Darren’s “Absolute” Principles of Religion

Fall 2003

Introduction:

The following is a description of the principles I personally hold as central and unbreakable in regards to my relationship with religion.  I have indicated elsewhere in this site that spiritual practice is very important to me.  I am not a Christian and I do not accept many Christian doctrines, but I believe strongly in religious freedom.  Converting people to my beliefs is a repulsive concept to me.  Obviously I am posting my thoughts here in hopes that I might encourage a few people to contemplate these ideas, but I do not want followers.  One might think of this as my vision of the Ten Commandments, except that it is not addressing specific moral concerns, but rather a general stance to moral concerns. The specifics of my liberal moral convictions stand out as examples, but they are not the essential elements of this list of rules.  The purpose is to discuss the rules of ethical communication by which I feel we could solve a lot of the conflicts we see in the world. Another purpose of this document is to clarify these ideas for any religious proselyte who would like to persuade me to accept their faith, and to accept the notion that other religions are false.  At the end I will argue for the separation or division of religious factions along conventions of ethical precepts rather than metaphysical doctrines.

My rhetoric might appear confrontational and even directly disrespectful of the largest religions on the planet.  Nevertheless, I suspect that quite a few people will agree with most of these ideas, even if they will question my rather direct and ironic tone.  Those who prefer to avoid confrontational discourse such as this ought to ask themselves if the gains of the civil rights movement would have come if the supporters had been submissive and tolerant of the outrageous oppression they suffered.  Mahatma Gandhi's non-violent direct action is, by its definition action.   I don't mean to suggest that the blatant intolerance and oppression that occurs across religious lines is equally intense as that of the racism practiced by Christians and Muslims against Africans.  However, the two are analogous and we cannot ignore the fact that slavery is accepted in both the Bible and Qur'an.  It is a simple matter to show that within the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions and scriptures assertions are made that are, to put it charitably, ethically dubious.  I assert that any scriptural fundamentalist movement must do one of the following: a) omit parts of their scripture, b) be ethically inconsistent, or c) be downright sinister.   Yes, I am making the bold assertion that some parts of all scriptures can lead to very destructive social practices.  

Bill Moyers eloquently and bravely presented this basic idea recently as a Baptist sermonizing to Baptists.  I wish to acknowledge right off the bat that I am aware that many Christians do not take the immature and violent God of the Old Testament in a literal way.  My reason for mentioning this is that I expect a few who might read this article are not aware of the fact that a strong moral sense makes the Bible very problematic for anyone who has actually read it.  In case you haven't thought about the concept of "scriptural sin", then I encourage you to read Moyers' article and check out some of the following links:

[ Karen Horst Cobb's "No Longer A Christian" ] [ Tim Maroney's "Even if I did Believe." ]  [The Cruelest Bible Verses (not all of them are in the Old Testament.) ]

Let me clarify the sort of people I'm talking about.  Top on the list would definitely be any religious terrorist like Osama Bin Ladin or Eric Robert Rudolph or Timmothy McVeigh or that sicko Zarchowy in Iraq.  There is absolutely no difference between any of them.  Some may not be aware that there are many more of these kind of people in the world within all three of the world's major monotheistic faiths.  

For example, the radical Christian Reconstructionist movement's devotion to the absolute objective truth of the scriptures has lead some of them to call for a return to slavery.  Given that the 13th amendment permits slavery of anyone convicted of a crime, it's not really that far-fetched to contemplate this.  Even Dell Computers was for a while using prison slaves to build PC's.  

This Reconstructionist or Dominion Theology  movement within Christian America is extremely similar to the Wahabi movement within Sunni Islam, and gives us the inspiration for applying the word "Fundamentalist" to both Christians and Muslims.  

I bring up slavery as an example because slavery is one of the key issues I wish to confront.  Even though slavery as was practiced in colonial America may never take hold again, I see ample evidence that certain political/economic forces are conspiring to create an alternative to the slave economy that is cheaper and easier to maintain than the system used in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.  The newly enlightened right wing has discovered that slavery is too expensive and problematic due to the expenditures required to sustain and restrain them.  By converting their labor force into sub-poverty wage slaves, they obtain the cheapest labor possible and the apparent freedom of the "employees" undermines and masks the old fashioned institution of slavery.  Slaves in that sense are more likely to cause trouble.  Given a limited education and a highly manipulative media/propaganda machine, the elites can easily convince the ignorant masses that the crony "capitalist" system is the only valid path, and anything resembling socialism aimed at helping the disadvantaged is a path to hell in a hand basket.  The nice thing about this new slavery is that there is no need to worry about skin color.  The system can discriminate racially, but it doesn't have to.  For example, an "all volunteer" military target marketed to young people who couldn't afford to pay for college is an excellent way for the cheap labor conservatives to simultaneously provide such low wage jobs and defend their oppressive system.   Karl Marx would describe this as a textbook example of alienated labor. 

