Tuesday, June 7, 2022

Critical Thinking #9

 Critical Thinking  #9   Explanations

By definition, explanations start with a conclusion and then propose a reason for why that is so. The difference between an argument and an explanation is significant but often difficult to recognize. Maybe this will help. An argument asks: how do you know that? An explanation tells us why something is so. Casual explanations suggest particular physical or behavioral phenomenon--one thing causes another. Explanations begin with hypotheses and work their way through implausible to plausible explanations. Explanations look at evidence and use it to evaluate the hypotheses.

There are helpful qualities of explanations that contain general standards to guide our thinking and use. For example, explanations should be consistent, internally (logical) and externally (not contradict the natural world). A second standard is falsifiability. They must always be able to withstand scrutiny and remain truthful. Thirdly, the scope of the explanation must be sufficiently inclusion so as not to focus on an exception rather than a rule. Simplicity is always the best guide. The more complex an explanation, the more difficult it is to comprehend and drag in irrelevant information. And last, harking back to our look at fallacies, explanations legitimately use causality instead of correlation.

Scientific explanations are a category all their own. This process of thinking uses causal explanations and hypotheses to discover empirical facts. The heart of this process, the driving force, is the scientific method. If the subject interests you, I recommend Ian Barbour's Religion and Science for a fascinating history of its development. The scientific method is a universally accepted and used process in human kind's search for understanding of the natural world. It involves a five step process:

identify the problem

gather evidence and make observations

form a hypothesis

test the hypothesis--over and over

analyze the results objectively

Beware of bias that leads to false conclusions. Science does not evaluate subjective interpretations or value judgments. Learn the difference between science and pseudoscience.

Statistics are another category. Distinguish between qualitative and quantitative surveys. If you use them, they must be reliable and valid. Surveys can be: too small, biased, use manipulative questions, be based on guesswork, and miss contextual information.

There is a practical application for all this. For example, applied critically, you would understand that vaccines do not cause autism and covid vaccinations do not cause sterility.


Friday, March 25, 2022

Critical Thinking #8

 Critical Thinking #8   Fallacies

An argument can be sound (have the proper structure of premises and conclusion) and valid (premises are true and the conclusion logically follows), but if one does not use logical reasoning to offer a conclusion, the argument is wrong, incorrect.

"A logical fallacy is a type of flawed reasoning, and a fallacious argument is an argument that contains a fallacy."

We prepare ourselves to argue as critical thinkers by:

> becoming familiar with common fallacies

>evaluating the assumptions in an argument

>finding the conclusion and determining if the premises are relevant to it

>looking for things that distract from the main point

Toward that end I want to identify and define twelve of the most common fallacies that prevent reasonable debate and keep us from coming to better solutions.

1. Red Herring:  this is when an arguer raises an irrelevant side issue to distract the listener(s) from the main topic under consideration. You do not argue economics by getting side tracked discussing Nobel Prize winners.

2. Appeal to Popularity:  here is when the arguer tries to strengthen the argument by claiming "everybody" shares the belief, preference, or habit. Individual responsibility is ignored.

3. Slippery Slope:  the arguer claims one event will lead to a chain of events that result in an undesired outcome. There is no reason to assume the sequence will happen.

4.Appeal to Ignorance:  the arguer claims that since something cannot be disproved, it must be true. The arguer is avoiding the responsibility to provide evidence if their claim is to be accepted.

5. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"):  this is the classic confusion of correlation and causation. This is a questionable cause-and-effect relationship. Just because two events are correlated, it does not necessarily mean one caused the other.

6. Straw Man:  this occurs when the arguer distorts the opposing position and then presents evidence to knock down the distorted argument rather than the real one. The purpose is to misrepresent the motives of the opposition, distorting its position.

7. Ad Hominem:  this happens when the arguer attacks the opponent's personal characteristics, qualifications, or circumstances. It attacks a person rather than providing evidence for an argument.

8. Begging the Question: listening carefully, one can hear the similarity between premises and conclusion; one simply repeats the other. The truth of the premise is assumed to be true by the conclusion. This fallacy just repeats the claim twice.

9. Weak Analogy: this fallacy occurs when the comparison of two things is irrelevant or so weak as to be meaningless.

10. Unqualified Authority:  the arguer tries to prove a point by appealing to someone who is not an expert in the field or is unqualified to give advice that something is true. A baseball player probably would not be performing brain surgery.

11. Appeal to Emotion:  the arguer tries to persuade by appealing to fear, pity, patriotism, or flattery instead of using rational arguments. Emotion is useful but not strong enough to stand on its own as evidence.

12. False Dichotomy:  this fallacy falsely uses an either/or choice. The arguer offers a situation with only two possible outcomes, and one of them is overwhelmingly preferable, maybe even opposites.

If you accept premises without question or verification, you might end up agreeing to something you would not otherwise.

Wednesday, March 9, 2022

Critical Thinking #7

Critical Thinking #7  Arguments

It has been awhile since my last blog. Our world seems to be going to hell in a hand basket, what with white supremist, bigoted, domestic terrorists on the one hand and evil, authoritarian despots attacking global democracy on the other. I remain an optimist, affirming the good in people and the energy in youth. That's why I continue to teach and off this crash course on critical thinking, believing it can help us navigate out way through today's challenges.

So, lesson #7 Arguments. Our world is very polarized, full of arguments. That is why it is necessary and important to stop and define the word. I am not talking about the emotional screaming we do everyday, failing to listen to others and refusing to seek understanding within the chaos. Rather, here and in the classroom and, hopefully, in the circles we can influence, an argument is better understood as a "process." It is an attempt to work our way through our disagreements to arrive at a better solution. It is collaboration, not competition. Seen this way, we humanize those with whom we disagree instead of demonizing them.

An argument is a process, most effective when others can understand how we got to the conclusion we did. It technically has two parts: premises/reasons/evidence that lead to a conclusion or claim. Arguments preferably have more than one premise but definitely only one conclusion.

There are two types of arguments: (1) deductive arguments go from general premises to a specific conclusion. If the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true. Deductive arguments offer certainty. (2) inductive arguments offer reasonable certainty. They go from specific premises to general conclusions. These premises offer some evidence. Inductive arguments rely on the quality of the evidence. Having said this, you might recognize that the scientific method relies heavily on inductive reasoning/arguments. 

Two more terms are relevant here. A SOUND argument is one that has the correct structure (premises that flow into a conclusion) and all the premises are true. A VALID argument is one in which the conclusion logically follows from the premises. If a premise is not true, the argument is not sound but can be valid. NOTICE THE NECESSITY OF VERIFYING THE TRUTH OF PREMISES!

One other word before leaving this step in critical thinking. An enthymeme is an unstated assumption. It can cause horrendous problems when unchallenged. They can be true, but not always.

In conclusion, how do we engage in civil arguments?

Listen, really listen to understand.

When engaged in the process, look for indicator words such as "therefore" and "in conclusion."

Ask yourself and the other, "what is the main point?"

Examine the claims, the language, and the quality of the evidence.

(1) are the claims reasonable? (2) do the premises support the conclusion? (3) how relevant are the types of evidence used? (4) how strong is the evidence? (5) what is the tone [combative, compelling, pleading] of the author of the evidence? (6) is the language emotive? (7) is the evidence credible and the source of the evidence credible?

Do I have the intellectual humility to admit when I am wrong? The point of an argument is not to win but to come to a better understanding.


Saturday, January 15, 2022

Critical Thinking #6

 Critical Thinking #6: Evidence

We go to sources to gather evidence, and evidence is what we use to decide which claims to believe or dismiss. We use evidence in our arguments to arrive at conclusions. Let's pause for important clarification.

For most of us for most of the time, arguments are emotional "discussions" we have with others to get what we want, to bring people to our point of view, to brow beat others without ever listening to diverse points of view. In critical thinking, arguments have a different purpose and a very different definition. This requires an adjustment in our thinking and approach to disagreements with others. Here we use and understand an argument as a process, a process to come to a better understanding, a corrected understanding, a movement toward constructive communication and interaction. In critical thinking, arguments use premises to arrive at  rational, defensible conclusions.

