Why is it so wrong for Mr. Phelps to want to cash in?  What is so horrible about wanting money?  Money is the means by which we improve our own personal lives.  More money means more personal power and choices.  I can’t understand why this is, in itself, bad.  Certainly greed exists, but Mr. Phelps is hardly being greedy.  He did his homework, attended all those practice sessions, and won the spot in the Olympics.  Why should we need to believe he didn’t do it for the money?  Of course he did it for the money.  Does anyone think the prospect of being worth some $40M would not entice someone to grab for it?  (Pundits estimate that, if properly marketed, Mr. Phelps should generate about $40M for himself over the next few years). 

People do things for the money– especially when great sums of it are involved.  That’s why doctors become doctors, it’s certainly why lawyers become lawyers and it is also why every single John or Jane Doe in the country gets up in the morning and staggers into work to be abused, misused, pressured, compromised, terrified and stressed.  Fame, good standing in the eyes of others, an excuse to think of oneself as actually special, better than others, good, holy or important and the possession of money sums up the not-so-mysterious motivations of mankind. 

Mr. Phelps is only being human.

Here it is:  Why is so much violence associated with Muslims?  or another version might be: Does the Muslim faith per se, have an inherent drive toward destruction of all thing not-Islam?

Lets restrict ourselves to facts and observations.  I don’t ask this question as an abstract exercise in the vagaries of orgnaized religion where just about anything can be made to seem true and false at the same time.  Insead, lets take a look at Moslems in practice. 

Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan, here in the US.  What are Moslems doing?  Well, for clarity lets compare them to another popular group, Christians.  There are lots of Christian countries–Italy for example is almost completely Roman Catholic– that’s Christian squared.  Catholicism states, just in caseyou didn’t know, that outside the church there is no salvation.  That means that in addition to the Prostestant denominations, Moslems are already condemned to hell without possibility of salvation.  As Christ himself said, “He who is not with me, is against me.”  That doesn’t bode well for the RC opinion of Moslems.  They are sworn enemies of Christ.  

 Are RC Christians sending suicidebombers into Mecca?  No.  Are Christians from other countries organizing in little cells inside S Arabia so that they might mame and kill thousands?  No. 

Well, what’s wrong here?  Maybe the Sweeds are?  Nope, no evidence for that.  How about the so called “red necks” of central Idaho? No, not many anti-moslem terrorist cells out there in them potato fields. 

But wait, Moslems do those things.  Why not Christians?  Perhaps the difference lies in the way these religions are translated into practice– the real judge of a religions character.  Christianity is a religion that has consistently preached peace.  Christians sure have not practiced that always, but there has never been a doubt that this was the message of the Man from Galilee.  Despite all their flaws, Christians across the West have still failed to organize terror cells to perpetrate acts of horror against Moslems. 

But wait, what’s happening in Islamic nations?  Apparently the more devout a Moslem one is the closer one is tied to desires to die, mame, harm, cursh, destroy all non-believers.  In fact, they insist they go to “heaven” for doing it.  Murder, mame, terrorize, oppress, crush, destroy– and your reward is the finest thing your religion can promise.

Hmmmm. Now before you start sending me scholarly texts showing that the Koran contains several passages urging the individual toward peace, let me tell you that I have read most (I admit not all) of the Koran and I am aware of probably most of those passages.  that is not the issue.  the issue is not what Moslems say, but what they do.

Islam is, in practice a religion that is focused on the destruction of all things not-Islam.  there is no compromise.  No living with.  Such compromise is a de facto compromise with sin and no religion would condone that.  For Moslems it is very black and white.  The Prophet was right, all else is wrong and is evil.  Destroy evil. 

And before you start inundating me with examples of well intentioned Moslem charities and peaceful simple every day farmers who just happen to be Moslem let me remind you again–  I am making this assessment by looking at nothing more than what Moslems as a people do.   Individual exceptions can always be found but if such exceptions were the rule, why would there be this momentum of destruction in Islamic society that is encouraged and even praised? Now the question becomes, If that is how Islam ends up leading millions of its believers, is Islam something the world can survive with?  Can Non-Islmaic society exist with a large and powerful group dedidicated to that society’s destruction? 

