Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Happy New Year 2010

As we head into the final days of 2009 I wish everyone eternal optimism and the hope that the coming year is the one in which we see love, peace and understanding in the eyes of all our brothers and sisters.
Happy New Year with all my best to you and yours!

-----------------------------------------
English: Happy New Year
Afrikaans: Voorspoedige Nuwe Jaar
Albanian: Gëzuar Vitin e Ri
Arabic: سنة جديدة سعيدة
Bulgarian: Честита Нова Година
Chinese: 新年快樂
Croatian: Sretna Nova godina!
Filipino: Manigong Bagong Taon
Finnish: Onnellista uutta vuotta!
French: Bonne année!
German: Glückliches neues Jahr!
Greek: ευτυχές το νέο έτος!
Hebrew: שנה טובה
Hindi: नया साल मुबारक हो
Irish: Athbhliain faoi Bliain
Italian: Buon anno!
Japanese: 新年あけましておめでとうございます
Korean: 새해 복 많이 받으세요
Macedonian: Среќна Нова Година
Persian: سال نو مبارک
Portugese: Feliz Ano Novo
Romanian: La mulţi ani!
Russian: С Новым Годом
Serbian: Срећна Нова Година
Spanish: ¡Feliz Año Nuevo
Swedish: GOTT NYTT ÅR!
Thai: สวัสดี ปี ใหม่
Ukranian: 3 Новим Роком
Vietnamese: Chúc mừng năm mới
Welsh: Blwyddyn Newydd Dda
Yiddish: גליקלעכן נייעם יאָר

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Who Took Christ Out Of Christmas?

Earlier today a devout Christian woman I know was complaining about how the government, Commie Pagans that they are, has systematically taken Christ out of Christmas. Specifically, she was upset over the replacement of "Happy Holidays" for the "Merry Christmas" greeting that we should all be uttering. And that Obama guy is one of the worst offenders of them all; he sent out season's greetings holiday cards that said nothing about Christmas.

There was no willingness on her part to
acknowledge any other religion or holiday taking place during this time of year. She explains that Christ is the only God and generic greetings such as, "happy holidays" is a slap in the face to God and Christians everywhere because it deliberately chooses to disregard the point of the holiday season, which of course, is celebrating the savior's birthday.

The ignorance and the arrogance! Baffling to me is the notion that a generic pleasantry should be viewed as an attack on those who are [theoretically] already saved. Honestly, get over yourself. "Happy Holidays" is a perfectly appropriate greeting to say to anyone in a government office, public building, or to anyone whose holiday preference is not known.

Here in the U.S. we have a little thing called separation between church and state - and the battle over religion's role in holiday celebrations is nearly three decades old, regardless of how much someone may want to blame Obama. It began when the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups went to court in the 1980s asking that Nativity scenes and other religious displays be removed from public property. The ACLU argued that such religious symbols violated the First Amendment's ban on government-endorsed religion.

In a CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, 44% of Americans surveyed said the trend toward "Happy Holidays" is a change for the better, and 43% said it wasn't. Only 11%, however, said they avoid saying "Merry Christmas" out of fear of offending someone.

The threat of lawsuits and a desire to be more sensitive to the nation's growing number of non-Christians has led many governments, schools and businesses to de-emphasize the religious elements of the Christmas holiday.


Statistics

A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of American adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If current trends continue, most adults will not call themselves religious within a few years.

The Graduate Center of the City University of New York conducted an "American Religious Identification Survey", and found that the number of Americans who classified themselves as Christian declined from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001. That number declined even further to 73% by 2004.

The United States appears to be going through an unprecedented change in religious practices. Large numbers of American adults are disaffiliating themselves from Christianity and from other organized religions. Since World War II, this process had been observed in other countries, like the U.K., other European countries, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. But, until recently, affiliation with Christianity had been at a high level -- about 87% -- and stable in the U.S.


