Spiritual Deceptions - My first GraphicTruth.

`Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny - Yahoo! News Annotated

The message flickered into Cindy Fleenor's living room each night: Be faithful in how you live and how you give, the television preachers said, and God will shower you with material riches.

And so the 53-year-old accountant from the Tampa, Fla., area pledged $500 a year to Joyce Meyer, the evangelist whose frank talk about recovering from childhood sexual abuse was so inspirational. She wrote checks to flamboyant faith healer Benny Hinnand a local preacher-made-good, Paula White.

Only the blessings didn't come. Fleenor ended up borrowing money from friends and payday loan companies just to buy groceries. At first she believed the explanation given on television: Her faith wasn't strong enough.

By their fruits you will know them.

• There isn't any reason why a Christian can't be prosperous, of course, but there's nothing in the Bible - or any other spiritual text - that highlights wealth as a special and particular blessing of faith.
  
  As for those preachers who are enjoying the fruits of their ministry to the extent of living lavish lifestyles and hob-nobbing with presidents and powerful business leaders who love to think that their aquissitive nature is a spiritual gift - "Behold, they have their reward."
  
  - post by graphictruth

The probe by Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has brought new scrutiny to the underlying belief that brings in millions of dollars and fills churches from Atlanta to Los Angeles — the "Gospel of Prosperity," or the notion that God wants to bless the faithful with earthly riches.

This story is very personal to me - and the connection to Oral Roberts is direct.

You see, my mother - a religious addict by any reasonable use of the term - was much taken with Oral Robert's ministry, back when I was ten or twelve, and on days when she didn't feel up to driving the thirty-odd miles it would take to get us to church, she'd watch his show.

And usually, she'd stuff whatever "love offering" he requested for whatever trinket he was selling that day.

Now, our usual church was Episcopal. Being a dutiful and very aspy child, I took my mother's obvious wish that I become "saved" and conversant with the words and works of Jesus very seriously indeed. And as it happened, that church had a very advanced Sunday school, where we really got our teeth into the word, and chewed it with the help of concordances, interlinear bibles, and various translations. I had my own Amplified Bible, which I found very useful.

To make a long story short, I was quite the little deacon at that point, although I had by that time also learned that in regards to my parents, "hiding my light under a bushel" was by far the best course.

However, when Oral Roberts pulled a "prayer cloth" with his holy blessed hand-print upon it, stated that he'd personally prayed over each and every one of these objects, and because of that, they would by some twisted transubstantiation personally connect him to you via the Holy Idiot Box if you placed your hand over his as he prayed with his own hand raised on Teevee...

Well, this little deacon exploded, and while I didn't speak in tongues - as mother really thought any believer should - for once I did not hold it. Nor was it a "word of knowledge." You don't need that when scriptural first principles are being raped before your eyes.

I pointed out that it was idolatry - both of an object and a man, and as graphic an example of a man placing himself before God, as a god-substitute as you would ever see. It still angers me to this day, that a man professing to be a Christian minister could not even get through the FIRST commandment without pissing all over it.

I say that deliberately, as a graphic and visceral illustration of the clear and mindful insult to both his followers and to the God he pretended to serve.

I was actually rather surprised the roof didn't fall in on him right then. It took a few more years, and the "fall" was metaphorical, but rather satisfying, nonetheless.

But in any case, that one time my mother listened to me and did not actually put twenty bucks in an envelope. But it didn't keep her from sending it off to Bob Schuller. Indeed, she sent hundreds, if not thousands to him. One Christmas, my major gift was a window in the Chrystal Cathedral.

Imagine my joy.



As far as I'm concerned, nothing says "transparent fraud" better than the Crystal cathedral. Although these days it's far from the worst such church. Rev. Bob Schuller was a sincere advocate of an inoffensive ministry that was based more on his blandly optimistic self-help pep-talks than on the Bible.

It was a dose of weekly feelgood that came with no strings of personal obligation, other than to buy his books and be optimistic - and all you needed to do in order to progress spiritually was just that - buy his books and be optimistic.

It wasn't nearly as offensive as the "name it - claim it" theology of Oral Roberts, and that is what my mother fell back into later on.

And just like the bitter woman in this article, my mother ended up bitter and unfulfilled, having sacrificed pretty much everything in a futile quest for sanctity and moral superiority without doing the heavy lifting involved involved in discerning Right Action.

Yes, I am informed by other religious traditions. As should you be, if you are moved toward a quest for spiritual insight. If you merely wish to belong to a church that offers a community of belief at a reasonable price, and puts some effort into doing a good job of it, though, I would recommend either a Catholic or Anglican Communion congregation, depending upon your need for governing authorities.

The important thing in my mind is that neither faith is one that encourages self-righteousness and self-involvement to the same degree as the evangelical, "prosperity gospel" mega-churches.

And that, of course, brings us back into the secular world. Indeed, since we are speaking of Oral Roberts and his Mega-church legacy of sanctified greed and the elevation of
moralism
over actual moral virtue, we have never left the secular realm!

If you have not yet grasped the thrust of my words, let me be blunt - I consider none of these televangelists, with their politicalmaneuverings and highly profitable enterprises to be anything other than entirely secular con-men, or, for the very best of a bad lot, no better than any other motivational speaker.

But the worst of them - Benny Hinn leaps to mind - are fully in the tradition of Marjoe Gortner and P.T. Barnum, but blessed with even less conscience than either of those.

Now, I have studied the Bible from front to back and back to front over the years, searching for the context and intent of the words of Christ. For the most part, I consider what I've learned to be highly personal, and not at all something I feel either comfortable or qualified to preach toward - though it would be easy to argue that my scruples are rather unusual in that regard.

