jimrigby.org

As a Christian I am charged, of course, with being sex police for everyone else. It’s not an easy job, but I always carry pepper spray in case I see two non-married people holding hands, or as I like to say it, committing hand fornication. Likewise, if I see unmarried couples flaunting their sexuality (in other words arousing mine) they likewise will face my wroth.   I am even thinking of developing a Christian line of defense products I will call “Jawbone of an Ass” Pepper spray. I also have created a new line of condoms with biblical condemnations on them I will call of “Socks of Shame.”

So, imagine my surprise, when I heard of the new Christian website called “Christian Nymphos.” The purpose of the site is to promote positive views of sex for Christian women. While that concerned me, I was glad to see that the site insists on keeping women submissive to their husbands and on condemning anyone outside of Christian marriage who would want to perform the same acts. I can look past open mindedness in Christian behavior so long as we don’t allow those same freedoms to others.

The site has a question and answer section where someone asked about anal sex. Being dutiful wives, the “Spicy Nutmeg”, “Cumin Girl” and “Cinnamon Sticks,” as they call themselves, deferred to their husbands who answered the question quite well. To summarize the answer, sodomy is only sodomy if homosexuals do it. For heterosexual married couples, we can justify just about anything. By the way, the site has a very long list of approved positions.

The site also has some tips on making making Christian sex hot and spicy “the way God intended it.” For example, imagine reading from the Song of Solomon while locked in the throes of nuptial passion:

“Her hair is like a flock of goats”

“Her teeth are as white as sheep”

“Her breasts are like gazelles.”

Yep, nothing makes me hotter than comparing a woman’s body to farm animals.

http://christiannymphos.org/

The Reverend Clovis Jones gave a sermon on the virgin birth one Wednesday evening. That night, his daughter Amy couldn’t sleep. The story of the virgin birth was no longer believable to her. She felt lost. Late that night she wondered who she was and what might be her purpose in life. Every time she tried to find her own thoughts, she would hear her father’s voice instead. The thoughts that would come to her were sometimes noble and good, but they were not her own. As much as she loved her father, his influence stood as a giant shadow between her and her own soul.

When morning broke, Amy walked over to the cabin where Texas Buddha was staying. She sat on the porch until she saw a light go on in the house. She knocked gently.

Seeing Amy’s face was enough for TB to know her struggle. Without saying a word, TB came out onto the porch to sit beside her.

“You always say that life is our teacher, but how can I believe that there is any guidance in life at all? I don’t believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. I don’t believe in providence. I’m not sure I even believe in God.” Amy sat gently rocking, not looking up. “I can’t find my own voice. I love my father, but I can’t get his voice out of my head so I can hear my own.” Tears fell on her knee.

After a time, TB spoke just above a whisper, “Do you trust me Amy?”

She looked up, surprised at the question, “Of course, I trust you. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t.”

“Then please consider what I am saying. You are a very wise person. Your confusion is leading you where you need to go. The point of religion is for you to feel your connections to the rest of life, not to believe certain ideas. And the story of the virgin birth isn’t about sex, it’s about the fact that you have been born with everything you need for your journey. Your soul’s deepest wisdom does not come from the outside. Your soul is wise because it knows it is a microcosm of everything else.”

Feeling an unexpected flash of anger Amy said, “I don’t believe you.” She continued to look down.

TB Smiled. “That’s good. I don’t want you to believe me, I just want you to trust just enough to think about what I am saying.”

TB got up and went into the cabin. When he came back he put a bird’s egg in Amy’s hand.

“Please consider this egg very carefully. This egg has written within it how the bird is to build its nest. It has written within it a map of where the bird will need to migrate. This egg even has written within it, the song the bird is to sing. You cannot consider this egg for long, and not realize that you too are fully connected to the universe.”

“What many people don’t know about Monopoly is that it was actually created to teach about the dangers of cutthroat capitalism. The original version was called The Landlord’s Game, and it was used in the Great Depression as an underground game and organizing tool to teach tenants about how they were being ripped off. Its creator, Elizabeth Magie, had her vision corrupted – and now we know Monopoly as the game that’s a shining example of American capitalism.” -Brian Van Slyke

So if the game of Monopoly was created to teach about the dangers of cutthroat capitalism, what should we have learned from playing it?

1. If you are born rich you will probably stay rich. Ditto, if you are born poor.   In real life Monopoly, children are born on the real life equivalents of Baltic Avenue and Park Place. Players can work just as hard, and make the same kinds of decisions, but but they will probably end up in the same economic class they were born.  Look at the game. Even if your rich opponents land on Baltic Avenue, it will cost them a very small portion of what they own, but every time you land on their property you are devastated. While there is some class mobility, that mobility is becoming rarer as the middle class shrinks. To speak of political equality in the United States is nonsense so long as some are born to own and others born to serve.

2. Salary isn’t the same as holdings. Two hundred dollars seems like a lot of money at the beginning of the game, but wise players convert their salaries to holdings.  Toward the end of the game the two hundred dollar salary seems almost like a nuisance. In discusions of tax equity it is often forgotten that taxing the salaries of the rich, and their holdings are two different conversations.

