The Loyal Opposition

You have probably heard the term "Loyal Opposition".  Simply put, it means that parties may be in opposition, but they still have a loyalty and dedication to a common, good cause.  They differ as how to accomplish good... but they want to see good done, and are happy if their opposition is successful in accomplishing that good.

I am basically a liberal democrat and I have many friends who are conservative republicans.  However, they are not all the same.  They not only differ on issues within their own sphere but they also differ on how they view liberal democrats.  Some know we are simply a political group with different solutions and different priorities.  Others believe we are god-haters intent on destroying America and must be opposed at all costs.

My brother put on his blog, a few years ago, a call to say something kind, unequivocally, about the candidate you oppose.  He believed it would be a good exercise to help keep political discussions civil.  It can become too easy for negative thoughts, unchecked, to snowball into unreasonable disdain and contempt.

So, in that spirit, let me take a moment to compliment Candidate Romney.

I give him points for his marriage longevity.  Anyone in a marriage has, at some point, considered bailing (and I acknowledge that can occasionally be the best option).  Every marriage has its low points. He has the resources to make divorce much easier than most, and yet, he hung in there.  He obviously takes his role as father and husband seriously and I respect him for that.

I appreciate his fiscal conservatism. I think, at the end of the day, he wants to make sure we are not spending more than we take in; a good place to govern from.

I believe, should he become president, he would genuinely work to do a good job and make America the best it can be.  We will differ on perspective and priorities, but I do not doubt that he is a man of good intent.


So how about you?  Who is your opposition?  What are three nice things you might say about him or her?

My 2012 Non-Endorsement

Pat Bagley - Salt Lake Tribune

So we have a week to go.  I did not vote Republican (voted early) and here is why in a nutshell.  For Republicans:

• Medical - Nothing.  Go to an emergency room.
• Military - Never Enough.
• Education - Never too little.
• Science - Bah Humbug!
• Religion - For everyone, whether they want it or not.
• Foreign Policy - Have none... copy Democrats.
• News Coverage - Glenn, Ann, Sean, Rush 24/7!
• Economy - We ain't sayin, but we get all warm and fuzzy giving our money to rich folk.
• Women's Issues - Smack with club, drag by hair back to cave.
• The Poor - Leeches.
• Homosexuals - We can't get back to medieval times... but we can sure try!
• Abortion - The only voting issue for many of us.  No Republican president has EVER handled this issue to our advantage... but we will keep drinking that yummy Kool-Aid.

No, the Democrats aren't perfect; but I find the present incarnation of the GOP playing to its lowest, most knuckle-dragging level.  There are some great republican voices out there, but they are drowned out by the rage-driven conspiracy machine (financed by the 1%) that pulls the strings of the GOP.

Billy Graham, Mitt Romney, and Mormons

 (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

Billy Graham has offered his full support to Mitt Romney. I find this fascinating to watch. Conservative Christian convictions are quickly jettisoned in light of the practical need of Conservative Christian politics.

Billy Graham's move is just one of many examples where political expediency overrides previous religious truth. Prior to his endorsement, Graham's people had to go and scrub from his website the various condemnations he had made of Mormonism. Here is one of the more glaring:

What is a cult?

A cult is any group which teaches doctrines or beliefs that deviate from the biblical message of the Christian faith. It is very important that we recognize cults and avoid any involvement with them. Cults often teach some Christian truth mixed with error, which may be difficult to detect.

There are some features common to most cults:

• They do not adhere solely to the sixty-six books of the Bible as the inspired Word of God. They add their "special revelations" to the Bible and view them as equally authoritative.

• They do not accept that our relationship to Jesus Christ is a reality "by grace through faith" alone, but promote instead a salvation by works.

• They do not give Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, full recognition as the second Person of the Trinity, composed of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Some of these groups are Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, the Unification Church, Unitarians, Spiritists, Scientologists, and others.

