Believing is Seeing

In his important new book, “The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies – How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths,” prominent skeptic Michael Shermer makes a strong, science-informed case that the human brain is a “belief engine.” By which he means that our gelatinous CPU of 100 billion neurons and a thousand trillion connections virtually compels us to believe all manner of things – some true, many false; some banal, many bizarre. According to Shermer’s persuasive analysis, we have evolved into compulsive pattern-seekers, adept at finding patterns in all kinds of sensory input. He has labeled this brain process “patternicity,” the first stage in the formation of beliefs. Unfortunately, the intelligent designer who guided evolution (just kidding) forgot to calibrate the processing unit, so, like a sorcerer’s apprentice, it compulsively finds patterns everywhere, even when they are absent from the real-world data. This innate response no doubt served us well during the era of evolutionary adaptation, but the resulting mischief and harm are incalculable in today’s world: we are inundated with toxic, false beliefs. It takes more than pattern-recognition to make a belief. In the second stage, after we have found, or constructed, a pattern, we infuse it with meaning, or intention, through a process Shermer calls “agenticity” (i.e., attributing intentional agency to natural events). These meaningful patterns, both real and constructed, form our beliefs about the nature of reality; and once they are formed, we cling to them tenaciously. In other words, beliefs come first, then we find reasons to support them and to reject arguments and evidence that contradict them. And, somewhat ironically, the smarter we are, the better we are likely to be at coming up with elaborate rationalizations to support our faulty beliefs. We can’t pass off all deluded true believers as ignoramuses.

I am inclined to accept the great majority of Shermer’s analysis, in part because he makes a good case and also because he reinforces points I have been making in my columns about the conflicts between various ideologies and scientific rationality. In one column I characterized humans as natural-born ideologues, citing recent studies showing that disconfirming facts actually strengthened subjects’ false, ideologically-based beliefs!

If Shermer’s synthesis of research and cultural observations is correct, then there is no anchor in reality for many widely held, influential beliefs and belief systems, which means they are free to drift off into ever greater absurdities. True believers, individually and collectively, follow the dictates of their ideologies, ignore contradictory evidence, and cherry-pick what passes for supporting evidence. (Remember: they are motivated to continue to believe what they already believe for emotional and social reasons.)

With several ideologies approaching critical mass, we are now experiencing in this country a veritable epidemic of science/reality denial. I sense growing hordes of ideologues rejecting reason and evidence in favor of spin, propaganda, dogma, and lies. And why not lie? After all, if you not only believe in your ideology but feel certain that it is the one, true way to save humanity, then deception becomes a justifiable tactic, as it is in warfare. Which is precisely how so many of them view their role – as warriors in the great culture war.

In the U.S., leading ideologies are well financed and well organized and able to employ effective techniques of mass persuasion. On the other side, the reality-based community and concerned scientists are at a huge disadvantage trying to combat opponents who hold no respect for the constraints of reason and evidence. Ironically, the disadvantage stems from what were once considered virtues – i.e., rigor and integrity. Scientists eschew oversimplification, sensationalism, distortion, character assassination, and all the other methods so successfully employed by ideologues. Lamentably, those are the very techniques that have proven so effective in advancing right-wing causes. I offer Fox News as exhibit number one.

By comparison, scientific explanations are often complex and difficult, and understanding requires concentration and effort. This is not a level playing field in a country dominated by slogans and populist drivel.

And yet, as Shermer says, science remains our best hope of counteracting our innate, faulty-thinking mechanisms. Dr. Shermer, who may be the world’s best known skeptic, defines his skepticism as follows: “When I call myself a skeptic I simply mean that I take a scientific approach to the evaluation of claims.” And early in “The Believing Mind” he writes, “I’m a skeptic not because I do not want to believe, but because I want to know. How can we tell the difference between what we would like to be true and what is actually true? The answer is science.”

To bolster his point, he quotes the great theoretical physicist, Richard Feynman:

“If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any differenced how beautiful your guess is, how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

(If I may be so presumptuous, I would add “observation” to Feynman’s “experiment.” After all, advanced sciences like astronomy and paleontology are observational rather than experimental. And there’s nothing wrong with that as long as the observations meet high standards of scientific inquiry.)

Anyway, as one reviewer put it, “[Shermer] is . . . aware of the fallibility of intuitions, and willing to take steps to minimize them.” Those steps – the skeptical, scientific approach – demand a disciplined frame of mind that runs contrary to the compulsive “belief engine” in our brain.

