Freedom to Engage in Offensive Speech

A few years ago Todd & Tyler, Omaha morning radio personalities, made the statement that "Muslims can't take a joke". It seems like everyone else can be the butt of jokes, but that many Muslims take it more seriously that Christians, Buddhists, Jews or (in this political season) Mormons.

But why are we surprised that this kind of violence takes place? Much of the Middle East is a toxic combination of lack of education, poverty, anger at Israel for transgressions real and imagined, anger at the United States and other western nations, also for transgressions real and imagined, a majority following a dogmatic religion, would-be "leaders" not shy about exploiting all of these things for their own advantage and almost instantaneous communication.

In the United States of the twenty-first century we are used to freedom of speech. We have elevated it (and rightly so in my view) to the status of a self-evident right, which is not really open to debate any more. What we have evidently forgotten is that the First Amendment to the Constitution forbids government from (among other things) abridging freedom of speech, it does not suggest that speech should be consequence-free. We have however evolved in our customs and conventions to the point where, not only do we prohibit the government from limiting our freedom to express ourselves, but now implicit in that right is that we are protected from the consequences of our speech.  For example, one might be offended at an insult that someone made about one's sister and respond by beating up the other guy. The offendee who responded with violence would be subject to arrest and prosecution. There was a time when such words would be considered ample justification for the administration of a good beating. But even today, despite legal ramifications, many feel that violence is a justifiable answer to offensive speech. Several months ago I read an article about a town's response to the idiots from Westboro Baptist Church in Wichita, the group that regularly protests at the funerals of the military. Part of the response involved beating up a few of the Westboro members at a local gas station. I wasn't completely sure about the veracity of the article (What? Facebook is sometimes wrong?) but several people who I know expressed admiration for those who beat up the protesters. I was (figuratively) shouted down for expressing the opinion that responding to speech with violence was wrong.

But by and large, despite the reversion to violent response at times, our national consensus is that protecting our own right to freedom of speech (and religion, which goes hand in hand with free speech rights) justifies allowing speech that we disagree with or which offends us. We subscribe to the theory of the slippery slope, that if we empower the government to restrict the other guy's speech or religion, what's to stop it from restricting our speech and religious observance?

In some ways the Muslims who react violently to words are at a point similar to medieval Europe where the Catholic Church ruled all and any deviation from approved doctrine was called heresy and punishable by death. In those days church and state were one - and the First Amendment was centuries from even being conceived -  not so different from some Middle Eastern countries - and even those who are not officially Muslim (i.e. Koranic law is the law of the land) there are significant portions of the population that would be happy if that were the case.

Regarding the recent lethal uprisings in Libya, Egypt, Yemen and other places, obviously the notion of freedom of speech as understood in the United States is not considered a good thing there. Without being insulting or patronizing, I don't think they've really thought it through. Even in hypothetical 100% Muslim country, there are different sects of Islam with differing opinions on what makes a true Muslim. Muslims of different sects and various degrees of radicalization routinely declare that other Muslims aren't really Muslims. While the protesting and pillaging hordes want to execute anyone who insults "The Prophet", or at least make such insults legally actionable, they don't take this to the next logical step: what if a rival Muslim group was in power and decreed that their customs, beliefs, mode of dress etc were "insulting to Islam"? While they all think that they agree on what blasphemy is when practiced by non-Muslims, or Westerners, I guarantee you that there is no agreement among the multitude of competing groups about what Islam really means. They would be in for a rude awakening if the harsh measures that they advocate for others were applied to them.

Should people who are offended be legally allowed to protest? Absolutely. That too is a form of speech. Should their anger at perceived insults and affronts to their dignity cause the source of their anger to therefore be proscribed? Absolutely not. In my view this goes beyond differences in culture and religion. As idiotic and provocative as the video in question apparently was, outlawing it sends us down a dangerous path that would take us backward as well as forward.

Equinox

Today was not the Autumn Equinox. The day where light and dark are perfectly balanced is a couple of days off, but I chose to observe it today. What does he mean: "observe it?" one might ask. As part of my spirituality I count as significant, not birthdays of gods or prophets, or commemorations of great events, but the progression, the turning of the Wheel of the Year. The rhythms of nature, celestial and terrestrial, mark for me points of remembrance and reflection, meditation and pondering of the future, striving and acceptance. As do many others, I recognize eight points throughout the year that merit attention. My personal rituals involve finding one of the "wild" areas and walking slowly through it, allowing the illusion of being immersed in the wilderness connect me to The Other, and today I have chosen, as I sip the last of the Silver Tip Oolong tea and burn sticks of dragon's blood and sandalwood incense, to talk a little bit about it.

Spiritual experiences, including my own, are subjective and hold no truth that can be grafted onto any other person, or even applied to myself at any other time. The "map" that I use to connect and categorize, catalog and characterize, classify and compartmentalize, changes from year to year and sometimes from day to day. This framework arises from my own experience with the divine and my own vision and interpretation of it. Of course actively seeking out contact with the gods is not without risk, but it is also an adventure with great rewards.

Walking in a somewhat natural area, if one has ears to hear and the desire to know can expose one to a touch of the sacred; not just light and life, but dark and death and every place in and on the great cycle that lies in between. I often choose the sunrise or sunset time for these observances to better feel the contrast - for we are not all light, nor all dark; our life is not endless in this form, but death is part of the wheel as well.

Dá fhada an lá tagann an tráthnóna.

No matter how long the day, the night still comes

Not Tolerating Intolerance...Isn't That Also Intolerance?

No.

Oh, I should say more? Alright, I think I will!

One of the statements that one hears from time to time is that those who oppose some form of intolerance, or prejudice, are themselves intolerant. An example of one form of this position is that when people protest laws that discriminate against or fail to provide equal protection for a minority group. The protesters criticize those who marginalize their fellow citizens and are accused of being intolerant of those who believe that discrimination is okay or even of attempting to prevent them from exercising their First Amendment rights. Oftentimes the really intolerant ones use religion to justify their position that some of us should not have the same rights and protections as the rest of us, throwing back the accusation that those who protest should be tolerant of their (intolerant) beliefs. The First Amendment argument is equally illogical. Leaving aside for a moment that the First Amendment prohibits the government from limiting speech, there is nothing, anywhere, that gives people's opinions immunity from criticism. Offensive opinions should be criticized, even if they are wearing religious garb. Just because an opinion is based on some "holy" book, doesn't mean that it is protected from disagreement. If you want to hold the opinion that some find offensive, be prepared for people to disagree, verbally...out loud. An argument that some people who give their discrimination a religious veneer is that they should be allowed to discriminate against people who they disapprove of, for instance, a landlord who feels that his religious liberty is infringed upon by being forced to rent to homosexuals. Would that same landlord be alright with a landlord who discriminated against Christians? Or if the Defense of Marriage Act was written so that Christians were prohibited from marrying?

