On reclaiming the United States

Last week, I had the opportunity to attend a fund-raising Gala for Missouri GRO (Grass Roots Organizing). GRO is an impressive progressive organization. It was founded by a small handful of rural activists, mostly women who, according to a history of the organization written by Tony Pecinovsky, "wanted more accountability from politicians and big businesses alike." Most of its members are people who live in rural Missouri, "people who live in small towns not necessarily known for their progressive politics." GRO is part of a nationwide network of progressive organizations, National People's Action, that has coordinated local activist organizations pushing hard for health care reform, Wall Street financial reform and other important issues. GRO is anything but shy. Consider this account (from the literature handed out at the gala event last week):

GRO carried out a winter-long anti-payday lending campaign that backed QC Holdings [Owner of the company that runs one of the biggest payday lending chains in the country] into a corner of public scrutiny and legislative pressure. On April Fools' Day we learned the Missouri legislature gave the payday loan industry a solo "hearing," led by theVice Chair of the Financial Institutions Committee, who owns a payday loan store inCabool, Missouri. The industry went totally unchallenged. They took over our public domain. So we decided to take over QC Holding's private domain in corporate words, Overland Park, Kansas. . . . We mobilized all150+ of our people up 15 floors on elevators to take over the corporate penthouse suite of the Missouri's largest payday lending operation.

In short, GRO has made a lot of noise where corporate power is runing amok. Because of this moxie, GRO has earned the respect of many in Missouri and outside of Missouri. At its fund-raising gala last week, GRO filled a large downtown St. Louis hotel ballroom with supporters who gathered to hear the keynote speech delivered by John Nichols, Washington Correspondent of The Nation Magazine. Nichols is also co-founder (with Robert McChesney) of Free Press, one of the country's leading media reform organizations. Prior to speech, John Nichols gave me permission to videotape his speech so that I could make it available here at Dangerous Intersection. In Part I of his speech, Nichols makes the argument that we do not really have a debt crisis. He passionately explains what kind of crisis we actually do have. In Part II of his speech, Nichols takes a hard critical look at the United States Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. FEC. Nichols reminded the audience that the first American tea party was an anti-corporate tea party. Toward the end of Part II, Nichols argues that in order to take our country back, we will need an anti-corporate revolution-- we will need to go around the "corrupted" United States Supreme Court by organizing at the grass roots and enacting a Constitutional amendment declaring that "No corporation is the equal of a citizen" and "Citizens are supreme."

Continue ReadingOn reclaiming the United States

Things I don’t have to think about…

From Whatever. "Today I don’t have to think about those who hear “terrorist” when I speak my faith. Today I don’t have to think about men who don’t believe no means no. Today I don’t have to think about how the world is made for people who move differently than I do. Today I don’t have to think about whether I’m married, depending on what state I’m in. Today I don’t have to think about how I’m going to hail a cab past midnight." "Today I don’t have to think about whether store security is tailing me. Today I don’t have to think about the look on the face of the person about to sit next to me on a plane. Today I don’t have to think about eyes going to my chest first. Today I don’t have to think about what people might think if they knew the medicines I took. Today I don’t have to think about getting kicked out of a mall when I kiss my beloved hello." "Today I don’t have to think about if it’s safe to hold my beloved’s hand. Today I don’t have to think about whether I’m being pulled over for anything other than speeding. Today I don’t have to think about being classified as one of “those people.” Today I don’t have to think about making less than someone else for the same job at the same place. Today I don’t have to think about the people who stare, or the people who pretend I don’t exist." [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingThings I don’t have to think about…

God is good

Prologue: This post does not apply to Christians who conclude that "God" was evil to the extent that "He" killed babies. Nor does it apply to Christians who don't believe that the Old Testament is literally true, and further conclude that "God" never actually killed babies as described in the Old Testament. In short, this post applies only to those who believe that A) God really killed numerous little babies, and B) that God is nonetheless "good." Whenever I hear believers proclaim that “God” is “good” I am puzzled. How could it possibly be that an all-knowing and omnipotent being could engage in the many atrocities attributed to “God” in the bible? For example, how can killing little babies ever be considered to be good? Here are 1,199 more examples of cruelty from the Bible. Anyone but “God” who engaged in such behavior would be universally proclaimed to be evil, not good. There’s no way to avoid this conundrum for believers, especially for Bible literalists. The God they repeatedly praise purportedly killed many thousands of innocent people, including countless numbers of babies. Consider also, that other Bible passages show little regard for the lives of infants and fetuses. The above passages cause me to consider this question: Do believers sincerely believe their claims that “God” is “good,” or are they merely being practical in the face of the threat of hell? To what extent is it that it is the perceived threat of hell causes it to seem “true” that a baby-killing God is “good”? Sam Harris raises a similar issue at page 33 of his new book, The Moral Landscape (2010):

What if a more powerful God would punish us for eternity for following Yahweh’s law? Would it then make sense to follow Yahweh’s law “for its own sake”? The inescapable fact is that religious people are as eager to find happiness and to avoid misery as anyone else: many of them just happen to believe that the most important changes in conscious experience occur after death (i.e., in heaven or in hell).

Indeed, what if a bigger stronger god named Kyle came along and smote Yahweh, showing all the world Yahweh’s lifeless supernatural “corpse” while declaring “God is Dead!” (Were this ever to happen, it would likely make atheist Friederick Nietzsche jostle in his grave). Wouldn’t believers quickly modify their existing hymnals, scratching out “God” and inserting “Kyle”? What might they do to the traditional hymn, “God is so Good”? Something like this? [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingGod is good

The rapid rise of churchless believers

Large numbers of people now leaving churches nonetheless continue to believe in a god. This article in the L.A. Times indicates that the marriage of conservative politics and religion is driving them away from church:

The most rapidly growing religious category today is composed of those Americans who say they have no religious affiliation. While middle-aged and older Americans continue to embrace organized religion, rapidly increasing numbers of young people are rejecting it. As recently as 1990, all but 7% of Americans claimed a religious affiliation, a figure that had held constant for decades. Today, 17% of Americans say they have no religion, and these new "nones" are very heavily concentrated among Americans who have come of age since 1990. Between 25% and 30% of twentysomethings today say they have no religious affiliation — roughly four times higher than in any previous generation.

Continue ReadingThe rapid rise of churchless believers

Yes . . . Yes.

Back in the 1970's I was quite impressed with the musical innovation of the group Yes. I haven't followed them for decades. Tonight, to my surprise, I see that they were still performing as recently as 2003 (and the band is still performing 40 years after its start, though with some line-up changes). The following video contains a tune called "And You and I," just a tad laid back from the original version. The musicians include Jon Anderson, Steve Howe, Chris Squire, Rick Wakeman and Alan White. If you'd like to follow the lyrics in writing, click through to Youtube and listen.

Continue ReadingYes . . . Yes.