Should the lyrics to David Byrne's song "Heaven" be anywhere close to being true, I for one do not intend to participate. Not that I don't have every intention of serving my fellow man during my time on the proverbial mortal coil. But I refuse to believe, as Mother Theresa expressed, that my 'reward' is in heaven or any other imaginary and ethereal place. And also while I'm here, I intend to fully enjoy the beauty, satisfaction and pleasure that the multitude of earthly wonders provides.
No one could make discussion of religion as entertaining as Christopher Hitchens. . .
(from JON WIENER, TRUTHDIG, CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS at http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1249)
". . . Wiener: Let's talk about the U.S. Polls show that 94 per cent of Americans believe in God, and 89 per cent believe in heaven; of those, three-fourths think they will go to heaven, but only 2 per cent think they will go to hell. This seems laughable, but what's the harm in people believing they will go to heaven after they die—and see their mothers there?
Hitchens: All you have to do is promise them 72 virgins, and they'll kill to get there. That's what's wrong with it, along with the fact that it's a solipsistic delusion. And the spreading of delusion in the end isn't a good thing, because credulous and deluded people are easy to exploit. People arise who are aware of that fact.
If belief in heaven was private, like the tooth fairy, I'd say fine. But tooth fairy supporters don't come around to your house and try to convert you. They don't try to teach your children stultifying pseudo-science in school. They don't try to prevent access to contraception. The religious won't leave us alone. These are not just private delusions, they're ones they want to inflict on other people.
If religion were true, there would be no need for politics; you'd only need to have faith.
Wiener: The final killer argument of your critics is that Hitler and Stalin were not religious. The worst crimes of the 20th century did not have a religious basis. They came from political ideology.
Hitchens: That's easy. Hitler never abandoned Christianity and recommends Catholicism quite highly in "Mein Kampf." Fascism, as distinct from National Socialism, was in effect a Catholic movement.
Wiener: What about Stalin? He wasn't religious.
Hitchens: Stalin—easier still. For hundreds of years, millions of Russians had been told the head of state should be a man close to God, the czar, who was head of the Russian Orthodox Church as well as absolute despot. If you're Stalin, you shouldn't be in the dictatorship business if you can't exploit the pool of servility and docility that's ready-made for you. The task of atheists is to raise people above that level of servility and credulity. No society has gone the way of gulags or concentration camps by following the path of Spinoza and Einstein and Jefferson and Thomas Paine. . . "
. . . want to reconsider if this is YOUR current candidate of choice. . .
(from Michael Cohen guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 June 2012 13.31 EDT) "Granted, presidential candidates are no strangers to disingenuous or overstated claims; it's pretty much endemic to the business. But (Mitt) Romney is doing something very different and far more pernicious. Quite simply, the United States has never been witness to a presidential candidate, in modern American history, who lies as frequently, as flagrantly and as brazenly as Mitt Romney. . . In fact, lying is really the only appropriate word to use here, because, well, Romney lies a lot. . .
In his book, appropriately titled "No Apologies", Romney argues the following: "Never before in American history has its president gone before so many foreign audiences to apologize for so many American misdeeds, both real and imagined. It is his way of signaling to foreign countries and foreign leaders that their dislike for America is something he understands and that is, at least in part, understandable." Nothing about this sentence is true.
President Obama never went around the world and apologized for America – and yet, even after multiple news organizations have pointed out this is a "pants on fire" lie, Romney keeps making it. Indeed, the "Obama apology tour", along with the president bowing down to the King of Saudi Arabia, are practically the lodestars of the GOP's criticism of Obama's foreign policy performance (the Saudi thing isn't true either).
The economy is really where the truth takes its greatest vacation in Romney world. First, there is Romney's claim that the 2009 stimulus passed by Congress and signed by President Obama "didn't work". According to Romney, "that stimulus didn't put more private-sector people to work." While one can quibble over whether the stimulus went far enough, the idea that it didn't create private-sector jobs has no relationship to reality. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus bill created more than 3m jobs – a view shared by 80% of economists polled by the Chicago Booth School of Business (only 4% disagree).
And the list goes on. Romney has accused Obama of raising taxes – in reality, they've gone down under his presidency, and largely because of that stimulus bill that Romney loves to criticize. . .