Being sensitive to other religious preferences has nothing to do with political party persuasion. The only thing political about Christmas is the attempt to keep it out of government. And Obama's administration did not start this as I explained above. I encourage folks to go back to the history books and read up on how our founding fathers actually fled England to get away from religious oppression. Thomas Jefferson, a man of deep religious conviction, believed that the matter of faith was a personal one and did not belong in government. That is why he helped champion the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and wrote the now-famous letter to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut some years later. Here is a portion of it:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
It is right around this point that Christians will balk and tell me that the United States was founded on Christian principals.
No matter what you want to tell yourself, the United States is NOT a Christian nation. It is a nation of many diversities and many faiths, only one of which happens to be Christianity.

And please don't tell me that being Christian has nothing to do with religion. I will be charitable here and say that if you believe Christianity is not a religion you are simply attempting to recognize the ESSENCE of Christianity rather than the existence of it as a religious denomination. Within the active practice of Christianity, no thing can be Christian, only an individual can be a Christian. (Hey - if Christ is in the individual, then he surely cannot be taken out of Christmas, right? And if he is missing from Christmas, then he must be missing from your heart, right?) Ahem. I digress. Christianity, as it is recognized around the globe is part of three other religious groupings: sacramental religions, revealed religions, and salvation religions. The latter two apply most generally: it would be difficult to find any form of Christianity which does not qualify as a revealed or salvation religion, but not all forms of Christianity would be described as a sacramental one.

Ancient History describes Christianity as, "A monotheistic religion whose adherents believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God and their savior."

Websters Dictionary defines Christianity as...
  1. the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies;
  2. conformity to the Christian religion;
  3. the practice of Christianity
I don't object to anyone being a Christian. What I object to is anyone feeling entitled or anointed or chosen because of their beliefs. Like when people get miffed because not everyone observes Christmas, or greets everyone else with a "Merry Christmas".

You know what? I don't remember the last time I heard a Pagan complaining that the Solstice is not a national holiday. I don't believe I've ever heard a Wiccan say that spell-casting should be a part of the national lighting of the Christmas tree. And I don't believe I've ever heard a Jew say that Christmas displays should be replaced with Menorahs. Everyone, EXCEPT the Christians is just looking for equal time, equal recognition. But Christians can't give equal time because they have to be the only ones to the exclusion of everyone else.

To the woman who complained to me earlier today and to anyone else daft enough to believe that they are the only true children of God I say this: I am content to let you have your Christianity and your faith without attempting to subvert it. All I ask is that you respect my faith and those of others in return. But no, you can't do it, you have to try to convert me and when that fails, your fall back is to pray to God that I be shone the light. Isn't it interesting that in my prayers, I never ask that you be made non-Christian. I only ask that all of us have more tolerance and acceptance for each other. Regardless of what you think I should be doing, I am not THANKING THE LORD for folks like you, ready to step in and stage a praying intervention on my behalf!

I trust in God enough to believe that my God doesn't have to be your God. Please don't embarrass yourself by telling me your God has to be mine. At this holiday season I wish Christians a merry Christmas, Jews a Happy Hanukkah, Druids a happy Winter Solstice, my African-Americans brothers and sisters a Happy Kwanzaa and my Muslim friends a blessed Ramadan.

And anyone upset about that should consider that by about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber Christians in the U.S. So wake up or look back at your own peril - I hear pillars of salt are coming back in vogue.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

When Free Speech Isn't Free

Recently I led an effort to have six products from Zazzle pulled because they advocated for the death of President Obama. The vendor in question had 568 products for sale at the time, every one of which was anti-Obama. While I found many of those items personally offensive, I only objected to the six that crossed the line from political commentary into fostering hate and potential violence.

Let me be absolutely 100% clear that I support free speech. If this situation was simply a matter of disliking certain comments, products, or medias, this debate would not even be taking place. But when that speech, product, or media creates a climate of hostility and potential danger to the president of the United States, I believe it is all of our responsibility to question it, call upon it, and stop it from progressing. And there is definitely a precedent for that.


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1919 (Schenck vs USA, 249 U.S. 47) that the First Amendment does not protect speech that encourages "insubordination" against the government when to do so creates or has the potential of creating a "clear and present danger".


