jimrigby.org

Joe Barton is a Texas Congressman. He recently presented a good example for how not to use the Bible.

“I would point out that if you’re a believer in the Bible, one would have to say the Great Flood is an example of climate change and that certainly wasn’t because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy.”

Barton made the comments at the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, which is considering whether to approve the Keystone pipeline.

“I would point out that people like me who support hydrocarbon development don’t deny that climate is changing,” he added. “I think you can have an honest difference of opinion of what’s causing that change without automatically being either all in that’s all because of mankind or it’s all just natural. I think there’s a divergence of evidence.”

While it is true that people can have an honest disagreement on all kinds of topics, the above comments are neither scientifically honest, nor religiously healthy. Science is a method, it is not a body of information, nor a set of theories. To bring the Bible into a philosophic question is one thing, but to present a story from the Bible as data in a scientific inquiry is not honest science. Nor is it healthy religion to claim that if one believes the Bible that he or she will necessarily be a creationist. The Congressman’s infraction was made worse by committing it as a representative of a diverse population, therefore choosing his own religion over all others.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/republican-congressman-cites-biblical-great-flood-to-say-cim

Mayor Davis based his re-election campaign on a promise to get tougher on crime. In his speech, he promised to put more police or the street and to build a newer and larger jail. He promised a tax rebate for home alarm systems and burglar bars. Finally, he promised to “put more bad people in prison so more good people could feel safe.”

The Mayor received a standing ovation from everyone but Texas Buddha, who sat politely with his hands folded.  After the thunderous applause died down, the Mayor said, “It looks like we have one dissenter.”

After an awkward silence, Texas Buddha rose to his feet and said, “Friends, can you not see what is happening? If we succeed in putting all the “bad” people in jail, and all the “good” people live safely behind burglar bars, our fear will have turned the entire world into a prison?”

FEMEN is a movement that confronts patriarchy with nudity.

“Femen is our attempt at rethinking the history of feminism in its entirety. We believe that if women are left with little more than satisfying sexual desires as a life purpose, then our sexuality must become politicised. We are not denying our potential to be treated as sex objects. On the contrary, we are taking our sexuality into our own hands, turning it against our enemy. We are transforming female sexual subordination into aggression, and thereby starting the real war.” -Inna Shevchenko

I need some education here. I am an old school feminist, maybe even a dinosaur at this point of my life. I confess I am uncomfortable when protest movements use women’s bodies as objects to attack patriarchy. I instantly think of Audre Lordes’ famous dictim, “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” But I am also male; so, in the most important sense, what I think doesn’t matter. Still, as an ally, I would deeply appreciate learning from a discussion on the question whether such tactics as “naked jihad” and “slut walks” are expressions of empowerment or internalized oppression.

I realize the most helpful answer probably will not be a “yes” or a “no,” but an analysis of how such tactics help and hurt the movement. As I say, my initial response was skepticism to such tactics, but when I saw that the Femen confrontation of Putin hit such a nerve, and how young Amina Tyler, a 19 year old Tunisian was imprisioned simply for writing a message on her own nude body, I began to suspect that I have some learning to do.

I am saddened when I try to follow this conversation online because male voices quickly crowd out the space for women to reflect on these strategies. So I am requesting a conversation by women only. We males can follow the conversation, but only to respectfully listen and learn. It would be particularly helpful to hear from Muslim women about what this tactic means from their perspective, as much of the protest has focused on Islamic practices.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/04/10-0

I regularly check Christian news sites to see if there are stories of interest I should address. Some of the sites are forward thinking and represent a concern for the whole world. Other sites play into the stereotypes of Christian narcissism and judgment. On one popular site I was struck by the top topics that interested readers:

The twenty five most popular topics broke down as followed:

Articles about homosexuality -six.

Articles about persecution against Christians – six.

Concern with Islam -five.

Abortion –three.

Second Amendment Rights –one.

Feeding the poor –zero.

Clothing the naked –zero.

Taking the log out of our own eye –zero.

A man approached Texas Buddha, “My wife and I argue all the time. She says you can help us. I am a skeptic, but I am desperate. Do you have any advice for us?”

“I am sorry to hear that you are having difficulties,” he answered, “What seems to be the problem?”

“I am a very educated man. I have been tested as a genius many times. My wife is very sweet, but not that bright. She is always saying stupid things, which gets me upset. So we fight”

“I see,” answered Texas Buddha. “It sounds like you need Tibetan Dumb Drops.” Reaching into his blue jean jacket, he produced three such pills; one red, one blue and one yellow. “When your wife says something stupid, dissolve a red drop under your tongue, then a blue, then a yellow. At that point your wife will grow wiser.” Looking disappointed, the man took the three pills and left.

