Friday, December 4, 2009

Sex, Death, and "The Family"

The legislature of Uganda is considering the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009. The bill is sponsored by David Bahati, and endorsed by the president of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni. It calls for harsh punishment of gays, including imprisonment and death. Ugandans could even be incarcerated for not notifying the authorities about a gay person. Uganda, like much of Africa, has been the target of American Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians. In particular, a cult-like entity called “Family” or Fellowship of C street, has been influencing Uganda. This group has been investigated by noted journalist Jeff Sharlett, in his expose The Family. American right-wingers like Rick Warren, Governor Mark Sanford, scandal-plagued Nevada Senator John Ensign, and nuts like Dr. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma are part of this group. Warren expressed surprise that anyone cares what happens to gays in Uganda. Rachel Maddow and Teri Gross deserve praise for covering a story few MSM reporters are discussing.

Is it even necessary to say how appalling this legislation is, and how shameful the behavior of Warren et al is? This issue illustrates three things: the legacy of post-colonial missionary zeal, the intersection of sex, death, and taboo, and the inherent violence of the Abrahamic religions. It’s not my intention to savage Christianity or anyone’s beliefs. I only want to make a few observations.
Africa is still experiencing the consequences of colonialism. In the nineteenth century, the continent was carved up among the European nations. Before that, Africa and its inhabitants were targets of the slave trade. The missionaries who evangelized Africa were, necessarily, extremists. Only the most earnest, true believers become missionaries. Is it surprising, then, that Uganda suffers from the most fanatic form of Christianity? Because of European influence, indigenous religion is rarely practiced by Africans in Africa. If you want to learn about Yoruba, for instance, you have to come to the “New” World. The African Yoruba religion, with its reverence for orisha, is expressed in the Caribbean religions of Voodoo and Santeria. Colonialism and missionary work have effectively relieved Africa of its native traditions and beliefs, for better or worse.

Sexuality, death, and taboo are woven into the fabric of the human psyche. Lacan, the French psychoanalyst, was not the first to note the relationship between sex and death. It is through sex that we mortals, subject to death, come in to being. Religion, as it shifted from tribal to national, sought to control sexuality. In the ancient Near East, fertility rituals were a part of religion. The most common item found in ancient burials are so-called Venus figurines, violin-shaped effigies of women with exaggerated sexual organs. These figurines are believed to be part of fertility worship, and the ancients certainly made the connection between sex and death.

It’s hard to understand the Judeo-Christian taboo about homosexuality. It’s tempting to say the ancient Hebrews were anti-sex, but that can’t be shown. The Hebrew Bible was written by various authors over many centuries, and sex taboos change in the text. It’s impossible to read Song of Solomon and say Hebrew writers are anti-sex. The Christian Bible was written by fewer authors over the course of less than a century, and its beliefs are more consistently anti-sex. Christian authors are against sexual expression, revealing the influence of Greek ascetic and Gnostic traditions. This said, Jesus never mentions homosexuality. The only universal taboo about sex seems to be incest, according to sociologists. Like all taboos, it can be violated by the powerful. Egyptian rulers celebrated brother/sister love, and these creepy overtones can be seen in Song of Solomon.

The most disturbing aspect of all three Abrahamic religions is human sacrifice. Yahweh is angry at Cain for not offering a living sacrifice. Yahweh commands Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Bizarrely, Abraham complies. If your new God wanted a human sacrifice, wouldn’t you shop around for a kinder, gentler deity? As Rich Cohen notes, children rightly understand this story, and aren’t convinced by adults who tell them it is a test of faith, and Yahweh doesn’t really want this child to be slaughtered. I wasn’t convinced when I was a child in Sunday School. Archaeologists and religious scholars maintain that human sacrifice was common in the ancient Near East. Mount Zion was a center of this cult.

I like to go to church during Advent. The Christmas carols are great. But last Sunday I sat through a sermon preached by a seminary student, who covered the traditional orthodox scheme of regeneration, where God is propitiated by the death of his son. I reject this theology. What father would have complicity in the death of his son? And once a month, the church wants us to “eat” Jesus. Maybe I should stay home with the CD player and skip the human sacrifice. I could sing hymns at home, and drive the neighbors crazy. I grew up steeped in Jewish and Christian belief. The older I get, the more I am bothered by the violence inherent in traditional theology.

The link between Abrahamic religion and murder can’t be considered latent: it’s obvious and celebrated in many churches, synagogues and mosques. Enlightened clergy try to spiritualize and change violence into metaphor. It’s a hard sell. When the Rick Warrens and Tom Coburns of the world are responsible for the death of innocents, it’s not a surprise. They are true to the tradition. The only sects that are truly pro-life are the Friends (Quakers), Evangelical Brethren, Mennonites and Amish. They are anti-death penalty pacifists. People who are anti-abortion can’t be considered pro-life. They operate on the Fisherman’s theory: put ‘em back in till they get bigger.

People of good will who want the world to be a better place need to disavow the inherent violence of Abrahamic religion. They need to lobby and work against the Rick Warrens of the world, who may be truer to the spirit of these religions, unfortunately. Humans have a fifteen thousand year history of violence and capital punishment. For the survival of the species, it’s time to find a different way.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Jerusalem and Bethlehem

Just a brief word on the Messianic Jewish rabbi whose daughter was being “courted.” On the ship, I was reading Hannah Rosin’s book, “God’s Harvard.” It’s about religious rightwing kids who are homeschooled. They go to college at a place called Patrick Henry College, in D.C. Fundamentalist homeschooled children don’t date. They court. When the guy whose table I left was talking about courtship, it caught my attention, because I was reading about this very thing. You can’t ask a girl out, in this milieu. If your intentions are towards marriage, you have to ask the girl’s father for permission to “court” her. It seems demeaning from my perspective. A daughter is a piece of property who can’t make her own decisions, she is passed like chattel from father to husband.

After spending the morning in Jerusalem, we went to Bethlehem, in the West Bank. We passed through a border fence. This might have been a bigger deal for people who don’t live in southern California. Just south of San Diego, we have this environmentally disastrous border wall. Everywhere you drive you are stopped at check points by the Border Patrol to make sure you are not traveling with immigrants. In Israel, they have built a border wall. The Palestinians are treated the same way America treats immigrants from Mexico. The rhetoric is the same. In both cases, there is a wall that ruins the environment and causes needless hardship. The borders are defended with guns. I don’t have any answers about the immigration debate in this country. I agree with Thom Hartman that the problem is not illegal immigrants but illegal employers. The situation is not completely analogous in Israel.

In Bethlehem we visited the Church of the Nativity. Of all the churches we visited, I found this the most interesting. It was the oldest. The Eastern Orthodox sanctuary dates from the 5th century C.E. There are old mosaics on the floor. This church, unlike so many others, wasn’t destroyed in the Muslim conquest or the Crusades. Arab invaders understood that the church honored the wise men, who were from the East. The soldiers respected the Christians’ tribute to the Magi, who were from Persia.

The door to the Orthodox sanctuary was so low that you had to bend to get in (even someone as short as me!). This was either to prevent soldiers from riding their horses inside the church during wars, or alternately, to make sure people bowed upon entering a holy place. There were icons on the walls, and the church was lit by numerous hanging lanterns and candles. Our guide was a Palestinian Christian.
The Catholic sanctuary was next to the old Orthodox church, and was built over the grotto of St. Jerome. Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, working in a cave. He felt holier working close to the place where Jesus may have been born. We didn’t see the actually grotto where Jesus was born: the line was too long. The “Jerusalem Syndrome” is when people go crazy in the Holy Land. Well, the woman from Mexico who had a tantrum because the bus wouldn’t stop for her to shop, had a complete breakdown when our guide said there wasn’t time to visit the grotto of Jesus’ birth. She claimed to be devout, but had no qualms about interrupting worshippers in the Orthodox sanctuary with her screaming and crying. I haven’t seen a tantrum like that since my nieces were 5. I was glad that she wasn’t American, but her episode was conducted in English as well as Spanish, so the distinction between American and Mexican was probably lost on the worshippers staring at her.

The two days in Israel passed quickly. I’ve been told that in Israel, things are more sane in Tel Aviv, a large, secular city on the Mediterranean coast. I was put off by the racism of our first guide. I was discouraged by the disparity of living standards between Israelis and Palestinians. I can’t believe that Palestinians are dirty, lazy, and violent, any more than I believe those things to be true about Mexicans. I don’t think anyone is safer when a wall blocks people’s access to their crops. I was uncomfortable with the hyper-religiosity in Israel. But what did I expect? It is a country for religious pilgrims.

The right wing in Israel, which is in control with Netanyahu, uses the same anti-Arab, anti-Muslim rhetoric used by George Bush. Bush’s use of terms like “crusade” didn’t help American-Muslim relations. In both Israel and America, the right combines religion and politics. Israel is full of Catholic churches, and there are a lot of monks and nuns. Veneration, prayer and study are noble goals for any individual, but they are of little help to the larger society. I wonder if things would be different in Israel if the churches turned in to schools or hospitals. Could the Catholic church broker peaceful relations between Israelis and Palestinians?