Evidence supports claims; it provides background to the issue under consideration, history and facts. Reliable evidence shares experts' insights and carefully defines terms. Unless participants share the same definitions, they will never communicate effectively. Evidence also enables debates of surrounding topics. So the question now is: what is evidence?

We begin with statistics and data. These are verifiable, provable, and can be confirmed. Be careful: numbers don't lie but liars use numbers. Less reliable but often helpful are anecdotes and eye witness accounts. Their strength is limited and not subject to peer review. However, expert testimony is. Sure, experts can agree, but experts' claims are in the public domain and available for confirmation or rejection. Scientific journals and academic studies are helpful to those willing to do the work. Newspapers, government websites, and personal blogs are easily accessible but should never be cited as "authoritative."

Some quick guidelines to help evaluate the integrity of our evidence:

Is the source a reliable authority?

Is the information current and up to date?

Does it provide sufficient information to justify its use?

Have you used an adequate variety of sources and opinions?

Have you weighed the counterarguments present in the evidence cited?

As you can see, the work of a critical thinker is not easy, but the rewards are immeasurable!

Wednesday, January 12, 2022

Critical Thinking #5

 Where do you get your information? Your next door neighbor? Your weird Uncle Bob? Fox News? MSNBC? How do you know who to believe? Do you limit yourself to one source or try to balance your information by going to multiple sources? Do you live in a bubble or scour the landscape for different viewpoints?

From the beginning of my course, but especially here, I challenge students to always ask two questions: (1) is what I'm hearing credible? and (2) is the source of what I am hearing credible? In fact, this is the entire course in a nut shell. If we could always remember to ask these questions, a lot of conflict could be avoided and a lot of misinformation stopped in its tracks.

In today's world there are basically two sources of information, digital and print. Both come with lots of questions needing to be asked. What "kind" (more later) of information is it? What is its frequency? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? What is the intended audience? Public? Academic? Professional? etc? What form does it come in? "News"? Magazine? Academic journal? Book? If the information is digital, pay attention to the "source."  .com?  .gov?  .edu?  .org?  These designations give us a world of information. If you live in a digital world, do you rely on websites? Social media? You do know that Wikipedia is subject to public editing?

Fake news is pervasive, and its consequences are extremely detrimental to common discourse and public goodwill.  We wake up to and go to bed with lies, intentional and unintentional. Technology has made it possible to photo shop and manipulate the visual support used to disseminate the fake and malicious efforts to confuse the public. One lie, despite expert, authoritative, legitimate verification, has convinced one third of this nation that the last presidential election was corrupt and wrong. On another issue, many people do not recognize satire or understand the role of sponsored content in the information they receive.

Here is a simple test we might employ. SIFT: Stop before sharing, Investigate the source of the information, Find other trusted sources that verify or correct, Trace the original to its origin.

A desirable characteristic of a critical thinker is intellectual objectivity. Never easy--always worth the effort!!

Thursday, January 6, 2022

Critical Thinking #4

 Picking up where we left off---by the way, happy holidays whatever your preference and happy new year---the next section (Module 4) of the course focuses on Language.

Martin Heidegger, one of the 20th century's philosophical giants, in his early Being and Time, called language the "house of being." It's heady and complex, but here is where he claims to find the uniqueness of humans. Not ignoring communication methods among other species,  Graeber and Wengrow (The Dawn of Everything) marvel at the similarities of verbal communication across the global development of hominid species. Language is how we find and give meaning to the world around us through denotation (specific and literal) and connotation (meaning and context) usage.

Language falls into two primary categories, form and intent. The former is the structure (subject, verb, adjective, etc.) and the latter is the implied meaning behind the vocabulary used. Careless use of words can lead to confusion through what is known as vagueness and ambiguity. Examples would be "It is a pleasant day," whatever that means, and "I ran after the robber wearing my pajamas," unsure which of us is wearing a pair of my pajamas.

After we have spent time building the broad understanding, we turn our attention to descriptive features and uses of the language that shapes our world. When we can master and recognize these, we are better prepared to recognize how others use language and avoid being manipulated by their deliberate misuse, unintentional or malicious. Those features include:

Tone: the attitude or atmosphere embedded in the words.

Emotive use: language that produces emotional reactions.

Euphemism: words that soften the impact of the situation (pink slip for being fired).

Dysphemism: words that harden and inflame (terrorist for freedom fighter).

Innuendo: indirect accusation without evidence.

Loaded question: have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Weasel words: mercurial and indefinite (might help you lose weight).

Proof surrogate: implied evidence without providing it (we all know she enabled his activity).

Listen to what politicians say and claim. Listen to the wording of the commercial and read the disclaimers. Learn to discern what is said from what is not said. We all use the same words, patriots and autocrats, but what is believable, truthful, constructive, freeing?

I ask my classes to do a little research to illustrate how we use words depending on the situation and context. Just four words to make them think: argument, theory, critical, and freedom. The Greeks actually had four different words for "love" in an effort to reduce confusion. Would that we were as careful.

Monday, December 13, 2021

Critical Thinking #3

 Having begun with a definition of critical thinking  to focus our attention and to which we can return periodically to remind ourselves of our goal, we stopped to reflect on the ethical perspective out of which we respectively work.  The definition is simply a statement; the ethical principles are personal choices and a recognition of the values that guide our living. Now the work starts getting harder and will separate serious seekers from conventional thinkers.

Scholars Linda Elder and Richard Paul have provided eight essential intellectual traits to challenge our efforts. Each could take volumes to discuss, but I will only list them briefly.

1. Intellectual Humility: being conscious of one's knowledge and native egocentrism

2. Intellectual Courage: the need to face beliefs for which we have strong, negative emotions

3. Intellectual Empathy: the need to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others to understand them

4. Intellectual Autonomy: learning to think for oneself and control one's thought process

5. Intellectual Integrity: being true to one's own thinking and being consistent with one's standards

6. Intellectual Perseverance: use insights and truths despite difficulties and irrational opposition

7. Confidence in Reason: human interests are best served by reason and enabling others to think rationally

8.Fairmindedness: treat all viewpoints alike without reference to one's own advantage

The next step is to confront, as honestly as possible, our personal obstacles to critical thinking. The first named obstacle is bias. Bias is the preference for or inclination against something based on your opinions and not evidence. We all have viewpoints; that's normal. The problem comes when there is no good reason and we are oblivious to the consequences. The trap is confirmation bias. Prejudice, a preconceived opinion against someone or something, is a similar obstacle that, unchecked, takes us down the road to destructive discrimination and persecution.

Enculturation is the process of learning the habits of a culture. When that view becomes too narrow and becomes a sense of superiority, the third obstacle of ethnocentrism raises its ugly head. A generalization, the fourth obstacle, a broad statement about a group, can be helpful when true, but when distorted or blatantly false, destroys relationships and prevents communication. The last obstacle to personal critical thinking addressed is stereotyping. A stereotype makes a judgment about a person or group that may not be true. When that judgment  is not true, it limits our understanding of each other.

Ignorance uncorrected becomes fear, which not relieved becomes prejudice. This becomes discrimination, and unchecked, results in persecution. This pattern is too familiar!

The intellectual honesty required to face our personal obstacles can be painful, but the results of enhanced integrity is well worth the effort for ourselves and others.

Tuesday, December 7, 2021

Critical Thinking #2

 After beginning with a definition of critical thinking, just to be sure we are on the same page, I like to follow up with a discussion of ethics. I believe we all think and live out of an ethical perspective or frame of reference, whether we name it or not. For most of us those values are subconscious, having been shaped by life's experiences or what Aristotle would call "accidents." These include the circumstances of our birth (ethnicity, geography, time, etc.). Compound that with experiences and institutions we have been part of, and voila! we live our daily lives assuming our set of rights and wrongs.

