I suppose you’ve all heard or read about the new anti-Obama slogan that’s making the rounds in conservative circles.This little gem is available on t-shirts and bumper stickers – Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8.
For those of you who may not be familiar with that verse, this is what it says:
May his days be few;
may another take his place of leadership.
Standing alone, the verse may not seem too sinister. Maybe it means “may his days in office be few….” Anyone who is inclined to accept that interpretation, however, is gonna have a whole lotta ’splainin’ to do when that verse is put in its context:
8 May his days be few;
may another take his place of leadership.9 May his children be fatherless
and his wife a widow.10 May his children be wandering beggars;
may they be driven from their ruined homes.11 May a creditor seize all he has;
may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor.12 May no one extend kindness to him
or take pity on his fatherless children.13 May his descendants be cut off,
their names blotted out from the next generation.
Now, I know that anti-W rhetoric got heated. And, it was often less than kind. But, the right-wing hatred of Obama has gone beyond differences of opinions and grown disgustingly toxic. Then again, there are some who contend that this is simply a joke, a funny meme. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who thinks this slogan is funny is seriously humor-impaired.
A slogan like this would be bad enough if it were merely vicious. What bothers me nearly as much as the malice is the seemingly seamless blending of religion and politics. What kinds of people are drawn toward this slogan?
Jews? After all, the passage comes from the Old Testament. But, somehow, I don’t think many Jews are plastering their Chevys with these bumper stickers.
Muslims? I doubt it.
Buddhists? Yeah, right.
No, the people that seem most likely to be attracted to this slogan are the ones who currently infest the Republican party: rabid, uber-rightwing conservative Christians. Some of them are the kind of people who organize Teabagging events to protest taxes and health care reform. And some of them are the kind who insist that the United States is, or ought to be, a “Christian Nation” – with the understanding, of course, that their particular, peculiar flavor of Christianity is the one that should prevail. If this kind of vile, violent, virulent hatred and intolerance for people with whom one disagrees is part of what living in a “Christian Nation” entails, I want no part of it. Furthermore, I will not stand by quietly while they try to wreck my country. I’m all for freedom of religion. And freedom of conscience. And freedom of speech. I am all against theocracy. And oligarchy. And fascism. And I will oppose all of those forces with every breath in my body.
As much as the malice of this simple-minded slogan bothers me, and as much as the narrow-mindedness of the sloganeers bothers me, the thing that bothers me the most about this situation, by far, is the silence of a) Republicans and b) Christians. The Republican party is going to hell in a roller coaster; Republicans aren’t playing a role in the governance of our country, they’re playing count-the-votes in next year’s mid-term election. Listen up, Republicans: get your shit together and do the right thing. Either get some control over the radicals in your ranks or cut them loose. They are a drag on your party and they do not advance the cause of conservative politics. You may think you’re using them, but, be aware, they’re also using you. There’s no guarantee that the civil wing of the party will win the battle for party control. From where I sit, it looks damn well like the radicals have taken over and are well into the process of marginalizing the thoughtful among you. Grow some balls and take back your party, lest you lose not only your party, but your country too.
As for Christian leaders, I’m sick and tired of the deafening silence that accompanies Christian extremism. I commented on this before, shortly after the murder of Dr. Paul Tiller. Ever since 9/11 (perhaps even before then), Christians have urged moderate and liberal Muslims to police the rogues within their camp. Has Tony Perkins spoken out against this ostensibly Christian rhetorical nonsense, this oh-so-clever “joke?” Or Don Wildmon? Or Rick Warren? Or Gary Bauer? To my knowledge, not one of them (nor anyone like them) has uttered a word. If I’m wrong, please provide links in the comments. Listen up, Christian activists: now’s the time to put your money where your mouths are. Tell the violent, theocratic thugs and teabaggers in your ranks to get over themselves and put an end to the reckless rhetoric before someone – like, maybe, President Obama – gets hurt. Or worse. Until Christians start policing themselves and cleaning up their own wretchedly soiled house, they have no business telling Muslims to do so, nor do they have any business trying to persuade non-Christians that they, Christians, are the keepers of the secrets of God’s Kingdom, the bearers of Good News and all other such tommyrot. From where I sit, most Republican officeholders and many Christian political activists look like nothing more than power-hungry opportunists and control freaks. I want nothing to do with people like them and I sure as hell don’t want them running ruining my country. This extremist shit has to stop before we all get so deeply into it that we’ll need bucket loaders to dig us out. The shit has to stop, and it has to stop now.
