Uncategorized

Keeping our heads about ISIS

/ Christopher Cudworth / 2 Comments

On the way somewhere in the car today, I dutifully tuned into Right Wing Radio Station AM 560 to listen to what Dennis Miller had to say about something about which he generally knows nothing about. That’s what commentators like Dennis Miller do, you see. It’s their job to keep the Right stirred up about Obama and the economy and foreign policy so that the Republicans can swing the vote, take power back and go on with their policies of fighting the whole world all at once. 

None other than Charles Krauthamer was comedian Dennis Miller’s guest today. The conservative columnist has a book out. Apparently he claims he saw all this coming, this disturbance in the Middle East. That opinion pretty much puts him in alignment with every prophet, columnist and prognosticator since the Torah was written down in goat’s blood. 

Men like Krauthamer are particularly upset because the ISIS group has begun beheading Americans to get our attention and pick a fight. But that’s a little ironic, is it not?

We Americans love movies about rebels like William Wallace in Braveheart and Russell Crowe in Gladiator. It’s all well and good when some Scottish dude or a Roman gladiator lops off a few heads in battle. White guys can do that because they seem like they actually could be Christian if you look close enough or study the plot lines. 

But Lord knows we do hate it when some Muslims get jiggy with beheadings and televise them to get under our skin. Never mind that Muslims and Christians have been doing similar things to each since the Crusades and before all that. We chopped each other to pieces for years, stuck each other’s heads on pikes and didn’t solve a goddamn thing… or we wouldn’t be having this discussion now. 

What’s really sad is that according to the Koran the Muslim faith thinks the world of Jesus as a prophet and it seems like there might be some common ground right there. Fundamentalists in the Arab world have instead focused on the murderous call of jihad to craft their worldview. Meanwhile here in America our own little fundamentalist Christian movement has been at work for the last 30 years trying to rewrite the Constitution in their image and foment a revisionist view of history that America was founded as a Christian nation. 

There is the same brand of crap being thrown against the wall on both sides of the fence. Our side has not behaved much better. We tortured Iraqis when given the chance back in the early 2000s and now those actions have essentially come back to roost.

The escalation of violence by ISIS is not surprising. They know they can’t take over the world. They haven’t the equipment or the wealth or the support. But they can dream big, and taking over a country or two in the Middle East is a pretty worthy goal before they figure out they have to regroup and actually have a way to govern people who hate them just as much as they hate back. 

It’s going to blow up in their faces sooner or later. Which is why America does not need to lose our heads. If they bring their ISIS brand of bullshit to our shores it won’t be the first time we’ve been struck. But at least we’ve got a President considering all the options, including an international coalition to track and contain the ISIS threat. 

But let’s not pretend this can be solved overnight, or that it’s strictly Obama’s fault that some right wing Muslims are pissed off and trying to pick a fight. This has been going on for centuries and it will keep on happening for a long time. Our main goal is to keep our heads and force their hand. It’s unlikely they have a real plan in place to enact a caliphate. That’s pretty much a pipe dream. They can’t even make it happen in Iraq, much less America. 

We’ve calmed down Iran and kept an eye on Syria. Yes there are people dying but we have been on alert for humanitarian crises. We may err on helping too much in that way, but so be it. 

There’s no use rushing off to a war that can’t be fought. This is an ideology we’re battling, not a people. The best strategy is forcing them back on themselves. There is only so much honor among thieves and murderers who only agree on one thing, and that is killing in the name of God. 

Our Arab friends in the region and certainly Israel don’t want these kind of nuts taking over. America certainly mourns the lives of journalists serving the cause of justice by reporting the truth. Those who committed those war crimes deserve to die. But we do need to be careful that we don’t lose our collective heads and shoot ourselves in the foot. We’ve done that once before in Iraq, which is why we’re invested so deeply there now. 

Be patient. Be smart. Build a coalition. ISIS will eventually collapse under the weight of the murderous pressure they have brought upon themselves. 

 

The interesting case of James Brady and the conservative lust for guns

/ Christopher Cudworth / Leave a comment

FlagWaiverThe Chicago Tribune carried a thoughtful obituary about James Brady, America’s leading proponent for gun regulation and control.

While people may be nominally aware of the so-called Brady Bill passed in 1993 that requires federal background checks for gun buyers, it is worth reviewing the context of who James Brady was, and why he came to be a leading proponent of gun control. According to the Chicago Tribune article, the Brady Bill as it came to be known has blocked about 2 million gun purchases by people who did not meet the requirements of gun ownership due to criminal or mental health records.

