IS A VOID ACCEPTABLE IN PLACE OF RELIGION?

Staying with the topic of religion, I mused in my previous blogs about indications that we humans need religion because we cannot exist in a world / life where there are great voids in our knowledge base.

The professor teaching my “Axial Age of Religions” course laments the fact that religion(s) fill voids and therefore eliminate all mystery in our existence. He feels that some mystery is somehow good for us because it keeps us thinking, guessing and searching. Religion on the other hand, with absolute certainty (where certainty is not possible) answers all our questions, filling all voids.

Can we live with uncertainty? History shows us that we prefer not to and look to religion or invent a religion, to remove uncertainty and bring peace and tranquility to our existence.

The new aggressive secularists think we do not need god(s) to live a happy and satisfying life.

These new atheists challenge religious beliefs and in basically all cases can show that what religions teach and preach is based on nothing more than imaginings of a few. Members of religions are asked to have faith, to believe that somehow these imaginings are true even though based on absolutely nothing with no way of proving that they are even remotely true.

My contention is that these believers would rather believe in someone’s imaginings rather than nothing; read void.

I look inward to examine why is it that I have no problem with empty spaces in my knowledge base. I relish the search. I envy people that will live in the future, a future where other worlds will be discovered and other ‘people’. Where current religions will be washed away as mere superstitions but will other ‘religions’ / superstitions take their place?

Myth and ritual are very powerful forces in our world and have been right from the beginning. I am not sure we can just eliminate religion without offering a substitute.

So why do most Western Europeans live without religion and remain happy and satisfied. I need to look into that a little bit more.

Russia and China were officially atheistic for so many years. Why is religion making such great strides in those countries now that officially, religion(s) can flourish?

More thoughts on the "FIRST COMMUNION"...

I have been thinking more about the First Communion blog and my ambivalent feelings about the subject.

My family follows their Catholic heritage because they want to. They feel it is the right thing to do and yes, because of habit and rearing.

Trying to influence them to see the “light” would go absolutely nowhere. The only thing I can depend on is my own small contribution to enlightenment; my own two children. I think what shocked me attending my family First Communion programs and seeing the large number of participants is that my contribution and the contribution of people like me, is so miniscule when compared to the other side. I hope I am wrong and that my experience is not the norm in this country but I feel like it is.

Aggressive secularism should not direct their aggression against the common folk and I will explain momentarily, but when the Republican candidates for president were asked who does not believe in evolution and most of them raised their hands, the target becomes clearer.

I have to add that the serious contenders like McCain said that they believe in evolution but see the hand of God there – smart politicians.

As a history nut, I look backward to see why humans needed and still need religion. But as I say this I also must note that in Western Europe, religion is basically a non issue – why? And why are Americans so bloody religious?

Some form of religion has been with us from the very beginning. Unexplainable phenomenon always made more sense when a god was named as the instigator.

In my current studies of Buddhism (~500 B.C.E.) and Confucianism (~500 B.C.E.), both very, very old “religious” movements (way before Jesus was even born), I detect some reasons for human religiosity.


The interesting thing about both movements is that they were not about god or gods or heaven; they were about humans and their life on earth. Basically about correct behavior but I AM simplifying.

Anyway, the thing that struck me about both movement creators is that they encouraged ritual to the gods of heaven even though their preaching had nothing to do with god or heaven.

I think they both realized that humans needed to worship something that they thought had influence over their daily lives and their afterlife. Buddha and Confucius way back when, realized a basic human need and addressed it.

Who am I to question that wisdom? Telling humans that religion(s) are human creations used to manipulate and have nothing to do with god(s) or the supernatural without giving them a substitute belief system will just not work; humans need something no matter how preposterous.

I may make fun of the trinity theology, virgin birth and resurrection but hey, what do I have to replace that with; a big black hole?

The aggressive secularists need to concentrate their power on the people that take religion and use it to control others. I have no problem with personal religious beliefs but I do mind when those religious beliefs are used to control the rest of us.

But you may argue that those controlling people derive their power from the “believers” and so we do need to reach those people also.

Well enough confusion for the time being; more confusion to follow.

FIRST COMMUNIONS!

