Transgender Bigotry

Let me start off by saying that during some periods of my life I have been a bigot. I was born in 1958 and the mainstream culture during my formative years was very much bigoted against...well anyone who wasn't part of the dominant demographic. For a long time I was part of a religious group that made homophobia their central emphasis. I wasn't shy about speaking up about it. I'm sure that there are family members who remember my foolish words and still hold it against me. Although there were also family members who held the same prejudices, but weren't as vocal about it. Cultural values and predominant attitudes undoubtedly shape one's attitudes, but we are not bound by groupthink, we all have the ability to change our minds. 

Many people who are prejudiced against another group of people often change their minds when they come in close contact with a member of that group. A homophobic parent who finds out that his beloved child is gay; the popular coworker who you find out is not the gender you thought she was; the guy on your sports team who is a member of a previously reviled racial or religious group. Of course not everyone acts the same. Some people double down on their bigotry - disowning children or refusing to associate with those who have been labeled as "other"; other people decide that their friend or coworker is "one of the 'good' ones", or proclaim that they love their child "despite" that characteristic that they hate. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" comes up in conversation. 

But should it take close association with another person to conclude that they are in fact a person? 

There's a a lot of different varieties of bigotry in the world, but the kind that lately seems the most virulent is against transgender people. And like every other form of bigotry, the bigots attempt to justify their bigotry. The favorite justification, just like excuses for racism, is the Bible, although cherry-picking science seems to have become popular. But the heart of opposition to transgender people's right to be transgender isn't God or science, it's hatred of the "other", with religion and biology a rationale to cover it up. 

I don't think that someone who objects to a trans woman or girl competing in woman's sports is necessarily a transphobe. There's a reason that men and women compete separately in sports - mainly due to the fact that the average woman is not as strong or fast as the average man. An objection to trans women competing against cis women is that someone who transitions after a certain point is essentially competing with a male body, with all the associated advantages. Although no one (or few) object to the advantages that money brings. In most sports the child of financially well-off parents has an almost unmeasurable advantage over someone from a family that struggles to pay the bills. Irreversible gender-altering surgery for minors is another subject that should not be off limits to discuss. The number of these surgeries, however, is statistically small, and mostly takes place with the support of parents and medical professionals, including mental health professionals. While I'm on the fence about these surgeries, I also don't want the government making those decisions.  Anti-transgender politicians claim to want to protect children, but are conspicuously silent when it comes to social programs that benefit children. 

One of the more visible battles involving anti-transgender actions is the crusade by Republican Representative Nancy Mace to ban transgender women from the public bathrooms in The Capitol. She is unambiguously targeting incoming Democratic Representative Sarah McBride, who is a transgender woman. Who does Mace think she's protecting? Other than the fact that Congressional offices have private bathrooms, I was under the impression that women's restroom toilets were all ensconced in enclosed stalls. There shouldn't be any danger of her espying McBride's genitals, or of McBride seeing Mace seated on one of the porcelain thrones. In all likelihood Sarah's presence wouldn't be noticed unless another woman's pre-loaded bigotry was on the scene. I have to wonder whether a trans man, who according to Mace's requirements, would be using the women's restroom, would cause more or less of a stir than McBride, especially if he was fully male presenting, including facial hair!

One statement you hear from anti-transgender bigots is the opinion that transgender people are some new phenomenon. Surprise! Trans men and trans women have always been here. What's changed is that they are tired of hiding in the shadows and hiding from the bigotry. People act like it's a terrible imposition to use a person's preferred pronouns. I worked with a trans man in the early 80's. No one at work had any issue referring to him with male pronouns, including the religious people. Same situation with a trans woman who worked in the bakery at one of the stores where I was a manager. 

What is considered appropriate gender expression in clothes, grooming, interests, or even what toys a child prefers is entirely cultural. There is nothing intrinsically male or female about hair length. Or makeup application. Or clothing choice. Someone who is identifying as transgender is simply making the choice about what cultural expressions they most strongly identify with. Most transgender people made the decision to physically/surgically transition as adults. Most transgender people aren't competing in sports. Most transgender people are minding their own business and living their lives and require no special treatment from society other than being allowed to live their lives as they choose to live them.

It's not special treatment, or special rights, or an "agenda" to want to be treated as a person with the same rights as everyone else.