The idea that an official serving a key role under a Republican administration could turn out to be a leading gun control advocate almost seems impossible today. These days so many GOP candidates and politicians stand behind the NRA and its position of less gun regulation it is hard to conceive of a Republican official actually lobbying for better gun control laws.

And James Brady served as Press Secretary under none other than President Ronald Reagan, still the standard-bearer for so-called modern conservatism. But therein lies just one of the oxymorons in conservative positions on gun control.

Brady was shot while trying to protect Ronald Reagan from the criminally insane efforts by John Hinckley, Jr. to assassinate the President of the United States. We can all be thankful his efforts were not successful. Certainly conservatives must be happy and proud their President pulled through despite a collapsed lung suffered during the shooting.

Brady was not so lucky. His brain was affected by the shooting. He was partially paralyzed and used a wheelchair the rest of his life. But Brady decided to do something about his lot by using his position as a former top official in the Reagan administration and the notoriety it brought to advocate for better protections against people who want to use guns for the wrong purpose.

Of course we might find that ironic on a number of fronts. So many guns get used for the wrong purpose it far overwhelms the practices claimed by law-abiding gun owners seeking use of guns for self-protection, sport or hunting.

The trouble with all that supposed rightful use of guns is that it only takes a moment’s notice or a bad decision for a gun owner to allow rage or bad judgment or a sudden killer instinct to turn a gun into a murderous instrument.

And after all, guns were designed to kill. In that context they run afoul of all manner of human social values including those laid out in the Christian Bible, where one of the 10 Commandments states “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”

That means anything that makes killing easier to accomplish is an accomplice in the process of murder or even the threat of violence. The relationship between envisioning the crime and actually doing it has a solid biblical history.

The book of Matthew quotes Jesus this way (KJV) : “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”Insecurity and selfishness are just some of the reasons why people commit adultery. Personal desires or lack of self esteem, even jealousy can drive a person to adultery.

The same holds true for gun crimes. The weakness of flesh and spirit that lead to the act of adultery can also lead to acts of anger, frustration or selfish aims (no pun intended) as expressed through gun violence.

How is it that we fail to appreciate that guns are a form of bloodlust? The adultery of guns is murder, for they act as an expression of intent.

That’s what Brady in part sought to recognize and express through his advocacy for gun laws to kept weapons out of the hands of criminals. His particular story was compelling, yet the very party for which he served in politics turned away from his message because it conflicted with the tools so many conservative politicians used to get elected. Side with looser gun rights and you get votes. It’s that plain and simple.

But it is not necessarily more moral or in keeping with the actual purpose and meaning of the United States Constitution. It’s too easy to throw values like freedom and personal autonomy together with so-called conservative Christian priorities like family and church and call them the same thing. If they seem to fit together somehow, who are we to deny that?

There are several problems with this philosophy and approach. For one thing, blithe approval of gun rights ignores the famous or infamous (depending on your perspective) biblical advice to turn the other cheek. Yet the Bible is multiply clear on the subject. Luke 29: “And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.”

So much for using guns in self defense, people. The whole intent of scripture is to live spiritually, not using murderous tools to impose your world view on the populace or the government that represents your interests.

See, there really is nothing conservative about loose gun laws at all. James Brady grew to recognize this when he was shot by a gunman. Brady’s own recollection of the event was something he actually tried to suppress. “I’ve worked very hard at forgetting as much about that as I possibly can,” he said. “But I’ve not been able to do it.”

The whole enterprise of aggressive gun advocacy is not founded on personal pain of the type James Brady experienced. Nor are liberal gun laws a Christian concept as some might have you believe.

The real reason American gun laws are so lax these days is that we left common sense behind in pursuit of some falsely conceived ideal. That is a radical way to proceed, and it has killed more people on American soil than all the soldiers ever killed in wars on foreign soil.

As James Brady tried so hard to express in his lifetime, we’re at war with ourselves over common sense and virtues. After all, Brady was shot even with the world’s leading Secret Service and trained gunman to protect the President’s entourage. You could have thrown a barrel full of guns on the street and it would not have stopped John Hinckley. Nor will it stop the continuous stream of shooters murdering innocent Americans in theaters, schools and shopping malls.

