First I invite you to sample a new feature on GodIsNot3Guys.com –Interviews.
I got the impulse for chewing on the following thoughts from listening to the video “Breaking up religion's monopoly on spirituality” at http://ddjango.blogspot.com/.
Here are examples of spiritual perception unrelated to religion:
• Entering a room and sensing a unique atmosphere,
• Feeling connected to nature while walking a country road, being in the mountains, experiencing a night with moonlight or stars or northern lights,
• Intuiting a friend’s sorrow or elation or pride or shame,
• Knowing that certain persons speak wisdom, certain persons have good instincts irrespective of their educational level, certain persons have the natural intelligence to sum up situations and people.
These instincts, feelings, thoughts, and kinds of knowledge are spiritual; they are independent of scientific knowledge and also of religion. The speaker in the video states that we all possess spiritual judgment, but it has been “hijacked by religion.” I have to agree. Mothers often have it more than bishops. I agree.
“We are our own spirituality,” he says. “We are it.” I believe there is something beyond us, something beyond our comprehension and imagination that is given the very inadequate name, “God.” And I don’t share the speaker’s antipathy toward religion. Religion has satisfyingly served millions. But we must not grant any religion the power to muzzle our minds.
Jeanette
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Bible beauty & ugliness
Some Bible passages contain beauty unsurpassed among the greatest spiritual writings of all time. One that withstands prosperous times and scarcity is Mathew 6: 19-34, which begins, “Do not lay up for yourselves an earthly treasure. Moths and rust corrode; thieves break in and steal.” It tells us not to worry about our livelihood, and holds up as examples the birds of the air and lilies of the field—“not even Solomon in all his splendor was arrayed like one of these.” We’re told, “Let tomorrow take care of itself. Today has troubles of its own.”
These lines speak to me of the Eternal Now, and no wonder. The Nazarene to whom they are attributed had a mystical connection with what he termed the Reign of God. This passage has fed me for years, and today it has particular consoling relevance for our country and the world.
But the Bible also contains passages that horrify our more evolved consciousness of today. Genesis 19 tells the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, well known because it ends with Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of salt. The beginning of this story is more startling and rarely told. Men in Lot’s town come to his door demanding that he give his male guests to them for sexual play. Here is his answer:
“I beg you, my brothers, not to do this wicked thing. I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with men. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you please.” Apparently approving of his behavior, “the Lord” guides Lot’s family to safety before raining down destruction on Sodom and Gomorrah.
Here we have it—homosexuality is unacceptable but abuse of women and girls is acceptable. It’s fair to say this is the Bible’s moral standard on sexuality, at least in the first Testament. Passages about homosexuality are rare, but those describing women as property to be used by husbands or fathers as they wish are abundant.
This story knocks out support for the argument that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so. And it knocks out the argument that God authored the Bible. Because the Bible’s scandalous morality is little known, I offer another example.
In Numbers 31, the Israelite army wages war against the Medianites, as “the Lord” commands Moses, and they kill every male. The women and little ones they take captive along with their goods and animals as booty. Moses angrily asks the returning army, “Have you allowed all the women to live? . . . Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
Today the words “genocide” and “rape” come to mind. Can anyone doubt that the denial of legal, economic, and political rights to women until the twentieth century stems from Bible passages like this? And to what extent are these passages at the base of the Arab world’s vicious treatment of women? Muslims also revere the Bible. To be fair, women received no better treatment in cultures that have different sacred scriptures. It’s unpleasant to look at these things. But enlightening.
These passages do NOT prove that the Bible is just religious nonsense and lacks inspiration. Among the in-spirited passages are the poetic psalms, the best known Psalm 23:
Even though I walk in the dark valley
I fear no evil
For you are at my side
With your rod and your staff
That give me courage.
We all need courage and comfort in these troubled times.
These lines speak to me of the Eternal Now, and no wonder. The Nazarene to whom they are attributed had a mystical connection with what he termed the Reign of God. This passage has fed me for years, and today it has particular consoling relevance for our country and the world.