The difference, as I see it, is that when you are intolerant of other people, and advocate that their rights be proscribed, or suggest that the laws protecting every other citizen do not apply to them, that is bad intolerance. It is perfectly ethical to refuse to tolerate those who wish to limit the rights and privileges of others, that's good intolerance.

So...yes...but it's acceptable.

Why Do Agnostics Go to Church?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/fashion/an-agnostics-guide-to-marriage.html?pagewanted=all

The link above is to an interesting article in the New York Times this past Sunday - it was the weekly 'Modern Love' column. The writer is an agnostic who knew from age seven that she didn't believe in God but married a guy who, while not a churchgoer or especially religious, did believe in God. neither had a problem with the other's beliefs. Two years into their marriage he changed his mind and decided that he didn't believe in God anymore. Not all that unusual until you get to the last paragraph - the couple has recently become parents for the first time and the lifelong agnostic asks her husband if they should start looking around for a church. Her reasoning is so that they can "...give him some kind of spiritual base...an education of sorts about Christianity so he can have knowledge with which to agree or disagree." There is no resolution in the article, so we don't know if they ultimately decide to start attending a church and "educating their son about Christianity". Now I'm not one of those people who think that parents should shield their children from their own convictions so that one day they might make up their own minds. Children, once they get to a certain age or maturity level will make up their own minds, no matter what their parents believe or don't believe or how vigorously the parents inculcate their points of view into their children's minds. I believe that parents have the responsibility to pass on to their children ethics, morals and standards that will make them good and successful adults some day, whether that is religion or rationalism or something in between.

What puzzles me is that why someone who seems to have no interest in religion in any form seems to think that attending a church or other religious house of worship is the thing to do when life changing events happen. I came across a sermon by a Unitarian-Universalist minister who addresses this very issue. I'll include a link. http://www.uucastine.org/sermons/2010/why-agnostics-go-to-church/ - but his basic point is that they are seeking meaning, just like everyone else. Keep in mind that the Unitarian-Universalists are very inclusive and non-doctrinaire, so if you don't know what you believe, they won't give you a hard time about it.

My own opinion is that there is a huge cultural partiality toward church going as an indicator of morality, despite statistics showing that church attendance is down. People are less likely to attend church than a generation ago, but the residual bias tends to cause people to think that the way to "get one's life together" or clean up one's act is to go to church and be (or act) religious. The number of people that I have known over the years who fall into this category is far from a valid statistical sample, but since I don't believe that I live in a unique bubble that is different than the rest of the world, I suspect that my experiences translate to the larger world.

The assumption inherent in this mindset is that there are two mutually exclusive poles. On one side is the person who is hedonistic, self-centered and living for the day. On the other side is the "good" person, who, of course, goes to church. You can't be a "good" person if you are an atheist, and you're kind of suspect if you are part of a non-Christian religion (although allowances are made for Hindus and Buddhists if they were born oversees or are the children of immigrants - Jews are kind of exempt too, but they have their own problems). The idea that you can "get your life together" while avoiding Jesus is a fairly foreign concept for most people. Of course there are all kinds of self-help books out there where one can learn to turn one's life around without the help of a deity, but they are kind of frowned upon by the mainstream...and a lot of them take work. Could it be that the act of church attendance is a shortcut, a way to become respectable without doing the hard work of actually doing much changing?

Then there's the whole concept of Pascal's Wager - where you are wagering on the existence or non-existence of God. If you wager that he exists and he doesn't, well, you've lost nothing - but if you wager that he doesn't and he does - well, I doubt if I have to spell it out for you. the problem with Pascal's Wager is that it's a false dilemma, two choices are presented when there are actually a plethora of choices. It's not a matter of God vs. No God, but Biblical God, vs. Deist God vs. Hindu pantheon vs. Wiccan God & Goddess vs. Native American spirituality vs. use your imagination! Even if you think you have objective proof that there was/is a creator God...how do you know he takes the form of the local dominant religion?

You don't...

Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin

"Love the sinner & hate the sin" - I saw this discussion on a Facebook Friend's news feed this morning. I didn't get involved as the discussion assumed a Christian, or at least biblical, premise and orientation and I didn't want to disrupt the flow.

The saying can apply to many things, but it often refers to homosexuality, although it can also refer to many other things, including practicing a religion other than Christianity (or no religion at all). The one making the statement usually means that while hating the "sin" (behavior prohibited or proscribed in one's holy book) they hold out hope that the person will cease and desist from practicing their "sin" and come around to "The God Side". So how long do we give the "sinners"  to change their ways? Do they continue to be loved for the rest of their lives regardless of their behavior? What if they refuse to even consider changing their behavior and reject the premise that their behavior is sinful? My contention is that this alleged "love" is 100% contingent on the perceived possibility of change.

To be fair, if someone holds an opinion, rightly or wrongly, that a behavior is harmful, it is perfectly consistent that they attempt to discourage those who engage in that behavior from continuing in it. In fact in is reasonable, rational and logical to try to influence a person to change in these circumstances.

But just because an action is logical or consistent does not make the action right. An action or an opinion is logical when it flows naturally from a premise. The premise in this case is that the bible states that homosexuality is a sin; that premise is further based on an earlier premise that "God" wrote or inspired the bible and that said "God" is infallible, perfect, omniscient and all-powerful. The opinion that there is an infallible, perfect, omniscient and all-powerful being is far from universal or and certainly not objectively demonstrable; even assuming such a being exists, it is far from universally accepted that this being wrote or commissioned the bible or that the bible accurately describes this being's attributes - and even among people who believe the first of these two premises, there is much honest disagreement over what this book means.