Realistically, what is the alternative to skepticism? It’s certainly not believing everything we’re told: just about everyone thinks their false beliefs are true, and we are all skeptical to some degree; but most of us do not have the training to see through faulty logic and spurious claims. After all, there is a highly sophisticated, well-financed persuasion industry out there devoted to exploiting our vulnerabilities in order to promote points of view. Meanwhile, no one seems to be teaching disciplined, critical thinking. As Dr. Harriet Hall says in her review of “The Believing Brain” at Science-Based Medicine, “Our schools tend to teach what science knows rather than how science works.” They teach the content of science but not the method. And we shouldn’t be surprised that even the few students who receive extensive science education are not very good at generalizing the methods of science to real-world problems. Shermer puts it best:

“Our most deeply held beliefs are immune to attack by direct educational tools, especially for those who are not ready to hear contradictory evidence.”

That, I think, is the challenge: to persuade people to listen to contradictory evidence and evaluate their own beliefs accordingly. I would argue that in a nation that respected evidence and reason (unfortunately now receding faster than the most distant galaxies) those whose minds couldn’t be changed by evidence would not have a credible platform in the marketplace of ideas. I mean what is the point of participating in discussion or debate with intransigent ideologues who are essentially salespersons for their respective dogmas? (Mr. President?)

As Dr. Shermer says, the answer to so many of our problems has to lie in education, teaching people how to recognize and thus resist the tactics of often-malevolent snake-oil salesmen who are poisoning our cultural and political atmosphere.

Finally, I would like to recommend several organizations that are doing excellent work in the promotion of science, reason, skepticism, and critical thinking. I urge you to visit these web sites and make use of their information and materials. Most of all, support them so they can take their work to the next level of public awareness. I will list additional sites in future columns.

http://www.randi.org/site/

http://ncse.com/

http://www.theness.com/

http://richarddawkins.net/

http://www.project-reason.org/

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

http://www.skepdic.com/

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/

Love and Hate in the Religious State (Part II)

In Part I we looked at many probable causes religion came to be such a powerful force in the world.  Even today with all of mankind’s scientific advances and latest technology, religion still has its hand on the power of most all the governments of the world. In the Ronald Reagan era of the early to mid-1980s we saw how religion could actually help elect a Hollywood actor president of the United States.  The Moral Majority, invented by the Reverend Jerry Falwell, grew to be the nemesis of Democrats.  Falwell told his flock and the television world that Democrats were immoral, killed babies, and were pro-gay marriage.  These godless liberals Falwell said needed to be weeded out at the ballot box. Falwell preached on, and many Democrats in congress were toppled for 8 long years in favor of Republicans, Falwell’s chosen party of God, or so he said.  Falwell’s notorious “hit list” of Democrats that needed to be voted out of office nationwide, proved effective.  Most all on his list were toppled from elected seats of government all over America in favor of Republicans.   How Falwell escaped being audited by the IRS for violating his tax-exempt church status as a religious leader, only God knows.  God wanted what Falwell said He wanted, and that was that.  No argument, no discussion, the Almighty had spoken and made His wishes known to Falwell, His messenger. And President Ronald Reagan loved it.  As a result, Falwell’s popularity and television stations and Liberty University in Virginia brought in many millions in tax-free donations to Falwell’s ministry.  That he could tap into the tax-free donations of his parishioners and television viewers to defeat Democrats seems downright dirty and illegal, but as Falwell probably said, “God moves in mysterious ways.”

There were other religious television evangelists of note, and as always, the money, the millions and billions of dollars continued to flow into the pockets of these dubious preachers.  And these self-proclaimed messengers of God just knew that God loved Republicans most, you see, because the bloody Democrats were Pro Choice and the Republicans, Pro Life.

Back when Richard M. Nixon resigned as president of the United States, Billy Graham, famous TV evangelist and world Christian minister, chartered a passenger jetliner and flew to San Clemente, CA to hold Nixon’s hand and comfort the ex-president at his beachside home.  Imagine how much it cost to charter a commercial jet airliner, and please tell me that all the tax-free donations to the Billy Graham ministries were best served in the name of Jesus.  My God didn’t Graham do the math or what?  Chartering a jetliner to comfort an obvious crook would feed a lot of starving people of the world, you think?

Later on, Billy Graham’s son, Franklin Graham, became the head of his father’s ministries.  He awarded himself over $2 million dollars in bonuses and salary.  Coming under fire from the Charlotte Observer newspaper, Graham said he enjoyed the work for Christ so much that he would do it for free if he had to.  One of the Observer’s readers wrote in, saying, “Then do it.  Give up your take of the offerings for Christ and give it to the poor.”  As of this writing, Franklin Graham has not donated his salary and bonuses.  To anybody.

