CATHOLIC CHURCH IS A CHANGING!

Hey the Catholics are at it again and I just love it. My profile reads “raised a Catholic” so I have a lot of Catholic upbringing in me. That upbringing (sometimes forced) has inspired me to research Christianity and especially the role the Catholic Church has played in the history of the world. Another point about Catholicism that still fascinates me is the influence it has had and continues to have on our society and us as individuals.

What brings me to the subject of Catholicism is that it is making NEWS and waves at the same time.

You have read that the “words” of the Mass are being changed. It appears that the late Pope John Paul wanted the secular words of the mass today to reflect, more closely, the words of the original LATIN mass; the words I grew up with. The late Pope thought the secularization of the mass got a little out of hand and he was a BIT CONSERVATIVE if you know what I mean.

The problem, as I see it, is that people (like my mother) who finally accepted English instead of Latin and grew to learn those English words will now be asked to RE-LEARN NEW ONES. These old Catholics just hate to change even if the changes will bring the mass closer to the older version of the mass.

How about the headlines “PASTOR DECLARES KNEELING A SIN” – WOW!

Now this gets a little more tricky to explain but in essence the late Pope was still trying to “go back” in time and try to replicate the original meaning of the mass and get rid of the changes that have occurred throughout the centuries – now that is meaty stuff for a history nut case.

In previous blogs you have heard me explain the beliefs of early Christians and that there were MANY Christianities with a VARIETY of beliefs, especially about Jesus and the man /God thing.

When the Christianities finally coalesced into somewhat of a unified group in Rome under the Roman Catholic banner, the beliefs were centered on the fact that Jesus was BOTH MAN AND GOD / HUMAN AND DIVINE.

It is for this reason, out of respect for both his natures, that Catholics STOOD at mass during the AGNUS DEI or the time the priest raises the chalice and when the wine and bread (communion) turns into the body and blood of Jesus.

Through the centuries, the Catholic Church placed greater emphasis on Jesus’ divine nature and minimized his human nature. In fact, Jesus’ humanness really took a back seat and he was “only” worshipped as a God. For this reason, Catholics started (seventh century on) kneeling during this part of the mass – only apropos for worshipping a God – no?

Again, the late Pope was trying to go back to the origins of the faith – cool! I really like this plan only if the Church really explains the reasons to its parishioners. I know that they will follow like lambs or goats or whatever but I always hope some of them will actually give it some thought.

As to the headline about making kneeling a sin well it is Catholicism at its best; to make people change, declare them sinners if they do not. Growing up I was scared to death to eat meat on Friday ‘cause’ I would burn in hell. Later I was told that if a baby died on the way to getting baptized it would burn in hell forever! These are just some of the hard held beliefs that were reversed when the Church could no longer intelligently support such bullshit.

I am eagerly waiting to see my 84 year-old mother’s response once I tell her about the changes – great fun!

Janusz

INVASION OF IRAQ LIE!

Saturday, June 17, 2006

To:     The Free Press
Re:     “House resolution supports mission in Iraq”, June 17.


The invasion of Iraq was never a part of the war on terrorism and historical facts bear that out. The resolution passed by the House of Representatives, “House resolution supports mission in Iraq”, June 17, just promulgates a lie. I know why the Republicans voted for the resolution but the 42 Democrats that did should be ashamed of themselves.


Janusz M. Szyszko

A BURNING ISSUE; OUR FLAG!

In my previous blog about Republicans trying to divert our attention from the shitty job they are doing for us and this country, will again bring up hot-button, emotional issues in the hope Americans will somehow forget reality. This has worked for them in the past and they expect to work for them again. We will see in November when Americans actually have an opinion that counts – elections.

Recently they brought up the Gay Marriage issue and tried to change our Constitution to prohibit Gay Marriage. It failed but they hope voters will remember where they stand on this very important issue.

Today it is another “Constitutional Amendment”, this time a ban against burning our flag; another vital, very important issue that has to be addressed or the country will collapse.

Newspapers tell us that this time, they have been bringing this issue up every year; they have a chance of passing it out of the Senate (even if by one vote).

Some Democrats fear that if they vote against it they may be perceived as unpatriotic or somehow un-American and I can see why they have this fear. Our Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow feels the heat since she is up for elections this November so she will vote to amend our Constitution but maybe she actually believes it is needed – well I am starting to think less and less of her and not only because of her stance on this issue.

The issue is nothing if not EMOTIONAL. Obviously, no red-blooded American likes to see his flag burned. Hell, we have strict rules about how the flag can be displayed and even folded. When you burn our flag you burn us as a people, as a nation and that makes us feel very bad.

But basically and realistically the issue is a BULLSHIT issue being used by Republicans for political purposes. It is bullshit because the flag is not burned on a daily basis. In fact, I don’t remember the last time our flag was burned in the United States period – maybe during the Vietnam protests? Yes, it is burned overseas on a regular basis by whoever is against us but this Constitutional Amendment cannot stop them!

SO IF THERE IS NO PROBLEM, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO FIX.

Another objection I have to this issue even being discussed is the fact that it is messing with our CONSTITUTION. I happen, as an American and history nut, to value this document. It has served us well over the years even though MORONS from time to time, try to change it for dubious reasons. I am not saying the Constitution should never have been changed or needs to be changed in the future. Certain Amendments were obviously needed but “Prohibition” – give me a bloody break and this is in the same category of totally worthless and stupid.

Another objection is more about reason and common sense. If this country is all about freedom including freedom of speech and expression, what the hell are you doing by prohibiting the burning of the flag as a form of free speech and free expression; you are a hypocrite, a liar and this country is not really based on principles of freedom!

I do not want to disparage the people that want an amendment banning the burning of our flag because I understand the deep emotions associated with that act BUT there comes a time when you have got to use your brains and realize that this is NOT an issue we should be even talking about. It has NO meaning and will not affect diddly-shit and is just a Republican ploy to get votes BUT is speaks volumes about the mentality of people in this country (I guess I am disparaging) and the ease with which they can be manipulated.

Janusz

MI DEMOCRATS AND HEALTHCARE REFORM?

Recently, the U.S. Senate was considering a bill named HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETPLACE MODERNIZATION AND AFFORDABILITY ACT (S. 1955).