UPDATE I: Here’s a video of Rachel Maddow and Frankie Schaeffer discussing this matter:
UPDATE II: It seems that a number of Internet vendors have removed this merchandise from their product lines.
– the chaplain
As North America embarks on yet another Christmas season, proponents of abstinence-only sex education may want to reconsider their position:
– the chaplain
When I got home this evening, one of the items in my mail box was a catalog from a jewelry company, Eve’s Addiction. The spread on page 36 was entitled, Show Your Faith in Style. This page included such gems as a Star of David necklace, rings with various cross designs, cross-shaped earrings, a cross engraved with the serenity prayer (a necklace), a prayer box pendant, a St. Christopher pendant and a Wheel of Being/Celtic cross necklace (it’s pretty cool looking, actually). Sad to say, I searched the catalog in vain for any items that would enable me to show my unfaith in style. That failed search prompted me to do some googling.
First, I googled Christian jewelry and got 11,900,000 hits. Needless to say, I have not perused all of those sites. In fact, I only browsed through one, just to get a sense of what stylish Christian accessories look like. Here are some of the things I found.
One can get rings, necklaces and wrist cuffs (for Christian biker wannabes?) with inscriptions:
One can also get rings inscribed with snatches of old hymns:
This particular site also has a line of purity jewelry for gals and guys:
Check out the the gay jewelry beneath these two hideous cross rings. Are these guys trying to be inclusive (or just hoping to boost sales)?
We all know that some Christians like to emphasize the hideous nature of Jesus’ death. I guess those are the kind of Christians who would wear these (the first one is a crown of thorns):
Having quickly grown tired of Christian jewelry, I turned my attention to atheist jewelry and got a measly 424,000 hits (well, it’s measly compared to nearly 12,000,000 hits for Jesus Junk). Here’s some of what’s available for people like me:
Yikes! I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that, but, really – Yikes! If anyone gave me that pendant, I’d ask what crime I’d committed to deserve such punishment. Let’s see if the selection gets any better.
Okay, double helix earrings. Not quite my style, but IMO, infinitely better than the preceding pendant.
Dare we hope for more? Here’s the well-known American Atheists atom logo:
For those who like to show off their sense of humor with their accessories, we have good old FSM:
Of course, you know this is coming – Dawkins’ Scarlet A is available:
And there’s this one, which will certainly get a rise out of theists:
There you have it, a small sample of the various accessories that are available for you to show your faith, or unfaith, in style. Take the poll below, and let me know what you think about the Accessory War in your comments. I’ll reveal my thoughts later.
– the chaplain
– the chaplain
When I was a teen, I spent a number of Saturday evenings watching campy Frankenstein movies on TV. Strangely enough, I’d never actually read Mary Shelley’s classic book. I can now report that I’ve corrected that oversight and, in addition to having seen many (but certainly not all) of the Frankenstein movies, I’ve read the book that spawned the films. As I read Frankenstein, I was struck by some parallels and contrasts I saw between that story and the Genesis account of creation. As I sat down to write this post, I was also struck by a connection I perceived between Frankenstein, Genesis and the Conflict Model of family relationships (also often specified as a model of parent-child relationships), as elucidated by Steven Pinker.
I’ll begin by considering Frankenstein and Genesis. Obviously, Victor Frankenstein, the fictitious creator, is analogous to God (another fictitious creator), and the monster, the created being (fictitious), is analogous to humankind (not fictitious). Another analog exists between the relative appeal of Frankenstein/God and the created beings. Frankenstein is brilliant and well-loved, and God, of course, is perfect and lacks nothing. In contrast, Adam, Eve and the monster are all flawed beings who unwittingly offend their creators. As the Genesis story goes, Adam and Eve offend their creator when they disobey him; up to that point, the threesome got along just swell. Unfortunately, Adam and Eve learned, after the fact, that the only way to retain their creator’s favor was to be unfailingly obedient and slavishly submissive to him. Even more cruelly, Victor Frankenstein’s monster offends his maker the moment his eyes blink open. The poor sod never had a chance to win his creator’s favor – Frankenstein was repelled by his creation at the instant he gave it life, a revulsion that he nursed and carried with him for the rest of his life. Yet another analog exists between the responses of the creators to their imperfect creations: God banishes Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, cursing them to fend for themselves in a world that suddenly has been rendered harsh, and Frankenstein abandons the being he created to fend for himself in a strange world populated by people who treat him harshly.
