Michael Gerson is a Lazy Columnist

Michael Gerson is on a decline of religion kick.  In his second article on the topic in the last week, he states:

Those cheering the trend of religious disaffiliation should consider some broader social consequences. The rise of the nones is symptomatic of the decline of many forms of belonging. According to Pew, all of the recent growth in the nones has come among those who are not married. This indicates a group of people distrustful of institutions, with marriage being the most basic of institutions. The unaffiliated donate less to charity than do the affiliated. They participate in fewer volunteer organizations. Individualism can easily become atomization. Whatever else you may think of the communitarian creeds, they help create community.

Now I do not know if it is a factual statement to say that the unaffiliated donate less to charities, or volunteer less than their affiliated counterparts, however, I do know that it’s lazy “journalism” to make such a statement based on a biased source.  Gerson cites in his “less” link above to familyfacts.org — a component of the Heritage Foundation.

I’m not knocking familyfacts for what they publish — they’re geared to a particular audience.  Gerson, on the other hand, should be expected to draw from unbiased sources in his editorializing.  Think how a conservative feels when seeing the source material drawn from MSNBC – is it to be trusted?

I’d give much more credence to the statement if it came from Gallup or Pew — established polling companies that operate with tradecraft to make such a conclusion.

I don’t believe familyfacts statements on the issue are well studied.  The sources used in their bullet paper are drawn from 2005 and 2000 respectively.  Not to say they’re wrong, I just don’t think enough research has been devoted to this matter.

Nones for the most part tend to be younger – Millennials that are just getting started in life. Understandably, they lack the financial resources to be comparably philanthropic.  With regard to volunteerism, a community church is a perfect place to encourage and foster volunteerism; however, endeavoring to say that Nones are not charitable with their time is a gross injustice.  There are thousands of volunteer opportunities in a wide range of interest areas that are not religiously-based.  I can’t recall being asked my religious background when volunteering or supporting non-profit activities — how does familyfacts, or Gerson, measure this statement?  The fact is, they can’t – because the data to support it simply does not exist.

If I Believed…

I’ve not had much time for blogging — I blame my wife!  What started out as a weekend of repainting the living/dining rooms has devolved in to a full scale basement remodel.  I’m seriously wondering if she’s testing my love for her or if she’s just trying to kill me…

A friend of mine shared an article by Michael Gerson on Facebook today entitled: “An America that is losing faith with religion.”  Not that this is breaking news – we’ve been tracking polls from Gallup to Pew over the years that clearly show “religion” is losing ground every year in America.  [See the Rise of the Nones...]

I responded to the post with the following — again, nothing incredibly new…

I think the “beginning of the end” for American religion can be traced to the politicizing of faith. Gerson pegs the decline in the 1990′s, but it really began in the 1970′s when evangelicals threw their support to Reagan and the Republican party. All the negativity of politics sticks like stink on the religious institutions that back them – hand in hand.

As Americans recoil from the shadiness of our political figures and institutions, they cannot separate out their ministers, pastors, churches from the rest of the garbage. The only way churches can save themselves is to retreat back to an apolitical position – a spiritual refuge from the secularism that should be driving policy and politics. They took a strategic gamble that they could pull off a Christian theocracy and they’ve lost.

One of the funny consequences of this is that – by and large – our Nones are not irreligious, or at least without faith. It’s not like they all flocked to atheism or agnosticism — they’ve instead created their own version of “god” that suits their unique spiritual needs – with the only doctrine and/or dogma they bring in from either past experiences/prejudices, etc., minus a preacher dictating what is sinful today, or tomorrow…I find the entire thing fascinating It truly is the end of religion, which should be viewed as a positive thing; however, nature abhors a vacuum, and I’m curious as to what ends up filling the void…

I’ve written previously on this idea of creating your own personal god as a substitute for the deity of the bible — you know, the one worshiped by the Westboro Baptists (I’ll say this much for them — as despised as they are by the rank and file Christian – they follow that book to the T!).

I went further to describe what it would take to make me believe in such a biblical god, but from the perspective that that god — Yahweh — actually existed.  But I never looked at it from the perspective of if I created god in my own image – or at least, fashioned a god I’d like to worship, what would that god look like?

After all, people are doing this more and more every day!  They’ll tell you about the god they believe in and how he’s nothing like the monster their churches described.  Oh no, their god is all about love – he loves gay people, he’s not reigning down terror on countries that allow homosexuals to marry or that just don’t believe in him.  But…if you’ve ever actually read the bible and your concept of god and/or Christianity is grounded in that faith, then you’ve created your own personal god – because that ain’t Yahweh!