At this stage I attempt to help students "name" their values and wrestle with the consequences thereof. I share a long list, by no means exhaustive, of historically developed, identified, and debated ethical systems. I strive to be inclusive and introduce broad, culturally representative systems. To be honest, the labels will be recognized by their western names, but by any other name, ethics are universal. As a matter of fact, I preface the section with Huston Smith's seven values that all religions around the world hold in common: do not lie, do not steal, do not murder, do not break the sexual mores of your culture, be charitable, practice veracity, and be humble.

The list of systems includes: Utilitarianism, Libertarian, Revelation, Golden Rule, Hedonism, Corporate Recognition, Categorical Imperative, Intuition, Means to Ends, Proportionality Principle, Might Equals Right, etc. I strive diligently to remain neutral and enable them to engage in honest, objective introspection. After years of study and teaching, I am convinced that ethical values fall into one of two camps. MLK Jr. summed it up perfectly. At some point, a person must choose between constructive altruism and destructive selfishness. All of history's Wisdom Teachers have given us the guidance for living with one another. Kierkegaard challenged us with the claim that EVERY decision is a moral decision.

How will you live the one precious gift of life you have been given?

Monday, November 29, 2021

Critical Thinking

 It has been my pleasure and responsibility for a few years now to teach a course in critical thinking at the local community college. The challenge has been daunting and rewarding. Of course, we all know the old joke. The seriousness of its implications has never been more obvious than now in our current political climate. But this blog is not about politics. During the next few days/weeks, I thought I would share with you what and how I present this subject to my students. They pay to attend class. I get paid to conduct the class. You get it free. So be careful; you might get your money's worth.

I begin the semester by defining critical thinking. There are several definitions from which to choose. This is the one I have chosen for now. Without a solid foundation and a common understanding from which to begin, the structure and direction will be faulty, accomplishing little.

Critical thinking involves several characteristics. The first I begin with is INQUIRY. A critical thinker asks probing questions. S/he will analyze assumptions, processes, and decisions that led to particular decisions. This process encourages deeper understanding and seeks relevant information. This thinking strives to maintain an open mind and looks at things from different perspectives.

Critical thinking has APPLICATION in every aspect of life, personal, political, and professional. The process includes location of relevant material, evaluation of the credibility of that material and its source, drawing rational and defensible conclusions, and reflection on those results.

REFLECTION is the capacity to answer questions and think rationally. "Is it reasonable?" Critical thinking is thinking about your thinking. It is considering other points of view and respecting different opinions.

But critical thinking does not stop here. One must be able to COMMUNICATE in writing and orally. It requires a sense of audience and be driven by a strong sense of purpose. This demands clarity, relevance, accuracy, and fairness. The process helps others join the conversation with deeper understanding. It promotes civil discourse.

Critical thinking is LOGICAL. It recognizes contradictions and circular reasoning; it uses deductive and inductive logic and, using credible information, arrives at valid conclusions. Critical thinking is systematic thinking, generating predictable theories, and testing their validity.

Critical thinkers are CREATIVE. They seek solutions and apply those solutions to other problems. Critical thinking uses imagination and flexibility. It moves from simple to complex using association, connotation, metaphor, and elaboration.

The personal affective benefit is that you learn to accept the opinions of others, not to reach agreement, but to learn from each other. Good critical thinking demands intellectual generosity, honesty, humility, courage, curiosity, and fairness......but that's the subject of another blog.




Monday, January 25, 2021

 

Unity

            Since January 6, 2021 we have heard a lot of public and political advocacy for unity in our nation. Given the polarization and acrimony during the last four years, unity initially sounds like an admirable goal. The calls have come from both sides of the aisle. Regardless of which source, it seems appropriate to pause and try to understand what assumptions are behind the calls, what motivations drive the calls, what goals are desired by the calls.

            By definition, unity is the state of being united or joined as a whole. Synonyms include union, coalition, confederation, the state of forming harmony. It is forming wholeness and integrity. According to Aristotle in his Poetics, unity requires three principles: unity of time (a day or a country’s future), unity of place (one country’s place in the world community), and unity of action (that country’s vision and deeds toward that goal).

            My thoughts are prompted by public calls mostly from Congressional Republicans and supporters of the ex-president after the failed coup and insurrection. Even in the immediate aftermath of the desecration of our hallowed Capitol, those seditious officials rose to continue their ignorant and groundless demands for the reversal of our November election results.

            However, despite their actions, I try to understand exactly what it is that they mean by unity.      I don’t pretend to comprehend all that they propose/demand, but given their words and deeds of only the last four years, I offer this critique.

            Unity is not conformity of words, thoughts, or proposed policies. Our political system has assumed and promoted diversity of opinions and philosophies. A healthy government requires loyal and robust opposition. Any politician’s call for unity cloaked in double-speak demands for conformity to their perspective must be rejected. Facts do not conform to opinions. Truth does not conform to lies. Light does not conform to darkness. Good does not conform to evil.

            Unity is cooperation. Cooperation begins with the process of listening and the recognition/acknowledgement that no one person is the repository of ultimate truth. Cooperation is grounded in humility open to the voice of the Other. Cooperation seeks the best that each brings to the table in the search for what is best for the greatest number.

            Unity is collaboration. Collaboration is the action of working with others to produce or create something. It is problem solving. It is striving to form a more perfect union. It is the recognition that we have not, and will never, reached perfection, but it is the pure desire to strive with unselfish devotion.

            Unity is commitment. Commitment is the state of being dedicated to a cause. It is an obligation driven by the responsibility of freedom, rejecting the lawlessness of license. Commitment: with others, unselfish, acknowledging consequences, seeking union.

            Unity demands accountability. Accountability demands repentance. Only after repentance can there be forgiveness. THEN the way is open for unity.

Sunday, January 10, 2021

January 6, 2021

 

            I have not texted or written or spoken about January 6 until now, wanting/needing my anger to  come to some purpose and my perspective to clarify.  Rage without purpose or goal benefits no one, especially me. But as someone (Aristotle?) said, anger can be righteous and beneficial by knowing when to be angry, at whom to be angry, how to be angry, what to be angry at, and why to be angry. Uncontrolled anger lowers one to the demonic level of the morons attempting to destroy all that is good and sacred.

            I waited to be sure the facts—empirically verified and independently sourced—were correct before making accusations and furthering rumors. We know January 6 was planned and was enabled by real fake news, lies, ignorance, conspiracy theories, and malicious intent. The blame rests with this administration and its every supporter.

            I am angry at:

Ø  The 45th president of the US. He is despicable, a pathological liar, a narcissistic idiot, intellectually inadequate, mentally unbalanced, morally vacuous, a bigot, a xenophobic hypocrite, evil incarnate. He is violent, a bully, corrupt, and a coward.

Ø  McConnell, Graham, Hawley, Cruz, Rubio, Burr, Tillis and all other Senate supporters; McCarthy, Scalise, Gohmert, Cawthorn and all other House helpers; Kemp, Santis, Ducey, Noem and all other governor goons; Paula White, Paige Patterson, F. Graham, Mohler, Jeffress and all other evangelical enablers.

Ø  Every hate group, white supremist group, antisemitic group, anti-LBGTQAI group.

Ø  Every minion and lemming who, for five years and longer, applauded, accepted, encouraged, voted for, and agreed with everything he said and did, standing by and doing nothing.

January 6 was different and if you did not see that, you are morally blind and complicit. #45 instigated, promoted, and encouraged sedition, treason, violence, rebellion.

            I am tired of all the too little, too late pious platitudes, “thoughts and prayers,” and contrite hand wringing.

            I am angry enough to:

Ø  Work hard at my precinct level.

Ø  March.

Ø  Speak out to friends, family, and strangers to correct lies and confront hate.

Ø  Give to causes that promote love, compassion, and relieve suffering.

Ø  Get in “good trouble” by standing up, speaking up, speaking out.

Ø  Vote!

