Godless God-lovers

I'm getting so jaded about organized religion.

It's not that I don't like church, or think that it's not important. Corporal worship is still a great experience and gathering with other believers is key to any relationship with God.

It's just, man, God-lovers seem to be getting more stupid and close-minded by the day.

I wonder if it's always been this way.

I grew up in the church. Sunday school, bible study, Sunday worship, communion service, Women's Day, Usher's Day, I attended them all many times. Church and church people were a central part of my early development, and my faith has been a bedrock in my life for as long as I can remember. Sure, I resented attending worship when I was younger, but when the travails of life descended upon me, I appreciated the religious foundation my parents had established.

Now, I'm looking back over that time and wondering how much hateful stuff I was indoctrinated with while I was learning to serve the Lord.

Check out this story and this one. Now both of them involve the Catholic church, which has some crazy rules that are different from most other churches, but they are still indicative of a general attitude among church people.

That attitude can be summed up simply: get with the program or get the fuck out.

That makes me sad.

Like many traditional Christians I am troubled by what I see as a lack of morality and faith in the world today. Contrary to what some liberals fear, religious people are not staging a takeover, and the world is in fact moving further and further away from the traditional forms of most faiths. Truthfully, I do not see this as a good move because I believe the basic tenets of most religions promote goodwill and love towards your fellow man, and I shudder to think what the world would be like if we all lived by our own definitions of what is right and wrong.

Yet, I understand why these changes are occurring.

Many faiths, particularly my own Christianity, have become more and more dogmatic and political while also becoming less concerned with the primary concerns outlined for Christians in the Bible. This doesn't mean all church people aren't active in their communities, as a Katrina survivor I saw first hand the amount of good religious people can do, but it does mean that too often we don't do the right stuff when it comes to those that don't share our beliefs.

There is no excuse for the backlash among many white evangelicals towards other believers who supported Barack Obama. There is no biblical justification for the obscene amount of energy the church spends on discussing gay marriage and abortion, while topics like divorce and fornication are ignored. We are not loving our neighbors as we love ourselves and it shows. I'm tired of Christians hiding behind the trite explanation that we are a "peculiar people" and that the world "hated Jesus too."

Jesus was hated because he spoke against injustice and sought substantive moral change. Church people in America are hated because we seem to be patterning our lives after the Pharisees, a strict adherence to the letter of the law, but not to its Spirit.

I brought up my early childhood because when I look back these days I realize that often church people encouraged a casual disregard for those with different viewpoints and celebrated a stifling of intellectual curiosity.

I remember sitting in Sunday School one day and having an argument with my teacher about how God could give humans free will, but still know what we were going to do all the time. I had to be between 10 and 12 at the time, but I had already honed my logical debate skills to a fine edge. I argued that if God knew I was going steal some candy before I was born, how did I have free will when it came to stealing the candy? If my life was already laid out, wasn't I just following his plan?

You would have thought I had asked them to explain the mystery of the Trinity. Three or four teachers tried to deflate my argument, failed and then the Sunday School superintendent took an L. He basically brushed aside the question and said we shouldn't spend too much time pondering those types of things and we should just accept that God is all powerful and all-knowing while we have free will. And that was it.

(Later, I would think about this question some more. I decided that God may be aware of my future plans, but I am not. Consequently, when I make decisions, I make them in the moment and devoid of any control by God. Therefore, I can have free will even though my path in life is already set. It worked for me.)

That experience taught me something about church; it doesn't pay to be too different in the House of God. Don't ask too many questions, don't challenge too many accepted dogmas. Given my nature, I've always struggled with these guidelines, but that doesn't change the fact that they are real. And even more real is the truth that if a believer keeps on challenging the status quo, he or she might just be told their faith is fake and they are on their way to hell.

This mindset is crippling the church. I'm not in favor of the wholesale acceptance that characterizes many liberal churches, (I still believe fornication, adultery, lying and homosexuality are sins) but I do think the church has to encourage its members to really think about how the Bible works in the real world. We cannot continue to cling to banal biblical sayings, while we condemn everyone who disagrees with us.

We cannot win souls if we're concentrating all our efforts on stamping out any hint of non-conformity. We truly express God's will when we recognize the reality of free will, and encourage people to live according to God's will through a mixture of love and discipline. Our choice is not between liberalism gone wild and rigid conservatism. Our choice is between being beacons of pragmatic, realistic acceptance or being unthinking, hateful bastards.

Between being church people or Christians.








Share

Our New Spokesman

So, I'm talking to a friend.

She points out that President-elect Barack Obama is likely to be drafted for a new job that he never asked to hold.

Spokesman for the Entire Black Race.

Yep, it makes sense.

Gone are the days when reporters had to deal with people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or, if the reporters are feeling adventurous, Louis Farrakhan. No more feeling like a white devil, or closet racist. Now they have the easy option of talking to one of the most non-threatening, easy going black people on the planet who also happens to be the most powerful politician in America.

The checks are really about to stop for Jesse and Al.

