure that was then still the national bogeyman- Osama bin Laden. The historical narrative says that this interruption in US politics made voters reconsider their decisions by reminding them of Bush's "War on Terror". I'm not completely sure I buy that (I think the Swift-boating had just as much to do with Kerry's defeat), but John Kerry himself blames the video release for his loss.

There is some reason to believe that the concerted efforts of Bush supporters working to tie Kerry to the terrorists had an effect on the 2004 election outcome. Shortly before November of that year, Republican stalwart Orrin Hatch memorably claimed that the terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry." Speaker of the House Denny Hastert reinforced those sentiments: "I don't have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another, [but] I would think they would be more apt to go [for] somebody who would file a lawsuit with the World Court or something rather than respond with troops." Even the Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage chimed in with his assertion that Iraqi "terrorists" were "trying to influence the election against President Bush."

Naturally bloggers followed the example of their elected officials and provided an echo chamber for these scandalous accusations. Back then a young Bush spokesman (and disciple of Karl Rove) named Steve Schmidt seemed to encourage such attacks: "Those statements speak to the great concern many people have about John Kerry's consistent vacillation under political pressure on the most significant issues the nation faces with regard to the war on terror." It's ironic that Steve Schmidt (now John McCain's chief campaign strategist) has been going back to the well, and using similar tactics to tie his latest opponent to terrorism. In fact that is what his entire focus has been over the last few weeks, with his repeated references to Bil Ayers.

Once again amateur online pundits are following Schmidt's lead, and they are employing the most divisive rhetoric imaginable. They have been quick to report the words of President Ahmadinejad, Hamas and Muammar Qaddafi, seeking to tie Obama to "terrorism". But interestingly, they have been notably quiet about the most recent endorsement coming from actual terrorists. It turns out that Al Qaeda is supporting McCain for president. The McCain campaign has been tripping all over itself, trying to distance themselves from this particular nod. The most awkward rationalization they've developed so far is that Al Qaeda is using "reverse psychology" to affect American electoral politics. One has to wonder why they didn't come up with that when Hamas made its "endorsement".

Of course I'm getting a bit of amusement watching this story play out. There are many US security experts that remain unsurprised about Al Qaeda's pick. Some have been expecting the terrorists to "vote" before the election by executing a high-profile attack, which would likely flip the polls in favor of McCain. It's really pretty obvious (to those that are actually well-informed) why Al Qaeda would prefer the pro-war GOP (neocon) rule, because that party consistently plays into its hands by destabilizing the Middle East with its aggressive and ham-handed foreign policy. Al Qaeda* is made up of Sunni Muslims who would be threatened by Obama's strategy of negotiating with Shi'ites such as those who rule Iran. They would much rather see Israel (or the US Armed Forces) bomb that nation with McCain's support.

* According to Al Qaeda ideology, the four biggest "enemies of Islam" are Israel, America, Heretics, and the Shia. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (former leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq) called Shi'ites "the most evil of mankind . . . the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy, and the penetrating venom". It reminds me of the charges the Republicans have leveled against the Democrats lately.

The McCain/Palin Campaign Embraces "Agents of Intolerance". Part 2.

PLEASE READ PART 1 OF THIS SERIES BEFORE CONTINUING.

Shortly after John McCain's Christian Outreach team returned from its inaugural road trip in Ohio, the Christian Conservative Movement began to coalesce behind him. At a subsequent meeting in Denver, 100 Evangelical leaders announced their commitment to unite in an effort to beat Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. The figures at this influential conclave included Christian luminaries like Phyllis Schlafly, Steve Strang, Phil Burress, David Barton, and Donald Hodel. While some of these leaders hinted that they were ambivalent in their support for McCain as an individual, they were clear in their opposition to the Democratic challenger. According to Burress, "The stakes are too high. And if Obama wins I need to be able to get up on November 5th, look at myself in the mirror, and when I pray, say, ‘Lord, I did all that I could.’” (source).

As summer wore on, it was increasingly obvious that the McCain campaign had been successful in courting the Christian Right*, but it was still a bit of a mystery as to how these folks had been convinced of McCain's sincerity. After all, despite evidence to the contrary, John McCain had recently announced his church affiliation as "Baptist". But as confusing as his denominational loyalties might be, even more potentially problematic were suspicions that McCain is an atheist. So it was vitally important for the candidate to put his money where his mouth was. Many among the faithful, unconvinced by the pronouncements of their pastors and other church leaders, waited for God's Hand to be revealed. Lo and behold, it was.