We humans are genetically wired to be tribal. For 250,000 years,we lived in small hunter-gatherer bands. We believe our society, our family, our religion is the best. This has been necessary for the survival of the species. We have fought for our little groups. But this tribal chauvinism no longer serves human society. We have to find the discipline and self-control to keep from being parochial. We can no longer act like our religion or our nation is better than anyone else’s. For the past 15,000 years, we have responded to conflict with violence. It doesn’t work. Violence begets more violence. In Israel, as in America, it is past time to try a new way of dealing with others. This is the era when good will and tolerance must prevail, or our species will self-destruct, and destroy the planet with us.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

More about Israel-- Jerusalem

The first day in Israel had been disturbing. The right wing talk of the guide was less than helpful. Sadly, what made Israel, at least this day, seem so much like southern California was the feeling that I’d inadvertently turned on American talk radio. The guide’s anti- Palestinian rhetoric was delivered in the international language of hate. It was obvious to any observer that the Palestinians don’t enjoy the same standard of living as the Israelis. Most Israelis have had the opportunity to travel, and have benefited from Western secular education. They are heavily subsidized by American relatives and sympathizers. There is no AIPAC for Palestinians. In some cases, Palestinian communities have no access to electric power or clean water. It was hard to see the Israelis as the underdogs.

I’m sure the guide had reasons for hating Palestinians. They aren’t all saints and victims. The Goldstone report, which I read as objective reality, accuses Palestinians in Gaza of war crimes. After this first day in Israel, I was pessimistic about the country. I am not a Middle East expert. I am not qualified to pass judgment. I can only say what I saw. If a lot of Israelis are as racist as our guide, and if many Palestinians are as well, then there is no hope for peace in Israel.

The next day in Jerusalem was better. For one thing, we had a different guide. It was through the same agency, Patra, that the cruise ship contracted with. Both tours seemed geared toward devout Catholics. I encourage anyone who plans on travelling to Israel to do better research than I did, and find a tour geared towards particular interests. It is possible that most people who visit Israel want a religiously-directed tour.

Jerusalem was lovely. We stopped on the Mount of Olives, and had a panoramic view of the Old City. It was a wash of golden brown. It’s easy to why someone called it “Jerusalem the Golden.” We stopped at the Church of the Agony, also called the Church of the Twelve Nations. Twelve countries financed its construction, built on Gethsemane, the spot where Jesus was betrayed. We saw the old Jewish Cemetery, where rabbis and holy men of the ages are buried. From there we went to the walled city. Our first visit was to the Wailing Wall.

The Western Wall, or the Wailing Wall, is the sole remnant of Herod’s temple. The devout believe it is the closest place on earth to the Divine Presence. Men and women go to different areas to pray; you wrote down prayer requests on a scroll of paper and push it between the bricks. It was very moving. Anything more I say about it will sound trite or maudlin.

We walked through the narrow walls of the city, past numerous cramped market stalls. Catholics have the Stations of the Cross, a tradition not shared by the Eastern Orthodox or Protestants. We passed stations five through twelve, and went to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. It was built outside the city walls, over the site where Jesus was crucified by the Romans. The church is broken up into chapels, each of which is owned by a different Christian sect. There is the rock where tradition says Jesus’ body was prepared for burial, and a grotto some believe was Jesus’ tomb.

The reverential aura was broken by a loud mouth woman from Mexico who kept asking, “Is this a church or a mosque?” There were crosses and pictures of Jesus everywhere, and she thought it was a mosque? The various priests and clergy of the various sects apparently get in to fist fights over access to the chapels, our guide told us. They show these tussles on Israeli television: it’s Israel’s version of reality TV. In fact, there is so much acrimony between the Catholics and Orthodox and Protestants and Coptics, the keys to the building are kept by a Muslim family.

This same Mexican woman kept demanding our guide stop so she could shop. The itinerary was full, and we were slated for shopping in Bethlehem. This gal was not amused by being told to wait. We ate lunch at Pavilion, a great big buffet diner. There was more great Israeli food, more yummy brisket and roasted chicken.

People write about the “Jerusalem syndrome.” Each year, a given number of tourists who visit Israel have a breakdown, and believe they are the Messiah or a prophet. As lovely as Jerusalem is, the air is heavy with religiosity. At the first table where I sat in the cafeteria, I was accosted by a Messianic rabbi. He was telling folks that the problem with Israel was the same as the problem with America: the left wing. Lefties, according to this jerk, have deliberately sabotaged both Israel and America by allowing immigrants in. I took my plate and moved on. Before I walked off, he was talking about his daughter’s courtship.

(to be continued)

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Impressions of Israel Part 2

Mid-day we stopped at the Jordan River. The water was green, from the flora in the water. There was a tourist shop, and people had the opportunity to wade in the Jordan, or, if they had pre-arranged it, to be baptized. Many people were being baptized: they wore white robes, and a pastor or priest dunked them backwards in the river.

We ate lunch that first day in a kibbutz. The kibbutz movement in Israel, this experiment in social communism, is on the wane. Israeli politics are veering more and more to the right. The few remaining kibbutzim are inhabited by older people--- folks my age. The food was delicious: I had the best brisket I’ve ever eaten. I sat across from a lovely young woman from Panama. She was thoroughly enjoying herself. I was trying to stay optimistic, although I was getting weary of seeing churches every five feet, and tired from the guide’s endless happy talk. It was becoming clear our young guide was a right winger. He said that the only politicians in Israel that were really able to accomplish peace were on the right. God help us.

The Panamanian woman smiled and said to me, “You have to be Christian to really appreciate Israel.” A piece of cucumber salad fell from my open mouth, and before I could stop myself, I added, “Or Jewish or Muslim.” It seemed to me that Muslims and Jews had as good a claim on Israel as the Christians. The woman stopped speaking to me.

Although the weather was warm, the air felt like winter. It was about two in the afternoon, and the wind picked up. It was beautiful at the kibbutz, flowers were still blooming. We drove on to Nazareth, to see, surprise, another church. There are two Churches of the Annunciation. The Orthodox disagree with the Catholics about the precise location where Gabriel visited Mary. The churches are about a block apart. Although Nazareth is under Palestinian control, we didn’t pass through any check points. The guide was quick to alert us to a pile of trash on the sidewalk; “See how dirty the Palestinians are?” he said.

The Catholic church of the Annunciation was built in the 1960’s, and there are murals on the outer wall from all the countries that donated money for its construction. The focal point of the church is a cave where Mary is supposed to have lived. I bit my lip, and didn’t ask how they could be sure Mary lived there, especially since the Orthodox thought she lived across the street. A few yards from this church, there was the Church of St. Joseph, built over Joseph’s carpentry shop. Modern scholars believe “carpenter” is a mistranslation, that Joseph was either a stone mason or day laborer. Of course, since they’ve spent all this money building a church, it would be a shame to acknowledge this mistake. At this point, after this visit to the umpteenth crowded, modern church, my mother, the clergyman’s wife whispered to me, “If I see one more church today, I’m going to become an atheist.”

The ride back to the ship was long and disappointing. Our Israeli guide launched into an anti-Palestinian tirade. He assured the group that Arab Muslims were dirty, lazy, and violent. His hate-filled rhetoric was very similar to the rants of anti-immigrant groups in America like the Minutemen. His tirade was so similar to that of any rightwing Republican in America: change “Mexican” for “Arab,” and it’s exactly the same. Even more disturbing was the reaction of my fellow travelers: they loved this kind of talk.

One problem with hate and racism is that once you’ve opened it up, you can’t channel it. Our guide found himself the target of racism. A Japanese woman asked him why Jews were so “standoffish.” She worked with a Jewish man who was very unpleasant. Why were Jews like that, she wondered. That gave the guide pause, but he quickly recovered.
(to be continued)

Impressions of Israel Part 1

I’d always wanted to visit Israel. As the son of a clergyman, religion has always been a part of my life. Half of my ancestry is Jewish. I grew up with Bible stories. I had mental pictures of Moses in Sinai, Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Jesus on the Mount of Olives. I wasn’t certain what to expect when seeing these places. Would I be disappointed with the reality? Was Israel dangerous? How did politics and religion mesh in Israel? I was anxious to find out, and fortunate to have the opportunity to visit Israel. I wasn’t sure what I could learn in a two-day visit.

We anchored in Haifa, a Mediterranean port in northern Israel. Israel is a small country, about the size of New Jersey. In early November, the weather was sunny and warm, in the mid 70’s F. Haifa looked crowded and a bit polluted, very modern. We had come from Turkey, which is exotic and beautiful. Israel reminded me a lot of southern California, or even Florida. The climate and topography reminded me of home in San Diego. My group boarded a bus bounded for Nazareth and Galilee. Most of my fellow travelers weren’t American: we had Filipinos, Japanese, Mexicans, and Canadians in our group of about thirty.

Our guide was a young Israeli who spoke English well. His voice was loud and projected, but he still used a microphone--- to make sure we didn’t miss a syllable, I guess. It was about an hour ride from Haifa to the Galilee, a large, lovely lake. The guide bombarded us with facts about Israel, and pointed out various things on the landscape. Much of the agricultural land was drained, it had previously been swamp. There weren’t a lot of trees, and Jewish groups around the world plant trees in Israel. There were gently rolling hills, and everything was new. There were signs of construction everywhere, maybe another reason it reminded me of southern California.

Our first stop was the Church of the Beatitudes. It was on a hill overlooking the Sea of Galilee, supposedly built on the exact spot where Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount. I was skeptical: how do they know, all these years later, exactly where Jesus may have preached? I kept my doubts to myself, as my fellow travelers seemed to be a devout lot. The church was built in the 1930’s, commissioned by Mussolini. Now that’s a guy who exemplified the gospel of peace… The church was crowded and small, and there were a lot of traditionally dressed nuns from the nearby convent.

