jimrigby.org

Some days it seems I’ve woken up in a bad Three Stooges movie. Every day the news gets stranger. According to the BBC, 149 airports across the country will lose their traffic control towers as a budget cutting move:

“Towers will close at small airports but the facilities will remain open, the Federal Aviation Administration said.

Pilots will have to co-ordinate takeoff and landing by themselves after 7 April using a shared radio channel.

The towers marked for closure are all staffed by private contractors. Critics say the move will compromise safety.” -BBC

Ya think? I mean why would airplanes flying over crowded cities need to co-ordinate their flights? And really, isn’t that just socialism? And aren’t traffic controllers are just government interference on our freedoms? As good libertarians shouldn’t we fly by the seat of our pants anyway? My favorite line was this one:

Towers were only recommended for closure if it posed no threat to national security and if the agency forecast little economic impact beyond the affected local community, the FAA said.

Yeah, as long as it is only affecting local communities what’s the harm? Only poor people live near airports any way.

I am hearing echoes of the Roman bard who said, “Democracies only last until the people realize they can vote themselves the public coffers.” Or as the modern American sage, Moe, said, “pick two fingers!”

As Americans, we were born into the propaganda of empire. It is not our fault. Even as children most of us were taught that we Americans are the best and brightest of human beings. The idea that we should be shackled by international law seems ludicrous to many Americans.

Discoving our own humanity requires that we break from this shared narcissism and find a greater allegiance to our entire species. One of the best ways to break that trance is to listen to the voices from the margins of empire. It is the colonized people of the world, the ones Frantz Fanon called “the wretched of the earth,” who can guide us back to our own souls. For all their misery, it is the conquered people who have retained the humanity their conquers lost.

Those are the voices we do not hear in most news or in history books. Like a coward painting a portrait of a tyrant, American journalists and popular history writers know to leave off certain unpleasant details if they wish to remain credible. Even those who try to tell the other side of the story, usually know it is wise to never give face or voice to the victims. So most of us have never heard actual testimonies of our own enslaved people, much less the victims or our wars or those human beings who work in the hell hole of our foreign sweatshops.

Chinua Achebe has been called the father of African literature. He died Thursday and the New York Times had a wonderful article about his work. I was particularly struck by his story of awakening to the nature of the British empire:

Growing up in Nigeria, Mr. Achebe attended schools that were modeled upon British public schools. In his recent book of essays, “The Education of a British-Protected Child” (2009), he was eloquent about what it felt like as a young man to read classic English novels. They provided a cognitive dissonance he had to work through.

“I did not see myself as an African in those books,” he wrote. “I took sides with the white men against the savages.” He continued: “The white man was good and reasonable and smart and courageous. The savages arrayed against him were sinister and stupid, never anything higher than cunning. I hated their guts.”

Mr. Achebe grew up, and grew wiser: “These writers had pulled a fast one on me! I was not on Marlowe’s boat steaming up the Congo in ‘Heart of Darkness’; rather, I was one of those unattractive beings jumping up and down on the riverbank, making horrid faces.”

It is not our fault that we were born in a vast and brutal military empire, but it is our responsiblity to do what we can to lessen the violence of empire against our sisters and brothers of the earth. It begins when we can recognize their humanity. We may not have the answer on how to undo the violence of empire but, at the very least, we can get our minds and hearts free.

I received the following quote yesterday from a dear friend: “Science flies us to the moon, religion flies us into buildings.” The friend in no way meant the quote as an insult to me as a minister. She knows I love to think about any such matters. I spend much of my time criticizing bad religion, so I gratefully received the gnome in the spirit it was sent- as something to think about. And think about it I have.

It is popular these days to pit religion against science as if we must now choose between them. And, certainly, if we use the word “religion” as a synonym for “superstition,” chose we must. Religion has certainly inflicted its scars upon human history. Those of us who identify as religious must not cherry pick only positive examples like Mahatma Gandhi and leave out negative ones like the inquisitors.

It seems equally true that those who attack religion also have a philosophical obligation not to lift up only the worst examples of religion. They must also demonstrate why the world is poorer for having Albert Schweitzer and Martin Luther King as well. And, they must face the abuses of science with the exact same scrutiny applied to religion. It will not do to present the best of one against the worst of the other. It is as invalid to hold science exempt from its historical monstrosities as to do so with religion.

