Is Pat Robertson Crazy or Does He Just Play Dumb on TV?

I finally figured out why I'm so annoyed when Pat Robertson talks about Haiti's earthquake essentially being the Haitians' own fault, just as I was ticked over similar comments from Pat and his ilk about New York City after 9/11 and New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. I realized that they embarrass ME.

Pat's like that creepy uncle that you really don't want to invite to the next family wedding because everybody's still talking about what he did and said at Cousin Sally's nuptuals a couple years ago. Or he's that used car salesman with the gaudy sports jacket who tells you what a great deal he has for you, right after he's jimmied the odometer.

Someone asked me if I thought Pat was crazy. I think not; I believe these comments are deliberate attempts to provoke. Sometimes they're followed by what I called a man apology. You know, "I'm sorry if anyone was offended," with the implicit "but it's your own fault if you are."

But of course, since this is my blog, I need to address how does this all effect me. Well, my of my Christain friends have had the same experience as I do, trying to explain (they can't) or at least distance themselves from such hateful speech allegedly uttered in the name of Christian love. I'm reminded of the Bon Jovi song, "You Give Love A Bad Name." One of my Internet buddies opines: "Pat Robertson has done more to drive people away from Christianity than any other living person. Obviously HE has a pact with the devil." Don't know about the latter, but the former sounds about right.

So I hope people continue to contribute to the relief effort in Haiti. Curious about finding a charity you can trust? Check out this site.
***
As for Rush Limbaugh, who I cannot explain, Craig Ferguson said it best; the Red Cross is awaiting your check.
ROG

The Award-Winning...

Jaquandor was kind enough to bestow upon me a "Kreative Blogger" award of some sort.

I feel a certain obligation to pass these kinds of things along, based on the theory that, back in the olden days when I started blogging, some 4.7 years ago, it made the blogisphere - dare I say it? - FUN. Blogging should be fun, even if one's venting one's spleen to do so.

You're supposed to reveal seven things about yourself. Of course, the problem with that I'm almost out of stuff to "reveal" that 1) I didn't reveal before, 2) require more than a line or two, or 3) I'm not planning to reveal at this point, or quite possibly, ever. No guarantees that the list below might not have bumped into the first category:

1. I receive an irrational amount of pleasure when I delete one piece of spam in Gmail and it says I'll be deleting "the one conversation", or "both conversations" when I delete two, as opposed to those programs that will delete "all 1 conversations", or some such.

2. I once got a B in art in 7th grade. My parents were at a loss as to how I did so well. This explains almost everything you need to know about me and doing art.

3. I once almost flew with someone who was traveling on someone else's ticket. He got detained by airport security and the police for about seven hours until he showed his security clearance. This, BTW, was before 9/11.

4. I have no tattoos. I'm not opposed at this point, but 1) it would keep me from donating blood for a while and 2) my wife would hate it. Then there's the pain and permanence thing, but those are secondary.

5. At least twice, I took jobs because of affairs of the heart. Neither was worth it; the jobs weren't, that is, but the affairs of the heart were.

6. I tape sporting events then watch them later, going through lots of machinations (no news watching/reading or e-mail/Facebook/Twitter). Sometimes it works (Jets/Bengals, Eagles/Cowboys Saturday games I watched on Sunday; Packers/Cardinals Sunday game I finished Tuesday morning); sometimes not (the Patriots loss on the front cover of Monday's Wall Street Journal).

7. I'm allergic to penicillin and Naprocyn, have been for years, yet I'm too lazy to get one of those tags. But we have one for my daughter with her peanut allergy.

Then I'm supposed to pass the award along. That's a bit tougher. I'd have considered Jaquandor's Byzantium Shores. I'd also have picked SamuraiFrog's Electronic Cerebrectomy, except he gave the award to Jaquandor and that's a bit too circular for me. Then there are the bums gentlemen who stopped blogging in the last year, who I used to follow.

Still, there's:

1. Arthur @AmeriNZ - your usual, everyday blog of a gay man from Illinois who moved to New Zealand for love. OK, there's a LOT more to it: talk about politics, comparative US/NZ culture and whatever enters his fertile mind. He also has a couple podcasts, one on politics, the other, more general.

2. Coverville - the blog is primarily a support mechanism for Brian Ibbott's great podcast "featuring unusual covers of pop, rock and country songs by new and established performers." But in the last year or so, he's added a song rating system to the site. Also, he and his listeners have found some nifty videos of covers that he's posted.

3. Progressive Ruin: Unfortunately, I gotta give props to Mike Sterling, even though he's a cheater pants, not just for his persistence - I think he posted 364 days last year - but for some of his regular features, such as his deconstruction of the absurd items Diamond comics catalog, and especially Sluggo Saturdays. Still his obsession with the comic creature Swamp Thing is...disturbing.

4. And speaking of Swamp Thing, its best renderer, IMHO, my buddy Steve Bissette posts his Myrant, a mix of digital comics, comics & film history, political tirades and more.

5. Scott's Scooter Chronicles is about music, books, beer, and hockey. Truth is that I'm not a big fan of the latter two, but he even makes those interesting. It's also about his two young sons and being unemployed in America. SOMEONE GIVE THIS MAN A JOB!

6. Anthony Velez's The Dark Glass is a series of theological musings. Sometimes I don't understand, but he always explains it, or tries to.

7. Gordon at Blog This, Pal! is mostly a pop culture (comics/TV/movies) blog. He knows more about Doctor Who and Kids in the Hall than anyone has a right to. I happen to particularly enjoy those too-rare glimpses of his personal side (his mom, St. Louis vs. Chicago). He also has a podcast that he's rethinking. He knows I'd always vote for keeping the music, but really, he should do what brings him joy.

ROG

Camel through the Eye of A Needle

The liturgy for this week in my tradition includes the Gospel of Mark, the 10th chapter, starting with the 17th verse. It's about a rich young man who follows all the laws, but Jesus said, "You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have, and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." The young man was NOT happy.

