No Fly Zone

Stupid Things You Hear All the Time #81

Stupid Things You Here All the Time #81

"More people are killed in wars over religion than for any other reason."

Why this is a stupid thing to say:

Every major war in the 20th Century was brought about by ideologies that were distinctly, eagerly, and intentionally opposed to any traditional religion: Communist China, the USSR, North Vietnam, the Khmer Rouge, Italy under Mussolini. Nazi Germany made it illegal for traditional Christianity to be practiced in the German churches.

What people really mean when they say this: “On occasion, I may feel the need to cover my bets in the religion gamble. I will do this by means of some shallow rhetorical babble that's intended to make me sound tolerant and wise and above it all: ‘Whose god are we supposed to believe in?’ or ‘I have my own religion’ or ‘I'm a very spiritual person’ or ‘I try to live my religion instead of talking about it’ or ‘All religions are basically the same’ or ‘I find God in nature’ or ‘God is in all of us’ or ‘I try to keep an open mind about religion’ or ‘More people are killed in wars over religion than for any other reason.’

But the fact is, I simply can not or will not open my mind enough to consider the arguments of countless intelligent people who have done wise, courageous and profoundly good things in the name of the God they believe in. Therefore, endlessly repeated cliches that justify my prejudices, no matter how faulty, are sometimes useful in conversation.”

But what about wars before the 20th Century? What about the Crusades?

Response: What about the wars that have been fought endlessly over land? Nationalism? Governments jockeying for superiority? Starvation? Wealth? Slaves? Fleeing an enemy coming from another direction? What about the Vikings? The French Revolution? The Mongols? The Goths? Tribal wars in Africa?

Worth considering:

Is it possible that religious rhetoric, along with nationalistic rhetoric, is just the easiest way for leaders to stir up emotional support among the people?

Why is that, at all other times but not in this case, we so easily see the hypocrisy of religious people? At all other times, we are certain that the religious stuff is just a smokescreen for other motives: wealth, perversion, prestige, etc. And we are usually right. Why do we, when it comes to war, suddenly become completely blind to the possibility of hypocrisy?

It's not so much that religion becomes one's justification for unjust violence. Rather, it is that whatever causes us to become unjustly violent is the thing that fulfills the role of religion in our lives. And in the 20th Century, what causes us to become unjustly violent is more likely to be political, psychological or economic rather than genuinely religious. Political ideology has become the religion of our age. We can not afford the destructive stupidity of "More people are killed in wars over religion than for any other reason."

Getting rid of what's offensive

Simplifications like "our side good, their side bad" are as comforting as they are wrong. Because I (in obedience to Christ) have several beefs with progressive churches (the Sadducee side), I automatically get associated with conservative Christians (the Pharisee side).

However, the eagerness to throw out portions of the New Testament simply because they offend is unfortunately not exclusively an eagerness of liberal theologians. In my research and experience, far too many so called conservative churches do the same as a matter of habit; it's just a little less honest because they have such fiery rhetoric about "defending God's word."

A few examples of how conservative churches too - practice a Christianity that is sub-Christian (if Christianity is to be defined biblically):

1. "Elder Boards" that are filled with successful businessmen - primarily BECAUSE they are successful businessmen.

2. Policy decisions based on the views of the most generous givers.

3. Avoidance of gender differences, as taught by the New Testament, in order to avoid offending those who are most strident on such issues.

4. An emphasis on "evangelism" - by which is meant getting more butts in the pews (using that catchy "seeker friendly" phrase). In stark contrast to the New Testament priority of teaching, training and empowering the folks who already come faithfully (most of whom are left spiritually anemic).

5. A happiness to get into debt in order to make things bigger - rather than the New Testament priority of planting new, small, local churches that might eventually leave the plantation.

6. A complete inability or unwillingness to share the New Testament's uneasiness about a regular, lifelong, paid professional clergy.

7. Far too many connections with secular power and authority.

8. Too many regular church goers believe the phrase "the church" refers to a building, in absolute rejection of the New Testament's teaching on the subject.

9. Interpretation of the miracles of the early church as being "for that time."

10. Though Jesus said that the most important thing is to "seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness," how many regular church goers can say that they have a good understanding of what "the Kingdom of God" really means - biblically - and how it is to be "sought"?

What's Good About an Earthquake?

This post is in no way intended to trivialize the incredible suffering which has been experienced by victims of the Japan earthquake and tsunami and their families. My family and I were living in Simi Valley, CA when the 6+ Northridge quake hit in 1994. The damage was nothing like what just happened in Japan, but it was substantial enough that empathy comes easily.

On the other hand, there are few things so bad that some good can't come of them. The positive side of tragedies such as this must not go unnoticed.

First, the easy and obvious: In the midst of great difficulty people discover resources - of courage, emotional strength, compassion and charity - that they otherwise would never have seen in themselves. No great insight there.

Perhaps more profound is the fact that intense troubles compel most people to rethink their priorities, and in so doing we discover how really insignificant our differences are compared to our common, intensely human needs.

I will never forget something wonderful that the Northridge quake brought to our neighborhood. In a matter of minutes, several dozen of us were huddling together in our bedclothes in the middle of our tiny street, as far as possible from anything that might fall down. At that moment, there were no conservatives or liberals, no dogmatic humanists or fundamentalists, no divisions according to skin color. Even the common little antagonisms that sometimes exist between neighbors were completely gone. Instead, there were just real people finally expressing what really lies almost always beneath all of our posing and posturing: childlike dismay.