I concede that religion without science has a sorry history. But, it seems to me, we live at a time when rudderless technology also threatens the very existence of humankind. To what part of the human experience can we appeal in order to step outside the neutrality of science, which must remain in some ways detached from questions of emotion or even value? The pursuit of scientific objectivity, while irreplaceably necessary, must be put in balance with some other measure that does recognizes the rest of our human experience. If we must appeal to science in questions of truth, we must refer to something else in questions of what is good or beautiful. So, what is our appeal beyond the world Dr. King described as having “guided missiles and misguided human beings?”

As much as I love to hear a valid criticism of religious belief and practice, I also wince at those who think themselves above such human frailties. Those who believe they have thrown off all metaphysics and now look down upon the world with unalloyed objectivity, may be standing not so much in the spirit of science, as that of the Opus Dei. It is indeed a gift to humankind to dispel the misty curtains of superstition, but from what deep animal fountainhead springs the cruel relish of humiliating others in the process of doing so? Is possible that the scorn of a brilliant atheist at his or her intellectual inferiors stems not only from a love of science, but also from the same primate tectonics that birthed the religious inquisition he or she condemns? What deep glandular spring turns a humanistic, non-theistic teacher into the anti-religious bully?

I have no wish to quibble over words. If someone wants to equate the words “religion” and “superstition,” I only ask that they not project that vocabulary onto me. I am delighted and grateful to have that conversation so long as the belief that all religion is bad is presented as a premise to be tested and not as a maxim to be assumed. -And so long as ridicule is not counted as refutation.

I personally understand the word “religion” in much the same sense Kant understood the word “metaphysics.” For Kant, the subject of metaphysics was not an arrogant assertion about a super-sensual realm, but a humble exploration of the categories of human perception. The stories of religion can bring to consciousness currents of nature and life that are primordial to human reason but serve as part of the backdrop of our complete human experience. I believe science deals with our objective experience and religion with our subjective experience of the same universe.

To claim that all religion is good or bad per se, is like saying all philosophy or ethics is good or bad, per se. Rather than pit science against religion, I prefer to consider what each can and cannot do.

When I use the word “religion” in its highest sense, I am speaking of the wonder behind scientific discovery, and of the faith that it takes to gives one’s life to the pursuit of truth, beauty and goodness. To me, religion is the “faith” behind science, the “hope” behind our ethics and the “love” behind our art. Good religion balances our entire experience without making special claims in any of those realms. I do not ask an anti-religious person to adopt my vocabulary, only to understand that we may be using the same words in a different sense.

There is some deep intuitive part behind the eye of the scientist that recognizes his or her home in the stars, in the web of life, and in the pulsing quandaries of the quantum. It is that part of the scientist that briefly pauses in reverence at some new discovery that I would call humankind’s highest “worship.” When we read scientific words like “dark energy” or “fossilized light” a part of us trembles in the same way our forebears trembled at fire. Only science could lead us to such truths. But only something akin to religion can feel what those facts mean.

Even if we do not use the word “soul,” there is some deep part of a human that will leave behind the world of the known facts to stand on the threshold of the unknown. We seek to know the universe not as a collection of objects but as a mysterious lover and as our home. Science reminds us that all such speech is poetic. Art reminds science that a human does not live by facts alone. Religion, as I use the word, is the intuitive something that balances our art, ethics and science.

When science teaches that the universe was not made for us, and that it does not seem to even know we are even here, something deep inside says that we are its children none-the-less. When science teaches the truth that everything in the universe bends toward everything else, religion pictures the meaning of that fact as the loving arms of a parent. Science saves us from the tragedy of taking such images literally, religion from the tragedy of living in a world of truths with no meaning.

I personally believe a person is richer for having both science and religion in balance. The planes that crashed into the twin towers represent both religion gone mad, and the use of technology without conscience. Both threaten our survival as a species. As a person of faith I must never forget that religion includes not only the figures I love like Gandhi, but also those I shudder at, like Osama bin Laden. I freely admit that Hitler used religion to drive Germany to madness. Those who would attack religion bear a similar obligation to remember that Hitler, too, had his scientists.

Molly Ivins once said of watching Texas politics,  “Better than the zoo. Better than the circus.”

Some sick part of me is fascinated with the insanity that arises every day at our state capitol. Often the craziest legislation centers around sexuality and making sure that our Texas women don’t get too uppity.

