"...I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side." -- Abraham Lincoln
The Role of Satan
One of the common threads within the structure of the myth is the hero. This person is usually the central character in the story who must overcome adversity to triumph in the end or learn some valuable truth. There are many heroes within the pages of the Bible, but arguably, Jesus stands out as the central character. For every hero, there is also the villain or antagonist. This character represents challenge or adversity to the goals of the hero. In the case of the Bible, this character is none other than the mega-villain, Satan.
Typically, Satan is attributed to any sort of force opposing God’s work. Apparently, Satan is able to enter the human mind at will, speaking with a voice that is at least as clear as God’s own voice. So insidious is Satan, that he is able to organize sinners and angels to rebel against God. With a work ethic that must rival only God’s own, Satan works tirelessly to subvert the thoughts and minds of vulnerable humans, causing them to sin. He is also conveniently the force behind any doubtful assessment or contradictory criticism against Christianity itself. The eternal souls of humanity are what hangs in the balance of this cosmic tug of war between God and Satan. The Bible foretells of Satan’s ultimate demise (20:10), but despite this, he is as determined as ever to win his share of souls.
Satan has bore many names throughout the Bible including the Devil, Interloper, Adversary, Deceiver, Serpent, among others. While all of these personas, in actuality, were written in context as different characters, they have been generalized into one all-encapsulating villain.
What fascinates me is the degree to which “Believers” use Satan as a scapegoat. Blaming some unseen malicious character for the cause of evil that exists within humankind is a useful way to remain aloof from owning up to “sinful” impulses and behaviors as being part of the whole self. It is also a rather convenient reason to have God around. Many modern Christians especially like to embellish the idea that Satan is powerful enough to keep a person from hearing God’s voice. When challenged as to the Devil’s purported omni-pervasiveness as being equivalent to God’s, Christians often demur, claiming that Satan has multitudes under his command like some kind of grand army or bureaucracy. According to the way in which Satan is presented by the Church, he is at the very least, extremely efficient at what he does, lurking around every corner of the mind, just waiting for the perfect opportunity to inspire those of us who are susceptible to sin.
This whole idea plays into the fantasy of some grand cosmic drama taking place with humans placed at the center. This is not the only instance of a human-centric philosophy. Throughout our existence, humans have tended to believe in a misunderstood presumption that we are at the center of everything. We once believed that we were the axis of the which the sun revolved around, for instance. Unrestrained, the human ego may think that it is central to everything, and all else is a mechanism designed for the purpose of facilitating the ego. This is evident within Bible literature, whereas humans were given dominion over the Earth by God (Genesis 1:28). This is yet another representation of the cultural bias of the monarchial system, where one group rules over all others with God sitting on his throne at the top of it all. This is both exploitative and imbalanced with the order of ecology, a subject of little or no importance to the traditions of the Bible.
But each time the veil of understanding is lifted a little further, our perspective shifts, and we realize that the universe is much bigger and more complex than we have understood. The more we learn about the universe, the more we see that we are mutual players with other organisms and realize our interdependence with the whole scheme of totality. If drama is what the average "Believer" seeks, what better than the infinitesimally complex grander drama of interconnectedness that exists between all organisms, rather than the simplistic, limited scope that the Bible presents?
Heaven or Hell...Flip A Coin
"If you died tomorrow, do you know where you'll go?" Such rhetoric is intended to provoke doubt in the un-"Believer," and project some sort of secret knowledge from the part of the "Believer" as to the afterlife. Inevitably, any serious debate about Christianity will land on whether or not a given person will end up in Heaven or Hell. This is usually the final arguing point of any devout Christian, the proverbial “ace up the sleeve.” This argument doesn’t hold up to basic logic however. If God (the big ’G,’ remember?), is omnipresent, or is everywhere, then how can there exist a place where He/She/It is not? Furthermore, the idea of Hell surely illustrates God’s un-love. If He/She/It loves us all, as the Bible clearly says, why would anyone be sent to Hell?
The whole premise of Christianity only works if you believe in Heaven and Hell. The idea that humans are potentially Hellbound comes from the Biblical concept of original sin found in Genesis, chapter 3. According to the Scriptures, Adam and Eve sinned by rebelling against God who, in turn, doomed all of their offspring (the entirety of humankind) to the potentiality of sin and death. This fundamental belief asserts that all humans, babies included, are born as "marked souls," whether or not they have committed any sins. This puts every person in the rather unfortunate position of automatically requiring a Savior and therefore, the institution of Christianity.
The concept of Heaven/Hell polarization reveals much about the psychology of Christianity. Firstly, it reveals the Christian’s obsession with judgment of Earthly, or material matters. To equate one’s short-term actions in this transitory world as having eternal consequences worthy of Heaven or Hell is both unrealistic and shortsighted. Surely when one dies, the agendas and values of their Earthly existence cease to matter, or at the very least, change. For example, you can’t take your house, or cars or worldly prestige, or accomplishments with you to the grave; once you’re dead, you’re dead. Even if there is a Heaven or Hell, the things that matter to us now surely pale in comparison to the things that are eternal. If one has the scope of eternity, how miniscule the dealings and drama of Earth would be. It is only through our short-sighted human eyes that we get caught up in the act.
Another aspect of the Heaven/Hell concept is how Christians use it as a point of exclusion. Essentially, if you are a Christian, you belong to an exclusive club. But it is only through another Christian that a person can find out about this club and join in. Once you are in, you will be rewarded with eternal life. If you don’t accept, you will suffer eternal damnation. This is an example of in- and out-grouping. One group has the “inside scoop” on matters dealing with eternity, a subject to which humans are dismally suited to explain. This in-group believes that they are in touch with God and therefore have the ability to mediate between He/She/It and the others, or out-group. This comes out in the form of judgment, self-righteousness, exclusion, and many other negative forms of separatism. This divisiveness extends into nearly every aspect of Christian principles which are deeply rooted in the belief of possessing “God’s favor” through “divine right.” This is at best annoying, and at worst, deadly. How is it that Christians feel that they are more qualified to discuss matters of the afterlife, than non-"Believers?"
The in-group maintains that they are God’s spokespeople in a world where God’s voice is conspicuously absent. Their only “proof” is the subjective method of “hearing God’s voice, and relying on the Bible, a flawed and fallible collection of culturally-biased, humanly-tainted, and politically-motivated literature. Who could ever argue against those who claim to be right with God? Here is a case of one group of humans trying to lever superiority over another group of humans based on the dubious claims of in-group mentality. Who feels compelled to dissent if they are the ones on the "winning side?"
Feeling Rapturous anyone?
The idea of the Rapture, the eschatological event which heralds the second coming of Jesus Christ and the subsequent rescuing of the Church by him, is a fascinating concept. True “Believers” alive and dead will be swept away with Jesus in the clouds, sparing them from the horrors of the ensuing Tribulations that will envelop the Earth. A whole industry has sprung forth from this idea. Fictional book series proposing possible "Doomsday" scenarios have become bestsellers. Websites such as "RaptureReady.com," have sprung up, promoting preparedness for the coming Rapture. In extreme cases, "Believers" might refrain from any sort of financial investment towards the future, as they are convinced that Jesus will return in their time.
There have been many anticipatory Doomsday cult-like groups that have emerged over the last 2000 years, each fervently believing that it will be their generation that will witness the second coming of Christ. The political map of the world has indeed changed, witnessing robust empires rising and falling, which has influenced the tides of perception towards "End-Times" events, but still no second coming.
The concept of the Rapture illustrates a deeper desire for escapism among Christians. By design, the Rapture implies both a fast track to escape the coming calamities that God will unleash upon the Earth, and a means to "live on" by never actually dying. This thirst for the Rapture among eager "Believers" is congruent with their fetish towards immortality. Immortality is arguably, the most extreme form of ego attachment that exists. It is completely askew from the natural order that can be observed within nature. Death is just as natural a part of life as birth, and to try to escape death is a futile endeavor.
The Christian's aversion to death betrays their underlying fear of death. To most people, the idea of losing it all, the ground they've gained, the honor, the lessons, knowledge, and acquisition that comes from experiencing life is a dreadful thought. But to the eternal traveler, the journey goes ever on. It is only the ego that we fear to lose in the transition from this life to the next.
The escape from impending Earthly doom alludes to a deeper belief in the Earth as being a diseased, temporary planet. Just as God opted for a do-over according to Genesis 6, leading to the Great Flood and subsequent annihilation of life on Earth, He is foretold to seek vengeance against future generations by means of the Great Tribulation and destruction of Heaven and Earth. If one believes in such stories, they also believe that this world is a temporary, sickly planet which will be destroyed by God who will create a new Heaven and Earth. If this is true, why put forth energy into any sort of ecological conservation? This view is practiced in part, by those who put off any sort of future plans or investment into the environment and future generations, who claim that it is pointless to be good custodians of the Earth when clearly the Bible states that there will be a new Earth. They view humans as somehow being separate from everything else. Christians are taught that the world belongs to the Devil, and will be subsequently destroyed with him.
Putting It All Together
So what does all of this mean? Why have I spent so much time and energy on the subject of the psychology of Christianity? The sheer organizational capacity and staggering industry of Christianity should be a cause of concern among moderate-thinking individuals. Do I believe that Christians are inherently evil? By no means am I suggesting that the sincere believer in higher morals is out of touch with reality or has no inspiration toward doing good. Obviously, there are those who draw inspiration from the example of Jesus, and are therefore motivated in a positive direction. Sincere practitioners from different faiths have done the world at large a good service. But it is the very practice of division, exclusion, bigotry, intolerance, and absolutism that the extreme dogmatism of the Bible promotes, and which inherently undermines the greater need for progressive humanitarian objectives. Just as the institution of slavery has been abolished in most civilized societies, so should religious intolerance. There has been no greater need for humanity to draw together under the umbrella of our common inheritance.
We are at a crucial moment in our history, as the lines between church and state have been blurred in a frenzy of fearmongering brought on by fundamentalist groups pushing their agendas. The ultimate direction that they would take us is a new American Theocracy based on Christianity. This movement has used "freedom of religion" to promote their agenda, but in actuality, they would use this precept of liberty to undermine religious freedoms from other religious groups in America. Pastors and other Church leaders continuously flaunt our nation's laws against campaigning for, or endorsing political causes from the pulpit, which is in violation of their tax-exempt status as a non-profit organization. According to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service code, organizations with this classification are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to influence elections to public office. This nation, contrary to popular belief, was not founded as a Christian nation, but a strongly secular one. Regardless of the spiritual leanings of the Founding Fathers, they advocated the separation of church and state, which, like parts the Bible, some Christians have conveniently chosen to ignore.
We live in a dangerous time when our elected leaders skillfully use Christianity to appeal to those who believe that current world events are tied to the whole storybook fantasy of the Bible and exploit this belief to spread fear, hate, and push America back towards a society of intolerance. For those Christians who have taken to warmongering and believe in a militant Christian nation, I would direct them to the teachings of Jesus, who advocated peace, turning the other cheek, and loving one's enemies (Luke 6:27-31). Jesus was an iconoclast, fervently anti-imperialist and who scoffed at the institutional religions of the time. These are undeniable facts about the teachings and philosophy of the central character that Christianity is based around. So before you rush to call yourself a "Christian," or follower of Christ, you might want to study and really learn about what he stood for. There's some good stuff in there...
FINAL NOTE:
This essay on the psychology of Christianity has been a labor of love for me. It is something that I have had in the works for a very long time, and it feels good to finally have it finished. It has taken me years of working through the psychological damage of indoctrination and oppression that the institution of Christianity brought to be able to articulate my feelings on the matter. There are many forms of prison, some without bars, and some that we create for ourselves. Now that I have put aside the blinders of Christianity, I have been able to experience a richer, fuller life and to seek a much broader divinity, which I believe, resides within each and every one of us.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
The Psychology of Christianity Part II
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CHRISTIANITY
Part II
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then He is not omnipotent...
Is He able, but not willing?
Then He is malevolent...
Is God both willing and able?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither willing nor able?
Then why call Him God?
--Epicurus, Greek philosopher
Christians and God
If God (the big 'G'), is indeed the Creator, wouldn't He/She/It be self-evident? In fact how could one escape such a grand being? Furthermore, if God is God, why does He/She/It need the Christians to act as a mouthpiece? Why all the coy disguises and cloak-and-dagger stuff? Has God become crippled or diminished somehow? If so, then it's not God.
Most Christians act as if they knew God's mind and could speak for Him/Her/It. The convenient fallback position is: "God uses us Christians to carry out His work," or "He speaks to me through the Bible." When confronted with questions as to why God can't speak to just any old person, the typical response is: "Well, He just doesn't work that way." This statement illustrates a trend among "Believers" to make claims about God and His/Her/Its nature that seem to be contradictory as to the fundamental nature of God. Such statements as: "Let God into your heart," "God can't work unless you allow Him to," and "God only works in certain ways," are instructive as to the regard that most Christians give Him/Her/It. The words "God" and "can't" should never be used in the same sentence; it's contradictory. By creating such conditions, Christians reduce God to a god, similar to a lapdog that they can use to intimidate, judge, polarize, and wield as if He/She/It were on a short leash. The Christian God has essentially been diminished to resemble a caricature of Himself, a figment of Christian dogma, easily manipulated. In fact, subconsciously, most Christians act as if God were dead and that they are His/Her/Its defenders and apologists as if God were somehow in need of defending. If God is indeed God, why the need for using sales tactics and powerful oratory techniques to ensnare hapless followers?
Part of the allure of Christianity is its popularity and large membership. Despite having grown to become the largest religion in the world, there is a common myth among Christians that they are a minority in a largely secular world. When you look at comparable data of the eight most industrialized nations of the world as compared to their religious practices, you will find that seven of these nations have mostly Christian populations, while only one, Japan, is Buddhist. None are Muslim. So not only do Christians outnumber other religious adherents, but also outweigh others in terms of wealth per capita. So where does this idea of persecution come from? There are definitely cases of ongoing religious persecution throughout the world, including acts against Christians, but there still exists a rather disproportional view that Christian influence is somehow outside of the mainstream.
It is easier to accept an idea if there is at least the appearance of strength behind it. When large groups of people agree on a particular set of beliefs, those beliefs become the standard, no matter how unsubstantiated or fallible they might be. Christianity presents a facade of having the power of God behind it, carried out by the mob majority of its followers. This subterfuge is reinforced by the flaunting of worldly wealth and prosperity by the Church and its members, which are meant to signify God's favor. Obversely, the rejection of other faiths, ideas and lifestyles is manifested in the attitude that God causes calamities upon non-"Believing" nations. This extremist view was made clear during the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia, and hurricane Katrina in 2005. Both disasters, Christian opportunists argued, were God's way of punishing the "sinful" lifestyles of the regions inflicted.
Being a moral person doesn't stem from any one particular set of religious beliefs. How is it that a person prior to becoming "Born Again" is capable of love, charity, compassion, and many other virtues? Are there a different set of virtues for the "Believer" and the non-"Believer," if the outcomes and intentions are the same? The only difference I see, is that Christianity has an organizing force both with money and charity to better serve its own ends. Which ends are these? Only the total assimilation of "all tongues and nations" to believe in the Christian message.
An important question to ask is: When does a cult cease to be a cult and enter into the mainstream acceptance as a religion? Christianity certainly began as a cult with only a few followers scattered around the Mediterranean Sea area. The conclusion that I have come to, is that a cult becomes a bona fide religion when enough people believe in it to wield significant political power. Devout "Believers" often view other offshoots of Christianity such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses to be possessed of a cult mentality. Some Christians even go as far as to deny their Catholic predecessors as being right with God. With all of these different flavors of Christianity, which branch is right? Surely not everyone can be right. Does God glean some sort of cosmic amusement from all of these squabbling factions trying to figure out His purpose for them? What a cruel God indeed.