Next we visited the ruins of Capernaum. That was more interesting. There was, of course, a church, but we couldn’t enter the Church of St. Peter because of an ongoing service. This church dated from the mid-twentieth century as well. There were ruins of a synagogue where Jesus may have preached. Our guide was talking a mile a minute, and it was grating. He was from Patra tours, and I figure that must be the Israeli version of the Chamber of Commerce. Everything was wonderful, beautiful, amazing, and gee, aren’t we Israelis swell? A military plane flew by overhead, and the guide told us that like a lot of military machinery, it had been provided by the U.S. government. Great. I was feeling so religious: churches built by Mussolini and U.S. weapons.

The guide and fellow travelers color perceptions of a country. What did I know of Israel, really, before I visited? Yes, I’d read Aaron David Miller and Jeff Goldberg. I follow the news, but I’m confused. Americans are expected to side with Israel in its Palestinian conflict, but that isn’t always easy to do. The Goldstone report came out over the summer, detailing Israeli (and Palestinian) war crimes during the war in Gaza. The U.S. objected to this report at the U.N. Goldstone is, however, unimpeachable. He investigated the Serbo-Croatian war, and the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda. He has an excellent reputation. In addition, he is a Jew and a self-proclaimed Zionist. That hardly makes him biased against Israel.
(Stay tuned for Israel part 2)

Thursday, October 22, 2009

One Party Rule

I recently had dinner with some thoughtful friends. Many expressed disappointment in the Obama administration. Most of us agreed that we hoped for more change. Many of the failed policies of the Bush administration are continuing. We came to the conclusion that the two parties are, sadly, run by corporatists, and the country has become a plutocracy.

Consider the following statements: “The old parties are not only dying but they deserve to die. [Democrats] resemblance to the Republican party is more than superficial. In the ranks of both the Republican and Democratic parties may be found the millionaires, those speculators and middlemen, who, in the years since the war, have made themselves not only rich but hated. To men of this stamp, principle is little, profit much. In other words, their interests are so permeated by the poison of our time that they must unite.”

Or still: “We believe that the money of the country should be kept as much as possible in the hands of the people. The land, including all the natural resources of wealth, is the heritage of the people, and should not be monopolized for speculative purposes. We have witnessed for more than a quarter of a century the struggles of the two great political parties for power and plunder, while grievous wrongs have been inflicted upon a suffering people.”

Were those statements written by my friends yesterday evening, expressing disappointment at the current state of politics? No. Those writings denouncing the current two party system were written in 1892 by my great-grandfather. He established a People’s Party newspaper in southeast Nebraska. In 1892, the country was entering a deep depression. People were disgusted with the Democrats as well as the Republicans. General Weaver, the Populist party candidate, carried five states. He was the only third party candidate in American history to do that. Eventually the Populist party fizzled, and its members joined with either the DFL (the alliance of Democrats, Farmers, and Labor), or in the case of my great-grandfather, the Socialists.

Today, over one hundred years later, are the two parties still the same? Yes and no. The Democrats say the right things, but usually fail to deliver. The Democrats have been largely bought and paid for, just as the Republicans are. President Obama raised more money than any candidate ever: in America, the one who raises the most money wins. Always. America is a plutocracy, a corporate run entity. The first settlement, Jamestown, was founded largely by the East India Tea Company. It’s our history and our legacy.

That said, there are differences between Dems and Republicans. If Gore had been allowed to win, there would have been no Iraq War. There may not have even been a September 11. The world would have made progress on global warming. The Bush administration has been the most corrupt presidency since Grant. From Abramoff to Delay, the Bush Republicans are in jail or headed there.

I could end this with an exhortation for Dems to take back their party. I could encourage us to join the Greens. The more things change, the more they stay the same. What was true in 1892 is still true. It’s discouraging. But you know all this. And chances are, you know what you can do, and are doing it. The struggle goes on for you, for me, for all of us.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

In Praise of Doubt

In a recent article in the Nation magazine, Marielle Lindstrom, former coordinator for USAID, said this of a Christian Fundamentalist/Evangelical organization: “I’d much rather say that God tells me to do this [work]. It would be easier…” Lindstrom went on to express concern that “there’s no self-doubt.” We had eight years of a president who was confident God was giving him personal instruction. It was a disaster. Doubt, self-doubt, it seems to me, is undervalued in certain circles.

Freud, who is himself undervalued today, makes a simple distinction between neurosis and psychosis. According to one reading of his work, the goal of therapy is to help people come to terms with neurosis. Analysis rarely helps the psychotic. A neurotic can recognize inconsistencies in thought: a psychotic can’t see inconsistency. As a proud neurotic, I have many dark moments when I see the problems in my politics and world view. For instance, I am a theoretical vegetarian who wears a leather jacket. That’s inconsistent, and I know it. I believe in tolerance for all beliefs, but I am intolerant of people I consider closed-minded. If there is an afterlife, I am a universalist, but I believe that certain people, Hitler, Stalin, Bush, deserve to go to hell. I am inconsistent. I have trouble making up my mind, and this leads to paralysis of action.

Freud’s first case study was of a doctor he would later label “psychotic.” Dr. Schreiber believed he was gradually turning into a woman, and would give birth to the Messiah. Dr. Schreiber was a respected physician, who worked until very late in his illness. When the doctor looked in a mirror, he didn’t see a middle-aged man, but someone whose features were becoming ever more feminine. He believed he had been impregnated by the sun, and was with child. When I first read this case study, I didn’t know whether to laugh or to cry. Dr. Schreiber could not be talked out of his convictions. Everything he saw confirmed his belief. He eventually had to be hospitalized.

Doing research on America’s three hundred years of miscegenation laws, I was struck by the psychosis of this country’s racism. The term “mulatto” comes from the word “mule.” It was believed that offspring of an interracial couple could not procreate. This was used to buttress laws forbidding interracial marriage. Now, I can sort of understand “scientists” who believed that the earth was flat, and doctors who denied the germ theory of disease. These beliefs, while wrong, aren’t contradicted by the observation of the naked eye. Children of interracial couples certainly can reproduce; otherwise Jim Crows wouldn’t have become ever more hateful, and there would have been no Plessy vs. Ferguson. (In the 1890’s, the Supreme Court ruled that someone with 1/8 African blood could be legally discriminated against.) If those who signed miscegenation laws, using the reproductive argument, really believed children of interracial couples could not reproduce, no one could have had one great-grandparent who was black. Japanese-Americans with 1/16 Japanese blood wouldn’t have been interned. Hence, racism is psychotic, because reason and observation could not dissuade these genius legal minds.

What would it be like not to doubt? There are some, apparently, who never do. Freud had no problem labeling these religious zealots “psychotic.” If you turn on the a.m. radio, you will hear preachers who yell at you not to question. In other words, don’t be human, don’t use your mind, don’t trust your instincts. Aspire to psychosis. I hope to come to the place in my own life when I can accept the inconsistencies in my religious and political beliefs.

I believe that humans are perhaps graduating towards a better place. In spite of poverty, hunger, and illness, I believe society can work for the common good. I believe in a transcendent goodness I call “God” for lack of a better term. I am hopeful for the future of the planet and the human race. I might well be wrong.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Race and Economy

In the past two weeks, two former presidents have weighed in on the question of race in America. Jimmy Carter stated that much of the hysterical opposition to health care reform can be attributed to racism. Bill Clinton thought that racism was not such a big issue. At Fox news sponsored teabag parties, many participants carry overtly racist signs. While no doubt some people are opposed to regulating health insurance for ideological reasons, it doesn’t seem likely that these people are aware of policy nuance. I do have a Republican neighbor who fears that health care reform will put insurance companies out of business. I was so shocked at this pronouncement I didn’t know what to answer. While President Obama may be right in saying insurance execs aren’t evil people, I am unconvinced. Pacificare in California denies 40 % of claims, according to Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi. While Pacificare is concerned with profits, and not sick people, that in itself seems sociopathic.

Questions of race are linked to questions of economy. When liberals, in the late 1940’s, finally began to address questions of racial inequality, they were attacked by Republicans. Racial equality was viewed as a communist plot. While that sounds laughable today, it’s important to remember that racial equality was a platform of many socialist and communist governments. Castro, in the Cuban Revolution, fought for three things: universal healthcare, universal literacy, and an end to racism.
Historians will debate the outcome of the Cuban Revolution for years to come. It would have been nice if universal suffrage was one of Castro’s platforms. But then, it would have been great if the United States hadn’t tried, for over fifty years, to overturn the political situation in Cuba. Castro has fought tirelessly for African liberation. Revolutionaries worked for pan-Africanism as well as pan- Americanism.
Freedom House, which since 1941 has evaluated freedom around the world, has been studying the plight of freedom in the United States. One reason the United States doesn’t rate as high as people think it does is the legacy of racism, economic inequality, as well as the civil liberties we have sacrificed since Bush.

Capitalism, contrary to popular belief, is no guarantee of freedom or democracy, any more than socialism is. Economic theory doesn’t correlate with individual liberty. Crony capitalism works just fine in totalitarian regimes like Russia and China. Heck, China loves Sarah Palin.