Most business people like me supported the bill wholeheartedly. The bill, for the first time, would allow health insurance providers to offer many different kinds or types of health coverage policies that would be suited in price and coverage to basically every person’s life situation. Currently, state laws mandate what health policies MUST cover and that makes the policies very expensive and thus unaffordable to many people who prefer to remain UNINSURED!

Being able to offer a variety of health insurance policies would help eliminate the uninsured; the people responsible for our ever rising health care costs (see previous blogs on this subject).

I wrote to Michigan’s Democratic Senators for support but I should have known better. Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow voted against the bill that would bring us a step closer to solving our healthcare dilemma. Why did they refuse to back this common sense bill?

Both Senators had similar responses to my emails. Their first objection was that the new law would allow insurers and businesses to offer “basic” coverage which would not include all the current state-mandated benefits. @#$%^&* that’s the point of this bill – currently some businesses offer NO coverage because the state-mandated coverage is too expensive. By being able to offer AT LEAST basic coverage, their workers would not have to be uninsured.

The Senators mentioned specific areas that would not have required coverage. They included hospice care, newborn coverage, access to Ob/Gyn docs and Pediatricians, diabetic drugs and prevention of diabetes programs. Excuse me but a healthy; 19-25 year old male would not need any of that. Why should he pay exorbitant premiums for something he does not need?

The whole point of this law is to make available policies that fit the specific needs of specific people and their families. If you expect to need the services of a pediatrician, you would buy a policy that included that coverage or you would ask your employer to include it even though you as the employee may have to pay the extra amounts for that coverage – AT LEAST YOU WOULD NOT BE UNINSURED!

The second objection and probably the biggest one since whole page newspaper ads were taken out protesting this point, was that insurers could discriminate. This means the insurers could set their fees according to certain factors like current health status, age, smoking habits, drinking habits, being a female, overweight or working at a high-risk job, to name a few.

Well I hate to be a hard ass but you know Americans need to start taking some responsibility for their health and well being. People that DO take care of themselves should not have to pay higher premiums just to cover people that don’t give a shit about their own health. I would exclude any and all discrimination against diseases and conditions that are beyond the control of any individual.

Even today, life and disability insurance companies run tests on you before they issue a policy. That policy is priced according to the tests and exam results; that only make business sense, so why not use the same factors for health insurance? I would also insist that as you improve your life style (quit smoking, etc.) that your premiums or the premiums of your employer, go down accordingly.

The Senators also objected to the lack of state oversight of insurance plans and elimination of consumer protection for internal grievance procedures. Well, if that bothers you so much why not add it to the bill?

The Senators are SO sympathetic to the plight of small businesses and their problems with annual double digit health premium increases but the proposed plan just did not agree with their views of how things should be. Did they propose an alternative – NO -  but I bet I know what it would be – NATIONAL HEALTHCARE COVERAGE run by our just so efficient federal government (remember Katrina) and paid for by our middle class (poor people should not have to pay for anything in their lives).

I am not naïve to the point where I expect my Michigan Senators to give a crap about my small business or for that matter any business in Michigan that is trying to control its healthcare quandary. My senators are old DEMOCRATS which means they are really SOCIALISTS and we all know how their thinking runs.

So what does all this mean for me and Michigan, we are screwed! Socialism will not solve our economic issues so we should not elect Democrats but Bush Republicans have become weird religious nut cases that have lost their Republican economic principles. So who do we have to vote for? Like I said, we are screwed!

Janusz

I SAW THE DA VINCI CODE MOVIE!

Well we finally went to see the movie THE DA VINCI CODE. We both read the book some time ago and enjoyed the book because it was fast paced, interesting and had you going till the end.

The movie by director Ron Howard was made “true to the book”. It followed the book exactly and I think for that reason, we were both very bored. My wife nearly fell asleep.

For people that have not read the book, the movie may prove quite exiting but for us quite the opposite.

It did though, give me a chance to revisit some of the premises the book and movie were based on. It has been, after all, some time ago and has spawned and continues to spawn much debate and quite a number of books. It certainly has hit a nerve in Christian circles.

The whole thing about the PRIORY OF SCION has been pretty much debunked. Even “60 Minutes” had a story about it and how some nut case in the near past invented the whole thing – this was a FICTION after all.

The book and the movie did posit some ideas in the guise of factual history that I found quite interesting. The first one was about the Emperor Constantine (272-337 CE /AD).

To say he was instrumental in the rise of Christianity is an understatement; he was THE MAN even though the importance of his role in the whole scheme of things has not been really promoted as I feel it should have been.

Let me put it this way, Christianity as a religion, would probably have died out if it was not for Constantine. I am not saying ole’ Constantine was such a great Christian. Let us just say he was an astute ruler / politician who saw the value in Christianity as a tool of governance. Once he backed Christianity, it became the de facto religion of the empire, people converted in droves and money started flowing into churches and to the leaders of those churches – whoa-la!

The movie made a big deal about the war between the pagans and the Christians and Constantine’s role in that conflict. Wee that was not really true. Pagans and Christians did not actually fight each other as in battles, etc. Paganism is not really a religion; there is no theology or religious philosophy. Pagans had state gods that they serviced (festivals, temples, sacrifices, etc.).  Pagans did not care who the Christians worshipped or how they conducted their lives, as long as they did their state duty by sacrificing to the state gods on the official days designated by the state as state god sacrificing days – that’s all.

When the Christians refused to do their state duty, they were called unpatriotic and spat upon (my words).

Constantine did not bring peace between the pagans and Christians. He just allowed freedom of religious practice in the empire through his Edict of Milan (edict of toleration) 313 C.E.

Constantine tried to bring peace among the Christians because for him to use a unified religion to rule an empire, he had to unify that religion. What a lot of people do not realize and have never been taught was that Christianity and Christians were anything but unified – they were at each others throats! The reasons for their disunity are many and profound. Christianity today is a result of that battle between Christians. The winners wanted us to believe that there was never any dissention and did a great job of hiding that fact, even to this very day. For this reason I am not surprised that Christians know so little about the history of their religion.

There is a great book about this very struggle called “When Jesus became GOD; the struggle to define Christianity during the last days of Rome” by Richard E. Rubenstein (1999).