When I look at the world and see millions of people suffering from starvation, genocide, disease, cancer, random acts of violence, war, pestilence, etc., I have (and had) difficulty imagining an active deity that is involved in our condition (not to mention our lives).  If such a deity was actively engaged in the world while that level of torment was taking place – then he deserves to be called a sadist!  Maligned rather than worshiped!

When I look at the vastness of the universe, I can’t help but think that if there was a single all powerful deity overseeing all the activity within his domain, he’d be far more engaged in watching supernovas and imploding stars (after all, there’s a helluva lot more stars in the universe than there are people on earth!)  So all things being equal, I could see a hand of god (so to speak) at play in the universe, but “my god” isn’t like your god – he’s not about love (for you or anyone else), he doesn’t require worship or fealty to stroke his ego, he’s just sitting back watching his chemistry (or physics) experiment unfolding.  He’s about as concerned about what’s happening on earth as he is with what’s taking place right now on Kepler 22b (which is to say – he’s not…).

He doesn’t know me, what I’m thinking, nor is he keeping a list of the naughty and nice people, separating souls for eternal damnation or reward.  We are, after all, just stardust – and if my god exists, that’s how I’m connected to him, and to you…

Destroying America: The End of Civil Discourse

Growing up in Colorado, we had a governor, Richard Lamm, who used to advocate (and most likely continues to do so) for English as the official language of the country.  To paraphrase his argument, going on my memory, Lamm stated that as Americans, we have no cultural ties, no religious ties, no ethnic or racial commonality – any or all of these things have historically been used to carve out nations and hold people together in unity.  As Americans, with our diverse backgrounds, the only common bond we share is our language – when we lose that bond, we risk balkanizing the country.

I’ve long held to that logic and fully embrace Lamm’s position on English first.  I went searching to see if I could find a Lamm quote on the topic and came across a document where Lamm went in to detail on, not just the danger of multilingualism, but much more.

The documented was un-dated, but I’ve little doubt that it originated from Lamm. (It’s worth reading, although people might not like what it has to say).

The subject of the speech delivered by Lamm was “how to destroy America.”  In his speech, he details the various steps that should be pursued to make the country fall apart at the seams.  Lamm’s subject, the necessity of maintaining English as a common denominator, comes against the backdrop of immigration and multiculturalism.  However, one part of his speech did give me pause:

“My sixth plan for America’s downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other- that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common Language and literature; and they worshipped [sic] the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. “E. Pluribus Unum” — from many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the ‘Pluribus’ instead of the ‘Unum,’ we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.”

Looking at Lamm’s speech through the optics of culture (and not ethnicity or linguistics), it’s actually a very frightening prospect.

We are well on our way down a path of divergent cultures in America — a conservative culture and a liberal-progressive culture.  Each has its own spokespeople, its own representatives, its own news channels, its own news sources.  The vocabulary used is different as are the terms used to describe members of the other group.

To liberals, conservatives are ignorant “tea baggers;” to conservatives, liberals are “libtards.”  Against this backdrop, it’s pretty easy to understand why our government is a dysfunctional mess – it’s because We the People are a dysfunctional mess as well!

We have effectively cocooned ourselves from the din of competing ideas – and in most cases, I believe, not because the ideas are terrible, but the delivery of these ideas offends civility.

Call it the internet culture – people feel a freedom of expression to destroy or berate opposition in a way that would make sailors blush.  We used to think that real people wouldn’t behave in that manner stripped of anonymity; however, today, I’m not so sure.  We have grown coarse as a people, and we lack the basic ability to be civil.  I hesitate to offer the following, but it applies – without civility, it is hard to have civilization…

The coarseness of our language in dealing with competitive ideas has crept in to newspaper columns and “news” shows.  We have this feeling of entitlement to treat “others” as stupid liberals/conservatives out of the purity of our cause – we are on the side of “smart” and “right,” all others are brainwashed idiots.  The fragmenting of America is not taking place linguistically, it’s taking place ideologically.

What I find most fascinating is this excerpt from Lamm’s speech:

“My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology.’ I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.”

Substitute “ethnic identity” and “minorities” with “ideologies,” and you have that today.  “Special interests” on all sides of the issue (pick the issue) pour money in to funding the demonization of “the other.”