On August 29th, John McCain introduced Sarah Palin as his choice for running mate on his ticket. It was at this point that things became clear to Christians and non-Christians alike. The Religious Right would not be abandoned during the election season of 2008. Almost immediately a flood of support flowed forth into the McCain campaign. The women he sought to elevate to the #2 position in the executive branch was a rabid social conservative. Not only did she work against extending same-sex rights as governor of Alaska, but she opposed abortion- even in cases where the impregnated woman had been raped or involved (willingly or unwillingly) in incestuous relations.

Palin was obviously "the Right girl" for the righteous. Although she made feeble attempts to reassure moderates that she did not seek to impose her personal religious beliefs on the nation, she continued to give all the proper signals to her constituency. They knew what her intentions were. They understood the embedded codes in her language in the same way they had with the current "Born Again" president. There was no mistaking Palin's allegiances. And despite the lukewarm feelings that the Christian Coalition has for the noted "War Hero", it has agreed to put their energy (and money) behind the McCain/Palin ticket. In fact, for the first time in this contest, clergy began to endorse McCain from the pulpit.

Under federal law, it is illegal for tax exempt organizations to endorse or oppose a political candidate by name. But now there is an organized effort by the Alliance Defense Fund to defy the first amendment protection of separation of church and state. This nonprofit organization has been notably linked to efforts to excoriate homosexuals, and are unwavering in their belief that pastors should be involved in politics. In receiving this sort of assistance without inconvenient questions of ethical propriety, John McCain has clearly abandoned any remnant of secular soul he had retained until a few months ago. Whether or not his alliances have been forced upon him, he should be held accountable for his associates.



* Figures like Rod Parsley (a Pentacostal Diminionist), McCain's self-admitted spiritual guide, who remains adamant that there is no separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution . He has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.

Or John Hagee (pastor of a "non-denominational" charismatic church in Texas, and leader of a media empire), the founder and National Chairman of the Christian-Zionist organization Christians United for Israel. When McCain learned that he had earned Hagee's endorsement, he said, "I'm very proud to have Pastor Hagee's support". Hagee strongly and vocally supports an American-Israeli pre-emptive military strike on Iran. He predicts that Russia and the Islamic states will invade Israel and will be destroyed by God. He denies global warming and has claimed that Hurricane Katrina was punishment for New Orleans after the city allowed a gay pride parade to take place.

TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 3.

The McCain/Palin Campaign Embraces "Agents of Intolerance". Part 1.

John McCain has offered signals that he is about to tone down his focused strategy of character attacks, and get back on the subjects and challenges that most citizens are concerned about. Still his campaign chairman Rick Davis (a Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac former lobbyist) defends his continuing advertising strategy, while leveling character assassination charges against David Axelrod (Davis' counterpart on Obama's side). Apparently Axelrod's been accusing Davis of selling access to his chief. Meanwhile Davis is out on the stump trying to put forth the case that VP candidate Sarah Palin has done nothing wrong in the "Troopergate" Scandal, despite last Friday's announcement that the Alaskan Legislature had found her guilty of an ethics violation.

Does anybody really think that these chaotic politics are going to subside during the last three weeks heading into the election? I certainly don't. In fact, Sarah Palin is trying to shake things up even more with her calls to revisit the Jeremiah Wright flap that hit the media months ago. It's understandable that she would want to change the subject from her abuse of power tactics in Alaska, but her method of altering the dialog may result in a more careful analysis of some of the figures that have shaped her own thinking. John McCain has been adamant about not wanting to inject a discussion of religion into the race. I can empathize with this view, since I've been sick of the conflation of faith and policy for the last eight years.

In 2000, John McCain spoke eloquently about the developing rifts in the American scene. He notably bemoaned the "corrupting influences of religion and politics", and even went as far as suggesting that portions of the religious right were divisive and un-American*. He specifically identified Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance". He also directed his criticism at his primary rival George W. Bush for giving a speech at the "Conservative Christian" Bob Jones University without addressing the institution's ban on interracial dating. What McCain did in the run-up to that election, not even a decade past, was truly a "maverick" move and likely cost him a primary victory.