Even more personal, let me ask you this: Given that Islamic society has targeted the destruction of all things non-Islamic which is more important for your survival or that of your son or daughter? How important is the the Islamic farmer in the field vs. the Osama in the mountains.? I thought we already learned that lesson– the tuition I recall was almost 4,000 dead innocent Americans and the horrific assult on our sovereign land.  I thought that was a fairly steep cost to learn that all things Islamic are to be judged by their actions, not their words.

Putting Nato missles in Poland, I must admit, was a bold  move.  Now I hope Mr. Bush follows through and arms absolutely every Nato country surrounding Russia.  We shold also encourage revolts in other conclaves of soviet, (oh, excuse me, “Russian”) power like Afghanistan.  Give them some long range missiles pointed at Moscow.  If Mr Putin wants a war, lets give it to him.

One thing is obvious– as long as bullies like Hitler, Stalin and Putin are allowed to live, the world is headed for unquestionable disaster.  The only hope is to stand up to them and let them know the world won’t stand for it. 

War is not always a bad thing.  Sometimes in order to clean a wound, you have to open it, scrape, cut and clean before their is any hope of healing.  Russia is a 100 year old wound.  The new regime may not use the word soviet but the masters of Russia hold all the principles of that era of thugs dear: disrespect for the democratic wishes of people, denial of the rights of personal property (just look how Comrad Putin’s bank account has grown and why), 

I’m going to say what everyone with principles should stand up and say:  Russia is clearly on a path to recreate it oppressive campaign against democracy.  They are our sworn enemies.  There is no peace with them.  Never was.  Never will be.  The only choice is to present them with the choice of a democratic world or no world.  Why would we settle for less?  That is agreeing to a death by a thousand cuts.  Let the military do what we created it to do and defend us, aggressively!

Let the boil be lanced.

All the above is true.  But I think Doubt, in the context of Faith, is being given a bit of a bad rap.  Let me explain.

I’ve been surfing around some religion blogs I enjoy, some of which are visited by or written by Evangelicals or Fundamentalists.  One thing has always stood out to me when reading almost anything these people say or write– there appears to be in them, absolultely no question or doubt regarding what they believe is right or wrong.  They are as certain of what they say, as I would be pronouncing that the Sun rises in the East.

Now, despite the claims of their worst detractors, are simply human, just like you and me.  Doubt is not an optional part of human nature.  It is certainly not an optional part of the human relationship with Faith and God.  Doubt is natural.  Doubt is universal. No one has perfect faith.  Christ told us that if we had faith the size of a mustard grain we could move mountains.  Obviously he finding a kind way to tell us our level of faith is, well, … low.  

So why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals seem to experience no doubt when it comes to faith, right and wrong?  Are they trying to tell us they’re better than everyone else?  I suspect they are  but more importantly I think they convinced that they themselves must be without doubt to really be believers. 

This attitude finds it roots, I believe, directly in the old Calvinistic teaching regarding election and predistination.  Those elected to salvation by God before all time could be told from those not so lucky by the fact that the Elect behaved according to the moral precepts laid down by–you guessed it, Calvin!  If you disagreed with Calvin and the other body of the Elect, you obviously weren’t Elect.  Same thing here, I think these super confident “I know I am right” Christian-types are afraid that if they doubt what others have told them to believe, or if they disagree with what others have told them is right or wrong, they fear they are not among the saved.  Certainty, for them,  is the mark of salvation.

I couldn’t disagree more.  There is no mark of salvation, no way to be sure you are saved, in the same sense you are sure what color your hair is (or used to be, in my case). No human is spared from Doubt. In this sense to doubt is human.  But I don’t think that says it all.  I think doubting has a far greater function in religion. 

Doubting reminds you that you are not God.  You are a frail, easily deceived human being who must constantly watch out for being decieved. No one is so easy to fool as he who believes he can not be fooled.  Doubt keeps you humble.  Doubt keeps you listeining, really listening for God’s word in your life. Doubt can be one of God’s finest instruments in helping us to grow in our faith, hence in a sense Doubt really can be divine. 

One other thing:  A lack of doubt engenders pride and pride, we all know, commeth before the fall.

While I’m sure the thought of atheists trembling in their death beds satisfies a dark sense of self righteousness for some, it has not been my experience that atheists face death in this way.