Rings of Power

I'm a Tolkien geek. I'm so deep into Middle-Earth minutia that I can tell you the names of the horses of the Rohirrim that Legolas and Aragorn borrowed. I just finished Season 2 of The Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power - there's a lot that I liked and some things that I didn't. 

The following is written mostly for those who have watched the first two seasons, whether or not they were familiar with the source material.

One of things that I recognized early in Season 1 was that the timeline is off. Let me take a moment to give a broad out line of the Tolkien timeline, working somewhat backwards:

• Third Age: this is the time period in which the Lord of the Rings (LOTR) and The Hobbit take place. It lasted around 3,000 years. The main events of LOTR take place in the final 2 years of this period; the opening chapter around 17 years previous and The Hobbit around 60 years before that. 
• Second Age: this time period ends just as the Third Age begins. It lasted around 3,400 years. The events of Rings of Power (ROP) take place during this time period. 
• First Age: ends when the Second Age begins - different interpretations on how long it lasted. It's final 500 years consisted of a struggle by the Noldor, one of three main divisions of the Elves, to recover three magic gems stolen by Morgoth, the first Dark Lord. It ends when Eärendil, the son of a human father and Elven mother, sails to Valinor, the home of the Valar (pantheon of gods) to ask for their intervention. The Valar fight the "War of Wrath" defeating Morgoth. 

Second Age outline:

• Begins as Middle-Earth recovers from "The War of Wrath" 
• The Valar allow the Noldor, who had rebelled against the Valar to fight against Morgoth, to return to return to Valinor, the Undying Lands. 
• The Valar give the Men who fought against Morgoth the island of Númenor, halfway between Middle-Earth and the Undying lands, which becomes the pinnacle of human civilization
• Other than a few Elven enclaves, the Men of Middle-Earth were effectively abandoned
• Sauron, Morgoth's chief lieutenant, survived the War of Wrath and declined the opportunity to be rehabilitated, building a power base among Orcs and otherwise leaderless Men. 

In Tolkien's books, Galadriel had four brothers, various cousins and uncles, all who were killed in the war against Morgoth. She and Gil-Galad are the only surviving members of the ruling family of the Noldor. They, along with many other Elves choose to remain in Middle-Earth

Gil-Galad, High King of the Elves along with the King of Númenor start to suspect that Sauron survived and was building his power base around 750 of the Second Age (SA 750) . As Annatar, he approaches Celebrimbor around year SA 1200, but the first 16 rings of power are not completed until 300 years have passed. Another 90 years elapse before Celebrimbor forges the 3 Elven rings. In ROP this seems to take place over several months. In ROP Pharazôn’s usurpation of the kingship of Númenor takes place contemporaneously with the creation of the rings, when in the books, Pharazôn, Elendil, Miriel, Isildur etc. all live during the final 3 centuries of the Second Age - 1700 years later! Regarding the Dwarves, the release of the imprisoned Balrog doesn't happen until 1980 of the Third Age (TA 1980) under Durin VI. Obviously you have to modify and compress the timeline in order to tell the story, since important events are separated by centuries, or even millennia. 

Overall though, I liked how the story progressed and portrayed the spirit of the Tolkien canon even though it changed up many of the details. Characters like Arondir and Theo are additions that fill in the gaps, obviously there must have been Elves who weren't kings and queens and Men who weren't great warriors. Adar, however was a major character in the first two seasons who moves the story along in significant ways, despite there being no mention of him in the books. He does present a way to insert an origin story for Orcs into the series in a believable, if not canonical, way. 

The crafting of the rings themselves was presented backwards from how they were forged in the books. Tolkien wrote that sixteen rings of power were made with Annatar/Sauron's help first, then later the three were created by Celebrimbor alone, that eventually went to the Elves. Sauron, after forging the One master ring, attacks Eregion and takes the sixteen and distributes them to Dwarves and Men. (No Adar, and the destruction of Eregion is after the One Ring is made) 

What made the rings magical was presented differently. Tolkien is vague when it comes to how magic works in Middle-Earth. It's fuzzily presented as something like an extra "something" in the creative process that Elves bring to the table. ("Angelic" spirits like Sauron and Gandalf too). The mechanics of how the rings influence or enslave people, and how the One Ring controls them, is never fully explored in Tolkien's works. The Seven and the Nine are not described as different in themselves, but have different effects based on who is wearing them. The Dwarves' rings effect them differently than Men's rings because Men and Dwarves are different, not because the rings are. Mithril in the books has no magical qualities and is simply the perfect metal.