Like the adulterer that imagines lust in their head before committing the act, guns draw people into a lust for mindless action. It’s in their design.

James Brady recognized that. Let us hope his life continues to point out that fact.

 

Are you so dull? Not on your life

/ Christopher Cudworth / Leave a comment

DSCN1904The manner in which Jesus conveyed important facts about the nature of God’s Kingdom was apparently, or at least sometimes lost even on his own disciples. His parables used a rich mix of natural symbolism to convey spiritual principles. His purpose in this teaching method was to make it possible for people with little formal training in theology to grasp the perspectives of God.

With his disciples in tow and in regular witness to his miraculous abilities, Jesus used his ministry to build them up to do his work after he left this earth in bodily form. But true to human nature, his disciples did struggle to grasp the meaning of his parables.

The Bible does not shy from sharing this harsh fact with its readers. There is a purpose to this. In many ways the illuminating statement in Matthew 15:16 helps us recognize in ourselves the difficulties the disciples sometimes had in understanding their teacher’s message. The New International Version depicts Jesus harshly questioning their very ability to be his disciples if they cannot comprehend his method of teaching.

New International Version
“Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them.

He’s pretty rough on them.

The New Living Translation goes a little easier on the disciples, depicting a Christ eager to teach and somewhat impatient in dealing with disciples.

New Living Translation
“Don’t you understand yet?” Jesus asked.

The English Standard Version compares the disciples to the people at large or first experiencing his message.

English Standard Version
And he said, “Are you also still without understanding?

The same goes with the New American Standard translation. Jesus takes his disciples to task for being slow on the uptake. The King James translation is much similar.

New American Standard Bible
Jesus said, “Are you still lacking in understanding also?

King James Bible
And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?

Consider the urgency of the Holman Christian Standard Bible a challenge to us all. After all, we’ve had 2000 years or so to get a grip that the symbolism Jesus used to convey spiritual principles was not meant to be taken literally nor left on the table to fend for itself in conveying the urgent matter of reaching the Kingdom of God:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
“Are even you still lacking in understanding?” He asked.

Then we encounter the abrupt take of the International Standard Version and the NET Bible, both of which throw a direct slam at the disciples.

International Standard Version
Jesus said, “Are you still so ignorant?

NET Bible
Jesus said, “Even after all this, are you still so foolish?

It comes down to this: No matter what translation you choose, the bible is clear in showing that Jesus expects a bit more from his disciples, and all of us, than short-sighted, lazy thinking. It’s clearly not enough to state that “God said it, and I believe it.” Jesus did not allow that brand of thinking in his disciples, and it certainly is no more valued as a mode of thinking today.

Think about that next time you hear someone claiming the earth was created in 7 literal days, or trying to turn their interpretation of scripture into the law of the nation. Jesus did not tolerate those methods in his closest advisors or the enemies of the kingdom of God.

All those who failed to grasp the true message of God were called to account. Do you want to be one of the people who through false-minded zealotry or an aggressive desire fro control and power turn the message of Christ into something that it wasn’t meant to be?

Not on your life.

More on the Town of Greece v Galloway decision

/ Christopher Cudworth / Leave a comment

whyevolutionistrue's avatarWhy Evolution Is True

If you want a quick-and-dirty, but informative, take on this morning’s execrable 5-4 Supreme Court decision allowing municipal prayers in Greece, New York, read the analysis at Religion Clause, a site devoted to church-state issues. It breaks down the justices’ decisions (there was a lot of dissent, even among the majority), while avoiding editorializing. We can do that later. (I haven’t yet read the decisions and dissents.)

The most frightening thing on there, though, was this (my emphasis):

An opinion by Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, explained their refusal to join Part II-B of Justice Kennedy’s opinion. They argued that the Establishment Clause should not be seen as being applicable to the states.

Do we need to remind Scalia, who is an “originalist” (i.e., one who adheres to what he sees as the original intent of the U.S. Constitution’s writers), what the Establishment Clause is? It’s at the beginning…

View original post 108 more words

Thinking back on Santa Claus

/ Christopher Cudworth / Leave a comment

Image

On the day after Christmas it is not uncommon for many of us to raise our heads and wonder, “What the Hell Just Happened?”

And, who the Hell is Santa Claus, really? 

That’s the question we never asked as kids. We did not care. Santa brought gifts. That’s all we wanted from the dude. 

