Father of Nations

8 days ago I hopped in my car to go climbing and turned on the radio. Not commuting every day for over a week had created a void in my schedule for news absorbance. NPR was running a story that Israel had opened the border with Gaza and was allowing aid to reach the country after over a month of it being closed to all traffic and embargoed by sea. It was an olive branch offered in "good faith" to the leaders of Hamas to renegotiate the ceasefire that had ended recently. I thought to myself: "Oh wow, that's cool they didn't just start killing each other." Apparently there had been rocket fire launched from the strip over the past few days, no Israeli casualties, just terror and property damage, in fact the only casualties at that point had been two palestinian girls caught when a rocket fell short of it's intended target.

The next day I opened my browser to read: "200 dead in Israeli air strikes." We were told that Most of these were Hamas militants. Most. A Majority. 

101.

By Wednesday the death toll had doubled, 400 dead, not to mention the thousands wounded. And today, that border that was opened for the first time in months is now being crossed by the Israeli military.

To put this into context, Israel is about 150% the size of New Jersey, invading a state that is maybe twice the size of Washington D.C. This is similar to an eight year old blooding his 4 year old brother's nose for poking him repeatedly after he had told him to stop.

I'll be the first to say that I know nothing about living in a hostile environment, surrounded on all sides by people who are resentful of my existence, and refuse to recognize my very right to exist. But to me, the idea of "Israeli Deterrence" is thuggish and is no better than tactics used in gang warfare. "If you fuck with us, we'll fuck you up harder."

Many ask: "Well, what would you have them do? These are terrorists who will not negotiate with Israel" I can't answer that, as they are following the example we have set, one that almost the entire world disagrees with in hindsight. (One of the dissenters to this opinion, of course being Israel where Bush approval ratings are still sky high).

Israel has turned out to be the aggressor here, and it's easy to wag fingers at them. However, when confronted about the excessive violence on his part, the older sibling's response is almost always "But, but... he started it!" No one has the moral high ground here. Everyone is culpable, everyone is responsible for the ongoing violence, including the U.S. and U.N. This goes back 60 years and generations. There are many who would even trace this back to Ishmael and Isaac. 

Zionism, Terrorism, religious zealotry at it's best. I'm going to borrow from a debate I had a little while ago and lean on one of the brightest and most respected minds of the modern era, Albert Einstein.

"As long as there are Men, there will be War." 

Human nature is rooted in tribalism, whether that's ethnic or religiously motivated, there will always be "the other," "the outsider." Religious fanaticism and Nationalism only serve to extend this further.

It's not social darwinism, it's not divinely inspired, it's not the prevailing of the righteous or strong, it is simply human nature.

What's simply hilarious (in the laugh-so-you-don't-cry sense) is that this conflict between Israel and Palestine, our "War on Terror" and in truth, some of the largest or cruelest of wars and atrocities of the past 1000 years have been committed by followers Abrahamic religions against each other.

Holocaust. Inquisition. Jihad. Crusade. Committed all by greedy or malicious men hiding behind religion or more often, and with far more tragic results, hiding behind piety.

What's worse? The "big three" all trace their lineages back to the same tribe.

Olbermann was wrong.

"Wha? John, say it ain't so." 

Ok, calm down and (re)watch his special comment from Monday and think about it.

Well, I'm not saying I disagree with him on any point he made, but for all his eloquence and vehemence, he missed the issue in favor of warm fuzzies.

Sure, he made me feel all those warm fuzzies, and he made the religious right look hypocritical and anything but Christlike, but this issue, marriage, is not about love.

There is no need for love to be legitimized by any institution -church or state- only by those involved.

Marriage, the marriage the homosexual community is fighting for, is marriage as a legal right. The "Gay agenda" is not about getting their unions recognized by any religious institution, this is not about love or God, or dissolving the sanctity of a sacrament. This issue is about property, it's about kinship, it's about custody, insurance, taxes.  Marriage in this instance is something created (appropriated) and recognized by the state, and is excluding a group people from sharing these rights based on a specific yet arbitrary characteristic. 