One truth is obvious enough to me to share with you in context. In the times of Jesus, sheep were a vital part of the economy, and nobody could possibly have missed the subtext of Christ saying to his Disciples, "feed my sheep."

It's not a complementary metaphor. There are few animals that make a collie or Irish setter seem bright in comparison, and sheep are at the top of the list. They have been bred over thousands and thousands of years to be meek, inoffensive, biddable, stupid creatures who are incapable of finding food for themselves. They NEED to be "led to green pastures" and "to lie beside still waters."

So when Christ said "feed my sheep," nobody thought it was anything other than a thankless chore involving inherently stupid creatures who needed to gently and compassionately cared for. Jesus cared about his stupid, bleating, sheep like followers, who could as easily be led to war against the Romans as "beside the still waters."

What he did NOT say was "fleece my sheep." And that is what these mega-churches do, with their for profit banks that will helpfully accept direct deposits from your place of work and deduct a thirty percent tithe.

Oh yes. Thirty percent. Some actually take that much.

Tax free, for them. Not for you, of course. Since even if you are able to deduct all the thirty percent, you will still be paying the differential on property and other municipal taxes to allow for that corporate monstrosity.

That's not just fleecing the sheep, it's skinning them alive, and then slaughtering their lambs in front of their bleeding, soon to be corpses.

That metaphor applies to the Evangelically sanctified "war on terror."

Meanwhile, these massive edifices exist without paying property tax or any other fees to the "godless" community they take advantage of, even though the impact is similar to a large stadium in terms of traffic and environmental impact.

All of this is in return for a promise that you will get into heaven eventually, and meanwhile, due to your faith, deserve all kinds of rewards in the here and now.

Some of these churches actually take a step toward making that happen, with an entire "grey" economy wherein all the members essentially agree to do business only with other members of that church - so an illusion of prosperity, and even perhaps a little actual prosperity may occur - but of course, only for a few, who are held up as exemplars of Christian virtue, even though scandal after scandal seems to reveal intentional patterns of fraud, abuse and the worst sorts of sexual and political corruption.

I think we have all suffered enough at the hands of such "virtuous" Christian shepherds, and shoveled all the crap left behind them that we need to grasp the point that they cannot be trusted with the lives and prosperity of those foolish enough to take them at their word. We need to "shake the dust from our feet."

Matthew, Chapter Ten is pretty much the definitive instruction set and doctrinal basis for Evangelism. Inasmuch as it contradicts just about everything mega church, prosperity gospel "evangelists" say and do, you can, and SHOULD take it as Gospel.

After all, it IS Gospel. Believe it, or do not, but if you believe the Bible is true, then you must admit that such creatures are false to the core - and how much more obviously true this must be if you consider the gospels to be a variety of fable.

And as this "prosperity gospel" with it's emotional and authoritarian appeals are so deeply entwined with our current administration and it's political appointees that there is effectively no difference, I suggest that no distinction need be made. We should impeach and convict the lot of them. The righteous need to retake the churches, while those who believe in ethical, constitutional, professional and accountable leadership must retake all three branches of government.

Please do what you can to encourage Sen. Grassley toward Right Action in this regard, that in service to this action of cleansing our body politic of the pernicious influence of corrupt and deceptive churches, he should become a co-sponsor of Dennis Kucinich's Impeachment resolution, if he has not already.

After all, it's the same lot of corrupt bastards, all scratching each other's backs, swapping their private planes and fleecing the gullible sheep.

The goats need to take back their flocks.

tag: Sen. Charles Grassley, religious addiction, tax fraud, prosperity gospel, religious fraud, , Christianists, Shadow Economy, Greed, cultural warfare, Corruption, abuse of power, religous abuse, religous fraud, Cindy Fleenor, Benny Hinn

Render Unto Ceasar

I have a serious problem with the ultimate credibility of both Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, which has nothing to do with their politics. It's with what both claim to inform and shape their politics, their faith.

Both are more than willing to cite the importance of the Bible, and both are proud of their significant religious ordinations; both are hold ordinations in their respective faiths, and Romney is the equivalent of a Christian Bishop.

Furthermore, it seems to me that any fair-minded person, in reviewing the accomplishments of both men, which are honestly significant and important, than it's evident that they have, within the limits of human nature and circumstance - strived to honor the spirit as well as the letter of doctrinal guidance. These are not bad things. Indeed, in many ways, both men illustrate the impact of religious culture in society in it's best light - and I say this while taking direct issue with much of what each stands for, religiously and politically.

But if we are to praise men of faith who do their best to honor the words of Christ as they understand them in the world, we must heed Matthew 6:24 :

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth."

In context, Matthew chapter six is purportedly the direct words of Christ and is indisputably the foundation of some of the oldest and most basic Christian doctrines. In other words, it's pretty much a litmus test for people who say they are Christians, or (in Mitt's case) that their faith derives from and amplifies Christianity.

While my understanding of Mormonism is weak at best, I know of nothing in it that would dispute this passage. And aside from anything else, the words stand for themselves; they are persuasive due to them being a matter of common sense, one that is well understood within common law, which would express it as "conflict of interest."

If this were the only leg to my argument, though, it would not be worth uttering, for of course the issue goes to motive, and motive we cannot know. No, the more critical issue is this:

Both men, in taking direct ordinations and embracing certain spiritual obligations and duties, have accepted what is generally understood by persons of faith to be a higher, overriding duty. And - in the case of BOTH Mitt's Mormonism and Mike's Southern Baptist faith, there are going to be times when it will not be possible to come to an honorable compromise between the prior charge of the priesthood and the later oath of office.