Minimum wage jobs with no benefits are an ingenious way to cut the costs of keeping slaves.  And what about those who do rebel?  In the prison system, they can be maintained at even lower costs, and often forced to work for minute, symbolic salaries.  In fact, the constant haranguing on "free markets" is creating a downward spiral of the standard of living of everyone in the middle and lower classes.  Existing in that mysterious gray area between the public and private sectors is a little-known company UNICOR which does for the prison industry what Halliburton/KBR does for the military.  Even more startling is the ultra-low wage slavery being promoted by UNICOR, which sells the services of their inmate/slaves to companies like Dell computers.  No need for health benefits!  [info on UNICOR: 1, 2, 3 ]

To a great extent, this essay is a reaction to the cheap labor conservative think tank rhetoric which tells us that instead of creating regulated, secure employment and universal education, we should devote our lives to trying to underbid the other guy in a race to the bottom within an allegedly free market, controlled by a few elite corporations.  To add salt to the wound, they have used the Patriot Act to turn many types of labor strikes into a terrorist acts and labor unions into terrorist organizations.  These are the same people who believe that any hint of socialism aimed at protecting the weak and poor is a slippery slope to Stalinism and mandatory atheism--even though the Old Testament (Tanakh), Gospels and Qur'an make it very clear that we must help the poor.  Never mind that George W. Bush has taken America much closer to Stalinism than any president in our history.  In America a blatantly and perversely socialist system supports the private sector with public money by awarding government contracts to military contractors and post-war building contractors--as well as sectarian "faith based organizations" and disaster relief companies  (see my Hurricane Katrina page too).  Reagan's and Bush's ideal welfare state of corporate socialism/National Socialism is, in their opinions, necessary. These are the people who resent tax dollars spent on public transportation and education, but get patriotically aroused at the opportunity to pay taxes for the Pentagon, Police and Penal System.  To them, the major concern of government is the protection of private property and the punishment of anyone who might try to take some of their hoarded property.  These are the people who now run the American government--like foxes put in charge of guarding the hen house.   

I am not arguing for communism or atheism.  Economics is not my strong suit.  Nevertheless, I could have easily predicted that Bush would create a fascist dictatorship and destroy the economy way back in 1999 when we first heard his pro-business/anti-union and anti-tax rhetoric.  Corporate socialism is the allegorical elephant in the room of the Republican party.  They pretend it isn't in the room--the elephant is the fact that they are voracious spenders of our tax dollars.  They talk fiscal conservatism, but they never deliver it.   They are socialists who pump money into violence, death, hatred, pollution, environmental degradation, union busting, job outsourcing, sports arenas and incarceration.   It is difficult to argue that we can't spend any money (we as a government of the people, if we had one) on those things.  America depends heavily on its economy of violence and destruction.  We can't just turn it off over night.  But, we must also spend money to keep as many people as possible from becoming a burden on society.  Those who can work, should.  They will benefit greatly from the tax dollars they pay.  The iron grip of crony capitalism must be broken, just as we saw in the break up of the monopolies in the Gilded Age.   The psuedodemocrats are scarcely better at this point in time.

Note the irony: Globalization aficionados in the Republican party, WTO and IMF are demanding free markets and elimination of restrictions and regulators.  Competition and free enterprise are best.  Christianity and capitalism both depend heavily on the supremacy of the notion of individuality and freedoms.  However, in the domains of spirituality and sexuality, they suddenly become very protectionist, and willing to go any lengths to "subsidize" and disseminate  their religion.  In a land where freedom of religion is a constitutional right, the Bush administration has wrought the greatest campaign to religiously homogenize America.  Anyone with eyes and ears surely has noticed the sudden "outing" of Evangelical Protestant discourse.

I think that competition and spirituality are healthy.  They are even healthy together--a free market of spirituality.  I would even go so far as to say that competition on the sexuality market is justifiable and good.  They are incapable of opening these discourses to a free market, allowing people to go to the religions they see fit.  Also, because of the rather selfish, paranoid and obsessive nature of some individuals in this regard, they are unable to understand how a sophisticated, multi-level government system like America has developed since FDR provides an environment in which a greater number of people can achieve relative economic and political security.  Taxes create universities that create educated employees who create new ideas that generate new wealth for even the wealthy elites who own the corporations.  Taxes create medical advances, and protect investments.  Without the elaborate machine of government, these short sighted cheap labor conservatives would never have had the chance to get rich.  The rapid decay of America's, and the world's economies ought to serve as evidence that the policies of the minions of Grover Norquist are leading in quite he opposite direction from what he has promised.  [Refer to my Hurricane Katrina page for more evidence on this] 

January 2004 update: The Mad Cow scare demonstrates quite clearly how important government regulation and oversight are.  The castration of the FDA by Bush's intentionally incompetent appointees brought us to the situation and only a recreation of the more powerful and restrictive FDA will get us back out of the international quarantine placed on our beef.  I find it incredibly humorous that during Canada's scare the media was obsessively haunting us with the dangers of prions and spongy brains.  When the tables turned, the media is suddenly telling us--and this is National Public Radio (now quickly becoming National Republican Radio)--that the risk of getting that nasty disease from eating beef is so tiny that we should ignore it.  They have been playing commentators telling us that we are basically superstitious fools to worry more about Mad Cow than salmonella.

So, what does any of that have to do with religion?  A lot.  In the context of Twenty-first Century America under the blatantly fascist and incompetent regime of George W. Bush, a carefully orchestrated war of ideology is under way.  Religion, economics and foreign policy have been carefully woven together with the threads of deceptive rhetoric emanating from right wing think tanks: all criticism of the greed of rich people is "class warfare."  They force state and federal governments to cut important social programs in order to rescue the people from oppressive taxes with heroic "tax relief."  Neocolonial conquest becomes "liberation" even though the brutal dictator was previously one of America's puppets.  "Faith based" funding is an ingenious way to sneak around the constitutional mandate against preference of one religion over another.  The newly sectarian disaster relief showed us just how willing they are to rescue people in an area that is Catholic and voted 78% for Kerry in 2004.  