ROP presents mithril as having a miraculous power to "preserve". It magically prevents the "fading" of the Elves so that they don't have to leave Middle-Earth for the Undying Lands of the Valar. This is why in ROP mithril is a critical ingredient in the rings. The Three, the Seven, and the Nine are all shown as being intrinsically different in their composition in order to explain the different effects, with the Nine Rings for Men even containing some of Sauron's blood. Initially I thought making mithril magical was pretty dumb, but to make the story coherent to television viewers, especially those unfamiliar with the source material,  there needed to be some kind of explanation to why they worked, and why they were different from each other. In the books the Three do have a power of preservation, and we see that in how Lothlorien and Rivendell are like the lands that time forgot, but it's not due to the inclusion of mithril, but an unspecified magical component. 

I thought that the portrayal of Sauron as a gaslighting, manipulating, deceiver, who nonetheless appeared as the charming Annatar, was brilliant. He seduced Celebrimbor, the people of Eregion, and eventually even the Orcs. But he seamlessly employed betrayal and cruelty when he thought it justified his goals. Celebrimbor's guards killing each other with just his thought showed his power was more than just talk. It's not evident in LOTR, but in one of Tolkien's letters he describes Sauron's motivations as a desire for order that was corrupted into a belief that he alone could bring that order and that the ends justified the means. 

The Númenor arc was disappointing. There is no rationale given for the political intrigue other than...political intrigue. There is little reference to what Númenor was, how and why it was established, or the reason for the antipathy towards Elves: generations of building jealousy of Elves' immortality and the fear of death. The Kings of Númenor (Westernesse) are all descended from Elros, Elrond's twin brother. (After their father Eärendil successfully sought the help of the Valar at the end of the First Age, the half-Elven were given a choice to live as Men or as Elves. Elros chose mortality as a king of Men, Elrond chose to live as an Elf.) The power struggle in Westernesse might as well be any succession crisis in late Middle Ages Europe the way it's scripted. And let's not forget that ridiculous trial by sea monster that supposedly vindicated Miriel and Elendil, but was apparently forgotten by the next episode. The added characters - Elendil's daughter and Pharazôn’s slimy son add nothing to the story.

And as happy as I was to see Tom Bombadil, did we really need to wait so long to find out that the Stranger was Gandalf? We followed him for two whole seasons and he didn't do anything. I guess all of Season 3 we'll be treated to hints on who the so-called Dark Wizard is. Not Radagast, that's for sure. He came right out and said that he was one of the five Istari, i.e. Wizards, so he could be Saruman, or he could be one of the Blue Wizards that we know very little of. Speaking of the Stranger, who we now know is Gandalf, the Harfoot (and now Stoor) episodes I could have done without, but they are trying to cram in as many origin stories as they can. 

I do enjoy the regular throwaway lines that Tolkien fans will get, but that those unfamiliar with the source materials will miss: the chants of Baruk Khazâd in Khazâd-Dum; the Dark Wizard mentioning Manwë; Elendil (finally) mentioning that he has a son named Anarion; references to Fëanor and the Silmarils; mentions of Tuor and Beren; Disa's mention of the Dimrill Dale and Zirakzigal (and Disa's name is similar to Dis, sister to Thorin and the only named female Dwarf in all of Tolkien's writings); the Doors of Durin crafted by Narvi & Celebrimbor; Pharazôn lamenting not being able to see Eressëa in the distance; the Palantir; Miriel giving Elendil Narsil, the sword that ultimately is used to cut the One Ring from Sauron's hand and is reforged as Aragorn's sword Anduril; the Stoors reference to a mythical home as Sūzat (the word that is translated "The Shire" in the appendices); Adar's mention of Melian...and some I may have missed...geek paradise!

I liked Season 2 much more than Season 1, and the ending was at the same time catastrophic and hopeful. The Elves, while defeated in battle, find refuge in what is surely the future site of Rivendell; the Stoors, accompanied by the two Harfoots are one step closer to founding The Shire (although that timeline will have to be off as well, since The Shire was founded in 1401 of the Third Age...and we still need to meet the Fallohides! 