The next morning the man came running up to Texas Buddha. “I am amazed! My wife started to say something stupid I placed the red drop under my tongue. By the time I got to the yellow drop, she was making sense. You’ve saved our marriage. What on earth is the formula of Tibetan Dumb Drops?”

Reaching back into his blue jean jacket, the Compassionate One produced a box of candies. “What I gave you were ordinary gum drops. Your wife appeared stupid to you because you weren’t listening long enough to hear what she was trying to say. The secret to the Tibetan Dumb Drop is not in the formula. It’s in the closed lips.”

Ginny Hathaway is a retired Methodist clergy who comes to the blog and always makes thoughtful comments. This is her response to the question, “Can love build a bridge between people who are atheist and those who are religious?” This is her response:

“I, too, have a number of friends who are atheists…also interesting, ethical, loving people. And they are persons with whom I agree on many things. We listen deeply to each other and grow and change in the process.  I wonder if there might be a lot of fear involved in the hostility that exists between some “believers” and some atheists. Not fear of the “other” so much as fear of ourselves, fear of encountering and engaging points of view that might open us up to really thinking, questioning, searching…even, maybe, resulting in our not being able to cling quite so tightly to our certainties.  Real relationships bring with them changes in our status quo, intellectual and emotional. Sometimes we creatures of habit, ruts, well worn paths and yearnings for settled security draw back from that, not so much because of what is “other” about the other, but because of what is naggingly “other”  within ourselves that we may not want to embrace.” -Ginny Hathaway

When humanity splits into two irreconcilable camps it is often because one worldview has died and another is being born. At first it appears to each camp that they represent the future and their opponents represent the skeletal hand of a dead past. Instead, each of the two camps represent one polarized aspects of a new insight beyond either of them.

Glenn Greenwald has an interesting article on the passing of Margaret Thatcher arguing that America’s policy of not criticizing political figures at their time of death is misplaced etiquette.

“The dictate that one ‘not speak ill of the dead’ is (at best) appropriate for private individuals, not influential public figures.”

Greenwald then quotes President Obama’s eulogy:

“The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend.”

Unlike Gleen Greenwald, I believe Ms. Thatcher’s friends and family deserved a day free from criticism yesterday. But I agree with him that no one deserves the kind of propaganda the President dished out. Those responsible for emptying the public coffers into private hands should be mourned as human beings, but not as heroes. The price of that polite deception is that such mythology then becomes historical memory.

The President’s words were true if by “freedom” one means deregulation of corporations. But conversely if by “freedom” one means the control actual individuals hold over their own lives, Ms. Thatcher deserves no such roses even at her funeral. The privatization movement, of which Thatcher was a part, plunged millions into helplessness. To call her a “champion of freedom” codifies a political and historical habit of viewing the rich and powerful as the only people whose stories really count.

Obama’s words are also true if by “America” one means our nation’s weapons makers. But if by “America” one includes the soldiers killed and wounded in the manufactured wars Thatcher helped promote, or if one includes as Americans those workers who have become interchangeable pawns on a corporate chessboard,  then the story must be remembered differently.

Greenwald concludes with an interesting quote by David Wearing:

 “People praising Thatcher’s legacy should show some respect for her victims.”

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/04/08-3

Rev. Clovis Jones and Rabbi Ben Solomon were marveling at the Texas Buddha’s ability to accept all kinds of people. They asked him the secret of such tolerance. ”It is very difficult to explain,” he responded, “let’s go camping for the weekend and I will share the secret of tolerance with you.”

That night in their tent, the Reverend and the Rabbi kept waking each other, “You’re snoring, I can’t sleep.”

“What do you mean I am snoring?” the other would say.” You have kept me up all night with your racket! How dare you say I snore when you sound like a chainsaw?“

Meanwhile, Texas Buddha slept through it all. The next morning neither clergy was speaking to the other.

“I think it was a mistake to bring us here.” Said the Rev. Jones,”We are more judgmental than ever.”

Texas Buddha put a hand on each of his friend’s shoulders and pulled them closer, “You judged each because you believed your subjective opinion of the other was an objective fact. You can learn the secret of tolerance if you will learn two great truths from this weekend.”

“What are the two great truths?” asked the Rabbi.

Said Texas Buddha, “None of us can sleep through another’s snoring, nor hear our own.”