My, how things have changed since then. In 2006, while McCain prepared to enter the current presidential race, the Arizona Senator decided to deliver the commencement address at Liberty University. That school was actually founded by "intolerance agent" Jerry Falwell, who since McCain's earlier denunciation of him "has said that Jews can't go to heaven unless they accept Christ, that the Prophet Mohammed was a terrorist, and that gays and feminists bore responsibility for 9/11" (source). While McCain claimed ,"I'm not trying to make up to anyone, either liberal or conservative or anyone else", it was clear that Falwell got the message. He replied, "I do think, like any wise politician moving toward a presidential election, he is trying to build alliances".

And perhaps it was necessary for a wizened politician seeking the GOP nomination for the presidency to embrace a group that makes up a large proportion of the most loyal base of the party. There's no doubt that McCain realized that he had to compromise his formerly-expressed values in order to have a chance at winning. This past summer McCain put together a nine-member Christian Outreach Team to travel to battleground states. In early July, he sent his exploratory committee to its first destination, where they met with the Ohio Christian Alliance. Apparently it was clear from that meeting that Evangelical Christians had specific demands that had to be met in order for Mccain to gain their support. It soon became quite clear what these demands entailed.

TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 2.



*"The political tactics of division and slander are not our values," Mr. McCain said. "They are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country" (link).

My visit to Lily Dale.

The path to Buffalo from Pittsburgh is simple and without traffic congestion. You get on 79N and pick up 90E around Erie. It's a fairly uneventful drive that brings you up the western border of New York state. Along the way you pass the access points to the Chataqua Institution, as well cut right through the Seneca Nation. If you look hard enough you can find places along the way that are worth making a few short detours. In my online explorations I read about Lily Dale, a spiritualist community next to the little village of Cassadaga. This assembly (also referred to as the "City of Light") , established in 1879, bills itself as the world's largest center for spiritual development. While that may or may not be true, it seems certain to concentrate the most mediums into one small lake-front settlement.

The origins of the Modern Spiritualist Movement start with the Fox sisters (Kate, Leah and Margaret). In 1848, these Hydesville, NY inhabitants reported the existence of spirits living within their house. They devised a system of knocks and raps to communicate with one presence that they referred to initially as "Mr. Splitfoot" (a nickname for the devil). Soon the neighbors got in on the act, and became convinced that someone had been murdered in the house. The youngest Fox sisters were sent to live in Rochester, and the spirits followed them. There a Quaker couple (Amy and Isaac Post) befriended them and spread the word among their people. That's how the Movement became entwined with radical social causes like abolition, equal rights, and temperance.

Anyway the Fox sisters went on to a long career of being involved with many of the important social figures of their day. They also found fame for conducting séances. There was plenty of controversy as many others began to discover their own abilities to speak with the spirit world. Ultimately the famous siblings set in to squabbling with each other, and they met ignoble ends. But to this day they serve as symbols for Spiritualism. In 1916, the cottage that first revealed its secrets to the Fox family was moved from Hydesville to Lily Dale, where the Spiritualists of America held their annual camp meetings. From that point on the community grew steadily. The Fox cottage was destroyed by fire in 1955, but Lily Dale continued to prosper.

Nowadays Lily Dale has a sort of cottage industry revolving around contact with the spirit world. They have a full program of summer workshops in topics as diverse as astrology, paranormal investigation, listening to the "inner voice", past-life regression, channeling the "higher mind", spoon bending, intuitive medicine, Reiki, Falun Dafa, using sweat lodges, and the "fourth direction". There's also a gift shop, a chapel, a forest temple, a meditation labyrinth, a museum and several eateries. Apparently people journey there from all over the world, and they have accommodations for travelers. You can also make day visits, but you must pay $10 to pass through their front gate.

To my eyes Lily Dale appeared to be like any other retirement community in the country, except for the proliferation of shingles hanging from the bungalows advertising the services of the individual mediums residing there. I didn't stick around for any of the workshops or rituals as I had a lot on my itinerary, and only a limited amount of time to look around. The grounds are peaceful and offer plenty of opportunities for contemplation. You are free to walk around unmolested. People greet you amiably, but no one proselytizes. The highlight of my short stop was the "fairy trail" in the words, wherein folks had constructed little temples incorporating small statues of angels, fairies, gnomes, and other pop culture detritus. Great photo opportunity!