Then Jesus said, at verse 25, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Similar scripture can be found in Matthew 19:24 and Luke 18:25.

A couple thoughts on this: There are lots of folks who seem to think that what is meant by the eye of the needle is a small gate or a rope, thus difficult but not impossible to achieve. I don't buy it and this site explains it well as any.

Also, it's clear that most of the poorest Westerners are much better off than the poor in developing countries. Does this lead some in the United States, e.g., to decide that the poor in their own country are not worthy of compassion? When I type the word "underserved" in Blogger and in other word processing formats, the spell check wanted to know if I really meant "undeserved".

Mostly, though, I was thinking of last week's PARADE magazine survey of How Spiritual Are We?, we being Americans. In the print version, the visual representatives of faith leadership were were Rick Warren and Joel Osteen. Rick Warren is problematic for all sorts of reasons, including his apparent homophobia.

But I want to concentrate on Joel Osteen, who is engaged in what's commonly referred to as the "prosperity gospel." Essentially, if you are positive, then God is going to give you all of the goodies of this world. To my ears, it's just a more polished version of the late Rev. Ike, who would say, "Why have that pie in the sky, when you can have it NOW, with ice cream on the top." I find myself agreeing uncomfortably with some evangelicals (as the term is commonly understood) when I suggest that Osteen's teachings are heretical to Biblical teachings. I watched him two years ago on 60 Minutes, and I'm more inclined to believe so after the program than I did before it, even though the interview was designed to answer his critics.

"Love of money is the root of all evil", the Bible says. Even when preached by a reputed man of God.
ROG

J is for Jesus

I suppose a couple caveats in order: I am a Christian, but I have no desire to proselytize. Conversely, I have no desire to mock the faith. Surely one or more people will think I'm doing one or the other.

I thought this Time magazine cover(#) was a fairly accurate representation of what Christianity looks like; it depends on the point of view.

Take, for instance, the physical characteristics of Jesus. He was not depicted in art until decades after walking the earth. What did Jesus look like? Looking in the Bible, there appears to be no description whatsoever, except an interpretation of Isaiah 53:2, which says, "He has no form or majesty that we should look upon Him, nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him". If this is in fact referring to Jesus, and the subsequent verses of the chapter are used in Messiah (Handel) as Jesus verses, then this Jesus fellow was rather plain-looking.

There's a lengthy Wikipedia description about the depictions of Jesus. My favorite section is on this point: "But when the pagan Celsus ridiculed the Christian religion for having an ugly God in about 180, Origen (d. 248) cited Psalm 45:3: 'Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, mighty one, with thy beauty and fairness.' Later the emphasis of leading Christian thinkers changed; Jerome (d.420) and Augustine of Hippo (d. 430) argued that Jesus must have been ideally beautiful in face and body. For Augustine he was 'beautiful as a child, beautiful on earth, beautiful in heaven'." So humans, using their own sensibilities, created the appearance of Jesus in their own image of what he (or He) must have looked like. The beard and long hair was copped, ironically, from the image of competing "gods".

So, the "standard" look of Jesus is understood to look something like this:


But of course, there are blond Jesus portraits:


In many homes, in the 1960s United States, there were pictures of Jesus that looked more like this montage:

Some folks saw the depiction of a black Jesus as a source of pride, while others called it blasphemy. Given the Biblical directive way back in Genesis that God made humans in God's image, it seems as though people feel compelled to return the favor.

I was going to continue on a slippery slope of the differing philosophies of various Christian denominations, and the various depictions of Jesus as everything from a Pascal (sacrificial) lamb to a guy who turned over tables in righteous anger, but instead I'll just leave you with this delineation of church memberships in the United States.

Oh, and this story: back in 1995, when I was still a Methodist, I was in a class called Disciple, where we poured through the whole Bible in 34 weeks. Among other things, one week's exercise was to go to a faith community different from your own; getting out of one's comfort zone is something I am in favor of.

As it turned out, there was a Coptic church in Albany at the time. The Coptic church is the Egyptian Orthodox church. The service, mostly in Arabic, but some in English, lasted over three hours! After the service, I had a conversation with a knowledgeable member. Everyone who participated in communion drank from the same cup; they did not worry about communicable diseases because the Lord would not let that happen in the Sacrament. As a non-Orthodox, I was not invited to partake of communion, although a Roman Catholic, who believe in transubstantiation, could have. In fact, the gentleman, in the nicest possible manner, assured me that I was going to hell for my Protestant beliefs. It was all VERY interesting how different the teachings of Jesus can be interpreted.

(#) First three images from LIFE, for personal non-commercial use only
ROG

Theology QUESTION

I've only been a Presbyterian for about seven years. So I know far less about John Calvin than I do about John Wesley, a founder of Methodism. Calvin, who founded a reformed movement that is represented in the United States by, among other denominations, the Presbyterian church, was born 500 years ago on July 10. One of the most difficult concepts for me is this:

John Calvin: On Double Predestination

In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit; but that to those whom he devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible, judgment. In the elect, we consider calling as an evidence of election, and justification as another token of its manifestation, till they arrive in glory, which constitutes its completion. As God seals his elect by vocation and justification, so by excluding the reprobate from the knowledge of his name and the sanctification of his Spirit, he affords an indication of the judgement that awaits them.

In other words, if I understand it correctly, some are born to be saints going to heaven, and others sinners going to hell. As one theologian friend of mine opined, "And you may THINK you have free will, but it was predestined that you think that."

This hurts my head.

Here's another take on double predestination.

Am I a bad Presbyterian because I'm a "free will guy? Where do you stand on this?

***
BTW, I went to the Pearls Before Swine website, having seen the strip in the newspaper, and the SITE provided the specific URL for the graphic. Cool.