But the Bible also contains passages that horrify our more evolved consciousness of today. Genesis 19 tells the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, well known because it ends with Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of salt. The beginning of this story is more startling and rarely told. Men in Lot’s town come to his door demanding that he give his male guests to them for sexual play. Here is his answer:
“I beg you, my brothers, not to do this wicked thing. I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with men. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you please.” Apparently approving of his behavior, “the Lord” guides Lot’s family to safety before raining down destruction on Sodom and Gomorrah.
Here we have it—homosexuality is unacceptable but abuse of women and girls is acceptable. It’s fair to say this is the Bible’s moral standard on sexuality, at least in the first Testament. Passages about homosexuality are rare, but those describing women as property to be used by husbands or fathers as they wish are abundant.
This story knocks out support for the argument that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so. And it knocks out the argument that God authored the Bible. Because the Bible’s scandalous morality is little known, I offer another example.
In Numbers 31, the Israelite army wages war against the Medianites, as “the Lord” commands Moses, and they kill every male. The women and little ones they take captive along with their goods and animals as booty. Moses angrily asks the returning army, “Have you allowed all the women to live? . . . Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
Today the words “genocide” and “rape” come to mind. Can anyone doubt that the denial of legal, economic, and political rights to women until the twentieth century stems from Bible passages like this? And to what extent are these passages at the base of the Arab world’s vicious treatment of women? Muslims also revere the Bible. To be fair, women received no better treatment in cultures that have different sacred scriptures. It’s unpleasant to look at these things. But enlightening.
These passages do NOT prove that the Bible is just religious nonsense and lacks inspiration. Among the in-spirited passages are the poetic psalms, the best known Psalm 23:
Even though I walk in the dark valley
I fear no evil
For you are at my side
With your rod and your staff
That give me courage.
We all need courage and comfort in these troubled times.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Obama's hope
Hope flowing in the country from Obama’s inauguration feeds me despite my natural inclination to say “not so fast” to hope. I surrendered to the lure of radio and television yesterday recording the ebullient throngs in D.C.
Obama himself is the one who dampened expectations, as he has ever since he was elected. Soberly he reminded us of the “nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.” When he declared that the challenges will be met, I thought, “addressed, not met.” We don’t know what our efforts will accomplish.
And it is OUR efforts. Like JFK he obliged all Americans to do the work of creating change. Our economic crisis he attributed to “not only greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices.” Yes, for example, to stop plundering and polluting the earth
After the inauguration address, a conservative asked to comment on it objected to Obama’s advocacy of soft power. But I rejoice that he disparaged “missiles and tanks,” and said we are not entitled “to do as we please,” that “our security emanates from . . . humility and restraint.”
Furthermore, “we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect.”
He sounded a recurrent theme of mine:
“We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus—and non-believers.” A good addition, that last. Those who profess no religious faith care passionately about our country and the world. Mentioning “the bitter swill of civil war and segregation,” he expressed confidence “that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve.”
Rhetoric does not assure policy. I do not like some of his appointments but from Buddhism I’m learning to release attachment to specific results. What we know for certain is that Obama’s and our ideas of what should happen will not happen. May the hope of the last few days, however, move us to make the hard choices required for realizing a few of our dreams.
Obama himself is the one who dampened expectations, as he has ever since he was elected. Soberly he reminded us of the “nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.” When he declared that the challenges will be met, I thought, “addressed, not met.” We don’t know what our efforts will accomplish.
And it is OUR efforts. Like JFK he obliged all Americans to do the work of creating change. Our economic crisis he attributed to “not only greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices.” Yes, for example, to stop plundering and polluting the earth
After the inauguration address, a conservative asked to comment on it objected to Obama’s advocacy of soft power. But I rejoice that he disparaged “missiles and tanks,” and said we are not entitled “to do as we please,” that “our security emanates from . . . humility and restraint.”