Anyway, the movie emphasizes the COUNCIL OF NICEA (325 C.E.) as a gathering of some 300 church leaders convened by Constantine in the town of Nicaea for the express purpose of uniting all the divergent Christian beliefs. Yes they were voting on which beliefs to adopt and which to throw away and yes, one of the votes was to decide once and for all, Jesus’ divinity.

Actually, the movie made you think that the council voted on whether Jesus was divine or not but that was not exactly correct. Most Christians (not all – another blog?) at that time believed Jesus was divine. The problem was in defining “divine”.

This may be a minor point to some but the movie would have us believe that Jesus’ divinity was a matter of a majority vote and therefore somehow artificially determined. This gave the story in the movie a lot of credence about Jesus as a human with a wife and children and therefore a line of descendants. Hey, that may be possible but I don’t like people manipulating history to fit their suppositions or in this case, their story line.

The Council of Nicaea was called to define Jesus’ divinity among other questions. By the way, the council did not resolve everything and the battles between Christians continued with future emperors taking one side or the other.

Since I started this theme, I may as well explain it to some kind of conclusion. OK, most Christians believed Jesus to be divine and the son of God but he also was human. How can He be human and divine? If there is only one God how can he be the son of God and a God also?

I would like to point out a timeline here because it is easy to get confused with all these dates. I usually use a general years (not exact or historical) to keep track of the time here. I use “0” C.E. as the date Jesus was born (historians say 5 B.C.E.), 30 C.E. as the date he died. Paul’s letters were ~ 50-60 C.E. and the first Gospel (Mark) was ~ 70 C.E. and the last (John) was ~ 110 C.E. The actual Bible (Canon) was not agreed on till 367 C.E so Christians used a variety of so called holy “scriptures”.

As you can see, a lot of Christian beliefs had developed before the Council of Nicaea was called in 325 C.E. – we are talking hundreds of years. During these years, many Christianities developed usually following the beliefs of a charismatic church leader. Eventually, hundreds of Christianities coalesced into a few definitive camps with their specific belief structures and this is where in 325 C.E. we find ourselves.

Please keep in mind that the struggles between competing Christian camps were also between competing church leaders who also had big egos. These leaders had followers who would kill for their heroes and some did. I don’t have room or time to discuss ALL the different Christianities so I will concentrate on the major ones.

Arius of Alexandria, Egypt believed God the Father created God the Son (Jesus). Jesus was divine but subordinate to the Father and he became human. In this belief Jesus was not truly GOD but was divine.

Athanasius, also of Alexandria, believed that Jesus had always existed and was of the same essence as God the Father?

Well, we all know now what happened. We received this gem of logic from the winners of this debate: the Trinity. This belief maintains that there are three (3) divine beings that make up the one God. All three are equal and co-eternal but the three do not make three (3) Gods. God is one, manifest in three (3) beings.

I can just imagine being at this council and listening to the debate. Actually I really wish someone took notes because to come up with the Trinity explanation one would have to be pretty high on something.

More notes on the movie in later blogs.


Janusz

PROSTITUTION AND THE REPUBLICAN WAY!

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

To:     The Detroit Free Press
Re:     “U.S. warns Germany of likely abuses in sex trade”, June 6.

The chairman of the U.S. House subcommittee on global human rights, Christopher Smith R-NJ, urged Germany to re-criminalize prostitution, “U.S. warns Germany of likely abuses in sex trade”, June 6.

Prostitution is legal in Germany. The article mentions that some prostitutes are registered there which means they pay taxes, get a pension and health care benefits. Forced prostitution is not tolerated in Germany.

Rep. Smith, in asking Germany to re-criminalize prostitution, wants them to mimic prostitution in this country where prostitutes are usually drug addicts, disease ridden and brutalized by their pimps. Yes, the American way is always better.


Janusz M Szyszko

CHRISTIANS AND GAYS, Part 5

Well let’s make this the fifth installment of my “Christians and Gays” series and the last one for the time being. I promised to go through all the Biblical so-called references to homosexuality but I think I have the patience for only one.

Recently, when I asked a anti-gay Christian for the Bible reference that demanded or instructed him to persecute gays or risk the wrath of the Biblical God, he threw out Romans 1:18.

This is a letter (Epistle) written by Paul to the Romans. This is a New Testament reference and was written after Jesus was put to death.

Paul was not an apostle, even though he called himself that. Paul never met Jesus and was not part of his famous twelve (12). He was a Johnny-come-lately and actually pissed off the apostles by preaching something that they felt Jesus never wanted – a new religion. Jesus was all about reforming Judaism.

Paul claimed he saw Jesus in a vision but hell; he could have been drunk or suffered a concussion when he fell off his ass. Paul is a real enigma. He is basically the founder of Christianity but did not pay too much attention to what Jesus taught; he kind of made up his religion as he went along.

He went from “the world will end soon so prepare” to, “well maybe it won’t end right now but someday so let’s wait and see”. He was a bit confused and at the end probably doubted his own sanity.

Paul’s letters in the New Testament are not all written by him. Historians tell us that it was quite common in those days to write something LIKE someone else and sign it with that person’s name. A number of Paul’s letters were not written by him but by people who wanted to write something with the force and believability of Paul the so called Apostle.

The Letter to the Romans was written by Paul according to scholars. The part cited by the anti-gay Christian (1:18) basically says “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness”. OK what the hell does that mean? Sounds pretty general to me!

What I think comes closer to saying something about homosexuality or homosexual acts at least is Romans 1:26-27: “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural” and “And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error”. Now that is more like it!

To be fair, you need to read the whole letter so as not to take things out of context and you need to read the letter in Greek because the English translators and copyist throughout the centuries have really drifted away from the original Greek copies of the original letter Paul wrote in Greek – whew!

Sure sounds like a condemnation of homosexual acts to me. Some even say that the words “…due penalty of their error” refers to the AIDS epidemic, originally started by homosexuals infecting other homosexuals but now infecting and affecting many heterosexuals.

This is where the “HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD” of reading and interpreting the Bible comes in handy. What did Paul mean? What was he talking about and to whom? Greek society at that time accepted homosexual acts as normal. He thought they were unnatural because Jews thought they were unnatural. Logic tells us that they WERE against nature. What is Paul telling his audience in the first century AD?