The Bible as a self-reinforcing argument
The Bible, or holy scriptures, are considered, among Christian adherents, to be the authoritative words and thoughts of God. There are those "Believers" who take the Bible literally and those who consider it allegorical, but in the spirit of being the designer religion that it is, most followers believe in both literal and allegorical interpretations. If so, which passages are to be taken literally? Which allegorically? Typically, when confronted about a particular passage that happens to be out of date with current trends, or is culturally biased, as is the case with most of the Old Testament, the average Christian will promote an allegorical interpretation. Christianity, after all, has evolved with the times. One only need to examine the various different translations and the trend towards modernization of language and concepts in order to make the Biblical text more relatable to the contemporary reader. If the Bible is the inerrant and perfect Word of God, why the need for such sweeping editing measures? Which version is correct?
The truth of the matter is, if you believe in the Bible, then by default, you subscribe to the institutions of xenophobia, slavery, and systematic misogyny. All of these facets of social bigotry have been shown to be outmoded forms of behavior in a civil society. Many Christians will argue that Old Testament law isn't as relevant as the New Testament, or that Jesus Christ came to absolve the old Mosaic Law. If this is the case, then most of the so-called Bible should be considered extrinsic. So either the Bible is perfect or it isn't. If it isn't, or if certain verses and concepts can be cherry-picked out of convenience for the believer, how valid can that system be?
If the teachings of Christ are central to Christianity, why don't they begin and end with Christ? Why, for instance, do modern Christians put so much emphasis on the teachings of the self-proclaimed apostle Paul, who incidentally wrote 2/3 of the "books" of the New Testament? Paul was certainly an inspirational and eloquent writer, but to essentially equate or elevate his writings with the teachings of Jesus shows the common Christian's lack of faith in the soundness of Christ's teachings. With so much influence residing outside of Christ's teachings, why not call themselves Paulites? It is this very idea of self-proclaimed apostles and prophets who add their own commentary to the Bible story which makes it less valid as a direct communication from God. The Bible certainly tells a story, but is it from God, or is it similar to a cosmic guestbook, where inspired scribes can indefinitely add their own melee to the canon?
The Bible, and in fact, Christianity itself, are examples of self-reinforcing systems of reason. The Bible must be true because Bible verses say that they are. This is evident when debating a Christian, as all evidence they inevitably point to is Scripturally-based. The "proofs" of the Scriptural approach for explaining moral truths is merely anecdotal. There are grains of truth, some based on historical fact, but once again, which parts are totally true, and which parts are exaggerated by the subjective nature that the "books" of the Bible were written? This brings me to the next point of faith.
Faith As A Novelty
As humans, we have learned to take a great many things on faith. Do most people check a chair for its structural integrity before sitting down? Typically not. Do most people count the number of Q-tips to see if they are getting their money's worth? Or inspect the contents of a milkshake to ensure its freshness? My guess is, only if you've had a bad experience will you check, or if you are extremely compulsive. But most people have become so trusting and accepting of the reliability of the world around them that conscious faith has become all but obsolete. But are faith and trust the same thing?
Trust comes with time and experience, while faith is more reckless in the sense that one can have faith in something without needing logical proof of its fidelity. Our currency proclaims: "In God We Trust," but how much do "Believers" really trust God? How much more readily do people have faith in money, than in God, even though money is intrinsically worthless and has proven to be unreliable at times?
Has God always been faithful to His creation? When He wanted a do-over, He simply wiped out the human race, save one family, as told in the Great Flood story in the Bible (Genesis, chapter 7). God plans to take us out again in the End-Times (read the book of Revelations), even though He promised to never annihilate us again (Genesis 8:21). The Bible is replete with the phrase, "I am the Lord¾ I do not change!" (Malachi 3:6). Where is God's faith in us? To me this illustrates that trust is, perhaps, a two way street, while faith in God is a one-sided devotion.
Obviously, it takes a lot of faith to believe in the Bible, perhaps even more so than trusting that gravity will keep you from floating away. Typically when debating Christians, any sort of inexplicable conclusion or contradiction will lead to the statement, "You just have to have faith (in God)." This, to me, is a cop out and a very convenient way to wriggle out of sticky problems and dead ends that exist with the Bible-centric point of view. The fact is, that most Christians appear to have more faith in the institutions of humankind than in God. Take for instance the hoarding of money and material wealth. If one had the "treasures in Heaven" philosophy that Jesus advocated (Matthew 6:19-34), how would Earthly treasures matter? The same is true with governments. If God is in charge of your life, why subjugate yourself to Earthly leaders? Why pray for them? This is, of course, to make one's Earthly sojourn more comfortable for the "Believer."
What about prayer? The very fact that most Christians ritualistically pray out loud betrays their faith in the institution, rather than God. Jesus himself taught others to pray in secret where only God can hear (Matthew 6:5-8). If God is all-powerful, why would He need to hear prayers vocalized?
Pastors and religious leaders routinely use the same techniques used by hypnotists to bring their subjects into an altered state of consciousness, such as implementing rhythmic speech patterns and suggestive phrases. The subjects, under hypnosis of prayer, have slower breathing patterns, closed eyes, and passive minds. These are subtle ways to influence the direction of thought and lead the group into the territory of the orator's own agenda. This also happens with smaller social circles within church groups as a way of vocal support. It is apparent that prayers spoken out loud are more for the benefit of the prayer-giver, and perhaps the listening audience, than to speak to God. Of course, intention is what matters in prayer, and who can really speak on behalf of another as to the sincerity of their prayers? Speaking affirming words to another can definitely bring positive results, but why call it prayer? Why not call it encouragement or affirmation?
Prayer is also the language that "Believers" use to manifest their will into the world. Such arbitrary prayers as "May Your will be done," shows the utter lack of faith in God's sovereignty. God, being all-powerful, will have his way regardless of the whimsies of humans. He/She/It looks through the eyes of the infinitesimal, not the mortal, impatient eyes of humans. This is evident in the prayers of feuding groups. This could be in war or sporting engagements. If both sports teams pray for victory before the game, which side will God favor? Furthermore, why would God be concerned about the petty dealings of humans? This is an example of the idea that God is so personal that He watches over every second of every moment of every person's life, and intervenes according to how each person interacts with Him. This is like saying that humans can have an effect on God's will. Talk about ego-centric!
One can compare Christian belief to superstitious belief. For instance, the belief that walking under ladders will bring you bad luck is synonymous with the Christian belief that if I commit this sin__________(fill in the blank), then I am going to Hell. There is no fundamental scientific law in nature that says that either is true. In both scenarios, the outcomes are ambiguous and unprovable, but people adhere to the belief just the same. Arguably, the same can be said for comparing Christian belief to having a phobia. It takes just as much faith to hold onto kooky religious beliefs as it does to hold onto a fear of water, or heights, or enclosed spaces.
COMING SOON: FINAL SEGMENT ON THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CHRISTIANITY: SATAN, HEAVEN, HELL, THE RAPTURE, AND HOW IT ALL TIES TOGETHER...
Part II
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then He is not omnipotent...
Is He able, but not willing?
Then He is malevolent...
Is God both willing and able?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither willing nor able?
Then why call Him God?
--Epicurus, Greek philosopher
Christians and God
If God (the big 'G'), is indeed the Creator, wouldn't He/She/It be self-evident? In fact how could one escape such a grand being? Furthermore, if God is God, why does He/She/It need the Christians to act as a mouthpiece? Why all the coy disguises and cloak-and-dagger stuff? Has God become crippled or diminished somehow? If so, then it's not God.
Most Christians act as if they knew God's mind and could speak for Him/Her/It. The convenient fallback position is: "God uses us Christians to carry out His work," or "He speaks to me through the Bible." When confronted with questions as to why God can't speak to just any old person, the typical response is: "Well, He just doesn't work that way." This statement illustrates a trend among "Believers" to make claims about God and His/Her/Its nature that seem to be contradictory as to the fundamental nature of God. Such statements as: "Let God into your heart," "God can't work unless you allow Him to," and "God only works in certain ways," are instructive as to the regard that most Christians give Him/Her/It. The words "God" and "can't" should never be used in the same sentence; it's contradictory. By creating such conditions, Christians reduce God to a god, similar to a lapdog that they can use to intimidate, judge, polarize, and wield as if He/She/It were on a short leash. The Christian God has essentially been diminished to resemble a caricature of Himself, a figment of Christian dogma, easily manipulated. In fact, subconsciously, most Christians act as if God were dead and that they are His/Her/Its defenders and apologists as if God were somehow in need of defending. If God is indeed God, why the need for using sales tactics and powerful oratory techniques to ensnare hapless followers?
Part of the allure of Christianity is its popularity and large membership. Despite having grown to become the largest religion in the world, there is a common myth among Christians that they are a minority in a largely secular world. When you look at comparable data of the eight most industrialized nations of the world as compared to their religious practices, you will find that seven of these nations have mostly Christian populations, while only one, Japan, is Buddhist. None are Muslim. So not only do Christians outnumber other religious adherents, but also outweigh others in terms of wealth per capita. So where does this idea of persecution come from? There are definitely cases of ongoing religious persecution throughout the world, including acts against Christians, but there still exists a rather disproportional view that Christian influence is somehow outside of the mainstream.
It is easier to accept an idea if there is at least the appearance of strength behind it. When large groups of people agree on a particular set of beliefs, those beliefs become the standard, no matter how unsubstantiated or fallible they might be. Christianity presents a facade of having the power of God behind it, carried out by the mob majority of its followers. This subterfuge is reinforced by the flaunting of worldly wealth and prosperity by the Church and its members, which are meant to signify God's favor. Obversely, the rejection of other faiths, ideas and lifestyles is manifested in the attitude that God causes calamities upon non-"Believing" nations. This extremist view was made clear during the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia, and hurricane Katrina in 2005. Both disasters, Christian opportunists argued, were God's way of punishing the "sinful" lifestyles of the regions inflicted.
Being a moral person doesn't stem from any one particular set of religious beliefs. How is it that a person prior to becoming "Born Again" is capable of love, charity, compassion, and many other virtues? Are there a different set of virtues for the "Believer" and the non-"Believer," if the outcomes and intentions are the same? The only difference I see, is that Christianity has an organizing force both with money and charity to better serve its own ends. Which ends are these? Only the total assimilation of "all tongues and nations" to believe in the Christian message.
An important question to ask is: When does a cult cease to be a cult and enter into the mainstream acceptance as a religion? Christianity certainly began as a cult with only a few followers scattered around the Mediterranean Sea area. The conclusion that I have come to, is that a cult becomes a bona fide religion when enough people believe in it to wield significant political power. Devout "Believers" often view other offshoots of Christianity such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses to be possessed of a cult mentality. Some Christians even go as far as to deny their Catholic predecessors as being right with God. With all of these different flavors of Christianity, which branch is right? Surely not everyone can be right. Does God glean some sort of cosmic amusement from all of these squabbling factions trying to figure out His purpose for them? What a cruel God indeed.
The Bible as a self-reinforcing argument
The Bible, or holy scriptures, are considered, among Christian adherents, to be the authoritative words and thoughts of God. There are those "Believers" who take the Bible literally and those who consider it allegorical, but in the spirit of being the designer religion that it is, most followers believe in both literal and allegorical interpretations. If so, which passages are to be taken literally? Which allegorically? Typically, when confronted about a particular passage that happens to be out of date with current trends, or is culturally biased, as is the case with most of the Old Testament, the average Christian will promote an allegorical interpretation. Christianity, after all, has evolved with the times. One only need to examine the various different translations and the trend towards modernization of language and concepts in order to make the Biblical text more relatable to the contemporary reader. If the Bible is the inerrant and perfect Word of God, why the need for such sweeping editing measures? Which version is correct?
The truth of the matter is, if you believe in the Bible, then by default, you subscribe to the institutions of xenophobia, slavery, and systematic misogyny. All of these facets of social bigotry have been shown to be outmoded forms of behavior in a civil society. Many Christians will argue that Old Testament law isn't as relevant as the New Testament, or that Jesus Christ came to absolve the old Mosaic Law. If this is the case, then most of the so-called Bible should be considered extrinsic. So either the Bible is perfect or it isn't. If it isn't, or if certain verses and concepts can be cherry-picked out of convenience for the believer, how valid can that system be?
If the teachings of Christ are central to Christianity, why don't they begin and end with Christ? Why, for instance, do modern Christians put so much emphasis on the teachings of the self-proclaimed apostle Paul, who incidentally wrote 2/3 of the "books" of the New Testament? Paul was certainly an inspirational and eloquent writer, but to essentially equate or elevate his writings with the teachings of Jesus shows the common Christian's lack of faith in the soundness of Christ's teachings. With so much influence residing outside of Christ's teachings, why not call themselves Paulites? It is this very idea of self-proclaimed apostles and prophets who add their own commentary to the Bible story which makes it less valid as a direct communication from God. The Bible certainly tells a story, but is it from God, or is it similar to a cosmic guestbook, where inspired scribes can indefinitely add their own melee to the canon?
The Bible, and in fact, Christianity itself, are examples of self-reinforcing systems of reason. The Bible must be true because Bible verses say that they are. This is evident when debating a Christian, as all evidence they inevitably point to is Scripturally-based. The "proofs" of the Scriptural approach for explaining moral truths is merely anecdotal. There are grains of truth, some based on historical fact, but once again, which parts are totally true, and which parts are exaggerated by the subjective nature that the "books" of the Bible were written? This brings me to the next point of faith.
Faith As A Novelty
As humans, we have learned to take a great many things on faith. Do most people check a chair for its structural integrity before sitting down? Typically not. Do most people count the number of Q-tips to see if they are getting their money's worth? Or inspect the contents of a milkshake to ensure its freshness? My guess is, only if you've had a bad experience will you check, or if you are extremely compulsive. But most people have become so trusting and accepting of the reliability of the world around them that conscious faith has become all but obsolete. But are faith and trust the same thing?
Trust comes with time and experience, while faith is more reckless in the sense that one can have faith in something without needing logical proof of its fidelity. Our currency proclaims: "In God We Trust," but how much do "Believers" really trust God? How much more readily do people have faith in money, than in God, even though money is intrinsically worthless and has proven to be unreliable at times?
Has God always been faithful to His creation? When He wanted a do-over, He simply wiped out the human race, save one family, as told in the Great Flood story in the Bible (Genesis, chapter 7). God plans to take us out again in the End-Times (read the book of Revelations), even though He promised to never annihilate us again (Genesis 8:21). The Bible is replete with the phrase, "I am the Lord¾ I do not change!" (Malachi 3:6). Where is God's faith in us? To me this illustrates that trust is, perhaps, a two way street, while faith in God is a one-sided devotion.
Obviously, it takes a lot of faith to believe in the Bible, perhaps even more so than trusting that gravity will keep you from floating away. Typically when debating Christians, any sort of inexplicable conclusion or contradiction will lead to the statement, "You just have to have faith (in God)." This, to me, is a cop out and a very convenient way to wriggle out of sticky problems and dead ends that exist with the Bible-centric point of view. The fact is, that most Christians appear to have more faith in the institutions of humankind than in God. Take for instance the hoarding of money and material wealth. If one had the "treasures in Heaven" philosophy that Jesus advocated (Matthew 6:19-34), how would Earthly treasures matter? The same is true with governments. If God is in charge of your life, why subjugate yourself to Earthly leaders? Why pray for them? This is, of course, to make one's Earthly sojourn more comfortable for the "Believer."