It’s wonderful to have an African American president. I never thought it would happen in my lifetime. I can’t help thinking that if the American left hadn’t been decimated by Taft Hartley and McCarthyism, the United States might have made as much progress against racism as Cuba. Anti Communist hysteria prevented anti-discrimination from being legislated sooner. Republicans seem as opposed to racial equality now as they did back then. Even many Democrats are afraid of discussing economic equality, a topic that goes hand in hand with racial equality. Jim Crow laws and institutional racism have prevented the progress this country should have made. Leftists, as well as all people of goodwill, must make racism unacceptable. I don’t believe in “thought crimes,” but I am often horrified by my own racist and sexist thoughts. It’s important to be aware of our internal monologue. Like the struggle for peace, the abolition of racism is primarily external, but extends to the internal.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Work and Labor

Labor Day is an under appreciated holiday. Yes, there are picnics and good food. At its heart, Labor Day is recognition of work, and the price our ancestors paid to form unions. The first Labor Day celebration was a Tuesday in 1882. It was started either by Peter McGuire, co-founder of the AFL, or Matthew Maguire of the International Association of Machinists. Workers at that time were struggling to get the eight hour day. In 1884, the holiday was changed to the first Monday in September.

The rest of the world celebrates labor on May 1st. In 1886, Chicago’s Commercial Club open fired on strikers. The next day, the Haymarket riot began when someone threw a bomb at police who were trying to break the worker’s strike. At least four were killed, and many more wounded. America, run by big business and terrified by social reform, has never celebrated May Day in a meaningful way, although the holiday celebrated around the globe commemorates an event in this country.

In 1945, 1/3 of American workers were union members. By 1979, that number dwindled to 24.1 per cent of workers. In 1998, only 13.9 per cent of workers in this country belonged to a union. There are many reasons for the downward trend, but, needless to say, the stagnation of wages and benefits in this country might be due to the decreased power of unions. In 1935, American workers got a boost from the Wagner Act. In 1947, protection of unions was altered by the Taft- Hartley bill, which was vetoed by President Truman. Congress overruled this veto, and this act was passed. One of the central problems with Taft Hartley was that it forbade members of the Communist party from being union officers. This was the first nail in the coffin of the American Left, which was later persecuted by Senator McCarthy.

Labor can be distinguished, perhaps, from work. Work is what we do if we are lucky enough to have a job. Labor is the struggle, the good fight we engage in. Labor is the cause, work is the means to an end. As this country once again engages in health care debate, it’s all too easy to get discouraged by the circus clowns who fight reform. But, as Ed Schultz says, health care reform is a generational struggle. The cause began a hundred years ago with Theodore Roosevelt. Conservatives opposed to reform are a symptom of what Freud called the “death wish.” Those who want reform are examples of the life force. While American psychologists disregard Freud, these two directional pulls are clearly at work here.

We don’t know how our struggle for progress will end. We can’t jump ahead to the end of the book and see the final chapter. It seems like we never achieve lasting change, either in our own hearts or in the world. Maybe our existence is random and meaningless, and we are here by chance. But maybe, just maybe, there is cultural evolution. Progress is slow, but the overarching direction of history is positive. George Eliot once wrote “the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts. The fact that things are not so ill with you and me as they might be is due to the number of people who have faithfully led hidden lives, and rest in unvisited tombs.” Well said. May it be true of us all.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Reflections on Senator Kennedy

Senator Kennedy’s passing is the end of an era. He was known as the “Liberal Lion” of the United States’ Senate. As a man, he was complex. On September 14, his autobiography will come out. According to excerpts, he frankly discusses the darkest moments of his life, and writes of his regrets. He was devastated by the tragic deaths of his brothers, and battled alcoholism. Senator Kennedy’s failings are well-known, and it serves no useful purpose to enumerate them. One of his worst episodes left a young woman dead. Kennedy was connected and powerful; had his misadventures been committed by a less prominent person, the consequences might have been worse.

But Kennedy changed. Most of us have not been given the advantages he was born with, and our temptations, and opportunity for bad behavior, have not been on the scale of an American aristocrat. Kennedy could have slunk off into oblivion, but he stayed in the public eye, and did good. Kennedy was on the right side of history, whether the issue was race, poverty, disability or any aspect of civil rights. A loyal Catholic, he challenged church teachings with which he did not agree. Life for many of us would have been far worse if it hadn’t been for the actions of this reformed man.

Reform, repentance, revolution--- all of these are charged terms. But like the word “salvation,” they have straightforward meanings. Reform and revolution mean simply a turning. Salvation means to make whole. Kennedy seems to have found both—he turned, he changed, and he became whole. He worked hard to make others whole. No one can ever know what inner demons Kennedy, or indeed anyone, faced or faces. Kennedy changed.

As we approach the Days of Awe, I find myself reflective, not just about Kennedy, but about myself. In Gates of Repentance, we read the wisdom of the rabbis, who remind us that the gates of prayer may not always be open, but the gates of repentance, or turning, are always open. I am ambivalent about prayer: a good God would not need to be cajoled to help people. Whatever God is, God either can’t, or won’t, intervene in human affairs. It’s up to us. At every moment we have the opportunity to turn, to change, to spark an inner revolution. We’re told that one hour of repentance and good deeds in this life is worth more than all the hours in the world to come. For one thing, we don’t know anything about the world to come, if there is one.

Senator Kennedy changed, and I find that hopeful and comforting. Change, repentance, reform--- these are all possible. We can aspire to one hour of repentance and good, and then, with practice, two hours. We work for the salvation, the survival, of ourselves, our species, our planet. Senator Kennedy, your memory is a blessing. May we find the strength for our own repentance, and may we work to help the underdog, as you did.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

American Empire

Last spring, the Peace Resource Center along with other interested groups sponsored a peace march in San Diego. The attendance was low; many believe that with President Obama in office, the urgent need to end useless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been addressed. Sadly, Congress has appropriated $84.8 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year ending September 2009. This brings the total war costs in the last eight years to$915.1 billion--- almost a trillion dollars. Republicans and right wingers, with new found born-again zeal, now object to the deficit, claiming there is no money for health care. According to the National Priorities Project, which carefully reviews the budget, 42.2 cents of every tax dollar goes to the military. Only 22 cents goes to health care, and a paltry 8.7 cents goes to anti-poverty programs. About one in eight Americans lives below the federal poverty level.

In a stirring speech, Cindy Sheehan observed that the problem with America is empire. We don’t think of ourselves that way; empire is a superannuated term. Conservatives, like Aaron David Miller insist that America is not an empire: we are a “superpower.” What’s the difference? An empire is an empire is an empire. The shocking fact is, this country spends more on its military budget than every other country. We spend more per capita on war, and we spend more in total than every other country in the world combined. We invade countries at will, and have over eight hundred military bases all around the world.

In Central America, we are apparently so frightened of Hugo Chavez that we tolerate the military expulsion of Zelaya. The cause, the noble cause for which Casey Sheehan died is the protection of unregulated corporate capitalism. America must protect the interests of multinational corporations, most of whom don’t pay for the protection our military offers them. If we were policing the world to ensure personal liberty, freedom of expression and a high standard of living, that would be one thing. But to keep the world safe for cowboy capitalism is quite another.
America is the wealthiest country in the world. It squanders its wealth on the military-industrial complex. The American Empire protects multinational corporations that have no investment or interest in this country. Americans are disproportionately poor, uneducated, and increasingly, uninsured. What are we fighting for?

Dennis Kucinich has long advocated the creation of a Department of Peace. If we did, maybe other countries would respect us instead of despising us. Our nation’s wealth could be redirected to care for our sick, uneducated, and poor. Right wingers who “fear” supposed Big Government healthcare have no problem with Big Government warfare. And that’s the party of Jesus?
Peace, whether internal or international, is the only treasure worth fighting for. By reclaiming larger swaths of peace within ourselves, we may find the strength to reflect that peace to others, and find the hope to fight for worldwide peace. Without peace, there will be no salvation for us individually or as a species. Dare to wage peace. The messianic age is here. The revolution has begun. Tag, you're it.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Compassion and Revolution

Walking the dog last night, I witnessed a troubling interaction between a homeless man and a well-dressed neighbor. The man asked for money. My neighbor not only refused, which was certainly his right, but chose to be deliberately rude and confrontational. My neighbor"s angry reaction was puzzling. A week earlier, I was having coffee with a friend who went on a rant against the homeless. My mind has a catastrophic bent, and I can easily imagine various scenarios which would make me homeless. Bad luck, bad choices--- it could easily happen. What is troubling is the anger people openly exhibit to the less fortunate.

Many are troubled by the anger generated at these town hall meetings, where conservatives are ranting against health care reform. Anger at political leaders is understandable: I spent the last eight years fuming at the arrogance and horrible decisions of the previous administration. But consider the anger Jane Fonda still generates. She did some stupid things for which she has apologized numerous times. Why are people angry at Fonda, and not at Macnamara, Nixon, LBJ--- the politicians who instigated a stupid and useless war? The right is adept at channeling anger inappropriately. Consider Reagan"s targeting of "Welfare Queens." We weren't supposed to be angry at poverty, and the conditions that brought it about. We were told to blame the victims. Of course, we all knew someone who knew someone who once met someone who worked at a welfare office, and who came across women who popped out babies so they could get more welfare. The paradox was that these "Welfare Queens," who were always African Americans, and overweight, simultaneously wanted to have more children and get government sponsored abortions. They must have been busy, as well as confused. Or could it be that we were confused?

Blaming the victim is the oldest trick in the book. Whether the victims are immigrants, the homeless, the disabled, Jews, blaming the victim is so much easier than asking "why." In "Prophetic Imagination," Walter Bruegemann writes "Compassion constitutes a radical form of criticism." By feeling compassion, and acting on it, we realize that the pain and suffering of others is real, and we must help. Jeff Dietrich, in the San Diego "Catholic Worker" adds, "When Jesus told us to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and visit the imprisoned, he knew that such activities would cause us to ask questions of both ourselves and our society." Dietrich adds the clincher, the point where religion and politics merge: "To enter into the hurt is to realize that system is rigged."

