Musings …

Category: Religion

  • How will Dishonorable Evangelicals Respond if Kavanaugh is Approved?

    Kavanaugh has just been approved for a floor vote in the Senate. Before its too late, and hopefully he’s rejected, I want to make my prediction before the issue is decided.

    [My analysis applies only to Evangelicals, the dishonorable ones, who have turned a blind eye to all the trepidations of those they support to get what they want.]

    The facile view is that Evangelical Republican supporters of Kavanaugh will out of appreciation to Republicans for getting them what they want so much, rally to their support. That despite having given up their souls.

    I am hoping that they want their souls back, or at least a rationalization to substitute for delusions that they have souls, that I very much doubt that they ever had. If Kavanaugh is put on the Court they will have gotten what they wanted. Hopefully, a guaranteed 5 – 4 on the Court will be enough. In November, some of them will have the chance to get back the appearance of having souls. They cannot be unaware of the stark contradictions between what they have always claimed to stand for. These people did not turn a blind eye to the character and deeds of Donald Trump. I believe that they were, and are exquisitely aware of every violation of themselves, or at least what they stood for – or imagined they stood for – that they made to get their pet desire.

    My hope – from my mouth to Gd’s ear – is that to redeem their souls – or at least to believe again that they have souls – having gotten what they gave them up for, and not having the Court purpose anymore, will withdraw their involvement – or even vote morally – in the upcoming election.

    That, unless they want to gild the lilly to insure a 6 – 3 Court.

    [The above is not a broad brush applying to all Evangelicals, but only to those who have violated the moral positions that they have stood for since time immemorial to get what they want.]

  • What’s a Real Apology?

    Apologies are real, genuine, when they are sincere, and take unambiguous full responsibility for words and actions, so that their victim can see, and appreciate, that the person who wronged them cares about wronging them. Only then, when the victim has reason to credit their abuser with some decency, can they gather enough respect for them to get some comfort from the apology.

  • The Primary Scripture!

    ​If I could pick one verse from scripture, and claim that everything else – not just scripture, but everything else – should take account of it, this would be the one:

    “The Lord created me [Wisdom] at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.” (Proverbs 8: 22– 23)

    Crossan precedes this verse with: “Begin with Jewish speculation about divine Wisdom and remember that, in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, wisdom is a feminine noun.

    – From The Birth of Christianity – Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus – John Dominic Crossan

  • ​Rural Folks Voted for Trump Because He is BAD!

    “The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans believe people are fundamentally bad, while Democrats see people as fundamentally good,” said Mr. Watts, [That’s JC Watts, not James Watts the Reagan Secretary of the Interior] who was in the area to campaign for Senator Rand Paul. “We are born bad,” he said and added that children did not need to be taught to behave badly — they are born knowing how to do that.

    “We teach them how to be good,” he said. “We become good by being reborn — born again.”

    “He continued: “Democrats believe that we are born good, that we create God, not that he created us. If we are our own God, as the Democrats say, [Never heard anything like that myself] then we need to look at something else to blame when things go wrong — not us.”

    If this is true it explains a lot, but since I believe that people are fundamentally good, I find it terribly demoralizing.

    On on lighter note, perhaps it explains very simply why they voted for such a bad, very bad, person. I recall a Reagan cabinet appointee from Alaska for Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, who was accused of being mediocre. I looked hard but couldn’t find any reference to that, but did find his most famous quote. In defense of the diversity of his department he said, “I have a black, I have a woman, two Jews and a cripple.”

    Be that as it may, my recollection was that he, or whoever it was, was defended as being representative of the mediocre, “who needed to be represented.”

    So if we apply the analogy and realize how profoundly bad people need to be represented, we then understand why they voted for Donald Trump, their ultimate representative!

    Why Rural America Voted for Trump, New York Times, 1/5/2017

  • When a Church is Not a Church!

    State Police alerted after Nazareth College students of Muslim faith attend Penfield church


    “After their student status was confirmed, the police dropped the matter.”

    Was this necessary? Was even checking the students story necessary? I have been to this Church many times. Not for Services but for concerts. Thank God the “Church” is longer used for that.

  • Latifundism and the Jubilee Year

    ​From John Dominic Crossan’s “The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus.”

    Note especially the wonderful quotation from Isaiah included.

    Or, as Isaiah 5: 8 said, it was intended to defeat “you who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is room for no one but you, and you are left to live alone in the midst of the land!”

    First, what was the purpose of the Jubilee Year? And notice, by the way, that it started on the Day of Atonement. Here, at least, the answer is quite clear. From Léon Epsztein: “…in order to restrict the creation of latifundia, [that is,] to prevent the concentration of rural properties”(133). From Norman Habel: “The policy provided a mechanism for deferring in the short term and preventing in the long term land monopolies of latifundialization, the process of land accumulation in the hands of a few landowners to the detriment of peasant farmers”(105). From Jeffrey Fager: “It attempted to restrict the latifundism which was prevalent in the ancient Near East in order to keep the means of production evenly distributed among independent families”(88).

    Or, as Isaiah 5: 8 said, it was intended to defeat “you who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is room for no one but you, and you are left to live alone in the midst of the land!”

    It wanted to stop the transformation of multiple peasant smallholdings into single large landownerships, to deter the eradication of the family farm and the creation and extension of latifundism or agribusiness. That, of course, put divine tradition on a collision course with rural commercialization.