Paul’s Letter to the Romans is historically, the most influential of any of his letters. St. Augustine based his theology on it, Martin Luther and John Calvin based their “Protestant Reformation” on what they thought the Letter said. But for all the above, the Letter meant an exposition of the road to salvation, it did not have a homosexual reference to them at all or at least they did not indicate that it did – don’t forget homosexuality as we know it today did not exist then.

So what the hell was Paul talking about? I cannot tell you and historians can only guess, albeit more accurately than me. They think he was referring to pederasty and temple prostitution. He was also commenting on Greek culture. He was trying to convey what type of behavior is appropriate for salvation and which is not.

There is no question that he did not think homosexual ACTS were acceptable. So there you have it!

I cannot fault Christians for reading this passage the way they do and coming away with an understanding that Paul condemns homosexual acts. Would he do the same if he knew homosexuals are born that way, well we just don’t know.

My argument against using this particular Biblical text against homosexuality is only general. Since Paul was writing in the first century to first century people, we should not assume that his words apply to us today. Since Paul is not an apostle or a follower of Jesus, we should not take his words as somehow sanctioned by Jesus.

Janusz

MOTORCYCLE HELMET LAW IN MICHIGAN

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

To: The Detroit News
Re: “Helmet law is on road to Granholm”, June 7.


I don’t care if the 496,000 motorcycle riders in Michigan do not have to wear helmets while operating their vehicles, “Helmet law is on road to Granholm”, June 7. I don’t even care if they ride naked but when skin hits the road, make sure the Michigan taxpayer is not liable, in any way, for putting them back together again.


Janusz M Szyszko

GAY MARRIAGE A PRESSING ISSUE?

This is a follow-up to my letter to the editor about Republicans using their tried and true political gambit of resurrecting hot-button, highly emotional bull-shit issues right before the November elections.

So last week, here is ole’ Bush with the war in Iraq going just dandy, American soldiers dieing left and right, Iran ready to make an A-Bomb, Afghanistan reverting back to the Taliban, new hurricane season upon us, Mexicans spilling through our borders and all sorts of horse shit going wrong with this country and he wants to address the most pressing issue facing this nation: Gay Marriage.

The really sad thing is that this tactic has worked in the past and probably will work again. ARE WE THAT FUCKING STUPID? The short answer is that many of us ARE! Many of us think that if gays get married in a legal fashion our society will come to an end or God will rain damnation on us all or some other superstitious nonsense.

The plain fact is that allowing gays to marry under the full protection of the law will NOT affect us one bit. Heterosexuals have totally screwed up the holy institution of marriage to the point where it is a joke and we are worried that the gays will, what – screw it up some more?

It is sad but when I attend a wedding ceremony these days and listen to all those beautiful words of everlasting love and what God has joined together let no man put asunder, I think – WHO ARE WE KIDDING – this marriage has a 50% chance of ending in divorce so why play this game and say all those things we do not really mean – till death do us part?

Gays will say the same things and not really mean them. Fifty percent or more will also end up in divorce or maybe not! We don’t have statistics on legal gay marriages so maybe they will show heterosexuals how to stay married?

I have been married for over 35 years and I do not feel threatened by legalized gay marriage. I say let them experience how easy it is to stay married; why should we have all the fun. Gays want the fun without the responsibility. Let us see what happens when they flit from one guy to another and then get sued for divorce and have to spend big bucks on lawyers and such – what joy!

I think Bush is making an issue where no issue exists. It is all politics and those in politics know that a large segment of this population can be influenced by non-issues like gay marriage – so why not do it.

I guess I just get really pissed off at how easily we as a people can be maneuvered by people that know how to maneuver people and looking at our school system and the products of that school system, this population will be maneuvered for a very long time.


Janusz

DIXIE CHICKS HAVE BALLS!

I don’t know if you have been following the saga of the singing trio from Texas called the DIXIE CHICKS. I have and it is a story worth telling. I may even buy their album and I don’t usually buy Country & Western Music albums.

On the eve of our invasion of Iraq, one of the Chicks said on a London stage that she was ashamed that President Bush came from Texas. All hell broke lose in the South. Remember that at that time most Americans believed Bush and his reasons for the invasion - now we all know he was and is just a dirty ole’ liar.

The Chicks were called traitors and unpatriotic. Country & Western radio stations banned their music and still do. Fans denounced them and burned their CDs. The only apology was “for disrespecting the office of the president” but that’s all. Their careers were seemingly finished.

This week they released their first album since that fateful day. It is called “Taking the Long Way” and the hit single from that album is “Not Ready to Make Nice” or as I like to translate it: Fuck Y’all! The album and the single are number one on the charts and not because their old fans have forgiven them.

They were on CNN last night and they recounted the whole experience and described their feelings then and now and what they thought of the dramatic reaction to their London statement. Other singers have criticized the President and his war and not a peep about it. But their fans were so called Country & Western music fans and they don’t like people criticizing their president and therefore THEIR country. Many of their recording star cohorts (Toby Keith) denounced them but then they make their money singing patriotic songs and doing truck commercials.

I guess what intrigued me about this whole story is their courageous stand against all odds. They stood up for their beliefs and never wavered even with their careers at stake and now they are saying – see you morons, patriotism without brains is damaging to this country. We need to pay attention to what is going on instead of accepting things blindly. We need to speak up if we disagree, yes, even with the President. That is what Democracy is all about!

The Chicks said that their greatest shock was at how people, even people they thought they knew, could react with such anger and such hatred (and I may add such stupidity and ignorance).

Hooray for the Chicks! May they serve as role models for the new generation of Americans and a lesson to some older ones too?

Janusz

Christians and Gays, Part 4

This is the fourth installment of my series “Christians and Gays” where I explore why some Christians have it in for gays. I have concluded that those Christians believe the Bible directs them to attack gays because being homosexual is a sin.

We will examine the Bible text in this segment as it pertains or does not pertain to homosexuality.

It is important to realize that “homosexuality” as a sexual orientation did not exist in Biblical times. Actually, the study of sexual orientation or sexual development did not begin till the 1950s. Even today, there are people that think heterosexual men desire homosexual contact because they are sinners. If they truly believe that then they are very naïve and have sexual issues of their own. Homosexuals are born that way – period!