So, now to the practical application:

For those of us who do not share the opinions held by those who base their ethics and morality upon a certain interpretation of the bible, the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing is judgmental, short-sighted and yes - hateful. While what you may mean is that you love us so much that you want us to enjoy the great bliss that comes from following the rules set down by those claiming to speak for your god, what we hear is that you think that our choices in life, our opinions, our selves are inferior to yours in any meaningful way, that the only way that we can truly live is to completely change who we are and that while you look down your noses at us, we should give you credit for good intentions.

"Love the Christian, hate Christianity" - doesn't sound so good, does it?

Freakin' Politics

In some ways, politics is important. Once in a while there is a specific issue that divides the two sides and makes choices very clear. More often than not, however, it makes little difference to how we all live our everyday lives. Hell, zoning decisions by a local planning board whose names we can seldom can remember have more effect on our day-to-day existence than decisions made by Congress and the President. naturally there are exceptions. We went to war under our last President under a dubious rationale, but considering that most of Congress was on board with the decision, it's difficult to claim that a President from the other party wouldn't have led us into these senseless conflicts too.

Our current contest for the office of President is full of urgent calls to defeat the other guy, portraying one as an America-hating Communist and the other as a heartless bottom-liner who hates Americans. Both are painted as being out of touch with regular Americans. I hear and read horror stories every day about how President Obama is going to take away our guns, kill the railroads by outlawing coal, and institute Shariah law. Just as often I hear about how Romney is going to ship all our jobs overseas and make us all wear Mormon underpants. In three and a half years, Obama hasn't even tried to do many of the "socialist" things that he supposedly wants to do, let alone succeed due to Republican obstructionism. Why should I believe that following a second Obama inauguration he will suddenly reveal  his true colors and turn us into a Communist-Muslim state? Conversely, why would I think that Romney would be able to implement all the horrible things that he is accused of?

That all being said, I plan on voting for Obama in November. I think that overall, the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act is good for the country and good for me and my family specifically. I like how he has gradually extricated us from Iraq and how he is getting us out of Afghanistan. I support his recent action to help young undocumented immigrants. I don't think that he was aggressive enough battling the effects of the recession (even while acknowledging that he inherited a mess) and that he severely underestimated how tough the job of President is and the extent of right-wing Republican opposition. His opponents mobilized much of the country against him with appeals to emotion, in particular fear.

Romney on the other hand seems to say whatever he needs to say to get elected. In the early days of the primaries I thought he was relatively sane; a middle-of-the-road, moderate Republican who would be somewhat harmless as President. And probably if elected he will be. I doubt all of the evil attributed to him would in reality come to pass. But honestly, I just can't bring myself to vote for a Republican after four years of hatred, four years of misinformation, four years of obstructionism. Even if Romney isn't as right-wing as his campaign rhetoric suggests, he is willing to pander to that segment of the population. And that's just not the kind of man that I can vote for.

Dissent

It's kind of funny how dissent works. I recall that during the George W. Bush years, questioning the President was tantamount to treason - why, you're giving aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime. Now that we have a Democratic president, it's okay to criticize, it fact it's our patriotic duty to criticize! Part of patriotism as I see it, part of being someone who loves his or her country is being able to see what parts of it can be improved, what parts are dysfunctional, what parts are just plain wrong and make suggestions about how to fix them. The answer is not to stick our heads in the sand and pretend that our country is perfect and above criticism, but to make dissent commonplace. Saying like "America - love it or leave it" or what I saw on Facebook this morning about how if anyone was "offended by the flag" the poster would help them pack. Other than being a strawman proposition (who are all these people in the United States who are offended at the U.S. flag?) - it suggests that criticism of what the flag stands for - the United States - is grounds for deportation. And of course there's the originator or the photo in question, a U.S. Marine; somehow there's that assumption that if one of the "troops" say something, it is beyond question. So, unlike the Marine who would help the imaginary people who are offended at the flag pack their bags in preparation for residence elsewhere - if you are offended at dissent - I will not help you pack your bags, because the First Amendment is still in force.

Tribal Wars Withdrawal

About three years ago I started playing the online game called Tribal Wars. Tribal Wars is one of a number of online strategy games by German based Innogames. The basic premise is that you sign on to a "world" (they recently opened their 64th world), a self-contained grid where the various players join together into "tribes" with the goal of taking over the world.

The play begins with each player being assigned a village randomly placed somewhere in the world. Players who sign up early are placed in the center of a 10x10 grid - 100 squares, each one called a "continent", or a "K". As new players are added they are assigned places farther and farther from the center (the "core") - this area becomes known as "the rim".

Your initial goals in your new village are twofold: recruit troops and improve your buildings. Let's look at the buildings first.

• Village Headquarters: building or improving the other village structures takes place here. The Village HQ can be improved from a Level 1 to a Level 30. the higher the level, the quicker the construction of other buildings takes place. 
• Farm: the level of the farm determines how extensive your building improvement can be, as well as how many troops. Each level has an increasing amount of "farm space". This is important because each type of building and each type of troop takes up a different amount of "farm space". A Level 30 Farm gives you the room for maximum building levels and maximum troop strength
• Resources; Clay, Timber and Iron are all harvested in mines just outside the village walls. These three resources are the raw materials which you use to improve your buildings and equip your troops. 
• Wall: The wall helps protect the village from attacking troops. The higher the level of the wall, the more efficient your troops will be.
• Recruiting Centers: A barracks, stable and workshop are where you recruit, train and equip your troops. The higher the level, the quicker your troops are ready.
• Smithy: types of weapons are "researched" in the Smithy before you can equip your troops
• Academy: Where you educate your nobles (more on them later)

Troops are extremely important in order to defend from attacks or attack in return. All troops take a set amount of resources to equip. The more effective troops tend to be the most expensive in terms of resources. Many new players tend to neglect troops in favor of buildings. Each building level adds points to a players total, troops do not, so many "noobs" (newbies) are "point whores", racking up points at the expense of troops. 

• Offensive Troops; Axemen, Light Cavalry, Rams, Catapults. All have varying levels of effectiveness. A chart is included in the game outlining their comparative offensive and defensive strengths. A "nuke" is a collection of troops designed to either "clear" a village (kill all defending troops), knock down the walls, or conquer it. A nuke might consist of 9000 axes, 2000 light cavalry.
• Defensive Troops: Spearmen, Swordsmen, Heavy Cavalry. Spears are most effective against cavalry, swords against axes, heavy cavalry are heavy duty quick support. 
• Nobles; Once certain building requirements are met a player can educate nobles. A noble is used to conquer another player's village by lowering what is called "loyalty". Each village starts with a loyalty level of 100. Each successful attack that includes a noble will lower a villages loyalty level by 15-35 points, or an average of 25. Typically four nobles are sufficient to conquer a rival village. 