The only way either could legitimately take the oath would be by renouncing their prior ordinations. But then, that would not really reflect well upon how seriously they took the duties and obligations they had sworn before their visions of God to uphold.

It seems to me that as things stand, the only way I can assume that either will "faithfully execute the office of the President" is if I assume that they were keeping their fingers crossed when they made their earlier promises, for the honorable exercise of their offices requires them to put the interests of the faithful and of their faith ahead of anything else, to a far greater and more stringent degree than is required of someone who is merely a congregate in good standing.

If I assume they are both men of faith to the degree I am expected to believe, if I assume they are sincere in their beliefs, if I assume they are faithful to their various religious doctrines which both claim overriding divine authority, I must then assume that in conscience and in practice that doctrine and faith will trump Constitution and Law every single time. And, as both support amending the constitution itself to take rights away from gays who are doctrinally excluded from marriage within either faith, we clearly see how this conflict resolves for each.

I don't ascribe this to some nefarious hidden agenda, I ascribe it to perfectly sincere faith, executed by men of conscience to the best of their ability. Believing as they both do, there is no other path of conscience.

Which means, alas, that neither man should, in conscience, be running for political office, knowing full well that they cannot and must not serve two masters.

The only question is this: which one will they choose to betray?

The President must be president for all citizens - not just citizens of a particular faith or range of faiths. The President is the safeguard of our liberties - not the figure that would impose duties upon us by fiat. We are offered two men from two very authoritarian religions who, we must assume, believe not only that it's proper that moral standards be imposed, but who each hold offices that make them responsible for doing just that.

I'd have a problem with that even if I were a member of such a faith - and I rather think that my objections would be even more profound if I held a similar ordination in a similar faith.

That is why the founders somewhat reluctantly agreed that there should be a separation of Church and State and forbade the establishment of any religion, even the rather inoffensive Deist faith.

Because a man may not serve two masters - and neither may a government.

tag: religion, faith, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, election 2008, Matthew 6:24

The friend of my enemy is my... friend?

There's a famous unattributed quotation from WWII, alleged to be uttered by a Peer of the Realm: "This Hitler fellow makes it impossible for a gentleman to be an Anti-Semite."

That quotation leaped to mind as I read the reactions of socially-conservative voters to the news of San Diego's Mayor Jerry Sanders' tearful reversal of his stance on Gay Marriage.

He began by explaining his refusal to veto the council's decision, saying his beliefs had “evolved significantly” since 2005, when he established his stance on civil unions during his first mayoral campaign.

In the time since, he said he realized he could not accept “the concept of a separate-but-equal institution.” Because of that, he continued, he was unwilling to send the message to anyone that “they were less important, less worthy or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage.”

The mayor, now crying openly, noted that he has close family members and friends in the gay and lesbian community, including staff members and “my daughter Lisa.”

“In the end, I couldn't look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships, their very lives, were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife, Rana,” said Sanders, who quickly thanked reporters and dashed from the room.

Now, as an Aspie/autistic, I have the unusual tendancy to take statements such as this at face value. I even take the emotional context at face value. If an issue causes a bluff old conservative police chief to break down in tears over what he plainly states to be a crisis of concience, I'm inclined to take him at his word, and indulge in the delusional procedure of supposed mind-reading about his "real" motivations.

But the comments on this article reveal that that is one of the most common - and possibly least offensive - assumptions made about him and the "gay agenda" he has "betrayed" the people in "condoning."



But the overwhelming majority of the outrage reveals a depth of hatred, bigotry and ignorance about law, constitution, spelling, grammar, logical construction, evidence, rational argument, ethics, reason and most especially the Bible that I suspect that the supporters for his former stance were as persuasive to him as those he'd been arguing against.

Here is one such argument, actually, one of the more articulate ones; penned by one "Faithful on 09/20/2007 at 8:51 a.m.

"I don't know where, in our constitution, it says marriage is a "right".

The fact that you do not know something does not mean that that which you are ignorant of does not therefore exist.

US Constitution, Bill of Rights:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Faithful continues:

I highly doubt that the Founding Fathers were thinking about queer relationships when they penned it. That said, the same argument goes for heterosexual marriage. It is a privilege granted by the State.

More precisely, it is a right arrogated by the states; originally to deal with the "Plague" of interracial marriage. That's why "marriage licenses" were first issued by various States.

Then, of course, the advantage of it from revenue and record-keeping standpoints became obvious to cash-strapped states. But Constitutionally speaking, there's no argument that any form of permission for civil marriage is or should be required. Whether or not there is a compelling state interest in regulating marriage, much less giving substantial advantages to married people is a separate argument, but if such advantages do exist than the equal protection clause states that it should be given and withheld without arbitrary distinctions between persons over matters irrelevant to the goals of the state, or for goals that would be unconstitutional if they were admitted aloud.

In fact, the "granting of privilege" was one of the great issues for our founders and one thing they did their best to eradicate from and forbid to government. One expression of said intent was the so called "Equal Protection Clause -" which to paraphrase, states that all laws must apply equally to all, or be judged unconstitutional.

The term "marriage" is derived from the scramental institutution promoted by Judeo/Christian (and others) religion. I suppose one way to resolve the whole thing is for the State to quit calling it "marriage" and calling it "civil union" available to both heteros and homos, with only the individual religions permitting (or not) the sacramental term, marriage.

Putting the hilarity of an argument based on the authoritative nature of English word derivation aside, so what? If anything, that is a persuasive argument, given the Constitutional protection of religious practices, to stay out of the matter entirely. In fact, legal recognition for marriage comes out of English Common Law, which addressed the rights and responsibilities of those who chose to live together "without benefit of clergy."