As Lee Iacocca said years ago: “Lead, follow, or get out of the way!” As the old hymn says: “Truth is marching on!”

Wednesday, November 18, 2020

 Serving Two Masters

From the tradition in which I was raised, the Gospel of Luke 16:13 says I cannot serve two masters simultaneously. I can either serve mammon (man, money, earthly powers, personal ambition, worldly opinion, etc.) and reject God, or I can serve the Lord (surrender to the kingdom of God in Jesus' words) and reject mammon. I have often thought about this admonition and especially during the current political climate in this country.

As of today (November 18) 250,000+ individuals have died from the Coronavirus and the current leadership of the nation plus a substantial part of the population call it a hoax and refuse to cooperate in wearing masks, washing hands, and socially distancing. They scream about "freedom" and demand businesses and schools be open. They demand that monetary considerations be placed above human safety and life. They choose Mammon before life (compassion, mercy, and justice). I am NOT advocating one or the other. We do not have to choose between them. BUT it is a matter of priorities. A people or nation that puts economic considerations before human need has lost its moral footing and direction.

It is not an impossible sacrifice to put the welfare of others before personal, selfish, self-centered behavior. As Joshua said to the Hebrew people on that hillside thousands of years ago: "Choose you this day whom you will serve." Our lives and country depend on it.

Friday, November 13, 2020

 November 13, 2020   3pm est

Georgia's 16 electoral votes have just been called for Joe Biden. 70% of the country has breathed a sign of relief that the horrifying nightmare of the last four years is coming to a conclusion. There are not enough words to describe the depth of immorality, ignorance, and mental and emotional instability personified in one man. We have much work to do rebuilding this country. At last we have decent, qualified leadership.

On another note, after fits and starts, I have finished the third in my trilogy on early Christian origins. I hope you will read, think, and challenge any suggestions and implications you free inclined to.

Preface to the trilogy

 “Very God of Very God,” “made man.”

                For almost seventeen centuries the Christian church  has wrestled with how to understand the nature of Jesus. Shaped by a pre-modern, pre-scientific world view, the followers of the apocalyptic, messianic prophet from Nazareth soon found themselves embroiled in a heated debate over what to believe and how to proclaim just who and what Jesus was. Some insisted, in traditional Jewish terms, that the messiah (moshiach) was to be a human being with historically realized goals on behalf of the Jewish people. Others quickly defined him as a spiritual entity, sent into our world to deliver the necessary “gnosis” for human salvation, but void of any genuine human, physical characteristics. This meant technically that he was unable to feel human desire or physically suffer. The interpretation that came to be “orthodox,” and was embodied in the Nicene Creed was a hybrid compromise, politically motivated, that was not entirely acceptable to either extreme. There is much to be explored in the positions briefly described, but that is not the purpose of this book.

                The expectations of the first group, known as Jewish or Ebionite Christians in contemporary parlance, were not fulfilled. The dualistic, otherworldly position, known as docetic and/or gnostic, must be rejected as a relic of pre-Enlightenment mentality. The synthesis found in the third resolution is rationally, philosophically, and theologically defenseless. However, over two billion believers today accept the explanation as “mystery” and move forward “on faith.”

                Unfortunately, in the process and in reality, for the overwhelming majority of Christians, any discussion or emphasis of the truly human nature of Jesus is offensive and ignored. Can you imagine Jesus performing bodily functions? Can you imagine Jesus having sex or fathering a child? I not only recognize that he could have, but that he probably did, and I hope this is enough to entice you to enter the world I explore in the following pages.

                This trilogy is the product of an ongoing process covering forty years of study, research, conversation, and honest effort to go where the path led. I must thank former theology classmates, challenging professors, questioning colleagues, hundreds of students demanding that theses be defended, and fellow seekers, some willing and others reluctant, who encouraged this small effort to move the dialogue along.

                I especially express gratitude to my daughters whose questions then and now force me to be open and humble. To my wife whose presence on this journey was and is indispensable, I am forever indebted.

Preface to Part I: Jesus: A Would be Messiah

Section I: Caiaphas

Looking back in retrospect

If I had known then what I know now, I would have let the little mamzer drown.

                I love the seaside, especially in early summer before it gets too hot and unpleasant. The cool breezes coming off the Sea of Galilee with the smells of fish and market help you forget. Even then, I couldn’t wait to get out of Jerusalem and head north. Despite the extra miles required to avoid the stinking, unclean Samaritans by detouring through the Decapolis, I didn’t dread the five day trip. There was much to see, and playful games with children’s mischievous antics helped pass the time quickly.

             Our ancestor home in Capernaum was a needed get away. I never tired of hearing the stories. My patriarch Levi had asked Father Israel for a homestead, as a family retreat in what the Romans called Galilee. He had agreed, and Levi settled on the northwest coast of the Sea. Fishing was bountiful, and pasture lands were lush. Even though many relatives made the sojourn during the great drought, a few stayed, never relinquishing our claim to the land. When the Law Giver brought them home and Yeshua claimed the land, my ancestors were allowed to keep the small parcel for family use.

             Being from the tribe of Levi, it was our blessing and calling to serve the children of Abraham as perpetual priests. Serving the people and being served by the people put us in a unique position. We did not share in the distribution and assignment of the land like the other tribes. Especially when moshiach David conquered Jerusalem and centered the worship of the one true G-d in his new capitol, my family gathered there to perform our priestly duties. I have to admit, it was a privileged life.

                The rotation of Temple duties required proximity to the Temple Mount, and from the beginning, the choicest land was reserved for priestly families. The Temple tax provided for the upkeep of the sanctuary, priestly vestments, and implements (one robe correctly stitched and ornately embroidered could cost 500 denarii). Except for the brief time following Yehudah Maccabeus’ grand liberation, the tax paid the tribute to ruling overlords, and provided a very comfortable living for all the priestly families.

             Grandfather Seth built the family compound in the fifth year of Pompey’s rule. When jealousy and political intrigue pitted brother against brother and cousin and cousin, Pompey’s enforced order brought an uneasy peace and, even if from external origins, much desired security. With that security, an important part of which was financial, Abba Annas’ position was guaranteed. As High Priest it was imperative that he look and live the part. This included the finest of residential standards and a lifestyle that was the envy of everyone.

             Abba Annas chose a promontory northwest of the Herodian Temple as the place to build his house. From here one had an unrestricted view of the gleaming walls and magnificent roof of the Temple. Direct access to the southwest stairs leading to the Coponius Gate let us observe all who came and went. He knew everything that happened, but more importantly, all who came and went could not avoid seeing our home and knowing that this was where the most important person in Jerusalem lived. Everyone, man, woman, child, Gentile, and Adonai’s chosen people entered the Temple under the critical judgment  and generous permission of the High Priest. Everyone answered to him. He answered to no one but G-d and, of course, Caesar.

Annas spared no expense. Despite jealousy and rumors of Temple treasury used for personal gain, the people of Israel had to understand that Adonai’s priests deserved comfort in recompense for lives devoted to ritual performance. And his house had every comfort imaginable.

Built on three levels, it measured over 2000 square feet. The courtyard, where guests first entered, household commerce was transacted, and servants’ and family pets were quartered, opened to the west. On opposite sides of this never quiet center of activity were two mikvot, one for males--the crown of Adonai’s creation--and one for females, our given helpmates. Every precaution was taken to guarantee personal, ritual purity, which was our obligation and gratitude to the one true G-d. The entire area was walled and gated for necessary safety.

                The second level contained the great Judgment Hall. Here Annas conducted legal and civic business. One side opened to overlook the courtyard. From below family and interested parties to the discussions above saw and heard as arguments were made and decisions rendered. On this level, the opulence was obvious and intentional. Mosaic floors done by the best craftsmen in Jerusalem were everywhere. Breathtaking frescoes of elaborate floral design covered every wall. The finest glassware and ceramics the Mediterranean world had to offer were conspicuously placed throughout the Judgment Hall and adjacent banquet room. Carpets from Persia, couches and tables intricately handcrafted from the mountains of Lebanon, bronze and gold vessels from Egypt filled every space. The balcony, that ran the full length of the eastern side of the house, provided the unobstructed view of the Temple. Everyday the family could stand in awe of the gold plated House of the L--d, established by Solomon and crowned by Herod.

