What a real war on Christmas would look like

Many conservative commentators claim that there is a "war" on Christmas. I don't agree, for the reasons cited by Alex DiBranco at Alternet. Reading the Alternet article caused me wonder what a real war on Christmas would look like. A real war would involve governments and individuals invading private residences and churches to shut down Christmas celebrations, religious services and even discussions about the meaning of Christmas. A real war on Christmas would involve a systematic vandalizing of the Christmas decorations that are ubiquitous at this time of year.  I have not yet read of anything like that happening in the United States.  A real war on Christmas would involve amending federal law so that Christmas Day is no longer a legal holiday. It is a stunning fact, however that those who claim to believe that Jesus was "divine" rarely talk about Jesus except when they attend their churches. They do say "Merry Christmas"  to everyone in hearing range, but they rarely discuss their religious beliefs in public at any time of the year, even at Christmas, allegedly one of the holiest of holy days. Instead, 99% of their "Christmas" discussions are about shopping for goods and services, attending parties, football, entertaining others, preparing food, visiting with friends and family and traveling.  Based on the actions of most Americans, 99% of "Christmas" is not about Jesus, and that's the way they like it based on their willing participation in many decades of non-religious Christmas activities.  Based on the above observations, the real "War on Christmas" is being conducted by purported Christians, most of whom believe in belief in God rather than actually believe in God.  I'm not criticizing them for celebrating, only for claiming that Christmas is about Jesus when any diligent Martian anthropologist who visited Earth would quickly conclude otherwise.  Those Martian scientists would also wonder why a society that fervently believed in the love of Jesus so intensely celebrated war, spying and hatred of Muslim neighbors. I suspect that it is out of frustration regarding their own religious doubts that conservatives (or more accurately, the conservative media) howl that governments, merchants and non-Christians should publicly espouse pre-packaged Christian religious beliefs.  It makes Christmas Apologists feel holy to force others to give verbal homage to unsubstantiated stories by uttering "Merry Christmas!"   As usual, it is easier to fight for a cause than to actually believe in it.

Continue ReadingWhat a real war on Christmas would look like

Thomas Jefferson’s Bible

Thomas Jefferson created his own version of the Bible, which is currently featured at the Smithsonian:

[Thomas] Jefferson was devoted to the teachings of Jesus Christ. But he didn’t always agree with how they were interpreted by biblical sources, including the writers of the four Gospels, whom he considered to be untrustworthy correspondents. So Jefferson created his own gospel by taking a sharp instrument, perhaps a penknife, to existing copies of the New Testament and pasting up his own account of Christ’s philosophy, distinguishing it from what he called “the corruption of schismatizing followers.”

.   .   .

Much of the material Jefferson elected to not include related miraculous events, such as the feeding of the multitudes with only two fish and five loaves of barley bread; he eschewed anything that he perceived as “contrary to reason.” His idiosyncratic gospel concludes with Christ’s entombment but omits his resurrection. He kept Jesus’ own teachings, such as the Beatitude, “Blessed are the peace-makers: for they shall be called the children of God.” The Jefferson Bible, as it’s known, is “scripture by subtraction,” writes Stephen Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University.
Here is a link to the Smithsonian's copy of Jefferson's Bible.

Continue ReadingThomas Jefferson’s Bible

Greatest country in the world?

To what extent do candidates for President need to declare their belief in "American Exceptionalism"? More specifically, is the United States of America the greatest country in the world? If ever patriotism dovetails with religion, this has got to be the place, because the typical user of these phrases has no interest in real world factual inquiry regarding either the United States or of other countries. In other words, those who use this phrase almost never engage in any comparisons based on evidence, yet the use of these phrases denotes that a factual comparison has been conducted. At his well-researched article at Huffpo, Jerome Karabel explores the historical use of the term "American Exceptionalism."

What might be called the "U.S. as Number One" version of "American exceptionalism" enjoys broad popular support among the public. According to a Gallup poll from December 2010, 80 percent of Americans agree that "because of the United States' history and its Constitution ... the United States has a unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world." Support for this proposition varied somewhat along party lines, but not by much: 91 percent of Republicans agreed, but so, too, did 73 percent of Democrats. For President Obama, the issue of American exceptionalism could be his Achilles' heel. In that same 2010 Gallup poll, Americans were asked which recent presidents believed that "the United States has a unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world." Reagan was highest at 86 percent, followed by Clinton at 77 percent, and George W. Bush with 74 percent; President Obama was a distant fourth at 58 percent. Obama's vulnerability on the issue may be traced in part to his response to a question in April 2009 from a Financial Times reporter about whether he subscribed, "as many of your predecessors have, to the school of American exceptionalism." "I believe in American exceptionalism," declared Obama, "just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Though taken out of context, the remark serves as Exhibit A for Republicans making the case that Obama does not believe in "American exceptionalism" and, by extension, in America's greatness.