The court's summary of that case can be found
here. Here is a portion of their decision:
The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.
In October, the Boston Globe reported that threats against President Obama have increased by 400% since he took office and that the Secret Service is understaffed and underfunded to handle all of them. This is further substantiated by a report from the Congressional Research Service in March 2009. And in the new book entitled In The President's Secret Service, investigative journalist Ronald Keesler takes his readers through a behind the scenes look with secret service agents in the line of fire and the presidents they protect and methodically documents the increase in threats against President Obama - as well as the rise in the number of hate groups nationwide. The threats against President Obama are very real and there are people out there who don't need much of a nudge to take action against him.

The AFL/CIO, Anti-Defamation League, and other groups have issued opinions that "jokes" about the death and/or assassination of Obama can be construed as influencing, inciting, encouraging, or suggesting that such an act should be carried out. The Secret Service agrees.


In today's world of escalating terrorism and hate groups, there is zero tolerance policy for any action that can be construed as contributing to a "clear and present danger" against the president, whether that action be an obvious, articulated threat or one that is more covert and/or subliminal. Threats are taken seriously, no matter how vague.


Just like the law prohibiting us from making jokes on airplane about terrorist activities, the First Amendment has limitations. Some may argue that being prohibited from making jokes about blowing up a plane goes too far. It's just a joke, right? Maybe. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still against the law. As is any product, speech, or action that infers violence against the president.


At any other time and with any other president, we might be able to shrug off these kinds of things as some kind of tasteless joke. But this is not another time or another president. And the the threats against him are real, palpable, and urgent.


If the jokes were aimed at your loved one, who happened to be the most vulnerable of any president in U.S. history, would it still be funny?


I want to stress that this is not a political party issue. This is an issue about the safety of the person who represents every citizen of the United States. Even if meant to be a joke, the law doesn't find anything funny about advocating for the president's death. Whether we voted for Obama or not, whether we like him or not, whether we agree with him or not, is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with this matter.


So, there are limits to what the First Amendment guarantees, and those limits have been tried and tested in court. There are also laws against threatening or inferring a threat against the President and his administration. Censorship and respecting the law are not the same thing.


I will fight for your right to call Obama an idiot. I will fight against you if you say he should be taken out because he is an idiot.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Progressives Could Learn A Thing Or Two From Barack Obama

I've been interested in the political landscape for a long time. Although I am a registered Democrat, I am an Independent at heart and choose to vote by candidate, not party loyalty. I am an unabashed liberal who believes that freedom comes with responsibility. With every election I do my homework, searching the facts before believing whatever it is the media tells me, and I choose a candidate I can get behind.

Barack Obama was no exception. After I took the time to learn about him I supported him during his presidential campaign and continue to support him to this day. I don't like every decision he's made but by and large, I think his perspective on the world is similar to mine and believe without a doubt that he wants to do right by the American people. He made me believe that together, "yes we can."

During the campaign I often heard Obama say that the election was only the first step toward progress, and that the real work would begin after assuming office. In Obama's first year of office, his words have certainly proven to be true. There are several groups working against him and his agenda, all of who have no trouble disregarding the overwhelming number of citizens who voted for change last fall in the process.

The Republicans fight him at every twist and turn, determined to make him fail for no other reason than the pleasure they get from kicking sand back at the fellow who took control over the sandbox. The Tea Party Patriots (and I use that term loosely) emerged like a bunch of Snidely Whiplash cartoonish characters, replete with black clothing, capes, and freakishly tall hats, babbling something about, "wanting their country back" and organizing some of the most vile, hateful, racist, and violent demonstrations against our government we've seen in years. And of course there's the Bluedogs, thwarting progress with grandstanding and threats of filibusters, courting both sides of the fence and making enemies in the process. Baffling to me is that they don't see the irony of their efforts; those desperate, pathetic strategies intended to improve their odds of getting re-elected next year drawing more detractors than anything else. But the action of the folks I find hardest to take and hardest to understand comes from the so-called progressive liberals.