The third level gave no less testimony to the prominence of this family. It contained the private quarters where once again the creature comforts lauded social status. From furniture to imported cosmetics, jewelry to silk robes, crafted leather to Aegean purple, only Herod the Great himself could boast of greater wealth.

             Some people just could not understand or appreciate that rank has privileges and responsibilities. Annas bore the heavy obligation of balancing Roman expectations and Temple requirements. Most critics were open, sometimes violent, in their self-righteous opposition to ritual and monetary levies; they could be controlled by Rome when necessary, or more routinely by Temple Guard. Other critics, even the handful among the priesthood, were more subtle and passive in their protests.

             For example, there was a minor functionary named Zechariah who deliberately chose to live outside the Temple compound, and refused the financial support due his station. He took his wife, I think her name was Elizabeth, to reside in Ein Kerem, rejecting the comforts of Jerusalem. Even when in late life they had a son, he stubbornly refused to bring them into the city. I, unfortunately, underestimated the depth of public support these voices controlled.

                While my family never attained the office of High Priest itself, in important secondary roles we were responsible for the upkeep and cleanliness of the Temple proper, provided choir masters, served as musicians, and controlled security to the Temple Mount. As Chief Warden I got to know and be known by Annas, one of the most powerful and politically skillful men ever to serve as High Priest. Chosen to be his personal assistant, I developed religious and palace connections that proved to be very beneficial one day. It did not hinder those ambitions when I met Sarai, Annas’ daughter, and we eventually married. Truth be told, I was closer to him than his blood sons and received his endorsement to become High Priest, even before four of them.

                Sarai and I built our house just north of her father’s. The physical closeness allowed us to remain intimately involved in family activities. It also enabled me to maintain daily involvement with Annas, further learning religious and political skills that  one day came in very handy, and gave me access to his wisdom and judgment.

                I had no idea how all of this would collide with the world of a Galilean peasant and change the course of my world.

Preface to Part II: Paul: A Would be Apostle

Chapter 1

Under the Roman Heel

                The sound of the approaching soldiers sent fear throughout Gishala as parents anxiously gathered their children and sought safety in their meager houses. Melchi had been leading prayers in the synagogue when the first cries of panic and desperation reached his ears. He immediately thought of Hannah and the children, and, without removing his tzittzit, the prayer shawl his wife had lovingly made for him, after rolling the scroll, he ran for his house. Calling her name at the top of his lungs, Melchi met Hannah at the entrance to the courtyard and demanded to know where the children were. Julia and Simeon clung to their mother’s robe while she cradled Herodion in her arms, but twelve year old Saul was nowhere to be found. Before he could begin searching for his eldest son, Melchi and the family were forced inside the house by the Roman Petronius and his cohort.

                Inquisitive and naïve, Saul, who had gone to the village well to draw water for his mother, stood frozen, unable to fathom the gravity of the situation. Horses trampled old men and small children unable to get out of the way in time. Soldiers moved quickly and methodically from house to house, and when the dust settled, Petronius shouted for all to hear.

“You are under Caesar’s control and will do exactly as I say or suffer immediate consequences. Every family is to come forward. Fathers, bring your wives and children NOW.”

Knowing Roman impatience from years of servitude, the men of the village hustled the women and children as quickly as possible before the Roman invaders. Saul somehow avoided being caught on the end of an enthusiastic soldier’s spear and was able to locate his family among all the confusion. Fortunately, inhabitants were few and everyone knew everyone else. He was pushed along by friends until he saw his mother and father. His younger sister and brothers were crying inconsolably as Hannah wrapped her arms around them. Melchi grabbed Saul and drew him close.

Petronius indiscriminately selected ten young men from among the crowd, and, as the villagers watched, they were chained together with iron anklets that cut into their skin and were roped together by the neck. They were ceremoniously paraded through the crowd and last seen as they were escorted down the road toward Sepphoris. No amount of protests could change the Romans’ minds. No pleading denials could convince Petronius that the people of Gishala had had nothing to do with Judas the Galilean. No prayers could save the innocent.

YHWH was absent, deaf, blind, and had abandoned His people, at least this day.

“Listen carefully. You’ve got exactly one watch to go to your hovels; gather everything you can carry on your backs and come back here. Two of my men will go with each family to be sure you don’t try to do something stupid. I guarantee you I will personally kill anyone who disobeys or tries to escape. I suggest food and water be your main concern,” he said with a scowl on his lips.

-----------------------

                Under the watchful eye of the two guards assigned to them, Melchi and his family quickly headed home. He was able to convince the two, after some pleading and explanation, to let him make a very quick stop at the synagogue2 and collect the scroll he had been reading only recently. Arriving at their house, the family painfully chose the meager possessions they felt they could comfortably carry . Hannah gave each child only what they were physically able to take without slowing others down.

Saul, oldest and strongest, secured a grownup’s load in his blanket and slung it over his shoulder. The house and village were not much, but they were all Saul had ever known, and already there was a hole in his heart and hollowness in his soul. It was his world and his tie to the land promised to father Abraham. Saul was a Hebrew, a Jew, circumcised on the eighth day, like his namesake the first king of Israel from the tribe of Benjamin, and, like his father, he was becoming zealous for the Law.3 He too expected to become a Pharisee and, YHWH willing, a great teacher of his people. Those dreams seemed crushed under the Roman heel now.

                Back at village center, when everyone had returned according to orders, Petronius delivered what many considered a death sentence.

                “You are going north. The way is not easy and any stragglers will be eliminated. Keep up or die! Get in line and follow the standard bearer. Livestock will bring up the rear. I want three groups of ten young men who will take turns herding the animals along with us. Lose an animal, let one get away, and you will suffer the same fate. Do I make myself clear?”

                With his father’s blessing Saul quickly volunteered, assuming greater freedom in the assignment, and was given first watch. All others, men, women, and children, began the labored march out of Gishala, turning north. The last vision from over their shoulders was billowing black smoke. There was no turning back.

                Other than the few trips to Sepphoris, trips you could count on one hand, trips he had only recently been permitted to take with his father to pay required taxes, Saul had lived his short years in secluded Gishala. Today held both fear and adventure for a teenager old enough to know that the only way of life he had ever known was ending and to realize he was facing a new unknown beginning. It would not be the last time he faced the unknown.

                They soon found themselves on the Coastal Highway, and when Melchi realized their fate, knots formed in the pit of his stomach and tears filled his eyes. Every step took them farther from “home,” and the reality of separation seized their hearts. Melchi had heard of the Diaspora but never entertained the slightest idea that he would experience such sadness.

                Within days the road veered toward Damascus. Petronius had been replaced, actually reassigned to the Tyre and Sidon area, and the Gishala contingency had merged with other displaced groups from all over upper Galilee. Varus was returning to home base and taking the spoils of war with him. As news of where they were spread throughout the camp, a slight sigh of relief was almost audible. Maybe rest, maybe destination, maybe one day being allowed to return home. Frustration and despair do not begin to describe the disappointment when, after a week, the people were ordered to continue the journey north.

                Travel had become routine by now, not easy, but bearable. There had been casualties. Old Eleazer just could not keep up, and the Romans were not about to jeopardize the life of a donkey for an old Jew. A few sheep had wandered away undetected, and floggings followed to discourage it happening again. Even Saul had received a sound blow across his back for getting distracted from his duties. Truth be told, new sights, fascinating people, and the Sea- that wondrous magnificent Sea- captured the young man’s imagination. Tempted but anchored in tradition, Saul continued his study of Torah at every opportunity. Melchi even allowed other young men to join in his instruction, and every Sabbath, on the run or resting, he led the community in prayers. After all, all creation is the L—d’s and He is to be found everywhere. Wasn’t that Isaiah’s message? Part of the journey took the people through Arca, a land later to be ruled by Agrippa II, a name and man Saul would have occasion to meet.