In Texas, conservative “Trojan Horse” groups abound. They always have names that would give you the impression that they are on the other side of a given issue. Anne Newman is with the Women’s Wellness Coatition. Right away you have to give props to the name. It almost sounds like a group that works on women’s health issues. And they have a woman as a leader, so surely they would want women to have control over their own health choices, right? The group’s mission statement is vague enough where a young woman might expect the same kind of nondirective help she would find at Planned Parenthood:

Women’s Wellness Coalition of Texas is dedicated to providing life-affirming, patient-centered assistance to girls, women and families caught in the challenges of life. Members strive to provide support through knowledge, relationships, and resources to help ensure the most positive outcome in each individual circumstance.

It sounds like a warm broth but, surprise! Newman testified against allowing Planned Parenthood to provide any materials to school boards, even if such materials are selected by the school administration itself.

“I’m concerned about not only Planned Parenthood getting into the schools, but their materials getting into schools. Just from the Internet on ‘safer sex,’ one of the questions is: How can I have safer sex with my sex toys? Now, I ask you, do you want your children doing that?”

Fair enough. We all know Planned Parenthood comes to school presentations with blow up dolls and edible underwear. So, to keep our kiddies from coming home from school wearing pasties, Sen. Ken Paxton R- McKinney is proposing legislation that would ban Planned Parenthood from providing materials to public schools. He accused the organization of placing an inappropriate emphasis on sexual freedom. Jim Hightower responds:

Interestingly, neither he nor his Planned Parenthood-bashing supporters have found any examples of the demonized organization’s materials being used in Texas classrooms. But Paxton’s bill is almost comically panicky. Ramping up this goofiness, one alarmist even testified that Planned Parenthood’s secret agenda is to  teach children how to use sex toys. –

I served on the Governor’s Task Force on Teen Pregnancy under Ann Richards and saw first hand the gulf between such well meaning efforts by frightened adults and the real choices that lie before many teenagers. I have listened to parents who lost their children in states that required parental consent. I have listened to teenagers who affirmed what some conservative legislator was proposing before our task force, and then told me privately that they just wanted to get the adults off their back.

I learned from that experience that we cannot force young people to live in the world as we imagine it should be. Instead, our role as adults, after we have told young people what we think is best, is to make sure that the choices that lie before them are as safe and healthy as we can possibly make them.

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/bill-would-ban-planned-parenthood-from-sex-ed/nWhnZ/

Before we leave the 10th anniversary of the Iraq war, it is important to do one more thing. While it has been important to remember the Bush and Cheney lies that tricked us into the war, it is also important to remember the Republicans who didn’t support the war, and the Democrats who did.

We live in an age of propaganda. History is often rewritten before our eyes and we must trust our own sanity to remember what really happened. To hear many Democrats today, you would think they fought against the Iraq war all along. Some of them did and some of them didn’t. And there were brave Republicans who stood against their president and their party to resist the rush to war.

Only seven Republicans stood against the war. They are a roll of honor:

Rep. John Duncan (Tenn.)

Rep. John Hostettler (Ind.)

Sen. Lincoln Chafee (RI)

Rep. Connie Morella (Md.)

 Rep. Amory Houghton (N.Y.),

Rep. James Leach (Iowa)

Ron Paul (Tx)

Whatever our political differences, we owe a debt of gratitude to this handful of Republicans who stood against enormous pressure to do the right thing. We also have the less pleasant task of remembering the Democrats who went along with the Bush doctrine. The list is too long to put here, but here are three of the most notable from the Obama administration:

Joe Biden (DE)

Hilary Clinton (NY)

John Kerry (MA)

It is interesting that when Nobel Peace Prize winning President Obama constructed his inner circle, it was full of democratic warhawks and empty of peace activists. Hilary Clinton has since claimed she was really voting for further negotiations, but that would require us to believe that she didn’t really read what she was voting on.

This list is a reminder that the conservative vs. liberal debate is often a chimera. If we stop listening to what people say and merely record what they have done, the political landscape shifts at once. Lesson: Stop voting for personalities, start voting for principles.

Glenn Beck may have been the first to ask the question, but it now has gone viral. “Does the actor playing Satan on History Channel’s Bible series look like Barack Obama? It is such a hot topic, that when I just typed in “Satan,” “Satan and Obama” were the first items that cropped up.