In Biblical times homosexual acts did occur. We are told that when an army defeated another army, the losers were sometimes raped by the victors as a sign of dominance, etc. I really have a hard time imagining a victorious soldier getting an erection so he can rape a defeated soldier.

We are also told by historians that a number of religions had temples where men and women were so called “Temple Prostitutes”. These prostitutes represented the specific god that the temple honored. Having sex with these temple harlots (male or female) somehow represented having sex with the actual god – figure that out! Anyway, the Jews were very much against this type of activity and wrote about it in the Old Testament.

Also, in Greek culture it was accepted that a mature Greek citizen would take a younger Greek male under his wing to teach him how to be a good Greek citizen. Sex was part of the deal. We now call it pederasty.

Historians have a little trouble with this Greek custom. The men had wives and led normal lives. We also know that only the upper class practiced pederasty. The big thing to remember here is that their society accepted this behavior as normal.

Romans, to a certain extent, also practiced pederasty but for strictly sexual pleasure. This was not considered homosexuality because there was no homosexuality just homosexual acts.

Also at this time, slavery was common, normal and accepted. Treating women as total crap was also accepted; it was after all, a patriarchal system. This is still seen in Islamic societies and a few others.
Remember that the Bible accepted these practices.

The Bible is filled with rules and regulations that would never be accepted in our time; they belong to another age, another time, another civilization.

We also know that the Bible has been translated, copied, interpreted, rewritten……………….etc. according to our modern understanding. There was no word for homosexuality because homosexuality was unknown at the time the Bible was written but we have managed to interpret Biblical text in a homosexual way.

For that matter, anyone can find Biblical justification for about any position one holds. You can find justification in the Bible for opposing views. Hell, Shakespeare even said the devil can justify his actions in the Bible.

The trick here is to discern if the Bible actually condemns homosexuals and instructs Christians to persecute homosexuals because they are sinners against the Christian God.

Well, this took longer than I thought. I promise to get into the text of the Bible next time. We will look at mainly: Genesis, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Judges, Kings, Romans, Corinthians, Timothy and Jude. These are the passages that matter most to the anti-gay Christians and these are the passages they use to justify their feelings and their actions.

Janusz

CHRISTIANITY AND GAYS, PART 3.

This is a third installment in a series where I examine why certain Christians are so set against gays.

In my last segment, I identified the Bible as the source for most of the hatred and I argued that the Bible cannot be taken as a definitive word of God (every word) and that that position is indefensible.

The Bible as the word of God issue has arisen in my comments about the movie Da Vinci Code and the fact that there is no secular historical information about Jesus and his life. I received angry emails telling me that the Bible IS a history book because it foretold events centuries before they happened.

Historians will argue that certain books in the Bible did foretell events but the actual books were written many years AFTER the events happened; foretelling in reverse.

Anyway, judging by the tone of the emails, there is no hope of a serious, academic discussion based on known facts about the Bible – so back to my closer look at Christians and gays and the role of the Bible in this issue.

Modern Bible scholars use what is known as a “Historical-Critical Method” of studying the Bible. This scientific method first developed by Protestants has been adopted also by the Catholic Church. Words in the Bible are examined objectively as to the historical period they were written in, the historical intention of the author and/or editor (redactor) and the historical audience the words were written to. The method is scientific because “faith” does not play a role here.

I will also point out that Christian denominations differ in how they treat the Bible. John Wesley, founder of the Methodist tradition developed the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” approach to faith by relying on the Bible in conversation with tradition, experience and reason.

I hope I have not confused the issue already. All I am saying is that words in the Bible were written by people a long time ago and for a reason that existed at that time and an audience that existed at that ancient time; the word are NOT talking to us in 2006 and are NOT talking about modern times we live in. The words on the other hand CAN be used to glean philosophical and theological ideas for our own benefit.
Wow – that’s a mouthful!

The people that are AGAINST all the above belong to the FUNDAMENTALIST segment of Christianity. This segment arose during the Reformation and held fast to the Bible being the word of God, inspired and free from error and on guard against “liberal exegesis”.

The “Five Points of Fundamentalism” as stated in 1895 at the American Bible Congress held in Niagara, N.Y. were: the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, his virginal birth, the doctrine of vicarious expiation and the bodily resurrection at the time of the second coming of Christ. This fundamentalism is spreading even as we speak.

The problem here is that this group rejects ALL questioning of the Bible text and ANY form of critical research; it is the way it is so fuck off.

The fundamentalists refuse to see that the Bible used human languages, human authors with limited capacities and resources, human copyists, human translators. It is as if the Holy Spirit dictated the Bible word for word. I have only one word to say here NAÏVE. This word is used by not only me but other Christians and even though some fundamentalists are good people, I have to reject their narrow point of view as not only naïve but stupid. Sorry for that but I don’t have any other word that could convey my feelings more accurately.

Next installment, we tackle the actual Biblical texts relating to homosexuality, at least thought to be relating to homosexuality.

Janusz

REPUBLICANS AT IT AGAIN IN NOVEMBER

Sunday, May 28, 2006

To: The Detroit Free Press
Re: “Republicans seek favor with hot issues”, May 28.


Republicans are getting ready for the November elections by employing the tried and true method that has served them so well in the past, “Republicans seek favor with hot issues”, May 28.

They will be hitting the hot button with issues involving abortion rights, gay marriage and flag burning.

If we allow these issues to divert our attention from the Republican stench of mismanagement, lawlessness and corruption emanating from Congress and the White House, than we will be doing this country a disservice.


Janusz M Szyszko

RESPONSE TO MY LETTER DA VINCI CODE

Recently I wrote a letter to the editor of our local paper commenting on an article about Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code book and the movie that just hit our area.

I simply mentioned that you cannot condemn the book or the movie as totally untrue when in fact we have no historical secular evidence about Jesus or his life. Without hard evidence, no one knows what really happened.

Well, I have heard some comments about my statement from people that, as I mentioned in previous posts, know very little about their religion. The storm created by the book and the movie, might entice them to learn a little bit more about their religion and their beliefs instead of attacking people with their ignorance.

There are many, many records from the historical period of Jesus. The Romans kept meticulous records of everything going on around them. There are countless letters, reports, books, etc. from that period. None of them EVER mention Jesus. In fact it is easier to tell people what evidence we DO have.