He also dabbles in politics.  Graham supported Donald Trump for president, of all things.

Note:  Graham for Trump

Franklin Graham let Sarah Palin, former candidate for vice president of the United States (and chronic air head) use the Billy Graham Ministries private jet to fly all over America to promote her book.  Was this a special book tour for Jesus?  Blatant abuse of religious entities remaining tax-exempt in all the millions they rake in in the name of Jesus?  Of course.  Would Jesus approve of a company private jet in His name?  Sure thing, Billy and Franklin.  Power corrupts, and religious power corrupts most divinely.

So how are the Grahams and the other television evangelists different from the Spanish Conquistadores who brought religion to the Americas not to save the savages, but to steal their gold?  I mean, private jets?  Chartered jetliners to fly to Nixon’s side?  Jesus.

Take Jim Bakker.  Please.  Remember him?  He sold 3 times the number of time shares to those who bought them in Heritage Village, his religious theme park in South Carolina.  He was indicted and sentenced to federal prison where he served 4 years of a 25 year sentence.  Note: Jim Bakker Scandal

Bakker’s PTL Network (Praise the Lord) ran for years on prime time television. Behind the wide smile there was sex, stealing, fraud, misuse of donations for air-conditioned dog houses and golden bathroom faucets, do you love it?  Oh the sins were most deadly ones during the times of the Bakker Scandal.  Jessica Hahn, a secretary, was involved sexually with Bakker, then married to Tammy Faye, now deceased.  Bakker and another official of the PTL Ministries traded Hahn about without batting an eye.  What would Jesus say about that?

Jerry Falwell, mentioned above, tried and succeeded in taking over Bakker’s PTL Ministries after Bakker went to prison.  Some believed that Falwell sought to continue the word of God in an established Christian-faithed ministry.  But Falwell smelled money.  Years after, both Bakker and his deceased wife, Tammy, said that Falwell was a huckster who misused the PTL Ministries for his own personal gain.  Imagine that.  Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority helped elect Reagan to two terms in the White House and his ministry never paid a dollar in income tax.  Neither did Liberty University that he established years before.

But just when you thought religious charlatans and crooks were down and out, think again.  Today Jim Bakker is out of prison, and broadcasts a very successful television show from Branson, MO.  Millions of dollars flow to him again in the name of Jesus.  His most recent scheme is conceived out of brilliance.  In hard times survival food is doing well as a business in America, but Jim Bakker gives it God’s blessing as well.  So for what Bakker calls a small “love offering” of a few thousand bucks, you get food with a long shelf life, blessed by the Almighty, of course, sent to you to help you survive Armageddon and the destruction of society as we know it.  So he sucks in those who truly believe the world is coming to an end and those Christians who believe Jim Bakker is doing the work of God as a minister.  Gives new meaning to the words “double dipping” doesn’t it?   Note:  Bakker’s Comeback after Prison

Bakker’s “Love Offering” Catalogue:

In 1966 Bakker and his first wife Tammy did a television program for kiddies in Virginia in the early days of the Pat Robertson 700 Club ministries.  Robertson mentored many a crook in exploiting Jesus for big bucks.  Pat Robertson trained not only Bakker, but Ralph Reed who formed another political religious group, the Christian Coalition.  Reed helped elect right wing public servants much in the same way as did the Moral Majority.  Reed, Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff (now doing 11 years in prison), were all mixed up in pitting Texas’ only two Indian Reservations against each other in gambling permits.  They all received big bucks for their trouble, but some of them were prosecuted and are scheduled to do time or are presently doing time.  Sound like God-fearin’ Christians to you?  Hmm.

Jimmy Swaggart Ministries of Baton Rouge, LA is still standing after Swaggart was caught and forgiven twice for masturbating in the backseat of a vehicle to a whore who joined him.  He’s still around after being caught twice for jacking off in public?  And his ministry is still alive and raking in the tax-free bucks?  No way, right?  Wrong!

Note:  Swaggart’s two-whore sex saga

Then there’s Oral Roberts and his son, Richard, who flew his daughter to expensive vacations in the Bahamas on (here it comes again) the private Oral Roberts Ministries jet.  This same son remodeled his personal residence 11 times in 15 years, and he fired some key managers of Oral Roberts University because they knew and talked too much about his lavish tastes and misuse of church funds.  Roberts also charged at least 50 students to campaign for a political candidate which is against the tax-exempt code for religious institutions.  His daughters were privy to lavish personal lifestyles from college funds and tax-exempt offerings from faithful Christians.