Progressives were just as in love with Obama last year as his supporters were. Don't tell me you weren't because I know you were. I heard you talking about him in optimistic tones over old coffee and organic greens at the co-ops, at the copy machines, and on the airwaves. Now you say that Obama's a failure and that you tried to warn us all last year. Now that he's carrying out his campaign promises you're acting like you never saw this coming. And you're doing everything you can to discredit him and create your own organic, union made in America, energy efficient, diversity friendly sandbox.

Excuse me while I step outside for some fresh air.

Last year you rallied behind Obama and even choked up a little over this man with the funny name who was the closest thing to you in a suit you've ever seen. It was almost as if Obama made you feel something close to hope, and you jumped on the bandwagon and drank the kool-aid right along side the rest of us.

But now you've turned on the one person our generation has produced who might be able to put things right. You've decided that 11 months of an administration is long enough for our problems to have been fixed and now the rest is up to to if progress is to be had. You're impatient and rude, and your intelligence is overshadowed by your unchecked ego. You want everything now and when it can't or won't be delivered according to your timetable you insist that means that Obama is either disingenuous, a sell-out, or a failure.

You know what? You're just as dogmatic and inflexible as the right wing. And you could stand to learn a few things from our president.

#1. Progress is a process
Hey you, yes you, the one in such a hurry. During the campaign, Barack told us to keep our heads down and stay focused on the work we were doing. He advised us to ignore the pundits and the media and stay on course even while the naysayers were screaming all around us, telling us that what we were after was impossible. Over the course of two difficult years we achieved the unimaginable. Despite the fact that the results were not instantaneous, we achieved what we set out to do.

"I want to warn you, there will be setbacks. It will take time. But I promise you I will always tell you the truth about the challenges that we face and the steps that we are taking to meet them." ~ Barack Obama in Arnold, Missouri (April 29, 2009)

#2. Progress over perfection
Progressives just can't handle increments. It's gotta be all or nothing. Truth to tell, I think you like the nothing part a little too much, revel in it, play with your pain puppets in the basement and spend too much time commiserating over your shock and awe with fellow martyrs. Paul Begala summed it up beautifully in a piece he wrote last August by saying,

"I've never seen the Republican right oppose a tax cut for the rich because it wasn't generous enough; I've never seen them oppose a set of loopholes for corporate lobbyists because one industry or another wasn't included. The left, on the other hand, too often prefers a glorious defeat to an incremental victory."

Amen.

Right now Congress is debating the issue of health care reform. The right says we're rushing the bill through, you say if it can't happen fast enough or the way you want it to that you'll sabotage their efforts. What the hell are you doing? How do you think every other piece of hallmark legislation came into being? What? It just happened overnight after you protested really, really loudly? Come on, change comes in increments. No other piece of moral legislation in the history of America was achieved in one comprehensive swoop.

"Here's why we have to do all this: because for decades, Washington avoided doing what was right in favor of doing what was easy. And the middle class took a beating for it. Well, I didn't run for President to sweep our messes under the rug with the next election in mind." ~ President Barack Obama, Allentown PA (December 4, 2009)

#3. We are better than that
When the Bible thumpers came out against Reverend Wright, Barack said to disengage. When Hillary "mispoke" about being shot at in Saudi Arabia, Barack told us to leave it alone. When the right wing called Barack a terrorist Muslim with extremist ties, Barack told us to walk away. Regardless of the inflammatory nature of the lies, Barack held his head high and never retaliated. He said, "we are better than that." He taught us that a campaign could be won by sticking to the issues and refusing to engage in character assassination.

Progressives on the other hand have resorted to the old school method of embellishing or telling outright lies in order to achieve their objective. Earlier today, MoveOn.org and Firedog Lake both sent out emails asking for money to fight the Senate's willingness to weaken, water, and/or concede the public option. Only trouble is, it wasn't true.


#4 Honesty
Barack Obama repeatedly pledged during his campaign to always tell the truth even when to do so would pain him to say it or us to hear it. So now when he tells us the truth, like our problems won't be fixed overnight, progressives reward him with impatience.