Josephus, a Jewish historian of the first century A.D. or C.E. that worked for the Romans published the History of the Jews. In one of the volumes there is a simple reference to James the brother of Jesus. James, it appears was well known in Jerusalem and his death merited a mention in Josephus’s book.

This ONLY mention of Jesus (at all) in the millions of writings of that period was found by some Christian monks. They edited it by adding their own thoughts or re-writing the passage the way they thought it should be written. Today, historians have been able to clean it up, removing what was added and leaving what Josephus probably, really said. I guess we should be thankful to these monks because without them we would not even have Josephus – they preserved it for the future, even though heavily edited.

The only other secular historical reference to Jesus was in a letter by a Roman governor somewhere in Asia Minor requesting Rome to instruct him how to handle these “Christos followers”.

That is it gang! As important as Jesus and Christianity is to our history and our civilization – no hard evidence – period!

But, you say, what about the Gospels. Well now, this is where the problem lies. Many Christians believe these literary works as historical pieces and they are NOT.

They were composed way after the time of Jesus by writers that never met Jesus. They were not even from the land of Jesus or spoke in the language of Jesus (Aramaic). They relied on information about Jesus from previous Gospel writers (Mark was the first according to historians) and whatever stories were being passed around at that time. Note, we are talking about stories – hearsay if you will – NOT DOCUMENTED HISTORY.

This is a huge subject and there are many volumes written about the “historical Jesus” and what can we really know about him and his life.

I am not saying you should not believe that the Gospels are historically correct but if you do you have to know that your beliefs are based on faith and not on fact - so please do not jump down my throat about Jesus if I don't agree with your beliefs. I am just stickin with the known facts – thank you.

Janusz

Da Vinci Code letter

Sunday, May 21, 2006

To: The Detroit Free Press
Re: “Reviews from above on the Da Vinci film”, May 21.


Mitch Albom in his “Reviews from above on the Da Vinci film”, May 21, pokes fun at how famous people are portrayed in films but concludes that in the Da Vinci Code film, Jesus gets the worst treatment “…since they were making up total lies about him…”.

Since it is well known that there is no historical evidence about Jesus or his life, no one is in a position to judge a story about him as true or false.


Janusz M Szyszko

ENGLISH OUR NATIONAL LANGUAGE?

Congress was having a little fun last week debating whether the English language should be formally ensconced in our legal system as THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The resultant flurry of emotional opinions ranged from calling such a move RACIST by the Democrats to PROTECT OUR HERITAGE by the Republicans.

I don’t exactly what stirred all this up but I have a suspicion that the immigration protests by Hispanics and the singing of a Spanish Star Spangled Banner had something to do with it.

Canada has two (2) official languages and every label and sign has to be in both English and French – a real pain in the ass and in the pocketbook. France has laws that forbid the use of non-French words; they even translated Mickey Mouse into French. I remembered that Poland had similar rules but even they realized that saying OPEN 24 HOUR was better than OTWARTE DWADZIESCIACZTERY GODZIN – they need huge signs to hold all those words and letters.

I also realized that many ancient languages really had no translations for words such as “weekend”, “computer”, “Internet” and many, many other modern words.

The world is quickly becoming used to the fact that ENGLISH is the universal language. When a German goes to China and an Italian goes to China, they communicate with each other and the Chinese in ENGLISH.

In the United States, the melting pot gave us countless ethnic enclaves that spoke their native languages but communicated with other groups in English – it was the natural thing to do and is practiced today. In Michigan we had a town near Detroit called Hamtramck. It was so Polish, you did not need to know English; even the cops were Polish. That town has changed dramatically with children of those Poles, Americanized and moved out. Today, the same town is full of Albanians and the circle continues.

I remember growing up and learning English in school and Polish at home. It was easy and natural for a little kid to pick up another language. My kids always complained that I did not teach them Polish but BOTH parents have to speak the same language for that to happen. In my case, my wife spoke only English.

Growing up in the 1950s, my mother wanted me to be a medical doctor so in high school I took LATIN – boy what a waste – a dead language! French in the 50s was the language of diplomacy, so I took a few months of that. German was the language of science – I only lasted a few weeks in that class. Today, to be successful in our global economy, you need to know English!

Our military is sitting on millions of captured documents in Arabic but no one to translate them. They have captured many illegal “combatants” but have no one to interrogate them in their native tongue- all we can do is strip them naked and take pictures of them in funny positions. We need people that speak other languages!!!

I think having our students learn another language is a good idea but they must be FIRST, proficient in English! Teaching primary school in a language other than English should be against the law.

Requiring instructions, signs, labels……………….in languages other than just English should be against the law – this should be voluntary for business or marketing purposes.

Requiring a working knowledge of English to obtain citizenship should be the law. I don’t care if the applicants for U.S. citizenship know much about our history; our own high school graduates don’t know our history or how our government operates! They don’t know our geography either.

So what am I getting at? I think the natural way this country has developed through the ages by absorbing ethnic groups and their languages and customs and forming Americans out of them has worked out very well WITHOUT declaring English our national language.

I guess I am confused about what a bill declaring English as our national language is suppose to accomplish. I think English is and has always been our de facto national language. Is someone suggesting we make Spanish our national language or is this so-called issue a lot of noise about nothing? Or, is a law needed to at least guarantee those points above that I suggested should be part of our laws.

Janusz

BACK FROM UTAH!

Well I am back from a week in UTAH! Yes, Utah. We have made a habit of picking a state we have never visited and then spending a week seeing what is to see there. So far we have done New Mexico (Northern) and the Tucson, Arizona area.

We usually pick the spring (April/May) to visit. At this time the temperatures are not as hot and the kids are still in school which usually means fewer tourists.

We started at St. George in southwest Utah and made a huge loop from Zion National Park to Page, Arizona (Lake Powell- Glen Canyon), through Monument Valley (Navajo Nation) Utah on to Arches National Park, through Capitol Reef National Park and on to Bryce Canyon National Park. We ended up back at St. George, Utah with friends that have a condo there.

When we arrived at Las Vegas, the temperature was above 100°F. St. George was also experiencing a heat wave and was above 100°F for the first time in May – ever. As we progressed into the mountains the temperature came down somewhat and we ended the week with mountain temperatures in the 70s – where they should be.