What about prayer? The very fact that most Christians ritualistically pray out loud betrays their faith in the institution, rather than God. Jesus himself taught others to pray in secret where only God can hear (Matthew 6:5-8). If God is all-powerful, why would He need to hear prayers vocalized?
Pastors and religious leaders routinely use the same techniques used by hypnotists to bring their subjects into an altered state of consciousness, such as implementing rhythmic speech patterns and suggestive phrases. The subjects, under hypnosis of prayer, have slower breathing patterns, closed eyes, and passive minds. These are subtle ways to influence the direction of thought and lead the group into the territory of the orator's own agenda. This also happens with smaller social circles within church groups as a way of vocal support. It is apparent that prayers spoken out loud are more for the benefit of the prayer-giver, and perhaps the listening audience, than to speak to God. Of course, intention is what matters in prayer, and who can really speak on behalf of another as to the sincerity of their prayers? Speaking affirming words to another can definitely bring positive results, but why call it prayer? Why not call it encouragement or affirmation?
Prayer is also the language that "Believers" use to manifest their will into the world. Such arbitrary prayers as "May Your will be done," shows the utter lack of faith in God's sovereignty. God, being all-powerful, will have his way regardless of the whimsies of humans. He/She/It looks through the eyes of the infinitesimal, not the mortal, impatient eyes of humans. This is evident in the prayers of feuding groups. This could be in war or sporting engagements. If both sports teams pray for victory before the game, which side will God favor? Furthermore, why would God be concerned about the petty dealings of humans? This is an example of the idea that God is so personal that He watches over every second of every moment of every person's life, and intervenes according to how each person interacts with Him. This is like saying that humans can have an effect on God's will. Talk about ego-centric!
One can compare Christian belief to superstitious belief. For instance, the belief that walking under ladders will bring you bad luck is synonymous with the Christian belief that if I commit this sin__________(fill in the blank), then I am going to Hell. There is no fundamental scientific law in nature that says that either is true. In both scenarios, the outcomes are ambiguous and unprovable, but people adhere to the belief just the same. Arguably, the same can be said for comparing Christian belief to having a phobia. It takes just as much faith to hold onto kooky religious beliefs as it does to hold onto a fear of water, or heights, or enclosed spaces.
COMING SOON: FINAL SEGMENT ON THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CHRISTIANITY: SATAN, HEAVEN, HELL, THE RAPTURE, AND HOW IT ALL TIES TOGETHER...
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The Psychology of Christianity Part I
The Psychology of Christianity Part I
Blogger's Note:
The following article is not meant to provide a comprehensive philosophical dissection of the religious establishment of Christianity, but to merely postulate my own observations and theories as to the psychological underpinnings and ramifications that exist within the structure of modern Christianity. Having been an "insider," at one point, I feel that I am in a good position to report on some of the common themes and fundamental innerworkings of this religious juggernaut. My interest is in the psychology behind it, rather than proposing a counter-theology, or antithesis to Christianity.
I am sure that, despite my best efforts to promote an intellectual presentation of these concepts, there will be those who will take offense to them and will therefore, rush to defend their precious Christianity. To that fact, I will only say this: Any belief system worth believing in should stand up to scrutiny and be subject to review. All too often, people blindly devote themselves to a cause without really understanding it or why they have bound themselves to a particular ideology. If you are easily offended by a critique of Christianity, ask yourself why. If you are secure in your beliefs, then it shouldn't matter what anyone says to the contrary. Plus God is big enough to defend Himself, right?
To clarify a few necessary points, and hopefully avoid tedious rebuttals and interjections over semantics, I will spell out my definitions of commonly used phrases such as "Christian, Christianity, God, Church, Heaven, Hell, prayer, Born-Again.
Here are my definitions as follows:
Christian- a person that professes to follow the teachings of the Bible, and respectively consider it to be the "word of God."
Christianity- a religious cultural movement based on the Judeo-centric teachings of the bible.
God*- or as I like to refer to it as "the big 'G.'" The God character of the Bible, who is presumably the creator of all existence, who is incidentally omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, which is to say, all-powerful. Not to be confused with the little 'g' god(s) of a lower order. *When referring to the accepted Christian interpretation of the God of the Bible, I will refer to this entity in the masculine "He," "Him," "His," etc., to keep in tradition with the Bible.
Church- not only the building that houses Christians during services but the Church Body Politic itself. When referring to the latter, I will use the pro-noun version for clarity.
Heaven- the eternal realm where God exists outside of time. This is often interpreted as eternal paradise where most Christians believe they will finally end up after Judgment Day.
Hell- where everyone else is destined to end up. An eternal realm of separation from God, where occupants will be subjected to torment, suffering, and everlasting damnation.
Prayer- one way communication with God. This usually takes the form of requests to God for the perceived needs of self and others. This is not to be confused with a dialogue with God, which by definition is a two-way conversation.
Born-Again- this is the status of a person after accepting Jesus into their life. They are essentially re-born into a new life of devotion to Christ and the Church, thus someone who is “Born-Again” becomes a practicing Christian.
A Word on Christians
The name 'Christian' is supposed to signify a follower of Jesus Christ and his teachings. However, this title can be misleading. While the early Christian church was formed from the cult of Christ that originated with the 12 disciples, modern Christianity has strayed from the teachings of Jesus in some amazingly fundamental ways. One such way is the philosophy of mainstream churches concerning money. A common thread of teachings among especially evangelical middle class Churches is the emphasis of monetary and material prosperity among members who tithe. This trend is supported by a singular, rather obscure verse in the Old Testament (Malachi 3:10), which actually considers tithes in this context to be food.
This practice of money-hoarding by the Church, is blatantly at odds with Jesus' philosophy concerning money, and also betrays the lack of faith in God to provide what is needed. Bible literature is replete with examples of Jesus' recognition of the corrupting effect that money can have on people, and therefore maintained a rather consistent position on the rejection of materialism (see such verses as: Luke 16:13, Mark 10:17-25, Matthew 16:24-26). The accumulated wealth of the church was to be used for charitable purposes. Where is the televangelist that has committed him- or herself to a life of poverty, and where are his/her followers? One only need visit a large modern church to observe the lavish facilities, cars, equipment, and production materials that good money can buy.
This double-standard has not only strayed off-course from a very straightforward precept that Jesus taught and practiced, but also has the effect of reducing Christianity to a mere designer religion. Believers can cherry-pick which teachings best fit their lifestyles and there are just as many churches that exist to accommodate any belief. Just as Western civilization has created an arena for seemingly limitless accommodation, this is true for the Church as well. Such avenues of Christianity I call Americanized Christianity, or Westernized Christianity. If the goal and purpose of a Christian, is to closely follow and practice the teachings of Jesus, wouldn't it be important to mimic ALL of them as laid out by the Gospels regardless of the fickle cultures of the times?
In fact, Christianist would be a more accurate title for the modern churchgoers who are enchanted with Christ and of Judeo-centric culture. I define a Christianist as someone who is infatuated with the dogma and syntax of the culture that rose out of the cult of Christ, rather than a true practitioner of Christ's direct teachings. For example, by my definition, a true Christian would emulate Christ in word and deed, and not rely on the interpretations given to them by their clergy or apocryphal text such as Paul's letters in the New Testament. A Christianist, by contrast, would approach the study of Christ much like a historian, incorporating the ever-evolving mythos of Christian-centric culture into their own beliefs. They are more interested in Christianity than Christ. This is, arguably, the approach that many modern so-called Christians take.
Just because one is "Born-Again," it doesn't mean that they cease to be a regular person, or lose bestial impulses, or are now protected under some sort of supernatural forcefield that keeps their desires away. In my experience, I have seen quite the contrary. Christianity gives a person a pious mask to wear in front of others, while inside, the person is still driven and tempted by the gamut of human desires and emotions that non-Christians are subject to. The pressure to "act the part" is compounded by the expectations from society to "fit the role," and may be the force behind "binge sinning" that is so widespread among ostensible “Believers.” Or perhaps it is simply that their normal human behaviors come to the surface more visibly because they have taken the path of religious idealism.
This brings me to an important observation of the practice of dissociation among Christians. There has been a movement in recent years to make Christianity more user-friendly. One such method has been to euphemize certain name associations. Christians have become "Believers," the more authoritarian, "Scriptures" are used in place of the Bible, Jesus has been traded for the monarchical "Lord," and Satan or the Devil have been ambiguously re-labeled the "Enemy." This softening of traditional names not only has had the effect of dissociation from, perhaps, negative connotations that these names have historically implied, but also to return the Bible story to a more archetypal form, much like the Jedi "Force" in the Star Wars mythos. This euphemization has had the subtle but powerful effect of appealing to the broader humanistic sensibility towards myths.
Christianity as a myth
To study the psychology of Christianity, we must understand the power of the myth as a function within a society. I use the term myth to signify symbolism and imagery that permeates through culture and time. From ancient myths such as Beowulf, Homer's Odyssey, and the Epic of Gilgamesh, to the modern myths of the comic book superheroes Superman, Spiderman, and Batman, the power of the myth has lost none of its potency to inform, entertain and teach us. Common myths have been passed along through generations and seem to cross barriers of differing races and cultures, presenting common themes and lessons.
The Bible, as it is contemporarily presented, is one such myth. But more accurately, it is a myth derived from previous myths. Many of the stories contained within the Bible have more ancient origins and have been adapted and mutated over the years, but this fact is hardly, if at all, recognized within the ranks of the “Believers.” The one “book” that is the Bible is actually comprised of several “books” and letters that have been authored by many and compiled over centuries. It was only through the organization and political influence of the Roman empire, which was incidentally a man-made institution, that gave birth to the compilation known as the Bible. This point is historical fact, but rarely scrutinized or acknowledged by the average “Believer.” Once again we are presented with the practice of cherry-picking and convenient denial of important facts by “Believers” as to the foundational structure of Christianity.
This is important because in most cases, the “Believer” will resort to the Bible as the final authority on any matter, whether they interpret it literally or allegorically. This practice would be similar to pointing to Homer- and Plato’s epic storytelling of the Greek gods as a final authority on spiritual and moral matters. To contemporary Christians, this idea would be ludicrous, but strangely, they see no connection between the abandoned arbitrary worship of the dim gods of the ancient world, and the similar faith of Christians in mythological storybook heroes.
The Bible borrows its creation story from a much older version that originated in ancient Mesopotamia, most notably elements from Ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, and Sumerian cultures. There are many creation stories from the ancient world and there are also various recognized “Cradles of Life,” Mesopotamia being only one of which. Is it just mere coincidence that the world’s most dominant religion sprang from the part of the world that birthed the first empires? This is a testament to the exploitative nature that influential civilizations have on their subjugates, rather than the power of the message itself (the Bible). When Christianity became the standard of the land, it only needed be enforced and imposed by its zealous followers.
Still other myths and rituals taken from surrounding cultures were incorporated into the mythos of Christianity in order to better assimilate the heathens and pagans, making a smoother transition for the potentially converted. Christmas and Easter are perfect examples of how Christian and pagan traditions were blended to bring together different ways of spiritual practice in order to bring more followers into the fold. This once again illustrates the “designer” appeal of Christianity, and also its adaptability as a "borrower" of other traditions.
Coming Soon: Part II: Christians, God, The Bible, and Faith
Blogger's Note:
The following article is not meant to provide a comprehensive philosophical dissection of the religious establishment of Christianity, but to merely postulate my own observations and theories as to the psychological underpinnings and ramifications that exist within the structure of modern Christianity. Having been an "insider," at one point, I feel that I am in a good position to report on some of the common themes and fundamental innerworkings of this religious juggernaut. My interest is in the psychology behind it, rather than proposing a counter-theology, or antithesis to Christianity.
I am sure that, despite my best efforts to promote an intellectual presentation of these concepts, there will be those who will take offense to them and will therefore, rush to defend their precious Christianity. To that fact, I will only say this: Any belief system worth believing in should stand up to scrutiny and be subject to review. All too often, people blindly devote themselves to a cause without really understanding it or why they have bound themselves to a particular ideology. If you are easily offended by a critique of Christianity, ask yourself why. If you are secure in your beliefs, then it shouldn't matter what anyone says to the contrary. Plus God is big enough to defend Himself, right?
To clarify a few necessary points, and hopefully avoid tedious rebuttals and interjections over semantics, I will spell out my definitions of commonly used phrases such as "Christian, Christianity, God, Church, Heaven, Hell, prayer, Born-Again.
Here are my definitions as follows:
Christian- a person that professes to follow the teachings of the Bible, and respectively consider it to be the "word of God."
Christianity- a religious cultural movement based on the Judeo-centric teachings of the bible.
God*- or as I like to refer to it as "the big 'G.'" The God character of the Bible, who is presumably the creator of all existence, who is incidentally omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, which is to say, all-powerful. Not to be confused with the little 'g' god(s) of a lower order. *When referring to the accepted Christian interpretation of the God of the Bible, I will refer to this entity in the masculine "He," "Him," "His," etc., to keep in tradition with the Bible.
Church- not only the building that houses Christians during services but the Church Body Politic itself. When referring to the latter, I will use the pro-noun version for clarity.
Heaven- the eternal realm where God exists outside of time. This is often interpreted as eternal paradise where most Christians believe they will finally end up after Judgment Day.
Hell- where everyone else is destined to end up. An eternal realm of separation from God, where occupants will be subjected to torment, suffering, and everlasting damnation.
Prayer- one way communication with God. This usually takes the form of requests to God for the perceived needs of self and others. This is not to be confused with a dialogue with God, which by definition is a two-way conversation.
Born-Again- this is the status of a person after accepting Jesus into their life. They are essentially re-born into a new life of devotion to Christ and the Church, thus someone who is “Born-Again” becomes a practicing Christian.
A Word on Christians
The name 'Christian' is supposed to signify a follower of Jesus Christ and his teachings. However, this title can be misleading. While the early Christian church was formed from the cult of Christ that originated with the 12 disciples, modern Christianity has strayed from the teachings of Jesus in some amazingly fundamental ways. One such way is the philosophy of mainstream churches concerning money. A common thread of teachings among especially evangelical middle class Churches is the emphasis of monetary and material prosperity among members who tithe. This trend is supported by a singular, rather obscure verse in the Old Testament (Malachi 3:10), which actually considers tithes in this context to be food.
This practice of money-hoarding by the Church, is blatantly at odds with Jesus' philosophy concerning money, and also betrays the lack of faith in God to provide what is needed. Bible literature is replete with examples of Jesus' recognition of the corrupting effect that money can have on people, and therefore maintained a rather consistent position on the rejection of materialism (see such verses as: Luke 16:13, Mark 10:17-25, Matthew 16:24-26). The accumulated wealth of the church was to be used for charitable purposes. Where is the televangelist that has committed him- or herself to a life of poverty, and where are his/her followers? One only need visit a large modern church to observe the lavish facilities, cars, equipment, and production materials that good money can buy.
This double-standard has not only strayed off-course from a very straightforward precept that Jesus taught and practiced, but also has the effect of reducing Christianity to a mere designer religion. Believers can cherry-pick which teachings best fit their lifestyles and there are just as many churches that exist to accommodate any belief. Just as Western civilization has created an arena for seemingly limitless accommodation, this is true for the Church as well. Such avenues of Christianity I call Americanized Christianity, or Westernized Christianity. If the goal and purpose of a Christian, is to closely follow and practice the teachings of Jesus, wouldn't it be important to mimic ALL of them as laid out by the Gospels regardless of the fickle cultures of the times?