Billy Graham thinks it is important that we "recognize cults and avoid involvement with them".  Avoid involvement with them?  So how does electing one Commander in Chief accomplish that?

Now, to be clear, I believe Billy Graham's views on "cults" are wrong.  I think it is just one of many glaring demonstrations as to how conservative Christians are wrong about life in general.  I think voting for Romney is a bad idea, but not because of his Mormonism.

This is an example of the two-faced conservative Christian. Billy Graham's 180 is only occurring because the Christian Right has need of a Mormon at the moment.... if Mitt were not the candidate, Graham's website would not have been altered. The Christian Right is playing nice with Mormons because they have need of them. However, the moment they don't, the Mormon status as a dangerous cult to be avoided will be re-instated.

Just another reason to hold the Christian Right in contempt.

"You’re not [one of them], even if you’d like to be.  To them you’re just a freak… They need you right now, but when they don’t... they’ll cast you out ...like a leper.   See their morals, their codes … it’s a bad joke dropped at the first sign of trouble."  ~ Heath Ledger's Joker

Keeping It Simple

In class tonight, a woman asked me if I was LDS.  I smiled, "No."

"What are you then?" she continued.

In an instant, my mind spun through 30+ years of religious experiences along with the many nuances of my religious thoughts presently.  There was no way to communicate succinctly what I am.  So the most basic response I could think of poured out.

"I am an atheist."

She did a double take in shock.

I think I did too.

Voting For A Mormon?

I see a lot of evangelicals and conservative Christians who are struggling with the GOP candidate, Mitt Romney. Although he shares many of their values, they can't get past his being a Mormon.

I don't plan to vote for Mr. Romney, but let me put your mind to rest on the Mormon issue. I live in Salt Lake City. I know tons of Mormons and they are wonderful people. Really! You would have a tough time finding a people group that so consistently make for such fine neighbors, friends, and co-workers. Again, I do not plan to vote for Mr. Romney, but if his Mormonism is what keeps you from voting for him, I think that is a tragedy.

At the end of the day, I fully expect that Mr. Romney will fight equally for the interests of the 1%, regardless of what religion they subscribe to....  ;)

I Got Jesus' Back!

I marvel lately at how often I am defending the life and teachings of Jesus to Christians.  It seems that many of those who proudly take on the name of Jesus have little awareness of what his life and teachings were about.

For example, the other day on Facebook I got into a discussion with some Christians after I commented on a poster one had displayed.  The poster gave honor to a president who bombs foreign countries, but derides a president who would ever apologize to one.  This discussion migrated its way toward Jesus' teaching on enemy-love and turning the other cheek.  I, the agnostic, was promoting the ethic of Jesus... against three different Christians who felt that the directives of Jesus were simply unrealistic and not worth considering.  In fact, one of them felt I was being insulting by suggesting that the teaching of Jesus be taken seriously.

We live in interesting times.
___________________________________

Andrew Hackman Sure... a person can take that tact... but it does make any proclamation to our country being "Christian" laughable.
•  
Joe  1st Samuel 17:1-58 Read It!! David and Goliath? Did God not bless Israel in war? Did God not guide Davids hand to KILL the enemy dead??? was David not a Christian??? Was God helping the ARMIES of Israel that day?
•  
Andrew Hackman Judaism is quite different than the teachings of Jesus. America does not claim Samuel, or David... theoretically they claim Christ...
•  
Joe  kann man sagen, dass in Deutsch bitte?
•  
Cheryl  um, Jesus was a Jew......
•  
Joe  I meant "Can you ask that in German?"
•  
Andrew Hackman Jesus constantly takes the base, human responses of Israel and calls them to something more... "You have been told an eye for an eye, but I tell you..." "You have been told to love your friend and hate your enemy, but I tell you". When you use the OT as a basis for a proper response, you use the very measure that Jesus declared was unfit.
•  
Joe  good night Andrew.
•  
Joe In a perfect society, we would hold hands and pray for our enemies. But when they breach our shores and bust down our doors, what do you suggest we do?
•  
Andrew Hackman Turn the other cheek?
•  
Andrew Hackman Joe, you are making the same arguments the zealots made to Jesus... Jesus did not live in a perfect society when he gave those directives.
•  
Joe  You turn the other cheek... if that doesn't work out... I'll cover you.
•  
Andrew Hackman :)
•  
Joe  night night people
•  
Christopher  the jews in WW2 turned the other cheek when the gestapo and SS started to hunt them down and look what hapened to them... almost got completely anhilliated...
Friday at 22:55 • Like
•  
Christopher "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to standby and do nothing..."
•  
Andrew Hackman Chris. You are assuming violence is the only action or solution available
•  
Brook  yeah, and Jesus turned the other cheek when the soldiers came to arrest him and look what happened to him! that "turn the other cheek" shit just doesn't work!
•  
Christopher Then why did God give governments the power of the sword and tell is to respect the laws of the government (does that mean following the draft too??) 