Whether the prophet urging us to feel compassion is Moses, Jesus, Mohammed or Karl Marx, we come to realize that we live in a political system that is unfair, where there are many losers, and just a few winners, in the material sense. By acknowledging the suffering around us, we come to terms with our own complicity in a broken world.

In 1892, my great grandfather began a Populist/Socialist newspaper, "The Table Rock Censor." His family worked tirelessly for the campaign of James Weaver, a great liberal. Weaver's Populist party refused to join the Democrats, thinking they were just as corrupt as the Republicans. My great grandfather worked for the revolution, "Armageddon," as he called it, when the capitalist overlords would be displaced. Progressives of the era used religious terminology in their struggle. The revolution, the better world my ancestors fought for might have been called the Messianic Age by religious leaders. Both the religious and the political factions worked for change.

No one today remembers James Weaver, although man of his liberal policies, like the progressive income tax, eventually came about. Weaver was the only third party candidate ever to carry five midwestern states. In other countries, where actual political revolution happened, the results were decidedly mixed.

In his brilliant work, "The Evolution of God," Robert Wright traces the growth of God, or, if you prefer, the growth of the concept of God. Gradually, over the past 250,000 years of human history, God has become more loving, more ethical. If our species is to continue, God must keep changing and growing, as we ourselves grow. Salvation for humans is dependent up the salvation of the planet. We work for the growing good of people, of the planet. We work for change, revolution, the Messianic Age. We believe that the universe is here for a purpose, and that purpose is good. We don't know the end results: we don't know if we will succeed in saving ourselves and our world. God must continue to grow. When we feel compassion, God has a place to be born.

If you volunteer, work for a charity or political cause, or choose to manifest good will for all, you work because you must. The Messianic Age is here, the Revolution has begun. Tag, you're it.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Teabaggers, Birthers and Deathers

Like a majority of Americans, I was overjoyed when Obama was elected. I cried when he was sworn in, and I booed when the cameras panned in on Cheney and former president Chucklenuts. I thought the eight year nightmare was finally over. After all, Bush was not even elected; he was appointed in the Supreme Court's right wing coup of 2000. Amereicans were not really nasty, stupid folks who always vote against their own self-interest. We are reasonable, thoughtful people who are just sometimes gullible. I am beginning to see that I was wrong.

Birthers, Deathers, Teabaggers all represent the ugliest and most violent aspect of this country. It seems like Republicans are not even trying to hide their racism. We're subjected to news clips of tearful women who moan, "I want my country back!" As Jon Stewart notes, these people should try telling that to the Indians. The ease with which people can be lied to and mobilized is astounding. Deathers bring guns to hear the President speak. Racism, right-wing media, and lack of education are three mains rasons why behave Americans behave so stupidly.

Lee Atwater, Nixon's brain, came up with the so-called Southern strategy. Republicans voted almost unanimously against the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Bills of the mid 1960's. Ford, Cheney and Rumsfeld were just some of the Republican congressmen who opposed equal rights for minorities. Race-baiting became an art form for conservaties, and now we see the fruits of this project, as Repulbicans increasingly become a regional, ethnic party. In the late 1970's, the religious right, which has long history of racism, joined the cause. Southern Baptists, like Mormons, historically refused to ordain African Americans. In addition, Presbyterians split during the Civil War, and the two largest bodies of that denomination didn't rejoin until 1980, when the denomination took a swing to the hard right. Now it seems that gays and lesbians are the new blacks.

Anyone who watches television or reads a newspaper can't help but be struck by the unequal time the right wing gets. Fox "News," which began around 1996, took advantage of media consolidation and Bill Cinton's media deregulation. I bet Clinton wished he could have a redo on that piece of legislation. I'm constantly amazed by the prominence idiots from Liberty College or conservative talk radio have in panels on Sunday news shows. Where's Amy Goodman? Why is there no voice of the left in the media? Where's someone from the Green or Worker's parties? Most liberal Democrats aren't leftists, even if they are represented. The American left was squashed by McCarthyism and the red scare. Who cares what Palin or Limbaugh thinks? Can Palin or Limbaugh think?

Finally, education in this country has suffered over the last forty years. Public schools have been drained of resources by anti-tax advocates. In California, the most populous state in the nation,spending on education ranks 47th. Thanks to the budget crisis, Schwarzenegger can slash spending with a smile. In the South, a proliferation of low-cost parochial schools means that even middle class whites can send their children to private school. The South has achieved de facto segreagation. Many states are in a budget crisis, and more and more children will have a poor education.

Is our country's darkest period over? Will America's Ice Age finally thaw? If any thinking person falls asleep for a second, the nightmare will recur.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Healthcare, Wealthcare

In 1980, the top 1% of Americans owned 9% of the USA's wealth. By 2007, the top 1% owned 20% of this country's wealth (see Robert Reisch, Supercapitalism). The Reagan revolution succeeded in this massive redistribution of wealth. During this same time, union membership dropped, real wages have stagnated, and millions have lost health insurance. Culminating in the bank bailouts, we have privatized profits by socializing financial loss. No one is screaming "reverse socialism" about this trend. In fact, capitalism itself remains unquestioned in this country. There are no socialist or Marxist commentators. Despite its massive failure and gross inadequacies, there is no debate about this country's fundamental economic structure. This isn't an anomaly: the plutocrats or corporatists of this country have always been artful in controlling the masses.

Now we have the healthcare debate. At least 47 million Americans have no insurance, no one knows how many millions are underinsured, and people who have insurance through their jobs can easily lose this coverage. Medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy in this country. Recently, an elderly relative of mine tearfully worried that her family wouldn't love her anymore because of a secret. It broke my heart to see her crying, and I couldn't believe this gentle soul could have done anything that she was ashamed of confessing. She had to declare bankruptcy at age 85. She was unable to continue paying on her second husband's medical costs. Her husband had died at age 65, and never had Medicare. They had no idea how inadequate their insurance was. She spent all her retirement savings on hospital bills, and worked until age 80. Her vision failed, she had to stop working, and was forced to declare bankruptcy. The most painful thing about this secret burden was her shame about it. She never told her family why she wasn't able to retire sooner.

A disabled friend of mine has Medicare due to illness. His medical costs are about $12,000 a month for medication alone. He confided that all told, his bills came to $250,000 last year for surgeries plus medicine. "Am I worth that much?" he asked me. I know many people with catastrophic or chronic illness who have to stop working so they can qualify for Medicaid. For whatever reason, single payer insurance is not even discussed in politics any more. We are the country that spends twice what other countries spend on medical costs, yet we have millions who can't get healthcare. An estimated 18,000 people die every year because they are unable to access medical treatment before it's too late. We have the highest rate of infant mortality of any industrial nation.

As I told my elderly relative, and as I told my friend who doesn't think he's worth spending that much on, the system is rigged. Healthy people, and the insured, may not understand this. Fortunately, most sensible people do understand this inequity. Yet insurance companies and big Pharma are spending $1.4 million per day on defeating any reform of the healthcare system. Teabaggers and other goons are disrupting town hall meetings with Democratic politicians. Rush, Beck, Hannity, the insurance companies, have all mobilized pathetic people to act against their own economic interest.

Once again, the top 1% has mobilized the masses to act in favor of the plutocrats. As Thomas Frank observed in What's the Matter with Kansas, conservatives are artful in deploying people to fight against their own self interest. In the 1850's, Frank notes, only about 1% of Southerners owned slaves. This one per cent rallied people to fight a war of secession on their behalf. Are Americans stupid, or are we insane? Some speculate by eliminating spending on public education, the rich are able to keep people dumb enough to fight oil wars on their behalf. In California, Schwarzenegger is slashing both education and healthcare, perhaps hoping to keep the masses sickly as well as stupid.

Will there be meaningful healthcare reform? Will people learn to act on their own behalf, instead of on behalf of the uber-rich? Will anyone question the privilege of the wealthy? I wish I could be more hopeful.

Friday, July 24, 2009

Theology and Belief

Recently I read Bart Ehrman's most recent books, Misquoting Jesus and God's Problem. Ehrman is at his best when he does exegesis and explication of biblical tests. His area is primarily the Christian Bible, but he examines the Hebrew Bible as well. Misquoting is an easy to read, enlightening examination of sayings of Jesus that are in the current Christian Bible, but are not found in the most ancient manuscripts. He examines reasons why later scribes and copiers inserted these passages. In Problem he discusses the four principal reasons for suffering given by the men who wrote the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. In addition he discusses his own evolution from fundamentalist Christian to agnostic. By the time he reached middle age, he writes that he could no longer believe in the God his close reading of biblical texts proposed. My question is, no disrespect to Prof. Ehrman intended, what took him so long?

Ehrman's understanding of God is that the biblical deity is all powerful and all good. He lambastes theologians who offer and alternative understanding of the divine. Rabbi Kushner, for instance, believes that God is good, but no all powerful. Ehrman calls his book, sarcastically, "When Good People write Bad Books." By age fifty, Ehrman saw that God did not help all people in dire need, and discards belief in this deity. The only God he, or apparently anyone else, should believe in is the God of the Bible. In this respect, it seems to me like Ehrman is like Sade. Sade proclaims his atheism, but takes delight in blaspheming, wanting to shock the God he does not believe in. Ehrman, at times, seems petulant that a God who is not a divine Santa Claus does not intervene.