Furthermore, “we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect.”
He sounded a recurrent theme of mine:
“We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus—and non-believers.” A good addition, that last. Those who profess no religious faith care passionately about our country and the world. Mentioning “the bitter swill of civil war and segregation,” he expressed confidence “that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve.”
Rhetoric does not assure policy. I do not like some of his appointments but from Buddhism I’m learning to release attachment to specific results. What we know for certain is that Obama’s and our ideas of what should happen will not happen. May the hope of the last few days, however, move us to make the hard choices required for realizing a few of our dreams.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Deepak Chopra's 3rd Jesus
In The Third Jesus: The Christ We Cannot Ignore, Deepak Chopra, best-selling writer coming from a background in India in the Hindu, Sikh, and Catholic traditions, talks about three ways of thinking about Jesus. They parallel the three aspects I talk about in God Is Not Three Guys in the Sky—the historical Jesus, the mythic Christ, and the inner Christ. But Chopra states that teachings of the historical Jesus form “the foundation of Christian theology and thought." It would be nice if this were so, but it is incorrect if we’re talking about doctrines or beliefs.
There is no disagreement among scripture scholars about the focus of Jesus’ message. It was all about the Reign of God, often translated “Kingdom.” He said nothing about his death saving the world. This was Paul's theology, and it formed the basis of Christianity, not Jesus' preaching about the Reign.
To this first pillar of belief established by Paul was added another in the fourth century—that Jesus was one of three divine persons in a holy Trinity. Paul’s Jesus was not yet equivalent to God, but his exaltation of Jesus (See my post "Paul vs. Jesus") in letters written around the year 50 CE led to the doctrine of the Trinity, which in turn led to Christians today relating to Jesus as if he were God. Believing these two propositions—the divinity of Jesus and his saving death—sets Christians apart from other religions, but the teachings of Jesus, the man who actually lived 2000 years ago, apply universally. Many religions have variations of the Golden Rule.
Chopra’s third Jesus is “the cosmic Christ, the guide whose teaching embraces all humanity.” I admit I haven’t read his book, but this description leads me to the inner guide within every human soul, the third aspect that I talk about in God Is Not Three Guys in the Sky. Chopra uses the word “enlightenment,” and when I autograph books, I frequently write, “May you find enlightenment.” With that wish I end this post.
There is no disagreement among scripture scholars about the focus of Jesus’ message. It was all about the Reign of God, often translated “Kingdom.” He said nothing about his death saving the world. This was Paul's theology, and it formed the basis of Christianity, not Jesus' preaching about the Reign.
To this first pillar of belief established by Paul was added another in the fourth century—that Jesus was one of three divine persons in a holy Trinity. Paul’s Jesus was not yet equivalent to God, but his exaltation of Jesus (See my post "Paul vs. Jesus") in letters written around the year 50 CE led to the doctrine of the Trinity, which in turn led to Christians today relating to Jesus as if he were God. Believing these two propositions—the divinity of Jesus and his saving death—sets Christians apart from other religions, but the teachings of Jesus, the man who actually lived 2000 years ago, apply universally. Many religions have variations of the Golden Rule.
Chopra’s third Jesus is “the cosmic Christ, the guide whose teaching embraces all humanity.” I admit I haven’t read his book, but this description leads me to the inner guide within every human soul, the third aspect that I talk about in God Is Not Three Guys in the Sky. Chopra uses the word “enlightenment,” and when I autograph books, I frequently write, “May you find enlightenment.” With that wish I end this post.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Gaza again
Gaza’s death toll passes 1000, according to Al Jazeera English; Israeli deaths are less than 20. The Israeli military’s claim that it doesn’t target civilians rings hollow because people are trapped with no place to go when they’re told to leave. Phosphorus bombs dropped over heavily populated areas burn people below indiscriminately, down to the bone. Many heartrending burn patients are children.
