The Introspective Geek

Aaah, you know what time it is. The Family Research Council (a homophobic organization in bed with the National Organization for Marriage and other fundamentalist dominionist Christian groups) had their head honcho post this piece of trash on CNN.com:

Apparently, Jesus was a free market supporter. Christ for Capitalism! WHEEE!!!

This is such a juicy piece of religion-twisting-for-propaganda. I've seen stuff like this in recent months - lots of folks pretending that Jesus was a pro-capitalism financial cheerleader. It's hilarious. Did you see that billboard? Yeah, that sort of shit.

See, just because I left the Jesus Fan Club years ago doesn't mean I don't remember all those years of Bible studies. I also happen to have a mother (Hi, Mom!) who was the odd combination of rational and religious. So... for being raised in the Jesus Fan Club, I had a very practical application of it. Science was reality. Religion is morality (sorta). But anyway...

This article twists one of the parables. Go on, read the article.

...

I said read it. Otherwise, how else will you know what I'm ranting about?

Read it? Good. So... here's what I want to say to the knucklehead who wrote this:

The parable of the King giving the minas to his servants wasn't about monetary profits. The parable was about growing the numbers of followers, making a spiritual investment, and also making the most of the gifts God gave to you such as your intelligence and compassion.

As far as the business of making money was concerned... wasn't Jesus the guy who threw the merchants out of the temple? Didn't he say (regarding money and taxes), "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's?" Didn't he say, "Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor?"

And... doesn't the Bible condemn usury? It does. Repeatedly. You see, we don't have a capitalist system. We have a corporatist system, and our entire financial structure is based on the lending of money at interest... a practice condemned in multiple places in the Bible. In fact, the Bible is significantly clearer on its stance against usury than "hot button" issues like gays and abortion. Go on... do a search for "Bible usury." Those two words will bring you plenty of references.

The Bible specifically condemns usury in regards to lending money to the poor. Good followers of God are supposed to lend money to those in need, but NOT at interest. NEVER at interest. Not to the poor, nor to family or friends. And if you charge interest to a wealthy person in a business transaction, the interest rate must not be excessive. Have you seen the interest rates on credit cards? THAT is usury, NOT free market as Jesus would have recognized it.

Of course, I'm not Christian. Wise man said, "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." Well, just because I'm not part of the Jesus fan club doesn't mean I can't read and comprehend. It doesn't stop me from holding your own behavior up against the religion YOU CLAIM and seeing whether or not you're full of shit. And having come from a Christian background and knowing your religion inside and out, I KNOW YOUR HYPOCRISY. It's an ugly, ugly thing you have going.

Someday, you're going to have to accept that the biggest reason (other than the Constitution) that we're not a Christian nation is because a nation that actually followed Christ wouldn't treat the poor, the sick, the hungry, the homeless, the outcasts, and strangers as we treat them. And as for OWS... yeah, Jesus would have been down in the Occupy Wall Street protests. Not just protesting along with them, but leading them through the lobbies of the huge corporate banks and throwing out the CEO's who are raking the poor people of the nation over the coals. Jesus would condemn the entire mortgage industry, the credit card companies, and all those making money through the exploits of usury and investment trading. Jesus would be a socialist.

Talk about an inconvenient truth.

The point is that we're dealing with people who have no qualms about manipulating and completely twisting the nation's dominant religion in order to sway public policy in the most insidious way. The point is that people listen to this shit. It's bad enough that people want to base public policy on ANY religion... but once there are no rules, and the religion can be bent to the whims of the people in power, completely gutting ANY positive message that the religion once had... we're in trouble.

So... in conclusion, I bring back this oldie-but-goody. Take it away, Stephen:

“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.”
― Stephen Colbert

CNN is featuring this article:

Are Whites Racially Oppressed?

First, please note that CNN is not actually saying that whites are/aren't oppressed.  They're saying that growing numbers of white people are viewing themselves as oppressed. 

And yeah, I've noticed that "help, help! I'm being oppressed" bullshit from a growing number of white people... PARTICULARLY the affluent, white, straight, Christian males.  (Oh dear, SO oppressed, aren't they?)  It's really disturbing to see that just because certain people aren't quite as far ahead as they used to be just on the basis of their race, they are deluded enough to think that their slightly reduced privilege is actually oppression. 

The article is a mish-mash of opinions and bleating from various people.  I'd laugh at this as a piece of satire, except I know these people are actually serious.

This... is kinda extremely awesome in so many ways.



The only sad thing is that I really don't like pink. Nasty little color. (Yes, I'm prejudiced against pink.) Can I fight H8 by wearing purple instead?

Honestly, I might wear pink for this.

Spread this video like the fucking plague.

As some of you know, the Boobquake on Monday was the inadvertent brainchild of a college student from Indiana who responded with delightful tongue-in-cheek humor to that Iranian cleric who said that promiscuous women cause earthquakes.  So the natural, scientific way to test that assertion was to dress provocatively and then check the earthquake frequency at the time of the experiment. 