There are, of course, some points at which the similarities break down. For example, Frankenstein never felt any affection for his creation; from the moment the monster opened his eyes and drew breath, Frankenstein sought to destroy him. At several points in the story, the monster begs Frankenstein to make some provisions for him. Finally, he begs for a mate, so that he will not have to spend his entire life alone. Having learned from his brutal experiences that no human being will ever accept him, the monster seeks a companion like himself with whom he can spend his life (similarly, after Adam fails to find a suitable companion in the animal kingdom, God creates Eve to be his companion). Frankenstein breaks down and promises to provide a female companion for the creature. Shortly afterwards, partway through the completion of the task he finds deeply repulsive, he reneges on his promise and destroys the female creature. Consequently, the monster is doomed to live in isolation until the day he dies. In the Frankenstein story, creator and creature will never be reconciled. 
In contrast, the Genesis story contends that God and humankind can be reconciled, but only at tremendous costs. The humans have to offer repeated animal sacrifices either to atone for their wrongdoing or appease God’s wrath – I’m not sure which it is. (Jumping ahead a few centuries – God eventually takes the pressure off the humans and offers the ultimate perfect sacrifice to himself.)
If you google “Frankenstein as cautionary tale,” you’ll find some interesting applications of Shelley’s tale. Some say that humans are cautioned not to “play God” by delving too deeply into scientific inquiries. Others say that it cautions people against judging others on the basis of appearances. Still others say that it’s a cautionary tale against bad parenting. On this view, Victor Frankenstein is, to say the least, a dead-beat dad. This last caution brings me to my final point of discussion, the Conflict Model of family relationships. Steven Pinker has popularized this view in some of his books. One writer summarizes this view thus:
Pinker points out that since a parent shares 50% of his or her genes with each offspring, in evolutionary terms the investment in each should be equal (all other things being equal). But if I am one of those offspring, I share only 50% of my genes with each sibling, but 100% of my genes with myself, so it is in my best interest to suppress parental investment in my siblings and to promote parental investment in myself. Pinker hypothesizes that this may lead to a child’s behavior that, indirectly, helps prevent or delay the parents having another child.
According to Pinker, this behavior is unconscious; it’s just something that’s built into animals’ genetic makeup. Thus, parents and children, and siblings, are always in conflict over the distribution of finite family resources. That being the case, they don’t always share the same goals. In fact, their goals often conflict.
It’s intriguing to look at the Frankenstein and Genesis stories in light of this theory. Victor Frankenstein’s goal was to avoid, then later destroy, his creature. He pursued his goals of glory and scientific accomplishment without giving any thought to the responsibilities that his success in creating a new life, indeed, a new form of life – a species – would entail. When confronted with his responsibility, he fled from it. The creature’s interest, initially, was to get Frankenstein to care for him, or to at least make some minimal provision for his comfort. When Frankenstein failed to do even that much, the creature then shifted his goal toward revenge. It goes without saying that when both parties in a conflict are hell-bent on destroying each other, there is little to no possibility that the parties will live happily ever after. (Spoiler alert: Frankenstein does not have a happy ending). Similarly, the Genesis story, as it is often presented by evangelical Christians, tells us that God created human beings for his glory (and fellowship, so they say). 
But humans, having been endowed by their creator with a few brain cells, are inclined to pursue interests of their own devising. Assuming that the creator/creature relationship is analogous to the parent/child relationship (the process by which parents create children is one of nature’s wonders), Pinker’s Conflict Model fits both the Frankenstein and the Genesis legends. Frankenstein and his monster pursue obvious cross-purposes throughout Shelley’s book. Similarly, God and humans aim at contradictory ends in Genesis (notwithstanding the apologetic insistence that God’s interests include what is ultimately in humankind’s best interests): God wants humans to be submissive and ignorant, humans want to act independently and taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge. I’ll push the theory’s application a step farther and note that Cain’s murder of Abel (recorded in Genesis) is sibling rivalry writ large, a tendency that is often seen in nature when stronger offspring kill their weaker siblings. All of this is in keeping with a scientific model positing that living beings, even humans in close relationships genetically and affectionately, act in their own self-interests far more often than not.
Genesis, one of the best-known pieces of religious literature in the world, has been around for millennia. Frankenstein, one of the best-known pieces of English literature in the world, has been around for a couple of centuries (it was published in 1818). The Conflict Model of family relationships is the literary and theoretical newcomer; its existence can be measured in decades. I find it fascinating that a contemporary scientific theory can be used to examine the interpersonal complexities portrayed in two pieces of literature rooted in vastly different cultures. I also find it interesting that longstanding literary insights into human nature comport well with contemporary scientific theories. Such reciprocity speaks well for the utility of both science and literature as methods of exploring our humanity and our world.
– the chaplain