A quick note on "farming". In addition to your resource mines, a way to garner resources is to send your troops off to plunder other villages, typically unoccupied villages. Each type of troop can carry a specified number of resources back with him. The best players use automated algorithms to constantly farm, allowing them to build quickly. 

So, to recap, your early goal is to improve your buildings, which enables you to equip more troops and educate nobles, this in turn allows you to conquer other villages. This then becomes the cycle that you repeat over and over as you play Tribal Wars. Your sources for other villages to conquer include other players and what is call Barbarian Villages. A barbarian village, or "barb" is a village generated by the game that is not owned by any player. It may be one that was never player-owned, or it may have been occupied by a player who quit, leaving a village full of troops with nothing to do but kill your attackers if you fail to send a large enough force. As the game progresses, most player disdain the barbs. There are two reasons for this: one is that it is cooler and more challenging to take a village from an enemy player, or a rival in your area than an undefended village. Second, barbs generally only grow to a certain low level before plateauing - taking over a small village means that a lot of resources will immediately be required to build everything up. taking over an enemy village that has its buildings maximized means that you have a fully functioning village right away. An exception to this is "large barbs", fully built-up villages that had belonged to a player who quit.

As a player grows, it is typical to try to establish a "cluster", a group of villages close together. This facilitates self support and makes it more difficult for an enemy to isolate you. 

Real success in Tribal Wars comes from banding together into tribes. The advantages of being in a tribe is basically safety in numbers. You can send some of your defensive troops to other players to help support them when they are under attack, you can coordinate attacks on other players and tribes, and experienced players can educate newer players. Since the goal is for a tribe (or in some worlds an alliance of tribes) to take over the world, the "history" of a world is generally one war after another. In the early stages it's kind of a melee, with everybody attacking everybody else, alliances shifting weekly or sometimes daily in an effort to establish dominance. Early one tribes work toward gaining control of one or two continents. The stronger tribes begin to become regional powers. About mid game 2-3 larger tribes dominate in each quadrant, with a swarm of smaller tribes flourishing along the rim or in between the larger tribes' areas of control. As tribes battle each other, sometimes the winner absorbs the better players from the losing tribe and kills off the rest, not only increasing the average skill level of the tribe, but expanding their geographic reach. In the world that I play on, about a year ago there was one major power in each quadrant, although the northwest had three big tribes. In about six months time the biggest tribe had defeated or absorbed all major tribes and started working on eliminating the remaining resistance along the rim. 

Just this morning I deleted my accounts on Tribal Wars. I have been playing on this world, world 51 (W51) for almost two years and on a variety of other worlds for a year before that. When I first started on W51 I was conquered twice just as I was getting a second village, I joined tribes that disbanded at critical moments until I finally joined up with a functioning tribe that worked well together. I slowly but steadily grew, increasing the number of villages that I controlled to 61. It seemed like every couple of months that the end was near; I'd be under serious attack and then my attacker would disappear for a while. At one point I got greedy and conquered a few villages of a player who I thought was inactive. He beat me down to 20 villages. I was holding my own at about 20-25 villages About six months ago a larger player was quitting and I took over his account of 130 villages. I increased it to 161 villages until this past May when a concentrated attack by 10 players in the world's biggest tribe brought me down to only 30 villages. 

The leading tribal alliance holds over 85% of W51's villages, the #2 tribal alliance, which I am a part of has been just trying to stay alive and delay the inevitable for the last few months, making the big tribe work for their world victory. It was even fun until recently when an ally was unable to access his internet for a week and one of my tribe members started attacking him. My tribe mate refused to return to "stolen" villages, so this former ally began attacking smaller members of my tribe, including me, in retaliation. I've been losing villages at the rate of about one a day, trying to stay ahead by conquering barbs and villages of tribe mates who have quit. The last straw was this morning when several tribe mates started bickering among themselves and dragged me into it. I looked at the situation and thought that it had long ago stopped being fun and I was just holding on just to say that I had stuck it out 'til the end. Well I almost did! 

I can still go back, I still have some "premium points" stored up that I can use, but  took Tribal Wars off my "favorites" and I'm going to stay away...at least for now!

God Exists

Of course he does, how could I think otherwise? After all it's been proved right? http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
 While no one can prove the existence of this being, no can disprove his existence either - people claim all the time that they talk to him and that he talks back (kinda, sorta) - who am I to doubt their experience? I know, those of you who have dealt with me in the past are just waiting for me to say that those who believe in his existence are stupid, or deluded, or...something else nebulously negative. No my friends, I believe that there are such things as spirits and gods, deities and geists of all kinds, and if I believe thus, how could I deny that the god of the bible also exists? Well, I don't. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there's any kind of proof, or that I actually do anything about it, just that I concede the possible or even probable existence of the god who English-speaking Western Civilization refer to with a capital "G".

(pause while those who really know me wonder if I've gone off the deep end and like Agrippa have almost been persuaded...)


Belief in the simple existence of an entity does not guarantee that I believe everything that is said or written about said entity. For a lot of people, what they believe about the biblical god is naturally derived from the bible. But what is the bible but, at best, a collection of books, letters, essays and myths setting down what many individuals believed, experienced or speculated about their deity? Parts of the Old Testament are very similar to the creation myths and tribal origin stories of others peoples. Some are heroic legends of the great men (and occasionally women) of a certain people. Still other sections are wise sayings or songs and poems praising the god. the New Testament starts with four oft contradictory accounts of Jesus' life, followed by letters from early leaders, also frequently contradictory. Looked at objectively, the parts of the New Testament can resemble tracts by competing factions attempting to win over the populace to their view and refuting their opponents. In fact, the very early history of Christianity is replete with competing versions of the faith, all with their own literature. One justification for apostolic succession and the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility was that there were so many writings representing different ideas about Jesus and God that some doctrine had to be promulgated to blunt the influence of circulating gospels and epistles, all which claimed authorship by people who knew Jesus in the flesh.