Actually, that's not totally true. After all, the media needs controversy to drive its business, so I expect that Al and Jesse will still be in demand. But, instead of letting Jesse and Al have the last word on what black people think, I expect many reporters to turn to Obama to provide his take. And when conservative black people like Ward Connerly and Shelby Steele make their comments, I expect the White House to get a call as well.

The thing is, this presents a dilemma for Obama. Although his election was a triumph of all Americans, it cannot be ignored that 95 percent of black voters supported him. I'm pretty sure that some of the folks are going to expect Obama to be actively involved in their issues and their struggles on a grassroots level. No, I don't think this is particularly fair, but I do think it's life.

So, when the first plucky white reporter decides to ask Obama to weigh in on the latest protest in Harlem, Obama and his aides can't just offer up some random platitudes. That may have worked in the campaign, but now that Obama actually has some power certain black folks are going to expect real involvement. They are going to expect him to react the way they would react, and if he doesn't it won't be long before he's being called a sellout and other nonsense.

But, the rub is that Obama can't start spouting black liberation theory or co-signing the ramblings of the Revs. Al and Jesse if he wants to maintain credibility with the true power base in America. Random white people. While only 44 percent of them may have supported him, he still needs them on board if he wants to make any substantive improvements to America.

So, what should the HNIC do?

Here's my action plan. Obama aides need to aggressively attack reporters who attempt to make them discuss the actions of random black people across the country. Sure, there will be times when Obama has to take a stand, but most of the time he needs to have his aides question the motives of these reporters and their thinking. After all, did they ask George Bush to comment on every protest or issue involving white people? No they did not. They decided that certain things weren't Bush's concern and Obama aides need to make sure they get the press to install that same sort of filter when it comes to their guy. Of course, they need to make these attacks off the record and not for attribution.

Second, if a reporter persists in making Obama the new black spokesman, that reporter needs to go on the shit list. That's right, as a journalist, I am advocating that the government stonewall the press. It's blasphemy. But, here's the thing. Reporters expecting Obama to comment on the latest police shooting in Cincinnati are holding him to an unfair and borderline racist standard. Consequently, I feel no remorse about advocating that they be cut off from the spigot of information and forced to fend for themselves. Those reporters are not interested in fairness or balance and dealing with them would only result in more problems.

Finally, Obama needs to develop a squad of attack dogs to advance more aggressive viewpoints pertaining to the black community. These attack dogs cannot be directly linked to Obama, but they must create arguments based around a core set of principles that reflect his viewpoints while appealing to black people. These attack dogs need to be dispatched to traditional and non-traditional media sources to advance these memes. Obama's election means that intelligent black commentators are more in demand, and Obama would be wise to get ahead of the curve and get his people organized. He can also recruit white people to play this role on mainstream media programs.

Now, these people will not be just telling folks what they want to hear, they will actually be repeating the unvarnished version of where Obama stands on certain issues. I do not advocate misleading people, but you definitely have to shape your argument based on the audience you're trying to reach. Obama's people need to craft messages that resonate with black people and assure us that he has not forgotten about us or our concerns. These messages must be followed with concrete action, but he must get black people to understand that they should not expect him to respond on the timeline set by the media.

I think these three strategies are a good starting point for Obama to avoid the pitfalls of the title he is sure to inherit given his recent success. I'm pretty sure that if Obama makes it through two terms with a fair amount of success he will be labeled as the spokesman of black people for the rest of his life, so he might as well get comfortable with the role.

Lord knows Jesse and Al haven't set the bar too high.


Share

Who Is In The Room?

When I was in grad school, I was assigned this book about politics that outlined the information bubble that American presidents operate inside.

The president is privy to almost any information he requests, but because of the nature of his job and the nature of bureaucracy, the president doesn't always know what data he should be seeking. So, he's at the mercy of aides and cabinet members who decide on their own what theories and data to push forward and what information to withhold. In addition, most political underlings instinctively shy away from presenting the president with information he might not appreciate or agree with because they don't want to feel his wrath, or fall out of favor.

In the end, the president often hears what he wants to hear, or, more accurately, what people think he wants to hear.

With people like George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan, this information bubble can lead to dire consequences because without dissenting opinions both of these men made terrible choices based on ideology or political expediency. With Bill Clinton and Bush Sr., the bubble was less of a problem, but they did make less than intelligent decisions because of its constraints.

This state of affairs places a premium on a president's willingness to seek out dissenting opinions constantly, and to challenge the long held theories of his appointees. It also makes it vital that there are a myriad of mindsets at the power table, or the President runs the risk of having his briefing room turn into an echo chamber.

I thought about this recently as President-elect Barack Obama went about the business of assembling his cabinet and White House staff. More specifically, I thought about it as I saw the parade of old white guys presented as candidates for powerful positions.

There is a debate going on in political circles about how much diversity Obama will bring to his cabinet. That includes a diversity of ideas and a diversity of skin tone. People have theorized that he should just pick "the best people available" or that he should try to make his cabinet a true rainbow coalition. (I'll ignore the blatant racism inherent in assuming that if Obama just picks the best candidates there is no way he will pick people of color. That's just typical. Here is a newsflash, Obama was the best candidate for president and he wasn't white. It can happen.)