I have personally known one atheist, one of two people in my life I have called my “best friend”, who when suffering a long fatal illness never altered his views on religion and suffered no anxiety over retribution in an “afterlife”. Carl Sagan is a more public example that comes to mind. Never once during his battle with Leukemia did he alter his lifelong atheistic stance. There are others.

People of faith should not find it threatening to think that there are people of good education and sound personal principles who lead fulfilled, happy, creative and meaningful lives- without utilizing any concept of God– right up to the end. If all “God” does for you is stave off a fear of existential meaninglessness, then you don’t have faith, you have Marx’s “opium of the masses”.

Would that those who call themselves religious behaved with half of the dignity and respect for others that I have seen many an atheist (While not an atheist myself, I am a scientist and hence my occupation places me among many atheists).  A few more atheists in the Moslem world and what a different place we would all be in. Northern Ireland could use a few also, to say nothing of the millions of people tortured, burned, boiled, sawed, stoned and shot in the name of God through out history.

We’ve been told that cookies are actually not a bad thing, after all, they enable advertisers to target ads.  I agree that is their main purpose.  Whether or not that is a bad thing is another matter.  What if I don’t want advertisements?  What if most people, like me, are sick and tired of the sing song “BUY, BUY MORE, BUY NOW!!!” droning pitch of every slick, glitsy, unmemorable commercial with which we are deluged each day?

I don’t like being endlessly pressured to buy stuff.  What if we consider the impossible for a moment? What if getting more stuff is not where its at?  What if, just maybe, life is something a little bit more– more rich, more complex, more rewarding?  When are we going to develop some backbone and start questioning what the consummer culture keeps trying to shove down our throats? 

• I am who I am by my own decision. I could care less what some corporate suck-up says about what car I drive, games I play, books I read, movies I see, or clothes I wear.
•  I want what I want because I decide I need or want it.  I decide it, based on #1.   
• The more clutter you have in your life the more unlikely it is you will ever find out what– and who– you really enjoy and need. 

Its time to start saying no.  No to cookies for “targeted ads”.  Who cares?   We’ll loose the free web you say? OK, maybe thats not a bad thing.  Nobody ever said everything on the web is worthwhile. Let’s get rid of the garbage and find out what is really valuable.  Maybe we will have to pay a fee for it, just like ad free cable tv– maybe that’s what has to happen to save the web from becoming the garbage heap of useless information, mind boggling consummerism it has already become. 

News flash:  The Web is not the greatest thing that ever happened to mankind.  It is a passive magnifying lens that takes all that’s worst in our nature– and best– and puts it out there to churn, now on a global scale.  Its time to start caring about the Web if we are going to ever realize any good from it in the long run.

No one ever sets out to destroy something good like privacy–  Not even low lifes like the consumption dealers.  Nobody means any harm– in the beggining.  But we all know bad things happen frequently, predictably, and with utter certainty. Cookies leading to a loss of privacy?  You can bet on it.

However, I think there is one group missed by this discussion (or maybe glossed over) that I find more interesting, I also happen to believe they account for most “believers” in the US.

The group I refer to must be described in terms of a contradiction, and it is that contradiction that makes them so interesting.  The people I speak of are described in the Bible as “lukewarm”.  They hear the message, they assent to it.  When asked “Do you believe in God?” they honestly answer “Yes”.  When asked “Do you believe in  the doctrines of your Church?” they also answer “Yes”.  However, when you turn to their lives it is quite otherwise.  I am not speaking here of a passionate, struggling believer who battles with sin, but rather of a person who when questioned as to the difference between their behavior and what they say they believe would likely answer “Oh, I don’t think of those things so deeply.”  They have no desire or inclination to examine their lives in light of their faith because their faith is almost a purely intellectual exercise.  It affects their lives very little. 

Being raised a Catholic I knew hundreds of people like this– practically everyone I every met.  These people would fret about accidently eating something within the prescribed fast before communion (Catholics used to be required to fast before receiving the Eucharist– the consecrated host which they believe is the body of Jesus Christ).  They diligently attend mass week after week.  They give consistently to charity, but they give only from their excess, never from their want.  These are the same people who were overjoyed when Rome allowed a mass to be said on Saturday evenings that would satisfy the Sunday mass obligation (Catholics are required to attend mass-service- every Sunday.  Not to do so is considered a mortal sin).  How wonderful they thought, that God would rearrange his schedule to meet their needs.   After all there’s so much to do on Sunday and one does want to have a day to sleep in you know!