Not terribly long ago, liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, could sit down with one another and have a rational conversation about policy.  While they may not have agreed on every detail, they could identify areas of commonality to pursue that eventually resulted in compromise.  Today, when our elected officials dare to cross party lines, even to shake a hand, they run the risk of being “primaried” in the next election, labeled as “appeasers.”

It appears that at least some out there are using the Lamm playbook for destroying America – funneling billions of dollars in to efforts to divide vice unite – the question we need to ask is why?  What do they stand to gain?  What is their interest in a weakened, dysfunctional, corrupt, or nonexistent political environment?  Not to be partisan, because it happens on all sides of the political spectrum, but what do Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch stand to gain by fanning Fox viewers conservative passions?  What is the agenda of  MSNBC’s Jeffrey Zucker and Phil Griffin?

It’s asking these questions, understanding the “why” in the manipulation of our positions on issues that leads us from being controlled sheep in the modern Game of Thrones.  When we are told that unions are destroying America, or the lack of gun control is destroying America, or the black Muslim socialist president is destroying America, or, pick your issue, is destroying America – question what the proponents of the message stand to gain and their stake in the issue.

I don’t know if Dick Lamm’s message on linguistic/multiculturalism is just hyperbole.  Is this idea that the “fracturing” of America on ideological lines going to lead us to the great break-up of the United States?  Is the “American experiment” doomed to the same fate as all previous empires?

“No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.’”1

Is this the beginning of the end or is this just a bump in the road as we continue down this path of ideological isolation?

The Wrong Side of History

I finally got around to seeing Lincoln last night and thought it lived up to all the hype and accolades received.  Since the movie opened, there have been many articles written devoted to whether or not the film was historically accurate – especially since the screenwriter, Tony Kushner, went to extraordinary lengths to capture the accuracy of the events surrounding the passage of the 13^th Amendment.

Despite some documented inconsistencies, one important fact cannot be overlooked.  The constitutional amendment to end slavery in America barely received enough votes in the House of Representatives to pass.  The amendment required a 2/3 majority and passed 119-56 with 8 abstentions.  As the central theme of the movie, the drama focused on the vote and the securing the votes of 20 members of the opposition to cross party lines to pass the act.

As a student of history, I watched in fascination.  The vast majority of Americans receive a cursory overview of our nation’s history.  Civil War, Emancipation Proclamation, war ends, Lincoln killed, reconstruction acts passed — all very neat and tidy.  As a historian, I found myself being agitated a bit that I was not thoroughly versed in these events and how close a vote on such a simple issue as ending slavery was.

I mean, this is a no brainer right?  How on earth were there 56 representatives – predominately from northern states — found to be sitting on the wrong side of history?  Without a doubt, these men gave passionate speeches in the debate in defense of the continuation of the institution of slavery.

The entire scope of the 13^th Amendment was incredibly simplistic:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

That’s it – nothing more.

It also made me appreciate how great men (men in those days) could rise to the occasion and do great things.  Not just great things – the right things.  Persevere on the side of right.  We’ve had such people in government over the course of our history – the right people at the right time – with the will to overcome opposition, and be on the right side of history.

But what about those that occupy the chairs on the wrong side of history?  Where are they to be found?  What is their legacy?  Does history judge them for taking the wrong position?  Is there an accounting?

Think back to major pieces of legislation passed by our elected representatives – those people we put in to office to express our will.  In retrospect, with the clarity of hindsight, can you imagine anyone that stood strong against issues such as

The 15^th Amendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude—

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

44 Congressman and 13 Senators opposed

The 19^th Amendment: 

Section 1. – The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. – Congress shall have power, by appropriate legislation, to enforce the provisions of this article.

89 Congressmen and 25 Senators opposed.

Collectively, we’ve somehow managed to do right in our history, even if we’re slow to arrive there.

But it’s apparent that in that moment in time, the clarity of the big picture is obscure.  No one wants to be on the wrong side of history, yet, the numbers are what they are.

It’s why I believe that opponents of equal rights for homosexuals are standing on the wrong side of history.  It’s easier to see with certain crystal clarity when the issue is rights-based.  As a country founded on the principles of individual rights, this one is a no brainer, except for the many that oppose it.

On other issues, the certainty becomes more opaque.  I don’t think the Affordable Health Care Act rises to the level of either historic or great legislation.  It will likely go through several revisions, and rescissions before it works for average Americans.  How about gun control?  Abortion? These are big issues where both sides believe they stand on the right side of history.  Time will eventually be the judge.  What issues do you see as the BIG ones where people are standing on the wrong side of history?