This issue is about our government's failure in enforcing separation of church and state, and now it's gone further - a proposition passed with a simple majority with the intent to modify the state constitution to exclude a certain class of people from equal recognition under the law on very real issues (property, kinship, custody... etc.).

When James Madison introduced the amendments to the constitution that would become the bill of rights, he made specific mention of this problem.

"But I confess that I do conceive, that in a government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty, ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power: But this [is] not found in either the executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority."

I hear all the time about how the State Supreme Court overturned the "Will of the People" but the court's job is to use the constitution to serve as a watchdog against abuses of any and all in power, be they by the executive or legislative branches of government, or by the majority of the people. This is one such instance where we have witnessed the "tyranny of the majority" and when their initiative was overturned by the courts, they moved to change the state constitution to make their discrimination legal. It takes a supermajority of the legislature to make any changes to the constitution, but only a simple majority to use the constitution to deny the legal rights that only come with marriage to a class of citizens. That's 50% plus 1 vote.

The ACLU in northern California has since filed suit with the State Supreme Court, basing their claims that Proposition 8: 

"...makes far reaching changes to the nature of our governmental plan by compromising the core constitutional principle of equal protection laws, depriving a vulnerable minority of fundamental rights, inscribing discrimination based on a suspect classification into the Constitution and destroying the courts' quintessential power and role of protection minorities and enforcing the guarantee of equal protection under the law."

Olbermann was wrong. This is not about permanence, or happiness, or legitimacy of love, it's about the legitimacy of a certain group of people as citizens of our government, legitimizing the homosexual community as a minority worthy of the same protections under our constitution as any other. 

God bless Jesusland, land that I love....

My favorite belligerent Wookiee brought up his grievances that our politics were being hijacked by protestant evangelicalism, or faith on broader terms. This has been one of my biggest grievances with politics since I gained political consciousness, and I've always pointed fingers at the Right. Now the party that is supposed to represent the secular "wing" of our government, the party that wouldn't throw its weight around pretending it's leading a theocracy, is having an Interfaith Gathering at its national convention. I'm going to try to play devil's advocate to Dennis who blew his top at this, pointing fingers at being stabbed in the back by a party he follows. 

Though I believe he's in the right, he's just another one of those rude atheists.

America is so much bigger than any of us in California can really conceptualize. What's worse, it seems those of us that live on the coasts and trumpet ourselves as free thinkers and rail against those in the interior of our country for being ignorant fools are in the minority. This is evident in the fact that the political direction in this country is alway pulled towards the center. Politicians know those on the left who believe in a secular government are going to vote democratic because if they withdraw their support, they secure victory for those on the right, those who draw their secure support from fundamentalists. 

It seems that those of us who sit on the left place value in things like critical thinking and science and uppity progressive ideas like universal individual liberties, regardless of our personal beliefs. Those on the right have long drawn on the values of their personal beliefs, which in turn means their representatives must share those beliefs. They're not going to vote for someone who doesn't wear their God openly on his shoulder, like the goddamn flag pin on his lapel.

Here's the problem: this political spectrum of left to right has been terribly redshifted. The majority of Americans fit more on the right than they do the left. The center is more likely to vote with their bible, because for many, it is the tool by which they think (That's another post altogether). Inviting the culture war that sits bubbling underneath the surface will do nothing for the Democratic party. If you associate them with pragmatism and critical thinking, you can only applaud them that they've adopted a very old strategy: If you can't beat 'em join 'em.

That culture war is lost if we try to fight it right now. If asked to describe an American, an outsider would draw you a picture of a white man with a ten gallon hat on his head, a cross around his neck, a gun at his hip and a Mcdonald's hamburger in his hand. That's how we arugula-munching elitists look at our country standing on the fringes looking in. How much worse does it look from afar when the man sent to represent us looks no different? This is the current brand of American that the rest of the world sees and we need time to change it.

I can say Religion has hijacked my political spectrum. I can also say politics hijacked my religion and turned it into a tool. There's a tool for every job. When that job is forwarding a conservative agenda, using it to mask the huge sums of money that are being made by political insiders and defense contractors, that tool may even end up putting his feet up on the Resolute Desk. 