                Along the route small groups were separated from the larger assembly and assigned to small villages as their permanent new homes. Traveling through Syria and Cilicia, Saul and his “neighbors” followed the Orontes River and arrived at the most magnificent city Saul had ever imagined. Antioch on the Orontes was a wonder to behold-- hellenized, urban, commercial, tempting, rich-- a virtual whirlpool. The streets were wide, and the temples gleamed in the sun. Sitting at the crossroads of major north/south and east/west trade routes, the city’s wealth was surpassed only by Rome and Alexandria. At the same time many religions of the empire found their home here and attracted many eager worshippers. It would not be his last visit to this opulent place, but it was not to be the stopping place now.

                Skirting the city center to the west, Saul and the remaining villagers from Gishala caught a glimpse of Mount Casius rising from the coast to a majestic height of over 5,000 feet. Being unfamiliar with the terrain, the group breathed a sigh of relief when the column took a more northern route, thinking they had avoided the hardships of having to cross that mountain range. Coming through the Beilan pass, the Plain of Antioch presented a welcome sight. It was five miles broad and 10 miles long, and the lure of easy walking was a welcome vision. But the looming view of Mount Amanus quickly sobered the exiles. One day of easy travel before the challenge of crossing the Tarsus Range.

                Like so many travelers before them-- free, slave, military, merchant caravans-- their hearts sank as they braced themselves for one more formidable obstacle. Word spread quickly throughout the camp. Maybe the soldiers were as tired as the folks from Gishala. Maybe they hoped for rest and home more than this weary band. For whatever reason, unlike most other times, the destination was openly discussed, and Saul and his family realized the journey’s end was in sight.

Well, “in sight” involved crossing the mountains, passing through the Cilician Gates, and continuing twenty miles down to the city of Tarsus. Unfortunately, that portion of the trip was made harder by torrential rains. Saul, his family, and the others were forced to sit in their meager tents, unable to escape the driving sheets of rain, soaked to the bone, and hungry like never before in their lives. Hannah and Melchi gave their portions to the younger children, but that soon ran out. Four of the older women died from hunger and exposure; one infant died when its mother’s milk dried up, and there was nothing to give it.

                Finally, a break in the weather, and the journey continued. Aided by sunny skies and the elevation of the western slope, the weary, hungry travelers beheld Tarsus stretched in front of them. The guards talked about the city’s proximity to the Mediterranean, actually ten short miles. The Cydnus River meandered through the center of the town, forming a picturesque view from their vantage point. Not quite visible but clear in the soldiers’ minds, the Cydnus flowed into Lake Rhegma, which served as the harbor for Tarsus and was situated halfway between the Mediterranean and Tarsus. It was a long way and a lifetime from Gishala, but Saul could not help but be excited. His family had survived; YHWH had delivered them. Remembering his father’s advice to always do his best, regardless of the circumstances, Saul nevertheless secreted the hope of returning home one day.

Preface to Part III: James: A Would be Follower

                As he had every morning for the last thirty-three years, Yaaqov woke with the rising sun, washed his hands, and recited

מודה אני לפניך מלך חי וקיים שהחזרת בי נשמתי בחמלה

רבה אמונתך.‏

[ "I give thanks before You, Living and Eternal King, that You have returned within me my soul with compassion; [how] abundant is Your faithfulness!"].

 He then relieved himself and performed the ritual cleansing in preparation for the morning meal. After blessing the meager fare of bread, dried figs, and fresh water ברוך אתה ה' א לוהינו, מלך העולם, המוציא לחם מן הארץ

["Blessed are You, LORD our God, King of the universe, Who brings forth bread from the earth."]

 he ate his breakfast and went to the Temple to spend the day in prayer.

                Yaaqov had not always been this observant, but his brother had had a profound impact on his life and practices. Now, in a demonstration of his commitment to continue and profess Yeshua’s proclamation of the immanent coming kingdom and in his role as his successor and leader of the Way, Yaaqov’s life carried profound meaning. This was not to mention the conflict with the faction who disregarded dietary and ethical regulations!

                To be honest his life was lonely at times, especially after Elizabeth’s death. She died in premature childbirth along with the child. He remembered their excitement when she finally got pregnant after years of thinking it would never happen. Before it did, they doted over Yeshua’s and Mariamne’s Yehuda. Older brother’s first son and oldest grandson, Yehuda was quite spoiled, and Mary, his grandmother, didn’t even try to hide her affection and patience with the precocious child. His wife’s death left an indescribable void in his heart.

                Yeshua’s death tightened the family bonds. As a widower it was even more expected that he would marry Mariamne and adopt Yehuda, but there was no physical attraction. She and Yeshua had been inseparable, and any thought of him being replaced was out of the question. Yaaqov quietly and dutifully took the child, the widow, and his own mother, now a widow for the second time, into his house, and they lived in inexpressible joy and sadness. After all, this was his brother’s dying request as he hung on the tree and succumbed to that brutal torture at the hands of the Roman overlords.

                His brother liked to say that YHWH doesn’t give us more burdens than we can bear, with YHWH’s help of course, but Yaaqov never completely grasped the seriousness of the claim until those awful events in Jerusalem all those years ago. So, surrounded and strengthened by family love, they naively forged ahead with their assumed responsibilities. Life didn’t stand still.

                Within two years after Yeshua’s death, Yehuda died of head pain, uncontrollable nausea, and intestinal bleeding. His mother and uncle buried him in the tomb with his father, and when time had done its work on the small body, they prepared a miniature ossuary and gently placed the bones in the box and the box beside his father’s. His grandmother was never consoled, and within the year, she too would find her place beside her son and grandson.

                Mariamne, not to be content simply keeping house and taking care of Yaaqov, found her own voice among the followers and growing community of the Way. She initially returned to Magdala to renew ties with the extended family she had left when she and Yeshua were married. She also spent some time in Capernaum, the Galilean home they shared before beginning the public ministry they shared with her brothers-in-law and early followers. Unfortunately, this proved too stressful for Cephas and his wife, especially when they showed up in the village for a brief stopover on their way to Antioch. She had never been completely comfortable around Cephas, and later reports of his vacillation between Jerusalem’s expectations and the rival Paul’s group only confirmed her suspicions. In addition to that, Cephas seemed to resent her relationship with Yeshua, denying her her rightful place in the community’s hierarchy. Cephas had always been a little uncomfortable with Yeshua’s emphasis on equality.

                Outwardly Mariamne was brave, composed, forceful. Yaaqov knew that inside, she grieved for a young husband and a child taken too soon from a mother that desperately loved him. The harassment from the Roman oppressors who never forgot the disturbance caused by her husband and his ardent followers, still suspicious of the criticism represented by Yeshua’s followers’ presence in Jerusalem, finally took its toll. Always diminutive and weakened by miscarriages as well as the lone childbirth, she eventually was limited to house care. Despite Yaaqov’s prayerful attention, she died leaving him completely alone again.

                He buried her with Yeshua, Yehuda, Mary, and Elizabeth. He and his brothers would join them in the coming years. For now, he was alone with his memories. With the women, he had reflected on the words and deeds of his brother. Like his mother and family, he had struggled with Yeshua’s early behavior, even trying to convince him that perhaps he was too zealous or too consumed or just mistaken. But with time he too became convinced. Now, without Mariamne, Mary, and Elizabeth, he was the keeper of the memories, the faithful preserver of the wisdom, the transmitter of the message. If not him, then who?