Absolute Power, Absolute Corruption

For many, many years I’ve joked that I have too much respect for priests to attend confession.  If I were to go, it would go along the lines of: “Forgive me father for I have sinned, it’s been 35 years or so since my last confession – how much time do you have? Cause I got lots of ground to cover…”  After watching Mea Maxima Culpa tonight, I must revise my joke.

I’ve no respect for priests as they are soldier/pawns involved in the most corrupt institution in the world.  On the day that Joseph Ratzinger decided to step down as pope, it’s clear that not only did he know of the widespread sexual abuse cases worldwide, but worked his institution to ensure the perpetrators of the abuse were able to continue in their criminally transgressive behavior to keep the church from acknowledging the extent of the damage.

I was raised Catholic, indoctrinated basically from birth in the mysticism of the church.  So I have little problem saying this – if you’re Catholic, and you still consider yourself Catholic after taking in the full spectrum of the criminal corruption of your church, you’re either mentally deficient or irredeemably brainwashed.

Obviously, given the sheer numbers of those that call themselves Catholic, it would appear that most adherents have chosen instead to keep themselves as ignorant as possible of the atrocities practiced by the church – what else can explain the continued affiliation?

The numbers must be doctored as well.  I’d bet dollars to donuts that I am still on the Catholic roll, a check mark on a ledger somewhere in the Vatican, by virtue of baptism and no record of excommunication.  I’m simply a bad, or lapsed, Catholic, but Catholic nonetheless.

Of course I haven’t been Catholic since 1977 when my parents split up and I’ve considered myself an atheist for the last decade.  But to the mother church, I’m still part of the bolstered flock.  Given this accounting system, most of Ireland would still be considered Catholic.  This despite the fact that the country’s reaction to the churches pervasive sex scandal has left Ireland turning away from Catholicism and religion in droves.

A WIN-Gallup International survey conducted last year found a dramatic decrease of those affiliating with religion in Ireland over the last 7 years – from 69% in 2005 to 47% in 2012 – a 22% drop!  The same survey found that 44% of what was one of the most religious countries in the the world now consider themselves without a religion while 10% self-identify as atheist.

This is, to me, one of the interesting data points.  It represents the long gray journey that takes place between losing religion to losing faith altogether.  This doesn’t, nor shouldn’t, take place overnight.  Reading the poll data, you have to ask what is the difference between “not a religious person” and “atheist?”  For all intents and purposes, I lost my religion in 1991.  It took another 12 years before I could leave my faith.  In those intervening years I would have best fit in the category of “not a religious person.”    Faith, or belief in god, was long ingrained in me – from my Catholic roots to my, later, Protestant conversion.  Shedding religion was difficult, but letting go of faith is probably worse than letting go of heroin (I only have experience in the former and not the latter, so the analogy may be without merit).

Religion, the formal doctrine providing the framework for nurturing faith, is the water and soil necessary to sustain belief.  When religion is removed, you are left without a reinforcement system that is designed to dispel doubt and foster belief.  My journey began as an effort to reconcile this situation.  I began by going back to church – ha, no, not the Catholic Church!  Just our local Methodist church, while simultaneously studying the bible.  It was through studying the origins of Christianity and the formation of the Catholic Church, along with the formation of church doctrine and theological thought, that it dawned on me that the whole thing was a sham!  The realization that your entire belief system is a lie is enough to shake you to the core!  You then must traverse the 7 stages of grief!

You don’t just wake up one day and declare you are no longer a Christian.

Which is where a near majority of my Irish cousins currently find themselves – on a road and journey moving them from no religion to no belief.  Of course not all will make it, but the fact that atheism has grown by over 300% in the last 7 years indicates there is a robust support network being established to help them along the difficult path.  My Facebook friend Michael Nugent has worked tirelessly to put support networks in place for people needing assistance.

To close this one out, I return to the beginning – the Holy Catholic Church is not holy by any stretch – it’s a man-made institution whose sole purpose is to survive.  It has nothing to do with god or saving souls – it exists to exist and the main goal of the church leadership, from the pope down is to see that this continues.  These people may have had the best of intentions when entering the church, but the institution itself is evil and corrupt and will find a way to pervert the best of people.