Other believers in the biblical god set their own parameters for who their god is and what he does, completely outside those set by the bible and by established Christianity. These people often express distaste for organized religion and formulate their own picture of the deity that they share with the churches, but he is often described as completely different than how biblical literalists describe him.

My point (or one of them anyway) is that declining to worship a certain deity or to believe all his press does not mean that I deny the possibility of his existence or the validity of the worship or belief of those who do.

Tarot Class

After a long (several years) absence from the practice of tarot I was re-immersed (that’s right, I made that word up; just now) in the ancient and venerable practice on Wednesday night. My wife, Susie Joyce, teaches, or mentors people in, tarot reading at the JOY Center on the second floor of the strip mall at S. 48^th and Briarhurst. Since I’m on vacation and have a lot of time on my hands I decided to participate in a class.

Susie conducted the class by soliciting each of our own interpretations of the cards that we were studying that night. This proved to be interesting, since each of us was using a different deck. I was using what many consider to be a “traditional” tarot deck, the Rider-Waite, although even a cursory study of the history of tarot will belie this assumption. Let’s say instead that in 20^th century America, this deck enjoys widespread familiarity and its symbolism influences other decks. Susie used a Hanson-Roberts deck, very similar in its symbols, but with richer, more colorful illustrations. One other student used a dragon-themed deck, while our third student brought two decks – one a vampire tarot and the other a zombie-themed deck. The humor in the zombie deck kept things interesting.

The cards that we studied were the 22 cards called the major arcana, or greater secrets. The remaining 56 cards are divided into four suits and are called the minor arcana or lesser secrets. Through our own examination of the cards along with Susie’s explanation of areas of influence of each of the cards, we received a basic grounding in the cards’ meaning.

During the final part of the class we got the opportunity to practice giving each other readings. I remember when I first began to learn about the tarot – I wanted to refer to my notes and reference books every time I drew a card, but I was urged to let the cards be a guide to my own intuition and inspiration, rather than rely on a textbook description and meaning. I was asked to demonstrate the way that I do readings, which is without a spread. A spread is a particular arrangement of cards where each card position represents something. One position might stand for the past or the future; a position might refer to a specific person, but in each spread every position refers to something predetermined. The way that I set my cards down is by putting down one card and then surrounding it with four others, laying them down in no particular order. The central card outlines the main issue, while the other four amplify or give more detail on it. Each of those details can be expanded upon or further examined by laying down more cards.

After demonstrating how it worked I had the opportunity to do a “real” reading for a fellow student. I had forgotten what a rush I got from doing a reading that was flowing well. When I’m doing a reading, the cards help, but don’t determine what I am intuiting. They’re like a magnifying glass and a bright light that assist the physical eye – magnifying, illuminating and clarifying what the inner eye is seeing.

I’ll be participating in a class again next Wednesday, again at the JOY Center. 

Shit Happens

The phrase "shit happens" could, on certain days, describe my philosophy of life. "Shit happens" in many ways is the polar opposite of "everything happens for a reason". If you really look at it objectively, i.e. without any preconceived theology or philosophy, finding a pattern of cause for the many things that happen to us all each day is futile. Those of us who attribute everything to an omnipotent god or to "the universe" or even to karma are looking for patterns that aren't really there. People pray, but are not dissuaded from their belief in prayer when it doesn't produce the expected results; people look to karma, but as often as not, karma doesn't seem to provide the balance that we might expect, everything supposedly happens for a reason, but what is that reason and who is doing the reasoning?

Genetics, determined not only by Mendel's Law, but random mutations and unexpected combinations, as well as  natural and man-made  influences, makes the "decision" whether or not a child will be afflicted by a disease or disability, or die young, not any "sin" by the parents and certainly not some unknown plan by a deity or cosmic law of balance. We get sick not because some spirit is trying us, but because our bodies wear out and because we do not have immunity to every organism or malady out there. Folks get run over by cars or caught in natural disasters through any number of random factors, not because of some design.

Bad things happen, not because some god is mad at you, or because that god has some unknown purpose that you are unaware of, but because...of nothing. So if you lose your arm in a freak snowplow accident, don't blame your god and don't rationalize that your one-arm-ed-ness is the result of a greater, but just that shit happens.

Prayer

When I logged on to Facebook this morning I found a prayer request from someone who I don't know in person, but had interacted with on another site for several years. This person's mother was ill, but rather than just asking for people to pray for her mother, she requested only those who pray "in the name of Jesus Christ". She went on to specifically decline good intentions and positive thoughts. Fine. Do what you want. But this attitude does nothing to help her mother and just angers or irritates those may have sent "good intentions and positive thoughts". Are these thoughts and intentions harmful to her mother? Even if you believe that only prayer directed to the biblical god "in the name of Jesus Christ" is effective and legitimate, what is the purpose of pointing out to those who you have chosen to be Facebook friends with that any care and love that they may have for her and her mother is unwanted? Personally I don't pray, but have no problem with people praying for my health and well being to any god and in any form that they want. I have a problem with people who pointedly tell me how my spirituality is wrong or substandard or is sending me to Hell, but believe that there is plenty of room in this world for diversity of belief and don't presume to judge the validity of other people's faith or philosophy.

A while back I encountered a couple though Facebook whom I had lost track of about 20 years ago. They were the best man and maid of honor at my first marriage ceremony and they had been my roommates when I first lived in Lincoln. I thought it would be nice to stay in touch and catch up on the intervening years, as I do with other "long-lost" relatives, neighbors and friends who I reconnected with on Facebook. It didn't take long for them to begin to question my spiritual beliefs, which had changed quite a bit since we had last met. Theirs had as well, but while they viewed their own changes as "good change", my changes were viewed negatively. I was told very clearly that if I was not worshiping their god (in the manner that they did) then they wanted nothing to do with me.

It's a shame how people cut themselves off from others like this. I hope this person's mother comes through her illness well, and empathize with her and her request for prayer. I never would have commented on her post with a remark about how I don't pray - in fact I never use prayer requests to get on my soapbox. It's sad that this person has cut out the care and sympathy that others may have had, just because they do it a little differently than the approved method.

I was like, "I don't like this use of the word like".