Well, the RESULTS are in!  And as you can probably guess, these ladies' lovely cleavage did not shake the earth.  It might have shaken other wonderful things, but the tectonic response was neutral.  Besides, if that was the case, we would see massive earthquake activity on Mardi Gras, Cinqo de Mayo, Halloween, and Pride Days.  Who wants to bet that there's no correlation there, either?

Now, this cleric isn't alone in his assertions.  Religious nuts of all persuasions and creeds have been making claims like this for thousands of years.  That's nothing new.  In fact, back in 1998, Janis Walworth wrote an article about Pat Robertson's claims that gays were incurring God's wrath in the form of natural disasters: Do Gays Cause Hurricanes?  Read it.  It's a lovely bit of statistical satire that really proves its point.  It also proves that religious fundamentalists of all creeds tend to make crass, judgmental statements that have no basis in reality.  In the "highly amusing irony" category, you should also note that Pat Robertson made those comments in 1998. The first hurricane to make landfall in the United States in 1998, after Robertson's comments, was Hurricane Bonnie.  Bonnie landed in North Carolina  and caused a great deal of havoc and millions of dollars of damage to the Hampton Roads/VA Beach area of VA. And... VA Beach is the HQ of Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network.

So... in conclusion, wear what makes you comfortable!  Have a wet t-shirt contest!  Wear a bikini!  Wear a corset!  Wear fishnet stockings and stilettos!  Your attire will NOT cause an earthquake!  It may cause your parents to have a heart attack, but you will not cause the earth to crack open and swallow cities whole while fire and brimstone rain down upon the earth.   Likewise, modest attire will not prevent these things from happening either.  Sometimes... an earthquake is just an earthquake.

The Good: 
- Private health insurance can't deny you for a pre-existing condition under this bill.
- You can't be dropped from a policy because you get sick.
- If you have insurance, they can't "cap" your coverage and say "you've been sick enough now, so we're not paying any more."

The Bad:
- It's not REAL universal health care.  YES, I am "one of those" who fully wants this backwards country to switch to a single-payer system like Canada's system.  I think anything less is a travesty - humiliating and ludicrous.  Time to join the modern world, people.
- Because it's not real UHC, this will do nothing to help the over-complicated network of insurers and the grossly high overhead costs of the health care system.
- Private insurance still rules our health care system.  I'm sorry, but for-profit health "insurance" is a crime against humanity, as far as I'm concerned.
- Nothing to attenuate costs of malpractice insurance, which is putting even GOOD doctors out of business, even if they've never been sued for malpractice.

The Ugly:
- Fining people for not having health insurance.  WTF?!?  I'm sorry, but for the self-employed to have to afford policies on their own when they're BARELY making ends meet... this is going to bankrupt many individuals.  That's STUPID.


Want to chime in with your thoughts?  Go for it, but no flaming.  Civil discourse, please.  Actual facts, please.  Insight from those who live in countries with UHC are welcomed and encouraged to share their experiences.

From Political Pundit, and offshoot of icanhascheezburger.com:




I adore that woman.  She is my new hero.  I don't know her, I can't see her face, and I'll never meet her, but DAMN.  She is made of epic win.  An Iranian Rosa Parks.  Balls of steel indeed.

Whoever you are, don't back down.

Wow.

New Hampshire Senate approves same-sex marriage
From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

Let's see how this plays out.  Keep your fingers crossed, boys and girls.

Okay, so I saw the news wrap-up of Michelle Obama and Queen Elizabeth.  The Queen first put her hand on Michelle's back, and the First Lady reciprocated.  From the reports I saw, it wasn't standard protocol, but the Queen put her arm around Mrs. Obama's back first, and she seemed happy with Mrs. Obama, and the two ladies seemed to hit it off brilliantly.

However, as expected, there are a lot of people in the United States who are determined to hate the Obamas for any reason they can find.  So, I'm seeing stuff like this:

"i dont know i though it was funny... not only did mrs o grab the queen but she shook her hand with both hands... she probity should of spent more time getting to know the customs then she did... my mom said she showed no class..."
(Please ignore the bad spelling and grammar - this guy is a regular on the military.com forums, and actually thinks he's intelligent.  He's allegedly a veteran.  I think he's a moron.)

"Stop reading the tabloids and find some common brit on the street or in the pub. [The Obamas are] the butt of the weekly jokes this week."
(This one is convinced that the British citizens think Mrs. Obama's behavior and breaches of standard protocol were shameful, and that they're mocking her.)

So, my friendly neighbourhood Brits, what do you think of Michelle Obama's encounter with the Queen?

When it comes to religion, there are certain things upon which we can all agree.   We all agree that there's a God.  We all trust him.  No decent American taxpayer would be offended by a "non-sectarian" prayer.  And, of course, we all know that's why "in God we trust" and "one nation, under God" are in the Constitution.