It’s amusing that here in America, we have such an inherent distrust of the government, and its potential for abuse of power, that we limit the amount of time a person can be president.  And despite the fact that members of congress face a potential term limit every two to six years, we don’t even trust ourselves not to keep sending politicians back to Washington.  The idea of limiting the number of terms one can serve in the House or Senate has wide appeal.  Such is the disdain and distrust for a career politician – because we “know” through experience the longer one stays in government the greater the potential for corruption is.  Now imagine what a lifetime spent in the church hierarchy gets you, yet we never consider for a moment the potential for corruption this provides.

The mechanics of the U.S. government is barely over 200 old.  The Catholic Church has a 15 century head start and has perfected corruption!

The Importance of Habeas Corpus and the Suspension of Freedom

Many of the conservative positions taken over the course of the Obama presidency is how American freedoms have suffered and how this country is moving along the lines of fascist/socialist/anti-colonial/communist dictatorship.  Every little thing the Obama government proposes is roundly denounced by the Fox/Rush/Hannity cabal as an assault on American freedom.

Amazingly, we allowed our freedoms to slip away, in a bipartisan manner, during the Bush administration in the name of security.  A fair criticism of the current president is why are we continuing these same practices?  Why do the freedoms of American citizens continue to be compromised?

The leaked White House memo justifying the sanctioned government killings of Americans suspected of terrorist activities against the state has finally percolated to the point of drawing congressional attention proving that the wheels of the U.S. government are pretty slow, when we choose to ignore uncomfortable news.  Consider the fact that Anwar al-Aulaqi, an America citizen, was killed in Yemen in September 2011-without due process-for his role in al-Qaeda plotting against America.

Just a couple weeks later, the Obama administration executed al-Aulaqi’s 16 year son in a drone strike, despite the fact that “proof” of the teenager’s involvement in terrorist activities has never been proven.  But that’s the rub – proof of a crime is no longer required for your government to kill you!

One of the great traditions America incorporated from our British ancestry is the right of Habeas Corpus.  For those that may not fully understand what Habeas Corpus is, and why it is important, the definition follows:

Habeas Corpus, literally in Latin “you have the body” is a term that represents an important right granted to individuals in America. Basically, a writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate requiring that a prisoner be brought before the court to determine whether the government has the right to continue detaining them. The individual being held or their representative can petition the court for such a writ.

Habeas Corpus is enshrined in the American Constitution, not even as an afterthought (like the Bill of Rights – the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution) – it’s actually right there in Article 1, Section 9, commonly referred to as the Suspension Clause:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Such suspensions of Habeas Corpus have occurred in our history.  Presidents Lincoln and Grant exercised the suspension during and after the Civil War.

For well over a century, we took for granted that we have a right to Habeas Corpus – that is until 2006 when it was suspended again when Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in October that same year.  The law specifies how the country (and the executive branch of the country), has the right to detain and/or execute persons, citizenship aside, determined to be threats to public safety:

‘‘(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

‘‘(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.’’.

This was the basis in law that allowed the US government to detain suspects indefinitely and without a right to trial, aliens suspected of being involved in terrorist activities against the state.  The law specifically applies to “aliens” (i.e., non-US citizens); however, in the zeal to protect America from all threats, foreign and domestic, the administration and the Department of Justice have interpreted the law to include all threats, regardless of citizenship.

So next time you hear some jerk-off politician complaining on your AM dial that Obama’s latest effort to put textbooks in schools is following the slippery slope of his communist agenda to destroy America, consider for a moment, just a moment, how stupid that sounds — especially when you have ready-made examples of suspension of freedoms to choose from.

I now return you to your regular scheduled programming of Swamp People or Honey Booboo and you can focus on the things that really matter…

 

Sports and the Military

An oped piece that ran in the Washington Post prior to the Super Bowl deserves another look.

The article, When we cheer for our team, do we have to cheer for America, too? raises a host of valid questions that we, as a viewing public, should have the ability to engage in civil conversation on.

Written by Tricia Jenkins, an assistant professor of film, television and digital media at Texas Christian University, the article calls in to question the odd relationship between the military and our sporting events. 

“Sports games — some of the only events that lead Americans to set their differences aside and sit down and watch together — have become stages for large-scale patriotic theater. This is no accident; many of the militaristic rituals we see in stadiums and arenas across the country were deliberately designed to promote unity during times of crisis. But they’ve stuck around far longer than needed, making sports feel less like pastimes than pep rallies for our military or a particular war.”

In her article, Ms. Jenkins cites several examples of how the athletes themselves take issue with the messaging taking place, to the chagrin of the team, the league, and/or the fans they perform for. 