Other figures

Of course, the same thing goes for many great religious figures, as well. The Catholic Pope, for example, has proven to be an enigmatic symbol for the faith over the ages. Some popes are conservative. Not many are considered liberal. Yet the very ideas upon which Christianity is founded are liberal in foundation, if not practice. It can be hard to tell who to believe, and what, once religion becomes dogma. 

Questioning beliefs

Recently The Catholic Church has enjoyed a higher and possibly more positive profile thanks to the fresh outlook of Pope Francis, champion of the poor and provocative advocate for the disadvantaged in general.

But the Vatican has some catching up to do, and plenty of company in the indulgence of overreaching with its religious authority. Of course populist religion can be just as overbearing and at times ridiculous in its efforts to create and control the doctrinal status quo.

Beating up on Harry Potter

You may recall that when the Harry Potter book series by J.K. Rowling became popular, some Christians took offense at the notion of children reading about wizardry and witchcraft. While librarians and educators across the country celebrated the fact that so many children had returned to reading through interest generated by the Harry Potter books, a few vocal Christians called for a ban on Harry Potter material because the books contained “magic, sorcery” and other material deemed to be “anti-Christian.”

What the anti- Potter clan fails to mention is that the Harry Potter books contain no more magic, wizardry and witchcraft than a similar series of books by C.S. Lewis, the Christian apologetic writer who authored the Chronicles of Narnia The Narnia books depict a world where witches rule, animals talk and a giant lion repeatedly rescues a band of children who achieve the status of royalty––a most undemocratic result. The seven books in the series combine to form an engaging fantasy that can be read as simple adventure stories or analyzed for spiritual symbolism in the characters. But there is no escaping the fact that sorcery and magic play a major part in the plotline where talking animals, transfigurations, dragons and Deep Magic figure prominently.

Belief bait

Author C.S. Lewis wrote the Chronicles of Narnia in a literary form that conveyed Christian values in a fantastical manner, the better to interest children. Christian apologists might argue that even though sorcery exists in the Chronicles of Narnia stories they should be given a pass because the plotline hews closely to the Passion Story of Jesus Christ. The main character in the Chronicles of Narnia is a lion named Aslan who sacrifices himself to save the world.

 Hobbits and Rings

J.R.R. Tolkien, author of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, was a collegiate classmate of C. S. Lewis, who used similar standards in writing the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Tolkien’s work which features magical elves, wizards and mythical creatures throughout. There is no question sorcery plays a major role in the plot line of Rings Trilogy, yet when movies based on the Tolkien works hit theaters, Christian scholars scrambled to highlight the spiritual message, not the sorcery it took to achieve victory in the end. It seems that when secular literature plays on fantasy, magic and sorcery, it is some kind of sin. But when books with apparently Christian underpinnings do the same, they get a pass. This double standard ranks as hypocrisy.

 Moral messages

The message that good conquers evil in the Harry Potter series matches that of the Narnia and Rings series. And since everyone in the Harry Potter series is doing magic, it cancels out the supposedly mythical advantage of being able to wave a wand to save the day. The issue of consequence may be that Harry Potter gets as much help solving problems from his associates as he does from some metaphysical force that can be equated to God. Perhaps it is the practical, humanist message of personal autonomy and self-actualization that is most offensive to Christian apologists.

Education matters 

There is a practical and valuable solution to these literary conundrums, and that is education. Any person who is taught the basic laws of science and physics knows that the type of magic in metaphysical trickery has been long proven to be impossible. This fact alone proves the Harry Potter books are based on fantasy. Yet the books honor a healthy and vital aspect of childhood: imagination.

Of course the religious apologist who believes strongly in miracles cannot logically explain why magic should be impossible for Harry Potter yet possible in the Bible.  This is where the worldviews of literary metaphor and biblical literalism collide. The advocates for biblical literalism would just as soon murder the apparently faithless fantasies of Harry Potter than be forced to prove the validity of their own set of miracles to the culture at large. In this way the evil riddle of literalism muddles the otherwise separate worlds of fact and fantasy, undermining the natural order of rational determinism founded on common sense, discernment and logic.

And who abided by that last bit of common sense? Why, none other than Jesus Christ himself, whose parables contained organic imagery that served to illustrate spiritual truths. 