Secretary of State designate Hillary Clinton says the incoming administration commits to a new era of diplomacy. But she ruled out diplomacy with Hamas unless it stops fighting. This is “absolute,” she said. So it looks like we can expect the decades-old U.S. position to continue—one side gets almost all the weapons and the other side almost all the casualties.
I don’t advocate arming Hamas. Quite the contrary. Disarmament should apply to BOTH sides. U.S. Cold War policy chose sides to arm, favoring any dictator or scoundrel who claimed to be on our side. This led to proliferation of weapons around the world, which lays the blame on us Americans for much of the weaponry threatening ourselves and everyone on the globe. The reason Iran seeks nuclear weapons is that Israel secretly acquired them, violating international agreement. The reason Israel got by with that is total U.S. support for its actions, no matter how outrageous.
The powerful Israeli lobby has controlled our government—Republican, Democratic, no difference—to ridiculous lengths, pulling the tails of administration officials, members of Congress, and aspiring politicians. Anybody who dares express sympathy for Palestinians is labeled “anti-Semitic.”
That’s up to this point. Will it change? Signs are not good. What gives me some hope is Jewish peace groups in Israel and in this country, and international outrage over America’s unconscionable support for Israeli actions. I urge readers to work for real change over this issue, a change of conscience in our nation.
I was just alerted to this powerful article in The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090126/klein
You may have to copy and paste as my links aren't working.
Naomi Klein says the best strategy to end the bloody occupation by Israel is a boycott of the kind that ended apartheid in South Africa.
Secretary of State designate Hillary Clinton says the incoming administration commits to a new era of diplomacy. But she ruled out diplomacy with Hamas unless it stops fighting. This is “absolute,” she said. So it looks like we can expect the decades-old U.S. position to continue—one side gets almost all the weapons and the other side almost all the casualties.
I don’t advocate arming Hamas. Quite the contrary. Disarmament should apply to BOTH sides. U.S. Cold War policy chose sides to arm, favoring any dictator or scoundrel who claimed to be on our side. This led to proliferation of weapons around the world, which lays the blame on us Americans for much of the weaponry threatening ourselves and everyone on the globe. The reason Iran seeks nuclear weapons is that Israel secretly acquired them, violating international agreement. The reason Israel got by with that is total U.S. support for its actions, no matter how outrageous.
The powerful Israeli lobby has controlled our government—Republican, Democratic, no difference—to ridiculous lengths, pulling the tails of administration officials, members of Congress, and aspiring politicians. Anybody who dares express sympathy for Palestinians is labeled “anti-Semitic.”
That’s up to this point. Will it change? Signs are not good. What gives me some hope is Jewish peace groups in Israel and in this country, and international outrage over America’s unconscionable support for Israeli actions. I urge readers to work for real change over this issue, a change of conscience in our nation.
I was just alerted to this powerful article in The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090126/klein
You may have to copy and paste as my links aren't working.
Naomi Klein says the best strategy to end the bloody occupation by Israel is a boycott of the kind that ended apartheid in South Africa.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Grace & spirituality, Part 2 (Guest Post)
Those of you familiar with my conversation with Jeanette know that I'm an atheist; I do not believe in an anthropomorphic, creative entity called "God." I think that all the universe is natural - there is no "supernatural." But I also think that there is spirit, human spirit being part of that. And to me, spirit is tangible, natural, a function of the universal matter, light. I experience it, I can hear it, see it, feel it. It is a matter of attention and perception. Scientists, even atheist scientists, will someday identify how it works.
Carl Jung, many years ago, spoke of observing “synchronicity”. He also posited the notion of the “collective unconscious”. I happen to think that there also exists a "collective sub-conscience," a universal knowing of yin and yang that connects us all to each other and everything else. It is in those places, I believe, that we find spirituality. I don't think that believing these things are molecular and sub-atomic diminishes wonder one bit.