In fact, Christianist would be a more accurate title for the modern churchgoers who are enchanted with Christ and of Judeo-centric culture. I define a Christianist as someone who is infatuated with the dogma and syntax of the culture that rose out of the cult of Christ, rather than a true practitioner of Christ's direct teachings. For example, by my definition, a true Christian would emulate Christ in word and deed, and not rely on the interpretations given to them by their clergy or apocryphal text such as Paul's letters in the New Testament. A Christianist, by contrast, would approach the study of Christ much like a historian, incorporating the ever-evolving mythos of Christian-centric culture into their own beliefs. They are more interested in Christianity than Christ. This is, arguably, the approach that many modern so-called Christians take.
Just because one is "Born-Again," it doesn't mean that they cease to be a regular person, or lose bestial impulses, or are now protected under some sort of supernatural forcefield that keeps their desires away. In my experience, I have seen quite the contrary. Christianity gives a person a pious mask to wear in front of others, while inside, the person is still driven and tempted by the gamut of human desires and emotions that non-Christians are subject to. The pressure to "act the part" is compounded by the expectations from society to "fit the role," and may be the force behind "binge sinning" that is so widespread among ostensible “Believers.” Or perhaps it is simply that their normal human behaviors come to the surface more visibly because they have taken the path of religious idealism.
This brings me to an important observation of the practice of dissociation among Christians. There has been a movement in recent years to make Christianity more user-friendly. One such method has been to euphemize certain name associations. Christians have become "Believers," the more authoritarian, "Scriptures" are used in place of the Bible, Jesus has been traded for the monarchical "Lord," and Satan or the Devil have been ambiguously re-labeled the "Enemy." This softening of traditional names not only has had the effect of dissociation from, perhaps, negative connotations that these names have historically implied, but also to return the Bible story to a more archetypal form, much like the Jedi "Force" in the Star Wars mythos. This euphemization has had the subtle but powerful effect of appealing to the broader humanistic sensibility towards myths.
Christianity as a myth
To study the psychology of Christianity, we must understand the power of the myth as a function within a society. I use the term myth to signify symbolism and imagery that permeates through culture and time. From ancient myths such as Beowulf, Homer's Odyssey, and the Epic of Gilgamesh, to the modern myths of the comic book superheroes Superman, Spiderman, and Batman, the power of the myth has lost none of its potency to inform, entertain and teach us. Common myths have been passed along through generations and seem to cross barriers of differing races and cultures, presenting common themes and lessons.
The Bible, as it is contemporarily presented, is one such myth. But more accurately, it is a myth derived from previous myths. Many of the stories contained within the Bible have more ancient origins and have been adapted and mutated over the years, but this fact is hardly, if at all, recognized within the ranks of the “Believers.” The one “book” that is the Bible is actually comprised of several “books” and letters that have been authored by many and compiled over centuries. It was only through the organization and political influence of the Roman empire, which was incidentally a man-made institution, that gave birth to the compilation known as the Bible. This point is historical fact, but rarely scrutinized or acknowledged by the average “Believer.” Once again we are presented with the practice of cherry-picking and convenient denial of important facts by “Believers” as to the foundational structure of Christianity.
This is important because in most cases, the “Believer” will resort to the Bible as the final authority on any matter, whether they interpret it literally or allegorically. This practice would be similar to pointing to Homer- and Plato’s epic storytelling of the Greek gods as a final authority on spiritual and moral matters. To contemporary Christians, this idea would be ludicrous, but strangely, they see no connection between the abandoned arbitrary worship of the dim gods of the ancient world, and the similar faith of Christians in mythological storybook heroes.
The Bible borrows its creation story from a much older version that originated in ancient Mesopotamia, most notably elements from Ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, and Sumerian cultures. There are many creation stories from the ancient world and there are also various recognized “Cradles of Life,” Mesopotamia being only one of which. Is it just mere coincidence that the world’s most dominant religion sprang from the part of the world that birthed the first empires? This is a testament to the exploitative nature that influential civilizations have on their subjugates, rather than the power of the message itself (the Bible). When Christianity became the standard of the land, it only needed be enforced and imposed by its zealous followers.
Still other myths and rituals taken from surrounding cultures were incorporated into the mythos of Christianity in order to better assimilate the heathens and pagans, making a smoother transition for the potentially converted. Christmas and Easter are perfect examples of how Christian and pagan traditions were blended to bring together different ways of spiritual practice in order to bring more followers into the fold. This once again illustrates the “designer” appeal of Christianity, and also its adaptability as a "borrower" of other traditions.
Coming Soon: Part II: Christians, God, The Bible, and Faith
Monday, September 15, 2008
A Vote Of No Confidence
As I watched the conventions of the Democratic and Republican parties unfold, I was reminded once again of just how similarly America's two top parties operate. Sure, on the surface they present ideological dissimilitude, but deep down it's just the same show; different day. The same pandering, the same grand proclaimations of reform (now even McCain is dropping the 'C' word, change), the same dog-and-pony show filled with lights, multi-million dollar productions, and heavy make-up, the same grandstanding by glad-handing politicians, and regrettably, the same sycophantic dorkery from manic delegates in the audience.
2008 has certainly been an exciting year for politics, but as I watched televised coverage of the conventions, the events more closely resembled a Spice Girls concert rather than a sobering rally for change. It was painful to sit through the drawn-out speeches that were punctuated with endless disruptive standing ovations by the over-eager onlookers. I must admit that the points of the speeches were almost lost to me and the whole mess was reduced to a glorified pep rally for politicogeeks (Illinois State Fighting Donkeys RULE!!). But when the stadium lights have faded, the IMAX rental video screens returned, and the rabid delegates go back to the woodwork from whence they emerged, what does all of the grandstanding mean for us?
It is relatively easy to get a crowd fired up, if you know how to work them if your speech-writers and focus groups have done their jobs. Modern politics have become such a science that pending outcomes and results have been relegated to mere formality and predictable projections. This paradigm relies more on the tried-and-true tested methods of public relations than good old fashioned pavement-pounding aggrandizement. There's nothing new at work here. Remember the multi-million dollar set piece of the aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Lincoln, that George W. Bush used as the backdrop for his pre-maturely proclaimed "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" gaffe? It is widely known now, that this was a PR campaign used to bolster support for the war. All that is needed is a theme song, some flashy lights, a backdrop of perceived accomplices, and the appearance of success, and the public is easily duped. "It's a pageant," as Robert DeNiro's spin doctor Conrad Brean deftly describes the false set of circumstances that he perpetrates on the public in the political satire, Wag The Dog. It's all theater. It's all a show. It's all a cleverly crafted campaign to win the hearts and minds of American perception.
So why is this particular voting cycle so important? If you are a Democrat, Moderate, Libertarian, or even a good 'ol fashioned Lincoln Republican, my guess is that you are fed up with the massive failures of the Bush administration. These failures are pretty widespread and sweeping such as, fiscal irresponsibility, lack of accountability, unsurpassed executive power, unprecedented deficits, and a rather blowhard approach to foreign policy, among other things. If, on the other hand, you are a Republican (especially a Reagan Republican), corporate oil tycoon, Neo-Con, or eschatalogical fanatic, my guess is that your stake in this election is to continue to hold on to the fat of the land which you have hoarded for the last eight years or more, "stay the course" with the Bush policies to really give them the time they deserve to flower (is 100 years long enough?), further entrench religion with politics (after all, G.O.P. stands for God's Official Party), and perhaps delay the much needed paradigm shift from fossil fuels to renewable energies. One only needed to hear the sycophantic mantra, "Drill Baby Drill!" from the Republican audience during their convention to sink home the truly lack of progressiveness needed in today's ruling party.
Whatever the case, whatever one's political persuasions might be, whoever gets the job will be inheriting one hell of a mess. America is in what is arguably one of its most pivotal moments. We are at the tipping point. Not only has a bellicose and reckless Republican administration taken us down a spiral of economic and political decline, but so has the newly elected Democratic majority-led House and Senate, who are complicit by not fulfilling the mandate of the voting public.
An interesting aspect of this election is to see how the next president would potentially continue the Bush administration's precedent of unbridled Executive power in a post-Bush White House. Is it conceivable that the next president would relenquish such power? Would Barack, bolstered by a Democratic House and Senate be any less of a tyranny than what we have seen in the last eight years?
Now that the conventions are over, the final campaigns are in full swing, and so are the attack ads and the political cheapshots have begun with relentless predictability. If I were forced to vote today, I would put in a vote of "No Confidence" in our system. Neither of the parties, from what I have observed, seem to have any real progressive solutions for our society and the world. In today's arena of "political kabuki," as Noam Chomsky puts it, how refreshing it would have been to see the two major candidates shock the world (and the delegates) by coming together to run on a bi-partisan ticket. Both McCain and Obama already have the support of their respective parties, both are the media darlings of the election, and they both have about an equal proportion of followers. What if they worked toward uniting our country instead of dividing us? Now that would have been progressive.
2008 has certainly been an exciting year for politics, but as I watched televised coverage of the conventions, the events more closely resembled a Spice Girls concert rather than a sobering rally for change. It was painful to sit through the drawn-out speeches that were punctuated with endless disruptive standing ovations by the over-eager onlookers. I must admit that the points of the speeches were almost lost to me and the whole mess was reduced to a glorified pep rally for politicogeeks (Illinois State Fighting Donkeys RULE!!). But when the stadium lights have faded, the IMAX rental video screens returned, and the rabid delegates go back to the woodwork from whence they emerged, what does all of the grandstanding mean for us?
It is relatively easy to get a crowd fired up, if you know how to work them if your speech-writers and focus groups have done their jobs. Modern politics have become such a science that pending outcomes and results have been relegated to mere formality and predictable projections. This paradigm relies more on the tried-and-true tested methods of public relations than good old fashioned pavement-pounding aggrandizement. There's nothing new at work here. Remember the multi-million dollar set piece of the aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Lincoln, that George W. Bush used as the backdrop for his pre-maturely proclaimed "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" gaffe? It is widely known now, that this was a PR campaign used to bolster support for the war. All that is needed is a theme song, some flashy lights, a backdrop of perceived accomplices, and the appearance of success, and the public is easily duped. "It's a pageant," as Robert DeNiro's spin doctor Conrad Brean deftly describes the false set of circumstances that he perpetrates on the public in the political satire, Wag The Dog. It's all theater. It's all a show. It's all a cleverly crafted campaign to win the hearts and minds of American perception.
So why is this particular voting cycle so important? If you are a Democrat, Moderate, Libertarian, or even a good 'ol fashioned Lincoln Republican, my guess is that you are fed up with the massive failures of the Bush administration. These failures are pretty widespread and sweeping such as, fiscal irresponsibility, lack of accountability, unsurpassed executive power, unprecedented deficits, and a rather blowhard approach to foreign policy, among other things. If, on the other hand, you are a Republican (especially a Reagan Republican), corporate oil tycoon, Neo-Con, or eschatalogical fanatic, my guess is that your stake in this election is to continue to hold on to the fat of the land which you have hoarded for the last eight years or more, "stay the course" with the Bush policies to really give them the time they deserve to flower (is 100 years long enough?), further entrench religion with politics (after all, G.O.P. stands for God's Official Party), and perhaps delay the much needed paradigm shift from fossil fuels to renewable energies. One only needed to hear the sycophantic mantra, "Drill Baby Drill!" from the Republican audience during their convention to sink home the truly lack of progressiveness needed in today's ruling party.
Whatever the case, whatever one's political persuasions might be, whoever gets the job will be inheriting one hell of a mess. America is in what is arguably one of its most pivotal moments. We are at the tipping point. Not only has a bellicose and reckless Republican administration taken us down a spiral of economic and political decline, but so has the newly elected Democratic majority-led House and Senate, who are complicit by not fulfilling the mandate of the voting public.
An interesting aspect of this election is to see how the next president would potentially continue the Bush administration's precedent of unbridled Executive power in a post-Bush White House. Is it conceivable that the next president would relenquish such power? Would Barack, bolstered by a Democratic House and Senate be any less of a tyranny than what we have seen in the last eight years?
Now that the conventions are over, the final campaigns are in full swing, and so are the attack ads and the political cheapshots have begun with relentless predictability. If I were forced to vote today, I would put in a vote of "No Confidence" in our system. Neither of the parties, from what I have observed, seem to have any real progressive solutions for our society and the world. In today's arena of "political kabuki," as Noam Chomsky puts it, how refreshing it would have been to see the two major candidates shock the world (and the delegates) by coming together to run on a bi-partisan ticket. Both McCain and Obama already have the support of their respective parties, both are the media darlings of the election, and they both have about an equal proportion of followers. What if they worked toward uniting our country instead of dividing us? Now that would have been progressive.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
A WALK IN THE PARK III
A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE DEMOCRA(P)TIC NATIONAL CONVENTION
PART III: WELCOME TO THE POLICE STATE
"If there's one thing I can guarantee, it's: Don't try and have fun in Denver, Colorado. Because if you do, the fuckwits in the Denver Police Department will gas your ass straight into the ground..." --William S. Burroughs
Denver was finally given the chance to show its stuff as a major city capable of hosting a world event. Hopefully those tired old rumors of Denver being a "cow town" are finally displaced. During this politically heightened week in Denver, history was made as the first bi-racial African American was nominated for president by the Democratic party. The mood was boisterous and celebratory in light of this historical moment and it was indeed a shining moment for the Mile High City as we showed the world that we can get political (and that it doesn't snow 11 months out of the year).
Denver has a history of large crowds clashing with the police and getting gassed. Most of these events have been sports-team-victory-related, such as the 1996 Stanley Cup victory by the inaugural Colorado Avalanche, or the back-to-back Super Bowl victories in '97 and '98 by the Denver Broncos. During those events, over a quarter of a million people flooded the streets of downtown Denver wreaking havok in their revelry, and sadly forcing those pussycats in the Denver Police Dept. to break out the ol' tear gas. The Democratic National Convention was no sporting event however, and despite the overwhelming surge of people "dancin' in the streets," the revelry remained gregarious.
What a week it's been trying to live amongst all of these cops and crazies and tree-hugging hippie types. Much to the relief and surprise of the planners of this event, the angry and befuddled masses kept the discourse civil and left the cops with nothing to do; well, there was a bizarre donut shortage during the week, but I say: "A happy cop is good for everyone," and for the most part, the Denver police were a bunch of sweethearts (there was that little incident on Monday, the 25th when police gassed a group of protesters that strayed from their designated zone, but more on that later).
Now that the dust has settled, I have had some time to ponder a concept that came up during the DNC that I want to address. As I reported before, the protest movement during the DNC was well under the anticipated numbers and for the most part lacked substance. The groups were mostly fringe and precipitous and thankfully non-violent. But was this due to mere sloth, or was it due to the overall aura of police intimidation?
The police presence in Denver was mighty to behold. It seemed that there was a group of heavily armed cops on every street corner. As I walked through Civic Park in the dapple of late summer sunshine, I noticed that there were typically more cops than protesters. Some civil rights activists complained that the need for so many police personnel was unjustified and oppressive and had deterred many individuals from coming out to speak their mind.
I was able to obtain a training manual used by the police that explains certain "illegal" protest methods. Such methods include handcuffing two or more protester's wrists together inside of a metal tube, erecting tall tripod-like structures for a protester to perch atop of, and other radical methods of demonstrating. While I'm sure that these methods amount to a headache for law enforcement, how have they become illegal?
The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights provides its citizens the right to free speech and assembly. It does not specify which acts of protesting are legal or illegal. The point of protesting is to affect change through civil disobedience usually against a tyranny. Protesting is usually the result of a person or group feeling marginalized by a more dominant group who tends to have a more influential forum. The protesters set out to thrust their beliefs into the public eye through means that are attention-grabbing, unorthodox, and sometimes shocking. How can the oppressed gain exposure if their methods are reduced to de-sensitized conventionality? What ever happened to the '60's? Remember the Buddhists who set themselves on fire? Talk about radical. Some of the methods used by innovative activists during the Vietnam War would, today, be rendered as terrorism.