What happens when one president isn't the moral champion, pitted against the godless ones' candidate? What happens when the idea of voting based on religion is negated by what seems to be over-saturation of the issue? Will other issues come to the fore and actually decide the election? What happens when bible thumpers back a progressive president, based not on who has "greater character," but who will solve the problems that last guy created? 

You tell me.

Travelogue

Or should I say travel-logged? On my way down to Argentina I wrote excitedly on how amazing my traveling experience was. My way back was no less fun, but it seemed frustratingly prolonged.

I got to Ezeiza International Airport at 17:00 (13:00 PDT), hung out with Sus, got her situated and checked into the American terminal, and then began my search for United. They didn’t exist quite yet. I searched over the entirety of the terminal until upon asking a lady at the info desk, I found that their terminal didn’t open until 5:30. I found the United kiosk (one where American had 6) checked in for my flight a good 3 hours early (Sus’s flight was two hours before mine) and paid my airport tax. Yes, you have to pay to leave the country, no matter who you are. This, along with the 21% sales tax on goods and a few other taxes make for a means of supporting the leftist social programs throughout the country at the expense of the middle class. Security was minimal, customs was a joke. (Though the tones to let one know where to go next played the first three notes of the Sesame Street theme, which of course got me whistling the entire rest of the evening.) This led me to the best part of International Airports: Duty Free shopping.

I was walking through all the chocolate, cigarettes, expensive clothes and wine when I got to the Scotch. I’ve had an… unhealthy relationship with whiskey for a while. I love it and hate it at the same time. I’m infatuated with Scotch, but I couldn’t tell you why. I had promised myself some Johnny Walker Blue upon my retirement as HRM with Unitrans, but my partner in crime, the Operations Manager decided to go sober as soon as he gave up the position and I couldn’t justify buying a 750ml bottle of Blue by myself.

I walked past bottles of Red, Black, Green and Gold, and didn’t see a single bottle of Blue. That is, until I picked up a bottle of Gold and behind it was the smallest most adorable thing I’d ever seen: a 250 ml bottle of Blue, priced Duty Free at $55. I scooped it up and strutted over to the check out, settling in behind a gentleman who seemed to be the sole reason for the lack of any Blue in the whole shop. He was walking out with several bottles, more than 10 times in volume what I was planning to purchse. He was debating in Castellano with a friend or acquaintance, equally well dressed and advanced in years, about the merits of single malt vs blended scotch. This acquaintance was wondering why he was throwing all his money away on expensive blended scotch, when he should be drinking single malt. They traded insults and laughs for a while, until I was noticed with my tiny bottle. Apparently nobody drinks scotch in their early twenties because they seemed rather surprised. They laughed at my miniature portion, comparing it to the dragons hoard of scotch already on the conveyor belt, and naming mine el hijo pequeño. I asked the gentleman not standing in line if he had a recommendation for single malt scotch, having spent the last few minutes piecing together what Spanish I knew and concentrating furiously to ask the question. He pointed to my lapel pin and asked me which language I preferred, I answered with Ingles and he led me around giving me a dissertation on the merits of different scotches in perfect English.

I walked out with a bottle of The Glenlivet 18 year for only slightly more than I had planned on spending on my tiny bottle of Blue, though this was much to the disappointment of the other Caballero.

I met up with Sus in the Airport and I fretted on how I was going to find the BART station in SFO, she responded with “ask someone.” I almost fell back in my chair. I had been so used to planning and plotting and thinking ahead because, though I could comprehend about 45% of what everyone said and generally get the gist of what I as being told, I had a much harder time speaking than listening comprehension. I had forgotten that I could talk to people I didn’t know in English once again. Granted, I found that once back in the States I was still responding to waiters or other people with things like “si” or “esta bien.”