ROG

Tell me one interesting or weird fact about yourself, for each letter in your given name

Lorna in Wonderland, who came by my blog a few weeks ago, did this, so what the heck.

R...I had long thought that ROGER was just a random name that worked in my father's ROG (Roger Owen Green) motif. However, when my sisters were recently sorting out some papers at my mother's house, there were references in my late father's handwriting to a Roger that clearly predated me. He's unknown to my mother. Could he have been a childhood friend, an army buddy? Inquiring minds are frustrated that the trail is so cold.

O...I've watched at least some portion of the OSCARS very year as long as I can remember. Increasingly, it's not to find out who won - I generally don't even watch them in real time anymore, but what they say, how they say it, and how they look. In the early days of my current job, we used to try to tune the radio to the CBS television affiliate at 8:37 Eastern time one winter morning to catch the Oscar nominations; this was before one could just wait for it to show up on the Internet.

G...I've had GLASSES as long as I can remember. One time in junior high, I had to give some report using the outline written on the blackboard in the back of the room. The problem was I couldn't READ the blackboard in the back because I had broken, or possibly lost, my glasses. So I used binoculars. Everyone laughed, but I didn't know what else to do.

E...In almost every unfamiliar building I enter, I look early for the EXIT sign, in case of an emergency. I think that is why I volunteer to be the fire marshal for my office, even though I'll be the last one to the exit.

R...The only reason I ever wanted to be Roman Catholic is that they had ROSARY beads, and they seemed cool. At a church study last Advent, I actually made some quasi-rosary beads, and the device I used to remind me of a pair of Bible verses I remember from my childhood,
Galatians 5:22-23:
But the fruit of the Spirit is
*love,
*joy,
*peace,
*longsuffering,
*gentleness,
*goodness,
*faith,
*meekness,
*temperance:
against such there is no law.


ROG

Roger Answers Your Questions, Lynn

I have a strong idea who Lynn is, but I'm not positive.

Why do you believe in god (assuming you do)?

Yes, I do. Part of it is faith. Part of it is the sense of the wonder and beauty of the world - for me, particularly music - that God seems self-evident. And part of is that, in a much more enlightened, scientific world, is the otherwise unexplanable, which I attribute to God.

Do you believe in an afterlife?

Yes, probably, maybe, perhaps, but other than being closer to God, not clear what that means. In any case, it is not the focus of my life.

Do you think that non-believers are doomed in the afterlife?

Non-believers of what? Most religions suggest some type of life after this one. I'm a Christian; do I believe that a devout Jew, Hindu, Muslim is going to hell? Well, no, I don't, if there is one, which I'm sure some would consider sacrilege, but there it is. In any case, it's not my call, and again frankly where I'm concentrating.

Jesus said that we don't know know the time the Lord will come again. Some people seem to have taken that as an excuse to sit by the door, waiting for the Resurrection. I happen to believe that kind of thinking is blasphemy. We should be busy feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and otherwise loving one's brothers and sisters, our primary tasks.

And what IS hell? Separation from God. I was watching the soon-to-be-canceled TV series Life on Mars, and a couple cops on a stakeout got into a conversation about life after this one. One cop decided heaven, and I'm paraphrasing here, had to do with having all the pizza and sex one could want. And hell is being on the other side looking at all those people in heaven eating pizza and having sex. Don't know that I'd subscribe exactly to that notion, but the apartness from God would be hell.

What do you think of the theory of evolution in relation to religion?

Ah, the easy question. I find them totally compatible. Some people, and a lot of them are Christians, seem to have confused physical truth and metaphysical truth. The Bible is not a history book; it's allegory and poetry. Is it true? Sure, the same way a good movie or poem or song can true, not factually but at its core.

Let's take the Creation. Do I think the earth was literally built in six days, as we now understand the concept of "day"? I do not. But that there was an evolution of the world, where humans arrive fairly late in the game is pretty consistent with most science. My Jehovah's Witness buddy said just this week that the notion of earth literally being put together in six days is "silly".

More important is the notion of resting on the Sabbath, which is far more consistently stated in the Bible. In the 10 Commandments. In the story about manna from heaven that was supposed to be collected only six days, with a double portion on that sixth day and none on the seventh. The message of setting aside time for reflection makes sense, even in a secular world, does it not?
***
Neil Gaiman is not a Scientologist.


ROG

The Faith Meme

This quiz was a Facebook thing thing I got from Jaquandor (again!)

1. Who gave you your first Bible?

It was so long ago that I have no idea. Best guess, though, would be my paternal grandmother, who was also my Sunday school teacher. Or perhaps it came from the church itself. No doubt, it was a King James Version. Currently, I own the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version, Good News, The Way and Good News. I also have New Testament only: Jerusalem Bible and New International Version, and probably others. Additionally, I have handbooks, a concordance, essays and hymnals - quite a few hymnals, actually.

I also have The Book of Mormon, which I tried to read but found boring, as well as a Treasury of Kahlil Gibran. I've had others, but they've disappeared over the years; I don't recall specifically selling them or giving them away.

2. When and where did you receive your first Communion?

No idea, but it was as a child; I "grew up in the church", as people were wont to say.

3. What was the first prayer you were taught?

Now I lay me down to sleep.
I pray the Lord my soul to keep.
If I should die before I wake,
I pray the Lord my soul to take.
When I learned this as a young child, it didn't bother me, but by the time I was eight or so, it started to really freak me out, actually.

4. What was the first church you attended?

Trinity African Methodist Episcopal Zion (A.M.E. Zion) on Sherman Avenue (or Street) off Carroll Street in Binghamton, NY. The church moved to the corner of Oak and Lydia Streets when I was about seven, just two short blocks from my home.

5. What was the first Bible passage/story that became meaningful to you?

There were so many Bible stories I was taught. I suppose Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace from the Book of Daniel; it may have been their names.

6. What was the first miracle you experienced?

I suppose it was when I started speaking in tongues. I think I've told that story in this blog somewhere, though for the life of me, I cannot find it presently.