It is against the conservative religious zealots (who have become zombies for the Cheap Labor Conservatives)  in America that I am writing.  However, the essential element of my arguments here is the sure knowledge that a huge number of religious people in America loathe and fear these people too, but they are trapped within metaphysically defined religions within which they feel unable to speak out in criticism. I want to offer a solution to our predicament.  As an example, conservative lawyers and judges in the Federalist Society are deftly blending together anti-abortionism, tort reform, the elimination of welfare for the disadvantaged, marriage "preservation" and nationalist xenophobic politics.   The mere idea that a socialist like Jesus is heralded as being on their side in this crusade is shocking enough, never mind the irony of seeing the working class enthusiastically support the rich corporate trans-national elite as they replace high paying union jobs with low-paying, ephemeral McJobs.  It is as though they rape us while whispering in our ear that it's for our own good, or that we deserved it, and the victims have all put magnetic stickers on their cars to praise their rapists.

So, to begin my list of rules, let me make clear that I see religion as a vital metaphor that exists within a free market of discourse.  I give no privilege or authority to any one religion.  This essentially means that I cannot be a monotheist.  I am spiritually "promiscuous."  Further, I have made a very conscious decision and effort to establish my spiritual essence along lines that run directly contrary to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  I study these religions, but I treat them with no more nor less respect than I do Hinduism, Buddhism, Native American spirituality or Neopaganism.  I accept those doctrines that make sense to me, and reject the rest.  I am religiously eclectic, and probably the most accurate portrayal of my metaphysical convictions is this:  Buddhist neopaganism with emphasis on psychoanalytic/neurolinguistic programming.  Most important, in my opinion, is that my ethical convictions do not diverge in major ways from the philosophical foundations of the US Constitution as it is now (with its valuable civil rights modifications).  It's not perfect, and racism and sexism are flaws that need to be eliminated from it, but I am in agreement with the general principles outlined there--even the second amendment, for the most part.  Where I diverge is in the laws that religious conservatives are now trying to create and assert, but that our founding fathers saw fit to ignore in the Bible: e.g.  anti-abortionism and homophobia.   There is nothing in our Constitution to support the claims of religious conservatives.  Nothing at all, except the ambiguous 13th amendment.

So, how do liberal pro-choicers and gay couples exist in an America that the cheap labor conservative Christians ironically market as "pro-liberty" "pro-freedom" etc?  Basically, how do we exist in such an ethically divided America?  Here are my proposed essential rules that I think would cause some dramatic changes in the world.  I have no illusions as to the likelihood that these rules will be adopted by our government, but I am already seeing signs that many of them are growing at a grassroots level.

Metaphysical Doctrines—There is no single religion that is true for all people. This diversity embraces theology, cosmogony and praxis (ritual). There is no solid basis for any of these, and the metaphysical positions held by religious persons have no relevant bearing on matters that actually are important.  I will expand on that later.

Furthermore, proselytes (and think tanks) are unnecessary.  They are more valuable as a gauge of the insecurity and incompetence of a religious doctrine. Those who put energy into trying to convert others to their religion and criticizing the religions of others are demonstrating the essential falsehood of their own religion. Any philosopher worth hir salt will notice that this remark is a criticism of other religions and therefore ironic. But, I hold the idea nonetheless. As I told an extreme right wing libertarian racist once, "I am intolerant of intolerance."  

If a single religion really were the ultimate truth, then it would be self-evident and would not need proselytes.  A God who would make Christianity or Islam the one true religion in a world where many people will never have a chance to connect with that religion is an evil God and deserves only scorn, not worship. Such a model may have worked fairly well a thousand years ago in more homogeneous and isolated societies, but its relevance has dissolved as humanity and technology have evolved.  Let's think about this more objectively, assuming for the sake of argument that Lutheran Christianity is the absolute truth.  (I do not believe this personally)  Take this example: a soul takes its one and only chance to incarnate in Saudi Arabia.  That child will be indoctrinated to Islam, probably of the Wahabi type, and will most likely never have the opportunity to encounter Lutheran missionaries.  If she did, and decided to convert, under Islamic law, Shari'a, she would probably be executed for the capitol crime of apostasy.  Furthermore, she would be heavily indoctrinated with the idea that Christianity is polytheistic, idolatrous and distant from God's will.  So, if the Lutheran dogma is correct, this hypothetical girl is born into infernal condemnation with no viable escape.  Obviously, the believers soothe their consciences in this regard by attempting to make a few conversions of those Arabs who are "fortunate enough" to get out of Saudi Arabia.  Televangelists plead and rant about saving the souls of these poor deceived Muslims from the jaws of an evil God of hatred and violence, but the reality is that the number of people converting TO Islam is vastly larger than the number converting FROM Islam.   A just God who really cared about your metaphysical opinions would not allow such a situation to exist if there were only one true religion.  

If there is a community experience involved in the afterlife, then I can't help noticing that nearly every single current media religious figure or spiritual role model is disappointing enough to suggest to me that, in the end, the place I want to end up will not be the same destination as theirs. Echoing a sentiment from Bill Hicks, I aspire to be among the shades of those with the better record collections and libraries.  I'm not interested in spending eternity with the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Grover Norquist, John Ashcroft, Pope John Paul II, etc.  The essential and, I think interesting point of this is that my ethical opinions diverge radically from theirs.  This desire for distinction is utterly unrelated to metaphysical opinions.  For example, I believe that ever since George W. Bush became governor of Texas, and later was appointed to the presidency of America that he has committed a host of vile acts that are, by my ethical barometer, vastly worse and more despicable than the practice of abortion.  In my humble opinion it is far more sinister to kill a walking, living, breathing person than it is to abort a fetus.  Even worse is the evil of killing pregnant mothers with cruise missiles and 500 lb bombs.  Notice that I am not saying that abortion is good or should be promoted.  What I am saying is that it is an undesirable practice that is largely made necessary because of the oppressive policies of cheap labor conservatives who demand reproduction as part of a grand scheme to enslave the poor to low wage jobs.  Because I believe these things, my destination may be in Hell, and my punishment might be to spend eternity with these sleazy religious monsters, but at least I can spend that eternity laughing at them.  