My flight to Washington was incredibly interesting. I was seated in the very back row, between the window and a 250 pound marine sergeant. We met as I was idly complaining to myself that airlines should load from the back to the front, as everyone stops and loads their carry-ons in the overhead bins and slows the whole loading process down. He wholeheartedly agreed with me and then we followed each other to the back of the plane serendipitously sitting next to each other. I learned he was the senior staff sergeant of his platoon. (so, senior NCO that rides around with his LT in a nifty Hummer while keeping tabs on the 8 or so squads). He’d been down in Argentina teaching their marines how to swim. I laughed, starting with, “well if any branch needs to know how to swim outside of the…” he cut me off with “don’t say navy.” I was actually going to mention the PJs or SEALs, but I guess any special forces needs to be in the best condition. Anyways, we talked about deployment, active duty, military families, the Argentinean military and its history, and then he was bumped up to business class. He mentioned he knew the flight crew from the way down there, they had chatted and some of them knew he was a serviceman. I’d like to think they bumped him into an empty seat because of that.

I had plenty of room to stretch out until about an hour or so into the flight. An elderly gentleman complained to the stewardess that some punk in front of him was jamming the seat into his legs, and wouldn’t compromise or stop. She seated him next to me and we started empathizing about being tall (he was 6’4). This gentleman was very opinionated and very ready to debate. I was reading a four week old copy of the Economist (it was either that or skymall) and he started talking to me about all sorts of issues. My favorites were music and Islam.

I told him I had been studying music in Argentina, and had just graduated with a music degree. He was curious of the music that I listened to, being a youngster and all that jazz. I told him I was open to al sorts of music, that on my ipod I had everything from classical, to jazz, to punk, classic rock, Funk, techno, broadway music, Irish traditional music, Mexican hip-hop...

He scoffed a bit.

I asked him what he listened to, and he mumbled a bit and then returned with what my favorite bit of music I saw in Argentina was. I told him I couldn’t decide, I saw a few concerts, an avant garde opera, contemporary music accompanying a modern dance show, and of course tons of street musicians and tango everywhere. Oh yeah, and the musical Rent in Spanish, which I had never seen in English.

He responded “I bet you like that one, Rent.” He spat out the name of the play, as if it left a bitter taste in his mouth. I responded that I did and he chuckled, content that he had sized me up correctly. I asked him why he didn’t, he said the musical style was terrible and that it was the beginning of the end for Broadway. I could only respond that my interpretation of music is that its purpose is to evoke emotion, and I’ve never really found an other form that is so successful at this task than Broadway musicals. The combination of a story and the style of music, interweaving lines, layering different songs on top of each other and all the harmony just draws something out of me that other music is unable to do. I asked him if he liked the show Man of La Mancha, my favorite musical, and he responded that he did. I argued that there was little to no difference in style between the music of the two shows, only in the story and instrumentation. He decided he had had enough and left me to my ipod while he dragged out a book; a treatise on Islamic Jihad.

The cover claimed it to be an unbiased study done by an Islamic center, but when the gentleman showed it to me, it seemed rather anti-Islamic to me. I was told that he had read a good ten books on the religion and this was by far the best one. He asked me if I had studied Islam, I told him that outside of a comparative religion class in high school, I hadn’t really devoted too much time to it. He made the claim that I shouldn’t believe anyone who would tell me that Islam is a religion of peace. That Islamist apologists were full of bull. He said that the basis of the religion was absolute faith, fundamentalist devotion. Without devoting yourself completely to Allah you were nothing. He told me that our Jeffersonian principles of debate and reason had made us weak, (apparently American and Christian were synonymous terms in his eyes) and that there was no compromise with the unyielding faith of Islam.

I was taken aback but he proceeded to find passages in his book, to illustrate his point. Each chapter started with a passage from the Koran, and then its interpretation and the implementation of this interpretation by fundamentalist Muslims throughout history. There was a trend that the interpretations of the Prophet's words became less and less tolerant of other religions or people, but it was like taking passages from the old testament and applying them to Christianity today. The last pages of the book looked at the death toll taken by Islam on every continent throughout the ages. I shook my head in disgust, as a study like this taken without context seemed only to be hate propaganda, especially when put in the hands of a christian who was already convinced that Islam was the enemy. After reading things to me about buying the protection of Islam, the right for Muslims to take Jews as slaves and destroy Christian art, he told me that he "could only admire Mohammed, certainly a clever man to be the architect of the greatest sham in history."

That’s where I lost it.