7. Where and when were you baptized?

Trinity A.M.E. Zion Church, Binghamton, NY, August 1953, which I know only because I've seen the photo.

Bonus: Is there a story of faith you would like to share that doesn't fit into one of these categories? If so, share it.

I had a "saved" experience when I was nine years old. Oddly, it wasn't at church, but at a Bible study that was maybe a half a block from my church. It almost certainly had to do with a Billy Graham crusade.
Subsequently, I started to go to Friday Night Bible Group, usually with my sister Leslie, for years at the home of Pat and Art Gritman. She was the secretary to Neville Smith, the principal of my elementary/junior high school, Daniel S. Dickinson in Binghamton. She was about 16 years younger than Art; I remember specifically that when she was 48, he was 64.
When I was in high school, I would go to my church in the morning, then walk with my friend Bob Swingle to the Primitive Methodist Church in Johnson City in the evening, not an insubstantial trek on foot. From Bible club and from PM, I could quote chunks of Scripture by heart.
But it was also during high school when doubts about my faith emerged. The notion that, e.g., most people in India, good practicing Hindus, were going to go to hell because they didn't know Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and savior became problematic to me, and I drifted away from the church in my twenties, merely dabbling in everything from Baha'ism (the faith of an ex) to Catholicism (often my Christmas and Easter place of choice) to Unitarianism to the Unification Church. It wasn't until the early 1980s when, through music, I found my way back into church, and that was/is a theologically evolving process.

The PANHANDLE Question

One of those perennially unresolved questions in my life: what should I do when someone, not of my acquaintance, asks me for money, for food or bus fare?

I claim no insight into this except that to walk past someone as though I didn't hear the question, as though the person were not there, is not an acceptable solution. For me. I make no judgment about what others do, in part because I'm so inconsistent in my own thinking.

I used to give, then I used not to give. I've walked into a pizza joint and given money to the proprietor, telling him to get the fellow a couple slices.

One time a friend and I were in Washington Park in Albany and a guy came up to us and asked for some specific amount of money - $2.87 or something like that. He said he was a VietNam vet and that he was going to use the money to buy liquor. And we GAVE it to him. Either it was so honest that we could not resist or a most excellent con.

And that's what the real issue is, isn't it? You give money to someone who says he needs food and you're afraid that he'll use it on booze and drugs.

While I understand the logistical reason for doing so, I miss the bus tokens that the bus company, the CDTA, used to sell. I used to buy 10 of them for $9.50 and when someone hit me up for bus fare, I'd just give her a token. They put the kibosh on tokens, BTW, because other items - foreign coins, casino slugs, etc. - could replicate the tokens in the machinery.

I figured out that some folks would then sell the token I gave them to someone for cash, and then buy something else.

This has particularly come to mind, not just because it's the Advent season but because of the Gospel lesson in the liturgy a couple weeks ago, Matthew 25:31-46, which reads in part:
Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father...For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'
Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'
And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'
This article also came to mind.

So, to be crude about it, aren't we directed to help that smelly, crazy-looking guy on the street? The fact that I give to registered charities doesn't take me off the hook when face to face with a human in need. Does it?

I had this conversation with my sister who was musing on the very same issue. She noted that her own safety and security is an issue. I can understand that, which is why I give change and even a crumpled single dollar bill from my pocket, but am resistant to show my wallet. On the other hand, her pastor suggested that if you give money based on one piece of information and the user does something else, that's on them, not on you. Or are you suppose to "discern" their motivation?

In the words of the Beatles' second movie title, "HELP!"

ROG

Roger Answers Your Question, Roger and Anthony

Roger from Albany wonders: So how are you feeling now after your accident?

The problem is that I'm healing, feeling better, so that inevitably I overdo. Friday, for instance, I was carrying a bag in my right arm that I guess was too heavy, for my left side, where I broke my rib four weeks ago tomorrow, ended up in pain not unlike what I experienced two weeks ago. Still, I am healing, and I actually lifted my left arm almost straight up. I can't run, but i can trot, which I couldn't do the week before . The only thing that gives me really tremendous pain is sneezing. (Yes, i do talk to myself; ask my wife.) Oh and the picture was stolen from ADD, but then again, he stole my whole post, just as he promised.

Anthony asks: If it is not too late, I would like to ask a question, of a mildly philosophical and yet somewhat personal nature.

What do you think is the most critical quality or characteristic for a politician (make that statesman) to have in order to effectively govern, and why do think this?

First off, you assume that someone CAN effectively govern. Let's posit that that is possible.

Second, you assume it's not too late. After listening to a half dozen podcasts by James Howard Kunstler (curse you, ADD), I wonder. (On he other hand, ADD did have his own quasi-theological treatise.

Third, let me touch on a trait that are NOT necessary: be the kind of person with whom I can have a beer. Besides the fact that I don't much like beer, I've thought it was a bizarre criterion for picking leaders.

I suppose the chief characteristic I'm looking for in a politician is integrity. I think that one can lead more effectively that way. And it's not just beyond reproach, like Caesar's wife. It's a value system that makes one feel that the politician/statesperson wasn't bending to which ever way the political winds are blowing. I'm not saying that John Kerry was doing that in 2004, but sometimes it FELT like that.

Of course, one has to have real Christian values, such as looking out for the greater good, rather than just for his or her cronies. One does not profess to be a Christian, or indeed, a member of any faith, to achieve this; conversely, public piety does not Christian values prove (see Bush, George W.)

I read about this town along the Mississippi River that was flooded in 1993. The town decided to move the entire town to higher ground. So while neighboring towns are inundated again in 2008, this small town is literally high and dry. That took leadership, and an integrity that this was taking place to help everyone.

