Bad Taste/Good Taste

Does Glen Beck's attempt to rebrand himself as the reincarnation of Martin Luther King leave a bad taste in your mouth?

Perhaps this will help. ;-)

A picture slideshow by Smilebox

Leaving a Stain on American Politics

As a followup to yesterday's post, I offer today's Mike Luckovich editorial cartoon.

Glenn Beck, the self-proclaimed leader of the Tea Party "Patriots," is a hero and exemplar for those who worship a very small God and who use fear and hatred to promote a regressive and morally bankrupt political agenda.

How Big Is Your God?

Here's another Q & A from Bishop John Shelby Spong followed by some thoughts it evoked.

John Arvey, from Sunnyvale, CA asks:

You have discussed the influence of astronomy on our God view. What do you think will happen when life on other planets is discovered? Will this expand or contract your image of God?

Dear John:

In a word, I believe nothing will happen. I assume it's inevitable already. Our image of God is always too small. Our problem is that we cannot think in God categories. God is the same. Our image of God expands every time we discover something more about life, the universe or our own humanity.

– John Shelby Spong

===

To subscribe to Bishop Spong's Weekly Q & A newsletter go to this link, scroll to the bottom, and enter your email address: http://www.johnshelbyspong.com/publicsite/index.aspx

===

According to Bishop Spong, we humans gain greater insight into the nature of God through the process of learning - exploring all areas of human knowledge and then changing our beliefs when an ever expanding understanding of reality demands that we do so. That process, however, with its inherent challenge to our cherished beliefs, is anathema to both conservative Christian and conservative political philosophy as embodied in the Tea Party Movement and championed by the braying of Rush Limbaugh and FOX News.

Christian Conservatism of this type offers its followers a very small God. In fact and in practice, it holds that knowledge of God is completely and perfectly revealed in a rigid, sect-specific interpretation of the Bible, and learning is sinful whenever it calls into question any aspect of that interpretation.

Political Conservatism of this type also offers its followers a very small God - the status quo. It holds that American values are completely and perfectly revealed in the rigid, ideology-specific interpretation the Constitution known as strict constructionism, and learning which calls this interpretation into question is unpatriotic.

Thus, both groups strive to maintain the status quo in which special privilege is granted to those with great wealth. Both the Bible and the Constitution are wielded as brooms to sweep reports of the escalating economic inequality in America under a carpet of willful ignorance.

Instead of delighting in and celebrating the prospect of a deepening relationship to and understanding of the divine, these conservatives live in a world filled with fear. They fear change. They fear knowledge which clearly shows that observed reality is quite different from what their rigid beliefs declare it to be.

Deep down, they know that any philosophy which offers a guarantee of unassailable rectitude is a sham, and they are afraid that a just God will hold them accountable for the intolerance, selfishness, bigotry, homophobia, greed, self-righteousness, and ignorance their beliefs foster.

Is it any wonder that they resort to fear-mongering and intimidation when they engage in the political process?

It would appear that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was decades ahead of his time when he said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Responding to Bigots Who Hide Behind the Bible

This is an email I sent to a bunch of friends earlier today. The text below my signature is a reply by Bishop John Shelby Spong to a letter he received. It presents a most eloquent and useful guide on how to respond to those who hide behind religion to push a political ideology which promotes hatred, bigotry, and ignorance.

George

PS: To subscribe to Bishop Spong's Weekly Q&A newsletter go to the link below, scroll to the bottom, and enter your email address.

http://www.johnshelbyspong.com/publicsite/index.aspx

===

Anne Harrison from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, writes
How does one respectfully answer or relate to dear friends who want to debate an issue (such as the "sin" of homosexuality)? I know they are trying to "convert" me!

Dear Anne,

You need first to separate religious conviction from hostility. One does not allow hostility to be expressed toward oneself that is demeaning and destructive, even when people package their hostility in the rhetoric of religion. Religious hostility is no less hostile than non-religious hostility! You must see it and call it for what it is. You simply tell these friends that you do not want to discuss these subjects, that their persistent attempts to do so are not acceptable, that you do not welcome it and that if they continue in this behavior, even though they are "dear friends," they will be putting your friendship at risk. That should get their attention.

Once you have gotten their attention, you then explain that there are some subjects on which your mind, based on your best study, are <sic> settled and thus are no longer up for consideration or further debate even though you are aware that they do not agree with you. This will certainly put them on notice, and then it is up to them to act in such a way as to continue their friendship with you.

What I think all people need to understand is that the pious rhetoric of religion, including quotations from the Bible, do not make hostility acceptable. Religious rudeness is still rude, religious anger is still anger and boorish people who are religious are still boorish. No one is required to absorb anger even when it is perfumed with a religious scent.

I hope this helps.

– John Shelby Spong

Judicial Responsibility

As you watch the video below, note how FOX reporter Chris Wallace attempts to frame the subject of Judge Vaughn Walker's recent Proposition 8 ruling as controversial with leading questions dripping with unsupported opinion. Note also how Ted Olsen sticks to the subject, backs up his statements, and refuses to grant Wallace's diversions the status of fact, let alone credibility.

Near the four minute mark of the video, Wallace asks Olsen to define judicial activism and reminds him that he has opposed it in the past. This is an obvious setup designed to tag the Proposition 8 ruling with a favorite right-wing epithet.

In response, Olsen begins, "Well, most people use the term judicial activism to explain decisions that they don't like," and Wallace gleefully interrupts him, saying, "Exactly!"

To Wallace's interruption, however, Olsen says, "I'm sorry if I interrupted you." He then continues to explain the difference between judicial activism and judicial responsibility. His response decimates the credibility of any attempt on the part of Wallace to portray Judge Vaughn Walker's decision as judicial activism. It also lays the foundation for refuting any future attempts to do so by others who oppose the decision on those specious grounds.

Hypocrisy Un-Mosqued

Sam Seder pulls no punches. He calls out bullshit wherever it lands to foul America, and he identifies the purveyors thereof irrespective of their pedigree.

This time, Seder, who is a Jew, calls bullshit on all, including the Jewish Anti Defamation League, who have come out in opposition to the building of a Muslim community center in New York a block away from ground zero.

2010 GOP Primary

This image reveals the process the GOP is using in 2010 to choose candidates capable of passing the Tea Party litmus test.