Your Favorite Band Sucks

Taste in music is subjective. Of course we all believe that the music that we like is good music and what we don't like is bad, it comes down to a matter of opinion. For most people, the music which they listened to in their high school years tends to define their musical tastes. Every generation thinks that their music is great while what came after is crap. Even within that window, the musical tastes of those around you influenced what you listened to. Kids in the same high school would be listening to different bands depending on what clique they were part of.  Attempts by others to introduce most people to different artists is usually ignored. Loyalty to specific bands often transcends enjoyment of the genre. 

A phenomenon that I have observed many times: two people are having a discussion about music. Person "A" mentions a couple of bands that they like. Person "B" recommends a band that they feel is similar to Person "B"'s tastes. Person "A" nods politely and never investigates Person "B"'s recommendation. I see this a lot with intergenerational musical conversations. Younger generation person forms an opinion about the older generation's music, sight unseen (or maybe it's hearing unheard?) even though if the exact same music came from a younger artist they'd love it. It goes the other way too - Boomers or Gen X who are convinced that anything that came after their generation's music is garbage - by definition! I'm convinced that this is true of every generation and will continue to be true. I have a vivid memory of my grandmother griping about my father's "crazy music" that he listened to as a teenager (it was Dixieland Jazz) and of course my own dad expressing his negative opinions about what I listened to. 

I consider myself lucky to have been exposed to a variety of musical styles over the years. Until my junior year of high school I mostly listened to Top 40 AM radio, but then I started hanging around with a group of guys that included some garage band musicians. Black Sabbath, Yes, Rush, Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, ELP are bands I started listening to then and still enjoy. I worked with a guy who was into Southern rock and started listening to The Allman Brothers, and The Outlaws. At another job I worked with a guitarist in a jazz fusion band who introduced me to Weather Report, Return to Forever and Mahavishnu Orchestra. When I moved to Lincoln I stumbled across a jazz fusion show on KZUM radio one morning while trimming lettuce and became familiar with other forms of jazz, as well as blues and folk music. I was a deejay/programmer throughout the late 80's and early 90's and played jazz fusion, blues and even surf guitar on various shows that I hosted. Streaming services, while arguably unfair to musicians, offer a window into a wide panorama of musical styles. I've found many "favorite" artists just by listening to a random playlist.

Does this mean I'm immune to the tribalism inherent in most people's musical tastes? No, I'm as bad as anyone else. There are genres I don't seek out - mainstream country, most hip-hop, show tunes, Yoko Ono. I'm a bit of a musical snob in that I enjoy listening to those bands that "no one has ever heard of", and shy away from the popular, arena-filling bands of any genre. I love the Blues, but don't seek out the bluesmen who sound like every other bluesman. I still like the hard rock of the 70's, but can't see myself going to see one of the old guard bands that has no connection to the band that I listened to in my youth other than the name. 

Fortunately there's enough music out there for everyone, and enough variety in styles. 

Even if your favorite bands sucks.

Sports

Despite having removed "being a sports fan" from the lists of things that describe me, I have absolutely no problem with people who are sports fans. Even the "rabid" ones, but I just don't get it any more. (By the way, if you see me wearing my NY Mets cap - I know absolutely nothing about the current version of the team and only wear it as a sign that I am a New Yorker)

There's a lot of things that perplex me about sports fandom. I'll start with New York fandom, since a lot of people in my adopted state of Nebraska think that the fact that I'm not from here explains my disinterest in the local college sports teams, especially the football team.

New York Football Teams: in my view, there's only one New York NFL team, and that's the Buffalo Bills. Both the "New York" Giants and "New York" Jets play their home games in New Jersey, and have for decades. Yet New York football fans happily refer to both teams as New York teams. They're not only out in the suburbs of their eponymous city, as many sports teams are, but in a whole 'nother STATE! It's true that both teams started their existence in New York City, but the Giants have been a New Jersey team since 1976 and the Jets followed soon thereafter. 