Metaphor rules

As for the lyricism of Christmas itself, there is little harm in indulging a child’s fantasy, to a point. The legend of Santa Claus used to enliven the Christmas season is a case in point. Santa Claus is nothing more an overgrown magic elf with the power to fly, squeeze down chimneys and conjure Christmas presents at will. Talk about your potentially dangerous fantasies! Yet children sooner or later figure out that Santa Clause is not real, a rite of passage for many. The innocent game of charming children with the surprise of gifts that arrived in the night is a cherished tradition for many families.

But if you really analyze the Santa Claus myth, it is as goofy, fantastical and full of magic as Harry Potter. Yet the same people who willingly accept magic as harmless fantasy in association with their religious holiday somehow refuse to accept the role fantasy plays in literature and deem the Harry Potter series evil.

The propensity to project evil on the world is a hallmark of biblical and religious literalism. The most common targets happen to be competing story traditions. Meanwhile the implausible exaggerations of biblical storytelling are excused from critical scrutiny under protection of their exonerated status as “scripture.” Biblical literalism can be a pretty prejudicial worldview. Worse yet, it pretty much confuses the issue of truth no matter how you look at it. 

 

Portions of this blog post are excerpted from The Genesis Fix: A Repair Manual for Faith in the Modern Age by Christopher Cudworth

The Christmas message in red and green

/ Christopher Cudworth / Leave a comment

Red for grief and Green for Joy

With loss so much a part of the human condition, it should be no surprise that recognition of the pain and joy in life are woven into the symbols of our holiday traditions.

For billions of people around the world, the Christmas season is a period of joy in celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. The traditions surrounding Christmas now reach in many directions, but the most recognized aspect of the season is use of the colors red and green.

One cannot really consider the story of the life of Jesus Christ without acknowledging the grief that wraps itself around the intentional joy of his existence. His short life ended in a rather sudden crucifixion at the hands of authorities who viewed him as a somewhat enigmatic political figure. Some Gospels note that a sign was hung over the cross where he was hung by the wrists and ankles to die. The sign is reputed to have read “King of the Jews.”

The biblical accounts of the life of Jesus vary by author and Mark, Matthew and Luke seem to share some common source, but the message is clear in all three, along with the book of John, that something remarkable happened on earth in the form of a man who transcended all understanding.

The fact that he was given over to authorities to be slaughtered like a common thief makes one’s blood run thick. Jesus exposed the ugly intentions of the religious leaders in his own community who turned their faith tradition into political advantage. Jesus also made a mockery of the political authority of Pilate by not putting up resistance against a man who was carrying out the law with a fear for his own position in life. In both cases, Jesus represented the higher law of true morality.

Which is why red is an appropriate color for the Christmas season. It is both festive and threatening. We ignore the threat for the most part during the holidays because we center on the joys of family, togetherness and gift-giving. It’s absurd of course, and so typical of the human condition that we turn our heads from the pain to indulge in the joy. In so doing, we often miss the real message of the season.

That is grief wrapped in joy. The birth of Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecies and yet the life of the man between his early youth and his maturation into a ministry of salvation is hardly mentioned. We see Jesus as a 12-year-old wise beyond his years and suddenly he is performing miracles and preaching with authority.

Of course those of us with years under our belts feel the same way about life at times. Our youth and early marriage years are a blur of events and suddenly you’re dumped out the other side with grown children and a call to figure out what the rest of life is supposed to bring.

Into that picture comes another type of grief, that of regret or sentiment that wears us down if we are not careful to keep it in perspective.

At the age of 50 our friends start to suffer health problems and some may even die. Our mortality comes rushing around the corner to say “Look at me!”

And then another Christmas comes along. We immerse ourselves in the season and those of us lucky enough to have family make an effort to hug them close if we can. The month of December with all its red and green is a salve against the dark, short days of transition from fall to winter.

It is no wonder that early Christians essentially stole the “pagan” tradition of a winter festival. What a brilliant coup, for it gives us opportunity to turn grief into joy. Yet like a double helix, our grief and joy are always mixed in the Christmas season. Red and green wind round and round in lights and ribbons and songs that sound like those colors come to life. Many of our Christmas songs are plaintive and full of longing. “I’ll Be Home for Christmas.” And so on. 

For those of us who have experienced the loss of a very close loved one in the year leading up to Christmas, it is almost as if one of those important colors is missing. Sometimes it is hard to tell what is missing, the red or the green? We wander into the Christmas season wondering what it will bring. What do we do with our emotions? Point them toward the red, or the green? 