Note:  Richard Roberts Scandal

Roberts stepped down as president of Oral Roberts University but still receives money from the tax-exempt income of the ministries.

The list is long on how religion takes money from faithful followers.  The Roman Catholic Church is most probably the richest entity on planet earth with billions, maybe trillions in real estate holdings alone.  Funny thing about the faithful Catholics is that after the altar boy scandal of priests sexually abusing them for years, the membership is still the largest of any Christian church.  That priests seem unrepentant for the crimes against children, seems blatantly anti-Christian.  Especially in lieu of being shielded by the higher-ups of the Catholic Church.  The church has paid out many billions of dollars to those victims of these homosexual child-rapings, but then Rome decreed some 7 years ago that each church parish had to stand on its own in paying damages for the outrages committed against innocent children who trusted the Church.  In other words, if the parish ran out of money due to payouts of abuse claims, then the church, the parish had to dissolve because the Church of Rome would not make good the claims from its general funds or immense wealth.  There was even a statute of limitation of 10 years for abuse cases suggested by the Bishops of the Church.

So is religion taken at face value the biggest business in the world?  Probably.  It is more immense than even government, oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, and Wall Street combined.  And remember, all the money taken in is TAX-FREE.  Makes a difference.  And we haven’t even spoken about other world religions like Islam, Buddhism, or the likes.  So when it comes to saving souls, is that the primary concern and business of religion?  Or is it the bottom line of how much they can take in while professing to bring the Word of the Lord to the masses?  Churches engaging in the political process now is a smoking gun, you think?  You decide.

NORWAY’S MASS-MURDERER: Madman or Fascist Fanatic?

NORWAY’S MASS-MURDERER: Madman or Fascist Fanatic?

By Michael Faulkner – August 05, 2011

The horrific murders perpetrated by Anders Behring Breivik in Oslo and on Otoya island in July,  have left Norway in deep shock and the reaction everywhere has been one of incomprehension of the cold-blooded barbarity with which the massacre was carried out. In attempting to comprehend what could have led someone to unleash a bloodbath such as this, it is tempting to treat it as just another, albeit more horrendous, example of the sort of thing that has occurred all too often in the United States, Britain and elsewhere in recent years: a lone gunman goes on the rampage, shooting as many innocent people as he can until he is either dispatched by armed police or takes his own life. In most such cases those who commit these acts are considered to be deranged people, suffering from severe personality disorders and motivated by deep personal grudges against imagined enemies or against the world in general. They are said to be “madmen” and are often described by the tabloid press as “maniacs”.

The diagnosis has been much the same in the case of the Norwegian killer. In a common sense sort of way it seems unarguable: anyone capable of doing something like this must be mad or deranged. It may be that in many cases such people can properly be considered psychopaths. But too often such simplistic explanations provide a convenient excuse for avoiding serious questions about their motives. Interestingly, certain acts of terrorism resulting in large-scale loss of life, have not generally been regarded as the work of madmen. IRA bombings targeting civilians and the atrocities committed by al-Qaeda, are rightly regarded as politically or ideologically motivated acts. However else he has been described, Osama bin-Laden was not thought to be mad. Neither are the suicide bombers who routinely blow themselves up, killing as many others as possible, in what they perceive to be acts of martyrdom for the cause they believe in.  The lone, rampaging gunman, randomly killing his victims, is thought to be the real maniac.

But it is clear that the Norwegian, Breivik, is a politically motivated fanatic. His views about Muslims and multi-culturalism are shared to one degree or another by countless people throughout Europe and beyond. Much of what he has written in the “manifesto” he posted on the internet just before he went on his killing spree, is the common parlance of right-wing political parties and groups. Such views are to be found daily in much of the British tabloid press, where hostility to immigrants and asylum-seekers is an integral part of the daily diet dished up to the readers. In fact, much to her embarrassment, one British journalist, Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips who specializes in this sort of thing, gets a favorable mention in Breivik’s Islamophobic rant. Of course, she and the many others who peddle that brand of anti-immigrant intolerance, cannot be held responsible for the acts of one who carried such intolerance to what he regarded as its necessary conclusion.