Readers can follow the link below and decide for themselves about that particular question. I want to address a larger question, which is, in 2013 why do movies continue to portray good people as lighter skinned, and evil characters as darker? From Lord of the Rings to this biblical series, audiences are bombarded with racist images disguised as morality struggles. So when the History Channel portrays Satan as a black man and Jesus as a blond, some people are questioning not only the Obama question, but whether the tradition of portraying a blond, blue eyed Jesus is itself a racist stereotype? After all, the guy didn’t exactly come from Sweden.

The problem with sexist and racist stereotypes is any one particular example you pull out can look weak. It’s what these images do together that makes them so powerfully hypnotic. Cultural prejudice is like walking through a mist where you never realize you are getting soaked. I seriously doubt the History Channel was intending to join the racist frenzy of Obama conspiracies, but when dramatic images are painted in traditional racist stereotypes, it can be hard to tell.

(Thanks to Lainey Rathgeber for the link)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2013/mar/18/bible-satan-look-like-barack-obama-poll

“Planting Peace” is a nonprofit group that works on diverse issues such as poverty, the environment and bullying. They have projects that treat poor children for worms, they plant trees in deforested areas and try to “bring love where there is hate.” As a part of their project to end bullying, the organization has recently bought a house across the street from gay bashing Westboro Baptist Church and turned it into a resource center for gay rights called the “Equality House.” If that weren’t clear enough, they are painting the house in rainbow colors so they will be, “a visual reminder of our commitment, as global citizens, to equality for all.”

http://www.plantingpeace.org/mission.htm

From time to time you hear preachers identify the Antichrist as this person or that. Usually, such preachers point to a political figure they don’t like. Others think the Antichrist will be some kind of supernatural monster. My own candidate for Antichrist is based on 35 years of ministry. I believe the Antichrist is any church that teaches judgment instead of grace, belief instead of compassion, and personal salvation instead of universal solidarity. What enemy from the netherworld could do as much damage to the gospel as the very vessel Jesus chose to spread his message? When it comes to betrayal, Judas had nothing on a church that replaces Jesus’ message of love with mere theology.

If war ever made sense, it is insane. Whatever just causes may initiate a conflict are almost always eclipsed by the evils unleashed by modern war. We cannot measure the personal devastation nor the seeds of future violence unleashed by it, but the financial impact of war may be easier to calculate.. For example, an Associated Press study discovered that the government is still making monthly payments to two children of Civil War veterans 148 years later.

World War I, which ended 94 years ago, continues to cost taxpayers about $20 million every year. World War II? $5 billion.

Compensation for WWII veterans and families didn’t peak until 1991 – 46 years after the war ended – and annual costs since then have only declined by about 25 percent. Korean War costs appear to be leveling off at about $2.8 billion per year.

Vietnam War veterans now collect $22 billion a year and the cost continues to rise.

So far, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the first Persian Gulf Those post-service compensation costs have totaled more than $50 billion since 2003, not including expenses of medical care and other benefits provided to veterans, and are poised to grow for many years to come.

The new veterans are filing for disabilities at historic rates, with about 45 percent of those from Iraq and Afghanistan seeking compensation for injuries. Many are seeking compensation for a variety of ailments at once.

Believe it or not, some have said the implication of this study is that we need to cut veteran’s benefits. Instead, I would argue that these figures are just the tip of the iceberg. They suggest that we cannot measure the social and environmental costs of war, but we know enough to realize that war itself now threatens human survival much more than the supposed dangers we so casually go to war to defend against.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020596416_warcostslingerxml.html

War is a lesson we do not seem to learn. We sink into war because we believe in violence. We believe in violence more than we believe in democracy, more than we believe in our our species, more than we believe in our hopes for the world. We usually fall into war not because we hate an enemy, but because we love some economic or political system that overrides our humanity and drives us toward artificial goals by any means necessary- which ultimately means war.

Howard Zinn on what he hoped America learned from the Iraq War:

“My hope is that the memory of death and disgrace will be so intense that the people of the United States will be able to listen to a message that the rest of the world, sobered by wars without end, can also understand: that war itself is the enemy of the human race.”

There is no invisible hand guiding human destiny. We ourselves have build this heaven and this hell. If we do not want our children living in the shadow of the drones of war, then we must this day choose peace.

This is a link to Bob Jensen’s Statesman article on the 10th anniversary of the invasion:

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/opinion/important-truths-behind-an-anti-war-slogan/nWp4K/