All disease and disorder involves a separation, an alienation, of a human from this spirit. One is cut off from true self, adrift in delusion and illusion. "Imagination runs wild" is an excellent description. When the body dies, the participation of that body in the "all" disperses and is never embodied exactly the same way again. Is it not insanity, then, to destroy the body which holds spirit? Is it not crazy to embrace hate and all the rest? Hate kills the hater, at least as often as it kills the hated.
In the book that initially drew us together, Comte-Sponville's The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality, the author speaks of the difference between [religious] "faith" and a more temporal, tangible "fidelity.” Fidelity has to do with recognizing, honoring, and perpetuating traditions, such as codes of morality. Things like The Golden Rule and the Beatitudes. How can such wisdom as the latter be discounted by the fact that I do not think Jesus was God? How can I discard the wisdom of "Thou shalt not kill," just because I don't believe in Yahweh?
What disturbs me is how Jews, Muslims, and Christians can say they find their way through reliance on the Bible, except . . . whenever. Their God did not say, "Don't kill, except when . . ." Personally, I fail to understand how religious folks go about justifying "situational ethics," especially when it comes to other humans and this vast home we call "Earth."
I begin my conclusion by telling you that I have no hope for humanity. I have not, however, replaced it with despair. I have replaced it with action based in fidelity. Faith and hope are just self-centered wishes that things will turn out the way I want them. A Taoist friend once told me, "One is happiest who lives without expectations." If I practice humility and act in fidelity and love, I have conducted a spiritual motion, whether the outcome is to my liking or not. My role is to serve humanity and all existence on this planet, not serve a god or gods.
As a backlash phenomenon, there has arisen a new, militant, virulent strain of atheism. Pay attention to it, because it is poison. It ridicules religion and even professes (at the same time) to "hate God." How one hates something that does not exist baffles me, as I think it should. These people purport to embrace "science" and mouth "rationalism" in a most irrational way. Perhaps if they weren't so rude and arrogant and nihilistic, one could safely ignore them. I suppose it is the price we pay for a decade of religious extremism, but let us hope it is a passing fashion. Suffice it to say that they possess neither the manners nor the smarts displayed by late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century atheists like Ingersoll, Goldman, Whitman, Garrison, and Stanton.
Finally, I must speak of science. There is a growing movement within the science community, transhumanism. Although it markets itself to the masses by promising technology that will end disease and pain, and even produce immortality, it should be seen as incalculably dangerous. Do take it seriously, because the science and technology is sound and developing quickly now.
On the face of it, this stuff is neither good nor evil. But given humanity's propensity for self-destruction and the fact that this movement is funded and controlled by entities aligned with the new atheists, the ultra-rich, eugenicists, and the like, suggests there is a much greater chance that this science and technology will not be used altruistically, but in mechanisms of efficient control and even destruction of most of humanity. You may scoff - but you do it at your own risk.
At the top of my blog, P!, I quote Thomas More: "Because the soul has such deep roots in personal and social life and its values run so contrary to modern concerns, caring for the soul may well turn out to be a radical act, a challenge to accepted norms." One may do this - must do this - whether religious, agnostic, atheist, or none of the above.
Thank you for having the patience to read this. Be at peace.
ddjango (the "dd" is silent) is a political and cultural writer in exile fromBoston
Carl Jung, many years ago, spoke of observing “synchronicity”. He also posited the notion of the “collective unconscious”. I happen to think that there also exists a "collective sub-conscience," a universal knowing of yin and yang that connects us all to each other and everything else. It is in those places, I believe, that we find spirituality. I don't think that believing these things are molecular and sub-atomic diminishes wonder one bit.
All disease and disorder involves a separation, an alienation, of a human from this spirit. One is cut off from true self, adrift in delusion and illusion. "Imagination runs wild" is an excellent description. When the body dies, the participation of that body in the "all" disperses and is never embodied exactly the same way again. Is it not insanity, then, to destroy the body which holds spirit? Is it not crazy to embrace hate and all the rest? Hate kills the hater, at least as often as it kills the hated.