Sports vs. Education: I fully understand that professional sports teams, and even popular college teams are good for business. It makes a certain kind of sense for donors to pour their discretionary funds into new stadiums or even for cities to offer big tax breaks rather than funding its educational institutions. Sorts fans spend money. But high school sports? I'm not criticizing the existence of high school sports, but the priority that is often placed on them. When my step-daughter was in high school she participated in several sports. Coaches thought nothing of requiring players to devote many hours to practice or to observing other teams when homework got neglected. Out of town games kept them up late on "school nights". The track team regularly pulled team members out of class to go to most-of-the-day meets. Class was sometimes cancelled to facilitate a tournament. 

The Two Sides of Criticism: Sports fans love to criticize every move a coach makes, but at the same time will get nasty if criticism comes from the wrong quarter. The fans of a team that isn't doing so well will spend hours debating the relative merits of their team's game day strategy.  They call for the coach to be fired over losses. They wait in the queue to comment on sports radio talk shows. But some fans will try to shut down criticism with the position that unless you're actually a current or former coach or player you have no grounds to criticize, because you can't do any of it yourself, so you have no grounds to point fingers. (My position is that if you have a high-profile job that depends on thousands of people being excited about your work, and you accept the adulation when you're doing well, accepting the criticism is part of the job) College sports isn't much better, although more of the anger is directed at the coaching staff since players, being students, get rotated out every few years. Some fans will defect complaints about a team's losses by pointing out that "they're just kids", while having no problem putting those same "kids" on a pedestal and subjecting them to hero worship when the team is winning. 

"It's OUR Team - Why Aren't You a Fan?": I saw this as a transplant from the East Coast to Nebraska. Even when I was a sports fan, football never interested me, so I was indifferent to the local college team. This apparently wasn't good enough. Obnoxious local fans intimated that there was something wrong with me for not enthusiastically rooting for the home team. This introduced me to a phenomenon that I'm sure exists wherever there are sports teams - the locals expect new arrivals to jettison their loyalties to their former city's teams and taking on the local boys, while locals, if they move away, fully expect to retain their team loyalties. One of those mysteries. 

The Glory Days: In any sports league, division or conference there tend to be "dynasties". One team, for various reasons, dominates and wins a few championships. These sports dynasties don't last forever though. For various reasons the top dogs get replaced by the new dogs. This leads to two differing yet related behaviors. Fans of teams who were regularly beaten by championship winners experience a sense of schadenfreude when their former tormenters aren't so good any more. While beating them while they were on top might have been an accomplishment worth bragging about, beating them years after their winning days have faded away isn't much to brag about. The other side of this is the fans of the former golden boys haven't forgotten those glory days. When they are being mocked by their opponents for being thrashed in a blowout, their retort is to brag about championships that took place before the current players were born. My own local college team is in this category. Teams that easily beat them today are giddy with celebratory excitement that they beat a struggling team with a losing record, while the loser's fans console themselves that at least they're has-beens and not never-beens despite being losers in the present. 

Loyalty Doesn't Go Both Ways: Once upon a time a player on a professional team might spend a majority of his career with one team. As a fan, it was easy to have your favorite players - you might even switch teams if the team had the audacity to trade your favorite. (My dad was a New York Rangers hockey fan. In his youth they traded his guy to the Montreal Canadiens and he became a lifelong Montreal fan) These days players are compensated better and have more opportunities to get the best deal for themselves by negotiating with different teams. They are, rightly so, more concerned with their own future and lack a loyalty and connection to the cities where they play. Many don't even live in their team's cities in the off-season. So, have fun cheering on your team, but they don't really care about you or your city.

Everyone has something that entertains them. For many that's sports - not me though! 

Science and Religion: Do They Have Objective Existence?

Not too long ago I read a Facebook post that claimed that Religion did not exist without people to believe it, but that with Science, it didn't matter whether people believed it or not. I ended up getting into an augment with a guy who attempted to "prove" (his version of) religion by repeated utilization of strawmen, goalpost moving and appeal to authority among other logical fallacies. 