When I was in college in New Paltz, NY in 1974, a Congressional seat opened up. The Republican incumbent, Howard Robison of Tioga County, decided not to run again in this massive district that ran through at least five counties and looked like a giant curved hot dog, running from Ithaca (Tompkins County) through my hometown of Binghamton (Broome County) all the way to Woodstock and New Paltz (Ulster County). Four Democrats and five Republicans vied for the seat.

I was a member of the New Paltz Democratic Club and we heard from three of the Dem candidates; the fourth the Town of Union (Broome County) supervisor Knopp (or something like that) didn't bother, because the core of the population base skewed east and we were on the western fringe. The three who came were a young lawyer from Binghamton, who at least one member ended up supporting; Bill Schecter (sp?) a Woodstock lawyer and perfectly acceptable choice; and Matt McHugh, the district attorney from Tompkins County. As the anti-establishment type that I was, I felt I would be least likely to support McHugh, whose job title epitomized "The Man". But I wish I could tell you now what quiet elegance the man had where he expressed his viewpoint and I realized that, despite my initial misgivings, it as clear to me that he was the best man for the job. He oozed character. Maybe three or four others (John Vett - who would later become mayor of New Paltz; Tom Nyquist - who would also eventually become mayor of New Paltz; Tom's wife Corinne) also supported McHugh; everyone else went to the local favorite, Schecter.

I never worked so hard on behalf of another person in my life until I cleaned out my mother's shed last fall. I went door to door carrying petitions and got at least 125 signatures. I attended a number of "meet the candidate" house events. One of Matt's great gifts was not only the ability to remember people's names, but specific details about them. "Hello, Mary, how's your husband Bob's lumbago?"

Matt even gave me a ride from New Paltz to Binghamton so I could visit friends, and on the two-and-a-half hour drive debated the issues of the day. I didn't agree with all of his positions. I specifically recall his position against abortion, based on his Roman Catholic upbringing which I didn't share, and yet we found ways to agree to disagree while embracing our common ground.

The results of the primary was that Matt McHugh won the primary. He lost the part of Ulster County in the district, but I was pleased to note that HE WON NEW PALTZ!

For the general election, one of my professors, Glenn McNitt, who had been backing Schecter, helped organize polling phone banks, and I made a lot of calls. McHugh would be running against Al Libous, the mayor of Binghamton, whose politics I HATED. Of course, McHugh won the general election and served until the end of 1992, when he declined to run for reelection.

He is currently on the board of http://www.abanet.org/rol/europe_and_eurasia/board_europe_eurasia.html the America Bar association Rule of Law Initiative.

Anthony, I know I've fallen far afield of your question. Anyway, I think people sense authentic or inauthentic. Well, some of the time.

Oh, and thanks for your defense of me by that "opiate of the masses" guy. Peculiar, the post itself was primarily a thanks to my church choir director, whose last service is today; I never expected that sort of response and feel rather ill-equipped to go one-on-one with that type.

ROG

Barack and Hillary QUESTIONS

When I was on vacation in Virginia this past Sunday, I turned on the TV and happened to catch the last 45 minutes of Barack Obama's Q&A with CNN on religion/faith/values. I thought he seemed most impressive and comfortable; I didn't see Hillary Clinton. Then I catch the local news tease asking if the Dems have a "prayer" of dealing with faith issues. The story itself noted Clinton's and Obama's "struggle" talking about religion (in general, it was implied) and then showed the clips of Hillary and Barack talking about abortion (she said that the potential for life began at conception, Barack noted that he did struggle with this particular issue).

It seemed that abortion is still THE issue when it comes to matters of faith, at least according to that broadcast. A related issue in the media also seems to be that the Dems are FINALLY talking about religion in 2008, when, in fact, John Kerry for one was, I thought, quite eloquent in speaking about his faith and how he acts on it in a 2004 debate; since he didn't talk about it often, and because he didn't oppose abortion, he was perceived as somehow inauthentic.

So my questions:
1) Did you see or hear any of the Clinton or Obama pieces on race? If so, what did you think?

2) Regardless of whether you actually saw them, what was your perception of how they did based on what you read in the newspaper or heard on radio or TV? I'm interested in sources of your info, too, if possible.

3) How SHOULD candidates be talking about faith and religion, if at all?

4) I also caught much of the ABC News debate on Wednesday, and I thought they both were fine. Mostly it reminded me that either of them is a better choice than John "not so straight talk" McCain, who had ducked the faith debate. Did you see the Wednesday debate, and what did you hear about it, whether you saw the debate or not?

ROG

Pray without Ceasing

During Lent, our adult education classes on Sundays and our Lenten devotional classes on Thursdays have been devoted to prayer. Sometimes, the lessons actually stick, such as the idea of praying when I turn on the computer when I get to work in the morning, then praying again when I turn it off. Of course, the way my work computer is acting lately, probably I SHOULD pray for its continued operational well-being. The worksheet also suggests setting up a screen saver with a meaningful Bible verse or enter a password of religious import. The latter I almost certainly WON’T do, only because I’m having trouble keeping track of the eight I’m rotating through as it is.

I’ve also embraced the notion of praying the newspaper, the idea of praying for those who have suffered that I read about, but also for the writer of the story who may have some residual pain over having to convey the bad news. One of the things I’ve been doing in Albany for decades is stopping when I see an emergency vehicle approach an intersection, for thrice I have seen accidents of drivers not yielding, twice at the same corner; I suppose offering up a prayer in that case couldn’t hurt.

The one thing I have embraced, surprisingly, is putting together some beads on a string with a list of things that are important. I was surprised because I suppose that it felt a little papist. (Of course, some Unitarians I used to know probably think the candle that is lit in the beginning of every session to remind us of the presence of Jesus is probably papist.) In any case, one can put together four beads for the four seasons or for the four directions. It could be seven for the days of the week or ten for the Commandments.