In the book that initially drew us together, Comte-Sponville's The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality, the author speaks of the difference between [religious] "faith" and a more temporal, tangible "fidelity.” Fidelity has to do with recognizing, honoring, and perpetuating traditions, such as codes of morality. Things like The Golden Rule and the Beatitudes. How can such wisdom as the latter be discounted by the fact that I do not think Jesus was God? How can I discard the wisdom of "Thou shalt not kill," just because I don't believe in Yahweh?
What disturbs me is how Jews, Muslims, and Christians can say they find their way through reliance on the Bible, except . . . whenever. Their God did not say, "Don't kill, except when . . ." Personally, I fail to understand how religious folks go about justifying "situational ethics," especially when it comes to other humans and this vast home we call "Earth."
I begin my conclusion by telling you that I have no hope for humanity. I have not, however, replaced it with despair. I have replaced it with action based in fidelity. Faith and hope are just self-centered wishes that things will turn out the way I want them. A Taoist friend once told me, "One is happiest who lives without expectations." If I practice humility and act in fidelity and love, I have conducted a spiritual motion, whether the outcome is to my liking or not. My role is to serve humanity and all existence on this planet, not serve a god or gods.
As a backlash phenomenon, there has arisen a new, militant, virulent strain of atheism. Pay attention to it, because it is poison. It ridicules religion and even professes (at the same time) to "hate God." How one hates something that does not exist baffles me, as I think it should. These people purport to embrace "science" and mouth "rationalism" in a most irrational way. Perhaps if they weren't so rude and arrogant and nihilistic, one could safely ignore them. I suppose it is the price we pay for a decade of religious extremism, but let us hope it is a passing fashion. Suffice it to say that they possess neither the manners nor the smarts displayed by late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century atheists like Ingersoll, Goldman, Whitman, Garrison, and Stanton.
Finally, I must speak of science. There is a growing movement within the science community, transhumanism. Although it markets itself to the masses by promising technology that will end disease and pain, and even produce immortality, it should be seen as incalculably dangerous. Do take it seriously, because the science and technology is sound and developing quickly now.
On the face of it, this stuff is neither good nor evil. But given humanity's propensity for self-destruction and the fact that this movement is funded and controlled by entities aligned with the new atheists, the ultra-rich, eugenicists, and the like, suggests there is a much greater chance that this science and technology will not be used altruistically, but in mechanisms of efficient control and even destruction of most of humanity. You may scoff - but you do it at your own risk.
At the top of my blog, P!, I quote Thomas More: "Because the soul has such deep roots in personal and social life and its values run so contrary to modern concerns, caring for the soul may well turn out to be a radical act, a challenge to accepted norms." One may do this - must do this - whether religious, agnostic, atheist, or none of the above.
Thank you for having the patience to read this. Be at peace.
ddjango (the "dd" is silent) is a political and cultural writer in exile from
Monday, January 12, 2009
Gaza & spirituality (guest post)
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave. - Sir William Drummond
When Jeanette asked me to continue our on-going conversation about spirituality, religion, and atheism here, the post began to just write itself. What's here, however, is not what I planned to say . . .
I've spent much of the last ten days with a fellow blogger friend setting up and now maintaining an internetwork on Facebook, Twitter, and our blogs of Palestinian/Gazan activists, making sure their news and cries for help reach the world in realtime.
I am no fan of Hamas. Let me be clear about that. Neither do I send any kisses to Fatah, Hizbullah, or the Israeli state and its operatives (IDF, Mossad, etc). But when I get up each morning after a sleep that did not stem my exhaustion, I go back to watch videos I had posted the night before. And every time, I am shaken to the core . . .
I was in my teens to early twenties when the US was ravaged by assassinations, race riots, political riots, Nixon, Kent State, the Tet offensive, and the futile shame and carnage of Southeast Asia. Firsthand, I experienced tear gas, riot sticks, anarchy, drug addiction, virulent hate.