The Questions Behind the Issues.

The more I talk to people of different political bents, the more I realize that the entire political dialog in this country is radically stilted. I'm not saying that folks understand how indirect their communication is, but rather that they inadvertently avoid any discussion of the underlying reasons for their beliefs. There is an entire substratum of assumptions that goes unacknowledged. I believe the reason for this is media manipulation. Our corporate "news" purveyors would much rather reinforce the wedge issues that keep our citizenry divided. These are "safe" subjects because there is a tacit agreement among all parties that they regard issues that will never be resolved. They keep everyone distracted.

I've noted a few examples of this in earlier posts. Republicans and Democrats fight over issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and drilling in ANWR. The intention is to keep things as they are, in order to prevent any real challenges to the status quo. If the power brokers can keep us focused on issues of very little significance to them, then they can continue business-as-usual. Naturally that benefits those currently at the top of the heap. And don't get me wrong- 95% of us would act the same exact way if given the chance. Examine your own personal life... if things are going well, do you feel motivated to allow changes that would shake up your life? I can say that I feel no such compulsion.

Now then, if you don't like the way things are going, then you really have your work cut out for you. You have to cut through all of the bullshit just to communicate frankly with your fellow (wo)man. I'll give you an illustrative example using an aforementioned wedge issue- abortion. Say for argument's sake that you are against abortion. Why? Is it because your priest told you it was a sin? Do you believe that fetuses count as humans? And how does that affect your position on this issue? I think there's a deeper core to this question. It goes beyond queries of sin and soul. The elemental foundation of this political distraction is the belief that there is something inherently special about the species.

If you don't think that humans are "special" or "sacred", then why would you consider abortion wrong? Maybe you are of a religious faith that values all creatures equally. If that's the case, then forgive me, because you have a valid philosophical basis for your opinion. But likely you have formed your thoughts about abortion based upon the Christian principle that humans are meant to exercise their dominion over God's creation. And that somehow leads you to believe that a single human life is invaluable. The rational extension of this type of localized compassion should lead you to oppose the death penalty, war, and policies that privilege one segment of humanity over another. Be honest with yourself. Are you being consistent in your views, or are you a hypocrite like the rest of us?

Do you honestly believe that those who profess to oppose abortion are confronting the underlying premises of their positions? Or are they simply using this emotional issue for expediency and exploitation. I'd like to hear them say instead that all humanity is sacred. Because then we could really assess the integrity of their character. We could hold these coyotes responsible for their decisions. I understand that governance involves complexity and nuance, but I have no sympathy when a politician misleads the flock into thinking that he/she is the "Good Shepherd". I'll gladly embrace the flaws of a human being as long as he/she acknowledges them in him/herself. But the old smoke-and-mirrors trick has made me irredeemably cynical, and I would guess that a lot of others in this nation feel the same way.

Neither Cold Nor Hot Am I.

I can't say that I am a particularly-informed student of the Bible. Like many other dispassionate readers, I've always had trouble following through in my intentions to read the thing cover-to-cover. I guess it's a bit of a cliché to have been stymied by the "Jehosaphat begat Jeremiah and Jeremiah begat Titus and Titus begat Lulu and Lulu begat Lil' Kim... and on and on, ad infinitum"-chapter that seems to have been created merely to test the faith of anyone seeking to encounter the Holy Word firsthand. But in my case, it is honest-to-God true. I realize that section's role in helping the faithful determine the actual age of the Earth, but I do think it lacks spice. How is it that the original author (ostensibly the Great Father) never familiarized himself with the concept of footnotes?

You see, if you end up getting stuck in that genealogical no man's land, it's easy to believe that the Great Book is as lively as a driver's training manual. However, that's not the case at all. In my limited experience I have found there to be a bounty of provocative and perplexing nuggets hidden within the Holy Scriptures. I have to admit that I became aware of the bulk of them by passing the countless pre-fab evangelical houses of worship that dot the landscape and advertise daunting Biblical quotes on letter boards. Like anyone else, I have collected my personal favorites. They are particularly interesting in their state of being presented completely without context, like Zen koans.