3. Jail means something very different to the rich and the poor.

The law tends to protect the rich from the poor, but the poor are fair game. When a rich kid is caught with drugs it usually means warnings and treatment. When a poor kid is caught with drugs, then the rich talk about getting tough on crime. Even if they have committed the same crime, the poor kid usually loses turns while the rich kid gets a “get out of jail free” card.

4. Capitalism concentrates wealth. Even Adam Smith lamented that it takes many poor people to make one millionaire. There is only so much property, after that is bought up, wealth begins to concentrate in fewer and fewer hands. We can make laws and regulations against monopolies, but the system is built to produce them.

5. Capitalism turns each against the all. A system built on competition eventually changes how we look at our fellow human beings. To a dedicated capitalist we are not one human family meant to share the whole planet fairly, we are born into a rat race for survival. As Lilly Tomlin used to say, “Even if you win the rat race, you’re still a rat.”

This piece was inspired by reading the title of:

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/16512-teach-your-children-well-dont-play-monopoly

“I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.” –Mark Twain

I was so happy to find this article in “Foreign Policy.” It nicely summarizes and helps diagnose the neo-liberal displacement of the true values of the left.

“Are you a liberal imperialist? Liberal imperialists are like kinder, gentler neoconservatives: Like neocons, they believe it’s America’s responsibility to right political and humanitarian wrongs around the world, and they’re comfortable with the idea of the United States deciding who will run countries such as Libya, Syria, or Afghanistan.” -Steven M. Walt

In the article, “10 Warning Signs that You Are a Liberal Imperialist.” Steven M. Walt begins a much needed discussion among liberals about why they/we have fallen into many of the same bad foreign policies as the Bush administration. The answer, in my opinion, is that conservative and liberal ideologies can both serve as mere window dressings on the real divide which is and always has been between the “haves” and the “have nots.” When most Americans believe they are better than other nations, and that we have a right to intervene in the affairs of other nations, it does not matter so much to the people of the world whether they live under our left boot or our right.

So, you may be a liberal imperialist if:

#1: You frequently find yourself advocating that the United States send troops, drones, weapons, Special Forces, or combat air patrols to some country that you have never visited, whose language(s) you don’t speak, and that you never paid much attention to until bad things started happening there.

#2: You tend to argue that the United States is morally obligated to “do something” rather than just stay out of nasty internecine quarrels in faraway lands. In the global classroom that is our digitized current world, you believe that being a bystander — even thousands of miles away — is as bad as being the bully. So you hardly ever find yourself saying that “we should sit this one out.”

#3: You think globally and speak, um, globally. You are quick to condemn human rights violations by other governments, but American abuses (e.g., torture, rendition, targeted assassinations, Guantánamo, etc.) and those of America’s allies get a pass. You worry privately (and correctly) that aiming your critique homeward might get in the way of a future job.

#4: You are a strong proponent of international law, except when it gets in the way of Doing the Right Thing. Then you emphasize its limitations and explain why the United States doesn’t need to be bound by it in this case.

#5: You belong to the respectful chorus of those who publicly praise the service of anyone in the U.S. military, but you would probably discourage your own progeny from pursuing a military career.

#6. Even if you don’t know very much about military history, logistics, or modern military operations, you are still convinced that military power can achieve complex political objectives at relatively low cost.

#7: To your credit, you have powerful sympathies for anyone opposing a tyrant. Unfortunately, you tend not to ask whether rebels, exiles, and other anti-regime forces are trying to enlist your support by telling you what they think you want to hear. (Two words: Ahmed Chalabi.)

#8. You are convinced that the desire for freedom is hard-wired into human DNA and that Western-style liberal democracy is the only legitimate form of government. Accordingly, you believe that democracy can triumph anywhere — even in deeply divided societies that have never been democratic before — if outsiders provide enough help.

#9. You respect the arguments of those who are skeptical about intervening, but you secretly believe that they don’t really care about saving human lives.

#10. You believe that if the United States does not try to stop a humanitarian outrage, its credibility as an ally will collapse and its moral authority as a defender of human rights will be tarnished, even if there are no vital strategic interests at stake.

I am grateful to Stephen M Walt for opening this discussion. The lives of our brothers and sisters all over the world depend on Americans resigning both of our self-appointed identities: our conservative role as world sheriff, and our liberal role as global messiah.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/20/top_ten_warning_signs_of_liberal_imperialism

This viral video belongs on the top of any list on any bad arguments against evolution. This is the classic video of a creationist arguing that the fact a banana perfectly fits into a human hand is proof that the world was designed for us. But the fact that a stone perfectly fits into the dirt around it does not necessarily prove that someone dug it a hole. It is incredibly ironic to use our hand’s affinity for bananas to try to prove we didn’t evolve from monkey-like relatives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

This video is an example of a creationist attempting to turn the tables and challenge evolutionists to disprove creationism, whereas the burden of proof should always rest on those making the hypothesis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmKVLqHuxBA

A creationist opens a jar of peanut butter to show that new life forms do not emerge out of former life forms. Maybe if he used living peanuts and extended his experiment over millions of years of replication he might get a very different result.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

Although I identify as a person of faith, I am very aware and respectful of those who do not identify themselves that way. I used to be asked, on occasion, to do prayers before the Texas Senate and Legislature until I decided, instead of prayers, to do devotionals that would be inclusive of all religions, and also of those people in the room who would be agnostic or atheist.