Scriptures and Sacred Texts – There is no single scripture that reflects the will of a supreme being to which all of us must submit. Ethical positions that may be found in such scriptures can and should be derived, defended and sustained independent of such texts. All such examples of these texts are highly inconsistent internally, and promote various ideas that not even devout believers pay attention to. For example, the Bible says that a man must marry his sister-in-law if his brother dies.  Polygamy is assumed in the Bible, and marriage is supposed to be permanent.  It is acceptable to pimp your wife to save your skin (Abraham and Sarah), and to have sex with your children if their mother isn't popping out babies (Lot).  Christians only selectively accept the Bible as a source of sexual morality.

Scriptures are not things to be shunned, but they are not in any way reliable or infallible sources of information or morality. It is a simple matter to demonstrate that the Bible and Qur'an cannot possibly represent a coherent and ethical reality any more than do the plays of William Shakespeare.  They are valuable as literature.  They are valuable as inspiration.  But, they are not appropriate for establishing moral and political order in a modern, diverse world.  Besides, religious fanatics have always failed to maintain just societies that reflect the ideals of their scriptures anyway.  

Development of technology, knowledge and the environment can easily render older ideas irrelevant or counter-productive to the survival of humanity and/or the entire biosphere. A deity who does not recognize that fact is not worthy of praise, in my opinion. “Be fruitful and multiply” is an excellent example. The religious mandate to reproduce is unequivocally absurd in the 21st century.  Experts calculate that in order for the entire world to consume at the rate of the average American we will need three more planet Earths. 

Clinging to Biblical creationism in spite of obvious contradictory evidence is another example of an expired idea.  It is based on a rabid distaste for the idea that humans are just animals with bigger brains.  Such a fear feeds into right wing Christian ideas of man's superiority to nature, another ethical position that I question.  We do have the ability to act in a superior way, but it is deceptive.  Nature always wins.  It's like borrowing money and making only the minimum payment, or less.  No matter what the scripture says, we are at the mercy of nature. 

However, metaphysical ideas carry no practical implications so long as they are not used as a reason to define public policy or limit education for those who do not wish their children to be so limited.  This brings me to an important axiom in my exegetic position: A religion does not have to cling absolutely to a literal interpretation of their scripture. There are two implications: a) valid and inspirational truths are found in scriptures of all religions. b) it is perfectly acceptable to reject certain parts, just as we may also come to believe that slavery is wrong, even though it is accepted in both the Bible and Qur'an. In other words, all religions have broken away from numerous ideas already, but there are some that many superstitious and narrow-minded individuals just won’t let go of. How many people actually believe that crimes other than murder or treason should carry the death penalty? How many people believe that rape is acceptable when your people conquer another people in the name of their Deity? How many respectable people believe that slavery is simply a fact of life?. (Ideas found in both the Bible and Qur’an)  For those who are willing to kill and rape with the idea that God is on their side, I can only say that we have nothing more to talk about.  

The main point here is that things change over time, space and personality. Individuals change too. Scriptures do not change, but the interpretations do in fact change. Literalism represents an attempt to prevent change in the face of progress, and hence it is an attempt to stop that progress. I don’t mean to suggest that slavery was once acceptable, but something changed and now it is not. However, it is evident that most people living at those times were too willfully ignorant and sinister to realize it, and they invented scriptures to defend their violent and selfish political systems.  Is is simply unfair and anthropomorphic to attribute such hatred and violence to God.

Yet we do carry a strong instinct to venerate our ancestors in spite of their errors. There is something to be said for an ability to look past errors in order to appreciate the accomplishments of our ancestors. However, for most conservatives, this faculty has become a distorted obsession with a phantasy world. In particular, notice the hidden slavery of our illegal immigrant and prison labor forces, not to mention the neocolonial parasites like Nike and Walmart. We fool ourselves every time we buy a shirt made in Thailand. A note on Islam and slavery--although there are a surprisingly large number of passages in the Qur'an that suggest we can garner great rewards in heaven by releasing slaves, nowhere does it suggest how you can release a slave without first having one. In other words, the law is stated in such a way that one is more likely to assume that having lots of slaves creates the opportunity and luxury for releasing one or two whenever one feels especially penitential or jovial in order to get a better seat in the afterlife. Islam was connected to the practice of black slave trade in Africa from the very beginning.

Economics/Politics – just as the planned and regulated economy of socialist totalitarianism is ineffective, so too is the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few families, a few corporations, a few politicians, etc. who have exaggerated access to political power and resources. It is my current informed opinion that the only economic/political system that will work is one in which greater wealth implies greater responsibility to service and diminishing political power. The best way to accomplish this is through radical campaign finance reform and a progressive tax code that supports a social system like we see in Northern Europe. I could be wrong on that, but I see no reason whatsoever not to discard and struggle against the current dominance of the ideologies of cheap labor conservatives, Neo-Cons, supply side dimwits and globalization mavens.   I would also like to see estate taxes revised in the opposite direction we have seen lately.  Large amounts of information on this issue are found in my web site.   

Bill Moyers said it beautifully: 

...the country is not yet a theocracy but the Republican Party is – and they are driving American politics, using  God as a is being used as a battering ram  on  almost every issue: crime and punishment, foreign policy, health care, taxation,  energy,  regulation, social services, and so on. 

What’s also unique is the intensity, organization, and anger they have brought to the public square.  Listen to their preachers, evangelists, and homegrown ayatollahs: Their viral intolerance – their loathing of other people’s beliefs, of America’s secular and liberal values, of an independent press, of the courts, of reason, science and the search for objective knowledge – has become an unprecedented sectarian crusade for state power. 