There were other, more logical arguments from others, but the way that the meme was worded left a lot of room for imprecision. For example, what was meant by "religion", or for that matter "science"? There are a lot of things about religion that you have to "take on faith", i.e., there is no way to prove or disprove them. Science, on the other hand, is all about proving things, even though there's a great number of things that cannot be proven (yet), but scientists have put forth their best estimate, based on available observations. Yet "science" is not a thing, it's not a belief, it's a process for determining how things are. The thing about science is that its conclusions change in the face of new evidence. While it does take people, i.e. scientists, to work out the truth, the whole goal is to discover how things are, based ultimately on observations. The observations lead to predictions, which, if they turn out to be correct, lead to a theory of the way things are. Can a scientist draw the wrong conclusions from the evidence? Do scientists disagree among themselves as to what the underlying truth is? Yes and yes. But that underlying truth is true is what it is no matter who believes it. 

Religion, in all it's myriad forms, is also in some way an attempt to explain why things are the way they are. Unlike science, religion usually doesn't change its doctrines in the light of new evidence, but doubles down on its original explanations and attempts to make the observable facts fit the preconceived doctrine. While a true believer may insist that the existence of their god is an objective fact, in reality there is no objective test to verify the existence of any god. This would be fine if believers would be content to act on their faith, to live according to the ethical tenets allegedly handed down by their god, privately. However, many religious people insist on requiring everyone to adhere to their interpretation of their religion, and making religious texts the law of the land. Such people set out to prove scientifically that their religion is true, or at least indicate how scientific theories are not inconsistent with their religion. 

Before I go on, let me make clear that I have no problem with people basing their lives on their religion. There's a lot of good in most "holy" books, and great ethical and moral guidelines and examples of how to live a good life. I have a problem when they try to force their beliefs on the rest of us, or suggest that those who disbelieve are stupid for not believing. I look askance at those who act ethically only because a god allegedly told them to act ethically, or due to fear of divine wrath, rather than because it's the right thing to do. 

During my discussion with the aforementioned religious guy on Facebook, I was treated to all manner of attempted debunking of my points as well as attempts to "prove scientifically" that the Bible, and therefore Christianity, is true. I had made a statement that if all the adherents of a religion died and all their literature disappeared, then that religion would cease to exist. That seems pretty straightforward, but he repeatedly challenged me to prove my point, which he insisted was unscientific and without evidence. Of course it's without evidence! It hasn't happened! It's a hypothetical situation that's self-explanatory. It's axiomatic: if there's no one left who believes in a religion's tenets, and all evidence of their existence is gone, in what sense would that religion still exist? And that's the difference between science and religion in the context of objective existence: what we know about the world due to science is still true, and could still be proved to be true, if every scientist and everything written about their discoveries were to disappear from the face of the earth. It might take a while for anyone to figure it out again, but it would not be any less true. Religious belief does not exist independently of the believers. Believers might believe that it does, but they can't prove it. 

Many believers, unsatisfied with living a moral life according to the teachings of the faith's profits, want to find physical proof that their holy books are factual accounts. (It's part of their mission to impose their "truth" on the rest of us) They have gone about this in a variety of ways.

One method is by "logical" argument. My discussion opponent last week brought up Aquinas. Aquinas'  first proof stated that since we can see things changing all around us, and that each change was initiated by something else, and that chain of causation can't be infinitely long, there must be something that causes change without changing itself. According to Aquinas, this everyone understands to be God. His second proof is similar. In this proof, he observes that everything has a cause, and, like the first proof, he states that the chain of causation cannot be infinitely long. He concludes that there must be a "first cause" that was not caused by anything else. Again, like the first proof, he assumes that everyone understands that this is God. What is generally not understood about Aquinas’ “proofs” are not only not proofs, but he did not intend them to be viewed as such. Aquinas believed not only that the existence and attributes of God were not self evident, but were beyond mankind’s ability to understand. They were, on the other hand, a way to explain God “in layman’s terms”, possibly as much to himself as to anyone else. Think of a much simpler explanation (which is probably apocryphal) - St.  Patrick’s explanation of The Trinity by comparing it to a three leaf clover. The analogy didn’t prove anything, but assisted in understanding. Most attempts at “logical” proofs for God are like this: they’re less evidence-based and more like a way for a believer to convince himself, and is unlikely to convince a skeptic. Check out this link for a list of various "proofs" for God's existence. A further weakness in any "proof" is that they generally "prove" the existence of a generic creator entity. Even assuming that there must be a creator to have a creation, a first cause in order to have any effects, there is nothing to require that the creator is specifically your version. 