Perhaps the best way to understand the mentality of someone who thinks it justifiable – even necessary – to blow up public buildings and shoot down in cold blood scores of innocent young people in what he regards as a noble cause, is to try to establish the connection between his ideological views and the actions to which they led him. His view of the world, shared by many and widely disseminated in the press and on the internet, may loosely be described as apocalyptic. Broadly speaking he sees a world-wide “culture clash” between Islam and Western Civilization (or, in some versions, “Christendom”). Islam, regarded as a benighted, medieval and intolerant religion, is in the process of seeking European and world domination through mass immigration of Muslims into western Europe and the wider “Christian” world, where sooner rather than later there will be a demographic shift which will result in the “Islamization” first of Europe and later the world. In this view, Islam is at war with the west and will stop at nothing to achieve its goal. Unless this relentless drive is halted, it will mean the end of civilization as we know it.

Breivik believes that the “war for the defense of western civilization” has already started, but that “Christendom” hasn’t woken up to the fact. He regards himself as a vanguard warrior in the struggle for survival against the dark forces of evil. His fascination with the myths and paraphernalia of the more romantic brands of European fascism (the Knights Templar;  uniforms and insignia) testify to his obsession with discipline, self-discipline and total commitment to the course he has chosen. Whether he has collaborated with others is actually unimportant. His self-belief and preparedness to act are all that matters.

Some have wondered why it was that, detesting Muslims as he does, he didn’t simply go to a heavily populated Muslim district and open fire on “the enemy”. This misses an important point. He needed to strike at what he regards as the heart of the conspiracy: the Norwegian politicians who have infiltrated the Trojan horse into the fortress. These are the traitors. Those still blind to their treason – the majority of the population – must be made to see the truth and be awakened to the mortal danger they face. This accounts for the target of the Oslo bombing. But what of the mass-murder at the Labour Party youth camp? This was also clearly thought through and far from random. In his view the party of government is a hotbed of traitors to Norway. What better way to destroy this organization than to massacre its youngest and most dedicated members, thus striking terror into the hearts of any young person foolish enough to be hoodwinked into joining the movement. This is the explanation Breivik himself has given. The decision to act, taken on the basis of his conspiracy theory, followed logically from it. Very few of those who think like him would consider taking such a step. His action was that of a true fanatic, but fanatics are not necessarily insane. He seems to believe that if he is given the opportunity to explain himself to the Norwegian people, they will exonerate him and possibly approve his actions. There is no need to say that in this respect he is mistaken.

Breivik’s fanaticism is authentically fascist. His single-minded fanaticism and belief in his “mission” enabled him to commit an atrocity so horrendous that one is almost rendered speechless. But such fanaticism is the hallmark of fascism and in this respect it is instructive to compare his world outlook and his actions with those of Hitler and the Nazis.

Hitler, who has also been regarded by some as mad, believed throughout his life that he was engaged in a titanic struggle against the forces of evil which were hell-bent on subduing Europe and conquering the world – the Jews and Communism - or the “Judeo-Bolshevik Conspiracy”. In the early 1920s, he and his fledging party coined the slogan “Deutschland Erwache” – Germany Awake. The people had to be made aware of the mortal danger they faced from these alien forces which had infiltrated German society and were destroying it from within. Those who disagreed with the Nazi “Weltanschauung” (world outlook), were either fools or traitors. The fools had to be cured of their foolishness and the traitors had to be eliminated. The stakes in this life-or-death struggle were too high to be squeamish about the use of violence. It is worth noting that the Nazis always used the terms “fanatic” and “fanaticism” approvingly when describing their own actions. Such was the fanaticism inculcated into so many young Germans that, by the outbreak of World War Two they were prepared, in the interests of the “ethnic cleansing” of Europe, to kill not only soldiers in combat, but unarmed men, women and children. It was, they believed, in a noble cause. Those they killed were all, including the children, mortal enemies of European civilization and, when the people understood properly what a great service the Nazis were rendering, they would be grateful to them.

The Austrian physician Ella Lingens-Reiner, in her book Prisoners of Fear, (1948) a chilling account of her incarceration in Auschwitz, recounts a conversation she had with an SS officer at the end of 1944. She describes him as “an ardent fanatic”. He tells her that “there is one achievement that will stand, and future generations will thank us for it……we have freed Europe from the Jews for good.”  “What”, she says “could I reply? There was no answer, for we did not speak the same language. He seemed to me completely mad – just as mad as I must have seemed to him because I failed to share his views.”

The “ardent fanatic” at Auschwitz in 1944 is the spiritual father of the fanatic Breivik today. No doubt he regards those who do not share his views or approve his actions as blind or mad. It behooves us all to consider very seriously the connection between his fanatical racist views and his horrific acts. He is fully responsible for what he did and cannot simply be written off as a madman.

Crazy Talk in the U.S. Senate Reflects Badly on the Nation

Could you define or explain any of the following mysterious phrases?