Let's be honest for one minute about what progressive action is. Let's start by examining the definition of the word:


Pro-gres-sive (adjective)

  1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
  2. Making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
  3. Characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
  4. (Initial capital letter of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
  5. Going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.
  6. Noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income.
  7. Of or pertaining to progressive education: progressive schools.
  8. Grammar. Noting a verb aspect or other verb category that indicates action or state going on at a temporal point of reference.
  9. Medicine/Medical. Continually increasing in extent of severity, as a disease.

Pro-gres-sive (noun)

  1. A person who is progressive or who favors progress or reform, esp. in political matters.
  2. (Initial capital letter) of a member of a Progressive party.
  3. Grammar.
    1. The progressive aspect.
    2. A verb form or construction in the progressive, as we are thinking in, they are thinking about it.
Using the dictionary definition of the word, there seems to be very little progression taking place within the Liberal Progressive camp. Unwilling to accept progress in steps, unwilling to tolerate compromise, unwilling to yield to the concerns of the other side of the aisle, yet always ready to lambaste and pounce on any perceived wound; these would-be caretakers of our country are willing to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. So to my progressive friends who are getting bloody and enjoying the battle, I would caution you to think about who it is that's gonna bring the bandages and supplies to you way up there in that lofty ivory colored no-lead-no-smell-chemical-free painted platform house you live in. Because the way you're throwing stones my friend - THAT, is not the change we can believe in.

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Wherefore Art Thou O' Lord?

My friend of nearly 30 years is a conservative, middle-aged woman with a deep and abiding faith in God and church. We’ve been there for each other through the raising of our children, dramas with our husbands, and the deaths of our parents; we’ve been cheerleaders for one another, delivered kick in the butt conversations when needed, and cared for each other’s homes, children and belongings during times of joy and sadness. It is a blessing to have had a friend this long and considering that we are strongly divided on some core fundamental values, it is also something of a miracle. We have remained fiercely loyal and devoted to one another by respecting our differences and honoring an unspoken agreement not to talk about them.

My friend is a re-born Christian, I was raised a Jew, went through several religious carnations in my 20s and today consider myself a Pantheist. She believes it is both her Christian duty and her obligation as my friend to bring me into the light of Christ. And it saddens her that we will not be able to spend eternity in heaven together because of my refusal to accept Jesus as my personal savior.

Despite those things she considers me to be a loving friend and a loving person, and frequently calls my community service and activism a demonstration of my “being a better Christian than she is.” She and I share a belief in God but that’s where any similarities end. For some reason this remains enough for her; she accepts me for who I am and has offered only a few, watered down references to the paradise that could be mine before thinking better of it and letting it go.

I trust this woman implicitly. She treats me with the same love, respect, and friendship that I give her. It is an equal relationship.

Or is it?

Although we rarely talk about it I know that she makes judgments about my religious choices, relates her frustrations about me in her conversations with God, and prays for me late at night. Praying that I should be made whole. I know this because she has told me so.

She prays for me, prays for my soul, prays that I see the light, prays that I will let Jesus into my heart. We long ago decided to make charitable allowances for each other, choosing to believe that she prays for me because of her love for me, not her duty to the church, and that she wants me to know the same joy that she has found in Christ.

But deep down I know there’s more to it. I question the real motive behind the prayer for if I am truly her equal, why pray for me to be different? Why ask that I be made more like her? Isn’t such a prayer really just a protest against who I am and a belief that the path I’ve chosen is a misguided one, requiring God’s intervention if it is to be fixed? Lingering there in the unexpressed midst is the unspoken accusation of how wrong I am and how right she is. They sit side by side: rightness and righteousness. And in the fading embers is her own satisfaction over being so right with God.

In my wrongness with God she and other Christians have taken an official position of tolerance. But it is not authentic. Webster’s defines the word tolerance as, “a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry”. That suggests to me that true tolerance of my spirituality precludes the need to change it. Christian tolerance is troubling to me because of its inherent presumptive superiority, that something about me is not okay the way that it is and needs the enlightened intervention only they can provide. Those good and decent souls who tell themselves they're tolerating me are really just patronizing me; they put up with me, much in the same way that eyebrow lifting and winking might take place in situations where everyone’s in on the joke except for you, and they comfort themselves with the thought that there are still more opportunities for them to talk me into surrendering to Jesus before I die.