To let loss rule your soul is not the meaning of Christmas. Of course it is normal and good to miss those recently departed. If the loss was sudden it can seem like an Act of God. We tend to turn the entire operation over to faith or the fates at that point.

If the loss was prolonged, one may have grieved long and not known it. Then the loss can seem like a quiet liberation that you do not dare admit. Not out loud at least. To watch a loved one suffer is no joy at all. You think back to holidays when they wanted to feel joy and felt only pain. The forced smiles and quick hugs were given in hope. That is good. That is right. That is true. There is always hope in Christmas. That’s the whole point. The Christian message is that sorrow turns to joy beyond this life. 

Our family lost a wife and a mother this year. She was a friend to many, and she absolutely loved the Christmas season. It will be hard not to miss her. Yet the message of Christmas is that there is hope. It abides in the greens we hang and the trees we decorate. We try to move past the pain of death and into the joy of memories and hope their life conveyed. Life and death are a double helix too. We can’t experience one without knowing the other is present. 

The red and the green are interwoven. The Christmas season has meaning that at once contains both grief and joy and also releases it into the world. That is all we can hope for. All we can hope for indeed. 

From Django Unchained to Men In Black, a critical take on American Exceptionalism

/ Christopher Cudworth / Leave a comment
Django. Making escape from slavery look good.

Django. Making escape from slavery look good.

The Academy Award-winning movie Django Unchained, written and directed by the always violent mind of Quentin Tarentino, has a simple plot line. Slave gets rescued by a bounty hunter who needs him to identify some bad guys. Slave learns ways of bounty-hunting and takes it to a naturally new level. Slave earns possible freedom for himself and the love of his life if he helps pull off a ruse with a sickeningly manipulative and violent Southern plantation owner. Things go awry and people get shot. Things blow up. And Django, well, we wouldn’t want to spoil the ending. 

"The difference between you and me? I make this look good."

“The difference between you and me? I make this look good.”

The plotline of Django Unchained closely resembles another movie in which a black character emerges as an eminently good student. That movie would be Men In Black, with Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones. One of the key similarities is that the Jamie Foxx character in Django and the Will Smith character in MIB take their roles seriously with a compelling flair. I paraphrase, but the Smith character states, upon putting on the MIB suit, “The difference between you and me? I make this look good.”

The parallels are interesting because one movie is about the very earthly fact of slavery as a scourge upon the American conscience, while the MIB series is all about the fact that aliens live on earth without 99.99% of the population knowing. Even Dennis Rodman, Elvis and Sylvestor Stallone are implicated as aliens in the plot. 

It is interesting to realize that one movie, set in the past, points out that American history is not so exceptional as it is sordid. While the other movie, set in the present, lampoons the notion that our government and our culture are somehow superior by nature. 

In other words (and other worlds) American Exeptionalism is a literal and figurative bunch of hooey. 

In fact what you realize upon comparing these two movies is that America is exceptional despite its supposed superior foundations and conservatively interpreted Constitution. The only thing that has made America great over the years is a deep willingness in its most liberal citizens to an ultimate sense of justice. Liberalism, not exceptionalism, has been the true expression of America’s finest values. 

Django Unchained and Men In Black both illustrate that America’s black citizens have had to be exceptional models of patience and ingenuity with an almost magic flair for perseverance and creativity. The object of Django’s affections and the entire goal of the venture is to rescue his enslaved wife, a German-speaking woman named Brunhilde, which happens to link with the German legend of overcoming seemingly insurpassable odds in the name of love.

What better characterization of black culture can there be, except that it somehow must be defined by a legend from a primarily white culture. It is the ugly fact that both movies pair an initially clueless black character with an obvious savvy white character to educate an unleash the powers of the black man. And ultimately, the black woman. 

That’s the problem with the attitude toward equality of black people. It still needs nurturing somehow? Not at all, in truth. Nor does the equality of gays in America need a mentor. Or women. Or Mexican people. Immigrants of any kind. Yet that is our national narrative in some respect. The melting pot somehow harkens back to a white chef. 

And that is the sad underlying fact of so-called American Exceptionalism. That whites are the true core and fiber of American success. It held that blacks could fight in World War II and still come home to a highly segregated society where equality did not exist. And it still held that the 1960s were the ruination of a society with all the liberation of social and sexual mores. It holds that a certain religion has driven the God-given, blessed existence of America. 