It is a bit awkward to be asked to pray at a rally or public gathering when my faith demands that I respect those for whom such an approach would be a barrier. So I was delighted to read the story of Arizona State Rep. Juan Mendez, who is an atheist, but was asked to pray before the group. Rep. Mendez showed respect for people of faith and for his own atheism by standing before the group and sharing his ”faith,”

“Most prayers in this room begin with a request to bow your heads, I would like to ask that you not bow your heads. I would like to ask that you take a moment to look around the room at all of the men and women here, in this moment, sharing together this extraordinary experience of being alive and of dedicating ourselves to working toward improving the lives of the people in our state.”

“Carl Sagan once wrote, ‘For small creatures such as we, the vastness is bearable only through love,’”

Can I get an “amen” for brother Mendez and his beautiful atheist prayer?

Mark Pendergast has written a history of Coca-Cola as an American icon. For God, Country, and Coca-Cola studies not only facts about the actual drink, but also the image it wove as representing our good times, and even representing America itself.

The book seems to be a case study of capitalism. Coke poses as the national drink of America, but is happy to sell to America’s enemies as well. If South American Tyrants increase business, then Coke is happy to ignore their death squads and to do business.

The success of Coke is not about its taste, but what it symbolizes as a token:

“The New Coke failure punctuates this strange phenomenon – that the world loves and guzzles an unhealthy beverage, but not for its good taste. Pepsi showed that in blind taste tests, more people prefer Pepsi over Coke. New Coke was tastier than both Coke and Pepsi in blind taste tests. Surely consumers would love it. Except, they didn’t. They wanted fun, hope, patriotism, and everything else they associated with good, old-fashioned Coca-Cola, not some new, better-tasting concoction.” -Jill Richardson, Alternet

In a capitalist culture we come to chose the tokens of value over that to which  the token originally referred. Colored sugar water becomes a symbol of health because we see athletes drinking it in commercials. Athleticism becomes a quality we can purchase with our shoes and attire, and by purchasing the same products the real athletes do. We chose the product not for what it is, but what it represents- those aspects of life often made impossible by our tokenized lifestyle.

We can come to think of products as our friends, but this is a serious mistake.

“This is a company devoted to, above all else, making as much money as possible and selling as much Coca-Cola as possible. Period. Nazis get thirsty, too, you know. In almost every case, the company tried to please everyone and sell to everyone, without taking sides, unless it had no choice.

It’s no good that Coca-Cola did business with a Guatemalan bottler who allegedly hired death squads to murder employees trying to unionize. But that is all part of a larger pattern, a larger scandal – although there’s no conspiracy at all. The drive to increase profits and sales and market share at all cost is the company’s story, plain and simple. It took us from a 6.5-ounce drink only available at soda fountains to one available everywhere in sizes as large as 64 ounces.” -Jill Richardson, Alternet

In other words, in order to make as much money as possible, advertizers condition us to choose what they want us to want. From there is it simple to get us to choose what we want over what we need.

http://www.alternet.org/food/how-coca-colas-ruthless-business-tactics-created-despicable-global-powerhouse

The thunderstorm was over. Texas Buddha and Reverend Clovis Jones sat looking at a beautiful rainbow. “How can you not worship the God who made that rainbow?” Rev. Jones inquired.

“I worship God within the rainbow.” Returned TB.

Tilting his head incredulously, the Reverend said, “Please go on.”

“When we look at a rainbow, our eyes see distinct strips of color, but we know from science that behind that broken appearance is actually one smooth continuum of light. Our eyes and mind break that one unity into what we experience as distinct colors. If I do not remember the invisible ground of the rainbow, I will think the colors are separate and distinct things. And, if I do not remember that the colors are happening in me, I may go looking for the rainbow as if it were outside myself.

“I believe all of nature is like the rainbow. It is one organic whole that we perceive as endlessly separate objects and beings. In truth, all the plants and all the animals weave in and out of one another. All the objects interact. Even life and death weaves in and out of an invisible loom.

“In the rainbow, distinctions result when light passes through a drop of mist at a certain angle and hits a fully functioning human eye. The rainbow isn’t exactly inside me or outside. There is something bigger and deeper happening. I do not believe that someone outside of nature made the rainbow, or made nature for that matter. But I do believe in remembering that just as the rainbow is my experience of a transcendent energy, nature is the manifold experience of an invisible source to which I owe my very being.

“It is wise to remember the rainbow is a projection, but it is enlightened to remember that we are too.”

It is truly amazing how hard it is for a religion or nation to weigh itself on the same scale it uses for everyone else. John Kerry is going around the world preaching democracy to some of the very nations who’s democracies we have undermined.