                So here he was, thirty-three years later. Like every morning before, he prepared to go to the Temple. The priests expected him, and he had been warned that Annas II, out of patience, was planning “something.” After all, the establishment remembered the disturbance he caused a few years back when he brought the troublemaker Paul and the gentile Trophimus into the Court of Israel. In his defense, Yaaqov did not know what Paul was up to. He hadn’t anticipated the arrogant demonstration that Paul, increasingly independent and hostile, would create.  Agrippa II was not going to tolerate any trouble either. Most importantly, Yaaqov’s followers expected him to continue his witness and challenge.

                This morning was different. He sensed it, an uneasiness, a tension in the air not unlike that evening thirty-three years ago. He and the others were caught completely off guard when Yudah Iscariot and the Roman cohort found them in the garden. Something told him things were just not right now, and the moment he set foot on the steps to the Huldah Gate, all doubts were removed.


Thursday, February 23, 2017


Theocracy: government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided; a state governed by a theocracy [Merriam Webster’s Dictionary]. The government of a state by God either charismatic [prophets and spokesmen], monarchic [king or religious autocrat], or priestly [cultural equivalent]. The king/ruler/autocrat is regarded as anointed (chosen) by God, and is regarded as God’s friend, the messenger of God, God’s representative on earth, messiah (the biblical term).

Examples: (1) ancient Israel under David, (2) Plymouth Colony in 17th century, (3) Iran today.

Authoritarian regime: favoring blind submission to  authority; favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to a people, thereby eliminating a free press, free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly.

Examples: (1) Reign of Terror in France, (2) Communist Russia, (3) Nazi Germany, (4) ?

At least once a week in my home town paper, someone writes a letter to the editor claiming that tRUMP is God’s chosen leader, our savior, the one who will deliver us from all previous evils. This accompanies claims that we are a Christian nation. These folks were ecstatic when Melania led the crowd in the Lord’s Prayer at a political rally. VP Pence is a fundamentalist Christian with a social agenda that has only begun to reveal itself in attacks on same sex marriage, criminalization of women who have an abortion, elimination of protection of transgender people in educational institutions, and cries to reinstate prayer (sectarian, of course) in public schools. Now the free press is labeled “enemy of the people,” and when reporting uncovers information and actions contra tRUMP’s narrative, it is called “fake news.” His own spokesman (Miller) admonishes us not to question the president’s views and proclamations.

The oligarchy he has surrounded himself with has begun the systematic destruction of our environment, our healthcare safety net,  our retirement financial security, and intentionally weakening our public schools (the bed rock of a democracy) through vouchers and use of public money for private and religious schools. His puppet (Sessions) is positioned to give “legal” sanction to his whims, and local, state, and (proposed) National Guard and our military are being prepared to invade homes and churches to gather, incarcerate, and deport the worst AND the least of illegal immigrants.  We are fast on the road to a militarized, authoritarian state. AND THERE IS HARDLY ANYONE IN CONGRESS WITH THE MORAL INTEGRITY AND INTELLECTUAL OBJECTIVITY TO SAY NO TO THIS MALIGNANT NARCISIST.

God and country. As of this writing, 41% of the American public approve of his policies and the direction we are moving. There is nothing more dangerous than a maniac who believes he is sanctioned by divine power. 94% of Germans were “Christian” and followed blindly. Three years ago many of us naively said Nazi Germany would never be repeated. Hate groups in this country have tripled in one year. Anti-Semitism is on the rise; cemeteries are desecrated.

People of good will, with compassion for all, welcoming to strangers, motivated by love must stand up, speak out, act. RESIST    RESIST    RESIST

Theocracy: government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided; a state governed by a theocracy [Merriam Webster’s Dictionary]. The government of a state by God either charismatic [prophets and spokesmen], monarchic [king or religious autocrat], or priestly [cultural equivalent]. The king/ruler/autocrat is regarded as anointed (chosen) by God, and is regarded as God’s friend, the messenger of God, God’s representative on earth, messiah (the biblical term).

Examples: (1) ancient Israel under David, (2) Plymouth Colony in 17th century, (3) Iran today.

Authoritarian regime: favoring blind submission to  authority; favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to a people, thereby eliminating a free press, free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly.

Examples: (1) Reign of Terror in France, (2) Communist Russia, (3) Nazi Germany, (4) ?

At least once a week in my home town paper, someone writes a letter to the editor claiming that tRUMP is God’s chosen leader, our savior, the one who will deliver us from all previous evils. This accompanies claims that we are a Christian nation. These folks were ecstatic when Melania led the crowd in the Lord’s Prayer at a political rally. VP Pence is a fundamentalist Christian with a social agenda that has only begun to reveal itself in attacks on same sex marriage, criminalization of women who have an abortion, elimination of protection of transgender people in educational institutions, and cries to reinstate prayer (sectarian, of course) in public schools. Now the free press is labeled “enemy of the people,” and when reporting uncovers information and actions contra tRUMP’s narrative, it is called “fake news.” His own spokesman (Miller) admonishes us not to question the president’s views and proclamations.

The oligarchy he has surrounded himself with has begun the systematic destruction of our environment, our healthcare safety net,  our retirement financial security, and intentionally weakening our public schools (the bed rock of a democracy) through vouchers and use of public money for private and religious schools. His puppet (Sessions) is positioned to give “legal” sanction to his whims, and local, state, and (proposed) National Guard and our military are being prepared to invade homes and churches to gather, incarcerate, and deport the worst AND the least of illegal immigrants.  We are fast on the road to a militarized, authoritarian state. AND THERE IS HARDLY ANYONE IN CONGRESS WITH THE MORAL INTEGRITY AND INTELLECTUAL OBJECTIVITY TO SAY NO TO THIS MALIGNANT NARCISIST.

God and country. As of this writing, 41% of the American public approve of his policies and the direction we are moving. There is nothing more dangerous than a maniac who believes he is sanctioned by divine power. 94% of Germans were “Christian” and followed blindly. Three years ago many of us naively said Nazi Germany would never be repeated. Hate groups in this country have tripled in one year. Anti-Semitism is on the rise; cemeteries are desecrated.

People of good will, with compassion for all, welcoming to strangers, motivated by love must stand up, speak out, act. RESIST    RESIST    RESIST

Sunday, January 29, 2017

Trump--I can no longer be silent


I have intentionally not written for over a year, dumbfounded by what I saw and heard happening in this country that I love. I could not believe that someone was saying out loud the things coming from Trump’s (it is disrespectful to call the President of the United States an asshole, so I will hereafter refer to him as Rump) mouth. I could not believe that someone would do the things to women he did, brag about it publicly, and not be rejected by the people he sought to represent, especially so called culture Christians.  The list is long and has been sufficiently discussed—xenophobic, homophobic, Islamaphobic, etc. The lies have been proven false, over and over, beginning with “birther” lies, to climate change is a hoax started by the Chinese,  to claims of massive voter fraud. Still his supporters turn a blind eye and closed ears to the world’s greatest con-artist since Adolf Hitler. I do not use that comparison lightly; only look at his Executive Orders since Friday 1/27.

While Rump and his minions are the personification of evil, that, sadly, is not the worst of it. He is only a symptom of the disease that has been emboldened by his actions. Supporters feel they have been given license to say and do anything vaguely resembling his persona. Hate crimes increased; vocal and physical acts of prejudice; “official” acts that violate the Constitutional principles and moral values this nation are based on. All the while, his official mouth pieces—Spicer and Conway—continue their charade and endless stream of “alternate facts.” It is essential that they be labelled for what they are, lies. Lies.

An attack on the free press (by Bannon). An attack on any one who challenges his ego (John Lewis and attacks on estimates of crowd size at the inauguration).  An attack on “others,” (the Refugee ban is an attack on Muslims). It is imperative to resist, oppose, hinder, challenge by any and all means available short of violence. This is not a partisan issue. This is a moral, legal, Constitutional issue. If they do it to others, they can do it to us.

Is there any moral integrity in Congress and his own party? I am no clairvoyant, but I said, during and after the first Republican debate, “Just watch. Every one of them will get in lock step behind him for their petty, juvenile, irrational, selfish reasons.” He could compare penises, accuse Cruz’ father for plotting to kill JFK, belittle every other person on that stage, they could all one by one parade in and out of Rump Tower, be insulted over and over, and they would all line up behind him.