American Exceptionalism then held forth that 9/11 was the greatest affront, an event that gave us permission to do whatever we wanted in the world, even to torture terror suspects in so-called “black sites” around the world. Do you start to see it all circle back into a cesspool of “exceptionalism” that is exceptional only in its arrogance and supposition that Americans can do no wrong. Not even when we enslave. Torture. Discriminate. Oppress. Even legislate these same evil practices into law. And in today’s culture! Years removed, we should be, from the need to use our government for religious and social prejudices. Yet some persist, denying basic civil rights and running political parties that make very public attempts to suppress the vote of minorities so that they can remain in power. And then complain about why people are not attracted to their “party.” Some party it is that cares only for its own right to rule without granting even basic human rights, denying health care coverage to millions under the so-called free market laws that also discriminate by conveying unfair economic advantage to those already in power. 

And what of the supposed unnecessary or gratuitous violence depicted in Django Unchained, and to a certain extent, even in Men In Black. Well, when you consider that our gun laws have led to a culture where more Americans have been killed––or killed themselves––through gun violence than all the soldiers that have died in our combined wars over the years, there is nothing gratuitous about the violence in Django Unchained at all. At least the movies showed those who got shot writhing in pain and cursing desperately. That’s the reality we seldom see in the movies. Gun violence maims and kills, and that is celebrated in video games that splatter brains and even the 5:00 news, where it leads when it bleeds. 

It’s about time we figured out that the glossed up image of America as a free society is still an illusion. There are people living in chains to this day. 

You can hear the fear in the voices of those who want to keep it that way. The increasingly shrill call by Rush Limbaugh to suppress women’s rights, and the barely disguised racism he shows toward President Barack Obama, to whom Limbaugh refers as “The Magic Negro.” 

That is exactly how dismissively the character played by Leonardo di Caprio speaks of black people in the movie Django Unchained. He speaks of the fact that only 1 in 10,000 “niggers” is exceptional, worthy of his respect in any way. The rest he sees fit to serve to the murderous dogs who tear apart a runaway slave in retribution for costing the di Caprio character his “investment” of $500. 

If that’s still the value of human life in the eyes of some who portend to lead America, then we’ve got enormous problems of exceptionalism that cannot be wished away by claims of patriotism or supposed righteousness. That kind of exceptionalism is the most disgusting form of hubris imaginable. 

It has taken years and decades and centuries of liberal salvation to bring America somewhat out of its own pit of racial selfishness and greed. Still we suppress minorities, and still we crash the economy through lack of jurisprudence so that the wealthy can gain more for their appetites. 

We’ve still got to make up our minds whether the nation is a plantation or reasonable place to live for the so-called “aliens” among us. The arc between Django Unchained and Men In Black has a lot to teach us if we care to learn the allegorical lesson. 

Falling short of that enlightenment would only be exceptionally stupid. 

 

 

ReBlog of “Why Evolution is True”, rebuttal to creationist

/ Christopher Cudworth / Leave a comment

The site Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne (author of a book of the same name) here takes on a creationist who rather purposefully takes items of debate about the influence of natural selection versus potentially equally influences such as genetic drift to make the “case” that scientists are in complete disagreement about how evolution actually works to generate new species. This is a blog that gets richer as you go. In the end, it provides a classic illustration of the honesty in critical thinking and how easily it can be distorted to reflect the goals of ideological thinking, such as so-called intelligent design theory and (urp) creationism. Both make a gross practice of cherry-picking real science to construct the science of denial (my term) which is no science at all, but is instead a worldview based on avoidance of fact. 

whyevolutionistrue's avatarWhy Evolution Is True

Even if you haven’t seen “Annie Hall,” you need to watch this video showing a wonderful scene from the movie. Woody Allen and Annie Hall (Diane Keaton) are in line for a movie, and a pompous academic behind them pontificates about the film in an extremely annoying way, mentioning Marshall McLuhan (a Sixties cultural icon). After Woody has had enough of the pomposity, he drags McLuhan out from behind a movie sign (yes, that’s the real McLuhan), and confronts the academic with him. McLuhan proceeds to tell the chastened academic that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and that he knows nothing of McLuhan’s work. Allen turns to the camera and says,  “Boy, if life were only like this!”

But it can be! Last week I received an email from young-earth creationist Paul Nelson, who works for the Discovery Institute, taking me to task for what he saw…

View original post 2,159 more words