Jesus is not my God. In fact, I don’t believe that Jesus is God at all. I believe Jesus was a significant figure in history, that he was a teacher, a healer, and a prophet of sorts, but God, no. The God of my understanding would never - let me repeat that – would never select one mortal to be his child when we are ALL his children equally.

The reason Christianity doesn’t work for me is because of the double standards I see in its teachings and the behavior of the role models who practice it. Personally, I believe there is one God - which upon examination would suggest that my God is the same as your God and your God is the same as mine. But my spiritual architecture will not be shaken just because you tell me that you don’t believe my version is the correct one. In fact, I will acknowledge that I don’t really know what is true and what isn’t, and that you might very well be right. I’m comfortable not knowing and I’m secure in my faith in spite of it.

The Bible. “God’s Word” we are told. The Bible is the only TRUTH. Listen up. There is ample credible scientific evidence proving that human beings wrote the Bible, not God. And since one version wasn’t quite right for everyone, the Bible has undergone many transformations. There are many versions of it and three times as many interpretations of it. Travel through the belly of any country visiting fundamentalist church to fringe church and ask for guidance on a specific psalm or passage. My guess is that there are going to be many explanations of that same passage. So how can the Bible be “God’s Word” when the word changes from church to church, pastor to pastor?

Before you try to tell me that all those other factions are really just cults, consider this: there are 34,000 known and recognized branches of Christianity worldwide. More than 2,000 of them exist in the United States. Every one of them says that they are the chosen one. So here's my question to you - are they ALL cult members - or just liars?

Many Bible lovers espouse love and peace yet become enraged at the mere suggestion that something besides their understanding of God might really exist. The fact that nearly every formal religion considers THEIR holy book (s) to be the TRUTH is easily dismissed by calling all of them (except theirs) cults. Who is right? Is everybody wrong?

Genesis 1:27 tells us that God made man in His own image. Hogwash. Author Anne Lamott once said, “You know you have created God in your own image when He hates all the same people you do." I believe that Man makes God in the image of his own agenda. How else to explain the never-ending cycle of new found faiths, factions, branches, and cults? How else to justify the acts of hate, violence, and cruelty committed against others in the name of religion? How else to believe one is entitled to behave exactly the opposite of Jesus?

For the sake of God, humans have fed Christians to the lions, burned witches at the stake, sent families into extermination camps, bombed buildings, raised cities, enslaved women, sacrificed children, crashed airplanes, committed mass murder, mass suicide, mass genocide, blamed the demon voices inside their heads for making them pull the trigger, and attempted to create supreme races of only the pure and the devout – all because of an indestructible belief that such violence was divinely endorsed, even ordained.

Anyone on the outside of such atrocities would shake their head in wonderment at what would drive people to do such terrible things. But the shocking truth is that much of it comes from scripture. Both the Bible and the Quran are filled with a deadly combination of monotheistic tenets and divine sanctioning of violence, and the desire for an afterlife attained through world actions is a potent motivator, as witnessed by the hundreds of religious warriors proudly becoming violent martyrs in the fight against non-believers.

In my limited experience on this planet, I have come to believe that most devout Christians have need for the teachings of Christ the most. I have found few [devout] Christians who practice what Christ did - love, acceptance, tolerance. They are unwilling to live and let live, instead demonizing anyone who doesn’t believe as they do. They deliver messages of peace with sledgehammers and feel better about themselves for having done so, for having made the choices they’ve made, and for the rush of pride they get from being martyrs for God.

When I ask Christians about the inequities and double standards I see in their faith, I usually get some kind of God-doesn’t-hate-sinners-He-just-hates-the-sin reply in response. “God doesn’t hate people,” they say. If God is all loving, why are we doomed to be sinners from the moment of birth? I didn’t eat the damn apple. If God was truly fair and all loving, shouldn’t I be judged on what I do in this lifetime – not on what supposed relatives of mine did before Jesus was even born? Why would a loving and compassionate God commit each and every one of us to a lifetime of sin that can only be mitigated by begging for His forgiveness? Beg forgiveness from the one who made you a sinner? And if you don’t beg His forgiveness you don’t get that eternal paradise He has promised? That’s some kind of a set up! Sort of like making the victim beg the perpetrator for more abuse.