Recently, I attended a number of “First Communion” ceremonies and receptions. I was raised a Catholic and also went through all the catholic rituals including first communion.

The rituals have not changed much nor have the required dark suits for little boys and elaborate wedding gown type dresses for the little girls.

As I sat, stood, shook hands (I don’t kneel) through the Mass I was amazed at the number of children going through this religious ceremony; it was quite disheartening.

The children stared at the priest who talked about their acceptance of Jesus, the son of God, into their bodies. I wondered what was going through their young minds. I know my grandnephew was getting sick and about to throw up.

God has a son? But I thought there was only ONE God. Who is this Holy Spirit that is yet another God? How can a kid grasp such utter nonsense? How can an adult priest spout such unbelievable hocus-pocus? And yet they do and have been doing for a very long time and they never question anything; it’s automatic.

I usually never say anything during these family gatherings but if I have a few drinks, I sometimes, before leaving, mutter something like “how can you guys believe in this absurd, superstitious nonsense”. I get looks that say “how can you NOT believe in this sacred stuff; you must be insane”.

I then realize that I cannot discuss the subject of religion with these people; my family. My brother at least understands where I am coming from and jokes that lightening will hit the church when I enter.

One family member said that if we don’t do this (Church & Communion) the kids will turn to drugs and sex and all sorts of BAD things. OK, at least here is a point to discuss but I though otherwise; there is no point(s) to discuss because these people are brainwashed and have been since birth.

They do religious things out of habit. They don’t really give it any thought because the Catholic Church has done its job very well; don’t read the Bible and believe only what you are told by the priest or in my case, the teaching nuns.

So why am I different? I went through the same rigid indoctrination and had / have a mother that is a super catholic BUT with a streak of religious independence that I must have detected in her at an early age; she is pro-choice and thinks popes and priest are just MEN who sometimes don’t know what they are talking about.

She encouraged me to find out answers to questions she could not answer and I did; it has been a lifelong journey of learning for me and it continues to this very day.

I embrace the new “aggressive secularism” movement and think people like me should not just sit politely and accept the absurdity that is religion. We need to challenge, point out the delusion and yet?

I have to think about how we can practice aggressive secularism in a way that actually makes a difference.

CONFIRMING WHAT WE ALL KNEW!

Former spy boss turns on Bush team - World - theage.com.au

I knew that the whole Bush administration deception about the Iraq War would be revealed after he left office but it seems the ship is starting to sink right now as Bush sits at the helm; great timing!

The Democrats need every ounce of ammunition to finally sink this administration and bring the tragedy that is Iraq to a close. To sink it, the Democrats need the Republicans.

George Tenet, former head of the CIA under Bush has written a book. He is pissed for being made the scapegoat for the war. He tells it like it was and remarkably, it is very close if not identical to what I and many others thought all along; Bush went to war following a neo-con plan that said invade by hook or by crook even if you have to lie your ass off. The end will justify the means.

Note: Tenet seems to blame Cheney and Wolfowitz the most which reinforces the idea held by many that Bush was and is just a puppet.

What will proving that Bush went to war under false pretenses do to the situation at hand?

Well, for one thing, it discredits the man and his ideas; he was wrong, dead wrong and he is dead wrong about Iraq and what to do there now! At least his judgment and the judgments of every one in his administration are now seriously in question; they are incompetent and are incapable from prosecuting this war and bringing it to an acceptable conclusion.

The Democrats can now officially point out that Bush was and is a liar and an incompetent leader. His plan to change the world order and democratize the Middle East was stupid and naïve and never had a chance of success.

Knowing what we know we have to conclude that he is a clear danger to this country and its citizens and HAS to be stopped before he does any more harm.

The Democrats have to also pound home the point that supporting Bush in Iraq at this stage is no longer tenable at any level and to do so would be unpatriotic since it would be against what is best for the country and its people. The Republicans would have no choice.

If Congress overrides the president’s veto on war funding they must then take over running the war. Divide the country into three (3) parts, split oil revenues evenly and secure the borders with other countries and between the Iraqi factions.

Our troops would be engaged in guard duty; no offensive combat unless someone tries to mess up the plan.