Ehrman takes pains to explain to readers that although he is agnostic, he is happy. Huh? If religious people were uniquely happy, preachers and proselytizers would not have to work so hard. Ehrman would do well to take a class in comparative religion, or else completely outgrow his religious parochialism. He wants to have it both ways: the only God possible is the God of the Bible, yet he does not privilege the Bible as divinely inspired.

Ehrman cites the holocaust as proof that God does not exist. Maybe he should read the Diary of Anne Frank. The theological book that has helped me most in my religious education is a diary that forms a complement to Anne Frank, the diaries of Etty Hillesum, published as An Interrupted Life. I am grateful to Chris Glaser for recommending this incredible work, one of the most inspiring books I have read. The same month, year, and in the same place as Anne Frank, Amsterdam, Hillesum chose to live openly as a Jewish woman. She understood that God either could not, or would not, help her, yet she wrote "I do not blame God. He is not accountable to us, but we are to him." Hillesum was widely read, and examined the Hebrew and Christian Bible as closely as Ehrman, although she was not a theologian. She was an intellectual, and wasn't trapped by a parochial paradigm.

Whatever God is, he can best be described in the negative, as Heschel wrote. God is not an old man with a beard, sitting on a cloud, waiting to throw lightning bolts at people he doesn't like. We can say what God is not, but it is more difficult to say what God is. The God of the Bible is, at times, perfectly horrible. He delights in the slaughter of children, and doesn't mind the occasional infant sacrifice, as in the case of Abraham and Isaac. Or, as in the case of the Christian God, God is a father who is complicit in the death of his son. This is the God Ehrman stopped believing in, but not until middle age?

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Race and Genetic Testing

    For Mother's Day this year, I got my mother the unsentimental gift of a genetic test kit. These tests are easily available on line, and people like Stephen Colbert of the "Colbert Report" have discussed what they learned from these kits. They cost about two hundred dollars, you swab the inside of your cheek and mail it off. Results come in about six weeks. There is a lot they don't tell you, though: women can only be tested for their mother's DNA, mitochondrial DNA. Men carry both their mother's DNA and their father's DNA found on the Y chromosome. Mitochondrial DNA is unbroken throughout history: it goes all the way back to your first female ancestor, and is passed on from mother to daughter. Men have their mother's mitochondrial DNA, but don't pass it down to their offspring. Women, of course, have no Y chromosome, so paternity can't be tested in that way. You have to find a male relative of your mother's to get this information.

    Brian Sykes, in his chatty and informative book, The Seven Daughters of Eve, reveals that all people on the earth are descended from seven maternal ancestors who came from Africa 150,000 to 100,000 thousand years ago. Obviously there were more than seven women who came out of Africa eons ago, but only seven of them passed their mitochondrial DNA down to daughters who had daughters who had daughters, etc.

Genetic testing has dissolved the very concept of race. All of us alive today are closely related, and all of us came from East Africa, in the area that is now Ethiopia and Kenya. Mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome DNA varies little throughout the ages, but the variations are what can be tested. Genetic researchers have shown that humans have lived in Africa longer than any other continent: because genetic information changes, or mutates slowly, by testing genetic change scientist now know that Africa is the mother country of all humans alive today. One hundred and fifty thousand years ago, our ancestors made their way to the Middle East, and from there to the ends of the earth.

    What does this have to do with Hitler? Hitler certainly deserves blame for his ideas of race, and the actions he pursued to "purify" the "Aryan race." There is no Aryan race, of course, we know that now. Sensible people knew it then. Hitler was a man of his times, and sadly, many of his ideas about race and purity came from American scientists. Today's IQ test, the standard Stanford test, is a product of American scientific racism. It's no surprise that African Americans tend to do worse on this test than people of the upper middle class of European descent. Stephen J. Gould has written extensively about how this test was used to root out "morons," once a medical term, so they could be forcibly sterilized. Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford, and many, many others believed that people of European descent constituted and actual "superior race." Specially trained women stood on the shores of Ellis Island to root out "morons" using the Stanford test, to keep them from "polluting" the American gene pool. Surprisingly, many immigrants who spoke no English didn't do well on the IQ test…

    So why did I get this test for my mother? My mother's mother was secretive about her Jewish ancestry, and almost never discussed it. In today's psychobabble, she has been called a "self-hating Jew." In my opinion, this term is thrown around carelessly, and doesn't reflect compassion on generational differences. My grandmother was a woman of her age, and she told anyone who would listen that she was Swedish. One of her grandmothers came from Sweden, but there are Jews in Sweden. It's sad that she felt shame about her roots, but she grew up in a different place and time. When she was a girl, racism was scientific. Women were inferior, too, according to the science of that day.

    My mother's mitochondrial DNA, which I have inherited, is from Haplogroup H. She is of European descent. Does this mean that we aren't Jewish? Most European Jews are from Haplogroup K or H. A lot of research has been done recently on the fact that European Jews are primarily European. There is very little similarity, from a genetic perspective, to people who live in the Middle East. So, surprise, the Jews Hitler sought to exterminate were as European as any German. 47% of all Europeans are from Haplogroup H, about one third of Ashkenazi Jews are from this genetic background. Sykes gives the mother of Haplogroup H the name "Helena," and the mother of Haplogroup K, the source of another third of European Jews, the name "Katrine."

    European Jews, from a genetic perspective, are more similar to Europeans than to modern Middle Easterners. Science today tells us that the very concept of race is meaningless: there is no such category. Africans are genetically more different from each other than they are from Europeans. Nineteenth century science, promoted by American bigots and transported to Europe, recast the old religious stereotypes into "racial science." Jews, or "Christkillers" were thought to be intrinsically racially different than "Aryans." They are not. We are all Africans.

    Listening to the confirmation hearing of Judge Sotomayor, I hear Republican southern senators rehashing the same old stereotypes. Like the KKK, they believe in "race" and "racial difference. Politics, like superannuated science, is the last bastion of "race." Shouldn't we, as a species, be beyond this by now?

Thursday, June 4, 2009

California: Failed State?

    California, at least in popular culture, has always been a state of mind as well as a geographic location. Folk singers during the dust bowl, warned that California wasn't everything people feeling Hoovervilles were seeking. They warned, "If you ain't got that 'do-re-mi' you better go back to Kansas…" In the 1980's, the Gatlin Boys sang that "All the gold in California is in a bank in the middle of Beverly Hills in somebody else's name…"

    California is in the worst financial condition it has ever been in. It may go bankrupt by the end of July. We have heard dire predictions before, but this could well be worse than usual. In addition to the deplorable passage of Prop. 8, the anti-gay marriage proposition, Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislature are about to implement massive cuts to healthcare and education. The Governator has never liked the poor or the ill: he has twice vetoed statewide single-payer health coverage. He has vilified teachers' unions and nurses' unions. The California Nurses' Association is one of the most progressive organizations in the country, and has been fighting the good fight.

    Now the Governator has the opportunity to permanently cripple education and healthcare, no pun intended. The wealthy and the healthy don't have anything to lose. As usual, these cuts will affect the most vulnerable, children, the disabled, people with HIV/AIDS.

    In her masterwork, The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein describes how governments use economic shock to cripple social programs. What is currently being proposed in California is textbook shock doctrine. We are moving ever closer to a society where the richest one percent, who can afford health care and private schools, can be safe in their gated communities and armored cars. The rest of us will be fighting over table scraps we find in their dumpsters.

    Schwarzenegger and the legislature are capitalizing on this current economic crisis to push through an agenda they could never have passed in normal times. No wonder those who are able are fleeing the state. This proves, once again, the wisdom of folk song--- all the gold in California is in a bank, in someone else's name.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Does Gay Marriage Matter?

On Tues, May 26, Californians got disappointing, if expected news. The state's supreme court ruled in favor of the voter approved ban on gay marriage. As a liberal, I've been inspired by feminist and gay liberation writers. What is marriage, I thought, but sexual imperialism? I've been uncomfortable with an institution that seems primarily economic, and that involves one person becoming the personal possession of another, right down to the name change. Granted, I wasn't necessarily a sought after guest as my friends and relative got married in the 1980's. In addition to the imperialistic aspects of marriage, it seemed to me like an incredible stress factor in a relationship, and cost a good deal of money that might be better spent as a down payment on a house.

In the 1990's, I was best man at my brother's wedding. I was also best man for my best friend in a holy union service performed by my father. I never cried at a wedding; I was usually nervous. In those two instances, I was in a cold sweat about my duties arranging the bachelor party and giving an appropriate toast.

Like gays in the military, gay weddings aren't a really a part of my life. As a pacifist, I wondered why anyone would join the military. A wise friend explained to me that the military was the only option for many rural and southern youths that didn't have the middle class background I had, and whose only recourse was to join the military. It was the only way that many could get a higher education. Seen in that light, the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is cruel to people who are trying to better their lives.

Several years back, on a sleepless night, I surfed late night television and found a show on gay weddings. Most of them were, to me, boring and predictable. One, however, was so touching i actually cried. Two Jewish lesbians were actually happy at their wedding, at least, so it seemed on TV. The thing that seemed missing from previous weddings was--- joy. In photo albums of relatives, most seem nervous or fearful even for their wedding pictures. Then there is the photo of my great-grandparents. The camera caught a certain look in their eyes, the happy confluence of lust and love. Call it joy.

There is nothing like forbidding something that makes people want it more. I'm not in the age bracket for marriage, and my circumstances are such that a wedding is remote. I've read that after age thirty five, you're more likely to be attacked by a terrorist than to get married. So I won't get married. So I won't join the military. Maybe marriage is an imperialistic institution. Maybe love alone should be what keeps people together, a la Sartre and de Beauvoir. But California's ban on future gay marriage is simple discrimination, organized by some small minds with deep pockets. And telling me I can't have it only makes me want it more.