They “practice” their faith so long as it doesn’t get in the way of anything they want, so long as it doesn’t inconvenience them too much. 

These people genuinely have no desire to disavow a belief in God.  After all, God might punish them.  If Catholic they profess to love the Church, and Rome and the Pope, they just don’t care to follow anything that is not “practical”.  These are the Convenient Faithful. 

In Protestantism you see these people every week on the TV coming from some MegaCHurch in Texas with soaring stained glass windows and architectural layouts that flush the church with enough light that heaven itself must surely copy the design.  These are the “Feel good” Christians, just another variety of the Convenient Faithful.  They listen to a gospel describing God as a wishgranter– he finds them parking spaces when none can be found, he stops the rain so they can enjoy a good game of golf, he makes their investments prosper, gives them bigger houses, happier families… whatever.  God here is clearly at the service of the imagination of man, not the other way around.

However, I do believe these people when they say they believe in God or more important,  they  believe they have faith. Despite this, these people  walk, talk and act in a way that clearly excludes God from their lives (except on their terms).  They are immune from pointing out to them that their lives are not in step with the demands of a real “faith”.

How do they bypass any scruples in this regard?  Remember, this is America, the most anti-intellectual country in the world.  You don’t want to be an egghead do you?  You don’t want to be accused of thinking too much do you?  Such contradictions between faith and action are dismissed with a wave of the hand and a look of disgust that some kind of self-examination has been proposed. Contradictions, they say,  are simply for nerds, clerics and eggheads to ponder. Turn up the game please, and stop talking nonsense. 

To anyone trying to assess the real status of faith in the US, I say pay attention to these people.  How do you quantify them?  I don’t know because they self-identify as believing, practicing theists of whatever denomination. However, I have a deep gut feeling, albeit based only on limited experience, that this kind of “believer” is the predominant kind of theist to be found out there today.

I find it incredible that a Black man would make such a remark because it is one of the most powerful arugments for racial segregation being made today– and not just be Rev. Wright.  I believe the Rev. is simply reflecting what many in the Black community believe. 

The Civil Rights movement of the 60’s was, under the influence of Dr. Martin Luther King, a social movement that spoke in terms of Justice, Equality and human dignity. Dr. King brought the injustice done to Black people to the consciousness of Whites by appealing to these sacred ideals, which reach across all boundaries of difference to unite us in the commonality of conscience.  This insight is why I look on Dr. King as one of the great moral leaders of mankind. 

Unfortunately for mankind, men such as Dr. King are few and far between.

Rev. Wright’s comments about the ability of non-Blacks to understand a Black cultural institution such as the Black Church is nothing new.  Louis Farrakhan, to take an extreme example,  has argued much the same about Black Culture in general.  In the vacuum created by the untimely death of Dr. King, there seems to have rushed in from the Black community many who have sought to restore Black honor by emphasizing the utter difference of all things Black from all things White.  Black music, Black politics, Black families, Black sorrow, Black anger, The Black Church—  No White man can possibly access the core meaning of any of these things because they are alien to him by nature–or so some seem would have us believe. 

It’s a powerful strategy for asserting the dignity of Black Culture.  That which was despised and discounted by so many Whites for so long is, in fact, utterly impenetrable to them.  It’s a kind of “stone the builders rejected” argument.  It works– I guess, but at a terrible price.  If the key elements of Black culture are forever beyond the knowing of non-Black folks, then the races are doomed to an eternal standoff. There can be no commonality from which we can all strive for Justice and Equality.   Period.

Where does that leave us?  Unfortunately, history has made that very clear. When two groups in a society see each other as fundamentally different, yet occupying the same space, competing for the same limited resources the result is violent, destructive conflict.  This is where all attitudes such as Rev. Wright’s views of the “Black Church” ultimately will lead us.

Frankly, I am tired of this rhetoric of the differences between Blacks and Whites.  I hate this tired old argument that “You can’t understand being a Jew, because you’re not a Jew” or “You can’t understand being Black because you’re not black” or “You can’t understand being XXXX, because you’re not XXXX.”  Give it up!  If that’s true we might as well all take up our guns and bombs now and get it over with. 