Freedom’s holy light. What's that? What makes a light holy? How much energy does it require?

The pit of disunity and discord. Where is this pit? What happens if you fall into it? Can you get out? How did the pit get there? Why has it not been filled?

Bridges of cooperation. Where are such bridges? Who built them? Were they expensive? Are they like bridges to nowhere?

The one and only constituent in America that U.S. Senators absolutely MUST please. Who's that? Rupert Murdock? Which Koch brother? How much did he have to contribute for such influence? What if he's not pleased absolutely?

Counsel that can stand forever. How does that work? Are there any examples?

Ears and eyes that are "quickened." What happens when such parts are quickened? Does this mean powers like Superman?

God on Capitol Hill. Has this ever happened? When? Why did he leave?

If these phrases seem weird or incomprehensible, well, you must not be a member of the U.S. Senate. It turns out that someone addressed the senate last week and talked like that. I'm not kidding - you can look it up.

These phrases and others as bizarre were uttered last week by a Seventh-Day Adventist minister named Barry C. Black. Mr. Black is the Senate's official "chaplain." He asked the Almighty, in a prayer, to “give to our lawmakers the wisdom to know the role they should play in keeping freedom’s holy light bright.” Well, there you have it. Obviously, nothing happened. We see once again that nothing fails like prayer.

Language of this kind in any forum should be viewed as a mental health issue. However, a grotesque custom privileges religious talk - no demented babble, however ludicrous, raises eyebrows, let alone sets off 911 calls for the looney wagon.

If we were a rational people with a secular Republic, there would be no chaplains funded by taxpayers. There would be less crazy talk in the U.S. Senate, though Republicans and Tea Party types would supply some, no doubt. There certainly would be no expectation by the representatives of the people that an invisible sky god (for which there is no evidence whatsoever) would have any interest in becoming involved in our politics.

Besides, are we not still committed to government of the people, by the people and for the people? Why have a Congress at all if we have to rely on a deity to solve our problems?

Peace.

Who Would Jesus Do?

by Loren Adams, 7 August 2011 Right now the U.S. is on the verge of default. Mom and Dad told us what it was like during the Great Depression, but soon we may experience it for ourselves. The debt ceiling was raised dozens of times during Republican administrations, but somehow it’s different now that a Democrat sits in the Oval Office, especially a black one. So, the self-righteous Republicans destroy the nation for political gain. What else is new? That’s the way hypocrites behave.

The current Republican contenders claim they have direct access to God. Is this a joke? I nearly believe we’ve arrived at a bizarro world where everything is turned upside down. Texas Governor Rick Perry holds a state-sponsored prayer conference, Michelle Bachmann claims God commanded her to be President, Mitt Romney wears church-issued magical underwear, and the Tea Party says God wants them to shut the U.S. Government down. Who are these people?

It depends on one’s definition of “God.” Is God’s nature one of wrath or love? Republicans go for the “W” while liberals go for the “L”. Republicans are always fearful of demasculinizing Jesus into a weak, feminine character that feeds the hungry, cares for the sick, turns the other cheek, and focuses on the poor, etc. They prefer the Jesus of Revelation riding a white horse to slay millions at the Valley of Meggido.

The Republican Jesus carries a pistol in his holster, believes everyone else should too, and has zero tolerance for free-loaders and welfare queens. Rightwing Jesus is white and blonde with blue eyes (although born in the Middle East to Jewish parents).

It started with fundamentalist Bush claiming to have direct communication with God to be President, then to bomb the hell out of the Middle East while, as a result, destroying the U.S. economy. One could blame Bush for the nation’s fall, but wasn’t God at fault for ordering Bush to make all these mistakes? No, Bush was using God as a prop to commit political treason; Karl Rove wasn’t only “W’s” brain, but his God.

Remember when Bush claimed he received direct orders from God to bomb Iraq?

Would Jesus have bombed Baghdad?

Bush claimed he KNEW Iraq had WMD and was preparing to use them against the U.S., its allies, and neighbors. Since GW supposedly had a direct line to God, would Jesus have not informed him that no WMD existed in Iraq? Would Jesus have used deceit to influence a nation to go to war? A series of unjustified wars that led the U.S. to depression?

The crimes of the century were committed right in the White House, but no one seems to care, and Obama’s boy (Eric Holder) refuses to prosecute.

Would Jesus lie to get his way?

Would Jesus kill for revenge? Or to steal someone else's property?

Would Jesus make war against another country without provocation and without moral grounds?