And if you've been paying attention, you'll know that the first paragraph is COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

I just read a little article in the LA Times.  Take a look.  Then, think about it again.  This is all based on the notion that monotheistic, Judeo-Christian religious views are the only ones acceptable in this nation.  It's also based on the idea that atheists, polytheists, and other non-Judeo-Christian groups are not worthy of the same consideration.  You may think I'm taking it a bit far, but consider this: 

When your leaders are spending their public time - on your tax dollars - promoting prayer and "non-denominational" activities, are they actually doing their jobs?  Is it possible to fairly represent all religions in government without causing unconstititional offense to those whose religions differ in their absolutely basic, fundamental premises? 

No, and no.

Look at this article's discussion of the Bible verse suggested for use with the National Day of Prayer (a government-sanctioned event): 
But the Scripture verse the group recommended to the governor is neither an open nor a veiled endorsement of right-wing politics -- or of Christianity, for that matter. The verse, from Psalm 28, says: "The Lord is my strength and my shield; my heart trusted in Him, and I am helped." That passage is similar to the non- sectarian sentiments expressed in prayers offered before sessions of the U.S. Congress or the exclamation "God save the United States and this honorable court" with which the Supreme Court begins its sessions.
 

Does that seem offensive to you?  Well, if someone else wants to pray it on their own time, I wouldn't care either way, but when my elected officials are reciting it in the halls of Congress on MY time, then yes, I find it offensive.  I don't agree with the statement, nor the source.  The gender-association of God as a "man" is a concept I find offensive, so the use of the pronoun doesn't sit right with me.  I don't agree with that verse's use of the term "Lord."  More to the point, I find the attitude of the quote to be offensive - in my belief, we should not cling to deities as a shield and a source of help - deities manifest within and through the natural world, and WE are the ones responsible for our own fates within this world.  Anything less is offensive.  And then, naturally, the idea of relying on any god for shielding and strength would be considered ludicrous or offensive by an agnostic or atheist. 

What would the chance be that our government would EVER permit a Pagan to offer an opening prayer or benediction?  I mean, hell, there was ONE Hindu who offered a prayer, ONCE, in Congress last year, and his words were met with shouting from protesters and disrespect from our elected representatives... and having read the text of the Hindu's prayer, I'd say that was the closest thing to a true non-denominational prayer I'd ever heard from Washington DC.

So, why must this stuff be pushed into the public eye by our government officials?  That's the thing about Separation of Church and State:  It CAN'T be a wishy-washy sort of blurred line.  It's impossible to have it both ways.  Personally, I'd love to hear the Preamble to the Constitution recited before each session of Congress.  I'd love to hear the Declaration of Independence recited before important events.  I'd love for our elected officials to get down to business, instead of trying to placate their constitutents with the empty promise of "I prayed."  As the article later states:
"Pushed to its logical conclusion, such 1st Amendment fundamentalism would forbid presidents of the United States from invoking God in their speeches or participating in the National Prayer Breakfast,"
I couldn't agree more.

A prayer given in a "display" of faith seems to me to be empty and arrogant.  I see no sincerity in the prayers of Washington.  I see hypocrisy and vanity.  I see people putting on a display that exists in direct contradiction to their other oaths and actions.  I see a waste of time and effort.  I see people who pray to their God, and who invoke their God's name to denounce others and to push their version of morality on others, but who don't actually follow their God's alleged morality themselves.  Even if I were a Christian, I'd find their use (and yes, I mean USE) of God offensive.

Now, that's not to say that I don't believe in the power of prayer.  Truly sincere prayers, in my opinion, do have an effect.  They help to influence the state of mind of the person praying, and when you change the state of your mind, and when you focus your intentions, you can have a real impact on your reality.  I also believe in absolute religious freedom of free individuals in this country, and I would fight to the death to defend your right to practice your religion, insofar as you do not use your beliefs to bring harm to others.  I AM NOT DENOUNCING PRAYER.  I AM NOT DENOUNCING RELIGION.  I am denouncing the notion that government-sanctioned prayer belongs in the United States of America.  Until the day comes when people of every religion, and of no religion, are given equal time at the podium before Congress to offer a profession of belief or non-belief, then we are violating our Constitution.  And until Congress becomes SO efficient that it can get all of its work done, balance the budget, and have spare time left over, then I think our elected officials have more important things to do than to pass religious resolutions, endorse the National Day of Prayer, and bicker over prayer-time.

*** Feel free to debate and discuss this issue.  The rules are as follows:
1. Do not insult anyone's personal beliefs.
2. Do not come into this discussion with the assumption that your religion should take legal precedence.  (You can certainly believe that your religion is RIGHT, but we're talking about legaltiy, not faith.)
3. No cussing at people.  You can cuss (I do all the time), but not AT people.  (You should know the difference.)
4. Make sure that you know the Constitution before you allude to it.
5. If you don't live in the United States, your opinion is still valid to the discussion.  In fact, I'd love to hear your opinion.
6. You are always entitled to disagree with me, but please debate with logic.

Lovingly shared from angulique :



Pass it on!