Some commenters have noted that Obama hasn't faced the same scrutiny from minority communities or the press regarding the color of his selections as have previous recent administrations. They wonder if this is further evidence of our post-racial times, or if Obama will feel the heat soon. Some have theorized that black people are finally ok with selections being made based on qualifications not color because black people believe that was how Obama was selected.

I'm going to have to call bullshit.

True, black people haven't been complaining much because the afterglow is still there and because we don't want to make things any harder than they have to be for the new president. Black people are real sensitive about criticizing other powerful black people in mixed company. We prefer to keep our business in house.

That said, I wonder if the real reason that black people aren't complaining isn't much more simple. I think that we understand that it's cool to have people of color giving the president advice before he makes a decision, but the real power is when you're actually the person making the final call.

So, since we have HNIC I think we're pretty laid back about all the other NICs running around the White House.

Thing is, I go back and forth about whether this is a good idea. Obama's intelligence is obvious, but I wonder what his decision making style will be. News reports have said that he likes to collect as much data as possible before making a decision. But, my own observations tell me that he has certain core values and goals that drive his vision for this country and every issue is weighed against how it impacts those goals.

I'm curious to see if he will be a president who makes decisions based on the consensus of his staff, or if he will be guided by some sort of internal compass. I imagine it will be a mixture of both, and in that case I can see the argument for more diversity within his cabinet. Ultimately, he will be dependent on outsiders to bring him the information he needs to make decisions and to challenge his world view. If he surrounds himself with people who only reflect the worldview of white people, while ignoring Latinos, Asians and black people, well some problems could arise.

The thing is, for some reason I'm confident that Obama understands the core struggles of all of the racial groups in this country. His unique background and inquisitive nature have given him a knowledge base never before seen in the White House as it relates to understanding the total American story. I'm sure he still needs some seasoning and advanced education, but I'm confident that his vision of America is one that encompasses all of our stories.

I guess I said all that, to say that I'm not as concerned about the color of his staff as I once was. I would hope that he considers diversity when he makes hires, but I am more concerned about him accomplishing the goals he set forth during his campaign. I think that if that happens, everybody in America will benefit.




Share

Umm...When Are You Leaving?

Y'all ever heard that old saying about house guests and fish?

After three days, both them motherfuckers be stinking.

Well Sarah Palin has been staying in Americans' collective house for waaaaaay longer than three days, and, right now, that's one funky Alaskan.

I can't be the only one wondering when the hell the Nieman Marcus Narcissist is going to be leaving the big stage, right? She done stretched her short stint as the tart of the right wing into a permanent gig as a critic of all things here in the Lower 49.

For a woman that couldn't be bothered with press conferences and "gotcha journalism", Palin sure seems to love a tape recorder and camera these days. The next day that passes without Palin discussing just how unfair the media has been to her, or the fact that she didn't keep any of those fancy threads the RNC gave her, will be the first day. And did y'all see how upset she got about anonymous sources? Really, you can't complain about anonymous sources and spread GOP propoganda on the stump. It just doesn't work

But, all joking aside, I'm wondering why this uninformed ignoramus from the backwoods continues to get a national platform to address the public. If you check out this story it's obvious that the Governor has some serious issues waiting for her back on the frozen tundra. So, shouldn't the media leave her and her dumb ass ideas alone, and let her get back to serving the citizens of Alaska now that oil revenues have taken a serious drop? Seems like the responsible thing, right?

Naaaaaaah.

Nope, the media has decided it wants to let Palin address each and every smear levied against her and then paint herself as some sort of martyr for the cause of common sense governing. Now, when I say "the media" I don't mean those pinkos over at MSNBC. Keith Olbermann is almost as obsessed with Palin as he is with Bill O'Reilly and his own press clippings. The disdain he and Rachel Maddow have for the Governor cannot be overstated, and they can always be counted on to piss all over her theories. I'm talking about the mainstream, or "neutral", media and how they have allowed this woman a ridiculous amount of face time after she effing lost!

That's right folks, this chick lost and she's been on television more than Joe Biden and John McCain combined! For real, being an old white guy is really a killer these days when it comes to getting some spotlight. It's still great when it comes to ruling the world, but as far as political fame, it's all about the darkies and the vajayjays these days.

Anyway, this is my plea to the national media to start igging Palin and her modular home community family (that's the polite name for trailer park folks) so that she can just fade into the background. Hopefully we will have at least four years of an intelligent president (where is Obama's bulletproof vest?) before we have to deal with the possibility of this broad having access to nukes again. Seriously, I wet the bed like three times after McCain named her his running mate because of how close she was to the nuclear football. Three times!

It's silent treatment time for Sarah Palin. Everybody pretend like she doesn't exist, and if she still manages to convince the people in Alaska to keep her in office, (They re-elected a convicted felon! And folks try to talk about black people and William Jefferson? Please), well then we'll worry about her national profile.

Other than that she needs to kick rocks.



Share