Those who hold to the belief that something must have created everything, or at least set in motion, subscribe to the corollary that although everything else had to have a precursor, somehow God was exempt. That God did not need to be created, that he always existed. But once you postulate that there exists something (or someone) that always existed, what prevents there from being other somethings that always existed? There are strains of theoretical physics that theorize a universe that did not have a moment of creation. 

Proofs based on archeology have become pretty popular. They’re also incredibly feeble. No one is suggesting that none of the people and places mentioned in The Bible existed. It can be confirmed that there was a Roman official named Pontius Pilate around the beginning of the Common Era. There is an inscription on a monument dating around 900 B.C. referring to "The House of David". Some of the cities mentioned in the Old Testament have been dug up. But archeology minded believers will latch on to any discovery that confirms that a place or a person existed as if that confirms everything in The Bible. Never mind all the archeology that disproves parts of The Bible, or historical records that contradict the biblical ones. Those believers will insist are wrong. Why? Because they contradict The Bible. Even if every person in The Bible can be verified to have existed, that does not confirm that the supernatural events or entities therein are real. Anyone can write a book that is set in historically verified milieus. Back in my late teens I read James Michener's book, "Centennial" as well James Clavell's "Shogun". Both made use of real people, events and locations out of history. But all of the main characters in both books were fictional and the stories were made up as well. I can't claim that the family tree in "Centennial" is accurate just because there really is a state called Colorado or a tribe called the Cheyenne. Or that the adventures of Blackthorne actually happened just because Shoguns were a real thing in 16th century Japan. To cite a more ridiculous example: Spider-Man isn't real just because I happen to know from being there that Forest Hills, Queens is a real place. 

The difference between science and religion is that science isn't attempting to explain the world by spinning plausible (for a certain value of plausible) but unprovable stories. Science is about constructing a framework that helps us understand the nuts and bolts, the "what" and the "how". That framework is looking at the world and making predictions based on what can be seen and adjusting those predictions based on ongoing observations. Religion is based on the construction of a framework more on how we want things to be, rather than how they necessarily are. Religion at its best is about hope, it's about how to live peaceably in the society of others, how to treat others, how to be the best person that it's possible to be. It's about building a philosophy that enables us to do all those things. If it helps someone to believe that all that is the plan of some invisible and objectively undetectable entity in order to be a good person, then so it is. But the best of religion doesn't require a god, it only requires that one acts in a godly way. 

Was Jesus a Lobbyist?

The other morning I came to a realization - one of those realizations that made me wonder why I hadn't realized it before. It came amidst the many laws that state legislatures are passing that have purely religious thinking as their motivation. The governor of Nebraska even characterized opposition to the laws that he championed as "diabolical"  (in the literal sense as "devilish") and "Lucifer at it's finest". I have long criticized certain laws as nothing but religious opinion that shouldn't be applied to those who don't adhere that religion, but it's obvious that legislators aren't even trying to hide the religious nature of their legislation.  

Oh yeah, the realization.

Jesus never attempted to change the laws of Judea or Rome to match up with what he was preaching.

I'm of the opinion, influenced by the books of Dr. Bart Ehrman, that Jesus was a real, historical person. No, I don't believe that he worked miracles, or rose from the dead or ascended into "heaven", but that by reading the gospels without preconceptions, and applying principles that would be applied to any other historical figure, you can determine, with a reasonable degree of confidence, what the historical Jesus preached. He was what is called an apocalyptic prophet. That means that he was predicting that the end of the world was coming pretty damn soon. One strain of Jewish thought and belief at the time was that evil powers ran the show and that at some point God would intervene to set things right. This was not a predominant mindset throughout what Christians call the Old Testament, but was a way to explain a way the fact that the Jews, time and time again, were being defeated, enslaved and beat down. How to reconcile this with the triumphantist attitudes of the earlier books? Change the rules! Jesus, as portrayed in the gospels, was clearly within this apocalypticist tradition. 

Throughout the gospels Jesus is urging his followers to change their behavior, to modify their actions so that they might be worthy to be part of the soon-to-come Kingdom of God. There's a new administration coming to town and he's telling people what they need to do to be part of it. Individually. He's not trying to change society, he's not trying to remake the culture, because he doesn't think that there will be a society or a culture - God's going to tear it all down and build a new one. He's most definitely not lobbying to have laws changed, because the legal system will have been destroyed in the near future and replaced with a heavenly regime. Even the post-ascension preaching of the apostles is focused on individual repentance and not societal change. 