“By refusing to participate in patriotic gimmickry because of their objections to U.S. policy, these athletes were exercising their constitutional right to dissent. Still, their teams, leagues and crowds tried to silence them. That’s their right, too, of course. But somehow, a country founded on rebellion finds not standing for an anthem or saluting a flag un-American.”

It’s easy to dismiss the views of individual gladiators that refuse to play along in the “gimmickry;” however, what should be examined is why is it there in the first place?

“During World War II, team owners introduced the national anthem and ceremonies honoring the armed forces as a way to win President Franklin Roosevelt’s support for continuing play amid the conflict. The weekend after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle inserted moments of silence and flag ceremonies into his league’s games.  The small flag decals on many athletes’ uniforms arose from basketball and football organizers’ desire to show unified support for the Persian Gulf War. And “God Bless America” has replaced or supplemented “Take Me Out to the Ballgame” during baseball’s seventh inning stretch; the New York Yankees introduced this tradition after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

These “traditional” insertions of patriotic festivities in to our sporting events, often done not as a result of fan desires but foisted upon the viewers by club owners or league officials as a way to jerk at the heartstrings of viewers, appealing to their love of country and love of team, should be looked upon with a grain of cynicism, questioning the emotional manipulation taking place.

“[O]thers may end up cheering the military whether they want to or not because sporting rituals now conflate it with athletics. After all, it was hard to tell whether Fighting Irish and Crimson Tide fans were celebrating the arrival of the game ball or the paratroopers who delivered it. Likewise, when the San Diego Padres take the field on Sundays dressed in camouflage jerseys, are fans rooting for their home team or the military that inspired its outfits?

 

This militarized pageantry seems here to stay — sports franchises benefit too much from the cheap thrills and public relations opportunities it affords…What comes next? Navy SEALs sneaking through the bleachers to deliver free pizzas? Beer sold in combat-boot-shaped cups? Or maybe miniature drones dropping T-shirts onto the crowds below?

Responses to this article on the Washington Post have been overwhelmingly negative.  Most see Ms. Jenkins thesis, that patriotism and sports are not mutually inclusive, as unpatriotic and elite liberalism at its worst.  I think this is a flawed way of looking at the issue. 

Sporting events represent, whether we choose to admit it or not, a near primal instinct we’ve celebrated for thousands of years.  Everything about a National Football League game is a part and parcel reenactment of the Roman Coliseum, minus the killing (sometimes).  Even the language used to describe the action borrows heavily upon the gladiatorial experience.  Maybe these events do in fact represent the perfect venue to promote the military – or at the very least, acknowledge the sacrifices service members make so that the rest of America can enjoy a sporting event without actually doing anything more than cheering when we cut the camera to someone wearing BDUs or waving the flag.  In my opinion, it isn’t as much that the service of our men and women in uniform “allows” us to continue enjoying our sporting events by securing our “freedoms,” as it is that their service frees the vast majority of Americans from having to don a uniform and spend years away from our loved ones and our favorite teams. 

From the nationalistic/patriotism perspective, what other events brings tens of thousands of people together?  Concerts?  Megachurches on Sundays?  Would those be the appropriate venues to recognize the military and promote nationalism? 

I’ve never had an issue with opening a sporting event with the singing of the Star Spangled Banner – especially an Orioles game with the enthusiastic emphasis on “O” near the end.  When the anthem ends, the first words that come to mind is “play ball!”  On the other hand, do we really need to sing God Bless America during the 7^th inning stretch?  That is overly gratuitous.  Bring back Take Me Out to the Ball Game any day.  But heaven forbid the suggestion to scrap God Bless America at a sporting event – that would be unpatriotic…

Proof that the problem with America is STUPIDITY

Reblogged from Fellowship of the Minds:

This is a letter to the editor of Morehead City, NC's Carteret County News-Times, sent by a self-described "proud Democrat." The letter was published in the News-Times' January 23, 2013 edition.

I've added the yellow underlining to draw your attention to the stupidity.

H/t FOTM's WildBillAlaska

~Eowyn

Read more… 3 more words

First shot at "reblogging," but it shows that stupidity isn't sole property of one party...

The Death Throes of Christianity

A friend recently asked what I thought about the idea of atheism as a religion, forwarding a debate article on the question in the New York Times.

I tried to provide a cogent response, because my initial inclination was to reject the premise out of hand.  Atheists often like to make comparable analogies such as “atheism is a religion like “off” is a television channel.” The entire foundation of atheism is a rejection of belief in supernatural deities – to endow atheism with the dogmatic trappings of a religion, which by definition requires faith in something more, is, in my opinion, a prelude to disaster.