This is a simple issue of citizenship, inheritances and transmission of rights, privileges and duties, when said matters had not already been defined by church records.

Would this make gays happy? Probably not, because it is the word "marriage" that they want applied to them. They also want to force religion to accept their unions as godly and "normal". They want homosexuality promoted in the schools as "normal" and "healthy" and have succeeded to a great degree in the public school system. They have plans to extend this "education" to the private education system. This is what I object to.

As the Mayor stated, any "separate but equal" solution has a particular stench of inequality to it in our culture.
By contrast, you want their relationships portrayed as "abnormal" and "unhealthy," and have up until now succeeded in that goal to a great degree in the public school system.

Personally, having for no other reason other than my appearance and personality been identified by my peers as "gay" in grade school, I think teaching acceptance of differences to be a good thing, and the rejection of persecution of others for transparently false religious rationalizations to be also a good thing.

So yes, there is a gay lobby. And no, one isn't a bigot because one doesn't accept homosexuality as "normal" and "healthy".

No, one could merely be totally ignorant and willfully misinformed. But the venom in your tone strongly suggests bigotry, as well as a suspicious fixation upon the sexual practices of others that could be reasonably presumed to represent either repression or envy of the "sexual license" and "immoral lifestyle" you clearly presume all homosexual people practice. I presume neither, since I care nothing about why you would choose to act so intolerably toward others. I don't need to hear your excuses for evil thoughts and evil deeds, whatever they are, they will be neither original nor enlightening.

I've known a lot of Gay people - because gay people do accept differences, and so it's always been my practice to hang with the lesbigay crowd even though I prefer sex heterosexual style from an aesthetic perspective and in the "missionary position" for the sake of my dignity and my sadly defective joints.

To quote one strong advocate of what you would call the "gay agenda," "Don't call me a gay activist. I don't get laid that often." This is not a "gay" issue. It's a human rights issue on the most basic level - and you are presuming the "majority right" to decide who gets to be "human."

I assert the first and second amendment rights to contest the idiocies of the majority, with as much force as is needed to penetrate their skulls with a useful degree of enlightenment.

The fact is, the majority of gay people have as good moral character as any heterosexual; actually, they tend to have a better grasp of right and wrong. Being exposed on a regular basis to the evil of stark, evident hatred and persecution will tend to clarify your values big time.

"That which is hateful to you, do not do unto others."

Clearly, you find the "homosexual agenda" hateful... but yet you are perfectly comfortable forcing the "Right Wing Socially-Conservative Cultural Christian" agenda upon everyone. Furthermore, you claim a religious right to express this through force - state violence and even occasionally the justification of individual violence against gays and all sorts of other people you find "freaky" and "abnormal."

Me, for example. There are entire institutions devoted to eradicating the entire autistic spectrum, pre-birth, with no other justification than a parent's "right" to have a "normal" child. But we shall save the rest of this related rant about xenophobia for another day. Today, we are speaking of specific sins, not the more mental, moral and social failures our currently dominant social class are beset with.

In order to say that a certain behavior or attraction is "unnatural," you are absolutely stating that it doesn't occur outside of an artificial context, never occurs in nature, only occurs within the human species and as a result of deliberate, willful choice AFTER exposure to the behavior.

Provably and totally, the above assumptions are false. Homosexual preference occurs in many species, does occur outside of our society, in all cultures everywhere, regardless of social approval or moral stricture. It's recorded in history as far back as history occurs, both with and without exposure to "influence." And as far as we can tell, it was no MORE prevalent in societies that held it to be a virtue than in cultures that held it to be a vice. All it did was change who got to strut publicly.

Frankly, we are born attached to the parts that primarily influence us. All sexual morality and most reasoning is rationalization and regulation after the fact, in order to keep those parts from leading to do foolish, dangerous and evil things. I don't know about you, but in my experience, it is far, far more dangerous to pretend to be what I am not and try to apply moral standards which have no direct application to me or my needs, than to admit what I am and then try to act ethically towards others based in a sound and honest appreciation of what moral and ethical pitfalls exist for me.

I've found it quite dangerous to my safety, my mental health and my good self-opinion to pay much attention to what others think of as the "most important sins." I'm not particularly vulnerable to sexual temptation - I can wade through porn for days on end, with the greatest risk being either nausea or uncontrollable laughter. But I am daily beset by the temptation of arrogance. While self-righteousness is not my particular pitfall, it's a related failing, and clearly, that's your issue. It is also a sin your religious faith directly encourages you to indulge in the face of everything Jesus had to say about that particular vexation.

The bottom line is this: "Sin" is not about what other people do. It's about what YOU do to other people. By the tenants of your OWN faith, you will not be judged on what you prevented others from doing, or what you forced them to do, you will be judged on that which you did to others, and your rationalizations will not matter. For emphasis on the futility of human rationalizations, consult any dour Presbyterian you know.

As your religion clearly has not helped you identify and cope with your particular tendency toward the evil of self-righteousness, may I suggest your efforts might be better employed in finding a religion that emphasizes personal humility a bit more?

I'd also gently suggest that the besetting sin of Self-Righteousness is an even greater threat to Christianity itself, but that, my dear Faithful, is YOUR problem.

I've always felt that the question of what faith I have should come up in the context of "what is it you believe, to lead you to act as you do?"

Now, in your case, Faithful, that answer does not reflect well upon either Christianity - or your discernment of it's essential teachings.