Over the last few years an insidious speech pattern has emerged. Many people, when describing a conversation will not say "Frank said 'I'm going to punch you in the nose' and then he ran away" but instead will say "Frank was like 'I'm going to punch you in the nose' and then he ran away". Now, annoying as little verbal tic is, I could live with it if  "He was like" always meant "He said". But it doesn't. Sometimes it describes a generalizes impression. Sometimes "He was like 'I'm not going to do what you say'" just means that "he" was projecting an unspecific refusal to do what you're asking. So when I hear this particular grammatical usage, I can never tell whether someone is faithfully quoting or even coming close to an accurate reproduction of a conversation. Keep in mind that I'm not describing the usage that seems to have originated in the sixties and been perpetuated by episodes of "Scooby-Doo", when the word "like" was inserted in lieu of a pause: for example, "He was like, going to punch me in the nose", or "That band was like, groovy, dude". Nope, this is a new thing. Every once in a while I get exasperated at this usage and stop a person who is using it. I'll ask them if when they're saying "He was like" they really mean "He said" and are they accurately reporting what was said? Invariably I get a confused look, as if I am speaking Xhosa. I am almost ready to give up on this, but I must stand strong. I know the battle is almost lost when I see this usage in newspapers like (that was a correct use of "like" by the way) the New York Times, although usually they're just quoting someone verbatim who uses the word in that manner. Another version that doesn't confuse me as much, but is just as irritating is when it's used as shorthand for a mental or emotional state. For instance, if I am describing my amazement that a certain event had just transpired, I might say "I was like 'wow'", or even more perplexing, if  am relating that I am confused about something I would say "I was like 'what's going on here?'" - not at all suggesting that I actually said or thought "What's going on here?", but that the phrase basically represents my thoughts.

I'm like, "This is so ungrammatical".

Religion in Public Life

While I do not believe that government should in any way sponsor or promote religion, or that government officials should make decisions based solely on religious beliefs, I do believe that it is appropriate for the religious beliefs of elected officials to inform and influence the decisions that they make and shape their ethics and morality. How could it be otherwise? Just as a person's parents influence their character, so does a religion. The challenge for a deeply religious candidate or elected office holder is to translate those positions that for him or her are based on faith into a plan that is based on what is demonstrably best for the people he serves.

During the Republican primaries earlier this year we were treated to several candidates who were very vocal about their religion and how they would use their faith-based beliefs to shape public policy, as if it were self-evident that what they believed was Truth (with a capital "T") and that anyone who disagreed was anti-God and therefore bad for America. The one exception was Mitt Romney. Just as John Kennedy sought as a candidate to defuse suspicion that he would be a stooge of the Pope, Romney has had to deal with worries about the "weirdness" of his Mormonism and that Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would finally achieve Joseph Smith's dream of political ascendancy. However, in a recent New York Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/us/politics/how-the-mormon-church-shaped-mitt-romney.html?pagewanted=all it was shown how Romney, rather than preaching how he would make certain decision "because the Bible (or the Book of Mormon) says so", has endeavored his whole life to translate his religious convictions into secular policy. In my view, this makes Romney the least scary of the Republican candidates in that he has a sincere and deep faith, but he is not attempting to push that faith on the whole country; but at the same time is not suggesting that his faith isn't influencing him. A good example for religious politicians, although I probably won't be voting for him!

Government Sponsored Prayer

Prayer has never been outlawed in the public schools. There is nothing to prevent a student or teacher (or even an administrator) from silently beseeching or thanking the deity of their choice for whatever reason that they want, or for that matter non-silently doing so. I would imagine that the minutes before a test starts are the most prayer-dense times of the day anywhere! What was outlawed in 1962 and 1963 was government led prayer, with teachers and other school employees being viewed as government representatives.

The section of the Constitution that governs religious expression is the first amendment, included in what is called the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court in its interpretations of the First Amendment has ruled that government must be neutral in its treatment of religion, not favoring one or the other, but that private religious expression is protected speech and cannot be curtailed or regulated. For many years, when prayer and bible readings in public schools were the norm, the assumption was that virtually everyone belonged to some sect of Christianity, which meant that they all worshiped the same god, albeit in different ways. A prayer was neutral in this regard as long as it didn't mention the pope or any other person or belief specific to a particular denomination. Of course, this wasn't entirely true, there were Jews (who technically worshiped the same god anyway) and a large number of native Americans and small communities of other religions, but the vast majority were Christians of one sort or another.

In the early sixties, when the push to abolish school prayer succeeded, the main advocate for ending it was the head of an atheist organization, which for many people, associated outlawing school prayer with a lack of godliness and hence a deficit of morals. While there is no evidence that atheists are any less moral or ethical, worse parents or poorer citizens than religious people, the association remains. (That's the subject for another blog entry). But the false dilemma that is presented, that it's a matter of godly versus ungodly people, believers versus unbelievers, ignores the fact that there are more than one kind of believers. So, ignoring the atheists for a minute, if prayer is to be had in the public schools, what kind do we want to have? Let's for arguments sake set aside for the moment the more physical kinds of prayer, dance, song, trances and the burning of various substances and sometimes smoking them and just look at who we are praying to.

It may come as a great surprise to some that not everyone who isn't an atheist believes in the same god. Believers in the god described in the bible sometimes make the mistake of assuming that everyone is worshiping the same god under different names (others of course believe that some who claim to be worshiping the same god are really worshiping devils or demons if their theology is a little bit off center) when the reality is that there are many who explicitly reject the notion that their gods and/or goddesses are identical to the biblical god (or even some generic, cultural "God"). So would it be okay to offer prayers to Odin, or the Voudoun loa, or the Celtic god Lugh? Most would say "no".

My opinion is that the now fifty year old law outlawing school sponsored prayer was and continues to be a good thing.