The press was still free to document the truth, so I saw death and destruction and deceit and blood every day on TV. Later, for several years as a therapist, I treated alcoholism in NamVets who had developed that awful illness by drinking in order to kick the heroin addiction they brought back from the war. Nasty. I lost several folks, some clients, some friends, to madness, despair, and suicide. And many others silently succumbed to lives become totally unmanageable and unbearable.
But I have never seen anything close to what I watch on those videos. Videos recorded and conveyed by shaking cell phones through a jerry-rigged network of internet nodes. Videos showing civilian adults and children, bleeding, dead, dying, screaming, maimed. Others, some hurt, some not, running from victim to victim sprawled on the asphalt and concrete in a quick triage and hauling off the still-living to non-existent medical care at rocket-ruined hospitals . . .
We know that this conflict, this current battle in a six-decade war, is not just about religion and culture. Not just about Jew and Arab, Jew and Muslim,
So that is what this, and all, war is about. But the thing itself? Organized insanity. I do not use that term metaphorically. Insanity is an illness, a dis-ease, of the brain. An imbalance of natural organic chemicals causes a disruption of sane thinking, producing a liability of emotion, resulting in aberrant behavior - such as mass murder and other crimes perpetrated by humans on other humans. Once begun, it is an addiction cycle -- war producing more insanity driving more war. The cycle produces and thrives on the core of denial. The cycle is broken only when the participants realize that the upside is not exceeding the downside and cry "uncle!"
On Wednesday, the United States Senate, and on Friday, the United States House of Representatives passed concurrent resolutions which condemned Hamas and condoned Israel's actions. The vote in the Senate was a unanimous floor vote; the House voted 390 in favor, 5 opposed, with a scattering of others voting "present" or abstaining. A recent poll claimed that over 30% of Democrats oppose
We are part of the insanity - many would say we have been instrumental in causing it and are incapable and/or unwilling to help stop it. At the UN Security Council, the
In the videos I watch, as people lie motionless or whirl around screaming in these scenes, here are some questions that not once were asked: Do you believe in God? Are you Sunni or Shi'ite? Are you Hamas? Are you Fatah? Have you prayed to Allah? Are you a Jew? Who did you vote for? What do you think of
(more to come in Part 2 . . .)
ddjango (the "dd" is silent) is a political and cultural writer in exile from
Friday, January 9, 2009
Gaza 2
Over 800 Palestinian deaths, half of them civilians, many children. In Israel 13 deaths, 3 civilians. That’s the news—800 to 13. But every news report mentions Hamas rockets as if they had some kind of equivalence to the slaughter achieved by Israeli weapons funded by American taxpayers.
Again, the Senate and House passed resolutions of support for Israel, overwhelmingly, their usual knee-jerk dance following the slaughter of innocent Palestinians. Senate majority leader Harry Reid defended it as expressing “the will of the State of Israel and the will of the American people." Notice which came first, and we need to tell Congress that it’s not our will!
There are cracks in the formerly impenetrable wall of support for Israel. Read Few speak up in Congress for hopeful developments. Here’s a short excerpt:
Nick Rahall, a West Virginia Democrat and Lebanese-American: "When these events occur, there's almost a knee-jerk reaction of Congress that endorses 1,000 percent what Israel is doing,"
"Israel is our ally. ... It always has been, with which I perfectly agree. But I don't believe in allowing that to blind us to what is in our best interests, or giving knee-jerk approval to anything Israel does. We don't do that with any other ally," he told Reuters.
I assume my readers are driven by the same passion for justice and integrity that drives me. We have a chance now to educate Congress. Insist on a complete and immediate ceasefire to stop the one-sided slaughter in Gaza. We the people have to educate members of Congress.
Again, the Senate and House passed resolutions of support for Israel, overwhelmingly, their usual knee-jerk dance following the slaughter of innocent Palestinians. Senate majority leader Harry Reid defended it as expressing “the will of the State of Israel and the will of the American people." Notice which came first, and we need to tell Congress that it’s not our will!