The scenery was breathtaking. Driving through the mountains was scary. In the valleys, where the roads are straight, you can hit 100 mph quite easily – we had a Dodge Durango and it could fly.

What I found interesting? Well, for one, American tourists were in the minority. In fact, I think we were it! There were MANY buses full of Germans, Brits, Italians and some French – they were everywhere. There were some Asians – mostly Japanese.

Tell me how in the hell did all these foreigners know about UTAH when even WE who live in the States knew basically nothing about it. My knowledge of Utah was Mormons settled there and Salt Lake City where the Olympics were held because there is great skiing – that’s it. Utah must advertise a lot overseas.

I think the draw for foreigners is the WESTERN or COWBOY theme. Many, many westerns were filmed in Monument Valley. To these people Utah is cowboy land and therefore the real America.

Another interesting thing here is the MORMON influence. Polygamy is still practiced even though officially and legally banned. You cannot order double vodka or anything double. You are limited to 1 oz of booze per drink. You are also limited to three (3) beers at any one sitting. A waiter or waitress under 21 cannot serve any alcohol – have to get someone over 21 to even touch an alcoholic drink. Liquor stores are very rare but the state is, I think, making it easier to find a drink just to keep those tourists coming.

I would highly recommend Utah for a visit (summer temps reach over 130°F) in the spring - there is snow here in the winter. Nature is at its best here and quite spectacular.


Janusz

CHRISTIANITY AND GAYS, PART 2

This is the second installment of my look at Christians and Gays. In my first piece I wondered why certain Christians were so dead set to destroy or hurt homosexuals. These Christians made it seem that their religion demands that they do this – I just asked why.

To be able to discuss this there are a few points that need to be made. Without reaching some form of consensus on these points, further discussion would be hopeless.

Professional religious scholars admit that Americans are biblically illiterate. Basically that means they really do not know biblical history, where the Bible came from, who wrote what, who Jesus really was, etc… This does not mean they are stupid, it means they were never taught and did not seek knowledge on their own.

Divinity Schools, Theological Seminaries and other religious schools teach their students everything that is known about Christianity. This knowledge is almost never conveyed to normal Christians because, in my mind and the minds of church leaders, that knowledge was deemed as unnecessary for the practice of Christianity. We will let that sit for awhile.

Growing up as a Catholic, I was told NOT to read the Bible because I may get the wrong ideas and only Catholic leaders (priests) can explain the Bible to me. This is hundreds of years after Martin Luther defied the Church and published the Bible in a secular language (not Latin but German) and made it available to every simple shmuk out there.

The point that I am trying to make is that after the death of Jesus THERE WERE MANY CHRISTIANITIES. Beliefs ranged from Jesus being a smart and holy man to Jesus is a god in a human body to Jesus is both a god and a man to almost any variable thereof. These were “competing” beliefs and this went on for a good long while.

I point this out because TODAY we are still in the same boat. There are many Christianities with many competing beliefs. Christianity is not a unified movement; just look at all the denominations out there. Christians do not always agree with each other and this is a FACT of reality.

My second point is more ticklish. It is how American Christians perceive the Bible. There are those that think the Bible is word for word of God. There are those that believe the Bible contains works that were written by humans but inspired by God. And then there are those who attribute Bible stories to humans who wrote them for many reasons.

The belief that the Bible, word for word, is the word of God is indefensible. Speaking of the New Testament, we do not have an original or even a first copy of any of the books in the NT (New Testament). We have copies of copies of copies………………………….and many are also translations of copies. Since the earliest copies were made by hand, errors had to have occurred. Also translation from one language to another is hard and imprecise.

Another historic fact is that some copyists changed the wording of the copy they were making because they felt it read better or had a better meaning or this is what I think Jesus really said.

My point is that if you believe that the Bible is the absolute word of God (every word) then we have nothing to discuss – we cannot go any further.

For all of you with an open mind and a willingness to learn and discuss – we will talk in part three.


Janusz

U.S. WHITE MEN ARE SICKER!

Here is something from the health field. I have been in the health field basically all my adult life and therefore a life student of the subject.

A recent study caught my eye. The subjects of the study were WHITE MALES 55-65. The subjects lived in the United States and the United Kingdom (U.K.).

The study concluded that American white men were in much poorer health than those white men in England.

Before you jump to conclusions let me point out that in the U.S., we spend twice as much on healthcare as they do in the U.K.

Also let me point out that THEY drink and smoke much more than we do here.

In the study, it was pointed out that the health of the richest, white U.S. males matched that of the poorest, U.K. males. Does that mean rich U.S. whites are too stupid to take care of their health and that does not mean that poor Brits are in anyway stupid!

I don’t pretend to have the definitive answer but I have spent some time in Europe and I have noticed some pretty dramatic differences in our ways of life.

The main difference is in the layout of our residential areas. Recently in Scotland, we walked to the pub, we walked to the shops and carried heavy bags back. We walked to the train station for a train to the city where we walked all around. In other words, we walked.

Here, we live in suburbs that are connected by roads and highways and not by sidewalks. We don’t walk anywhere. Some people jog on the side of the roads, placing their lives in danger. Did you notice that most joggers are skinny as shit? Some of us go to gyms, etc. Some exercise at home BUT the great majority DOES NOTHING.

Why don’t you see OBESE people in Europe? Why do Europeans or Asians or any ethnic person who comes from a land of the skinny eventually become an obese American after a few years here – lifestyle!

Can anything be done? Europeans have had the same residential areas for hundreds of years. Americans created brand new residential areas and they unfortunately based their designs on car travel. This allowed Americans to live anywhere; not only close to work, schools, shops, etc. For that freedom we sacrificed our health.

We are not going to change the way we build suburbs anytime soon but we can insist on sidewalks EVERYWHERE. I think people will naturally tend to take walks where sidewalks are available.


Janusz

NATIONAL HEALTH CARE INSURANCE MY ASS!

Saturday, May 06, 2006


To:     The Detroit News
Re:     “It’s time for national health insurance”, May 6.

Ron Gettelfinger writes “It’s time for national health insurance”, May 6 because since the auto companies can no longer afford to keep his union members on deluxe health plans, he wants the taxpayers to pick up the tab.

Universal health coverage is the answer to our health cost problems but having our government provide the coverage is just plain irresponsible.