This plan would save lives, American and Iraqi, and have a good chance of success. Yes we may have to have troops there for some time but at least they will not be getting killed or maimed.

Democrats; you have an opportunity here.

DO SOMETHING!

MADMAN BUSH!

The Sunday papers carried a front page story titled “U.S. plan backs off training of Iraqis”. Basically our plan of training an Iraqi army to eventually take over for us and allow our troops to leave is a failure.

Our troops will now go it alone in bringing peace to the country.

Hold on; not so fast! Where does that leave us? I think it leaves us nowhere.

Senator Harry Reid the Majority Leader called the war LOST. He also said that Bush is delusional about the war in Iraq. I agree!

Our plan to create a democracy in the Middle East is kaput. Our troops actually tried to construct a wall between the Shiite sections of Baghdad and the Sunni; stupid last attempts to stop the slaughter.

The New York Times reported that a separation into three (3) areas like I have suggested from the beginning is still an option but Bush will not hear of it.

Bush’s idea of a victory in Iraq is now unknowable, even to himself. I think he has lost his mind and is now operating as a zombie, repeating his claim that we are fighting al-Qaeda over and over and over again.

The Democrats need to strike while the striking is good. Keep repeating that Bush is out of control, incompetent and delusional. Keep pressing him until he cracks; he is close to it. Above all else, they need to override his veto by getting Republicans to join them. They can do this by painting Bush as a madman and Congress as duty-bound to save this country from this raving lunatic.

THE POPE KNOWS?

To: The Detroit News
Re: “Pope offers hope for unbaptized babies”, April 21.


I am so glad that the Pope approved a study that concluded that unbaptized babies that die can go to heaven. All this time I was under the impression that no one ever returned from the dead to tell us what actually happens after we die; silly me.

OUR PRESIDENT IS DELUSIONAL!

To: The Detroit Free Press
Re: “Bush details gains in Iraq”, April 21.


How long can we allow our obviously delusional President to continue to wreak havoc in Iraq? He still believes he is fighting Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq when his own generals have told him over and over again that it’s Sunni against Shiite, Iraqi against Iraqi; a civil war. The President’s inability to grasp reality and deal with that reality should be cause for great concern among all Americans.

THE VATICAN, BABIES AND AGGRESSIVE SECULARISM!

Just in from the Vatican, “Pope revises ‘limbo’ for babies”.

I have addressed this subject some time ago but in my new “aggressive secularism” mode, I have to comment a little bit more.

To repeat a little, I was taught from the beginning that if a baby dies on its way to baptism it goes to hell. Later they modified this stance and said the baby goes to Purgatory or limbo; neither here nor there.

Remember in the time of Luther, the Catholic Church made a lot of money selling indulgences and getting people out of purgatory for $5.00.

The obvious question is “HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS AFTER DEATH?” How can a priest stand in front of his congregation and in all seriousness tell them that HE knows what the hell happens to babies that do not get baptized.

This non-biblical fact was so ingrained into us Catholics that my parents threatened to have my children baptized in secret if we did not; we relented and said that if it means so much to my parents what harm will it do. Imagine, grown rationale people believing in such absurdities.

Now the Pope puts the matter to rest by declaring the there was reason to hope that babies who die without baptism go to heaven.

The actual document said that there were “serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and brought into eternal happiness”. The document stressed “these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge”.

WOW. I am amazed that the Church at least admitted that there may be a chance that this all is a bunch of hooey! That is actually historical for the Church; the Pope is infallible you know.

These are educated, bright people. Philosophers and theologians with doctorate degrees and they issue “findings” out of the International Theological Commission after long study and investigation?

This is tantamount of gathering scholars to debate how many angels can fit on the end of a pin.

I hope the absurdity of this whole issue by people who are dressed in absurd vestments is discussed in circles made up of people with some sense of what can be addressed in a serious manner and what can only be challenged as the mutterings of deranged individuals.

I should not get so exited…

SUPREME COURT'S ABORTION RULING...

The Supreme Court, by ruling against allowing “partial-birth” abortions, has dredged up the never ending abortion argument; once again.

I am getting tired of arguing the issue and have learned that arguing or discussing the issue is impossible; both sides are entrenched.

The fact that our freedoms are at stake means we cannot rest; obviously THEY are not resting.