There are cracks in the formerly impenetrable wall of support for Israel. Read Few speak up in Congress for hopeful developments. Here’s a short excerpt:
Nick Rahall, a West Virginia Democrat and Lebanese-American: "When these events occur, there's almost a knee-jerk reaction of Congress that endorses 1,000 percent what Israel is doing,"
"Israel is our ally. ... It always has been, with which I perfectly agree. But I don't believe in allowing that to blind us to what is in our best interests, or giving knee-jerk approval to anything Israel does. We don't do that with any other ally," he told Reuters.
I assume my readers are driven by the same passion for justice and integrity that drives me. We have a chance now to educate Congress. Insist on a complete and immediate ceasefire to stop the one-sided slaughter in Gaza. We the people have to educate members of Congress.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Gaza
Many Arab Muslims think American Christians are their enemies. Feeding this belief is the U.S. government’s consistent siding with Israel against Palestinians. When Bill Clinton tried to broker peace in 2000, he did not simply propose ideas for settling differences to the two sides. He first gave Israel a chance to veto the proposals before bringing them to the table. This imbalanced approach in 2000 was consistent with decades of favoritism toward Israel—in military, economic, political and, perhaps most important, propaganda support. The current Bush administration outdid all previous lopsided approaches.
The dogged and unrealistic wish of Hamas for an end to the state of Israel can be understood if we recall nineteenth century America. Then some Native American braves refused to accept the reality of overwhelming white military supremacy. Today members of Hamas—Native Palestinians—refuse to accept the reality of overwhelming Israeli military supremacy. To expand this analogy, vastly greater Palestinian deaths and suffering receive less media coverage than the few Israeli casualties—at least in the U.S—as if non-whites were worth less. Yes, I suspect race is a factor.
American weapons will continue to protect the state of Israel, no matter how flagrant its abuse of Native Palestinians, because the United States continues to assuage its guilt for turning away Jewish refugees during the Holocaust. We have to get over it. Not our compassion for Jewish Holocaust victims, but our fear of being termed “anti-Semitic” whenever we acknowledge Palestinian suffering.
During supposed ceasefires, Israel deprives Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank of land, electricity, water, food, medicine, jobs, and a myriad number of supplies, not to mention basic human rights such as freedom to choose their own leaders. And Israel, not Hamas, first violated the last ceasefire, as CNN and other sources report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KntmpoRXFX4
I do not advocate withdrawal of American support for Israel, but peace rests on justice, and this Americans have not promoted in Palestine. So Muslims go on thinking we are their enemies.
The dogged and unrealistic wish of Hamas for an end to the state of Israel can be understood if we recall nineteenth century America. Then some Native American braves refused to accept the reality of overwhelming white military supremacy. Today members of Hamas—Native Palestinians—refuse to accept the reality of overwhelming Israeli military supremacy. To expand this analogy, vastly greater Palestinian deaths and suffering receive less media coverage than the few Israeli casualties—at least in the U.S—as if non-whites were worth less. Yes, I suspect race is a factor.
American weapons will continue to protect the state of Israel, no matter how flagrant its abuse of Native Palestinians, because the United States continues to assuage its guilt for turning away Jewish refugees during the Holocaust. We have to get over it. Not our compassion for Jewish Holocaust victims, but our fear of being termed “anti-Semitic” whenever we acknowledge Palestinian suffering.
During supposed ceasefires, Israel deprives Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank of land, electricity, water, food, medicine, jobs, and a myriad number of supplies, not to mention basic human rights such as freedom to choose their own leaders. And Israel, not Hamas, first violated the last ceasefire, as CNN and other sources report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KntmpoRXFX4
I do not advocate withdrawal of American support for Israel, but peace rests on justice, and this Americans have not promoted in Palestine. So Muslims go on thinking we are their enemies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