When you look at the radical clerics like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell in this light, then you start to understand my epithet "Christian Taliban."  Take a look at the Ohio Restoration Project.  The main difference between the Muslim Taliban and this gang of Jesus Bullies is not their religion, but rather the fact that one has (or at least had) huge amounts of money and military power and the other was a rag-tag group living in a destitute, bombed out country.

Aside from the fact that globalization is implicitly racist, anti-democratic and neocolonial, the central flaw of globalizing democratic free markets is the plain and simple fact that rich elites don't have a clue as to what the poor need in order to make their lives better.  A starving person in Sierra Leon can't use elections, freedom of the press or free markets to improve their lives in the short term.  Eventually it may help, but it's kind of like giving a drowning person a cigarette while floating in the ocean, with no match and no way to keep his head and cigarette dry.  However, wealthy elites can take advantage of the poor to benefit their own lives.  Elderly white men with expense accounts and fawning lobbyists are not qualified to create systems that will improve the lives of those who are in the working and poor class.  Liberals have not done much better than conservatives, but at least they have been trying to focus on using government to improve their lives rather than to punish and harm them.  It is blatantly obvious that the current system being promoted by the trans-national corporate/banking fascists is utterly evil and only works for their own benefit.

At the more local level, I also wish to disabuse conservatives of the notion that cutting taxes will put more money in your pocket.  Sure, a big tax cut will put money in the pockets of the very wealthy, but for the other 98% of the population, these tax cuts are completely illusory.  Given a static or decreasing flow of money into federal coffers, any tax cut will result in cutting of services.  These services fit into complex, interactive systems that transmit those effects through many layers of society.  Cuts always result in equivalent increases in costs in other places.  For example, a cut in federal income tax almost always results in increased property taxes as well as greater costs passed on because of more uninsured people, etc.  An important component of this argument is the fallacious conservative rhetoric about the private sector being more effective and efficient than the public sector.  First of all, the public sector literally makes the private sector possible.  One could argue that with the exception of an anarchic "society" like Somalia in the 1990's that there is no such thing as a truly private sector.  Without the public sector, we would be forced to stay home and guard our property from armored bunkers.  Halliburton's price gouging is an excellent demonstration of the falsehood of that conservative nonsense.  The basic gist of this is that taxes to a federal government are always more efficient than expecting everyone to take care of those functions for themselves.  Above all, we cannot trust "private" individuals to look out for the interest of their neighbor.  You can cut the taxes, but in the end, you will pay for the homeless, the uneducated and the uninsured.  You can pay for schools, food and medicine, or you can take the more costly and destructive route of trying to arrest and bomb your way to safety.  The choice is ours.  I have chosen to flatly reject Republican economics, which conservatives have so effectively wrapped up in Christian doctrine--much like the media convinced so many ignorant people that Saddam Hussein blew up the World Trade Center.  

Sexuality & Family– whatever consenting adults—one, two, three or more—choose to do in the privacy of their homes has no religious significance and is nobody’s business but theirs.  I am opposed to polygamy (formal recognition of marriages of more than two adults) for a variety of reasons.  Most importantly, polygamy, which is condoned in the Old Testament and Qur'an, is a tool by which men can further abuse women.  Second, the economic and legal ramifications of polygamy are truly absurd.  But, it is clear to me that the government has no business trying to interfere in people's sexual lives.   Polygamy isn't at issue at this time.  It's gay marriage that is being drummed and beaten by the media.   That could be because a lot of religious extremists would like to go back to that Old Testament polygamy.

Homosexuality does not cause anti-social behavior any more than heterosexuality or homophobia (not necessarily the same thing) prevent it. The definition of “family” is a group of two or more people who live in a committed relationship of emotional intimacy and trust accompanied by sharing of resources. The presence of a male father or a female mother is not necessarily as important as the presence of a second parent who can be vigilant of children when the other is absent. In other words, a lesbian couple with one stay-at-home parent will probably raise healthier children than a heterosexual couple who rely on daycare so they can both work. Those who choose not to reproduce are not evil or irresponsible, but those who do have children are entitled to some assistance that may result in things like child tax credits and daycare subsidies. In my opinion, our society gives an enormous amount of lip service to the idea of the "family", but does nothing to back that up.   For example, in a world where financial stresses and the tactical problems of working and raising children cause more divorces than any other cause, George W. Bush has announced that preventing gay marriage is an important gesture toward protecting the sanctity of marriage.  It isn't just laughable.  It's sick and pathetic that people actually believe him.

We hear Republican Senator Rick Santorum tell us how a little struggle and economic discomfort for the poor will build their character and keep them from becoming lazy bums. Santorum is a devout Christian who wants to make it easier for your office mate to harass you about the Word of God and going to Bible study groups. Santorum also gained fame for suggesting that allowing privacy and respect for homesexual behavior without repercussions would lead to the legalization of incest and polygamy. This is the sort of hare-brained ethical duplicity that I vehemently and categorically reject--especially since it is packaged in religious wrapping.  Of course a religion has every right to deny access to various people on the basis of morality, but this discrimination ought not to have negative economic impacts.  

Further, it seems blatantly clear to me that adultery, and the accessibility of divorce are greatly more damaging to traditional marriage and family than gay couples.  Instead of honestly looking at the factors that really do threaten the family, these cheap labor conservatives world are obsessing about imaginary kinky people doing weird stuff in their bedrooms.  If Bush were sincere in wanting to protect marriage, he'd try to make some meaningful changes that would cure the real problems that lead to divorce.  Stopping gay marriage is merely another tool by which the cheap labor conservatives can further assure the economic degradation of the American population.  It's the same trick that Roman Catholics used for the Inquisition, blaming their problems on Jews, Heretics and witches.  It's that same as Hitler's "Final Solution."  This time it's the queers.  