To me the issue is not about abortion. No one is FOR abortion. It is ALL about CHOICE; our freedom to choose what we want to happen with our bodies, our lives.

In the most basic of terms, I see the product of MY sperm and MY wife’s / HER egg as our creation. If WE made a mistake and did not intend to make the clump of cells that eventually lead to a baby; we have the absolute right to stop the process by removing the clump of cells and disposing of them.

I will quickly add that “oopses” like that should not occur IF you take proper precautions and should not occur but shit happens and anybody that has lived a normal life can appreciate where I am coming from.

I will also add that I am absolutely against using abortion as a means of birth control and I am in favor of educational requirements where people are taught how to take appropriate precautions to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

For this very reason I am vehemently against the Catholic Church’s stance against using any form of birth control or Bush’s plan of teaching ABSTINANCE. A recent study showed how that plan has been a dismal failure. Remember IGNORANCE KILLS!

Getting to the matter at hand, the Supreme Court allowed Congress to ban partial-birth abortions. On the surface this appears a no-brainer. The procedure is vile and any one in their right mind would never allow such a procedure to be performed.

If you inject a little reason and skip the bullshit, the procedure does not exist for the express purpose of mutilating a fetus; it is a surgical procedure designed for a specific purpose when no other procedure will work. Thinking otherwise is totally absurd – think about it!

The actual procedure is performed very rarely and only to save a mother’s life, as far as I know.

Congress has decided that they will step in between a woman and her doctor and tell them what can and cannot be done. To me this should be impermissible. I don’t want some yahoos in Congress interfering in the management of my health.

The Wall Street Journal asks what the hubbub is about – women can still get an abortion only not that one. If so, why are the bozos on the right jumping up and down in joy screaming that this is the first step to banning abortion in this country – back to back alley abortions?

When the Supreme Court allows Congress to dictate what medical procedures can or cannot be performed, we have a problem because it is a slippery slope we are climbing on and things can only go one way.

What can we do?

Make sure the next Supreme Court Justice has a brain and is not pre-programmed to vote only one way.

Make sure we do not elect a president that has been pre-programmed by some group hell bent on changing the world order according to their specifications.

Elect Democrats that are enlightened as far as social issues are concerned but not socialists when monetary policy issues come up.

Confine religion to houses of worship and out of our government; defend our Constitution and what our Founding Fathers created.

A different angle next time…

IS IT TIME TO BE AN AGGRESSIVE SECULARIST?

A recent article in of all places, The Wall Street Journal, which I read daily, had a piece entitled “As Religious Strife Grows, Europe’s Atheists Seize Pulpit” (Andrew Higgins) April 12, 2007, prompted me to write a few words on a trend I have been following for a few months now.

Actually, indicators of this anti-religion movement have been appearing for quite some time now.

The European Union was celebrating its 50th Anniversary and was looking to state the basic principles that unite them. Christianity was proffered and was soundly rejected. The Pope was furious.

Cartoons of Muhammad were published in European news media and their publishing defended.

The book by Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion” is still a number one best. Other books like “The End of Faith” by Sam Harris along with his mini book “A Letter to a Christian Nation” have many people talking. It seems many more books of a similar subject matter are planned for the near future.

An opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal awakened me to this trend. The author of the article decried the rudeness and incivility of people that were anti-religious or atheists. He talked about the peaceful coexistence of religious and non-religious people, side by side throughout our history and now an abrupt end to that live and let live attitude with of all things, confrontation.
How uncivilized!

New descriptive words and phrases have materialized in an effort to describe these people or group(s) of people who, ostensibly, oppose religion(s):

Militant Unbelievers
Zealous Disbelievers in God
Combative Brand of Atheists (confronts not ignores religion)
Missionary Secularists
Aggressive Secularists

More will be added as they appear…

According to these articles, the main cause for the emergence of these aggressive secularists is the growth of Islam in Europe.

Europe has slowly turned secularist through time. I think history has taught them a good lesson; the same lesson taught our Founding Fathers, to keep religion and government separate.