Having said that, I understand the motivation behind such an endeavor of placing atheism on a par, or equal footing with other religions for tolerance and respect.  Those self-acknowledged atheists, though a small number in comparison to all who have taken to disavow religion – the Nones – still outnumber Jews, Hindus, Mormons, Scientologists, and Muslims in the United States combined!  Despite these numbers, atheists continue to be treated, well, terribly.

Take for example the reactionary commentary to the recent story that caused a chapel at Forward Operating Base Orgun-E to remove a steeple placed on top of the building.  Army Regulation 165-1 “Army Chaplain Corps Activities” clearly states that the “chapel environment will be religiously neutral when the facility is not being used for scheduled worship. Portable religious symbols, icons, or statues may be used within a chapel during times of religious worship. Symbols are to be moved or covered when not in use during services. Distinctive religious symbols, such as crosses, crucifixes, the Star of David, Menorah, and other religious symbols will not be affixed or displayed permanently on the chapel interior, exterior, or grounds. Permanent or fixed chapel furnishings, such as the altar, pulpit, lectern, or communion rail will be devoid of distinctive religious symbols.”

Despite this regulation, when an atheist soldier assigned to FOB Orgun complained, he began to receive threats and nicely written posts denigrating non-believers.

For original story and a list of more highly offensive and inflammatory responses visit http://freethoughtblogs.com/rockbeyondbelief/2013/01/25/top-30-terrible-comments-about-atheist-soldiers-on-foxnews-com/

 

This brings us to the crux of the story.  Christianity is in trouble.  Its ideas are bankrupt, relying instead on brainwashing to keep its dwindling numbers afloat.

In the latest attempt to create a theocracy, rivaled only by the likes of Iran or Saudi Arabia, Christian lawmakers in Arizona actually have the audacity to forward a bill that would require ALL STUDENTS in Arizona public schools take an oath to country, so help me god, in order to graduate.

 

First and foremost, I’ve taken a very similar oath on a few occasions – when joining the military as well is for my current position as a Department of Defense civilian.  These were positions I sought out, applied for, and was selected for.  I took my oath freely, without reservation.  Do we really expect, or want, children attending public schools to do this?

Forget for a moment that the bill (and law if passed) will be immediately deigned unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment – it’s the thought process that is going in to crafting the bill in the first place that needs to be examined. The effort to insert religious views in to the public sector – be it prayer in school, etc., highlights the fact that Christianity can no longer hold people to its antiquated and dogmatic teachings and needs champions (i.e., elected officials) to force those who are turning away from Christianity in ever increasing numbers to adhere to their beliefs.

With Nones accounting for 20 percent of the population, and rising, the number of American Protestants has, for the first time in our nation’s history, dropped below the majority.  This has to be a scary prospect for people of faith, especially those who have the power to do something about it.  However, their efforts to force people to adhere to arcane beliefs, are about as futile as those atheists that think they need to mimic a failing system in order to achieve parity.

Special thanks to SSG Justin Griffith and his work at Military Atheists and Secular Humanists and his reporting on these issues for Free Thought Blogs, and to friends that brought the recent legislation in Arizona to my attention.

Shit You See on Facebook Part II

Yet another insipid piece of misinformation is (and probably has been) making the rounds on Facebook.  This one is entitled “Military Pay” and tells a great story from an Airman stationed at Hill Air Force Base in response to an op-ed piece written by a woman named Cindy Williams.

This piece is so chalk full of inaccuracies; I need to break it down bit by bit.  It reads (with my commentary in italics):

Military Pay
Please take the time to read!

CINDY WILLIAMS was appointed by Obama as an Assistant Director for NATIONAL SECURITY in the Congressional Budget Office…..

Whoever wrote the introduction to this piece is a blatant liar, spinning an agenda.  Ms. Williams did indeed hold the position in question – but during the CLINTON administration back in the 1990’s!

Cindy Williams, not be confused with the Cindy Williams of Laverne and Shirley fame, is a Principal Research Scientist of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  Unfortunately, readers of this post, over the many years it has been circulating, have sent considerable amounts of hate mail to the other Cindy Williams that used to play Shirley Feeney.

This is an Airman’s response to Cindy Williams’ editorial piece in the Washington Post about MILITARY PAY, it should be printed in all newspapers across America .

