jimrigby.org

“The White Man’s Burden” was a poem by Kipling defending England’s imperial policies toward its colonies, particularly those consisting of people of color. That the poem is racist is unquestionable, so when David Brooks of the New York Times expressed the same attitude toward Egypt, one can draw one’s own conclusions:

“Right now, as Walter Russell Mead of Bard College put it, there are large populations across the Middle East who feel intense rage and comprehensive dissatisfaction with the status quo but who have no practical idea how to make things better…

It’s not that Egypt doesn’t have a recipe for a democratic transition. It seems to lack even the basic mental ingredients.” -David Brooks

Missing as always from such American imperial logic is the fact that we ourselves have destabilized Egypt for decades. Egyptian chaos is due in no small degree to our own ham handed interventions, but Brooks does not make that embarrassing fact a part of his narrative. Like Thomas Freidman, and the other apologists for the American empire, Brooks looks at the turmoil we have ourselves helped cause as further proof of the immaturity of the Egyptian people and as further justification for the necessity of more intervention.

 “To know this is some hardcore bigotry, just imagine saying the same thing about another demographic subgroup. Imagine, for instance, if Brooks said cities with large minority populations in the United States were facing corruption problems and blight because those minorities “lack even the basic mental ingredients” for better governance. It would be universally — and rightly — denounced as wildly racist by everyone other than white supremacists.” –David Sirota, Salon

Our nation has a long sorry history of “rescuing” other nations, but we seldom seem to bomb or intercede militarily in times of European crisis. In the former exploited colonies that we call “the third world” our policy is not so timid. We stand ready to intercede, always with the premise that that such peoples are incapable of managing their own affairs. That such rhetoric seems racist may or may not say something about David Brooks,  but that such imperialistic propaganda passes for mainstream journalism definitely says something about the rest of us.

A scientist has proposed that “sightings” of the Loch Ness Monster may be the result of seismic activity. Loch Ness is a very deep body of water lying over a fault line that causes ripples and bubbles in the water. Observers over the years understandably assumed such turbulence could only result from a very large creature swimming just below the surface. Once people began to observe the lake Our through their belief in a monster, imagination did the rest.

Of course, science will never disprove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. A hypothetical being could be hiding anywhere. The question, I believe, is which theory (a monster or seismic activity) brings the most illumination to our task of living in our world? I would suggest two answers to that question.

Clearly the scientific theory most illumines the world of our objective experience. Our world would not be one bit poorer if it has no mermaids, monsters, or even a God. We are looking at the same wonderful world regardless of its cause.

At the same time, our subjective experience cries out for a vocabulary as well. Poetic icons express our lived experience far better than abstract theory. Electricity is well represented objectively by the formulas of physics, and subjectively by a God holding a thunderbolt. Such images put a human mask upon the mysterious energies that lie beyond our scope. They allow us not so much to understand our universe, but to feel what it means for us.

Religious myths are the death of rational thinking if we believe in them as actual beings, but they can be the very heart of subjective insight if we see them as poetic windows into the mystery that gives us birth.

“The Beatitudes as a Revolutionary Manifesto”

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the government of heaven.

For, only those who refuse to be defined by an economic system can know what really counts.

Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

For, only those who feel the pain and sadness of others can ever heal their own wounds of privilege.

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
For, only those who claim no place on the hierarchy of power can walk gently upon this earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice, for they will be filled.
For, only those who long to share a common happiness can ever know satisfaction unsullied by guilt.

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
For, only those who show mercy to others can recognize mercy when shown to them.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
For, only those who can be truly human can ever experience the sacred.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

For, only those who reject violence and war can know true inner peace.

Blessed are those who are persecuted for being just, for theirs is the government of heaven.

For, only those who are willing to suffer for the rights of all can know the bliss of universal love.

Code of a Social Justice Ally

This movement is not about me. It is about the persons who have been most affected by this injustice.

They alone are the central face and voice of this movement.

I serve in this movement as an invited guest.

I will not patronize or rescue the people for which I am ally, but will support them in their efforts at self determination.

I will not speak or act on their behalf, but only in consultation and under the direction of those most affected by the oppression

I will recognize my cultural privilege as a part of their oppression, and will broker that privilege on their behalf and under their guidance.

If I disagree with decisions made by the oppressed group, I will either offer my silent support or I will stand down.

I recognize that giving my moment in the spotlight or chair at the table may be the ultimate triumph of an ally.