There are exceptions to the rule of course and countries like Poland who entered the EU recently are as religious (Catholic) as they come. Being of Polish heritage, I am actually embarrassed how backward the Poles are when it comes to religion. The church in Poland has been allowed to govern and Poles and so many if not all, were brain-washed from an early age. Maybe a fresh breath of enlightenment from the West will help them climb out of the dark ages.

I need to know more about this movement and will be discussing what I learn in this blog.

This is kind of exiting!

POSTSCRIPT TO DUKE AND IMUS!

Surprisingly, some pundits are also putting the DUKE and IMUS cases together and seeing a general pattern in our society’s problems with race and sex and some meaningful dialogue may actually emerge from all this; at least we can hope.

In the DUKE case, I think it is a mistake to just leave the rape accuser alone. The new prosecutor said that at the time of her initial accusations, she really believed she was raped.

I realize she was drunk as hell and probably doped up when all this was going down but she had enough wherewithals to cry rape? Excuse me? Hell she had semen evidence from all sorts of guys (not Duke Students) all over her body and she realized she was raped at their party? I have a feeling she smelled money and thought she would give it a try. Shame again on the prosecutor for letting her nearly succeed.

My point, she needs to be made an example of. Her identity should be revealed. Let her get some publicity. Let her name be permanently placed in the national criminal data base as a lying prostitute / dancer. Let people recognize her for what she is and what she has done. Allowing her to continue her life unscathed by her crime is unacceptable, unfair and not the right thing to do.

In the IMUS case, it has been pointed out to me that even though black rappers call all women “hos”, IMUS called specific black women “hos” and that is a big difference.

I am buoyed by the fact that black and white pundits are coming out to publicly raise the issue of a double standard when it comes to certain black language / words. Many are saying that firing Imus did not solve anything and actually may have made the whole situation worst because it was discriminatory; blacks don’t get fired for anti-white speech.

The Detroit Free Press editorialized that free speech is free speech. Either it is a right or it is not and we better figure that out quickly.

The ACLU used to say that we may not agree with your words or views, but we will absolutely protect your rights to them. I am referring to their defense of a Nazi group’s right to parade peacefully in a city.

I hope Imus doesn’t go quietly. He is an ass and a despicable one at that, but his case may actually turn into something positive for our society so keep talking!

A VICTORY FOR DUKE STUDENTS AND US ALL!

The Duke Lacrosse rape case is in the news and at a very interesting time given the current rage over the IMUS case (sees previous blog).

I must admit that this particular case had my ire up quite high – from the beginning!

To me, all prosecutors are now suspect. They are not interested in justice but just a chance to run for higher office; well maybe not all of them but most. They are capable of sacrificing an innocent person’s life just to win a conviction and therefore a winning resume. I can point to many cases here in Michigan, especially the Detroit area.

The motives of the North Carolina prosecutor in this case MIKE NIFONG should have been suspect from the beginning. He was running for re-election in a black community and he did not even bother to interview the woman accuser until nine (9) months after the charges were brought against the three Duke students.

I am surprised that no one in the police or justice department stepped up to the plate to call out prosecutorial misconduct. Where they all scared for their jobs? I think they should all be included in the legal civil suits that will surely follow – and I think heads should roll big time!

The prosecutor played the race card; rich white students, poor black single-mother, student and dancer just trying to make ends meet – perfect!

Sharpton and Jackson made an appearance as they always do – remember IMUS? I hope their names come up as this whole thing blows up.

Many are wondering how our justice system could allow such a miscarriage of justice. Why don’t we have a system that can identify rogue prosecutors?

The three white students had rich parents and so they could afford to spend 3-5 million dollars on a good defense team. What if they were poor students going to Wayne State University in Detroit using their GI Bill after the Vietnam War (like me and my friends) to get an education and had no extra money available except to feed themselves. I would venture to say that those students would be facing 30 years behind bars – lovely?

The question of race and sex is a national pathology as anthropologist Lionel Tiger of Rutgers says. We react. We are allowed to be manipulated and we forego the use of reason. We are pawns in the game of race and race card players are very good at it.

It is time we stood up to this manipulation because people’s lives are at stake or at least their well-being.

People that don’t have a racist bone in their body should not be made to feel as if they are inherently racist because they are white – enough!

FIRESTORM OVER WHAT IMUS SAID?