I asked him where I could find a comparable study of Christianity, because now I was thoroughly interested in what that had to say. The death tolls taken by Christians on every continent. How many lives destroyed by slavery by citing that these men were created inferior. How much greed and corruption in his church, buying salvation throughout the dark ages, repression of women, Crusades, Inquisition, Witch Hunts, Bookburnings, Willful ignorance, repression of science, using Latin to keep the lower classes illiterate and away from all forms of learning.

I only stopped when I realized he was watching the in flight movie. I smiled and plugged my headphones in and watched Flawless. He was asleep when the movie was over.

In the morning we discussed coffee, skiing in Patagonia and the humidity of the east coast before he shook my hand and left the airplane.

My flight from Dulles to SFO was uneventful. I gave up my seat so a married couple could sit next to each other and sat again in the last row of the plane, though by myself this time. I watched Definitely Maybe and Be Kind Rewind and napped a bit before stepping off the plane at 11:00 am Pacific time, 22 hours since I set foot in the airport in Buenos Aires. I got my luggage, climbed the escalator to the top to a monorail to BART and got on the Pittsburg / Bay point train.

I overheard two women from New York confused over where they needed to go to get to Powell Street; they were worried they were on the wrong line (there’s only one that goes to the Airport). I thought that people from New York would be accustomed to trains and subways and the like, but I just took one over to the map and pointed out Powell Street, at which every line that goes through SF stops. I got off at the Embarcadero station, walked up and out, and down the street for some cool air. It was colder in San Francisco than it had been in Buenos Aires when I left. I then got on the Richmond train, took it to Amtrak, Amtrak to Davis, walked to Campus, caught the G line and walked the final half a block to my house. I traveled thousands of miles and right to my door without using an automobile and without relying on anyone else. It was a good feeling, though it was overpowered eventually by the grody feeling of not having showered in over 40 hours, after lugging about 70lbs around the city of Davis in July. By 16:00 PDT I was home, 27 hours after I left Buenos Aires.

Making Jesus Mad and Bubbling Liquids

I knew there were reasons for my desire to be a scientist, I just didn't know what they were. 

I wrote a while back about my cousins and I've found something that may not be worth your while, but the internet is about wasting time, right? My cousin Tad (Edward) is an actor, legitimately I'd say, having graduated from the Boston Conservatory. Anyways, between shows and working theatre camps he spends his time doing improv comedy. This may not be his best work, but it made me laugh and it's available on Youtube. The improv bit is rather important, as otherwise you'll note that the following video is less than scripted. Armed with a labcoat and a rather snide soundtrack, the Landed Gentry put out a PSA about safety, For SCIENCE.

Oh Reginald… I disagree!

I enjoy the idea of the blogosphere being a series of drive-by arguments. I can read something, then write a post on it. Someone can read that, it can inform their post, people comment and discussion starts to happen.

Shane’s blog has lain dormant for the past week or so, but the comments keep flowing in on his post questioning Catholicism. The last poster brought up something that sent me off in its complete hypocrisy:

“But be careful you don’t pick and choose what you want in your religion”

I’m sorry, what? Isn’t that exactly what Christianity is? Throughout the ages, right from its founding that’s been the basis of the entire religion. To Paraphrase a bit…

“Hey, Jesus, this Judaism thing isn’t working out for us, how about a new covenant?”

“You know what, pork’s pretty tasty, and our dietary habits are causing a bit of trouble with the Gentiles, I bet it’s not that unclean, go ahead and eat anything from the meat market.” – Paul

“Hey guys, lets all get together and decide what’s going to be in the Bible and what to throw out” - The Council of Nicea

“Just hang on a minute, (Ein minuten, bitte) you know what, we don’t need all these sacraments, the Church is pretty corrupt. Also, mass in the vernacular would be a good idea, here’s a few other theses and I’ll just nail them up here” – Martin Luther

“Hey you know what, that guy has some good points, we should evaluate ourselves a bit” – The counter-reformation

And so on.