Somehow, mine came from a Bible verse that I memorized, WAY back in the day when I used to do that for my Friday night Bible club, which was when I was 10 to 16 years old. The one (or technically, ones) that popped out: Galatians 5:22-23 - "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." That’s the King James Version. The New International Version might make more linguistic sense: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." However, I remember it in the KJ version, so that’s what I use, moving a bead with each of the nine words starting with love.

I think that perhaps the seeming rigidity of organized religion has rendered certain activities void of meaning for many people. To that I say, start your own ritual with whatever is meaningful for you.
***
My church choir is performing the Duruflé Requiem Good Friday, March 21, 2008.


ROG

Three quizzes

In lieu of content:

You fit in with: Spiritualism 40% spiritual. 40% reason-oriented.
	Your ideals are mostly spiritual, but in an individualistic way. While spirituality is very important in your life, organized religion itself may not be for you. It is best for you to seek these things on your own terms.
Take This Quiz at QuizGalaxy.com

School Smart You're more of a 'school smarts' kind of person. You are best with the theoretical things, and your intelligence is both natural and learned - a blend of personal, experiential knowledge and book learnin'. 40% theoretical intelligence 0% learned intelligence

Take this quiz at QuizGalaxy.com

Your Theme Song: "The Sounds Of Silence", Simon & Garfunkel 'What is your theme song?' at QuizGalaxy.com

ROG

Roger Answers Your Questions, Anthony

But before that, one last question from Scott:

5. (I may have missed this somewhere in your posts) Have you ever considered becoming a minister?

When I was 12, and probably a year or two before and after, I was pretty much convinced of it. I had a "born-again" experience when I was nine, and it seemed like the logical path.

And now to Anthony:

1. What is the one thing that if they didn't have it in heaven you would seriously think about taking up residence in the other place because you would miss it so much?
Music. You get the sense that they'll be celestial choirs singing all of the time. If heaven is tuneless, that'd be hell.

2. What is the hardest passage of Scripture for you to accept?
Interestingly, I've a great rationalization for any of those loopy Old Testament readings such as Deuteronomy 25 as a message for a different time.
(I can even go a couple hours on Thou Shall Not Kill: what DOES that mean in terms of self-defense, war, capital punishment, war, abortion, stem cell research, et al.?)

What's harder to deal with, and this ties directly into the conversation about becoming a minister, is perhaps a core tenet of Christianity, at least as understood by many: John 14:6 - Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
At the point I was 15 or 16, I was having a difficult time with the notion that a good Hindu or Buddhist, who had never heard of Jesus Christ, was going to hell - the reason we were supposed to go out and "save those savages", in Africa and elsewhere. It was at this point I pretty much turned away from the faith of my youth, and it took over a decade before I found my way back, with the ability not to necessarily buy into the doctrinaire positions of fundamentalism. I've gotten better with ambiguity. I've talked with Christian clergy, and at least a few struggle with the same issues.
I read a biography of Mahatma Gandhi decades ago, and there was a quote in there that has stuck in my mind about why he chose not to be a Christian: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it's not possible to worship both Mammon and God at the same time." Don't think that was the exact quote, but close enough.

3. What do you dislike most about yourself?
My ability to go to a very melancholy place rather easily.

4. What is the most profound spiritual experience you have had?
I was in a play (Our Town), and became good friends with this woman named Rusell. She ended up contracting this rare but almost always fatal disease and was at some hospital in Boston. A bunch of us went to our church chapel in Albany, stood in a circle and prayed for Rusell. At about that time, she was cured and fully recovered; it was, the doctors said, a miracle.
***
Dorian reimagines Christmas.
***
New England 16-0. Feh.

ROG

I Hate the Debates QUESTIONS

I've watched none of the debates, Democratic or Republican, in 2007. The problem is that they're not debates as I understand the term.
Then there's this October 31 post from GovTrack.US called "Debates giving time based on poll numbers?"
The New York Times has an interesting flash application that breaks down the text of yesterday’s Democratic debate (there was a debate?) by speaker and shows visually the distribution of who spoken when through the debate. They took the transcript, made it visual and interactive, and the end result is a vastly different view onto the debate than anyone had before.

One can’t help but notice that the different candidates are not getting the same amount of speaking time. Clinton spoke more than 3.5 times more words, and the same for speaking time, than Biden. For that matter, basically so did the moderator, who held the floor for more time than anyone but Clinton. It’s no wonder that Clinton is considered “the Democrat to beat” considering she’s in our face more.

If the numbers weren’t so vastly different between the candidates, we’d chalk it up to some random variation that happens from debate to debate. But, from the numbers, the speaking times are clearly planned. It’s so clear that I feel like maybe I missed something. Is it common knowledge that the debates are proportioning time out to the candidates based on their poll numbers (or something equivalent)? It’s not just that the front-runners are getting more time. The statistical correlation is ridiculously high (speaking time versus FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Oct. 23-24: r=.96). That is, the debate organizers are basically using this formula to determine how much time each candidate should get:
Speaking Time = 8:26 minutes + 25 seconds * Latest Poll Number (%)

Of course, debate organizers can’t control exactly how long each candidate talks for, but the candidates only deviated from the formula by at most two minutes and twenty seconds (Biden, who spoke less, and Edwards, who spoke more).

1) Are you watching the debates? If so, who's impressed you, depressed you? If not, why not? Not interested in politics? It's too early to pay attention? The "debate" format?