I don’t know Don Imus. I know he looks like shit and I heard he is pretty opinionated on the air but I don’t really know his views, etc.

I do know that he has created quite an uproar; an uproar heard around the whole country – now that is big!

While commenting on a women’s college basketball game, he pointed out how tough the women of Rutgers University were with their tattoos and all and then he called them “nappy-headed hos”.

I heard the actual clip and to me at least, it seemed he was trying to be cool and imitate some rapper talk. It did not seem he said the phrase out of any malicious intent.

Whatever made him say it, his words caused a firestorm. First the ladies on the team objected and so did their coach followed by the proverbial gadflies of racial issues, Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson. Soon the station that carries Imus (MSNBC) was forced by its black employees to cancel the program, sponsors of his program pulled out, presidential candidates made their opinions known, etc…………………………. I must say that Rudy Giuliani simply asked if Imus apologized and left it at that.

Well now, what shall we make out of all this?

I have heard that Imus is a jerk and has used iffy language in describing a host of groups including Jews, Hispanics, Gays and the list goes on……………………………

He appears to be quite popular and it appears, influential. Many personalities can’t wait to get on his show.

Imus did apologize for going “over the top” and for that matter, kept apologizing and as far as I know, continues to apologize – to no avail.

The fact that he did not call the female basketball players “Afro-headed whores” but “Nappy-headed hos” is significant. The second phrase has been used by countless black rappers in countless “songs”. It appears he was mimicking their rapping styles.

Was it insulting – hell yes! “Nappy” meaning kinky hair is a negative racial comment and “hos” is an obviously derogatory sexist comment. Should he have said it? No, but he did.

I see two problem areas in this whole scenario that continues to unfold before us. The first is the use of language and the second, priorities.

We all realize that we live in a country that guarantees freedom of speech. We all also realize that there is acceptable and unacceptable social language. Swearing or cursing in public is a no-no for example even though it happens - often.

A recent phenomenon is the appropriateness of using certain historically derogatory words by specific individuals. The best example is the word “nigger” or any variation thereof (nigga). Blacks can and do use that term and on a regular basis. You might say - all the time. Yet the same word cannot be uttered by a non-black because that would constitute a slur. Blacks use the word as a form of endearment?

Being Polish, we treat the term “Polack” as a derogatory word and I have heard Poles call each other that as if it was OK because they ARE Polish. I see the comparison but I don’t buy it. Calling one a Polack is demeaning and the intention is to demean. The dictionary defines Polack as usually “disparaging” and for this reason I react negatively when the term is uttered in my presence by a Pole or anyone else.

The term “ho” is also part of the rapper lexicon and is used just as often as “nigga”. It appears that black men are called “niggas” and black women are called “hos” – on a regular basis in song as well as in normal street use.

I don’t want to get academic on you but many anthropologists point out that the blacks using these terms are men and many black men feel deficient when compared to black women and therefore call black women by the demeaning term “ho” as a way to bolster their perceived manhood.

Street slang can and has become popular in our culture. I think it is a natural occurrence especially among the young and is also spread by the entertainment industry and Imus obviously tried to sound hip by imitating rap lingo.

Does the Rutgers women basketball team deserve to be called “hos”? Absolutely not and they deserve a big apology. On the other hand no woman, black or white, deserves to be called a “ho” by anyone and that includes black men, rappers and all.

As long as Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson don’t say a peep about the use of “ho” by black men, then they have no business criticizing anyone else for using the term.

Was it a racist statement? It sounds like one but if listened to within the context of the entire broadcast, one could not say it was said in animosity or with any other purpose in mind other than to sound hip.

As to my second point about priorities, the black community has many monumental problems. Prisons are filled with young black men; morgues are filled with young black men. Out of wedlock births are on the rise, if that is possible. Poverty is rampant and so is ignorance. Black women have no one to marry and all black leaders have to get angry at is some old, white fart trying to be cool – shame on you!

Responsible blacks need to take the stage (Bill Cosby) and address the real problems facing the black community and tell the grandstanders like Sharpton and Jackson to get the hell off the stage.

I also have something to say about the dumb asses in the white community who allow Sharpton and Jackson to manipulate our society by playing the race card over and over again – grow up!!!

EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT MY ASS!

To: The Detroit Free Press
Re: “Change union – forming rules?” March 27th.


The new “Employee Free Choice Act” does away with employee secret ballot elections to choose whether to accept or deny unionization and replaces it with a card signing method. Employees will be approached by union organizers and will be asked if they support the union or not and they will have to answer loudly and in front of all the union supporting men. Does this sound a little intimidating? Reminds me of the days when union thugs made sure workers supported the union or else… Where is the free choice in this act?

BACK FROM SOME WARMTH & FRIVOLITY!

I took a week off to enjoy the heat, the sun, the water, the food and the drink at Vallarta Palace Resort in Puerta Vallarta, Mexico.

First time and only time, since we never go back to the same place twice, but highly recommended to escape from the bitter cold and gloom of Michigan in the winter, especially THIS winter.

I came back in shorts and a T-shirt to 34F weather but hey, I can take it, even with snow on the ground.

The Michigan weather is starting to show spring time tendencies so there is something to look forward to.

I noticed not much has changed in the world while I was gone; same ole’ crap – back to work!

SUPPORT FOR MY IRAQ PLAN!

Biden Braves the Political Risks of Moderation on War

Senator Biden is a candidate for President and he has been promoting a plan for Iraq that is very similar to the plan I have been screaming about for years.

It does not call for an immediate pull-out and that is good even though some say pull-out or nothing - wrong strategy.

Dividing the country into three (3) with a weak federal system to distribute oil revenues per capita is a workable plan. Our troops would have to remain to maintain peace and order which should be no problem once the Shia' and Sunnis are separated.

Our troops would also have to remain to guard against foreign interference so we may have to guard the borders for awhile but AT LEAST OUR TROOPS WILL NOT BE GETTING KILLED ON A DAILY BASIS and hundreds of Iraqis would not be blown up to smithereens on a daily basis. Iraqis may actually have a future - wow!

JESUS TOMB #3

Continuing my discussion of the “Jesus Tomb”, most of my religious friends, even the highly educated ones, remain committed to the accuracy of the Gospels as far as events described there being part of actual history.

They hold on to the belief that the authors were somehow eyewitnesses of the events they describe or at least wrote down the words dictated to them by someone (Apostle?) who was actually with Jesus when the events unfolded.

Going back to the chronology of the Gospels, Paul started writing his letters in 55 C.E. which is 25 years after the death of Jesus. Mark, the first Gospel was written around 70 C.E. or 40 years after the crucifixion. Mathew and Luke are dated around 85 C.E. or 55 years after Jesus’ death and John around 95 C.E. or 65 years after Jesus died.

If Jesus’ apostles were roughly his own age, they would have to be very old to write the Gospels or even dictate them and in the Roman age, life expectancy was not very high. Remember today’s life expectancy is 72, in Jesus’ time it probably hovered around 40.

I have found it helpful to change the dates discussed above to modern times. We can say Jesus was born in 1900 and died in 1930. The first written report about his life and his death appeared in 1970 and then others in 1985 and the final one in 1995. This dating trick allows you to experience the time differences in a more relevant fashion.

The other misconception still held by some of my friends is that the Gospels were actually written by the men the Gospels are named for: Mark, Mathew, Luke and John. Actually, all the Gospels were anonymous; they did not indicate the author’s name. In the Gospel of John, at the very end, the author indicates that the information for his Gospel was derived from a disciple whom Jesus loved - that disciple would have to have been near 100 years old.

When I bring out the fact that in Roman times 90% of the population could not read and that Jesus and his Apostles probably were illiterate, they tell me that the Jewish school system at that time was very good and taught all Jewish boys how to read and write. That simply is not the case since only the very wealthy could afford the teachers and the time to study. Plus the Gospels were written in Greek and not the Aramaic language of most Palestinians.

Greek was the language of choice in that era and Jesus and his Apostles probably knew Greek words just like we know some Spanish words to get us by.

So the Gospels are based on oral tradition as well as other sources available at that time. Mark is first and he used oral tradition as well as a Gospel called Q. Mathew and Luke used Mark as well as Q and John, well John was very different.