A previous poster mentioned Papal infallibility. Just cause he’s got the biggest hat and a suped up golf cart doesn’t mean the Pope is a conduit to God. The church can be wrong. Remember, the church is made of men, all of whom are human, and therefore imperfect. Dissent is part of the free will that was mentioned earlier as divinely given, and should be encouraged, not looked upon with disdain and fear. Defending arguments with “Because it’s God’s will” means you’re not thinking for yourself, or maybe even at all. You’re taking what one person said as gospel. Something that’s not written in any gospel you can read to verify (written gospels that may have been “divinely inspired” were later edited by men).

Who are you to tell anyone that they can’t support the rights of people to have an abortion, or the freedom to love each other regardless of gender and call themselves Catholic? By trying to litigate these things based on religion, making them illegal in the eyes of a secular government you are suppressing their religious freedom, the free will given to these people by your God and imposing your own. How can anyone do that and call themselves Christian?

On soap and boxes.

I had a lengthy conversation with two of my former students last night. One approached me for advice on how to structure her first semester at Berkeley so as not to overload herself, and I, having taken 6 years to finish college, had some input and experience as to how not to overload ones self on class. The other was dragged into the conversation because she was headed to UCD and I could provide even more detailed "advice" as to my opinions on classes, and how to go about enjoying the first fall quarter. The problem is, one conversation turned to politics, the other religion. Both opened up rather large cans of worms, as they had forgotten I keep a pretty big soapbox under my desk. The problem was, I found an underlying theme to both conversations, something rather troubling.

The first of these conversations went south when I linked a year old video I had been watching to interrupt our conversation. When she responded with "I don't think he [Obama] is that well spoken" I sorta scoffed. I then linked her to plenty of eloquent and inspiring speeches that make one warm and happy inside from listening to them. She then consented that he was pretty well spoken, but she still didn't know what he was going to do to change America. She was rather doubtful that many Americans would change, and somehow the conversation got hooked on the tragedy of September Eleventh, 2001 (I hate the term 9/11). She insinuated the hope Obama was pushing smacked of the false hope Bush forced down our throats in his attempts to fight a War on Terrorism. I explained to her that, at the time, the American people needed something to lash out at. In times of chaos, economic turmoil and pain, a country needs an enemy. I then linked her to a few quotes to make my point. The first was this:

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

This was followed by:

"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve.

Anyhoo, the first quote is attributed to Herman Goering, the second John Ashcroft, a key supporter of the patriot act. Both were the right-hand men of their respective leaders. It's a parallel many have seen, but these kids hadn't been subjected to liberal brain-washing yet. I told her that this is why we have history majors. But the point I made in this tangent was that a state in turmoil needs an enemy for its people to focus on so as not to be distracted with domestic matters. What better outsider for a god fearing people to hate than those who don't share their religion?

My second debate/rant of the evening was over homosexuality, marriage and sin. I was alerted to the Mormon church's support being thrown behind amending the California State constitution. Now, I don't have television, and sadly don't get to watch the Daily Show, but I'm sure many late night comedians jumped on this. It's too easy to say: "Sanctity of Marriage?Sorry buddy, I know things change, but Hypocritical much?" However, as the laughter died down, we returned to the issues of religion, sexuality and eventually race. I then turned things on their ear by ranting that slavery only existed because people used religion to rationalize it being ok: GOD created the negro inferior to the white man. This then led back to our topic of homosexuality with GOD saying that homosexuality is a sin. I was told by a very bright and open minded young lady that, though she disagrees with homosexuality, she has nothing against homosexuals being that they are people like everyone else. I had to step back up on my box to correct her, saying that yes, homosexuals were people, in fact they weren't homosexuals, but rather homosexual people. The word homosexual shouldn't be a noun, but an adjective. We went in circles for a while debating whether or not homosexuality is a sin, and I'd like to re-state my argument against it being a sin.

There's a site out there that details passages from the bible which explicitly state that homosexuality is a sin. Fair enough, the bible is the word of God and is infallible, right? These passages are from the book of Leviticus and from the Epistles of Paul (1st Corinthians and Romans). A book of the old testament and letters of an evangelical, albeit one of the most influential evangelicals, still a man with his own agenda. Now, my take on Christianity is that the whole idea, the reason why it's not just Judaism 2.0 is that in Christ folks were offered a new covenant. One not with a vengeful and overbearing god, but with a forgiving and loving one (ok, same god, He just had a change of heart I guess). This means we continue to learn from the old testament, but it is not taken literally. in fact most of the old testaments laws and rules were thrown out. It's not the place of anyone to pick and choose what's right and what's wrong. It is in the Gospels that the "good news" is spread and that's where Christians find their slalvation. 