There was a question about the Bible at the last Republican go-round:

Joseph: I am Joseph. I am from Dallas, Texas, and how you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?
Anderson Cooper: I think we've got a question. Mayor Giuliani?
Huckabee: Do I need to help you out, Mayor, on this one?
(Laughter)
(Applause)
Rudolph Giuliani: Wait a second, you're the minister. You're going to help me out on this one.
Mike Huckabee: I'm trying to help you out.
Giuliani: OK. The reality is, I believe it, but I don't believe it's necessarily literally true in every single respect. I think there are parts of the Bible that are interpretive. I think there are parts of the Bible that are allegorical. I think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be interpreted in a modern context.
So, yes, I believe it. I think it's the great book ever written. I read it frequently. I read it very frequently when I've gone through the bigger crises in my life, and I find great wisdom in it, and it does define to a very large extent my faith. But I don't believe every single thing in the literal sense of Jonah being in the belly of the whale, or, you know, there are some things in it that I think were put there as allegorical.
Cooper: Governor Romney?
Mitt Romney: I believe the Bible is the word of God, absolutely. And I try...
(Applause)
... I try to live by it as well as I can, but I miss in a lot of ways. But it's a guide for my life and for hundreds of millions, billions of people around the world. I believe in the Bible.
Cooper: Does that mean you believe every word?
Romney: You know -- yes, I believe it's the word of God, the Bible is the word of God.
The Bible is the word of God. I mean, I might interpret the word differently than you interpret the word, but I read the Bible and I believe the Bible is the word of God. I don't disagree with the Bible. I try to live by it.
Cooper: Governor Huckabee?
Huckabee: Sure. I believe the Bible is exactly what it is. It's the word of revelation to us from God himself.
(Applause)
And the fact is that when people ask do we believe all of it, you either believe it or you don't believe it. But in the greater sense, I think what the question tried to make us feel like was that, well, if you believe the part that says "Go and pluck out your eye," well, none of us believe that we ought to go pluck out our eye. That obviously is allegorical.
But the Bible has some messages that nobody really can confuse and really not left up to interpretation. "Love your neighbor as yourself."
And as much as you've done it to the least of these brethren, you've done it unto me. Until we get those simple, real easy things right, I'm not sure we ought to spend a whole lot of time fighting over the other parts that are a little bit complicated.
And as the only person here on the stage with a theology degree, there are parts of it I don't fully comprehend and understand, because the Bible is a revelation of an infinite god, and no finite person is ever going to fully understand it. If they do, their god is too small.

I agree with the allegory references by Rudy and Mike, and Huckabee's suggestion of the difficulty of understanding the Bible. But the idea that "Love your neighbor as yourself" is simple and really easy, I don't buy; maybe it is in concept, but not so much in execution.

That leads to:
2) Do you think the question about belief in the Bible is an appropriate one in a pluralistic society for a Presidential debate? Recent episodes of Doonesbury suggest that an atheist would have a very hard time getting elected, although previous Presidents have given only lip service, at best, to the faith - do you agree with that assessment?

3) How would you answer the question about belief in the Bible?
***
A recommended website: Open Congress.org.
ROG

"The Trouble with Islam Today"

I love librarians. They have such interesting people at their conferences. I was flicking through the channels a couple months ago and hit upon the American Libraries Association conference held in late June airing on one of the C-SPAN networks.

Specifically, I was watching a dynamic woman named Irshad Manji who seems to have created a firestorm with her speeches and books, including The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith. It was interesting to see a strong Muslim woman staying within the faith, yet noting its shortcomings.

Rather than trying to recreate her points, I'll link to a blog report here from a "conservative" librarian, and this post, to give you a flavor of the talk.

At the end, she gave this five-minute recitation, from memory, of a poem from Roald Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the Oompah Loompahs declaring the evils of television, a short excerpt of which you can see here and/or here.

One of the things I found on Ms. Manji's MySpace page is the notion of ijtihad.

What is ijtihad?

Ijtihad (pronounced "ij-tee-had") is Islam’s lost tradition of independent thinking. In the early centuries of Islam, thanks to the spirit of ijtihad, 135 schools of thought thrived. Inspired by ijtihad, Muslims gave the world inventions from the astrolabe to the university. So much of we consider "western" pop culture came from Muslims: the guitar, mocha coffee, even the ultra-Spanish expression "Ole!" (which has its root in the Arabic word for God, "Allah").

What happened to ijtihad?

Toward the end of the 11th century, the "gates of ijtihad" were closed for entirely political reasons. During this time, the Muslim empire from Iraq in the east to Spain in the west was going through a series of internal upheavals. Dissident denominations were popping up and declaring their own runaway governments, which posed a threat to the main Muslim leader -- the caliph. Based in Baghdad, the caliph cracked down and closed ranks. Remember those 135 schools of thought mentioned above? They were deliberately reduced to four pretty conservative schools of thought. This led to a rigid reading of the Koran as well as to a series of legal opinions -- fatwas -- that scholars could no longer overturn or even question, but could now only imitate. To this very day, imitation of medieval norms has trumped innovation in Islam. It’s time to revive ijtihad to update Islam for the 21st century. That’s why we’ve created Project Ijtihad.

A couple thoughts came to mind when reading that:
* Yes, Islam is more diverse than some people have been telling us
* There are some forms of Christianity that seems to have been captured by politics that could do with some "ijtihad"

I haven't read Irshad Manji's book yet, but if it is as dynamic as she is as a speaker, it should be fascinating.
***
Conversely, Ann Colter has made me an offer I can refuse:
Here is how to tick off a liberal...just subscribe to Human Events today! (And you'll receive a FREE copy of The Truth About Muhammad - a $27.95 value.)
ROG

The Theological Implications of Doris Day QUESTION

My racquetball buddies and I were in the locker room, and someone said, innocently, "Que sera, sera." Somehow, this led to some great theological/philosophical debate. One person suggested that the line of "whatever will be, will be" was a position of those Christians who believe that "everything is fixed, and you can't change it", while another opined that it was antithetical to the Christian tradition, because God is an active God. The fatalism of Nietzsche was invoked in the conversation, as were the impersonal gods of the ancient Greeks.

So, a simple question, and a more complex one. Please respond to either, or both:

1. What other purely popular songs suggest theological or philosophical meanings to you, and in what way?
Example: "Don't Worry, Be Happy" by Bobby McFerrin may evoke the "Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin" of Matthew 6:28.
Example: "The Word" by the Beatles. John 1:1, "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Lennon/McCartney, "Now I've got it, the word is good." The song also notes "That the word is just the way"; John 14:6, Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life." Note also, John 1:1 and the first verse in the song start, "in the beginning."