Selah.

tag: constitution, San Diego, Mayor, Mayor Jerry Sanders, Family Values, patriarchy, evolutionary biology, Religious Fundimentalism, Clash of Cultures, Conservatism, Christianists, religious persecution, defamation, liberty, California, critical thinking, ignorance, evil, Bizarre Sex Habits, Sexual Sins, Sublimation, Right-Wing Hypocrites, Individual Rights, Individual Liberty, Freedom of Choice, church-state, moralism, abuse of power, bullying, prejudice, christian fanatics, dominionists, theocracy, sexuality, public policy, Religious Ethics, Social Obligations, Smear Tactics, Right-Wing Propaganda, Religious Intolerance, Hate Speech., fundimendalism, oppression, Freudian References, Paranoid Fantasies, Right Wing Talk, blogmockery, Ridicule, ethics of government, Gay Marriage, gay agenda, gay rights

Peace and the power of Intent.

I just got a note from my good friend, Jim Wallis, and I'd like to share it with you. It touches me that we seem to be on a first-name basis.

Ok, it's a mass mailing, but he has a point and I'd like to share it with you.

Dear Bob,

Jesus said to them, "This kind can come out only through prayer." (Mark 9:29) Let Congress know you're praying for them to end the war in Iraq.

Next week, Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, will report to Congress on the troop "surge," in which the Bush administration has escalated the war in Iraq by sending an additional 20,000 American combat troops.

As people of faith, we believe in the power of prayer to soften the hardest of hearts and open the way to peace and reconciliation. So, as General Petraeus testifies, we're planning to match his surge with one of our own–20,000 prayers for Congress to bring an end to this war.

Click here to share your prayer with Congress–let them know that you're praying for their courage and wisdom to end this war.

We are at a critical moment, as the House and Senate decide on our nation's continued involvement in Iraq amidst a frenzy of swirling accusations and partisan rhetoric.

But while the Bush administration has frequently abused the language of scripture to justify this disastrous war, a growing number of Christians from across the theological and political spectrum are coming together to oppose it.

And our nation's political leaders are listening–in fact, we've spoken to several members of Congress who are considering reading a selection of your prayers for peace into the Congressional Record.

Like many of you, I've opposed this war from the start, and together we've raised a prophetic voice against it–marching in the streets, writing letters, and much more.

We'll continue to do all of that, but I believe it will also take faith to end this war. It will take prayer to end it. It will take a revolution of love to end it, because this endless war in Iraq is based ultimately on fear, and the Bible tells us that only perfect love will cast out fear.

Will you be a part of this surge of prayer for peace? Click here to let your Senators and Representative know that you're praying for them.

In times such as these, we ought to remember the words of the Apostle Paul:

Do not worry about anything, but in everything, by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4:6-7)

Blessings,

Jim Wallis and the rest of the team at Sojourners/Call to Renewal

P.S. To reach 20,000 prayers by next week, we'll need your help. Can you share this message with 10 of your friends, family, and congregation members, asking them to join us in this campaign?

Jim is speaking to fellow Evangelical Christians, and so in a way, he's "speaking in tongues." But it's not that hard to translate, so let me just say that it matters little what, if any religion or faith you follow. What matters in efforts like this is intent.

As it happens, I grew up in the usual way in these United States - Sort of Christian. Between my mother's religious quest for simple answers and my father's dedication to the path of personal selfishness, I was exposed to both credulity and cynicism about spirituality. Naturally, I rejected both and made my own explorations, finding that when examined, there is a great deal to be said for Christian faith - if you ignore most of those most willing to provide ready reference cards to make it "easier to understand."

It's really not that complicated. Indeed, it's taken over 2000 years and the lives of thousands of dedicated theologians to obscure the Bible's ethos to the extent we see to day, where it's a matter of faith that God approves of blowing up random brown people in His Or Her Name. But this is not so much about faith or ethics as it is about ritual and intent - and for ritual and intent, there are no good Protestant sources, other than the Episcopal Church - and even there, the idea that there is a point and intent to the ritual has largely been lost. This is true for many Catholics as well. The reform of the Catholic liturgy was... well, it needed reformation. But it was apparently reformed by people who didn't really understand why you do rituals in the first place.

But when you wish to gather people together in a shared intent to effect a change in the course of things through pure intent, that is done by means of a ritual that defines and focuses that intent. By the by, we now have a scientific understanding that such focused intents can effect probability and appearently causation on a subatomic level. It really does change reality. (in wikispeak, citation needed.)

But in order to do that, the ritual must be precise. It's best to fit the current intent into an existing, well-practiced formula, which is why ditching liturgies wholesale is a bad idea.

But there are few books of ritual more familiar and well-worn than The Book of Common Prayer, and it would be profitable to study it's composition, and the way it can be used to build a full ritual from various paragraphs.

Now, I know Evangelicals are suspicious of ritual and it's trappings - although I've been to enough Evangelical, "spirit filled" events to wish they respected it more. Spiritually speaking, certain rituals are sensible - much like reflexively "safeing" your gun before putting it away. If you believe - as do I, and apparently as Jim Wallis does, that prayerful intent can have a real-world effect, it should be intuitively obvious that it can have a less than ideal result if you do not consider and carefully state the intent so that everyone shares the exact SAME intent.

Otherwise, the very best result is that nothing much happens. And indeed, if the only intent is political - simply getting a large number of people to send a message, that intent will be met simply by doing as Jim suggests. However, what Jim does NOT do is exclude the other intents that individuals may have, and therein lies the rub. There are potential pitfalls involved in simply "praying for peace," and praying at people to "make the right decision." Coercion is Unchristian - and unethical. Aside from that, it leads to most unpredictable outcomes.