One little passage that has endeared itself to me is Revelations 3:15-16. It reads, "3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. " Don't get distracted by the outdated spellings and syntax. Indeed these words hold an inordinate amount of relevance in our modern age. Aside from the understandable reservations one might have about being placed in Jehovah's mouth, the expressed sentiment should give one pause. What exactly is being suggested? Again, I am by no means a Biblical scholar, but it is reasonable to draw certain elementary conclusions.

A brief internet search led me to this site that attempts to explain Revelations 3:15-16. It basically says that God prefers to eat his followers and deniers at extreme temperatures. Obviously He prefers that adherents be hot with passion for him. Those with fervid zeal are the most beloved. True disciples must burn with devotion. On the other hand, those who are cold freely acknowledge their lack of faith. Everyone knows where they stand- for they represent the "them"... the non-believers and secularists. They are especially convenient for the missionaries, as they make it clear where their efforts are most needed, and where the fires need to be lit. They will either be baked to the Lord's taste, or await the eternal scaldings of Hell.

And that leaves us with the "lukewarm". In God's eyes these are the double-dealers, capable of tepid support or overt treason. They have dared to form a nuanced version of belief that threatens to call into question the blind loyalty of the converted. In this view, it is better to embrace overt denial and declare yourself an enemy than to question divine authority. The "lukewarm" are the bane of fundamentalist existence. As I mentioned previously, this is an especially timely concept. Try to engage a "true believer", whether in the realm of politics, economics, or religion, and you'll see the obvious parallels. This is a black-and-white society that abhors shades of gray. God help those who refuse to take sides.

Sunday Tales.

For reasons familiar to some that know me personally, I'm having a bit of difficulty embracing my job conditions this particular June. I'm ready for the freedom that I'm typically blessed with during this time of year. So to some degree I'm finding myself acting like I usually would, despite this year's peculiar circumstances. Even after spending all of Sunday at an outdoor family barbecue, I found myself wanting to continue the carefree socializing into the night. Not really feeling any strong motivation to go out to a bar, I decided instead to join a couple of friends for some mellow conversation in one of their homes. Inevitably the talk turned to our work lives, but before that we exchanged stories about artists that we've known.

My friend L. has spent time with many artists throughout her several decades of involvement in the arts scene. She's amassed quite a collection of artwork by both local and national creators, and much of it has been acquired through trade. She fell to talking about many of the pieces that were on display around us as we sat around her dining room table. As anyone who collects art knows, there is usually a story involved in every single acquisition. Her tales are usually quite interesting, as she runs in unusual circles with folks that are often quite freakish by conventional standards. In fact she owns several works by various "outsider artists"- some of whom have acquired widespread prominence.

Our informal examination turned on a specific piece created by one of these more prominent figures. Although I'm tempted to identify the artist in question, I've decided to respect his privacy because of the nature of the story L. shared with us. L. has actually been friends with this individual, and has spent time in his studio. He was once a hell-raiser, but found God and renounced his sinful ways. After his "rebirth" he devoted his life to producing a very idiosyncratic body of work that features his current obsessions with a millenarian brand of evangelical Christianity. His work is often darkly apocalyptic, and quite challenging to the largely progressive and academic paradigm of "Modern Art".

Anyway, L. says that this individual (who I'll refer to as N.) never tried to push his beliefs on her, despite the fervency of his faith. But despite this restraint, L. had a very strange experience one time when N. came to town for an exhibition. She put him up in her house, and his initial appearance on her front porch was accompanied by what she took as a foreboding omen. As he ascended the steps and had a seat on the ratty couch, a large black raven swooped down and perched on a nearby post. L. says she had never before seen such a bird on or around her property, and its presence unnerved her. In her account she had an overwhelming sense of "evil" and traced its origination to N.'s person.

This was an odd reaction for L. to have in proximity to an individual whose company she had enjoyed for a long time. When she explained this event, she expressed an astonishment for what she basically interpreted as an almost supernatural phenomenon. But as unsettling as the whole thing was for L., I didn't find her apprehension of it to be that extraordinary. In fact I've had similar interactions with a number of strangers throughout my life, as well as a few that I've been amply familiar with beforehand. It is interesting to me to see how different folks process seemingly mystical experiences. I think these incidents reveal more about the witnesses than the objects of their attention. Everyone seems to perceive these manifestations in a form that they are somehow prepared to understand.