Cindy William wrote a piece for the Washington Times denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members’ way this year citing that she stated a 13% wage increase was more than they deserve.

This is half right and half wrong – the author couldn’t bother to fact check within paragraphs!  The editorial article written by Ms. Williams did indeed run in the Washington Post and not the Washington Times.  Furthermore, never (repeat NEVER) had it been suggested in the last 30 years that a 13% pay raise for the military was ever up for consideration!  The 13% figure WAS a delta representing the, then, gap between civilian wages and military pay.  This figure was so outlandish it raised the first red flag!

A young airman from Hill AFB responds to her article below. He ought to get a bonus for this.

“Ms Williams:

I just had the pleasure of reading your column, “Our GI’s earn enough” and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I’m wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account. Checking my latest earnings statement I see that I make $1,117.80 before taxes per month. After taxes, I take home $874.20. When I run that through the calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after.

The Airman’s pay may have been correct in 2000, the year Ms. Williams op-ed piece in the Washington Post ran.  Even then, the figure is actually less than the real pay of an Airman First Class (E-3) with under 2 years of service of $1,171.50 per month.

I work in the Air Force Network Control Center where I am part of the team responsible for a 5,000 host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for “Network Technicians” in the Washington , D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years experience in my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum………… I’m sure you can draw the obvious conclusions.

This is pretty impressive – let’s assume for a moment that back in 2000 when the Airman wrote his rebuttal to Ms. Williams that a network technician of his stature (with less than 2 years on the job) was indeed earning $70-80K per year – the recession has been very hard on network technicians!  The average rate of pay for network techs in the DC area today is $48K.

Additionally, since the Airman is referencing his actual paycheck, it’s clear that he is single, with no dependents, and he is living in barracks on Hill AFB outside of Ogden Utah.  His rent, his meals, his health care is all taken care of without a cent more out of his pay.  If he were married, he would receive additional funding – tax free – for rent and meals.  An E-3, with under two years of service today earns $1,788.29.  If Airman Bragg was currently stationed at Hill AFB, married, living off base, he would be making $3,241 a month, with over $1,500 of that tax free.

Since he is under two years in the service without dependents, it’s safe to assume that he is a recent high school graduate, probably close to 20 years old, with less than one year on the actual job following his basic training and advanced MOS training.  He may fancy the idea that his skills are on par with those network techs making $70K a year, but he’s still essentially an entry-level trainee.  Additionally, in return for his service, he’s able to take advantage of the GI Bill and College Fund to further his education while still in uniform as well as when he leaves the service.

Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces.

Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military’s lowest pay brackets off of WIC and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for AFGHANISTAN ; I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full “deployment experience.”

So again, we are dealing with a hybrid lie!  There is no way that Airman Hill, or any other soldier was deploying to Afghanistan in January 2000.  Um, just think about that for just a moment…

As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they’ll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone. Obviously they’ve been squandering the “vast” piles of cash the government has been giving them.

Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites.. And when you’re actually over there, sitting in a foxhole, shivering against the cold desert night, and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren’t enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE’s (meal-ready-to-eat) you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. This gives some flavor.

This is the truest thing in the entire article (as it currently exists) – Tabasco makes MRE’s edible!

Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won’t be nearly long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your open piece.

But, tomorrow from KABUL , I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Again, whatever letter Airman Bragg originally wrote in response to Ms. Williams  it has been doctored and updated, in order to push an agenda – I find this to be reprehensible, because it does nothing more than dupe honest people that would be certain to be outraged by the misleading information contained in this post.

You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment right and every other right you cherish…On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective noses at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe. We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can’t offer the stability and pay of civilian companies.

And you, Ms.. Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve?”
A1C Michael Bragg, Hill AFB AFNCC
IF YOU AGREE, PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE AND SHOW YOUR SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN FIGHTING MEN AND WOMEN.
If you get this more than once, feel honored that you know more than one person
who supports our military and appreciates what they do.
Share · January 16
3 people like this.
9,772 shares

The worst part of this whole deplorable article is that it only takes 5 minutes to debunk the entire thing.  When I see crap like this floating around, it just pisses me off that more people do not take the time to do so on their own before sharing information that is blatantly wrong in order to further an agenda.  If ideology and outlook depend on lies to make it work, we are in trouble!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33607-2000Jan11.html

http://web.mit.edu/ssp/people/williams/faculty_williams.html

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/gipay.asp

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4794473673666&set=pb.1650684324.-2207520000.1358742249&type=3&theater