I don’t think it’s okay to spend a lifetime committing bad deeds but be saved at any point by accepting Jesus as your personal savior. I think what I do in this life is way more important than what I pray for on my deathbed. I don’t think it’s okay that the Buddhist and the Flower Child and the Atheist who dedicate his/her lives to service and compassion for others is doomed to fry in hell. I don’t think God hates fags. I don’t believe God considers mothers who work to be uncommitted to their children. If we are all truly created in God’s perfect image, there would be no violence, no murder, no homosexuality, no pedophiles, no adultery, in short, no violation of any of the 10 commandments. If we were truly, truly created in God’s image, then free will wouldn’t exist, except to sabotage efforts to get closer to God.

Things I object to:
  1. We are commanded not to covet they neighbor’s wife. Yet God chose to make Mary pregnant with His child after she was already formally betrothed to another man. I’ve had Christians come back at me and say God didn’t break his commandment because Mary and Joseph weren’t married at the time of the immaculate conception. But in biblical times, betrothal was a formal contract, blessed or officiated by a religious authority. Betrothal was binding as marriage and a divorce was necessary to terminate a betrothal. Betrothed couples were regarded legally as husband and wife - even before their wedding and physical union. Therefore, she was his wife in the sense that they were fully and totally committed to each other - and had given a pledge to one another. That they had not consecrated their union with sex is a moot point.
  2. I object to persecution that takes place in the name of God, and I object to the idea that God loves any one of us more or less because of which side of the pew we sit on come Sunday mornings.
  3. I object to the concept that good and decent non-Christians are doomed to hell and Christian evildoers get to go to heaven. Same is true for homosexuals.
  4. I find it suspect that so many people “find” God during times of strife. Why doesn’t anyone ever find Him when life is going well? Why must one be in the dark to see the light but unable to see into the darkness when standing in the light?
  5. I object to Christians’ attempts to convert the rest of us. It’s like some freak 12-step group in which those in recovery promise to bring their newfound principles to other addicts.
  6. I object to a punishing God who would ask us to sacrifice our children, our marriages, our homes, and our livelihoods to prove our loyalty to Him. My God already knows who is and who isn’t.
  7. I object to the notion that “everything” is in Divine hands. If that were true, none of us would ever need to do anything because life would go according to the way God planned it for us anyway.
  8. I object to anyone who preaches one thing and practices another. No one can weep over their victim and forgo the guilt of having been responsible for their victimization at the same time.
  9. I reject outright any story that attempts to convince me that the God who is all-loving, all knowing and kind is the same God who then created and sent His one and only son to a brutal death just to teach the other human brats a lesson.
  10. I reject any concept of an eternal paradise. I think it is a form of bribery, a tool to keep people afraid and behaving the way others think they ought to.
  11. I reject any concept of heaven or hell. I believe that we get one shot at life and when it’s over, it’s over. That is the incentive for living a life of purpose.
  12. I reject the notion that to win God’s favor we must prostrate ourselves and beg His forgiveness. I believe that the best way we can honor God is to treat others as we would wish to be treated, and to make full use of the talents we have been given. What makes me uniquely me, and what makes you uniquely you is the gifts each of us has been given.
I believe that the purpose of life is to explore and create relationships with others. Every one of us wants exactly the same thing: to love and be loved in return. If God really is everywhere and everything, then God is a part of me – and me a part of God. God is my partner in this journey called life, not my taskmaster, not my dictator, and not my oppressor.

God gave me a mind that is both intuitive and analytical. I accept things that intuitively feel right and question the things that don't make sense to me. And I take full responsibility for my beliefs: I don’t blame them or credit them on a book that I read. I have no idea of knowing whether or not my beliefs are the “right ones.” I only know that they feel right to me - just as your beliefs feel right to you. It is entirely possible that my understanding of God is not real and it’s also possible that all of us are right. But if none of us are right, or if every one of us is right, just who is God and where is She?