The word humility, like the word lust, is used too often in conservative churches and not enough everywhere else. But as painful as it may seem, it is downright healthy to have the earth shake under our feet, thus reminding us that most of what we depend on for a sense of well-being is makeshift and temporary at best.

I know that I have frequently obstructed the love of God by being too raw or ill-mannered, and the memory of such occasions is still quite haunting. But I can recollect just as many occasions when I have truly and sincerely loved people, have demonstrated that love over long periods of time, and have bestowed mercy when no one else would - only to have these people become defensive when a time came for gentle admonition.

It is a fact that people often attack the messenger, even when the message is necessary, perfectly timed, graciously stated, and delivered by a friend.

There is a great lack of courage in human nature. And one of the most destructive games people have silently agreed to play is the one that says implicitly, "I promise never to say anything to hurt you if you promise never to say anything to hurt me."

I think the possibility exists that I come off to some people as one who is not comfortable with this game. If so, this is not something about me that should change.

Bland Parenthood

OK, I see why bland parenthood would be a bit irritating to some people - especially if their own parents were bland, or if they have to deal with bland in-laws. But, come on, people! Why all the aggression? I mean, there are whole web sites out there criticizing bland parentood. So much so that bland parents evidently have formed their own organization.

And now I see pictures of people with posters gathering together in front of Bland Parenthood offices to demonstrate. SHEESH!

I think my father may have been a bland parent, but he balanced it out nicely with occasional passive aggression.

It did bother me a little when I learned that Bland Parenthood receives a lot of money from the federal government, but then, if Nevada gets tax dollars to have their annual cowboy poetry festival, and the Smithsonian Institute for displaying a video of a Jesus statue with ants crawling on it, and the San Jose unified school district got a $725,000 pizza machine that doesn't work, I guess some money for bland parents makes sense. Bland people don't tend to be wild spenders.

Besides, I'm sure they're not getting THAT much money. Those people in the government: I trust them to make these decisions for us. You can tell how smart they are because they talk so good. I admire a good speech. Good speeches are NOT bland.

I'm wondering why it always seems to be pregnant women that go into those Bland Parenthood offices. If they want to put their kids up for adoption, shouldn't they go to an adoption agency? Maybe some parents are so bland that they can't even get excited over each other anymore and the only way to have more kids is to adopt some. But why would an unmarried pregnant woman actually WANT to give her kid to bland parents; I mean, if she had a choice? Maybe the father of her baby is really UN-bland in some very disturbing ways, and she thinks she's giving her baby the chance for a better life, as in "blander is better." But if that's the case, I'm surprised there are so many of them.

Anyway, don't forget that for many bland parents, it's not their fault. They probably had bland parents too. You can't force someone to avoid being parents just because they're bland. That would require some kind of gross surgery down there around their naughty parts.

Stupid things you hear all the time, #794

"Who's the judge of good or not good?"

A few reasonable responses:
1. You are, regarding anything that affects your life.
2. You are, regarding anything that affects the lives of those you care for, even if you don't have the power or authority to make their decisions for them.
3. Any parent of small children.
4. A judge and/or jury in any court of law.
5. Any individual's personal conscience.
6. The formal bi-laws, policies or traditions of any institution, regarding the behavior of that institutions members.
7. The corporate conscience - acknowledged or implied - of any group of people that gathers together regularly for a common goal.
8. The rules of any game being played.
9. God, if there is one - unless he, she or it has multiple personality disorder.

In my experience, this question is almost always asked when the uncomfortable awareness has arisen that different people would "judge" differently about some matter at hand. The question is usually asked in order to parry away the very idea of making value judgments, but this is a deception, and often a self-deception, since virtually every person alive is regularly making value judgments. It's impossible to function without doing so.

It's a very important issue, one around which there is great foolishness and psychological hurt. We can disagree intelligently and respectfully about what the criteria for what's good or not good might be, but let's not pretend such criteria do not exist, or that we don't want them to.

Gherkins and Governers

The West Indian Burr Gherkin was introduced to the West Indies by the Portuguese, but originated in West Africa. I think "gherkin" is a silly word. It's like the cucumber's mentally challenged little brother. Another silly word is "gubernatorial." Remember Goober on the Old Andy Griffith show? He was Gomer Pyle's brother, which means he was named Goober Pyle. Only a gherkin would vote for a goober for governor.

[This is not a secret, coded message to my minions.]

Why do so many people have a problem with muslin? It seems pretty harmless to me. How can anyone be a muslin terrorist? If you're that afraid of muslin, maybe you should think about psychotherapy. When did muslin ever hurt anybody? I mean, I suppose some people might have an allergy or something, but it's not like muslin is going to FORCE itself on anybody. Just don't wear it. That terrible thing that happened to the world trade center - that wasn't muslin. I thought it was like airplanes or something.

Why is that nasty Republican governor in Wisconsin trying to stop reunions? What does he care if families want to have reunions? They're not hurting him. I mean, all it is is a picnic, some games, and maybe a little drinking. It's a long tradition because sometimes family members go years and years without seeing each other - and forget the reasons they moved so far away in the first place. I say, leave the reunions alone, nasty Republicans. In fact, maybe the government should start giving some funds to the "reunion bosses" who invest so much of their own time into organizing these reunions. I'm not sure, but I heard that there would be plenty of money to do this if you just raised Texas. Maybe it could be raised up to just below Nebraska. Some people might have to move, but some people might jump at the chance - cause of those rug wars down there that I heard about. Aren't there enough rugs for everyone? Why do people have to fight over them?