  • Comment on Pragmatism that Missed the Boat at the New York Times

    You caught my interest straightaway by calling yourself “Pragmatist” and you fulfill it in saying, “In Trump, they see someone who doesn’t care about religion, but is more likely to support their views if it elects him.” You immediately go on to say,” The moral depravity of this position, of course, is clear to all thinking people.”

    But I don’t think it is at all “clear to all thinking people.” That perhaps because you are the first person I have encountered to have even brought it up.

    My clarity is that this behavior invokes one of the classic formulas for Pragmatism, i.e., “The Ends Justify the Means.” This is a formula for amorality because the selection of the “Ends” is beyond the scope of Pragmatism. Those ends, chosen for the arbitrary convenience of the Pragmatist, justify the means, however heinous!

    [I just realized that this is so even if the means fail! At least in the formula, “If it Works it’s Good,” if it doesn’t work it’s not good.  I never thought I would find something not so bad about Pragmatism!]

    Trump’s religious [sic] supporters are hypocrites as well, but Pragmatism is the unforgivable crime since in a world of amorality, the world of Pragmatism – unfortunately our world it seems – anything goes!

    ______________

    My comment was a reply to a comment by Pragmatist to The Theology of Donald Trump – – The New York Times – Peter Wehner – July 5, 2016.

    Pragmatist’s comment follows.  I address only his opening paragraph since after that, Pragmatism is no longer the subject:

    No person who is a devout Christian could support Trump because of his religious beliefs. The Evangelical right (by which I mean the non-denominational, largely independent evangelical churches) is embracing him as they know Clinton will not support their agenda. It is a political calculation. In Trump, they see someone who doesn’t care about religion, but is more likely to support their views if it elects him. The moral depravity of this position, of course, is clear to all thinking people. Interestingly, I doubt he will feel indebted and will probably ignore them once he is done using them.

    One asks why the Evangelical right does not see the issue Wehner raises, perhaps it is rooted in their notion of belief. Many believe the world is 6000 years old, reject evolution, reject modern cosmology, believe literally in a book that has had substantial “corrections” over the past 50 years due to better translations/older versions of texts, believe gays need to be “fixed,”, etc. This is a group which values belief over fact no matter how preposterous. The problem is an ecumenical one: they are out of sync with educated, mainstream Christian thought and have been acting contrary to Christian values as the author makes clear. It is not that the followers are intentionally unchristian, it is that they are easily led because they have sold out independent thinking and the use of facts in the dialogue.

  • Prayer in Schools: Chris Matthews’ Guest, Libertarian Matt Kibbe, Evades the Issue with Sophistry

    When asked if children should be subjected to religious views or practices not their own, Mr. Kibbe said that government should not be involved. Mr. Matthews anticipated incorrectly that Mr. Kibbe meant the Federal government, but Mr. Kibbe objected to State government involvement too. Mr. Matthews chuckled and left off.

    There is a crafty sophistic trick here. Presumably we could drill down to city, local and to even smaller units, to the smallest governments. We are expected to understand that whether or not there will be prayer in a school, or even in a particular classroom, will be decided at the school or classroom level. The usual unspoken subtext is that parents should be doing the deciding.

    But there is no difference of any meaningful kind between the functioning of a government over large jurisdictions or the very smallest. The principal or PTA of a school, or the parents of the children in individual classrooms all act like micro-governments. There is no way to avoid some people making decisions for, or have jurisdiction over others!

    The key for me is that some people deciding for others that they must have what they don’t want is plainly wrong; in a public environment, stopping people from having things at the expense of others is plainly right!

    So, to assure that as many people as possible are spared from subjection to the inconsiderate wants of others, the largest governmental authority should have jurisdiction. For us that would be the Federal Government. For the world there is no existing authority, but for the universe it would be God.

  • Leviticus and Deuteronomy in Action by Union Carbide at their World Headquarters in New York City!

    Once upon a time when my office was in the Union Carbide building in NYC there was a large rectangular shallow pool that people threw coins into. For whatever reason, and it would be nice if the reason was respect for the scriptures, but respect for simple decency would be enough, the Company left money in the pool overnight.

    I often worked so late in the evening that there could be no doubt that Union Carbide intentionally left some coins for whoever might need them.  This was the way it was for years. Since the fountain was never empty, I knew that no one was cleaning it out just for themselves. Actually, I never saw anyone take from the pool.

    I said to myself, this was done for anyone who might have need for a few coins. Perhaps for me if, long before Metrocard, I needed subway fare, or for the Chairman, finding himself short of funds, needed some coins for a cup of coffee or early edition paper while waiting for his limo.

    Torah: Leviticus 19:9-10
    And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and stranger; I am the Lord your God.

    Torah: Deuteronomy 4:19-22
    When you cut down your harvest in your field, and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go again to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, for the orphan, and for the widow; that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands…

  • When rubbish is spoken about someone else’s religion? What to do.

    My son told me that last Saturday in Torah study a participant made a stupid and ignorant remark about Christianity. My son didn’t say what it was, only that he considered walking out, but did not.

    My immediate response was that if he were to leave he should first wait to see if any of the other participants spoke out. We talked about that a little until we realized that he should have spoken up immediately himself. The hope would be that the speaker would realize their mistake and withdraw the remark or engage in discussion and then withdraw the remark.

    In the absence of that we would expect that one, if not some, if not all of the participants would support the objection.

    If none did they would all be complicit and we would know more about them than we wanted to. That would be the time to leave!