Would Jesus treat working people and the poor with contempt and drive their incomes down while enriching the obscenely wealthy?

Would Jesus pray publicly to make a show of his religiosity in order to increase political power? Or would he pray in secret where only his Heavenly Father listens?

Would Jesus issue ultimatums, threats, intimidation, and coercion to have his way?  Or would he use love to overcome adversity.

Would Jesus claim to be “compassionate” while exploiting the poor, destroying Medicare and Social Security, busting unions, demanding lower wages for ordinary folk, and putting the tax burden on the middle and lower classes?

Would Jesus cause the deaths of millions as payback for an unsubstantiated threat against his daddy years before?  Or would he say, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”?

Would Jesus jack up the price for prescription drugs for the elderly to pad the pockets of the rich?

Would Jesus not care about the environment, the forests, endangered species, man-made climate change, clean air & water?

Would Jesus lie, cheat, steal, kill, commit insider trading, and live the life of a hypocrite?

Would Jesus impugn the patriotism of another who fought valiantly in a war and was nearly killed saving his friends? (Swiftboaters)

Would Jesus need to lie about others to make himself look good?

Would Jesus rob from the poor to give to the rich?

There’s nothing today about the mean Republican spirit resembling Jesus Christ. More like Pharisees, they stone the prostitute (with whom they just had intercourse), rob from the poor, and give all stolen wealth to the top two percent.

"In as much you do to the least of these, you've done it unto me" – Jesus Christ, Matthew 25:45

Love and Hate in the Religious State (Part I)

When Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons heard the first clap of thunder in their primordial backyard, quickly, they invented gods. They needed an explanation for the powerful disruption in a superstitious existence that was full of mystery to them. Such a powerful bolt of thunder must have terrified them. They feared their very destruction. So they jumped instantly into the survival mode and paid homage to these powerful phenomena they could not understand. In desperation they sought to be spared and protected. At least it is a good guess, though none of us know for sure how long it took gods and religion to break the horizon of early man’s consciousness. 

Possibly to quiet their fears, they began living in tribes for protection. Communities mushroomed. There was strength in numbers. Conditions were ripe I would guess for medicine men to dazzle the tribes with magic tricks and such voodoo shell games that made them seem special and in touch with the gods. Medicine men often elevated themselves to positions of priest, and in some cases, gods. And the people, out of fear, went along with it. In addition to being worshiped in return for protecting the tribe, these leaders were rewarded with riches and power. But religion was in its infancy then. Untold riches and TV Evangelists with their own TV satellites and banks in Scotland were yet to come. Religion filled the gaps and explained away the fears of an unsure and tumultuous world. And the medicine men, the soothsayers, the men who could bring something to the table to frighten the clan into following them, appointed themselves to high positions in the clan hierarchy.

Fast forwarding to the Nile Delta before Christ, the Egyptians had many gods, some with animal heads and human bodies. Great cities and civilizations flourished there for thousands of years. The pharaohs were deemed to be gods, and they ruled in complete, unchallenged authority for over 5,000 years. Every human on the planet has seen pictures of the great pyramids and the Sphinx.

Great cities and cultures flourished also in Meso America, too for thousands of years. Many different tribes, e.g., the Toltecs, Olmecs, Itzas, and Incas built great stone cities and pyramids that stand even today, unchallenged by the ravages of time. Many tribes, e.g. the Mayans, created the most accurate calendar of all time. They invented the numeral zero. They were astronomers par excellence.

On the other hand, the Aztecs would tear out the hearts of sacrifice victims to offer to their gods so that it would rain, or maybe it might help them defeat their enemies. They weren’t messing around. Religion to them had to be serious business. But they had great stone cities and pyramids, too. Until the Spanish destroyed them and built Catholic Churches on the same sites.

Funny, but even the Old Testament’s Abraham was asked to sacrifice his own son in a burnt offering to God, just to prove to God that Abraham was a faithful and true servant. Human sacrifice has been a part of man’s unconscious compass for longer than he might admit to.

Religion became the most powerful motivator known to man right after he came down from the trees and began to walk upright. And nothing has changed. The lizard brain was then and is now, alive and well and a part of us.

The fear of what might happen to you if you challenged religion or its priests and doctrine made the individual walk a straight and narrow line of acceptance. Religion controlled the masses completely. Many religious leaders were deities. The Mayan city states of the Yucatan Peninsula in present day Mexico are proof. The leader wore a giant head dress taller than the person himself. Commoners were prohibited to gaze upon his face. He was known as the True Man, god of all. His family held high positions in the Mayan society. None of them worked in the fields. Yet the Mayans willingly supported all of the higher rungs on the social ladder by donating a portion of their own corn they planted and harvested. It seemed to be a win-win situation for the hierarchy and the common peasants of the field.