Another way to look at this debate is through this question. Which is more threatening to the ongoing existence of the institution of marriage and the creation and sustaining of healthy families? a) broadening the definitions so that more willing people can raise orphaned children in stable environments.  b) the fact that for years already many gay couples have been pretending to be married.  They do all the things that married couples do except get a tax deduction.   A quick examination of this dilemma reveals quite clearly that what they are worried about is NOT the sanctity of marriage.  They are pretending that they can legislate homosexuality out of existence.  

Race & Culture—any religion that believes that race, skin color, language or cultural heritage are essential for participation in that religion, or worse yet, participation in the economic and political benefits of that society, is racist, and probably destructive. Besides the obvious examples of racist religions like the Church of Jesus Christ Christian (the religious branch of the Aryan Nation), there are innumerable evidences of racism and racial segregation within the vast majority of all Judeo-Christian religions.  Although they are not likely to be less oppressive or violent, many tribal or indigenous religions hold ideas like this. It is my opinion that such an idea has only a descriptive truth at a statistical level of a strong tendency. In other words, outsiders cannot easily convert to these religions, but it can and does happen in a few cases. Those who think it is a prescriptive normative statement are ipso facto racists. Nevertheless, it is easy to understand why they may feel this way, and I am tolerant of such mistrust and secrecy primarily because I am aware that without a very deep commitment to that culture I have no business trying to find out such details of a religion/culture. Conversion is rare, and should never be forced by either party. Hence, it makes a lot of sense for the practitioners of authentic pre-christian religions to make it difficult for people who do not share their cultural background to become initiated members, but it shouldn't be impossible. There are way too many Santa Fe/Sedona new age medicine men with white skin and turquoise jewelry.

Gender—neither men nor women have special status that makes them fit or unfit for any role or occupation by virtue of their gender. This includes the segregation of men and women, veiling, and other practices that prevent women from having political power or financial independence. Furthermore, genetic determinants should not limit our choices for gender inasmuch as technology and politics can change them.  Government has no business regulating such personal things.  I find it bizarre and ironic that the same party that complains that regulations aiming to create clean air and otherwise create a cleaner environment are destructive and immoral, but it is perfectly divine and paternally benevolent to prevent people from following their sexual and gender fantasies that harm nobody.  

Nationalism—Nationalism, conquest and colonialism are destructive and should be rejected, especially when these sentiments are turned toward warfare. Internationalism is the only hope for the future of humanity. The arrogant unilateralism of The Project for a New American Century is a blueprint for world destruction. There is nothing special about America other than its power. All moral virtue once held by America has been utterly and deliberately drained away since January of 2001. We have great responsibility to serve the world because of our wealth. That wealth implies that we have less voice in determining how that power and service shall happen. Such decisions need to be made by those receiving the benefits of that assistance. Outsiders will screw everything up because their ideas of what is needed are almost always impossible and irrelevant in the context of disadvantaged populations. Iraq and Afghanistan are excellent examples of this principle. War is the worst of all possible choices except as defensive strategy. Pre-emptive war is the vilest manifestation of this kind of thinking. Religions that link themselves to nationalist movements and warfare/terrorism are the most profoundly sinister of all religions. History has never failed to shame them.  Already we see the signs of Bush's shame.

History & Prophecy—the narratives of human progress and events are highly limited perspectives of complex events. They are all only partial truths, and always serve some conceptual goal that is political in nature.  Personally, I hold little or no appreciation for nostalgic, conservative arguments based on a notion of an idealized past.  It is my educated and informed observation that as time has gone on, the process of history has led to greater freedom and other improvements.  More important, as the world has moved slowly and erratically toward a secular society, social justice has increased.  Wherever and whenever societies move toward religious states, social justice decreases.  An important exception is found in Africa, where Christian social structures are collapsing and the rapid spread of Islamic Shari'a has brought greater personal security--a rather limited but notable improvement over the violent behavior of the Christians there.  But, in general, the obsession with trying to return to an imagined past religious utopia is laughable. 

At the other end of the temporal spectrum, history is not moving to some pre-ordained, inevitable cataclysmic event like an Apocalypse or a Revolution.  Because of the power of suggestion, such beliefs can easily precipitate such events given the current nuclear technology and our capacity to pollute. Apocalyptic beliefs ought to be suppressed at a public level because they are destructive, or at least lead people to passively accept evil as a sign that God is just around the corner about to smack down the evil. Apocalyptic thinking gives people the idea that there is no need to respond to evil.   My own attack on apocalyptic thought is available on this web site. In light of my ethical model presented here, Apocalyptic spirituality is the most questionable of metaphysical principles, especially if it is ever allowed to direct public policy. The West Bank and Jerusalem are the best possible examples of a failure in this regard. We are in grave danger since all three parties involved in the Middle East have both economic and religious motivations to see the utter destruction of the other two parties at the hands of their allegedly benevolent Deity, who is, for all intents and purposes the same God for all three. All three are intoxicated by and addicted to Apocalyptic narratives that promise their triumph. It is profoundly disturbing that radical voices from all three religions are now guiding their political activities.

Ethical mandate—Here is the core of my position.  Inasmuch as a religious belief leads you to hold a specific ethical position, it is your responsibility to assure that your religion as a social movement does not stray from that ethical position. You cannot force these opinions at a national political level, but you can control them at the level of your spiritual praxis. It is never acceptable to look at evil behavior of fellow members of your religion and simply say “They aren’t true Christians” (or Muslims, etc.) If Christians are doing and saying bad things, then you as a Christian have a profound moral obligation to confront them and distance yourself from their behavior. You can’t sit back and let them do it. For instance, if you believe that the Bible promotes peace and love, then you must carefully and powerfully articulate your position vis a vis fellow Christians who assert the acceptability of pre-emptive war, cruise missiles, the death penalty, neo-colonialism and intolerance of homosexuals. Muslims ought to gather their voices together to condemn terrorism just as Christians and Jews ought to loudly decry the racism, neocolonialism and greed that inform their religious stance toward Muslims.  It irritates me greatly to hear Christians whine about Muslims failing to do this without noticing their own failures and offenses.  