I will remember at all times that working for justice is not a gift, but a duty.

For many of us, the essence of religion is not dogma or ritual, but life shared in community. Understandably, some atheists associated intimate communities with a lost of individuality. But an exciting movement seems to be growing where atheists gather in “atheist assemblies” or “Sunday assemblies” to share life with like minded people. One participant wrote:

“Speaking for myself, I had a great time, and when it happens again, I have every intention of going back. Atheists are known for being non-joiners – it’s practically in the definition – but there’s a real need for groups like this. Socialization among ourselves, visibility in the wider community, exhortation to put one’s moral principles into action: these are all things that we need and that secular community groups like the Sunday Assembly can provide. It’s too early to tell whether this particular one will thrive, but the next meeting will be the major test, to see whether it can sustain the same level of participation and enthusiasm that was in evidence this weekend.”

It may just be wishful thinking on my part, but I think this is a movement that could become huge and remove the stigma of atheists as people who just bash religion and show them to be the thoughtful and compassionate humanists they really are.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2013/07/the-sunday-assembly-comes-to-new-york/

In college when I opposed the war in Vietnam, some people said I was only doing it because I was afraid. When I began to work on women’s issues, some people said I was only doing it because I wanted sex with the women. When I began to work on marriage equality for same sex couples, some people said I was only doing it because I was really gay. When I began to publically oppose my denomination’s stand on certain issues, some people said I was only doing it because I wanted the attention.

Of all the human miseries that evoke our pity perhaps none is more tragic that those who cannot imagine anyone would stand up for another unless they had something personally to gain.

I really would love to vote for a Republican before I die. It's on my bucket list. I like to think of myself as nonpartisan, but the current generation of Republican leaders attack everything I consider decent and good. Voting for a Republican at this point would be unthinkable.

This is not to say that there aren’t wonderful Republican individuals. Some of the best people I know are Republican, but as a collective group, Republicans are a menace to everything I care about.

If there is a bill to take money out of public education and give it to rich kids in the form of vouchers, it will be Republican. If there is a proposal to sell off some section of the public sector for the benefit of the few, it will be Republican. If you hear of legislation that treats women as breeding stock, or treats same sex love as a perversion, it will be Republican.

And no one should be madder at Republicans than the real conservatives left behind by the Grand Old Party, and whom Republicans have unfairly given such a bad name.  

Craig M. Watts regularly contributes wonderful insights on this Facebook page, so when I saw he had an article in “Red Letter Christians” I thought it might be time to return the favor. Craig actually has written a lot. If you follow this link you can find out more about his book and where to read more of his work.

“As Christians we should remember that there is no limit to the evil that can be justified in the name of national security.” Craig M. Watts

http://www.redletterchristians.org/the-danger-of-big-surveillance-government/

You and I have brothers and sisters all over the world who work in sweatshops. 1,800 workers have been killed in Bangladesh factories alone due to fires and collapsed buildings.

Few American political leaders will address these tragedies because our standard of living requires that we ignore the outsourced slavery upon which low prices rely. Fortunately, you and I can do something. Here in America we can make the link between low prices at home and deathtraps abroad.

Today, Saturday, in Austin at 1:00 PM a group will gather to protest on behalf of our brothers and sisters who work in deadly conditions, but have no voice. The protest will be at 4001 North Lamar which is in central Austin.

Before we can have a meaningful discussion on the topic of abortion we must answer a previous question. Are women “persons” under the constitution? Do they have inalienable rights, or are they a kind of community property whose rights can be voted upon?

In pregnancy, life develops within a life. Legally, one of those lives must be declared the context of the other or else there is no criterion from which to make a choice. Some are far too willing to put the needs and rights of a pregnant woman on the same scale with a microscopic egg. Unlike the egg, the pregnant woman can have a host of medical and personal issues, and she can have responsibilities to other children that pregnancy might make impossible to fulfill.

To claim that a fertilized human egg is a person is to say that the woman is essentially an incubator for that egg. To pretend that the human egg is developing in a Petri dish without needs and rights of its own is to dehumanize the woman before the discussion ever begins.

Problem is, these initial assumptions are never examined. So before we can meaningfully discuss the topic of abortion it is helpful to answer a fundamental question first. Is a woman community property so that her right over her own body can be put up for a vote? If so, the pro-life position makes perfect sense. Or, is a woman a person with inalienable rights, in which case the pro-choice position is the only possible ethical response.