Something to Believe In

I had an interesting conversation the other day with a co-worker about "belief". I'd have to scour my brain to recall exactly how we got on the subject, but this individual told me that she saw no reason to pick something to believe in. That statement got me thinking. I've always been someone who "picked something to believe in", whether it was the Catholicism of my youth, the Gnostic flavored fundamentalism of much of my adulthood or my current ever-shifting paganism. And when you look around you, most people choose to believe something that cannot be objectively demonstrated, a mythos to explain the unexplained. That mythos might be a pre-constructed doctrine or dogma of an established church or school of philosophy, or it might be something you cobbled together yourself in order to make sense of the world (and that's really what the doctrines, dogmas and holy books really are, the cobbling together of a worldview by other people who lived a long time ago). Even atheists, for all their assertions of rationality, make a definite point about defining their world, at least in part, as believing that what others believe is wrong (or at least can't be objectively supported). So can you go through life without having an opinion one way or another about gods, demons and the afterlife? It is my thought that the answer is a rousing "of course". Though many would disagree with me, the existence or nonexistence of a supernatural world has no effect on day-to-day, ordinary life. Sure, there are rules, regulations, ethics and morals that are taught by religions, but the ones that give guidance on how to live a "good life" can be followed quite easily even if there is no spiritual being standing behind them. Even prayer can be conducted without any god out there, in there or over there to hear and answer those prayers. So why does someone who simply opts out of any incorporation of religion into her life become the oddball, the one who has to explain herself to others? As with most things, it has nothing to do with logical, rational thought, or even a deep devotion to a set of beliefs, but a cultural, even human, fear of "the other". People distrust those who are different, marginalize those outside the tribe and demonize the truly different.

Gay Marriage

I suppose I could say that if you're opposed to gay marriage then the simple solution is to not participate in one. Don't become gay, and if you do, don't get married! Somehow the support in some quarters for legalization of marriage between same-gendered couples has been interpreted as an attack against "traditional" marriage. Before I go on I should disclose that I have personally officiated at a marriage between two people of the same gender. I should also disclose that my record, and my family's, regrading "traditional" marriage has been mixed. While I'm extremely happy in my current marriage, my first marriage ended in divorce. Three out of my four siblings have either been divorced before their current marriage, or their spouses have. One out of three of my children/step-children who have been married is now divorced. Heterosexual unions have had a mixed track record in my family.

I guess the question to ask is what negative effect on society will accrue if gay people are allowed to marry? (each other - they can already participate in sham marriages to members of the opposite sex) One objection that I heard on NPR the other day addressed the issue as one of freedom - not for the gay couples, but for those who are against homosexuality. When the New York legislature legalized gay marriage last year, the law contained a provision that no clergy would be forced to perform a gay marriage if they opposed it. I don't know how they operate in the Empire State, but in all four of the states in which I have officiated at wedding ceremonies, no one required or forced me to participate. In fact, I regularly perform weddings where a denominational minister has declined to perform a wedding due to religious beliefs or church guidelines. The other issue was where owners of bed & breakfast inns did not want to have a gay couple cohabiting under their roof. I sympathized with this until I thought of a time when mixed-race couples were frowned upon and landlords and innkeepers desired the right to refuse service to them. Om further thought, I'm not so understanding of others' bigotry.

While I suspect that President Obama's avowed support of gay marriage (while averring that it is a states' issue) was politically motivated to secure moderate and left-leaning independents, I applaud his stance and hope to live to see the day when any couple can benefit from legal recognition of their union, no matter what their gender.

Motivation and Rewards: What's Important?

What motivates people do do what they do? In particular, what rewards and punishments move people along the paths that others are motivating them along? One of the things that I have observed in life, noticed in myself and picked up reading various sources is that what the potential motivator thinks is motivation often is no motivation at all to the motivatee. A big part of the disconnect is the inability, or perhaps unwillingness, of some people to trade something unpleasant, or at least unwanted, in the present, for something desired in the future. For example, you want to motivate your child to eat his vegetables (specifically mashed potatoes for a real-life example) which he does not want to eat. You tell him that he will receive no dessert if he does not eat his potatoes, but he still will not eat the potatoes and is then surprised when the dessert is withheld. Other examples include high school students who devote more time and energy to socializing of various sorts than to getting good grades - not seeing that forgoing some fun in the present will result in getting into a good college later, further resulting in higher income potential. These people, like the child who doesn't get his dessert, is likewise surprised when she cannot find a job that pays enough to maintain the lifestyle to which she would like to become accustomed.

Another motivational disconnect involves people who know very well what the consequences of certain behaviors are, but make an eyes-wide-open decision that the rewards do not compensate for what is being given up. An illustration of people like this might be found in a company that does random drug testing. For a tenured manager or trained professional who has achieved a comfortable income and a high level of prestige and authority, the benefits of an occasional joint on a Friday night weighs in far less than the prospect of losing a lucrative position. Unless there are addiction issues, most people would choose, even if reluctantly, to forgo the use of marijuana in order to keep their job. But what if the job is a low-paying entry-level position? Might the pleasure of a relaxing puff or two outweigh a poor-paying job, especially when other, equally poor-paying jobs can be found fairly easily?  For those in this category, it's similar to a gamble, they're rolling the dice, continuing to use pot, hoping not to get caught, but willing to pay the price if they do.

One thing that the ambitious among us often do not realize is that climbing the corporate ladder, amassing wealth and titles doesn't motivate everyone. Several years ago I worked with a woman who had a fairly responsible position and did her job very well, but had managed over the years to negotiate a very good deal for herself: no nights, no weekends, and only 30 hours per week. When a new corporate supervisor insisted that all managers in equivalent positions not only work some weekend days, but also put in 40 hours and work later in the day. Several managers, wanting to keep their title and income, made the change, but this particular manager valued her ability to be home in the afternoons and to have her weekends with her husband than the "benefits" of the job, so she stepped down and accepted a "lesser" position. More often than not, more money, more prestigious titles and expanded responsibility and authority are not what everybody wants. Giving up what one loves in exchange for a promotion doesn't appeal to all workers.

While it would behoove managers and company owners to realize that money and titles will not motivate everyone, the flip side is that if you take freedom to smoke weed, or the ability to travel, or a flexible schedule in exchange for a raise and promotion, you can't complain that you didn't get that raise and promotion!

Opinions

Something I've noticed about opinions and the manner in which they are expressed is that most people interpret disagreement as a personal attack. This is partly expressed as a stubborn unwillingness to discuss one's opinions after they are stated, illustrated by a version of "I don't want to discuss it, that just what I believe". Related to this, there is a proverb that states that there are two things that one shouldn't discuss: religion and politics. Why is that? Probably because most people either haven't really thought through why they hold their religious or political views or else they haven't seriously questioned the underlying assumptions behind those beliefs. While I'm as likely as anyone else to hold irrational, illogical and just-plain-stupid beliefs, I make an attempt to consider the other guy's opinion and, when necessary, learn from it and modify my own stance. I'm also likely, when somebody says that they disagree with me, or that I'm wrong, to ask that person why, to explain why they think that my position is incorrect. Now I will get a little miffed if the way that disagreement is expressed is with a statement in the vein of "that's stupid" or "that doesn't make any sense". The first is a judgement without any stated basis and the second is just a poorly worded admission of lack of understanding. I'm all for politeness when it comes to disagreement.