For example, do a Google search for the phrase "Pro-Choice Christian" and discover for yourself that in their eyes the only thing worse than an abortion doctor is a Pro-Choice Christian.  How hard is it to find a page discussing this as a viable philosophy?  Are you a Pro-Choice Christian?  Well, these people clearly don't want you around.  You present a much greater threat to their self-assured rhetoric.  During the Civil Rights struggle of the 1960s the KKK focused some of its greatest violence against "white nigger lovers."  Get the picture?  My position on this is that America is so divided that the best way to handle this is to make the "divorce official."

Ethical issues are the only issues that really do matter. Metaphysical doctrinal ideas are irrelevant. Arguments over the Trinity, or reincarnation, creationism, etc. are essentially a waste of time. Arguments over public policy are, I believe, at the very core of religious institutions. More properly stated, the commonality of moral convictions is vastly more important than the doctrinal. The underlying assumption is that spiritual life is more intimately connected with our ethical compasses and what we do in our daily lives than it is with our metaphysical ideas about Jesus, the Unity of God, or salvation by grace. Why do I say this? Primarily because these trivialities are the key cleavages between the various denominations over which they fight and bicker. Meanwhile, they let their regressive and destructive ideas in that regard spill over into the public political arena where it annoys and impedes the lives of people who share neither their ethical nor their trivial metaphysical convictions.  I do not mean to say that metaphysical opinions are bad or undesirable, but rather that they are pragmatically meaningless.  

My revolutionary and provocative recommendation is that specific churches, mosques and synagogues should reach out to embrace people who might not believe all their religious ideas, but do share their ethical ideas. I might not have stopped going to church if I knew that I wouldn't have to drink coffee in the church basement with a loudmouth cheap labor conservative homophobe who thinks women should be subservient to men, and that Iraqi oil is really our oil. When these institutions, or members in it diverge from your opinion as to how to respond to those situations, then you must speak out and act--especially within the domain of your fellow believers. If the difference of opinion is not resolved, then it is your obligation to distance yourself from that religion, or at least those individuals.  It makes no sense to argue about silly things like creationism, predetermination, the afterlife, the trinity... There are more important things to do, and besides, none of those has anything to do with serving a pleasant coffee after the service.

Perhaps the greatest threat to the integrity and identity of the three great monotheistic religions is to be found right here.   Traditionally we have distinguished Judaism, Islam and Christianity on the basis of their Scriptures.  As time has gone on, the doctrinal differences shift around and eventually come to parallel those of one of the other two.  The Christian Taliban and Jesus Bullies are in control of America now.  Currently, it is quite reasonable to argue that there is more difference between two white Christians--one a Jesuit in Brazil, the other a Southern Baptist in Alabama--than between a Shi'ite Iraqi in Detroit and a Manhattan Jew.  Or even that there is more difference between the Republican Lutheran on one end of the pew, and a Democrat Lutheran at the other end in one church in Duluth, Minnesota, than the difference between Randall Terry of Operation Rescue, and any mullah in Afghanistan.   The moral, economic and political polarization of the world is resulting in the strangest of bedfellows.  Suddenly there are former Klan members who are the most stalwart of supporters of Israel's crazy policies.  The Bush family has long and deep ties with Wahabi Muslims in Saudi Arabia.  Meanwhile, vehemently conservative white Episcopalians are trying to split away from their American headquarters over the ordination of gay priests, and they are aligning with black Africans and Southeast Asians, who are statistically more homophobic than many Americans.  Is the world going crazy, or is my analysis correct?  (sorry for the false dilemma)  Religions are already starting to line up along lines that cut sharply against their own traditions.  Unitarians are looking at Wicca.  Christians are learning Buddhist meditation.  An Italian-American pop idol is promoting Jewish Kabbalah.  Maybe it's all just syncretism and eclecticism, but I suspect deeper, more visceral causes.   

It is my opinion that churches should be very explicit about their ethical positions, even if they are positions that violate my personal ethical convictions described here. I have no problem with Pro-Life billboards, but terrorist attacks against abortion clinics and abortion providers is an aberration that cannot be tolerated in a civil society. It is only quantitatively different from flying an airliner into a skyscraper. The multinational corporations in the WTC are every bit as much a part of the Global Culture of Murder as any abortion clinic.  Both have done good and bad for the world and both are unavoidable in a cheap labor conservative world.  As a metaphysically based moral position, the pro-life stance has absolutely no business invading the lives of those who do not go to their church. For example, I feel that it is unacceptable for a church to have an explicit homophobic position, but also have members who feel otherwise. It makes sense for a single church to ignore specific doctrines taught by a larger institution, but even this is questionable. Yet, I think it is reasonable for a gay priest to practice in the Catholic Church so long as his preaching manifests tolerance of homosexuals. Homophobic parishioners ought to get out of that particular church. It would be better for that priest to leave the church, but it’s awfully difficult to find a nice building for the services without the assistance of the greater church. If the Episcopal Church’s decision to accept gay priests causes a schism, then this is a very good thing. These two groups of people should never have been under the same spiritual roof in the first place. 