Ever since September 11, 2001, Americans have had a greater awareness for the need for heightened security. This holds true especially for Barack Obama, who is certainly a marked man. I was relieved to see that he was well protected during this event. The simple fact that I heard the "A" word already being discussed (assassination), shows me that there are still too many backwards-thinking bigots around to safely let our guard down. But where do we draw the line? How much of our civil liberties, including the right to adequately protest, are we willing to give up for this so-called security?
Demonstrators in Denver certainly got a dose of the new climate of fear and security. Larger groups were herded along designated parade routes and "free-speech" zones. When they deviated from the route, or had planned unscheduled marches, they were met with swift and brutal police force, including an ostensibly excessive use of tear gas.. A close associate of mine put it to me like this: "Their right to protest wasn't taken away, only their mobility." This brought up a very disturbing idea. If dissent is largely controlled, how effective can it really be at affecting change? In this post 9/11 world, has conventional protesting become obsolete? Only time will tell...
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
A WALK IN THE PARK II
A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE DEMOCRA(P)TIC NATIONAL CONVENTION
PART II: Who Are These Protesters And What The Hell Do They Want?
Conventions and other political gatherings typically generate some kind of protest from some group or another, so in light of this year's Democratic National Convention, I was curious as to who are these protesters and what are they protesting, anyway? Are they protesting the Democrats? Are they protesting the fact that the convention is being held in Denver? Protesting Hillary's outing, or is it just that time of the month again?
In today's political climate, there are certainly a lot of issues on the table to be addressed, such as the economy, the war in Iraq, whether a black man should be allowed to run the country, etc. Well, actually, Senator Barack Obama is technically bi-racial, so does that really count? I keep having these visions of thousands of racist political operatives descending upon the Pepsi Center in white robes and carrying a thick rope. Scary. Aside from the yahoos that were arrested Tuesday, for plotting to assassinate Obama (mainly because of his race), I hope that it is safe to say that the racialists are safely in the margins. Some issues seem more valid than others, so I decided to go out and interview some of the protesters to see what these protesters were about and if they were debating real issues.
Most of the groups seemed to be pretty warm to the idea of Barack Obama becoming president. Some were protesting to try to bring positive attention to areas mostly ignored by Obama and the Democrats, such as immigration reform and Veterans advocacy. Not all groups however, were singing the praises of the Democratic front-runner. Some groups, such as the Communist Party, were trying to bring awareness to the analogousness of the Democratic and Republican parties, and bring light to Obama's entrenchment to the system.
The more I walked through the park, the more the event seemed like an orgy of weirdness. There were scattered groups of protesters ranging from marijuana advocates (they were all passed out in the grass surrounded by Twinkie wrappers), various war protesters, Jesus freaks, Jesus geeks, the Communist party, Ralph Nader supporters, the usual voting advocacy groups such as "Rock the Vote," and of course, plenty of cops. One particularly strange group was promoting the idea of reproducing the Hispanic population to start an uprising.
One protester caught my eye as she held a modest cardboard sign that read: "Who Represents Me?" She was by herself and decided to demonstrate without the support of any group. She was protesting the lack of current representation based on the issues that were important to her, such as the divisions between the rich and poor and how influential rich politicians are. Even though she does not believe that she is represented, she still plans to vote.
Overall, the general mood was amiable enough. I only saw a few hecklers trying to rile up the crowd with bigoted slurs, but they were mostly ignored and the park was alive with conflicting ideas and agendas being reasonably discussed among groups. One thing that I did not see was a great unifying movement or idea to homogenize the crowds. Also, ostensibly, no overtly pro-Republican protesters.
It was pretty neat to walk through the park and see all of these ideas being exchanged in an open manner, and without police involvement. The protesters have mostly thinned out as the week has gone on, but the police force has remained ubiquitous. There is a major immigration march set for Thursday to end at Invesco Field where Obama is scheduled to give his acceptance speech. Many Denver Hispanic residents are disappointed at Obama's failure to adequately address the immigration issue. The hope is that this gathering at the doorstep of who could potentially become our next president, will bring them into the spotlight so that Obama will have no other choice but to respond. Is the worst over or will there be an escalation during the last hurrah?
COMING NEXT:
WELCOME TO THE POLICE STATE
A WALK IN THE PARK
A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE DEMOCRA(P)TIC NATIONAL CONVENTION
PART I:
Where Have All The Cowboys Gone?
Having been somewhat of a Capitol Hill fixture over the last five years, I thought I would be in a relatively good position to get a feel for the Democratic National Convention (DNC). After this week, I won't be living in the city anymore, so I decided to spend my last week as a City of Denver resident smelling out the aire of the Mile High City during this national security event and how it is impacting the city. Since most of the "action" would be taking place in and around Civic Park, I could easily maneuver my way into the crowds and get the scoop, hence the title, "A Walk in the Park." In addition to my centrality to the protest movement, my job at Auraria Campus would ensure that I could be close to the security perimeter and perhaps get some close-ups of the event.
At the college campus I work at, classes have been suspended and has been turned into a sweeping security perimeter, allowing parking access for the odd 2,000 delegates, with a ramped-up security force ranging from local cops to F.B.I., C.I.A., and Secret Service. Buildings and classrooms are locked down, as they are essentially at the doorstep of the Pepsi Center where the convention is taking place.
As the event kicked off on Monday, the police and other security forces present were prepared for the worst. An estimated 20,000 protesters were expected to maul their way through the selected parade route ending up at the designated "free-speech zone," or as some like to call it, the "Freedom Cage." Despite the anticipation, however, the number of protest participants numbered around 2,000. Other marches have been scheduled, but are mostly sparse and un-unified.
Word around the street is that the protesters didn't want to be confined to a "free speech zone," and had, at the last minute, tried to organize a walk through the trendy 16th St. pedestrian mall where, incidentally, they would have made much more of an impact. Security was formidable, however, and failing to obtain a proper permit, the scant protesters were forced to say their piece (peace) on the sidewalks after the parade route was re-opened to traffic. This had the effect of disorganizing the main movement and leaving a residue of rag-tag protesters that gathered in Denver's Civic Park.
So with all of this hype built around these protesters and beefed-up security, the question that I have is: Where have all the cowboys gone? Where are the gunslingers, the shoot-from-the-hipsters, the new revolutionaries that pledged their fidelity towards civil disobedience? From my view, it was a pretty disappointing day for the tour de force that protest organizers were hoping for. One force that was present, however, was the police presence. And they have given assurance that they will continue to remain a very solid presence throughout the event, which has some citizens wondering if the saturation of cops is justifiable. The question is, are these cops there to serve and protect, or to deter the public from engaging in protests, peaceful or otherwise?
COMING NEXT: WHAT ARE ALL THESE PEOPLE PROTESTING, ANYWAY?
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Concepts of Compatibility...
What is this mysterious force that brings two people together? In all the vastness of the wide world we live in, all of the myriads of possible partners that we may encounter, why do we gravitate towards certain individuals, and why do we stick with them? With so many people that have different pasts and different value systems, what ends up being the glue that binds us together?
I always hear stories about couples that have all kinds of things in common; ice cream flavors, shoe brands, similar tastes in movies, bible verses, travel destinations. These commonalities, however, seem to reside on the surface level. I have encountered relationships where I have had plenty of these superficial things in common with a person and still it did not work out. So I must ask: How much of relationship compatibility is dependant upon how many things you have in common with the other person?
Sometimes opposites attract. You may encounter someone who is so shockingly different from what you are used to that you can't help but be attracted to them. You are a dog person and they are a cat person. Your favorite food is peanut butter, which your partner happens to be allergic to. They may have quirks and idiosyncrasies that rub you the wrong way, but ultimately they have won you over. What is it that holds these people together?
It is rather easy to get along with someone who presents themselves as an easy match. Most people are on their "best behavior" when they first begin a romantic pursuit. Eventually, the proverbial honeymoon is over, and the novelties of superficial commonality fade and take the backseat to more substantial concepts of compatibility such as: Does he/she support my pursuit of happiness? Do they help to center me when I'm way out? These issues can only be proven through time and experience, so what determines if a person is worth sticking around for?
They always say that you'll know it when it happens. When you meet that special someone, you'll just know. Sparks will fly, angels will sing choruses from the heavens, and everything in life from that moment on will make sense. But what if that is all just a bunch of romantic twaddle? What if the rapid racing of your heart at the sound of your beloved's voice is essentially the equivalent of eating too much spicy food before bedtime?
Don't get me wrong. I believe that lasting relationships should have a fair measure of passion, but can a healthy relationship be measured by its level of passion, and can such passion be sustained? I had a friend once who admonished me to never start a relationship at a 90% level of intensity, but rather to start somewhere in the 70% level. The effect would be more draining than uplifting in the long run. That way, she explained, you can eventually raise the level to a sustainable 80% over time. At first I thought her approach to relationships was a bit too mathematical and strategic (I always believed that both people should give 100%), but after thinking about it, she may have been on to something. No couple can reasonably operate at a 90% level of intensity. Both persons would eventually get burned out and lose energy. This example is synonymous with the idea of a flashbulb versus a long-life incandescent light bulb. The former burns bright and hot for a very short time, while the latter burns at a dimmer but more steady and long-lasting duration.
I have experienced feelings of deep infatuation and romantic empathy before in relationships, and all have ended, for various reasons, in failure. I wonder if the common thread was the fact that I relied too heavily on the "feeling" part. I felt like she was the "one." I had a good feeling about the way I felt when we kissed, and so on. Was I dazzled by the flash of the bulb, the sparks of the Roman candle, so much so that by the time the brightness was gone and the after image faded, the show was over before I realized it?
Looking back, I can see how most of my ideas of what a relationship should look like was formed by others usually trying to sell a certain way of life. Commercials on T.V., books, magazine ads, and even friends and family illustrated a type of relationship that was not ideally realistic for me. Society paints a glowing picture of endless happy couples usually tied to some product line or another, while the reality of everyday relationship life is more complex and conscious. And similarly, the version of my coupled friends that I get to see is rarely the same as the subterfuge that I am presented with.
I think that most people get hung up on the expectations associated with the labels given in relationships. Deeper levels of commitment bring greater levels of status and entrenchment, which naturally come with labels attached, which, in turn, carry connotations that people associate with the images they are presented with in society and social circles.
Every relationship is its own creation, each bond between two people unique and irreplaceable. Whether the bond lasts for a season or many seasons, it is unfair and often inadequate to reduce these bonds to mere labels.
Perhaps the measure of a healthy relationship is in the substance of the amount of harmony that person brings to your life. Whether you are compatible on an analogous or on a complementary level, the person that you call "significant other," should bring a measure of sanity, support, and challenging influence to the table. I'm not talking about the person becoming your identity or losing yourself in the identity of the relationship, but rather your significant other enriching your identity by filling a gap that exists in your life. How can it be anything but good if that person "frees" you up to be yourself rather than placing unwarranted restraints on your natural personality? Oh yeah, and you have to be good for them too. Now that's what I call compatibility.
I always hear stories about couples that have all kinds of things in common; ice cream flavors, shoe brands, similar tastes in movies, bible verses, travel destinations. These commonalities, however, seem to reside on the surface level. I have encountered relationships where I have had plenty of these superficial things in common with a person and still it did not work out. So I must ask: How much of relationship compatibility is dependant upon how many things you have in common with the other person?
Sometimes opposites attract. You may encounter someone who is so shockingly different from what you are used to that you can't help but be attracted to them. You are a dog person and they are a cat person. Your favorite food is peanut butter, which your partner happens to be allergic to. They may have quirks and idiosyncrasies that rub you the wrong way, but ultimately they have won you over. What is it that holds these people together?
It is rather easy to get along with someone who presents themselves as an easy match. Most people are on their "best behavior" when they first begin a romantic pursuit. Eventually, the proverbial honeymoon is over, and the novelties of superficial commonality fade and take the backseat to more substantial concepts of compatibility such as: Does he/she support my pursuit of happiness? Do they help to center me when I'm way out? These issues can only be proven through time and experience, so what determines if a person is worth sticking around for?
They always say that you'll know it when it happens. When you meet that special someone, you'll just know. Sparks will fly, angels will sing choruses from the heavens, and everything in life from that moment on will make sense. But what if that is all just a bunch of romantic twaddle? What if the rapid racing of your heart at the sound of your beloved's voice is essentially the equivalent of eating too much spicy food before bedtime?
Don't get me wrong. I believe that lasting relationships should have a fair measure of passion, but can a healthy relationship be measured by its level of passion, and can such passion be sustained? I had a friend once who admonished me to never start a relationship at a 90% level of intensity, but rather to start somewhere in the 70% level. The effect would be more draining than uplifting in the long run. That way, she explained, you can eventually raise the level to a sustainable 80% over time. At first I thought her approach to relationships was a bit too mathematical and strategic (I always believed that both people should give 100%), but after thinking about it, she may have been on to something. No couple can reasonably operate at a 90% level of intensity. Both persons would eventually get burned out and lose energy. This example is synonymous with the idea of a flashbulb versus a long-life incandescent light bulb. The former burns bright and hot for a very short time, while the latter burns at a dimmer but more steady and long-lasting duration.
I have experienced feelings of deep infatuation and romantic empathy before in relationships, and all have ended, for various reasons, in failure. I wonder if the common thread was the fact that I relied too heavily on the "feeling" part. I felt like she was the "one." I had a good feeling about the way I felt when we kissed, and so on. Was I dazzled by the flash of the bulb, the sparks of the Roman candle, so much so that by the time the brightness was gone and the after image faded, the show was over before I realized it?
Looking back, I can see how most of my ideas of what a relationship should look like was formed by others usually trying to sell a certain way of life. Commercials on T.V., books, magazine ads, and even friends and family illustrated a type of relationship that was not ideally realistic for me. Society paints a glowing picture of endless happy couples usually tied to some product line or another, while the reality of everyday relationship life is more complex and conscious. And similarly, the version of my coupled friends that I get to see is rarely the same as the subterfuge that I am presented with.
I think that most people get hung up on the expectations associated with the labels given in relationships. Deeper levels of commitment bring greater levels of status and entrenchment, which naturally come with labels attached, which, in turn, carry connotations that people associate with the images they are presented with in society and social circles.
Every relationship is its own creation, each bond between two people unique and irreplaceable. Whether the bond lasts for a season or many seasons, it is unfair and often inadequate to reduce these bonds to mere labels.
Perhaps the measure of a healthy relationship is in the substance of the amount of harmony that person brings to your life. Whether you are compatible on an analogous or on a complementary level, the person that you call "significant other," should bring a measure of sanity, support, and challenging influence to the table. I'm not talking about the person becoming your identity or losing yourself in the identity of the relationship, but rather your significant other enriching your identity by filling a gap that exists in your life. How can it be anything but good if that person "frees" you up to be yourself rather than placing unwarranted restraints on your natural personality? Oh yeah, and you have to be good for them too. Now that's what I call compatibility.
Monday, August 4, 2008
The Thrill Is Gone...