Of course, the reason for formulaic prayers is to create templates for such occasions, so that potential pitfalls are avoided automatically. The risk is that the existence of those pitfalls will be forgotten as the price of having avoided them for so long.

I had thought to include an example within this post - but it seems that it's not so easy as it might appear; I'm sure there are suitable rituals - but most likely one would have to seek out Pagan and Wiccan sources and work from that point. Wiccans and other Pagans are on the forefront of ritual design these days because it's an article of their faiths - whatever else they may not agree upon - that ritual is the key to the expression of what they believe and what they wish to accomplish. This has been generally discounted within the greater Church - even the Anglican and Catholic branches have de-emphasized the importance of proper ritual.

And now we reach MY point: There can be no real or lasting peace without justice. I am unwilling to return to a state where we accept the largely nonviolent exploitation and oppression of people, with only isolated tragedies here and there as a consequence of brutal economic and class warfare as "peace."

Peace is not a general absence of outright warfare. It is not just the cessation of military adventures - it is also the abandonment of the intent behind them, to unjustly control the destenies of other persons, while holding them accountable for the costs of their own compliance.

Peace is just that; it is peace. It is the absence of the will to impose one's will on others - by whatever means.

And THAT is what you must seek - or you will simply be agitating for war by more comfortable means, with fewer disturbing images on television and casuaties measured only in relative standards of living.

So long as you are praying, in part, to maintain "our American Way of Life" as it has been within living memory, you are praying for what has been a state of constantly smoldering potential violence that occasionally breaks out into open aggression. And that is what I refer to above as an "unexpected outcome."

You see, in order to properly craft an intent, you must be brutally honest with yourself about what it is you seek, and what it will cost others should the result be "positive" from your point of view. Otherwise, while there may be a short-term shift in direction, the fundamental change many of us feel long overdue will come, not with hosannas, but with cries of outrage as the world re-aligns against OUR will and our interests.

Because, well, that's Karma, baby.

Israel's Soldiers breaking silence.

I have long avoided saying anything about Israel's domestic and military policy because I did not consider myself well-informed enough to comment. But when any government, anywhere has foreign and domestic policies that are clearly causing irreparable to persons both in and out of their legitimate jurisdictions, that government is acting in a way that is clearly unethical. As clearly unethical actions always bring consequences, unethical policies always end up with a very large and painful mess that needs to be confronted, which the following excerpted paragraphs illustrate.

"Preach to Your Own People" Annotated

Mikhael Manekin, discharged from the IDF in 2002 is now the Foreign Relations Manager of Breaking the Silence www.breakingthesilence.org.il which documents former IDF soldiers testimonies about the occupation and oppression of Palestinians, "I am a practicing Jew and in two weeks we go into the month of repentance; which requires acknowledging our sins. We cannot change things until we acknowledge our culpability.

"A few years ago, the soldiers you have encountered at the checkpoints would have been me. Soldiers like myself who served during the second intifada, got our education on the job. You all have visited more places [the past nine days] than most Israelis ever have. Israeli's have no idea what is happening in the occupied territories. But, so far in 2007 we have given more Israeli's a tour through Hebron than we did in 2005 and 2006 combined. Hebron is a ghost town, the settlers are unbearable and every soldier who is stationed there understands the 600 settlers there are psychotic; insane.

"I became very opinionated while in the army, but I kept it all to myself. Nobody talks about it in the army and I was the commander and did not know until after I got out that one of the other soldiers in my unit was feeling the same way, until he gave his testimony. Israeli society wants you to believe you are a bad apple for speaking out because unless you trust the system, it will fall apart. Most Israelis who get out of the army leave the country and are probably all drugged out. They suffer post traumatic syndrome but we are the victimizers. My age group is getting the hell out of here or walling themselves off from society and are not involved in anything.

"Over 450 former soldiers have now given their testimonies and we don't publish any stories without the corroboration coming from another former soldier and the testimonies are kept anonymous.

"We all served in the territories. Some served in Gaza, some in Hebron, some in Bethlehem and the rest served in other places. We all manned checkpoints, participated in patrols and arrests and took part in the war against terror. We all realized that the daily struggle against terror and the daily interaction with the civilian population has left us helpless. Our sense of justice was distorted, and so were our morality and emotions.

"The reality we experienced was made of: Innocent civilians being hurt, Kids not going to school because of the curfew, and parents who can't bring food home because they can't go to work.

The article goes on to state that young people are tending to leave Israel after serving with the IDF in the Occupied Terratories; they are voting against further support and defense of the State of Israel with their feet. Others retreat into the silence and disaffection brought by drugs and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

I can only acclaim and honor their sacrifices - and their decision as to the worth of what it has bought. I am no expert - but it seems that those making the decisions that send these young men and women into harm's way are clearly no better equipped than I, or their policies would not have such hideous outcomes.

It's time that Israel divorces itself from the control of the religious fundamentalists who are clearly willing to sacrifice the lives and safety of - well, anyone in the Middle East and certainly all Israelis - for the goal of a chimerical Greater Israel.

I have always been in favor of the State of Israel, and for the longest time I, like many of my fellow countrymen, was willing to overlook the means in the name of the end. I still do, in the case of the establishment of Israel.

But I must state:

"That which is hateful to you, do not do unto others."

Of all the people in the world who should understand why it is both wrong and foolish to deprive others of their liberty and economic opportunity, to subject them to harassment, to herd them into ghettos and subject them to the daily threat of arbitrary and quite possibly deadly violence at the hand of the state or at the hands of persons within the dominant culture, it should be Jews.