Many historians contend that the Mayans’ fascination with astronomy and predicting eclipses of the sun and moon were tools of science used to scare the unknowing people into believing that the high priests could control the very light of the moon and sun. Pretty strong evidence for that.

So early on, organized religious institutions found that they could successfully motivate people who followed them to give up part of their earnings. Call it offerings, tithing, or selling protection, organized religion successfully discovered that they could pick the pockets of poor believers who strived to save their crops, their families, and their very souls. Religion became the greatest mover of men the world had ever known. And the coffers and property of the churches grew to enormous proportions. Today the Roman Catholic Church, after 2,000 years of passing the collection plate collectively might possibly have a net worth larger than Exxon, who knows? Certainly, all the organized religions over the world have unimaginable masses of wealth and power. And assured accounts receivables where future earnings are guaranteed by the faithful believers who will be counted on to shell out regularly all the days of their lives, generation after generation.

So much for the historical introduction of how religion might have come to be. Yet as humans we need other questions answered. We are not holding a pat hand when it comes to religion and our beliefs.

Is religion a real and worthwhile entity that serves humankind? Or is it a scourge upon civilization? Does it give to the individual and society or does it take from each? Arguments can be convincing both ways.

First came the Popes and the Crusades. There were several Crusades under different Popes of Rome. French and English kings, from 1096-1272, under the direction of various Popes, tried 9 long Crusades to take back the Holy Land from the Infidels. These noble knights of each Crusade sacked and killed non-Christians in the Holy Land for almost 200 years. During the Fourth Crusade, the huge Christian Church at Constantinople was rumored to be in possession by Infidels. When the knights in shining armor and red crosses on their white tunics came to see for themselves they discovered that the church was occupied by Christian monks. Not Infidels. But after a day to consider the irony, the Crusader knights attacked and sacked the church anyway. Hmmmm. Gold and spoils might have been a larger part of the mercenary quest of the Crusades instead of ridding the Holy Land of Infidels, you think?

Pope Innocent II gave King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain, complete authority to purge the country of Jews, Moors, and Protestants. Many were found guilty of heresy and burned at the stake. Their property was confiscated. The Spanish working class believed that the Inquisition targeted rich heretics so that the crown could steal their property. That conversion to Christianity was a ruse to torture thousands of human beings, kill them, and take their possessions. Stealing from Jews, Moors, Protestants, and other branded heretics was not new. Spain unleashed their soldiers upon the New World and brought Friars to convert the savages while taking their gold.

The same Spanish crown directed the Conquistadors to plunder the Aztecs and Incas. Hernan Cortez landed at Vera Cruz, MX and began his trek to Tenochtitlan (now Mexico City). Along the 200 mile trek, he accumulated an impressive army of Indian tribes who had axes to grind against the Aztecs. So within the year, the great Aztec empire fell, Montezuma, its chief, had been killed, and many tons of gold had been confiscated from the Aztecs and sent to the Spanish Treasury. The Museum of the Americas in Madrid, Spain, is full of possibly billions of dollars of rare gold artifacts the Conquistadors took from the Aztecs and Incas. There had been two missions: to convert the savage Indians to Christianity and (unofficially) take all the gold possible and send it back to the Crown. Not necessarily in that order. Each Conquistador got a share of gold in the Spanish Treasury credited to his account according to his rank. Was the motive a religious one or one of avarice? 

These are but a few examples in history where religion and God were invoked to allow the smooth and clear-conscience stealing of land and resources to flow. Often I have wondered at the first Thanksgiving where Indians and the Pilgrims sat down to give thanks. I mean, how could the Indians give thanks to the white men who had invaded and taken pieces of their land with many more of the same to come, shoot their game and displace them to reservations? And how could the Indians perceive the white men and women as a blessing when their arrival spelled doom for the Indian way of life as they knew it?

Since the Middle Ages and sacking and looting in the name of religion, man has become very sophisticated in “bringing in the sheaves,” so to speak. Now it is done through political enmeshment with governments, wars started in the name of God, and in response to unholy terrorists whom Allah, they contend, tells them to attack America and to bring down the World Trade Center buildings. And it would be wrong not to include former president George W. Bush who told Russian Premier Putin that God told him to attack Iraq. I’ll swear, even Sarah Palin proclaimed Bush to be about God’s work in Iraq. Stay tuned.