A Creation Myth

I'll tell you about the magic,
and it'll free your soul
But it's like trying to tell a stranger
'bout rock and roll
--Do You Believe in Magic?
Lovin' Spoonful

And nobody knows what it's like
To live and die on the inside
When we die, do we feel alive?
--Safer to Hate Her, You Me at Six

[O]ne is, if one is a Christian,
as conditioned as the Communist or the atheist.
The believer and the non-believer
are both conditioned by the culture of their time,
by society, by the extraordinary process
of propaganda
--J. Krishnamurti

__________________

Sunday homily: The new earthers.

Ranger was recently reminded in a personal way that he is unlike many of his fellows.

He was speaking genially with a former contact when he lapsed into some snarkiness about how he had once challenged a mutual friend who had said he believed only what was in the bible. He (Ranger) said he had countered him by saying refrigerators were not in the bible, and asking did he not believe in them, when his present interlocutrix gave a beatific smile, and said that she, too was a "new earther". End of conversation.

Americans generally like to think of themselves as progressive and enlightened sorts, certainly part of a great social experiment -- a new thing. But as of today, 46% of us do not believe in evolution (In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins). That is, almost half of us believe God dropped us onto this planet at a bus stop of his own making about 7,000 to 10,000 years, and that's all there is.

Geological science, evolutionary theory? So much malarkey. Only 15% of us believe in human evolution, without god's intervention. (The other 38% are presumably being inauthentic if they cobble together some belief system which allows for an omnipotent god, but also allows for evolution.) For the almost half of us who believe that man is something brand new, sui generis, and that he is under the watchful gaze of his creator, how does this affect our conduct?

Since this god has issued unassailable edicts in the form of a guide book for good behavior (for the believers), one would imagine life would be quite simple, and go swimmingly for those believers. Sadly, no.

Since life is full of complications of people's own making, one might ask: Why are things so effed up, given that a life guide book exists? Why wars and hatred, adultery, greed, murder and the whole grubby lot of human indiscretion and shabby behavior?

Part of it may be the later added-on mulligans, like Confessionals and born-again episodes, revivals, penance and so on. People give in to their appetitive desires because they can -- there's a way out, given enough money, remorse or whatever resource is needed. This stems from an idea of limitless resources, which stems from a childlike idea in an ever-providing, benevolent parent. As one friend explained it, envision a vending machine dispensing goodies from the sky just for you, and imagine that these goodies are always available (though they will be dispensed at a time of his choosing.)

Well, it is pretty seductive ... who wouldn't want Gob-smackers anytime of the day or night? But in order to have that, you must denounce things like Scientific American's April edition, "Humanity's Beginning: Two-million-year-old fossils offer a tantalizing connection to our forebears." Because the idea of the earliest representative of the Homo lineage appearing a couple of million years ago does not square with being deposited as-is on a planet by an entity which created you and the whole kit and kaboodle less than 10,000 years ago.

How does a Creationist see fossil remains and radioactive carbon dating? Is it all a plant by some nefarious beings seeking to undermine the credibility of the believers? Meanwhile, there are some who believe in god, yet still allow for evolution, and perhaps even function within the sciences. However, if one believes in god, believes in dogma and the bible, there is no way to accommodate both; one either believes, or one does not.

For the believers, what was pre-10,000 ago? Nothingness? Science tells us that before the biblical Garden of Eden, there was time for perhaps 200 other garden scenarios by members of the Homo lineage (if 10,000 years is the yardstick); if so, what might those have looked like?

Less than 100 years after the Scopes Monkey Trial, Tennessee has put creationism back in science class. For the true believers, religion is not a quaint notion -- it constitutes a personal relationship with a close-by deity. If one believes -- and is consistent in thought -- the last 7,000 years is all there are (to borrow the phrasing of one of Ranger's NCO's). There are no genomic changes, no mutations, because God made everything perfect, to fit his plan. "God don't make mistakes", as the bumper sticker says.

Is it any wonder that, when people people feel chosen and annointed by a Supreme Being, they are willing to fight and die for him? For the believers, life would be devoid of meaning without that connection. Within that context, the idea of peaceful coexistence or tolerance of alterities becomes a challenge.

If you believe the bible is the word of god, there is a whole lot of science that is rubbish for you, or should be, if you cleave to your beliefs. If that makes sense to you, and you believe on faith alone (as there is no way to prove your beliefs), do you then see how the other guy feels the same way about his prophet (on faith alone), and thinks you are the infidel, too?

For the believers, is there any way out of this predicament of a strife-ridden earthly existence, other than believing in salvation in an afterlife? Is there a way to believe, yet accommodate, too (sans proselytizing?)

This is not a happy homily, but it addresses the core of so much strife we experience which really should be non-extant if we believed, as we say we do.

Abraham

Ranger Comment of the Day:

Since the WOT started, we've had
130,000 homicides in the U.S.
We have killed 130,000 of our own selves.
Meanwhile: How many have been killed
by domestic terrorists?

Don't give me that liberal yuppie bullshit
about a good fight, this isn't fucking Yale!
A good fight is one you WIN!
--True Believer (1989)
______________

When it was recently reported that Osama bin Laden's son, Saad bin Laden, was probably killed by a US missile strike in Pakistan earlier this year, this is one indication why the U.S. will not be successful in their Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) in AFPAK or Iraq.

The people fighting us are in it for the long haul, and they believe in what they are doing. OBL puts his sons on board. How many U.S. leaders put their families in harm's way? Generally speaking, the rich and powerful do not sacrifice their offspring on the altar of democracy.

OBL means to win; our leaders are cheerleaders. We may kill OBL's son, and we may even kill OBL, but that won't solve the problem. Did the deaths of the Saddam Hussein family make the Middle East or America any safer?