How about mandatory health care coverage with many insurance options to choose from. I know UAW members are not used to paying for health care coverage but maybe its time they joined the real world.


Janusz M Szyszko

MOUSSAOUI TRIAL A FARCE

I am the only one getting sick and tired of hearing about the Zacarias Moussaoui trial?

The whole thing is a farce and was from the very beginning. Listen, I know that people need a scapegoat for 9/11 to bring closure but he ain’t it! Or will anyone do?

The guy is obviously a loony bird and he is making our government look really stupid (like that is hard to do).

Four years of legal maneuvering and six weeks worth of court time with full jury and millions of dollars and what do we have – a person we will have to support for the rest of his life – more money?

The jury saw right through this charade and said he basically had nothing to do with 9/11. Parading the relatives of 9/11 victims through the court accomplished what? Did it really give them closure? I doubt it.

The poor jury was really put on the spot. They knew the prosecution had nothing. They knew that after the female prosecutor interfered with witnesses and nearly had the case dismissed, the prosecutors were a bunch of amateurs, yet they could not let the man go and risk the anger of the nation and especially the relatives of the 9/11 victims. I feel sorry for them.

So tell me, what the hell was this trial about? Do we give a shit about justice or is this all just a big media game orchestrated by the Bush people.


Janusz

AFGHANISTAN ABANDONED

Latest news from Afghanistan: U.S. troops are pulling out. They are pulling out because NATO troops are supposed to be taking their place.

Here is the problem, NATO troops are NOT going to find and fight and destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda; they are just there to patrol and keep the peace.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda know this and so reports are reaching reporters that Taliban fighters and Al Qaeda fighters are flooding southern Afghanistan to join the spring and summer offensive.

People living in southern Afghanistan now feel that the U.S. has AGAIN abandoned people they supposedly liberated. They now know they have to make peace with the Taliban because they will AGAIN be their new masters; the people’s few moments of freedom and liberty are now at an end – back to the dark ages.

Since Afghanistan was never in President Bush’s plan, they were just a diversion as was the 9/11 attack. He never wanted to liberate Afghanistan, defeat the Taliban, find and destroy Al Qaeda, punish the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack on the U.S.

No, President Bush had his neoconservative plan to attack Iraq and change the world order on his plate and nothing was going to dissuade him from his mission.

I am pointing this all out to remind you how badly he has fucked up. I want you to know that thousands of innocent people will suffer because of his arrogance and his ignorance and WE are some of those people who will suffer and probably our children also!

Thank you President Bush!

Janusz

CHRISTIANITY AND GAYS, PART 1

In the last few months I have been seeing a trend among certain Christians to ratchet up their war against the gays.

A recent newspaper article was titled “Religious right protests tolerance”. This came from Atlanta and the subhead read “Devout cite beliefs in demanding institutions, workplaces end policies that ban discrimination”. You read it right – THEY WANT THE RIGHT TO BE INTOLERANT. They want the right to harass!

Other stories that you may have read include the Christian group that shows up at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. They hold up signs that tell the grieving relatives that God killed their loved one specifically because the military allows gays to serve.

Another story shows how Ford Motor is being targeted by a Christian group for advertising in gay magazines and for supporting charities that may have gays on board. The economic boycott is actually having an affect on sales at Ford.

My question is what in Christianity is making these people so rabidly anti-gay. Why are they so threatened by gays? They feel it is a Christian commandment, a sacred duty to attack and harass gays and wipe them off the face of the earth – why?

Now I realize that throughout history, religious leaders have picked targets that united the faithful in a common cause. We see this today in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan and many other countries. Yes it is a religious campaign but also very political because only through politics can you gain dominance and impose your beliefs and therefore your rule on everyone.

The religious zealots in this country may not be as violent buy I think everybody can plainly see the common thread here.

What I would like to find out is the Christian justification for extreme anti-gay feelings and actions. The reason I use the word “extreme” is because I personally feel, as a heterosexual, a good deal of uneasiness and maybe queasiness about male homosexuality but I accept them as human beings with a different biological orientation that they were born with. As fellow human beings and members of our society, I do not wish them harm.

On the other hand, the specific Christians I have mentioned want to deny gays their humanness and reject them as society members; they want them dead or at least gone!

This will take a number of blogs because I want to examine what in Christianity justifies these violent feelings and Christianity is a large area to look at.

Talk to you soon,


Janusz

MEXICAN IMMIGRATION OR JUST OPEN BORDERS!

Monday saw a huge amount of people pour into the streets of big cities to make the nation aware of the role of Mexican immigrants (illegal) in our daily lives and in the economy of this country.

It appears that the motivation for the protest was a belief that illegal Mexican immigrants will be rounded up and deported as felons for entering this country illegally. I don’t think anyone in our government believes that locating, rounding up and deporting 14 million illegal Mexicans is even remotely possible.

The organizers of the protest are probably quite aware what the Congress can and cannot realistically do with the illegals; they just want Congress to see how well they are organized and how easily they can deliver votes when the illegals become legal.

It is important to point out that even though many of the protesters carried signs saying “America was built by immigrants” and various variations on that theme, America was built by legal immigrants or at least a majority of immigrants that were legally in this country.

Other ethnic groups would probably behave like the Mexicans if their countries bordered the U.S. Look at how many Chinese try to get into this country illegally and look how far away China is. We have to realize how powerful the drive to better one’s lot in life is and how people are willing to risk their very lives for the chance at a better life.

It appears to me that logic will tell us that the reasons Mexicans enter the United States illegally is because they can not do it legally. Am I correct? Do we have a quota or strict rules for entering legally? Does it cost too much to apply for legal entry? I don’t know but I must surmise all the above to be true since most Mexicans choose the illegal and dangerous route.

The question is – can the United States make entry into the U.S. easier AND legal for Mexicans so they don’t have to come in illegally?

Anyway, for Congress to seriously address the status of illegal immigrants in this country they must seriously address the flood of immigrants coming into the country on a daily basis otherwise the whole immigration question is a joke.

The Mexican government relies on the millions of dollars illegal immigrants send back to Mexico so they do not want to alter the status quo. It appears it is all up to us.

I say STOP THE FLOW by whatever means necessary FIRST! Then let’s deal with the ones already in.

Janusz