It seems to me that the current course of the State of Israel, encouraged by both religious extremists and hard-line Zionists is causing the state of Israel to commit every sin ever committed against it - and I must speak up now, before it is guilty of the greatest crime against the soul of the Jewish people possible - a new holocaust. And that is, I am deeply sad to say, entirely within the realm of possibility, considering the current course of Israeli policy.

I anticipate accusations of anti-semitism, but in fact this is the opposite. I wish to see a powerful, flourishing, happy, peaceful Israel who is at peace with her neighbors, this is what I believe US supporters of Israel have always felt that the Jewish people are entitled to.

But then, it's something all people are entitled to - and it is a goal that cannot be pursued at the expense of others. Aside from being unethical and immoral, it clearly does not work.

Oh, should anyone wish to observe that this advice clearly applies to the US as well - Amen, and Selah.

tag: Israel, ethics, morality, religion, fundimendalism, foreign policy, oppression

Attenion Ron Paul: I present The No Stupid Rules Amendment

I am a libertarian and a constitutionalist - in that order. Ron Paul seems to reverse that order, but I may be wrong. In order to clarify that matter, I wonder what Ron might have to say about this Constitutional Amendment, which I cleverly title The No Stupid Rules Amendment. It's intended to forestall legislative and executive abuses of power and common infringements of individual liberties.

There's more...

The No Stupid Rules Amendment

1. Congress shall pass no law, nor shall courts uphold any existing law which
   has the overriding effect or intent of financially benefiting one group of
   citizens or corporate entity over another.
   


2. 
   Congress shall pass no law, nor shall courts uphold any existing law which
   has the overriding effect or intent of advantaging or penalizing ethnic
   custom, matters of individual faith and belief, or private behavior.
   
1. 
   This specifically includes taxation and tax exemptions.
2. Nor shall any law or regulation that requires the invasion of privacy or compromise of privilege to be detected be countenanced.
   
3. Evidence derived from such violations of privacy or privileged communication shall be inadmissible in any court or proceeding under color of law.
   




3. 
   The definition of "family" is recognized as being that of those deemed
   involved by mutually agreeable compacts which shall be recognized as being
   governed by ordinary contract law in the state they were entered into.
   




1. 
   States shall not impose unreasonable or unequal costs or requirements upon
   such compacts.
   


2. 
   This shall not be taken to imply that the state has any interest
   whatsoever in religious unions or the intent of voiding limitations or
   requirements placed upon those unions. States shall not require,
   enforce, regulate or forbid any such union.
   


3. 
   States may, at their discretion and as a matter of convenience provide
   standard format contracts which address common circumstances and
   requirements, but it is to be understood that there is to be no
   established preference upon the part of the state, nor may any particular
   form that limits the free choices of the contracted be a requirement.
   
4. 
   This amendment is not intended to override legitimate concerns about
   environmental, social or financial impacts, but all such concerns must be
   addressed by the least restrictive means possible and in no way may such
   concerns override the rights recognized in this Amendment.
   


5. 
   The right to freely self-medicate and to freely refuse to be mediated for
   any reason is recognized.
   
1. 
   Notwithstanding, the responsibility for impairment and other consequences
   is that of the individual.
   
6. 
   Congress shall not pass, nor shall courts uphold existing taxation or tariff
   laws that are designed or have the effect of restricting access to any thing
   to those able to afford the tax, nor in any case or for any reason may such
   taxes or tariffs exceed 100% of the retail cost.
   
   
1. 
   Congress will pass no law, nor shall any regulation be made creating
   product or service standards, regulatory requirements or compliance costs
   that have that same effect, save to the extent that such regulations are
   addressed towards the safety of the user, by the least restrictive means.
   No such extant law may be enforced or upheld.
   

After you read my proposed Constitutional Amendment, (click the "read full article link below" you comments would be very much appreciated. Furthermore, you are invited to participate in refining what is very much a rough draft. And please, forward, digg, stumble and otherwise widely distribute this idea to everyone you know who might be in favor OR passionately opposed.

tag: no stupid rules amendment, ron paul, constitution, constitutional amendment, Domestic Policy, tax inequities, states rights, critical thinking, Constitutional Government, Personal Responsibility, Individual Rights, Individual Liberty

Spoko observes:

Spocko is a stumbleupon buddy o' mine; it's a great way for bloggers to inflict - I mean share stories and links with a bit of explanation. I had to laugh out loud at this - and I'm far from being an athiest! But it does help to be able to think outside of the "big box church!"

StumbleUpon » Spocko's web site reviews and blog:

"Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and 'dehumanized' when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the 'atrocities' attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in 'Exodus' and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in 'Joshua' including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Oh, I have a couple-three nits to pick, here and there. I believe in prayer (theurgy) as well as magic, (thaumaturgy) and I do not think 0.001% is a plausible success rate. Regarding both phenomonae; aboriginal people did not have food to waste on useless individuals - and a shaman can be pretty damn useless in any respect other than shamanism. Same for Priests and Magicians. Now, all sorts are notorious for putting a thumb on the scale of public opinion - but you just can't fool all of the people, all of the time.

But none of the intuitive arts - and in "intuitive arts" I also include such disciplines as "teacher" and "psycologist" - can ever aspire to truly reproducable results, actually falsifiable theories or indeed, immunity from skeptical derision.

I should also note that while this is a fairly accurate assessment of a certain sort of mean-spirited, judgemental, self-rightious idiot, that all the hallmarks of it are actually mocked and derided IN the Bible, by Jesus. Make of that what you will - and I notice there seems to be a similar dissonance between what the Koran says and what certain folk who call themselvs Islamic (or even Imam) would like to tell you it says.

SSDR.