The place for this kind of interaction is in the political arena, not church. When this rule is violated, then a church or religion will develop an unhealthy “cancer” that will eventually destroy it. A group of people who do not share basic ethical positions should never share in religious/spiritual praxis. It is far better to tolerate divergence of doctrinal ideas. For instance, I see no problem going to a Lutheran Church even though you believe in evolution, or think Jesus is just a nice metaphor. But if your preacher is telling you that conceal and carry gun laws are acceptable in God’s eyes, and you believe that guns attract and create the violence they are alleged to prevent, then you must leave that church immediately. Or, if you believe that the war in Iraq has caused more suffering and destruction than good, and your preacher is excited (as is Billy Graham's son Franklin) about the possibility that they can convert some heathen Muslims to Christianity, then you must leave that church immediately. Not doing so will give that church the false impression that the members agree with their leaders’ archaic and antisocial ideas.

If we cannot have ethical unity within our churches, then I see no point in their existence. This position clearly inverts the traditional conception that the only essential requirements for members pertain to silly things that have no practical meaning, and are in no way verifiable. You can easily tell if I support war, or if I believe that neocolonial capitalism is a good thing by watching what I do. However, you could never tell if I have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ or if I believe that God is really One and only One. I might lie about it simply because I think you're attractive, or because I enjoy chatting with you over coffee afterward. There are no actions which derive from these metaphysical ideas.  

Whenever metaphysical ideas form the basis of public policy, then these policies must be examined at a level that does not rely on the metaphysical assumption given that there are people who do not accept the assumption, and therefore resent the public policy.  We should not be afraid to point out that many regressive policies derive from unproven assumptions that many citizens do not accept.  

October 8, 2003:  Tom Tomorrow pointed me to August J. Pollak, who pointed out this horrible irony: Just in time for the October 12th anniversary of the brutal beating of Matthew Shepard, probably at the hands of closeted homosexual rapist/robbers, the ghoulish harpy king of violent Christian intolerance, Reverend Fred Phelps, is putting up a Matthew Shepard Memorial.   This monument is proposed for a park in Casper, Wyoming--the home state of that other well-known Christian Reconstructionist, Dick Cheney. [ See also the 365Gay.com news article about it too ] It hardly seems a mere coincidence that George W. Bush has chosen the week of October 12th through the 18th as "Marriage Protection Week."  All of this should be ample evidence that there is a serious cultural war on against liberals, and this is a shot right across the bow.  

It might seem like they are really serious about this sanctity of marriage thing, but don't forget that these people were outraged when Hillary didn't divorce Bill Clinton.  There are plenty of examples of Republican skirt chasers and adulterers, and plenty of cases in which there wasn't a divorce.  Clearly, this is a problem we'll never have to worry about with Bush, but we know that Republicans accept the risk to American families presented by divorce--a practice so widespread that the number of lasting marriages is far less than those that end in divorce within ten years.  No, this has nothing to do with the old rhetoric about impeding divorce.  This is clearly an attempt to give homophobic Christians a chance to beat up on gays.  

After the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard, probably at the hands of homophobic homosexual thugs, Generalissimo Sanctissimo George W. Bush declared that day, October 12th, through the 18th to be "Marriage Protection Week."   I would like to call out for a return volley.  Remember the cultural battle to get Martin Luther King day recognized?  Imagine if we liberals got together and rejected this hateful act by ignoring the holiday, and declaring it Gay Rights Awareness week, or better yet, Matthew Shepard Week.  If they want war, then let's give it to them.  A split in America could be healthy.  Let them have their narrow minded morality in the confines of their little social communities of their churches, while the rest of us can quietly go about our business of accepting people's sexual preferences.  If all people who believe in gay rights, women's rights, Roe V Wade, etc. just pulled up stakes and left the churches of those who do not, and started their own, then they wouldn't have any reason to worry about what we do.  They can have their Christian Reconstructionist Shari'a, and we'll take all the gay people, all the artists, socialists, feminists and men who hate sports.  We as liberal citizens of the United States of American can live in the same neighborhoods with the ethical fundamentalists and shop at the same stores, but we won't have to pray next to them.  We are already seeing in Ontario the enlightened notion that Shari'a can be applied as an alternative legal system within the secular system, given the consent of the parties.  

As you can see, these principles I have outlined are centered on the notion of diversity of metaphysical opinion in our society in the context of a deeply divided and polarized ethical opinion.  We cannot be forced into believing these absolutist faiths, and therefore we should not be expected to comply with the laws that these ideas create.  It is my assertion that all such laws should be subjected to rational scrutiny.  If they cannot be derived from non-religious arguments, or they are not very widely accepted among peoples within and without that religion, then they should be eliminated.  Movements that attempt to mandate these ideas should be driven out of the public arena, back into the church communities where they belong, and where the religious community can deal with the ethical unity in the terms I already described--without the expense of government intervention.  First and foremost among these in my ethical opinion are the superstitious and non-scriptural obsessions with suppressing all forms of social programs to help the poor, while simultaneously creating vastly more expensive and parasitic systems of socialist subsidies for the wealthy and corporate elite. Jesus was not a supply side capitalist. In fact, he was a rather dramatic socialist. Next among my collection of personal moral disagreements against the current legal code are rigid restrictions against euthanasia, and the laws that discriminate against homosexuals and other non-traditional families.  Abortion is another example, but for the time being, it is still legal in principle, even though socially sanctioned terrorists have made it extremely difficult in practice.  I personally do not believe in the metaphysical ideas that underlie these laws, and therefore I am distancing myself from all religious believers who promote them.  I can interact respectfully with these people at the public level, but I cannot share my religious experiences with them.  When I die, I don't want to find myself in the same heavenly hot tub with them.  If that means I'm going to hell, then I will go gladly and proudly.

Another essay here provides more discussion of my own ethical model.