Continue ReadingGreatest country in the world?

Haven’t you ever read . . . ?

I am often asked whether I've read a particular book, and I usually haven't because there are a gazillion new books published every year. Here's what I say: "No, I haven't read THAT book. Thank you for your suggestion." Here's what I think: Please quit acting as though I haven't been doing any serious reading just because I haven't read the book that YOU just told me to read. For the past 20 years, I have been on a quest to grasp a somewhat detailed understanding of human animals. This has been a rather intense pursuit, jump-started (for about 5 years beginning in 2006) by my auditing of more than 30 hours of graduate level cognitive science courses at nearby Washington University in St. Louis. During the past 20 years, I have read almost entirely non-fiction, and I've been rather careful to limit my topics mostly to the topics represented by the books below. Recently, I decided to inventory what I have been reading. I'm not entirely sure why I did this. Perhaps it is because the end of the year is approaching, which tends to be a time for reflection regarding who we are and where we are headed. What better way for a writer to determine his direction based upon the books he has especially admired for the past two decades? Thus I took an inventory of the non-fiction books I have read that have significantly influenced me. I tend to make many notes on the books I own (I haven't started into electronic books yet), and I retain them in my "library," which is actually a storage room that contain lots of other household items. Yesterday, I ventured into my library with the intent of documenting the books that have especially impressed and challenged me. I ended up selecting less than 20% of the books I own for this honor. What follows below is a list of such books, all of which I have read over the past 20 years. It is not a perfect list. I am sure that there are many dozens of other books that I have overlooked. I probably own 500 books that I have only browsed so far, or not even begun, yet look promising. I'm more and more convinced that I will never read most of my unread books unless I win the lottery and retire. I try to not keep a steady course, though my quest seems hopeless. I'm reminded of this hopelessness every time I stumble on a pile of 30 unread and partially read books by the side of my bed. In my list below, I have only included those books that I have actually read. I would highly recommend any of them. I have not included in many other books I have read that I would consider merely been useful or "good." As I made my list, it occurred to me that I have been greatly influenced by more than books. I have read far more pages of online or in paper magazine articles than book pages. More recently, I've been impressed by many video and in-person presentations/lectures. I have also corresponded with many people over the years on these topics, including many of the authors of the books in my list. I've poured immense time into my reading and writing. It surprised me how much material I have reviewed in 20 years, considering that I also have a day job as a consumer lawyer and also try to spend time with my family. It occurs to me that I am extremely lucky to be living in a time and place where I can benefit from so many incredible ideas developed be others. Each of these authors spends his or her entire life working hard, and then I simply scoop up the their life's work by investing a mere day or two or reading. I have mentioned many of these books and authors in the five years that I've been writing at this website; I find that writing comments about these book helps me to absorb the material better. It also occurs to me that I would not be at all who I am had I not seriously read the books in my list. I make reference to many of these ideas many times each day. To the extent that I have been able to come up with interesting ideas, it is quite likely that "my" ideas came, directly or indirectly, from these books, and that I am thus standing on the shoulders of giants (there I go again with the borrowing). Without further ado, here many of my favorite non-fiction books, broken into a few general categories: [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingHaven’t you ever read . . . ?

Wrapping up Christopher Hitchens

Recently deceased Christopher Hitchens is about as difficult to categorize as they come. At Big Think, Adam Lee offers a well-written mixed-bag tribute. For those unfamiliar with Hitchens' in-your-face style of iconoclastic writing, consider his article at Slate, "Mommie Dearest: The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud."

MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit. But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility? The rich world has a poor conscience, and many people liked to alleviate their own unease by sending money to a woman who seemed like an activist for "the poorest of the poor." People do not like to admit that they have been gulled or conned, so a vested interest in the myth was permitted to arise, and a lazy media never bothered to ask any follow-up questions. Many volunteers who went to Calcutta came back abruptly disillusioned by the stern ideology and poverty-loving practice of the "Missionaries of Charity," but they had no audience for their story. George Orwell's admonition in his essay on Gandhi—that saints should always be presumed guilty until proved innocent—was drowned in a Niagara of soft-hearted, soft-headed, and uninquiring propaganda.

Continue ReadingWrapping up Christopher Hitchens