If you voted for Rump, own it, but do not claim he and Pence are Christians; do not claim it was a “Christian” decision/vote. That is pure hypocrisy. It is naïve to rationalize it as a “one issue” decision.

“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” Stand up! Speak out! Say NO! or live to regret it.

Friday, September 30, 2016

Invitation to Civil Discourse 2


Invitation to Civil Discourse

What can I do to help restore civility and sanity to this chaotic cacophony of discord and hate-filled diatribes? What is my personal responsibility? Where do I begin to help create a healthier conversation and more positive relationships among friends, family, and community?

When I look back over a long history of political awareness, I have been voting since 1960, I am not particularly proud of all my “contributions” to the public forum. As of late I have consciously stepped back and intentionally asked myself, before any comment or action, what is the appropriate response to what I hear and see going on in the world around me. This is what I have chosen to be my guide, knowing I will not always live up to the guideline but committing myself to consciously trying.

Teaching world religions I discovered many positive moral admonitions and assistance for daily living. The one before me today is the Zoroastrian creed: good thoughts, good words, good deeds. I remind myself everyday of this ancient wisdom, check my thoughts/words/deeds from yesterday, and recommit myself to strive to live up to the goals today.

When I stop and think about it, it makes rational sense and emotional satisfaction. Our thoughts are the beginning of all that follows. Now I don’t beat myself up over “bad” thoughts that enter my mind. Honestly, I know I cannot control what pops into my head. It is like a foul smell that blows through the window. I can quickly close the window. I can blow the smell out of the room, dismissing it in the quickest way possible. A bad thought is like that to me. I don’t have to entertain it any longer that it takes me to dismiss it.

Then it is my decision as to what I will say about the idea/issue. The tongue is a powerful organ, but I control it. More than once I have reaped the consequences of hasty, negative words. I have hurt others, for which I am sorry. The old adage, “words will never hurt me,” isn’t true. Words do harm, with invisible wounds that often do not heal. I am not advocating never speaking up. MLK was right; silence in the face of injustice is complicity. Careful discernment is required.

Then, in logical order, actions will follow words. When I look and listen to the world around me, and I see how others act, what they do, I listen to their words (shouts, screams, posters). it is not a great leap to recognize the thoughts (prejudices, bigotry, perspectives) that drive them. I must examine myself, my motives, before making accusations and retaliating in like kind.

May I borrow from another tradition?  May the WORDS of my mouth, the meditations (THOUGHTS) of my heart, and the DEEDS of my hands be acceptable, love-filled,  and guided by compassion.

Thursday, June 9, 2016

I had never been to Chicago

I had never been to Chicago. So in early June we decided to take a short vacation and "do" the windy city. What a marvelous, fabulous city!
It was an interesting trip because of the variety and diversity of places and people. It began with a targeted destination of the Shaker Village at Pleasant Hill, KY. KY was not high on my list of places to visit, but it is one beautiful state. From lush, green mountains to rolling hills, real bluegrass, and bewitching limestone formations, it was a visual feast. The limestone base creates a unique filtering system for the water that is unbelievably delicious and the best in the world for building strong bones for race horses! I say "targeted" because somehow I took a detour and ended up at the Woodford Reserve Distillery--one of the best bourbons KY has to offer!
The Village is a monument to the religious creativity and imagination of Americans. At their height they had over 3000 "communities" around the nation, focused on simple living, expressive spirituality, and common care for one another. The food, raised on the farm and produced from its own herds, was delicious beyond experience. There are only two of these communities remaining, preserved by non-Shakers. Since sexual abstinence was promoted, they didn't grow by leaps and bounds----and that practice is not in favor today, so you see the problem.
The high light of the route from Pleasant Hill to Chicago was the miles and miles of gigantic wind turbines producing renewable, non-cancer causing, inexpensive energy! They looked like something from outer space.
Entering Chicago on an afternoon as the traffic from a Cubs home game is unleashed on congested infra-structure is daunting to a small town boy! There is more to relate than time to read; here is my summary:
1. a rainbow population, each person with their own story and human dignity
2. the challenge and enjoyment of public transportation and the challenge to master the maps and schedules
3. breathtaking architecture, jaw dropping, eye popping architecture---do NOT miss the 90 minute boat tour
4. the Willis Tower and the ability to "step out" into space (clear platform) where you can see forever on a clear day
5. the parks, so many parks. They value public land and access for ALL people.
6. Millennial Park and the Bean
7. The Art Institute of Chicago. The collection is out of the world, and you can walk right up to the master pieces you have only seen in books!
8. Chicago deep dish REALLY is different and the beef, Midwestern beef melts in your mouth.
This doesn't scratch the surface---universities, sports arenas, clean river (now!),friendly people everywhere who came from everywhere to build a city and a nation of opportunity.
The spirit is alive in Chicago-----and well worth another visit!

HB2 (House Bill 2) Redux

The North Carolina legislature, in its “infinite wisdom,” passed yet another oppressive and immoral law, continuing a long line of discriminatory legislation attempting to preserve the white, male hegemony that characterizes our history from the founding of this nation. It is consistent with the prejudiced laws that intended to address slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, anti-Civil Rights, perceived voter fraud, and a long list of other threats to a distorted worldview that have dominated our social landscape. It is a cancer on our state that must be removed.

1.      HB2 is immoral. It intentionally discriminates against a minority of citizens whose only circumstance is to be born biologically different from those who passed the law. It degrades persons whose physical condition is determined by nature, and not choice. This law is diametrically opposed to and void of love and compassion that are at the heart of the claimed religious tradition of the legislators who passed it. The “culture Christians” in control of the state legislature pervert the language and values of a faith they do not begin to understand or embrace. Through double speak and fear, they incite the public ( “religious freedom” and “protect our daughters”) to offer a solution for which there was no problem. This bill fails to recognize the integrity and value of all persons by labeling some individuals as “perverts” and an “abomination.” It goes against the fundamental values of all the world’s great religions that affirm the unifying relationship of Creator and creation. It must be repealed.

2.      HB2 is unconstitutional, both national and state. We are a secular, civil society, governed by law. Our law, grounded in those Constitutions, guarantees protection against discrimination based on gender, religion, race, etc. This bill, directly and intentionally, targets a gender minority. In addition, it states that local municipalities cannot pass their own anti-discrimination policies, and states that offended parties cannot sue the state for that discrimination. HB2 goes against our history of Civil Rights legislation. Behind the façade of “religious freedom,” it allows so-called legal discrimination, exempting individuals from providing services (e.g. selling wedding cakes to same sex couples) or performing civil duties (issuing marriage licenses). Falsely claiming that Christianity is under attack, the legislators have enabled anarchy in the name of their religion. It must be repealed.

3.      HB2 is economically unsound. People and corporations of conscience, e.g. Bruce Springsteen, Itzhak Perlman, and Hewlett Packard, to mention only three, have refused to perform or engage in activities that would produce monetary benefit to North Carolina. An article in the Asheville Citizen-Times Sunday, June 5, says reports estimate the financial loss to exceed a billion dollars to date, with other losses to come.  Businesses are rethinking present and future relationships with our state. Losses in tax revenue negatively impact our budget, reducing services, postponing infrastructure improvements, limiting resources for education already hurt by the narrow minded thinking of the current legislature. It must be repealed.

4.      HB2 is socially divisive and destructive. Every action throughout history that separates people, demeans individuals and groups, belittles and demonizes “the other,” only builds barriers and keeps people apart ultimately leading to distrust, violence, and war. Our future, our very existence as a human race requires affirmation of, love for, and unconditional compassion toward others. Our differences are insignificant compared to the infinite similarities we share. HB2 must be repealed.

HB2 must be repealed because it is immoral, unconstitutional, economically unsound, and inhuman. It is an embarrassment to our state. We are better than this.