Does Gay Marriage Matter?

On Tues, May 26, Californians got disappointing, if expected news. The state's supreme court ruled in favor of the voter approved ban on gay marriage. As a liberal, I've been inspired by feminist and gay liberation writers. What is marriage, I thought, but sexual imperialism? I've been uncomfortable with an institution that seems primarily economic, and that involves one person becoming the personal possession of another, right down to the name change. Granted, I wasn't necessarily a sought after guest as my friends and relative got married in the 1980's. In addition to the imperialistic aspects of marriage, it seemed to me like an incredible stress factor in a relationship, and cost a good deal of money that might be better spent as a down payment on a house.

In the 1990's, I was best man at my brother's wedding. I was also best man for my best friend in a holy union service performed by my father. I never cried at a wedding; I was usually nervous. In those two instances, I was in a cold sweat about my duties arranging the bachelor party and giving an appropriate toast.

Like gays in the military, gay weddings aren't a really a part of my life. As a pacifist, I wondered why anyone would join the military. A wise friend explained to me that the military was the only option for many rural and southern youths that didn't have the middle class background I had, and whose only recourse was to join the military. It was the only way that many could get a higher education. Seen in that light, the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is cruel to people who are trying to better their lives.

Several years back, on a sleepless night, I surfed late night television and found a show on gay weddings. Most of them were, to me, boring and predictable. One, however, was so touching i actually cried. Two Jewish lesbians were actually happy at their wedding, at least, so it seemed on TV. The thing that seemed missing from previous weddings was--- joy. In photo albums of relatives, most seem nervous or fearful even for their wedding pictures. Then there is the photo of my great-grandparents. The camera caught a certain look in their eyes, the happy confluence of lust and love. Call it joy.

There is nothing like forbidding something that makes people want it more. I'm not in the age bracket for marriage, and my circumstances are such that a wedding is remote. I've read that after age thirty five, you're more likely to be attacked by a terrorist than to get married. So I won't get married. So I won't join the military. Maybe marriage is an imperialistic institution. Maybe love alone should be what keeps people together, a la Sartre and de Beauvoir. But California's ban on future gay marriage is simple discrimination, organized by some small minds with deep pockets. And telling me I can't have it only makes me want it more.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Dick Can't shut His Hole

Those of us who heard President Obama's speech this morning heard the sober thoughts of a reasonable man. If you followed the election closely, you knew that Barack Obama is no liberal. As a lib myself, voting for him was a no-brainer. He is no Socialist, he is not French, he is not gay. The only welfare he wholeheartedly supports is the welfare the Republicans support: corporate welfare. The fact that he is so vilified by the Republicans and right wingers is a chilling reminder, as if we needed one, of just how dark this country's dark ages have been.

Dick is only too glad to remind us. He had to open his pie-hole before the president finished speaking, blabbing the same old talking points. I had to turn the radio off. Hearing his voice is like fingernails on a blackboard. He instills the same visceral repulsion I felt when former president Chucklenuts spoke. Chucklenuts could be counted on to giggle girlishly whenever death was discussed.

There's not much to be said about Dick that hasn't been said better by Jane Mayer or Ron Susskind. On some level, Dick knows he was a failure. He did nothing to prevent 9/11, although there were warnings. He overcompensated for his neglect by becoming a torturer.

We all operate under illusions. We have to survive. Dick operates under the illusion that torture isn't illegal, and that he hasn't ruined this country's reputation. I, and probably you, if you are reading this, operate under the illusion that we aren't living in a Dick-tatorship, and that the nightmare of the last eight years is over. But Dick won't let us forget. Maybe, as Ed Shultz suggests, he is trying to influence the jury pool for upcoming war crimes trials. If only. We can dream.

Although Freud is discounted in this country, some of his ideas are still discussed by, who else, the French. According to Freud, via Lacan, civilization is always pulled into two different directions, the desire for life, and the deathwish. Dick is the ultimate symbol of what is plainly the Death Kultur. Torture, punishment, murder: Dick has almost taken the role of Chucklenuts, the gleeful giggling Texas executioner.

Countries, like people, are caught in the tension between the desire for life and the tendency towards death. We've lived in the shadow of Death Kultur for the last eight years. Obama wants to look ahead, to pursue life. I wish I were more hopeful. Every time Dick opens his hole, this country dies a little more.

Dick Can't shut His Hole

Those of us who heard President Obama's speech this morning heard the sober thoughts of a reasonable man. If you followed the election closely, you knew that Barack Obama is no liberal. As a lib myself, voting for him was a no-brainer. He is no Socialist, he is not French, he is not gay. The only welfare he wholeheartedly supports is the welfare the Republicans support: corporate welfare. The fact that he is so vilified by the Republicans and right wingers is a chilling reminder, as if we needed one, of just how dark this country's dark ages have been.

Dick is only too glad to remind us. He had to open his pie-hole before the president finished speaking, blabbing the same old talking points. I had to turn the radio off. Hearing his voice is like fingernails on a blackboard. He instills the same visceral repulsion I felt when former president Chucklenuts spoke. Chucklenuts could be counted on to giggle girlishly whenever death was discussed.

There's not much to be said about Dick that hasn't been said better by Jane Mayer or Ron Susskind. On some level, Dick knows he was a failure. He did nothing to prevent 9/11, although there were warnings. He overcompensated for his neglect by becoming a torturer.

We all operate under illusions. We have to survive. Dick operates under the illusion that torture isn't illegal, and that he hasn't ruined this country's reputation. I, and probably you, if you are reading this, operate under the illusion that we aren't living in a Dick-tatorship, and that the nightmare of the last eight years is over. But Dick won't let us forget. Maybe, as Ed Shultz suggests, he is trying to influence the jury pool for upcoming war crimes trials. If only. We can dream.

Although Freud is discounted in this country, some of his ideas are still discussed by, who else, the French. According to Freud, via Lacan, civilization is always pulled into two different directions, the desire for life, and the deathwish. Dick is the ultimate symbol of what is plainly the Death Kultur. Torture, punishment, murder: Dick has almost taken the role of Chucklenuts, the gleeful giggling Texas executioner.

Countries, like people, are caught in the tension between the desire for life and the tendency towards death. We've lived in the shadow of Death Kultur for the last eight years. Obama wants to look ahead, to pursue life. I wish I were more hopeful. Every time Dick opens his hole, this country dies a little more.

Friday, May 15, 2009

My future husbands

    Stephanie Miller refers to men she admires as "my future husbands." I'd like to steal that label, and discuss some of the men on her, and my, list. Yes, I am not ashamed to admit I have "man crushes." In my case, the future is far more distant than for Miss Miller. Here in the backwater of California, gay marriage is illegal, unlike those liberal states such as Iowa. Besides, these heroes, what I call my future husbands, aren't gay. Details, details. If Keith Olbermann has ever said anything I disagree with, it doesn't come to mind. Russ Feingold is soooo fine. I guess I have to call Barb Boxer my future wife. She is great. Now, at the top of the list: Dennis Kucinich.

    Ed Shultz interview Rep. Kucinich yesterday on his television show. The "K-man" talked about the financial crisis. In words and sentiments a lefty like me could understand, he described the twentieth century American economy. We began the last century with industrial capitalism, and evolved to financial capitalism. Instead of making things which broadens the base of wealth, we trickled up to enriching the pencil pushing crooks on Wall Street. Now, in its latest stage, we are at protocapitalism. In this stage, about one percent of the population owns almost half (40%) of the nation's wealth.

    There is a lot of blame to go around. We can start with Reagan. He began a massive redistribution of wealth with tax cuts for the rich and an all out war on unions. Clinton didn't veto "welfare reform." The irony of terms like "trickle -down economics," which actually trickled up, and welfare reform, meaning the abolition of social services, must be noted.

    I believe that outsiders are in a unique position to cry foul. Racial and ethnic minorities, feminists, union workers, economic outsiders, the disabled, sexual minorities--- we can see that the system is rigged. The TARP program is nothing more than privatizing profits and socializing loss. Like trickle down economics, the name of the program is the exact opposite of what it does. Each of us has to find our future husband and organize. Maybe we should aspire to become the man we want to marry…

    Stay tuned for my next installment on torture: Why Won't Dick Shut his Hole?

My future husbands

    Stephanie Miller refers to men she admires as "my future husbands." I'd like to steal that label, and discuss some of the men on her, and my, list. Yes, I am not ashamed to admit I have "man crushes." In my case, the future is far more distant than for Miss Miller. Here in the backwater of California, gay marriage is illegal, unlike those liberal states such as Iowa. Besides, these heroes, what I call my future husbands, aren't gay. Details, details. If Keith Olbermann has ever said anything I disagree with, it doesn't come to mind. Russ Feingold is soooo fine. I guess I have to call Barb Boxer my future wife. She is great. Now, at the top of the list: Dennis Kucinich.

    Ed Shultz interview Rep. Kucinich yesterday on his television show. The "K-man" talked about the financial crisis. In words and sentiments a lefty like me could understand, he described the twentieth century American economy. We began the last century with industrial capitalism, and evolved to financial capitalism. Instead of making things which broadens the base of wealth, we trickled up to enriching the pencil pushing crooks on Wall Street. Now, in its latest stage, we are at protocapitalism. In this stage, about one percent of the population owns almost half (40%) of the nation's wealth.