Eventually, when Christians gained control of the levers of power in the Roman Empire, and eventually the kingdoms of Europe, Christianity, or at least it's outward expression, was imposed on society, but I doubt a convincing argument can be made that the conversion by the sword, or the mass conversions because the king said so, are what Jesus had in mind. 

In today's United States, there are millions of Christians who strive to live their lives as they understand Jesus wants them to live, but there are also millions of Christians who support the forcible molding of society into the image of what they think Christianity is, or should be; and they have elected representatives to make it a reality. A significant number of Americans equate Christianity with patriotism and believe that it's the mission of government to turn us into a theocracy. 

Jesus would like a word.

Bad Customer Service

Like anyone who has worked in retail or food service I've encountered rude and demanding customers and rude and incompetent workers as a customer. Having worked in retail for so long I know what good customer service looks like. I'm not going to entertain any "both sides" comments - I know that there are both sides, but today I'm talking about the customer experience. 

At one time I taught introductory customer service classes for the company that I used to work for. I explicitly debunked the old "the customer is always right" saying. The customer is not always right. With the exception of those people who come in looking for trouble, or are just entitled jerks, most customers just want what from a company, be it restaurant, or retail store, or any kind of service company, is just what the company advertises that it is providing. In addition, as the ultimate provider of the company's revenue, to be treated with a minimum of respect. Even angry customers are usually angry for a reason and can be made not angry by reasonably addressing what they're angry about. 

This morning I stormed out of a local diner, angry at escalating rudeness, confusing my family members who were with me. As a customer, and in general just as a human being, there is just so much crap that I'm willing to tolerate. My wife and I arrived at the diner where we would be meeting other family members. There were many open tables, although both of the six seaters were taken. I inquired about pushing a couple of tables together and was told, after the hostess checked with an unseen person in the back area, that they couldn't do that. I was later told that doing so would be a fire hazard - an explanation about which I was skeptical, but I figured one of the two six seaters would be open soon enough, so I was content to wait. This was the first miss on the customer service scorecard, albeit a minor one. Our request to push a few tables together was not unreasonable and could have been accommodated. They just didn't want to. 

Soon after, we found out our group might be eight, and not six. Susie attempted to relay this information to the hostess, who shrugged off her additional information. We thought, rightly so, that this information was important, since they weren't going to push tables together, and there were no tables with more than six chairs. (Customer Service violation number two: ignoring the customer) As the additional members of our troupe arrived, a six seater opened up and we were led to it by a different employee. When I asked her how our eight people (it turned out actually to be seven) she said we would have to wait and reiterated the "rule" about not pushing tables together. This new employee, who appeared to be in her early twenties, clearly was uninterested in our dilemma, punctuating her lack of assistance with eye-rolling, shoulder shrugging and rudely asking "What do you want me to do?". There's transgression number three - acting like your customer is nothing but a nuisance. I still hadn't lost it. I still wanted to eat there, so I suggested that we take two booths that were near the door, to which she responded that she didn't care what we did. Then I announced that I was eating there and started to leave. 

The original hostess attempted (a day late and a dollar short) to salvage the situation, telling us we could wait even longer for a table "back there" (wherever that was). If "back there" was an option, why were we not offered it initially? To make matters worse, the younger employee began undercutting her older co-worker's peacemaking overture by repeatedly stating "they don't want to eat here". 

But the story keeps getting better. Plan B was to drive down the road to a fast food joint. We ordered our food at a kiosk, which came out fairly quickly. Most of it anyway. A few items, including one complete meal for one of the kids, was not there, but we were assured that "they were making it" and would be out soon. (One of these items were cookies, which I'm reasonably sure they didn't make there). After most of our first round of food was consumed, one of us went up to the counter to inquire about the rest of our order. Again, assured that "they were making it". This clerk was encouraged to go check in the back to see what was taking it so long. Nope, it wasn't still being made, it had been bagged up incorrectly and given to another customer! Yes, mistakes happen, but before you give a customer a stock answer, confirm that what you're saying is in fact the correct answer. No rudeness, just incompetence and probably lack of training. 

Despite it all, it was still a pleasant outing with out of town family.