I used to drink in the romance of the city, fascinated by the sights and sounds, the mystique of its life-pulse. I used to want the city to want me, to incorporate me into its mythos, to graft me into its glass and concrete skin. I used to look at the city through carnival eyes and stroll through its streets on escalator shoes. Now it is the back alley stench of urine soaked bricks and ancient dog turds petrifying on the sidewalk that I smell, the endless string of bums with their endless string of hard luck stories, the ubiquitous cannon-blast of dumpsters falling open, glass bottles rolling, scattering, not quite breaking, Roman-nosed metrosexual females hiding behind bug-eyed sunglasses, every hair on their bodies carefully manicured to the precise configuration of the goddesses they worship, glum, dainty, and utterly lacking in personality. I can feel the oppressive heat of anger and selfishness trapped between the tall buildings, impersonal buildings which stand as sentinels over the swarming ants below. I can hear the manic buzzing of 10,000 voices competing for my attention, vying for my affections like a late-night prostitute. The city presents its case, all razzle dazzle and solicitous melodrama. The life-pulse of the city has become a sales pitch, a con, a cleverly constructed subterfuge designed to bankrupt me, but it is my soul that has become bankrupt. I pass by familiar buildings without even seeing them now for I am a ghost to this place and the plane that I walk on carries me beyond these dusty and forgotten passageways. Now that it is time for me to leave, I can feel the city holding on to me, threatening to suffocate me with its sweatsocks smell and its loathsome nagging, its signs and omnipresent traffic lights, its promises of hollow thrills and delivery of well-worn madness. It is time for me to go, to find that place my heart has already set out for, and where I lie, the murmur of the city will be only a distant echo in my mind...
Friday, July 25, 2008
An Ode To The Working Man...
Restless winds
Brought on by eager cars
Heavy trains
Scampering people
Packed in
All in?
All aboard!
Evil music
Playing into the night
Like a lunatic's lullaby
I am aperature.
Melancholy cats
Pining away for their masters
Gone rats
Tapdancing across train tracks
Clickety-clack
Rat-a-tat
Pull your weight!
Don't be late!
You'll be great!
But not today
You are everyday's man
And this is everyman's day
Business as usual
All work, no play
Even children labor under the toils of their games
Chasing waning shadows
Beyond dusk's horizon
Gone long
Done gone
Gone wrong
Long gone day...
Brought on by eager cars
Heavy trains
Scampering people
Packed in
All in?
All aboard!
Evil music
Playing into the night
Like a lunatic's lullaby
I am aperature.
Melancholy cats
Pining away for their masters
Gone rats
Tapdancing across train tracks
Clickety-clack
Rat-a-tat
Pull your weight!
Don't be late!
You'll be great!
But not today
You are everyday's man
And this is everyman's day
Business as usual
All work, no play
Even children labor under the toils of their games
Chasing waning shadows
Beyond dusk's horizon
Gone long
Done gone
Gone wrong
Long gone day...
Friday, July 18, 2008
On Being A Black Sheep...
I rounded the last corner of the jetway feeling the delight that comes from stretching my legs after sitting in one place for too long. I had two large carry-on bags packed with enough clothes and gadgets to last me a week. I rarely checked my bags anymore since the heightened security measures of post 9/11. This meant no waiting for the trundling baggage carousels to vomit my precious luggage, and thus less time spent inside the airport. Maybe I’ve heard too many horror stories of lost luggage, or watched too many movies where the faithful air traveler becomes victim to rough baggage handlers, whatever the case, I felt compelled to keep my goods close at hand.
I used to relish air travel, but had become increasingly uncomfortable with the whole experience. Visiting an airport meant waiting in long lines, sluggishly making my way through degrading security screening, my own dull annoyance mirrored on the faces of countless other travelers.
As I passed out of the territory of the security zone, the potpourri of jet fuel, fried food, and dozens of conflicting designer colognes, seemingly ubiquitous at every airport, left my nostrils. I began looking for my cousin Jake who was to meet me and escort me around town during my brief stay in Dayton for my Grandfather’s funeral.
Now a short word about my cousin Jake. He was the first-born out of our generation, successful in just about every sense of the word. He got his start in the restaurant business as a dishwasher, and worked his way up the chain until he became manager. He married a great woman and they started a family. Jake continued to work his way up in the business learning most of the skills and building the capital he needed to open up his own restaurant. He has always had a natural ability with people, and he eventually worked his way into politics. Now right about this time, his family life started to crumble. On the surface, they had the appearance of the idyllic family, the great American dream come home to roost in the Midwest, peaceful, stable, and praiseworthy. Under the surface however, things weren’t going so well. Jake and Mindy got a divorce. He started carousing around town with various women and partying late into the night, much to the chagrin of his kids and supporters. Eventually, this hedonistic behavior caught up to him in the form of legal trouble. This led to his name being smeared all over the local papers and pretty much ruined his future in politics. I say all of this only to illustrate that I was never really close to Jake. Out of all of my cousins, he was the one I related to the least. His business-minded financial success and my bohemian, free-spirited, apparent lack of concern for all things he had cherished so highly had always ensured that we would be worlds apart. But he was indeed family and he was the one who offered to pick me up from the airport, and nothing brings family together quite like a funeral.
I was expecting a downtrodden, beleaguered, and perhaps world-weary version of Jake. I hadn’t seen or talked to him in six years, and had heard about his recent troubles only through vague and sketchy descriptions from my other relatives. But there was Jake, cheerful as ever, greeting me at the airport with his new girlfriend Leslie. As we loaded my bags into her BMW and drove off, there was the usual amicable small talk about my job status, love life, and the lot. Truth be told, I wanted to dislike Leslie. See, Mindy, Jake's ex-wife was well-respected and admired within the family. It broke everyone's heart to hear of their divorce and quite shocked the hell out of me. Mindy and I had always gotten along pretty well, so naturally, I favored her over Leslie. What I didn't expect was to actually like Jake's new lady. She was charming, spunky, and seemingly possessed of great reservoirs of compassion to accept Jake for all of his vices and to stick by his side in the wake of his fall from grace. I purposefully stayed away from any topic that revolved around his recent legal skirmishes, not wanting to spoil this warm reunion.
During the course of the week I was in Dayton, I would catch my family off guard by cracking jokes, and none laughed as hard as Jake. I figured that most of my family thought pretty poorly of me anyways, had their own crystallized opinions of me, as I had always been the token black sheep, so why not just speak my mind? What did I have to lose? Why not have some fun with it?
One night after an especially solemn day, we all went out to a Mexican restaurant. Jake’s mother June, who is very religious, was to meet Jake’s new girlfriend for the first time at this dinner. The mood was very apprehensive as we all awaited June’s arrival. I kept ordering margaritas just to make things that much more interesting. June and her conservative husband arrived, and the games began. June spewed her typical venomous barrage of insinuations at Jake’s girlfriend Leslie, who was surprisingly formidable and resilient. I kept making slights and mutinous comments at the expense of my stuffier relatives who, incidentally, didn’t understand half of what I was talking about. Jake got it though. His face would turn deep red and he put his silverware down on his plate, hard, and he filled the room with his maniacal, tittering laughter. Jake laughed with the abandon of a man who has nothing to lose, a man who has hit rock bottom and has nowhere to look but upwards. We were on a roll, Jake and me. The laughter spawned more laughs and more jokes, and by the end of the night he was calling me his “Margarita Man.” The white elephant in the room was Jake’s run-in with the law, but interestingly enough, no one mentioned it. I guess Jake’s new girlfriend was controversial enough to distract the pious zealots at the table from discussing the easy pickings of Jake’s publicized embarrassment.
Of course, when Jake wasn't around, there was plenty of talk, and I couldn't help but to think, this is probably how they talk about me when I'm not around. It doesn't matter how successful I might be, or how munificent I try to be towards my family; it is always easier to point out the ugliness in others, and by doing so, we make ourselves out to be ugly. Sure, he kind of went off the deep end on some things, but so have all of us at one time or another. What I saw of Jake was a man who had to go through this experience to help discover himself.
When Jake and I parted ways, he gave me a big hug and a business card, admonishing me to be less of a stranger the next time I came to town. I realized that at the beginning of this trip, I had had the wrong measure of him. I had only heard of cousin Jake’s wild excursions vicariously through the family gossip network. They had painted a rather dismal picture of the once absolutely adored family favorite, Jake. But now he had become the one who was judged, the scorned one, the wayward son, the black sheep. So I was discovering this relatability that I never had with him before. We were in some ways, freer than the rest because we had faced our trials, faced ourselves, and come out of the darkness stronger. I thought back to the funeral, where Jake was joined by his children and ex-wife. It reminded me that we all make mistakes, but it is the power of forgiveness and compassion that triumphs over scorn and indiscretion. As he walked with his estranged family by the graveside of my Grandfather, he carried himself with the dignity of a man who still possessed the best parts of himself, and I respected him for it.
I used to relish air travel, but had become increasingly uncomfortable with the whole experience. Visiting an airport meant waiting in long lines, sluggishly making my way through degrading security screening, my own dull annoyance mirrored on the faces of countless other travelers.
As I passed out of the territory of the security zone, the potpourri of jet fuel, fried food, and dozens of conflicting designer colognes, seemingly ubiquitous at every airport, left my nostrils. I began looking for my cousin Jake who was to meet me and escort me around town during my brief stay in Dayton for my Grandfather’s funeral.
Now a short word about my cousin Jake. He was the first-born out of our generation, successful in just about every sense of the word. He got his start in the restaurant business as a dishwasher, and worked his way up the chain until he became manager. He married a great woman and they started a family. Jake continued to work his way up in the business learning most of the skills and building the capital he needed to open up his own restaurant. He has always had a natural ability with people, and he eventually worked his way into politics. Now right about this time, his family life started to crumble. On the surface, they had the appearance of the idyllic family, the great American dream come home to roost in the Midwest, peaceful, stable, and praiseworthy. Under the surface however, things weren’t going so well. Jake and Mindy got a divorce. He started carousing around town with various women and partying late into the night, much to the chagrin of his kids and supporters. Eventually, this hedonistic behavior caught up to him in the form of legal trouble. This led to his name being smeared all over the local papers and pretty much ruined his future in politics. I say all of this only to illustrate that I was never really close to Jake. Out of all of my cousins, he was the one I related to the least. His business-minded financial success and my bohemian, free-spirited, apparent lack of concern for all things he had cherished so highly had always ensured that we would be worlds apart. But he was indeed family and he was the one who offered to pick me up from the airport, and nothing brings family together quite like a funeral.
I was expecting a downtrodden, beleaguered, and perhaps world-weary version of Jake. I hadn’t seen or talked to him in six years, and had heard about his recent troubles only through vague and sketchy descriptions from my other relatives. But there was Jake, cheerful as ever, greeting me at the airport with his new girlfriend Leslie. As we loaded my bags into her BMW and drove off, there was the usual amicable small talk about my job status, love life, and the lot. Truth be told, I wanted to dislike Leslie. See, Mindy, Jake's ex-wife was well-respected and admired within the family. It broke everyone's heart to hear of their divorce and quite shocked the hell out of me. Mindy and I had always gotten along pretty well, so naturally, I favored her over Leslie. What I didn't expect was to actually like Jake's new lady. She was charming, spunky, and seemingly possessed of great reservoirs of compassion to accept Jake for all of his vices and to stick by his side in the wake of his fall from grace. I purposefully stayed away from any topic that revolved around his recent legal skirmishes, not wanting to spoil this warm reunion.
During the course of the week I was in Dayton, I would catch my family off guard by cracking jokes, and none laughed as hard as Jake. I figured that most of my family thought pretty poorly of me anyways, had their own crystallized opinions of me, as I had always been the token black sheep, so why not just speak my mind? What did I have to lose? Why not have some fun with it?
One night after an especially solemn day, we all went out to a Mexican restaurant. Jake’s mother June, who is very religious, was to meet Jake’s new girlfriend for the first time at this dinner. The mood was very apprehensive as we all awaited June’s arrival. I kept ordering margaritas just to make things that much more interesting. June and her conservative husband arrived, and the games began. June spewed her typical venomous barrage of insinuations at Jake’s girlfriend Leslie, who was surprisingly formidable and resilient. I kept making slights and mutinous comments at the expense of my stuffier relatives who, incidentally, didn’t understand half of what I was talking about. Jake got it though. His face would turn deep red and he put his silverware down on his plate, hard, and he filled the room with his maniacal, tittering laughter. Jake laughed with the abandon of a man who has nothing to lose, a man who has hit rock bottom and has nowhere to look but upwards. We were on a roll, Jake and me. The laughter spawned more laughs and more jokes, and by the end of the night he was calling me his “Margarita Man.” The white elephant in the room was Jake’s run-in with the law, but interestingly enough, no one mentioned it. I guess Jake’s new girlfriend was controversial enough to distract the pious zealots at the table from discussing the easy pickings of Jake’s publicized embarrassment.
Of course, when Jake wasn't around, there was plenty of talk, and I couldn't help but to think, this is probably how they talk about me when I'm not around. It doesn't matter how successful I might be, or how munificent I try to be towards my family; it is always easier to point out the ugliness in others, and by doing so, we make ourselves out to be ugly. Sure, he kind of went off the deep end on some things, but so have all of us at one time or another. What I saw of Jake was a man who had to go through this experience to help discover himself.
When Jake and I parted ways, he gave me a big hug and a business card, admonishing me to be less of a stranger the next time I came to town. I realized that at the beginning of this trip, I had had the wrong measure of him. I had only heard of cousin Jake’s wild excursions vicariously through the family gossip network. They had painted a rather dismal picture of the once absolutely adored family favorite, Jake. But now he had become the one who was judged, the scorned one, the wayward son, the black sheep. So I was discovering this relatability that I never had with him before. We were in some ways, freer than the rest because we had faced our trials, faced ourselves, and come out of the darkness stronger. I thought back to the funeral, where Jake was joined by his children and ex-wife. It reminded me that we all make mistakes, but it is the power of forgiveness and compassion that triumphs over scorn and indiscretion. As he walked with his estranged family by the graveside of my Grandfather, he carried himself with the dignity of a man who still possessed the best parts of himself, and I respected him for it.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Voyeurism And The Post 9/11 Empire
I live in a world of haunted memories. The ghosts of the last decade visit me to remind me of richer times represented not only by greater affluence, but of the wealth of possibilities that the future might have held. I am faced with the phantoms of a pre-9-11 world, a society not emburdened with the threats of immanent terrorism, the scourge of heightened jingoism, nor the plague of economic decline. I look back in time, before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, before the latest recession, to a time when the U.S. dollar was still worth more than the Euro, before the mass de-industrialization and sell-out of major corporations in this country. I look back at all of these things, look at how much our society has changed for the worse since 9-11 and long for those brighter days of the “Roaring ’90’s.” At times I walk through this life in a waking dream and think that that proverbial chartless future may still be around the corner, but more often, I wake to the realization of the nightmare that has become post 9-11 life in America.
While the events of September 11th, 2001 were certainly startling, I must ask myself why those particular terror attacks were so impactful. Like most people, I can remember exactly where I was and what I was doing the morning of the attacks. I was living in Dayton at the time, and the woman whose grass I was cutting called me inside to watch the television, where the infamous events of that morning were tragically unfolding. All of the media with its pervasive all-seeing-eye, already posed the premise that we were under attack, complete with stylized graphics and stunned reporters commenting with great pathos and occupational self-indulgence not seen since the Gulf War in 1991. I remember feeling afraid.
Rumors of more terror attacks to come circulated even throughout the Dayton area. We were after all, close to Wright-Patterson Air Force base, and in the heightened state of fear, it seemed plausible that the terrorists might fix their diabolical eye on sleepy Dayton, home of such treasures as the Mead building and the Wright B Flyer. It was the fear of the unknown that drove us to such ludicrous concerns. Even then no one could have guessed how much our world would really change.