    There is a lot of blame to go around. We can start with Reagan. He began a massive redistribution of wealth with tax cuts for the rich and an all out war on unions. Clinton didn't veto "welfare reform." The irony of terms like "trickle -down economics," which actually trickled up, and welfare reform, meaning the abolition of social services, must be noted.

    I believe that outsiders are in a unique position to cry foul. Racial and ethnic minorities, feminists, union workers, economic outsiders, the disabled, sexual minorities--- we can see that the system is rigged. The TARP program is nothing more than privatizing profits and socializing loss. Like trickle down economics, the name of the program is the exact opposite of what it does. Each of us has to find our future husband and organize. Maybe we should aspire to become the man we want to marry…

    Stay tuned for my next installment on torture: Why Won't Dick Shut his Hole?

Monday, May 11, 2009

Jesus and Marx

    During a recent holiday, I visited with both my own family, and the family of a close friend. It was exhausting for some reason, and it made me remember why I dislike holidays. Many people do. What bothered me most this time was the realization that I am the poor relation. In my day to day activities, I can forget this unpleasant fact. Every family has a poor relation. I never thought it would be me. I didn't work and strive my whole life for this. No one grows up thinking, "I hope I'll be the poor relative when I grow up. What fun!" Becoming the poor relative is something that just happens. Since sad country music songs often serve as the backdrop for my life, I found the song "Lazarus" in my mind. You probably know the old tune. It's about Lazarus at the rich man's gate. "He was some mother's darling, he was some mother's son/ Once he was fair and once he was young/ Some mother rocked him, her darlin' to sleep/ But he's only a tramp found dead on the street." Cheery.

    The story of the rich man and Lazarus is a problem. Poor Lazarus (not the Lazarus who is raised from the dead) begs for crumbs from the rich man's table. The rich man, of course, denies him. After they both die, the rich man is in a very warm place, and begs for cool water from Lazarus, who is vindicated after death. Jesus is sometimes flippant about poverty--- he tells a disciple "the poor you will have with you always." Even Jesus' more radical teachings, "blessed are the poor," are diluted in later gospels to read "blessed are the poor in spirit." The idea of justice in the world to come may offer hope. This pie in the sky by and by approach is why Marx calls religion the "opiate of the people." If the poor are taught to accept their lot there can never be social change.

    The poor, it seems to me, are naturally Marxists. They, or should I say, we, understand that it is all about economics. We have understanding of the inequity of wealth. Some rich people may be convinced they are special, they have worked harder, they deserve more money. That may be true. Certainly Reagan's radical right wing philosophy taught that the poor chose to be poor. Reagan believed in blaming the victim.

    The causes of poverty are many. There is illness and bad luck. In my family there is a sad old saying that when poverty and babies come in the door, love flies out the window. Wealth, it seems to me, is more singular in causation. The poor can cite reasons for poverty. Some of these may be justifications, rationalization, whatever. No doubt many are poor due entirely to personal weakness. But people are wealthy not so much due to virtue or intelligence, but because the system is rigged.

    In her interpretation of Jesus, Dorothy Day concluded that when Jesus advocated for the poor he wanted people to question the status quo. According to Day, in helping the poor, we come to question a system that ensures a very few are rich, and the many are poor. The group she founded, Catholic Workers, tries to marry Jesus and Marx.

    In my lifetime, the gap between rich and poor has widened. Bush's tax cuts for the uber rich have privileged the wealthy beyond all measure. What Reagan started, Bush pushed farther. Justice in the after life or a future messianic age is small comfort. Revolution has rarely worked. The solution, if there is one, is to work for slow, incremental change. Consciousness of the fact that the system is rigged may help us to avoid blame, self-pity and resentment.

Jesus and Marx

    During a recent holiday, I visited with both my own family, and the family of a close friend. It was exhausting for some reason, and it made me remember why I dislike holidays. Many people do. What bothered me most this time was the realization that I am the poor relation. In my day to day activities, I can forget this unpleasant fact. Every family has a poor relation. I never thought it would be me. I didn't work and strive my whole life for this. No one grows up thinking, "I hope I'll be the poor relative when I grow up. What fun!" Becoming the poor relative is something that just happens. Since sad country music songs often serve as the backdrop for my life, I found the song "Lazarus" in my mind. You probably know the old tune. It's about Lazarus at the rich man's gate. "He was some mother's darling, he was some mother's son/ Once he was fair and once he was young/ Some mother rocked him, her darlin' to sleep/ But he's only a tramp found dead on the street." Cheery.

    The story of the rich man and Lazarus is a problem. Poor Lazarus (not the Lazarus who is raised from the dead) begs for crumbs from the rich man's table. The rich man, of course, denies him. After they both die, the rich man is in a very warm place, and begs for cool water from Lazarus, who is vindicated after death. Jesus is sometimes flippant about poverty--- he tells a disciple "the poor you will have with you always." Even Jesus' more radical teachings, "blessed are the poor," are diluted in later gospels to read "blessed are the poor in spirit." The idea of justice in the world to come may offer hope. This pie in the sky by and by approach is why Marx calls religion the "opiate of the people." If the poor are taught to accept their lot there can never be social change.

    The poor, it seems to me, are naturally Marxists. They, or should I say, we, understand that it is all about economics. We have understanding of the inequity of wealth. Some rich people may be convinced they are special, they have worked harder, they deserve more money. That may be true. Certainly Reagan's radical right wing philosophy taught that the poor chose to be poor. Reagan believed in blaming the victim.

    The causes of poverty are many. There is illness and bad luck. In my family there is a sad old saying that when poverty and babies come in the door, love flies out the window. Wealth, it seems to me, is more singular in causation. The poor can cite reasons for poverty. Some of these may be justifications, rationalization, whatever. No doubt many are poor due entirely to personal weakness. But people are wealthy not so much due to virtue or intelligence, but because the system is rigged.

    In her interpretation of Jesus, Dorothy Day concluded that when Jesus advocated for the poor he wanted people to question the status quo. According to Day, in helping the poor, we come to question a system that ensures a very few are rich, and the many are poor. The group she founded, Catholic Workers, tries to marry Jesus and Marx.

    In my lifetime, the gap between rich and poor has widened. Bush's tax cuts for the uber rich have privileged the wealthy beyond all measure. What Reagan started, Bush pushed farther. Justice in the after life or a future messianic age is small comfort. Revolution has rarely worked. The solution, if there is one, is to work for slow, incremental change. Consciousness of the fact that the system is rigged may help us to avoid blame, self-pity and resentment.

Friday, May 8, 2009

What is it with the Presbyterians?

My research this spring has been mainly focused on Presbyterians. On a recent trip to Albuquerque, I visited the New Mexico Holocaust and Intolerance Museum. The Presbyterians were accused of cultural genocide because of their role in Indian Boarding Schools. Presbyterians were involved in three Indian Boarding School in the state, one of which still exists, although its ties with the church are looser. I am hoping to get this article published soon.

In last month's Nation magazine, Presbyterians were accused of anti-Semitism in an ad posted by FLAME, Facts and Logic About the Middle East. Presbyterians have made some incredible blunders in the past few years. I thought they just alienated gays, but they've caused offense to Jewish groups. Way to go, PC(USA)!

What is it with the Presbyterians?

My research this spring has been mainly focused on Presbyterians. On a recent trip to Albuquerque, I visited the New Mexico Holocaust and Intolerance Museum. The Presbyterians were accused of cultural genocide because of their role in Indian Boarding Schools. Presbyterians were involved in three Indian Boarding School in the state, one of which still exists, although its ties with the church are looser. I am hoping to get this article published soon.

In last month's Nation magazine, Presbyterians were accused of anti-Semitism in an ad posted by FLAME, Facts and Logic About the Middle East. Presbyterians have made some incredible blunders in the past few years. I thought they just alienated gays, but they've caused offense to Jewish groups. Way to go, PC(USA)!

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Presbyterians and controversy

I'm writing a brief article on Presbyterians of Jewish descent. Doing research, I've come to the conclusion that once again, the church has it wrong. In trying to straddle the fence between conservatives and liberals, it has made both sides angry. For as long as I can remember, this is what the church has done.

The denomination has sought to please evangelicals by funding an outreach that will seek to convert Jews. It has tried to appease liberals by condemning Israel's incursions into what should be, could be, a Palestinian homeland. This is the kind of dual response Presbyterians have aimed for over the past decades. And, in its tradition of postponing a final decision, it has decided to "study" these questions.

I wonder how long the Presbyterian church can continue. Sooner or later it will have to decide a course. Each Sunday, as I look over a sea of gray and white heads (like mine), I wonder how long this denomination will continue to function. I personally have reasons to stay in the denomination, but I wonder how long even this historical connection I have to the church will keep me there.

Presbyterians and controversy

I'm writing a brief article on Presbyterians of Jewish descent. Doing research, I've come to the conclusion that once again, the church has it wrong. In trying to straddle the fence between conservatives and liberals, it has made both sides angry. For as long as I can remember, this is what the church has done.

The denomination has sought to please evangelicals by funding an outreach that will seek to convert Jews. It has tried to appease liberals by condemning Israel's incursions into what should be, could be, a Palestinian homeland. This is the kind of dual response Presbyterians have aimed for over the past decades. And, in its tradition of postponing a final decision, it has decided to "study" these questions.

I wonder how long the Presbyterian church can continue. Sooner or later it will have to decide a course. Each Sunday, as I look over a sea of gray and white heads (like mine), I wonder how long this denomination will continue to function. I personally have reasons to stay in the denomination, but I wonder how long even this historical connection I have to the church will keep me there.