Jesus had a legitimate reason to turn the other cheek though... He had to do what he did. I'm not saying that turning the other cheek doesnt have its place in society.. It's more practical with day to day living with other people regarding arguments and idiots trying to start stupid fist fights. But, when your life is unnesecarilly threatened by a foreign governments military, an insane demon possessed man who's shooting up a shopping mall, or an intruder coming into your home to kill you, rape your woman and steal your stuff.. Well.. As the bible says, "theirs a time for peace, theirs a time for war, theres a time for love, and a time to kill". 

Since God or his personality and world view perspective hasn't changed since the old testament, we can safely say that violence has its place... Granted its place is small and circumstantial... But it's there. Remember, God helps those who help themselves...
•  
Andrew Hackman I don't safely say that at all. As I stated above, Jesus was constantly declaring OT ways of thinking unfit for the kingdom he envisioned. I sometimes wonder why so many people become Christians... it certainly isn't an attraction to the teachings and life of Jesus, because I find most Christians have little interest there.
•  
Christopher  The kingdom he envisioned doesn't come to earth until after the tribulation...
•  
Christopher  Out of curiosity, if a pistol was next to you and a mad man with a knife was running at you twenty yards away, would you shoot him or let him filet you like a fish?
•  
Andrew Hackman I'm not sure... since you are a Christian, I am curious how you feel your master, Jesus, would have you handle yourself...
•  
Christina  Shoot him. The mad man has intentions to kill me first and therefore no longer an innocent person.
•  
Andrew Hackman Is that the dividing line Christina? Turn the other cheek... unless the person is not an innocent... then fire away? I am curious how you reconcile that with how Jesus had his followers deal with Rome... unless you are not a follower of Jesus, at which point you have to determine what your own ethics are on the matter.
•  
Christina  What happened to Jesus is what he became man for. You have a God given right to defend yourself. Over my dead body will I turn the other cheek about terrorism toward the United States of America. 9-11 is why I joined our Armed Forces and went to Iraq. To defend America and her beautiful Constitution. You dont mess with America and get away with it. Just like on a much smaller scale, you dont come after me, terrorize my home, scale my fence, attempt to kill me and my family and expect to get away with it by me turning the other cheek.
•  
Christina  And if you are an athiest that fine, but your arguements about Christianity and more specifically Catholism for me, become moot. I will not try to justify my religious beliefs and how it becomes my moral and ethical backbone if you have none.
•  
Andrew Hackman Which is fine Christina, you can choose your ethic... that just isn't a Christian ethic. You would have a hard time making a scriptural argument that Jesus call to enemy-love was simply for himself but he had no expectation of it for his followers.
•  
Christina  You can research this "scriptural argument" by reading the Bible, spending time studying it, going to a church of the Christian faith and ask these questions to religious clergy with an open heart to really understand instead of critizing others of faith and trying to use it against them.
•  
Andrew Hackman I have read the bible Christina (you are making a lot of misplaced assumptions). I offer no criticism of anyone's faith... other than pointing out where the follower is living in contradiction to the master. In each of those cases, I offer a scriptural argument, because I think there is one to be made. I hear a lot of human rationality being presented here, but very little drive to implement the Christian ethic. That is because love is a narrow way, and few find it. Protecting the self and the ego is a broad path, and it is the one humans default to without the words of someone like Jesus offering a different path and a willingness to take on those words.

