a Note on Justifying Hate

Before the American Civil War, many people were of the opinion that blacks could not be educated, they had no soul, and therefore could not be saved.

And they backed up their opinions from scripture, thus proving their case.

During the same time period, as well as far afterward, the same was said about the Native Americans, again it was backed up by scripture.

Today, it is the gays who are being attacked with, you guessed it, scripture.

You can use any document, scripture, or mythology you want to back up, justify, or defend your bigotry and yet it will remain, as in the past, nothing but misinformed bigotry.

Perhaps it makes you feel better, vindicated, or superior to claim that it is what your Savior or your God believes but the evidence is overwhelmingly against you.

Small-minded people can never envision the diverse beauty of His Creation.



They would much rather be “right”.

Advertisements

a Growing Concern

In the past, I have mentioned listening to WTGS radio both online as well as when I’m driving.

A few years ago, the general manager of the station – who had been at the position for nearly twenty years – passed on and a new fellow came on board.

Since then, many of the favorite songs and artists I had enjoyed listening to simply vanished and another group of artists predominated the broadcast day.

Change is fine and I do not advocate playing the same music ’til the end of time but even as new songs were released before, they had been worked into the play library. The oldies were played less often but they did not simply vanish from the airwaves as these seem to have.

Nowadays, I find myself listening to them less and less as their playlist has become focused on several artists and groups that play what could be called militaristic Christian fare.

It sounds more appropriate to a Joshua’s Army rally than a contemporary Christian station.

But maybe that’s just me.

I cannot think what might be the purpose of so many songs glorifying war in God’s name rather than exemplifying the Prince of Peace.

Some conspiracy theory friends have some ideas about that, however.

Murder is Murder, Period!

Qandeel Baloch (Fouzia Azeem) was spending Eid al-Fitr (a Muslim festival for “breaking the fast”) with her family. Her brother seems to have thought it meant “Festival for Breaking the Neck” or some such as he strangled her while she slept.

A woman in Pakistan fighting for women’s rights in a nation and a religion which is intolerant to both. Her brother, Waseem, claimed it was an “honor killing”.

The phrase, like Waseem himself, is an oxymoron.

Perhaps he should be the victim of the same for being an utter disgrace to his family, his nation, his religion, his sex, his species, and the planet as a whole, as well as to the God he claims to worship.

There is no honor in strangling your sleeping sister. Heck, it doesn’t even soundly “manly”! I don’t care what freakin’ “religious” beliefs you might have. Any religion that condones this stuff is an abomination, and do not think I am accusing Islam alone for it. The Catholic Church did similar atrocities for centuries before they became “enlightened”. And it wasn’t just them as it also held true for Jew, Christian, Protestant, Muslim, Sunni, Shiite, Jain, Hindu, Shinto, or practically any other religion ever devised by Man.

It doesn’t matter if you are Jew, Christian, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Sunni, Shiite, Jain, Hindu, Shinto, or Scientologist, religions are almost universal in reserving justice and death to the Almighty and I do not recall Him abrogating that responsibility to any of His creations whether they be Jew, Christian, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Sunni, Shiite, Jain, Hindu, Shinto, or Scientologist.

In 2015, it was Sabeen Mahmud, a supporter of Abdul “Mama” Qadeer Baloch – killed by assailants. In 2012, it was Malala Yousafzai – shot by a Taliban gunman. These are not the only ones as there are around a hundred of these “honor killings” done every year in Pakistan, a location permanently removed from my list of places to travel. A location where you can apparently kill a family member for any reason whatsoever but claim it an “honor killing” and get the Stay Out Of Jail Free card.

The question one has to ask oneself is why are men so damned afraid of women? Can it be that they – alone – are the creators… you know, like the Creator?

Jesus and Politics

In his own time and place, one would say that Jesus was a Liberal. Today, it seems, the people who claim to follow his teachings are Conservatives.

If Jesus came today, he would not be siding with these Christians. He would be standing up for the weak, the disenfranchised, just as he did centuries ago.

It is sad to see that the edifice built, supposedly, on the teachings of this man has now become exactly what he struggled against.

Yes, the Christianity of today is the Sadducees and Pharisees of the past. Unfeeling, unyielding, intolerant of the broken among us.

Thankfully, I am more liberal minded.

Sort of like Jesus.

Joel and Francis

I have often commented that Joel Osteen resembles Jesus more than most contemporary preachers in that he talks a lot about your relationship to God rather than your relationship to Jesus.

Though modern Christian belief is all about cozying up with Christ, that was not what Jesus’ message was about. He was all about you getting closer to God.

I know a lot of people say they are one and the same but that is a Catholic view, not the universal view, of the situation.

Speaking of universal views, I am continuously amazed by the new Pope. Francis seems more like what a Pope should be about unlike those politicians who have been sitting on the Papal throne for the last few centuries – well, all except John Paul I whose reign was entirely too short. Francis is so UNpolitical that I’m amazed he hasn’t been bumped off yet.

Rather than pushing the typical Catholic agenda on abortion and birth control, Francis preaches more about our removing our concentration from the things of this world, the politics, the money, the greed, and learn to strengthen our personal relationship with God.

It is almost as if Joel and Francis went to the same school and learned from the same teacher.

Oh, yeah, they did… his name was Jesus.