2. To what theology/philosophy do you think Que Sera, Sera belong? Does it belong to yours?
***
Anyone else, when they hear his name, sing "Dave Petraeus, Dave Petraus" to the tune of "Doctor Zaius" from the Simpsons? I thought not.
"The general came to shed some light
On why we needed to keep the fight."
Of course, you can color the couplet to your personal political preferences.

ROG

By the Secrets

In anticipation of the first Sunday in Lent, which was last Sunday, my Bible group was reading Deuteronomy 26. It is a lovely piece about appreciation for God and how we need to offer our first fruits to God, which one could look up, in several versions, here. Deuteronomy, BTW, means "second law". But scanning the page, I saw in the Bible something I'd never seen before.

I've read the Bible all the way through twice. Once was in 1977, seven months with the King James Version. The other was 1996-1997, 13 months with the New International Version or maybe the Revised Standard Version.

Anyway, here's Deuteronomy 25:
KJV
(11)When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:
(12)Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.
NIV
(11)If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, (12) you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
New American Standard Bible
(11)"If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals,
(12)then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."

OK, forgetting the creepy payoff: yes, I had never seen "genitals" in the Bible, and it's the fault of the lectionary. The lectionary is a mechanism by which the Scripture is read over a three-year period, each year featuring one of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). If you go here, then click on the Index of Lectionary Readings by Biblical Books, you'll see that Deuteronomy 24 and 25, which are full of all sorts of arcane laws, are not included. So, it's unlikely that most church attendees will hear a sermon on this Scripture (though you'll see it illustrated in LegosTM here), or that lovely story about a man refusing to marry his dead brother's widow, so she gets to spit in his face, also in Deuteronomy 25 (and illustrated in Legos here).

So just how much of the Bible IS in the lectionary? I don't have a definitive answer, but this report on the Catholic version of the Bible suggests that it's most of the New Testament, but a very small portion (less than 15%) of the Old Testament, except for the Psalms.

Of course, ministers do vary from the lectionary at times, but I'll be shocked the first time I hear this text as a basis for a sermon. I'll be certain to be intrigued by how one could take that message and apply it to today's world.

Also, this means that one of these days, I'm going to need yet another translation of the Bible all the way through.
***
And since I seem to be on the topic, I'm loving the controversy about the Newbery Award-winning book 'The Higher Power of Lucky' over the use of the word scrotum, referring to a canine's private parts, which has propelled the book's sales.
***
According to a new book, Americans are the most religiously ignorant people in the West.

More Sunday Random Meanderings

Day o' rest:

RELIGION

I was reading my parents-in-law's Guidepost magazine (March 2005) when I came across the name Len Wein. He was described as a "comic book writer and creator of the new X-Men." I don't have the magazine, but Googling, I found this quote attributed to him: "A friend is someone who is there for you when he'd rather be anywhere else."

I saw spray-painted on the wall of a church parking lot last weekend: "Blinded by Patriotism, Silenced by the Dollar."

On a church sign on Route 28 between Oneonta and Cooperstown: "There's no point being a pessimist, because it won't work anyway."

TRUTH

A radio talk show pundit said on the air that he thought that the reference of Karl Rove as Turd Blossom in Doonesbury was verisimilitude, when in fact W actually DOES call Rove Turd Blossom.
Verisimilitude. I love that word.

Someone recently turned me on to the The Borowitz Report. Where else could you read:
July 28, 2005 KIM JONG-IL DEMANDS IPOD
Latest Twist in Nuke Talks Raises Eyebrows, Concerns
July 27, 2005 DEBRIS FALLS OFF CHENEY
Scientists Study Videotape of Vice President Disintegrating
July 24, 2005 SWIFT BOAT VETS MISS ATTACKING KERRY
Life Without Negative Ads Devoid of Meaning, Vets Complain
July 21, 2005 ROBERTS PROMISES STRICTER CONTROLS ON FOUR-YEAR-OLD SON
Child’s Rampage Through D.C. Prompts Nominee’s Conservative Stance
July 18, 2005 NEW HARRY POTTER BOOK DESTROYS PRECIOUS RAINFOREST
652-Page Tome Ignites Ecological Catastrophe, Sierra Club Warns
Of course, these are "humorous" stories, but they COULD be true! They have verisimilitude!

These postcards ARE supposed to be true.

SEX

I went on a "next blog" meanering. Usually, they're new sites that pop up, but this week I came across the blog of Marshall Brain. He is the founder of one of my favorite websites, How Stuff Works. He has some insights into porn. And it's clean! Honest!

NOT CLEAN: One of my least favorite people is U.S. Senator Rick Santorum. The readers of sex columnist Dan Savage came up with a new term, and they named it after the junior senator from Pennsylvania. You may find it crude, but it seems to have caught on.

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

I saw this on a news program, and then Brother IH sent me the info:
Store the word " I C E " in your mobile phone address book and against it enter the number of the person you would want to be contacted "In Case of Emergency".
In an emergency situation, ambulance and hospital staff will then be able to quickly find out who your next of kin are and be able to contact them.

Remember that Mars is getting closer. If the Martians are going to launch the invasion, this would be a good time.

Blogger Greg seems to think the current President isn’t all that bright. I mean he REALLY thinks W is dumb. I don’t know how he could say such a thing. Just last month, he acknowledged that global warming exists and that it is at least partially a function of human behavior, only a year after his own administration had reached that conclusion, and only several years after just about everyone else had.
So this is what I’m trying to figure out:
If global warming is human-made,
and if global warming heats the oceans,
and since hurricanes thrive on warmer waters,
so that more hurricanes will occur,
are hurricanes still acts of God or, increasingly, acts of human insensitivity to our environment?

Which takes me back to
RELIGION, which is where I started this.