Most Christians don't really believe they are capable of loving their enemy. Loving your enemy, doing good to those who wrong you, turning the other cheek.... these have all been moved to the miraculous category. Yes, Jesus loved his enemies... but he also walked on water and raised the dead. In the minds of most Christians, they no more believe an enemy can be loved than they believe they will walk on water this evening. So, they quickly move past these commandments to ones that are more do-able... say, witnessing or going to church.

I also think Christians struggle to take these teachings seriously because their faith is often built on a faulty foundation. To love your enemy, you are going to have to put aside your needs, your pride, your need to be right - perhaps even your safety. You have to give up self-protection. Your ego is going to have to die... daily.

However, most Christians turned to the faith by an appeal to their ego and their sense of self. Jesus will save you from Hell - or from drinking or drugs - or from a bad relationship, etc... saving one's own ass is a primal response.

With all of this ME cemented into the foundation of popular Western Christianity, is it any wonder that enemy-love gets scant attention from Christ's followers? Go to a Christian church in America this Sunday and you will most likely hear a message about Hell or what blessing God has in store for you next. A message on how to do kind acts for the person who opposes you, hurts you, hates you? How to joyfully surrender your rights and protections? Not so much.

People like benefits of church culture, belonging, being in the "right" group... but I find few Christians who have an interest in living like Jesus

Where The Problem Starts

If this is true Ms. Clinton, we are in for a long time of strife.  The problem starts with a belief in a god, which begets -

• my god is better than your god

which begets -

• you need my god in order to be happy

which begets -

• you need my god in order to be saved

which begets -

• I need you to need my god so I can be more comfortable

which begets -

• I need you to need my god so I can be safe

which begets -

• I need you to need my god... or I need you to be gone.

Who Is "We"?

I don't have respect for "people of faith".  There are many people whom I respect who also happen to subscribe to a particular religious tradition, but their faith standing is incidental to my respect.

For hundreds of years, American society has given preferential treatment to people of faith. It has been assumed by the public at large that anyone who is religious has the fast track to honesty, courtesy, compassion, and morality. This was the default standing given to anyone proclaiming the language of the popular religion. If one was not part of the popular religion, the opposite case was assumed. An irreligious person must be morally hobbled.

All of these assumptions have led us astray on many, many fronts. I think it is about time people were judged by the content of their character, and not the stamp of their baptism.

A New Species Evolving

In the primordial soup of Western Civilization a new species is evolving.  As with all evolution, this creature has self preservation written into the blueprint of its code.  It wants to live.

This new species is crawling out of the sea of ideas, clawing its way to the land, gaining strength with each handhold it acquires.

This species still bears the name of  its ancestor, but it has only a passing resemblance with that from which it came. Have no doubt that a new species walks among us.

The ancestor was known for its sacrifice, the new species for asserting its rights.  The ancestor gave, the new species takes. The ancestor turned a cheek when attacked, the new species destroys the opposition. The ancestor stood with the weak, the new species aligns with the powerful.

The newcomer to the evolutionary landscape and its ancestor look identical, it is only when they act that you can distinguish the two.

This new creature wants Jesus for the hereafter, but Ayn Rand for the here and now.

About Right

Nakedpastor was giving these shirts out in a drawing yesterday.  I laughed out loud when I saw it.  Truth is often funny because it is true (as Homer says).  Hard "A" atheist is probably a little strong for me.  I lean more toward the agnostic.

Atheish seems to be the perfect description.  It seems to say:

"I am not sure whether a god exists or not... but I am confident yours doesn't exist..." :)