Oral tradition is the passing of information from person to person (by word of mouth) and in this case, for very many years and we know how accurate oral stories are when passed between a few people; how about hundreds?

I have always wondered if Mark’s Gospel existed why did Luke and Mathew think a need existed to write their own version – was Mark wrong?

I am afraid the Gospels cannot be trusted to be historically correct and there are many, many ways to challenge their historicity so I will go back to the time right after the crucifixion to see what can be known factually about that crucial time period.

See you next time…

THE JESUS TOMB, Part 2

The discovery of the “Jesus Tomb”, as predicted, has precipitated questions about the history of Christianity, questions that most Christian clerics or for that matter, Christian scholars cannot answer.

Even though I believe the people involved in promoting the “Jesus Tomb” story on TV, book and DVD are basically just shysters looking to make a buck; I do believe that they raise legitimate questions.

The speed at which various supposedly knowledgably people attacked the Jesus Tomb premise and the arguments they used points to a lack of knowledge of historic facts and an overdependence on Gospel literature that clearly is theological in nature and written to convince and not to relate any sense of actual history.

The problem is that history says nothing about Jesus, what he did and what happened to him. The man that changed the world as we know it had not one word written about him by anybody. That does not mean that we do not have any recorded contemporary data of the period, we do and we have a lot but nowhere is there a mention of Jesus yet most historians agree that he did exist.

In very general terms, our calendar / system of time, places the birth of Jesus at “0” and his death at 30 A.D. The first Christian literature appears as letters from St. Paul around 55 A.D. That is 25 years after Jesus’ death.

Paul did not know Jesus- never met him and judging by the content of his letters, knew nothing first hand about the life of Jesus and very little about what Jesus did and what he taught. Paul’s only contribution to the historicity of Jesus was to tell us that Jesus had several brothers and one of them was called James and that James was the leader of the Jerusalem Community of Jesus followers – that is it!

This community was not a Christian community as we know the word Christian. It was a community of observant Jews that were somehow related to Jesus; either by blood or by philosophical conviction.

What then happened after the crucifixion? What happened to Jesus’ family and his followers? Is it possible to know what happened between 30 C.E. and 60 C.E. – 60 C.E. being the death/murder of James the Just, brother of Jesus and leader of the Jesus Community in Jerusalem?

It is here that I usually hear a lot of opinions that are based somehow on the Gospels as they appear in the Christian Bible and it is here we must pause because we cannot carry on a realistic discussion if we don’t put the Gospels in historic perspective.

More to follow…

OUR SOLDIER'S LIVES HAVE BEEN WASTED!

I can’t seem to stay away from IRAQ for too long.

Barack Obama and now John McCain have had to apologize to the general public for saying that the Iraq war has “WASTED” American lives. McCain said that he should have said “SACRIFICED” and not wasted.

If we apply the facts as we know them into a logical train of thought, we can conclude that the invasion of Iraq and subsequent “war” was not justified. Iraq did not pose any imminent danger to the United States or its people. They did not harbor Al Qaeda terrorists or weapons of mass destruction. Basically we did not need to invade Iraq for any reason.

Bush, who now realizes he cannot justify the war, has been heard to repeat that he rid Iraq of a brutal dictator and therefore helped the Iraqi people.

Well that is an empty argument because Fidel Castro is a brutal dictator that has kept his people in poverty and desperation since the 1950s, is only a few miles from Florida and probably has an army of a few thousand troops and BUSH has not seen fit to help the Cubans – so stick that argument up your ass Mr. President.

We can state unequivocally based on facts that over 3,000 American lives have been absolutely WASTED and that is a painful thing to say for anyone. I also have been following the troops that have been terribly wounded to the point where it would have been better if they died in the field; those lives have been WASTED also.

An even harsher statement to make about our dead in Iraq is that THEY DIED FOR NOTHING! I know history may prove us wrong in future years but as far as we are concerned, at this time in our history, they have given their lives for no apparent reason.

Many supporters of the war in Iraq understand this and are calling for some type of victory so our troops would not have died in vain. But alas, there is no possibility of victory in Iraq so the country has to admit that OUR SOLDIERS HAVE DIED IN VAIN – shame on President Bush, shame on us.