Maybe the new technology of social media has made the sensitivity to disagreement more prevalent. After all, blogs and "places" like Facebook have made it easier to make anonymous pronouncements with little danger that someone you offend is close enough to beat you up! But think about the difference between people interacting remotely through their computers in cyberspace and those same people sitting around a table sharing some beers or coffee. Let's say Jack, out of nowhere, proclaims: "Obama is a gay socialist Kenyan Muslim who wants to set up death panels to kill our old people". His buddy Skip, a devoted Democrat, is probably not going to ignore this, but respond with some kind of rebuttal, or at least roll his eyes and tell Jack to shut up. In contrast, written statements like this generally just attract posts agreeing with the initial statement; opposing views are deleted.

That's my view anyway. Feel free to disagree!

Dogma vs. Being Nice

A large chunk of the world's population (I wouldn't want to estimate the exact number) believes that their fellow humans should be viewed and judged, not by the way they act, or even the words that come out of their mouths, but by their opinion of the nature of spiritual beings and their interpretation of books purportedly about these spiritual beings. Now to be fair, a lot of these people, with the circular reasoning that only true hardcore dogma can inspire, equate good behavior with evidence of correct belief, but many others look strictly at dogma. I think that I can speak from a position of authority; I was one of those people for a several decades.

In the Christian sub-group that I was a part of, 'right believing' was a huge part of the doctrines that we adhered to. In fact, one of the most important (to us) indications of whether we were true Christians or not was belief in two positions that were antithetical to mainstream Christian belief: that Jesus Christ was not God, or an aspect or "person" of the godhead, but a mere man and that the dead did not go to heaven, hell, purgatory or some other "afterlife", but were truly dead, inanimate and unconscious until a future resurrection. Of course, most mainstream Christians looked at us, as well as other Christians who believed similar things, as heretics, or not "true" Christians. Both sides had quotes from their "ultimate source of truth", the bible, to back up their positions, and both were equally adamant of their correctness. I was pretty arrogant about my own claim to the spiritual high ground, as were those who held the opposing view.

While my own intransigence about salvation was merely annoying to those around me, similar thinking in other arenas has higher stakes. In the Republican presidential primaries, Mitt Romney's religion is something that many people consider as relevant, even though the other candidates for the most part are wisely steering clear of it. As far as how Romney acts - his family values, conservative habits, and just in general how he lives his life, he is the poster boy for how social conservatives say folks should live. Yet...yet...yet...since his beliefs about the nature of Jesus Christ, creation and countless other little details differ from mainstream Christianity, he is viewed as "not a true Christian" and therefore suspect. It doesn't seem to matter how he lives and how he treats others, he doesn't believe the same, so he's one of them. I don't have to wonder at the firestorm that will erupt the first time somebody really different, like a Hindu or a Buddhist, or somebody scary, like a Wiccan or another pagan...or even an atheist steps up on the public soapbox. (For some reasons Jews get a pass in the intolerance sweepstakes; they are looked as "other", but don't really bring out the worst in people - maybe because the hard cases think of them as the chosen people, or something)

Of course, political idiocy is nothing next to jihad, and since the crusades of the Middle Ages, the militant Muslims take the prize for most intolerant group. I have heard more than a few Americans justify their own religious bigotry by invoking the excesses of the horrors of the sectarian violence of Iraq, Palestine or Pakistan or even the institutionalized prejudice in places like Saudi Arabia. But this isn't Americastan; this is the United States - and despite what some think, we don't have an official religion.

So here's my opinion: make your judgments about how individuals behave, not according to what group they belong to. Not that all stereotypes are 100% wrong, sometimes there is some truth in there somewhere, but they are at best generalizations, individuals make their own choices and that's who we interact with. How do people act when they don't have to be nice? How about when under pressure? Or after a few drinks? How do they behave when they think that no one is watching? That's a more realistic measure of a man or a woman than what god they talk with.

Future, past and sideways time

I've been watching Eli Stone on Netflix lately, and it got me thinking about some things. For those who don't know, the series was about a lawyer who, after getting a brain aneurysm that may kill him, begins to see visions. Not dreams, not inklings, but 3-D, full sensory surround-sound visions. Sometimes the vision takes him to the past, where formerly unknown things about his family (notably his father, who had similar visions) are clarified. Sometimes they're about the future, letting him know about events like earthquakes or plane crashes that are going to occur, and other times the visions are metaphorical, that when interpreted set him on a path that allows him to help others.

I found the show's depiction of the character and his "gift" to be very sad.

Despite his intermittent peak at the future which allows him help people, including saving lives, it takes a tremendous toll on him, his reputation and his relationships. And why wouldn't it? Who among us, even the ostensibly religious, really steps out on a limb and acts upon the perceived supernatural? Those who do are more often than not derided as crazy, deluded, brainwashed. Maybe they are; it seems like the ones we hear about are listening to voices that tell them to kill people.

What would the world be like if we all had the ability to see the future as clearly as we could see what was before our physical eyes? I imagine it would depend on whether the future was immutable or not. If a glimpse at next week was what absolutely was going to happen, then the only benefit that we would derive would be a secret knowledge of the joy or tragedy to come. We couldn't change our investment strategy because it had already been pre-determined, we couldn't take a different route to work to avoid that fatal car crash because in a sense, we had already been killed in it. We would have sure knowledge that we were merely cogs in a great wheel.

On the other hand, what if we could see possibilities or probabilities? Let's say you received a vision that a plane was going to crash, no one listens to you, so the plane takes off and lands safely? Did your vision fail you? Or did the airline's mechanic receive a similar vision and fix the problem that would have caused the crash? How would you know? Would you stop believing in the accuracy of your visions? Assume you had misinterpreted it? Begin drinking heavily?

An additional thing to consider is the sometimes vast number of variables that contribute to the manifestation of any single event. How many individual decisions in how many combinations determine seemingly simple situations? What looks like a 'yes or no' proposition, or 'either-or', is affected by decisions that others made minutes, days or even years before. And what of unintended consequences? Actions that you take may cause others to rethink the moves that they would have made if you had made a different decision.

Complicated, huh?