Then, there is the recent Romney nugget that the Obama administration passed Obamacare with the full knowledge that it "would slow down the economic recovery in this country" and that the White House "knew that before they passed it". It's an argument so clearly spun from whole cloth that according to Jonathan Chait, the acerbic political columnist for New York Magazine, Romney is "Just Making Stuff Up Now". . .
This is perhaps the most interesting and disturbing element of Romney's tireless obfuscation: that even when corrected, it has little impact on the presumptive GOP nominee's behavior. This is happening at a time when fact-checking operations in major media outlets have increased significantly, yet that appears to have no effect on the Romney campaign.
What is the proper response when, even after it's pointed out that the candidate is not telling the truth, he keeps doing it? Romney actually has a telling rejoinder for this. When a reporter challenged his oft-stated assertion that President Obama had made the economy worse (factually, not correct), he denied ever saying it in the first place. It's a lie on top of a lie. . . "
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
You can NOW download
your
very own copy of Ray Jozwiak's
newest release:
AMBIENCE & WINE
". . . If it is in the Bible, it must be true. . ."
(from Howard Bess)
". . . In the past this attitude has led to advocacy of slavery, segregation, subordination of women and corporal punishment for children. It has been only when these Biblical teachings were challenged and set aside that justice has prevailed. The latest challenge to Bible standards is the current debate about Biblical marriage and same-sex marriages. The Bible standard advocates are calling for Biblical standards for marriage.
Many of the relevant passages are found in the book of Leviticus. The place of women is set out as a part of the property codes. Women were property. Men were owners of women. A man could own as many women as he could afford. Polygamy was the standard, not monogamy. Men owned women in three categories. They owned wives; they owned concubines; and they owned slaves. All were available to their owner for his sexual use. Most of the women involved were little more than breeding stock. These standards were prevalent all over the Middle East and reflect Mesopotamian and Babylonian traditions.
Over the centuries, custom changed and, while polygamy was allowed and was common, cultural pressures and standards evolved toward monogamy. One standard did not change. Women in Jesus’ day were still seen as property. Marriages were still arranged. A woman had no voice in the acquiring of a husband. A young woman was provided for marriage for what was deemed the best interests of the father.
During the times of Jesus, the life of many women in a poverty economy was precarious. A man could divorce a woman by declaring his freedom from her. The worst scenario for a woman was to have no owner. The so-called prostitutes that hung around Jesus were not prostitutes in a modern sense. They were vulnerable women who had no owner. Evidently Jesus accepted them and provided them with a level of protection and security. One of the criticisms of Jesus was that he associated with prostitutes.
To his credit, the Apostle Paul declared that in Christ there was no longer slave or free, male or female. In spite of the acceptance by Jesus and the declaration of Paul, the early church embraced and perpetuated patriarchal dominance and female submission. The Leviticus standard of male ownership of wives continued in most of Christianity until the 20th century. It now seems incredible that women in the United States did not have a vote until the 19th Amendment was adopted in 1920.
I scratch my head when I hear someone declare that we need to return to Biblical standards for marriage.
Around the world and within the United States the understandings of marriage and marriage practices are hugely diverse. In that diversity a new question has been inserted in the public discussion. Should two persons of the same sex be allowed to marry? It is a subject that is never addressed in the Bible. It is a modern question that has evolved over the past 50 years. The Bible is a collection of ancient writings. I would not expect any of these writings to address a question that is so recent. Bible quotations seem so very irrelevant. . . "
". . . Is there no standard for marriage that can be embraced in our modern world? I suspect that diversity of understandings will win the day. The need to formalize the attractions that we have for a loving companion will not go away. . ."
[The Rev. Howard Bess is a retired American Baptist minister, who lives in Palmer, Alaska. His email address is HYPERLINK "mailto:hdbss@mtaonline.net" hdbss@mtaonline.net]
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
Also download
your
very own copy of
AMBIENCE & WINE
by Ray
Jozwiak
. . . already read the story of 'Jerry' that I posted yesterday and I want to be clear that I posted it for the value I see in it and by no means whatsoever take credit for the composition of it. I have seen it, as I'm sure you have, numerous times on the internet and have received it by email, but have never learned the author of it. Well, CHEERS to her or him.
I did add the note at the conclusion myself. The originals say something like, "Now you have two choices to make (which interestingly enough is grammatically incorrect) : 1. You can delete this message or 2. You can forward it to someone you care about. I hope you will choose #2. I did.
First time I read the story, I expected the ending to say, "Forward this to XXX amount of people or you will have seven years bad luck" or something to that effect.