Holier than Thou Finals, Southern Division, goes into Sudden Death Overtime!

I haven't said anything about the passing of Cousin Jerry, as "Good Riddance" seemed rude and dismissive, while anything more seemed a waste of precious photons. But as others have said more, it's not too much effort to quote them.

the adventures of a boy and his computer - Home of the Tyranny of the Minority: "Now I don't hate the old bucket o' lard, and I don't care about christianity or any other religion, though for myself, Marx' view on religion is an apt one. It is the opiate of the people. Like any opiate, it requires a pusher, a distribution system; and unfortunately, like any addictive substance, it tends to suck the user dry while benefitting the pusher. and make no mistake, Jerky benefitted quite nicely. He lived a comfortable life.

Like any pusher, Jerky cut his religion with a variety of agents that would ensure maximum potency and continued addiction. To keep the faithful coming back for more(or to continue exploiting them, if you will, and I don't care if you won't). Jerky blended in a generous amount of hatred and fear. The 'god' he made in his own image thought it was fine for the Botha government to brutally oppress the blacks and coloureds in South Africa, he encouraged his congregation to buy Krugerrands to finance this activity. We all know of his happy tendency to blame the gays and abortionistes and feministes for the WTC/Pentagon incidents, and the drowning of the poor after Katrina, God approved of that line, too. Curiously, god was mute on the possibility of Jerky sharing his wealth to assist the victims of said disasters. Ryland wondered if Fred Phelps would show up to protest."

And that's where this otherwise unremarkable passing of a smug con-artist becomes potentially amusing. From http://www.godhatesamerica.com /, confirmation that Westbourogh Baptist Church will be there.

"WBC will Preach at Jerry Falwell's Funeral!!


WBC will preach at the memorial service of the corpulent false prophet Jerry Falwell, who spent his entire life prophesying lies and false doctrines like "God loves everyone".

There is little doubt that Falwell split Hell wide open the instant he died. The evidence is compelling, overwhelming, and irrefragable. To wit:

1. Falwell was a true Calvinistic Baptist when he was a young preacher in Springfield, Missouri, and sold his soul to Free-Willism (Arminianism) for lucre.

2. Falwell bitterly and viciously attacked WBC because of WBC's faithful Bible preaching -- thereby committing the unpardonable sin -- otherwise known as the sin against the Holy Ghost.

3. Falwell warmly praised Christ-rejecting Jews, pedophile-condoning Catholics, money-grubbing compromisers, practicing fags like Mel White, and backsliders like Billy Graham and Robert Schuler, etc. All for lucre -- making him guilty of their sins.


Falwell is in Hell, Praise God!!



America, Cursed of God

Yep, Falwell is going to Hell for his cursed Liberalism! Me, I don't much care where he is, so long as he ain't here.

My money is on the good ol' boys and gals from Thomas Road Baptist. I hope they respond with all the Christian charity and forbearance we have come to expect of Jerry and his followers.

But as a good Libertarian with an entrepreneurial streak, I want to show up with a push-cart filled with commemorative axe handles.

tag: Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, Hate Speech, patriarchy, Religious Fundimentalism, sociopaths, Dominionism, Gresham's Law

Illustration credit:Dick Cheney Sez: Jerry Falwell went to Hell by webcarve Get this custom shirt at Zazzle

The Amway Administration

Sister Novena's PortaPulpit: "So how did Amway change my thinking? Well, it made me glad to have a functionally rational mind, and it made me scared and a little grossed-out by what some people consider a good use of their lives. It helped me realize that on some level this society -- in which I actively participate -- is itself a vast pyramid scheme, in which everyone is promised wealth that can't be sustained. Eventually, somewhere down the line, someone -- you, or me, or a poor brown person in Indonesia -- is going to have to do the actual work, make the actual products, be the one who gets fucked for the financial benefit of someone else; and that there will always be many more people getting fucked than will ever be 'successful.' But just as the faux viscount isn't actually a better person than broke little me, I must always remember that if I manage to make a life for myself in which I don't spend my days in a plastics factory in Asia, it's not because I'm a better or more worthy human being, or more blessed by god. It made me realize how badly some people want to be led, how deeply they'll invest in other people's ideals, how much effort and thought they'll expend trying to avoid effort and thought. It made me wonder what even the 'successful' people did with their lives after they'd won their purported freedom -- they made nothing, produced nothing, created nothing,"

There are makers, takers and fakers. Guess who's running the nation for their benefit right now? Ok, that's glib, but I needed a hook.

I've done my time with Amway - until I discovered what Sister Novena found. I've done websites for those gobstruck by the majesty that is Matol. My wife had fun with Mary Kay for a while, until she got bored. Meanwhile, my in-box is crammed with various scams that involve getting rich suddenly, and they all seem to have the word "downline" in there somewhere.

The thing that's most troubling to me is that most of these schemes seem to be aimed at Christians. Amway is in particular very skillful at making itself an almost but not quite religious experience for the "insiders." and it easily hooks into churches that put a heavy emphasis on recruiting for their flocks.

It concerns me - a great deal - that people are so used to spiritual counterfeiting that Amway seems like a genuine, legitimate enterprise. I mean, they hype what they do a great deal, but it's not like they HIDE what they are.

What's even more surreal is that the same rhetoric, the same not quite facts, the same tactical vagueness has been a hallmark of the Republican Party since.. well, since Regan. Never mind THINKING about it; FEEL with us! Feel our Extra New Powerful Imperial Majesty! And you can share in all this! Just vote for ME!

Citizenship without effort or investment - just like those real-estate scams.

tag: church of god, amway, matol, MLM, Marketing Schemes, Victimising Christians