 I do believe in the uniqueness and dignity of the Black experience, but I don’t believe that dignity requires the Black experience be impossible to understand by all but Blacks.  People like Rev. Wright in the Black community need to start thinking and begin emphasizing a common basis from which we can all know and appreciate each other.  Blacks who seek to dignify the Black experience by forever excluding non-Blacks at some basic level will ultimately end up getting what I assume they wanted to avoid– isolation and racial violence. 

               “May you live in interesting times.”

But setting aside the very real darkness of terrorism, there is a more insidious kind of darkness emerging in the US particularly- A new Dark Ages if you will. 

 I refer to the fact that although we live in a time when there are more scientists alive now than have lived throughout the entire history of the human race, the understanding of science by the educated public is at an all time low.  Jon Walker, a Professor at Northwestern University has assumed the unhappy task of surveying scientific literacy among people in the US today and his findings read like a description of the mindset of your average medieval peasant:

• Fully 1 in 5 Americans believe the Earth revolves around the sun– an idea disproven way back in the 17th century.
• Less than 1 in 10 Americans has any idea–any idea at all– as to what radiation is, despite the fact that we are surrounded daily with the threat of nuclear holocaust.
• 2 out of 3 Americans have no idea that DNA has anything to do with heredity, despite the fact that the use of genetic engineering is one of the greatest moral questions facing the human race.

Ignorant people make ignorant choices. 

 If you don’t know what radiation is,how can you really understand the risks associated with nuclear power? 

Most of us now consume genetically engineered crops, but what is the risk associated with genetic engineering?  What is its promise?  How do you balance the two? 

Is it important that the government support scientific research? How can you form your opinion on these important questions if you don’t even understand what is being asked? 

Technology is one of the most powerful elements in human culture, especially today, and yet few people seem aware of any but the most obvious ways technology changes their lives. Nevertheless, they and their children will be called on to make important, history altering decisions as to how to use technology.  Many of these decisions may lead to things that are forever irreversible.  They will shape forever, the world we pass on to our children.

Now here’s the additional rub I see:

The same people who are technologically ignorant are more than happy to remain so. In fact, they’re proud of it.  Americans largely want to be ignorant.  Knowledge is just not “cool”–unless, it happens to be stats about a favorite sports team or player, then it’s fun, or–and here’s the real test–you can use that knowledge to make money! 

Making the US, and perhaps other parts of the Westernized world science savvy does not just require better teaching of science facts in the schools, it entails something much more difficult; something that has never succeeded in the United States– inculcating a sense of curiosity and a respect, if not enthusiasm for learning generally, not because it is cool, or makes us rich, but because it helps us become better citizens in the world, better neighbors, better parents- just plain better human beings. 

While the old saying about living in interesting times may be true, I personally prefer “interesting” any day to plain old apathetic.

I think by this time the Department of Corrections has tried everything reasonably possible to contain this problem, no doubt entailing the expense of considerable sums of money, and what is worse, it has cost the lives of many corrections officers.  To me, this is intolerable.

For gangs to function it is no surprise that they rely upon communication.  But communication alone is not sufficient.  They also need physical interaction in order to conduct their “business”, i.e. sell drugs and other contraband, and to harm other gang members with whom they may be at “odds”.  The simple solution to this considerable problem, and it is considerable, is to re-institute the practice of more prevasive solitary confinement.  Just to be clear here, I am referring to a 23 hour confinement with 1 hour for individual, monitored exercise in a small, walled in area.  There are some modifications I would also make: I would eliminate all outside communication, no visitors, no letters, no books, no newspapers, no diversions save a TV, viewed from behind thick glass on the wall of the cell. 

Thus ends all gang activity, no riots, no murders, no drug activity.  And now for the $64,000,000 question (inflation you know)– Is this cruel?  After all, punnishment is not meant to be nice.  It is a negative thing.  It hurts, it can break a spirit, cause despair and suffering.  Would you call anything a punnishment that didn’t cause suffering?  Is this unusual?  It does seem to fit the crime.  It stops gang activity in a prison.  It also protects the lives of the prison guards better.   Isn’t it time for serious reform of our prison system?  Shouldn’t prison be an unpleasant experience?