Another generation of dictatorial rule is germinating in Iraq as we swipe our credit cards through the machine.

Leap of Faith

"He had, in fact, got everything from the church
and Sunday School, except, perhaps, any longing whatever
for decency and kindness and reason."

"A proper school should teach. . .the Hebrew Bible
as interpreted by men superbly trained to ignore contradictions,
men technically called 'Fundamentalists.'"
--Elmer Gantry, Sinclair Lewis (1927)

A twelve-gauge, double-barreled, grenade-launcher of LOVE!
--Leap of Faith (1992)
_________

Sitting at the Mayo Clinic the past two days and being post-operative leads one to introspection. Thinking on morality inevitably leads one to religion. For us here at Ranger, this is not the little personal religion, but the larger Religion that overtakes a people.

Ranger has always proposed that terrorism is a total cultural phenomenon that entails economic, religious, political, economic, sociological and psychological elements. This applies to most typical terrorists groups, like the Irish Republican Army and ETA (Basque Homeland and Freedom), which are but two long-term examples of the genre.

But we have encountered a deviation from the old partisan groups with our created Phony War on Terror (PWOT©). The U.S. has fabricated an enemy cut of one cloth, variously called Islamofascism, Islamic extremism or radical Islam. We see them as the motivating force behind Middle Eastern terrorism. But this impulse is only relevant to al-Qaeda and related sympathetic Wahhabi elements.

In fact, the terrorists, or what we call terrorists, fighting U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq are not of this fabric. Most elements of the Taliban and Iraqi insurgency are fighting simply because the U.S. is an invading army of occupation, with no ideological ax to grind beyond that of expulsing the occupiers.

This behavior is justifiable, understandable and sanctioned by international law. Bottom line: the U.S. invaded a country without being aggressed upon and targeted the Taliban, a group which never did attack U.S. interests (though they did provide safe haven to the actual menace, which is the terrorist group al Qaeda, as does Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.)

In contrast to the Taliban, all the extreme Islamists targeting U.S. interests have one shared characteristic, from leader Osama bin Laden down to the lowliest recruit. They are all willing to defer their happiness to the supernatural plane. They are willing to forgo material gratification in this life with the goal of entering paradise as an honorably felled warrior.

In effect, the earthly plain is of little consequence and the battle therefore assumes eternal and cosmic proportions. Powerful stuff.

Sure, the Christian ideology retains quaint notions of resurrections and Elysian Fields, but for most, the concept of eternity is only concretized in the form of a vain concept of personal genetic legacy -- a quasi-scientific projection of one's own gametes. But that is as sure as most folks get. The metaphysical persistence of one's essence beyond death is a hope residing on a tenuous faith. Most are willing to hedge their bets in choosing belief in the eventuality of this gossamer afterlife, but this is a far less certain call.

So how does the U.S. true believer, who has most faith in the almighty dollar, address these true Muslim believers? We send troops to fight them, troops who have access to computer porn, but who aren't allowed to drink alcohol in consideration of their area of assignment. Can you say, "hypocritical"? Conflictual?

Our occupation has introduced cell phones, ipods, blackberries, You Tube, My Space and cellphone and computer accessed smut. But the local women wear burkhas and hajibs.

We further believe that oil revenue sharing will buy their loyalty. Foreign aid --throwing truckloads of shrink-wrapped newly minted C notes is another tried and true attempt to pimp them out. But to the true al-Qaeda believer, none of this will ever work. They don't want our money and things, they just want us out of their face and space.

These people cannot be bought off like the pimps that cooperate with the U.S. occupations of their countries. Money is not the answer. They are focused on eternity, and this earthly plain (plane) is simply the line of departure.

The radical Islamists are reminiscent of the religious right in American politics EXCEPT the radical Islamists have a purity of intent that is unknown to church-goin' people like GWB and Cheney. The hardcore Islamists really believe their dogma.

The Catholic church worships their martyrs and saints who preferred a reward in heaven to life on this plane of sin, but the day of the literal self-flagellant is largely passed. And the act of worship has been transmuted into a pecuniary transaction, one of buying indulgences from more sainted entities.

Modern Christianity may call for man to walk in the footsteps of his savior, but also says that there is no greater glory in living the ascetic life. God wants you to be affluent! Surely that bit about the meek inheriting the earth is just metaphorical.

These adherents have no understanding of deferred gratification. They take the dominion over the land and beast part seriously. The radical Islamists do not share in such temporal material revelry. Mohammed never met a Calvinist or Presbyterian.

So if not via force, how does America best countenance the problem of the actual terrorist threat posed by al-Qaeda? We lack their ideological fervor, regardless of how arrogantly we believe we are in the right. Because of our milder engagement, they have the better claim to victory on the battlefield.

Some possible ideas:

[1] Keep our Armies off their sacred ground.

[2] Realize that not everyone can be bought and sold by Mammon.

[3] Monitor extremist mosques via police and intelligence on a coordinated worldwide basis.

[4] Hold the real radical Islamists to task -- even if they are in the royal family of Saud.

[5] If it is a time of war, then isolate U.S. borders and protect the homeland from the threat.

[6] Do not allow Islamic individuals to fly in groups on any domestic flight. Surely not without an air marshal aboard. This is surely inconvenient, but then again, so was 9-11.

[7] Establish economic programs to purchase petroleum without trying to dominate their societies. In effect, security trumps phony unrealistic calls to democracy.

These people live in a tribal space and time that is not in sync with U.S. realities. They do not prioritize here and now, and their loyalty is otherworldly. Isn't this something that a Christian President with a higher father should understand?

--Jim and Lisa