It is easy for me to look back at the progression of events since 9-11 that brought us here. It seems that even the 2000 presidential election debacle was a harbinger of things to come. A dynastic son rises to power, despite a series of failures, becoming appointed (not rightfully elected) as president during, perhaps, the most controversial election in American history. A mere eight months after his inauguration, 9-11 happens, solidifying George W. Bush’s place in history, bringing purpose to his mostly non-descript presidency. More controversy would haunt this man in the post 9-11 years in the form of bad policy decisions which would lead us to war and drive us into record-breaking deficits. Despite the political capital he gained immediately following 9-11, George Bush, continuing his streak of failures, extinguished the positive regard posited by most of the world by circumventing international law and invading the sovereign nations of Afghanistan and Iraq. This had the effect of driving the United States further into debt and entangling us in a state of war that has no foreseeable end.
The terror attacks on 9-11 marked the birthing of the neo-fascist era of America, sometimes referred to as the “New American Century.” The Bush administration was certainly opportunistic in its complicity surrounding the events of 9-11. This administration cranked up the fear machine to help remind us that we are in a state of terror. Unprecedented executive power was seized in the aftermath of the attacks. Traditional avenues for diplomacy and policy-making were displaced while the might of the U.S. military industrial complex was bolstered by the “war on terror,” an ambiguous war of paradox and deception.
In fact, 9-11 was a veritable free-for-all full of opportunists ready to steer America in new directions. The mainstream media, largely uncritical of the post 9-11 American government, enjoyed a lucrative and satisfying arrangement with the administration and rolled out the terror propaganda. Religious fanatics capitalized on the new aura of fear by tying the events of 9-11 together with the mythologies of the bible, creating a sort of new American theocracy. This had the effect of polarizing not only contingents in America, but in the rest of the world as well. All the while the terror threat was hyped, and the warmongering continued to pervade the ideology of the terrorized psyche of the American mind. War and violence at the expense of the lives of unrelated parties were somehow justified as acceptable measures to be taken to preserve the fragile sensibilities of the American way of life.
If the purpose of the perpetrators of the attacks on 9-11 was to permanently alter our way of life, then sadly, they have succeeded. It seems that most of the progress we made towards tolerance, acceptance, and unity in the 90’s somehow lapsed in favor of post 9-11 priorities. This is not due to any terrorist infiltration of American society, but rather, our acceptance of neo-fascist regime change within our own country. We have practically handed over constitutional liberties in exchange for the illusion of security. Americans have become more galvanized, more bigoted, and seemingly more ignorant in the years succeeding 9-11. Easy answers in the form of bumper sticker slogans touted by talking heads are repeated in remarkable lock-step fashion by detail-weary Americans who don’t take the time or put forth the energy to scrutinize the state of affairs in our country.
Why were we so affected by 9-11? It was certainly tragic and unprecedented. But I believe deep down that we were so affected because it connected us to a larger reality for just a moment, and now that we have experienced it, we are hooked. The orgy of violence on 9-11 reminded us that death and terror are real and maybe even thrilling. We are so buried in the virtual reality of television programming that we have become de-sensitized to the real possibility of danger. So when it happens on a large scale and in front of our eyes, we are so shocked that we can’t help but to watch. I believe that the terror attacks on 9-11 awakened a thirst for graphic voyeurism of a tragic scale. On the surface, we hope that the worst is over and that any possible future attacks have been stymied by all of the post 9-11 security measures put in place. But under the surface, I believe we are anticipating the next big terror event that will bring us to grips with that which connects us to what is real.
While the events of September 11th, 2001 were certainly startling, I must ask myself why those particular terror attacks were so impactful. Like most people, I can remember exactly where I was and what I was doing the morning of the attacks. I was living in Dayton at the time, and the woman whose grass I was cutting called me inside to watch the television, where the infamous events of that morning were tragically unfolding. All of the media with its pervasive all-seeing-eye, already posed the premise that we were under attack, complete with stylized graphics and stunned reporters commenting with great pathos and occupational self-indulgence not seen since the Gulf War in 1991. I remember feeling afraid.
Rumors of more terror attacks to come circulated even throughout the Dayton area. We were after all, close to Wright-Patterson Air Force base, and in the heightened state of fear, it seemed plausible that the terrorists might fix their diabolical eye on sleepy Dayton, home of such treasures as the Mead building and the Wright B Flyer. It was the fear of the unknown that drove us to such ludicrous concerns. Even then no one could have guessed how much our world would really change.
It is easy for me to look back at the progression of events since 9-11 that brought us here. It seems that even the 2000 presidential election debacle was a harbinger of things to come. A dynastic son rises to power, despite a series of failures, becoming appointed (not rightfully elected) as president during, perhaps, the most controversial election in American history. A mere eight months after his inauguration, 9-11 happens, solidifying George W. Bush’s place in history, bringing purpose to his mostly non-descript presidency. More controversy would haunt this man in the post 9-11 years in the form of bad policy decisions which would lead us to war and drive us into record-breaking deficits. Despite the political capital he gained immediately following 9-11, George Bush, continuing his streak of failures, extinguished the positive regard posited by most of the world by circumventing international law and invading the sovereign nations of Afghanistan and Iraq. This had the effect of driving the United States further into debt and entangling us in a state of war that has no foreseeable end.
The terror attacks on 9-11 marked the birthing of the neo-fascist era of America, sometimes referred to as the “New American Century.” The Bush administration was certainly opportunistic in its complicity surrounding the events of 9-11. This administration cranked up the fear machine to help remind us that we are in a state of terror. Unprecedented executive power was seized in the aftermath of the attacks. Traditional avenues for diplomacy and policy-making were displaced while the might of the U.S. military industrial complex was bolstered by the “war on terror,” an ambiguous war of paradox and deception.
In fact, 9-11 was a veritable free-for-all full of opportunists ready to steer America in new directions. The mainstream media, largely uncritical of the post 9-11 American government, enjoyed a lucrative and satisfying arrangement with the administration and rolled out the terror propaganda. Religious fanatics capitalized on the new aura of fear by tying the events of 9-11 together with the mythologies of the bible, creating a sort of new American theocracy. This had the effect of polarizing not only contingents in America, but in the rest of the world as well. All the while the terror threat was hyped, and the warmongering continued to pervade the ideology of the terrorized psyche of the American mind. War and violence at the expense of the lives of unrelated parties were somehow justified as acceptable measures to be taken to preserve the fragile sensibilities of the American way of life.
If the purpose of the perpetrators of the attacks on 9-11 was to permanently alter our way of life, then sadly, they have succeeded. It seems that most of the progress we made towards tolerance, acceptance, and unity in the 90’s somehow lapsed in favor of post 9-11 priorities. This is not due to any terrorist infiltration of American society, but rather, our acceptance of neo-fascist regime change within our own country. We have practically handed over constitutional liberties in exchange for the illusion of security. Americans have become more galvanized, more bigoted, and seemingly more ignorant in the years succeeding 9-11. Easy answers in the form of bumper sticker slogans touted by talking heads are repeated in remarkable lock-step fashion by detail-weary Americans who don’t take the time or put forth the energy to scrutinize the state of affairs in our country.
Why were we so affected by 9-11? It was certainly tragic and unprecedented. But I believe deep down that we were so affected because it connected us to a larger reality for just a moment, and now that we have experienced it, we are hooked. The orgy of violence on 9-11 reminded us that death and terror are real and maybe even thrilling. We are so buried in the virtual reality of television programming that we have become de-sensitized to the real possibility of danger. So when it happens on a large scale and in front of our eyes, we are so shocked that we can’t help but to watch. I believe that the terror attacks on 9-11 awakened a thirst for graphic voyeurism of a tragic scale. On the surface, we hope that the worst is over and that any possible future attacks have been stymied by all of the post 9-11 security measures put in place. But under the surface, I believe we are anticipating the next big terror event that will bring us to grips with that which connects us to what is real.
Friday, May 30, 2008
$UCCE$$
What defines success? Is it based on merit or achievement? Is it based on accomplishing a series of tasks? Is success determined by financial avatars, or is success something deeper that stems from a personal drive to be all that one can be, and to strive for the highest quality of personal satisfaction?
I believe that many people equate success with financial or commercial success. These are the people that need the vindication of society’s status quota to validate to them whether talent measures up to success. This yardstick has traditionally been used by our consumer-driven society with the idea that the money-makers must have something worth selling. It is typical for most people to acquiesce success only to those who are acknowledged by society’s standards. But does lack of recognition by the greater part of society change who a person is or what they are capable of achieving?
To the passive observer, art (including music and other genres), is merely another form of entertainment to which the consumer expects to be “serviced” by the entertainer(s). The obscure, self-driven artists who devote themselves to their craft simply because they can, regardless of stature, money, or prestige, are mostly marginalized by the louder, more pervasive consumer-driven machine, which pontificates to the world what is art.
We live in a society where art has become industrialized. With the rise of Mp3 technology and the widening scope of apparent talent, industry giants have tightened up considerably. CD sales have noticeably dropped, leading the major labels to lower percentage points and perks for artists. The days of primadonna big band extravagance are over. Music labels have traded talent scouts for accountants, implementing a more corporately-based structure of discovering and marketing new talent. This trend has led to the surge of formulaic, pre-fabricated “boy bands,” “teenage divas,” and scores of forgettable rock bands that have been carefully molded and funded by their corporate sponsors. The past decade is rife with examples of these mostly performance-driven, musically mediocre acts. The line between musicianship and showmanship has become blurred, and the largely aloof consumer audience has accepted this form of forced-fed entertainment. Like Jon-boy states during a mock pundit show in the movie EDtv:
“... it used to be that people were famous for being special. Now they’re considered special, merely, for being famous. Fame has become a moral good. It is its own virtue.”
Most people are willing to accept the idea that if a band is featured on the radio, then they are successful and worthy of a listening audience. The music is driven into the consciousness by persistent repetition, almost to the point of absurdity. It’s like George W. Bush stated, speaking at a New York middle/high school, posted May 24th, 2005:
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
This is how hits are made in contemporary radio culture. Music has become weaponized by corporate conglomerates and their clients to help sell products and keep this titanic industry afloat. But much like the ill-fated maiden voyage of the R.M.S. Titanic, the record industry is doomed to founder.
Fortunately, with the advent and rise of digital technology, and the growing availability of recording technology to the common-person, a fatal blow has been dealt to the recording industry. The market has become flooded with independent artists who have successfully found ways around the old paradigms set by the music industry, creating an industry all unto themselves. This movement has risen so suddenly and dramatically, that the recording industry has failed to adapt adequately to the desires of the consumers. Now that people realize that there is a virtual plethora of musical choices to be had, they can afford to be more selective and flex the almighty consumer muscle. This saturation of new and valid musical voices, coupled with the industry’s apparent lack of anticipation to evolve with the consumers will hopefully set a new standard as to how far self-motivated musicians can go with their talent.
Success, like many other things, is in the eye of the beholder, and has a deeply personal meaning to each person. The mistake, I believe, is in letting other peoples’ ideas of what success should be, cloud our own judgement, hindering the visions we have for ourselves.
I believe that many people equate success with financial or commercial success. These are the people that need the vindication of society’s status quota to validate to them whether talent measures up to success. This yardstick has traditionally been used by our consumer-driven society with the idea that the money-makers must have something worth selling. It is typical for most people to acquiesce success only to those who are acknowledged by society’s standards. But does lack of recognition by the greater part of society change who a person is or what they are capable of achieving?
To the passive observer, art (including music and other genres), is merely another form of entertainment to which the consumer expects to be “serviced” by the entertainer(s). The obscure, self-driven artists who devote themselves to their craft simply because they can, regardless of stature, money, or prestige, are mostly marginalized by the louder, more pervasive consumer-driven machine, which pontificates to the world what is art.
We live in a society where art has become industrialized. With the rise of Mp3 technology and the widening scope of apparent talent, industry giants have tightened up considerably. CD sales have noticeably dropped, leading the major labels to lower percentage points and perks for artists. The days of primadonna big band extravagance are over. Music labels have traded talent scouts for accountants, implementing a more corporately-based structure of discovering and marketing new talent. This trend has led to the surge of formulaic, pre-fabricated “boy bands,” “teenage divas,” and scores of forgettable rock bands that have been carefully molded and funded by their corporate sponsors. The past decade is rife with examples of these mostly performance-driven, musically mediocre acts. The line between musicianship and showmanship has become blurred, and the largely aloof consumer audience has accepted this form of forced-fed entertainment. Like Jon-boy states during a mock pundit show in the movie EDtv:
“... it used to be that people were famous for being special. Now they’re considered special, merely, for being famous. Fame has become a moral good. It is its own virtue.”
Most people are willing to accept the idea that if a band is featured on the radio, then they are successful and worthy of a listening audience. The music is driven into the consciousness by persistent repetition, almost to the point of absurdity. It’s like George W. Bush stated, speaking at a New York middle/high school, posted May 24th, 2005:
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
This is how hits are made in contemporary radio culture. Music has become weaponized by corporate conglomerates and their clients to help sell products and keep this titanic industry afloat. But much like the ill-fated maiden voyage of the R.M.S. Titanic, the record industry is doomed to founder.
Fortunately, with the advent and rise of digital technology, and the growing availability of recording technology to the common-person, a fatal blow has been dealt to the recording industry. The market has become flooded with independent artists who have successfully found ways around the old paradigms set by the music industry, creating an industry all unto themselves. This movement has risen so suddenly and dramatically, that the recording industry has failed to adapt adequately to the desires of the consumers. Now that people realize that there is a virtual plethora of musical choices to be had, they can afford to be more selective and flex the almighty consumer muscle. This saturation of new and valid musical voices, coupled with the industry’s apparent lack of anticipation to evolve with the consumers will hopefully set a new standard as to how far self-motivated musicians can go with their talent.
Success, like many other things, is in the eye of the beholder, and has a deeply personal meaning to each person. The mistake, I believe, is in letting other peoples’ ideas of what success should be, cloud our own judgement, hindering the visions we have for ourselves.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Life or Something Like It...
Life is the great struggle. From the time we are born until the time we are destined to die, this living experience, the Great Game is one long (or sometimes short) push/pull to the end. Sure, there are brief respites, breaks, and pauses, but they are never enduring. It is like a mountain climber scaling a challenging rock face, creeping from hand-hold to hand-hold until finding a suitable ledge to rest on, and this repose lasting only long enough to gather strength for the next great climb upward. For that is the direction that everyone struggles to move through life: upwards.
This pattern is self-evident throughout nature. Seeds must endure the hardships of winter, sometimes lying dormant for years before they germinate, defying gravity with their slow march towards the sunlight. Chicks must naturally beak their way out of the eggshells that they are entombed in to earn their place in the grand “pecking” order. River fish make the exhaustive swim upstream in order to spawn, proving their will to live and to live on through the succession of their offspring. Call it “survival of the fittest,” or evolution, or competitive spirit, whatever the case, we all want to be on top.
The problem is that we think that we want to always remain on top. Think about it. How boring, how predictable life would be if we had no challenges to take us to the next level. What if we had all of the answers before us in nice little pre-fabricated constructs, so that we would never have to think or ponder? If this were the case, why even go through the motions of life, dance the dance, experiencing only a wholly conventional life?
This is the essence of why we enter into life: to experience the pain with the pleasure, the loss as well as the gain, the unpredictable exhilaration that comes from this great struggle.
Life shouldn’t be all about suffering either. If you can imagine life as a series of waves, some crashing, some gently lapping, waxing and waning with the pull of the tides. Waves have crests and troughs. You can’t have one without the other. They must co-exist to exist at all. If you are surfing these waves, there will be times when you fall beneath the water and have to pick yourself up again. There will also be times when you are carried triumphantly atop the wave, and you can enjoy the thrill of the ride. It is by experiencing the times of “without” that we learn to truly appreciate the times of abundance. In the meantime, enjoy the interims of peace and triumph amidst the demanding effort that living requires, and don’t forget to relish the struggle.