Religious Fundamentalists Give Religion a Bad Name

Espousing a religion in which the central savior preaches tolerance and loving nature to share among all your fellows, to judge-not lest you be seen as a hypocritical charlatan, and to love your neighbor as you would love yourself is a tough call it seems.

It is so much easier to snub and belittle people you think of as different, or inferior, or as not walking in the ways of the Lord (as you alone judge it to be). So very easy to act high and mighty as though the Universal had given you specific license to point out the idolators and fallen angels in our midst.

It is admirable that such people can constrain themselves and their abiding passions to quietly follow God’s ways with fairness to all God’s creatures, great and small.

It is unfortunate that some fundamentalists appoint themselves as judges of mankind and usurp the power of God in condemning their fellows. And all this based on only a few passages in scripture which they interpret as giving them such power… while ignoring all the parts of scripture that deny such a thing.

Cherry-picking the justification for mean-spirited treatment of others falls far beyond anything Jesus ever spoke about, nor anything he implied by any action. Where does it say he turned his back on the needy or the broken? Where does it mention him not sitting down to break bread with the sick and the sinners.

Fundamentalists give Jesus a bad name.

Too Free in His Speech

As one commentator said, “Yes, we have freedom of speech but with that right comes responsibility.”

Surely, the founder of the Duck Dynasty knew this when he made his comments about homosexuals.

A person remarked that he should have realized that by being a high-profile person that his comments would make some waves.

Yes, I am certain the fellow knew about his status and that’s why he was using his position to further his views – very strict Christian views – on the subject. He is doing what many Christians through the centuries have done: used his public platform to further what he considers the “Word of God” even at the risk of public disgrace.

Just like Tom Cruise always pushing for his own religion: Scientology.

It is merely unfortunate for his career that he holds himself to a stricter brand of Christianity than what is considered politically correct at the moment.

Even Joel Osteen and Pope Francis are more progressive than the Duck Dynasty people.

One might wonder if this new, more tolerant form of religion has just not made its way into the bayous yet.

This attitude of loving tolerance made its way out of the backwaters of the Roman Empire some two thousands years ago and I am pretty sure it has made its way into the depths of Louisiana.

Only, in its original form, I believe it was a heck of a lot LESS judgmental.

Someone suggested the Robertson family might think about moving to Russia as Putin has the same attitude toward gays.

Killing the Messenger

It is an ancient request, to not kill the messenger.

That request was put aside in the case of Jesus and the messenger was killed.

Since practically everyone who has ever heard of the crucifixion knows this fact, why do I mention it?

In the Christianity of today, we greatly revere the act of extermination of the messenger. The crucifixion is pointed to as the reason for Jesus coming at all. Oh, all the magical goodness that came from that foul deed!

But what seems to be forgotten here is the message.

The church tells us that the message is the everlasting life and the redemption of sins. They tell us that was the message.

But again, that is focusing on the murder of the messenger, not the message.

The message that Jesus brought: that God is with you and in you always, that your life’s journey is about getting closer to Him, that you can do all the things that he, himself, did “and greater”… all this is lost in the resounding message from the Church.

It seems the messenger was killed and the message was forgotten.

What a waste.

Why the Suffering?

This is one of the major complaints I have seen written by atheists or those who have left the faithful.

In his books about the scriptures, Bart Erdman mentions this one thing as the primary reason he fell away from religion.

If God truly loved “His people, His children”, why then would He permit such suffering to continue in the world?

Some writers have answered that this is the realm of Satan and God pretty much lets the Devil have free reign down here.

Others say that this is a testing place and those not strong enough are broken. It is for “testing faith” and so forth.

But what if the Almighty doesn’t see it the same way? What we consider bad, He might be using for some specific purpose?

We know trial and error are the best methods to learn anything… “no pain, no gain”… you hear it all the time.

And how in the world could we ever understand compassion if there was no suffering for us to witness?

I’m not saying any of these may be the reason for the suffering as I am certain there are many factors involved. Far too many for someone with my limited view of the universe to begin to understand.

But I am willing to wait for the understanding to come.

I suppose some people are not that patient.

Modern Martyrdom

A very few decades ago, an author by the name of Immanuel Velikovsky was pilloried by the scientific community for his popular book Worlds in Collision. And most of the scientists who commented on the volume loudly proclaimed that NO, they had not read the book nor would they even bother to read such unmitigated rubbish.

How could they know it was rubbish without reading it?

Years after the “Velikovsky Affair” had ended with the scientists declaring that they had “behaved poorly” one might have thought lessons had been learned… well, somewhere at least.

Dr. Reza Aslan’s new book, Zealot, attempts to examine the historical Jesus and expound on his personal insights into the matter.

Billy Hallowell, of the Blaze, wrote a critique on the book and included what he termed “responses” from Christian authors and theologians.

Uniformly, the Christian scholars scoff at the author for rehashing all the standard Islamic interpretations of the Bible, or for resurrecting Albert Schweitzer’s Historical Jesus. They claim he has not brought anything new to the table and most complain that he is not, strictly speaking, an historian.

What these scholars also uniformly proclaim is that none of them have actually read the book they are bashing but feel they can bash it anyway because of what they have heard other people saying about the book, or what they got off the blurb, or what one of their friends condensed from some television interview.

In other words, theologians have proven that – in truth – they are no different from scientists.

They, too, can condemn a heresy before they even hear it.

Imagine what progress we’ll make tomorrow.