Here though, we have a disconnect between the prophet and the church. Nowhere in the words of Christ can you find him condemning homosexuality, only those who come after him. Neither God, nor Christ, but man. Paul. The church. The majority of the new testament is made up of the epistles, and they mention sin more than any other portion of the bible. It's kinda ridiculous. I think it's from these letters that all the catholic guilt is derived.

Regardless, the whole idea of labeling a type of people as sinful seems to me to be an amazing idea. Condemning a lifestyle that is part of what people are condemns the people themselves as sinful. No matter what sins you can accomplish, you can be absolved of them... but those people, those ones over there? They ARE sin. What you can do is nothing compared to that. Think about it. The whole idea behind the teachings of "let you who is without sin cast the first stone" and how that meshes up with condemning other people who have nothing to do with your life, and obstructing them from the same rights that you enjoy. All this based on the rantings of one terribly homophobic man who was influential in building the christian church. Not the religion mind you, the Church. The idea behind it comes back to the outsider, the enemy. "Look at them, see them live in sin, see them BE sin. Just don't look too hard at me" - my hatred, my malice, my warmongering, and my greed. 

Credo in...

Maybe it's the catholic education I received and all the masses and liturgies I was forced to attend, maybe it was the canon of sacred music I was required to study as a musicology student, but the word Credo holds a certain weight for me. I wanted to take the time to clarify what I meant by believe on Friday's post. I would have done it yesterday but I was a bit too busy graduating from college.

What I meant to say is that Evangelical Christians, those who make up the majority of the Religious Right, are defined by their beliefs. They believe in the inerrancy of the bible and allow their religious beliefs to dictate their outlook on life. Their beliefs leave no room for doubt or inquisition as to how or why they should believe what they do and go forth zealously secure in their truths.

What I did not mean to insinuate is that I don't believe, though the title of my blog lends an Atheistic tint to my writing. There's plenty that I believe in:

I believe in gravity. I take great comfort in the idea that there's an invisible force that is keeping me from flying off of the surface of the Earth, an earth that I don't know is round. I've never actually seen it from space, only pictures and what people tell me, but I take it on faith that they're telling me the truth and that all this is real.I can test this when I jump up and come right back down. 

I believe in the power of faith and what it can do for a community. I've seen people come together based on religious beliefs and do great humanistic things. Charity, community service, great artistic works devoted to their faith and their God. People are capable of amazingly creative and altruistic feats when they put their minds to it and are motivated by their religious beliefs.

I also believe in the danger and destructive power of organized religion. As creative and altruistic as people can be, they possess the same capacity for malice and destruction, especially when allowed to do so in the name of religion. Instead of professing tolerance and the need for humane treatment of our neighbors, organized religion has been responsible for using the cover of 'god's will' to excuse spreading fear and xenophobia, horrendous acts and countless wars. 

Because of the above, I believe in a secular state, a government that is free of religion, though not amoral. A state that bases its actions on humanistic principles. I believe that our government should do everything in its power to alleviate poverty and use taxed monies to provide education to all of its citizens; an education that provides the means for citizens to think for themselves and freely critique society. I believe in a government for the people, funny, where have I heard that before?

I believe in many things strongly, but my own religious faith is weak. I'm closer to those nanzi-panzy agnostics than I am to a true christian. Then again, the idea of a "true christian" is so foreign to this country that I really couldn't give you an example. I can try: one who follows the teachings of Christ to the best of his ability and is tolerant of any and all other ways of life, one who is charitable and does good works for the betterment of society. Then again, this definition runs contrary to many Christians that I've butted heads with over the years, so maybe I'm wrong.

I also believe it's time to wrap this up, and to do so I'll tie this all back to science, the new religion sweeping the land. One based on proof, and not on faith. I'll take out one of my favorite quotes, from the father of modern science, Galileo Galilei:

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."