This pattern is self-evident throughout nature. Seeds must endure the hardships of winter, sometimes lying dormant for years before they germinate, defying gravity with their slow march towards the sunlight. Chicks must naturally beak their way out of the eggshells that they are entombed in to earn their place in the grand “pecking” order. River fish make the exhaustive swim upstream in order to spawn, proving their will to live and to live on through the succession of their offspring. Call it “survival of the fittest,” or evolution, or competitive spirit, whatever the case, we all want to be on top.
The problem is that we think that we want to always remain on top. Think about it. How boring, how predictable life would be if we had no challenges to take us to the next level. What if we had all of the answers before us in nice little pre-fabricated constructs, so that we would never have to think or ponder? If this were the case, why even go through the motions of life, dance the dance, experiencing only a wholly conventional life?
This is the essence of why we enter into life: to experience the pain with the pleasure, the loss as well as the gain, the unpredictable exhilaration that comes from this great struggle.
Life shouldn’t be all about suffering either. If you can imagine life as a series of waves, some crashing, some gently lapping, waxing and waning with the pull of the tides. Waves have crests and troughs. You can’t have one without the other. They must co-exist to exist at all. If you are surfing these waves, there will be times when you fall beneath the water and have to pick yourself up again. There will also be times when you are carried triumphantly atop the wave, and you can enjoy the thrill of the ride. It is by experiencing the times of “without” that we learn to truly appreciate the times of abundance. In the meantime, enjoy the interims of peace and triumph amidst the demanding effort that living requires, and don’t forget to relish the struggle.
Friday, May 16, 2008
The 2008 Election and Why I Will Not Be Voting...
In light of this year’s race for the presidency, I have decided that I will take the advice of this election cycle’s slogan “You Decide,” and make the choice--not to choose. I know…how unpatriotic of me, how un-democratic of me. There are those who value voting as highly as a marital union or a religious experience, and will no doubt despise my diatribe, but for those individuals who are courageous and open-minded enough to read on, I promise there is a method to my madness.
One of the problems I have with the current political system in America, is that there is no real choice. All the possible candidates, all the presidential hopefuls that are qualified to “run” this country are eventually funneled into one of two favored possibilities, one representing the “right wing” ideology, and the other from the “left.” Somehow, the right has become synonymous with conservatism, and the left synonymous with liberalism. This left-right paradigm has historically dominated American politics over the past two centuries, leaving little or no room for “centrist,” or “moderate” affiliated candidates to have a substantive effect on the presidential electoral outcome. This process galvanizes voters by forcing them to choose the next president based mainly on platform issues such as: gay rights, gun control, abortion, death penalty, etc, or even more cosmetic attributes. While these issues are important and highly volatile in the public debate, they aren’t necessarily the best barometer for choosing a president.
While the president does have a certain amount of power and authority, those who place the bulk of the future course of this country on the shoulders of the next president are sadly misled. Inasmuch as presidential voting in America has become mostly symbolic, the actual position of “President of the United States of America,” represents more of a ceremonial figurehead. The actual planning, deciding, and execution of national policy is determined by a larger scope of factors including internal bureaucracy, international relations, corporate ties, residual effects from past administrations, and many other factors that influence and mold the so-called democratic process of the American political machine.
The road to the 2008 presidential nomination has been one of the most contentious, contested, costly, and convoluted in history. It has also been one of the most widely publicized, with all of the contestants getting an early start, and getting plenty of air time and hype. All televised debates aside, the leading contenders have been whittled down to three media favorites, with the public eye primarily focusing on the petty bickering between the two democratic front runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Much emphasis has been put on this squabbling by the mainstream media, which has historically acted as the de facto declarer of all that is newsworthy, if not by technological ubiquity, by the sheer pervasiveness of its influence over our culture.
Of all the potential candidates for president, the ones who are afforded the most influence are the ones with the most money. It costs money to run political advertisements, to make nationwide campaign tours, to hire consultants and advisers, to equip a competent staff, etc. The more money you have, the more primetime slots you can buy. What we are left with is essentially two analogous factions vying for the top executive position of a heavily biased system. In his book Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance, notable scholar and political analyst Noam Chomsky states:
“Through tacit agreement, the two major parties approach the contest for the presidency as political kabuki in which the players know their roles and everyone sticks to the script, striking poses that cannot be taken seriously. If the public escapes its marginalization and passivity, we face a crisis of democracy that must be overcome…”
The media inevitably gives its endorsement to representatives from the bi-partisan “wings” by allotting them the most airtime, thrusting their causes into the limelight, and instigating a limited debate forum. The substance of the message becomes lost in the flash of gratifying allure of the primarily entertainment driven political scene. This process only reinforces the illusion that only their causes are important and newsworthy. It is the media that reports. It is the media that decides. It is the media in which most people pledge their unwavering faith.
There has been a move in recent years, to make voting more appealing and even trendy, sometimes exaggerating the importance of presidential voting to the point of social bigotry. I call this phenomenon voter chic. The voter chic crowd believes in voting for the sake of voting, and anyone who doesn’t follow their adhesion to the illusion of “choice,“ in American politics is exempt from true citizenship. These are the people that chastise non-voters with the usual lockstep cliché of: “Well, if you don’t vote, then you don’t have a right to complain.” This statement is a true sign of non-democracy, and of complete ignorance of the voting process. When the voter chic camp is confronted with the fact that, in the end, voters are pigeon-holed into the left-right paradigm, and that inevitably only one of two candidates will emerge victorious, another common cliché is: “Well, that’s just the way it is.” According to his essay “End of the Mandate,” Gregory Bresiger states:
“They say that people who don’t vote can’t complain about the outcome. But they also say that if your candidate didn’t win, you can’t complain because that’s being a sore loser. You also can’t complain if the guy you voted for does something you don’t like. Hey, you voted for him, didn’t you? You can’t win. The game is rigged.”
The truly important decision of electing a president has been reduced to choosing the lesser of two evils, rather than voting according to one’s conscience. During past elections, I found myself voting for or against candidates based on this flawed system of false choice. I walked away feeling like no matter which direction I voted, I was ultimately playing into the hands of political elites that had already charted the course of my vote based on giving me the illusion of choice.
To the ignorant, “not voting” is an irresponsible act that is tantamount to the ruination of this country. There are however, dissenting voices that see through the subterfuge of false choice politics in America. In the book Everything You Know is Wrong, editor Russ Kick summarizes the book Dissenting Electorate by stating:
“People who choose not to vote are often derided as lazy, apathetic, and apolitical. While there may be a few folks who don‘t cast a ballot out of sheer sloth, lots of people have convincing reasons…Perhaps most often, politics and government are seen as worthless, even harmful, systems that exist solely to exercise power over people. By voting, you play the game, you support the very system that imprisons you. By not voting, you commit a revolutionary act by refusing to be a part of the machine. You are withdrawing your consent to be governed by an inherently corrupt system.”
For those that would argue that voting is a right, or privilege of living in America, I would argue that my right to protest, or to conscientiously “not vote” is an equally afforded right which is just as valid in this age of political kool-aid drinking. Robert LeFevre states in his essay, “Abstain from Beans:”
“When we express a preference politically, we do so precisely because we intend to bind others to our will…Political voting is nothing more than the assumption that might makes right. There is a presumption that any decision wanted by the majority of those expressing a preference must be desirable, and the inference even goes so far as to presume that anyone who differs from the majority view is wrong or possibly immoral.”
What it comes down to for me is, either my vote counts, or it doesn’t. If it does, then my voice should be heard in a truly democratic system. Spectrums of real issues would be debated in a public forum not censored or marginalized by the corporately controlled media or its clients. If my vote doesn’t truly count, then my time and energy will be wasted in the process. The illusion of choice is not real choice. Instead of binding myself to a broken system of false choices, I would rather extend my energy to help create the type of world I would like to live in.
Blogger’s note:
At the time of the writing of this blog, I happened to enter into a conversation about the subject of voting with an individual sitting at my table. She rudely proclaimed that I was “stupid” for choosing not to vote and basically argued that I was apathetic and in the majority view of thinking. She then went on to talk about how she didn’t vote in the past two election cycles, including state and local issues, which incidentally have far more of an apparent impact than presidential elections. Her reasons for not voting were that she had too far to travel to her voting precinct, and that she frankly didn’t care about some of the local issues on the ballot, but she plans on voting this year. “It may not matter much, but at least I can say that I voted,” she said.
Such empty and uneducated rhetoric only serves to illustrate my point, and strengthens my resolve. This individual, although arrogant and opinionated, is sadly misguided in her attempt at political awareness. She is happy to walk away from the voting booths with the nifty little “I Voted” sticker displayed, so she can brag to the world that she was part of the American political system, albeit an admittedly manipulated one. This idea of fashionable voting or voting for bragging rights is the epitome of “voter chic.” Her ignorance is only compounded by her hypocritical voting- or rather non-voting record.
One of the problems I have with the current political system in America, is that there is no real choice. All the possible candidates, all the presidential hopefuls that are qualified to “run” this country are eventually funneled into one of two favored possibilities, one representing the “right wing” ideology, and the other from the “left.” Somehow, the right has become synonymous with conservatism, and the left synonymous with liberalism. This left-right paradigm has historically dominated American politics over the past two centuries, leaving little or no room for “centrist,” or “moderate” affiliated candidates to have a substantive effect on the presidential electoral outcome. This process galvanizes voters by forcing them to choose the next president based mainly on platform issues such as: gay rights, gun control, abortion, death penalty, etc, or even more cosmetic attributes. While these issues are important and highly volatile in the public debate, they aren’t necessarily the best barometer for choosing a president.
While the president does have a certain amount of power and authority, those who place the bulk of the future course of this country on the shoulders of the next president are sadly misled. Inasmuch as presidential voting in America has become mostly symbolic, the actual position of “President of the United States of America,” represents more of a ceremonial figurehead. The actual planning, deciding, and execution of national policy is determined by a larger scope of factors including internal bureaucracy, international relations, corporate ties, residual effects from past administrations, and many other factors that influence and mold the so-called democratic process of the American political machine.
The road to the 2008 presidential nomination has been one of the most contentious, contested, costly, and convoluted in history. It has also been one of the most widely publicized, with all of the contestants getting an early start, and getting plenty of air time and hype. All televised debates aside, the leading contenders have been whittled down to three media favorites, with the public eye primarily focusing on the petty bickering between the two democratic front runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Much emphasis has been put on this squabbling by the mainstream media, which has historically acted as the de facto declarer of all that is newsworthy, if not by technological ubiquity, by the sheer pervasiveness of its influence over our culture.
Of all the potential candidates for president, the ones who are afforded the most influence are the ones with the most money. It costs money to run political advertisements, to make nationwide campaign tours, to hire consultants and advisers, to equip a competent staff, etc. The more money you have, the more primetime slots you can buy. What we are left with is essentially two analogous factions vying for the top executive position of a heavily biased system. In his book Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance, notable scholar and political analyst Noam Chomsky states:
“Through tacit agreement, the two major parties approach the contest for the presidency as political kabuki in which the players know their roles and everyone sticks to the script, striking poses that cannot be taken seriously. If the public escapes its marginalization and passivity, we face a crisis of democracy that must be overcome…”
The media inevitably gives its endorsement to representatives from the bi-partisan “wings” by allotting them the most airtime, thrusting their causes into the limelight, and instigating a limited debate forum. The substance of the message becomes lost in the flash of gratifying allure of the primarily entertainment driven political scene. This process only reinforces the illusion that only their causes are important and newsworthy. It is the media that reports. It is the media that decides. It is the media in which most people pledge their unwavering faith.
There has been a move in recent years, to make voting more appealing and even trendy, sometimes exaggerating the importance of presidential voting to the point of social bigotry. I call this phenomenon voter chic. The voter chic crowd believes in voting for the sake of voting, and anyone who doesn’t follow their adhesion to the illusion of “choice,“ in American politics is exempt from true citizenship. These are the people that chastise non-voters with the usual lockstep cliché of: “Well, if you don’t vote, then you don’t have a right to complain.” This statement is a true sign of non-democracy, and of complete ignorance of the voting process. When the voter chic camp is confronted with the fact that, in the end, voters are pigeon-holed into the left-right paradigm, and that inevitably only one of two candidates will emerge victorious, another common cliché is: “Well, that’s just the way it is.” According to his essay “End of the Mandate,” Gregory Bresiger states:
“They say that people who don’t vote can’t complain about the outcome. But they also say that if your candidate didn’t win, you can’t complain because that’s being a sore loser. You also can’t complain if the guy you voted for does something you don’t like. Hey, you voted for him, didn’t you? You can’t win. The game is rigged.”
The truly important decision of electing a president has been reduced to choosing the lesser of two evils, rather than voting according to one’s conscience. During past elections, I found myself voting for or against candidates based on this flawed system of false choice. I walked away feeling like no matter which direction I voted, I was ultimately playing into the hands of political elites that had already charted the course of my vote based on giving me the illusion of choice.
To the ignorant, “not voting” is an irresponsible act that is tantamount to the ruination of this country. There are however, dissenting voices that see through the subterfuge of false choice politics in America. In the book Everything You Know is Wrong, editor Russ Kick summarizes the book Dissenting Electorate by stating:
“People who choose not to vote are often derided as lazy, apathetic, and apolitical. While there may be a few folks who don‘t cast a ballot out of sheer sloth, lots of people have convincing reasons…Perhaps most often, politics and government are seen as worthless, even harmful, systems that exist solely to exercise power over people. By voting, you play the game, you support the very system that imprisons you. By not voting, you commit a revolutionary act by refusing to be a part of the machine. You are withdrawing your consent to be governed by an inherently corrupt system.”
For those that would argue that voting is a right, or privilege of living in America, I would argue that my right to protest, or to conscientiously “not vote” is an equally afforded right which is just as valid in this age of political kool-aid drinking. Robert LeFevre states in his essay, “Abstain from Beans:”
“When we express a preference politically, we do so precisely because we intend to bind others to our will…Political voting is nothing more than the assumption that might makes right. There is a presumption that any decision wanted by the majority of those expressing a preference must be desirable, and the inference even goes so far as to presume that anyone who differs from the majority view is wrong or possibly immoral.”
What it comes down to for me is, either my vote counts, or it doesn’t. If it does, then my voice should be heard in a truly democratic system. Spectrums of real issues would be debated in a public forum not censored or marginalized by the corporately controlled media or its clients. If my vote doesn’t truly count, then my time and energy will be wasted in the process. The illusion of choice is not real choice. Instead of binding myself to a broken system of false choices, I would rather extend my energy to help create the type of world I would like to live in.
Blogger’s note:
At the time of the writing of this blog, I happened to enter into a conversation about the subject of voting with an individual sitting at my table. She rudely proclaimed that I was “stupid” for choosing not to vote and basically argued that I was apathetic and in the majority view of thinking. She then went on to talk about how she didn’t vote in the past two election cycles, including state and local issues, which incidentally have far more of an apparent impact than presidential elections. Her reasons for not voting were that she had too far to travel to her voting precinct, and that she frankly didn’t care about some of the local issues on the ballot, but she plans on voting this year. “It may not matter much, but at least I can say that I voted,” she said.
Such empty and uneducated rhetoric only serves to illustrate my point, and strengthens my resolve. This individual, although arrogant and opinionated, is sadly misguided in her attempt at political awareness. She is happy to walk away from the voting booths with the nifty little “I Voted” sticker displayed, so she can brag to the world that she was part of the American political system, albeit an admittedly manipulated one. This idea of fashionable voting or voting for bragging rights is the epitome of “voter chic.” Her ignorance is only compounded by her hypocritical voting- or rather non-voting record.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
