Gawd Said, Let There Be Irony – And It Was Good

The gallons of irony contained in a recent story from One News Now is so astonishing it nearly took my breath away. The astonishment and irony begin as soon as one reads the story’s title:

Children Shouldn’t Be Protected From Truth

I agree with that statement. There’s not much more in this story with which I agree, so I figure I’ll start positively and work from there.

A California bill opposing Christian ideals in social studies textbooks has passed a 6-2 vote and is making its way into the Senate.

The Senate Appropriations Committee voted last week in favor of S.B. 1451, a measure that will combat the religious revisions to textbooks launched in Texas earlier this year. The bill now heads to the full Senate.

This is great news and gives me hope that there are at least a few sane people governing the USA.

Introduced by California Democratic Senator Leland Yee, the bill would require any information about Texas’ revisions to be reported to the legislature and the secretary of education. S.B. 1451 also calls the modifications “a threat to the apolitical nature of public school governance and academic content standards in California” and would expect the California Board of Education to review social studies textbooks.

Anyone who thinks that public schooling in the USA has ever been apolitical has never gone to public school in this county. Or they’ve drunk deeply of the Kool-Aid and are still functioning under its influence. Public school education in the USA, as in other countries, has always been about grooming children to be good citizens, an aim that is inherently political. In the American context, partisanship between accepted alternatives, i.e., Democratic and Republican parties, has been minimized, but it would be foolhardy to think that some partisanship doesn’t exist. When I was in public school, I was taught that everything about the Soviet Union was inferior to everything about the USA, that Soviets were the Bad Guys and Americans were the Good Guys – all the time. We were always right, and we always did the right thing in the right way, while the Soviets were always wrong and they always did the wrong thing in the wrong way. Having said all that, I agree that the recent curriculum changes that have been mandated in Texas are bad for any students who will be unfortunate enough to be exposed to indoctrinated into them. Apparently, enough state legislators in California agree with me to have taken action to address the situation:

The measure states that the revisions to Texas’ textbooks were propelled by an “inappropriate ideological desire to influence academic content standards for children in public schools” and that they were a departure from accepted history.

Yes! Someone had the guts to call a spade a spade. The changes in Texas are about a specific religious ideology, not fact or truth; they are about revising and re-writing history and, consequently, can’t be anything but “a departure from accepted history.”

Randy Thomasson, a conservative activist and president of SaveCalifornia.com, believes the regulation is unnecessary. Although he is advocating changes in California’s schools, he contends that the state “doesn’t need to ‘protect’ children from the truthful lessons of history.”

“History classes need a makeover so that students are accurately taught about the history, values, and persons that made America great,” Thomasson adds. “Who can be against this but those who despise the moral values that founded this country?”

Oh, Gawd, the irony is killing me! I agree with Thomasson that no one, especially children, should be “protected from” or otherwise denied access to the truth.  I agree that children need to be “accurately taught about the history, values, and persons” that shaped the USA. But, Thomasson and I are light-years apart regarding the substance of those lessons. What he is calling truth is bullshit, lies and the vile emissions of conservative Christian wet dreams. And please, for the love of truth, don’t overlook the way he substitutes the phrase “moral values” for “religious dogma.” Don’t ever let wingnuts like Thomasson get away with using such duplicitous terminology. Make them spell out clearly that they are speaking about specific religious values espoused by specific sects of the Christian church. Liberals, progressives and all others interested in speaking clearly must stop letting the wingnuts select and define the terminology of political debate; their deliberately obfuscating terminology masks more than it reveals. Also, Thomasson’s assertion notwithstanding, it was secular, Enlightenment values that made this country great (though flawed), not Christian values. Again, liberals, progressives and other clear thinkers can’t let wingnuts get away with misrepresenting their values and our history with their fuzzy, misleading terminology.

The state of Texas received criticism earlier this year for seeking to introduce Christian ideals into social studies textbooks. The revisions included the fact that the Founding Fathers established the country on Christianity.

The criticism leveled at the state of Texas was completely warranted – explicitly sectarian Christian ideals have no place in any textbooks used in publicly funded schools in a secular society.  Moreover, it is by no means a “fact” that “the Founding Fathers established the country on Christianity.” That is precisely the issue under dispute – although it is only disputatious to religious right wingnuts; most historians do not agree with the state of Texas, Randy Thomasson, or any other wingnuts. Slapping the “fact” label on an idea doesn’t magically or miraculously transform it  from “disputed idea” to “fact.” Obviously, the American Founding Fathers could not help being influenced by Christianity; it pervaded their culture more than any other religion of the time. It’s also not disputed that some of the Founding Fathers were  Christians. But, those few who wanted to establish trends that fuel the fantasies of today’s religious right lost the fight, and secularists won. I view the result of that struggle today and say, “And it was good.”

– the chaplain

 

Preacher Picked the John 3:16 Cherry

For reasons I won’t bore you with here, I found myself in church this morning. Since today is Pentecost Sunday (commemoration of the holy spirit’s appearance to the apostles and the inauguration of the Christian Church), the preacher’s sermon was about the importance of spreading the Christian message to all people. The service was mostly boring and the sermon was way too long, but there was some entertainment to be had.

The entertainment began when the preacher spoke approvingly of Rockin’ Rollen Stewart (also known as Rainbow Man, because of his rainbow-colored wig), he of the ubiquitous John 3:16 signs fame. Those of you who have watched televised sports on American TV will be familiar with Rockin’ Rollen’s signs, as he made it a point to sit well within camera range at hundreds of televised sporting events in the 70s and 80s. Now, I’ll give the preacher a little wee bit of credit for mentioning, later in the sermon, that Rainbow Man is currently in prison. But, I’ll take that credit back because his bogus explanation for that fact was that Rollen had let his success go to his head and strayed from the straight and narrow path of salvation. The take-away lessons were

a) Rollen Stewart, under the influence of the holy spirit, had spread the gospel and was to be admired for that, and
b) Rollen Stewart, having strayed from the holy spirit, had gotten into trouble – the cautionary part of the tale.

I stifled my guffaws and managed to make do with a smirk and some eyerolls. The preacher didn’t raise any questions about the efficacy of Stewart’s methodology. If Stewart was sincere and wanted to spread the gospel of Jesus, one has to wonder why he chose to do it this way. How many people outside of church circles have a clue what John 3:16 means? It’s a reference that’s known to insiders, much as the term ripieno is known to people familiar with Baroque music, but meaningless to all others. Posting signs with that reference is not evangelism, it’s nonsense. The people who are supposed to get the message haven’t got a clue what the message is, nor may they realize that the message is addressed to them. If the preacher seriously wanted to challenge people to be effective witnesses of their faith, he should have either examined this question or picked a better exemplar. His choice of Stewart was especially ironic because Pentecost is the occasion on which the holy spirit allegedly gave the Church the gift of tongues – the apostles preached in their native language, and the listeners heard the words in their particular, varied languages. In Rainbow Man’s case, he displayed signs in christ-speak, and the only people who understood the signs were those who already knew christ-speak. Epic Pentecostal FAIL!

As if the cryptic nature of Rollen’s message weren’t enough to question his selection as an evangelistic role model, the rest of Rollen’s story really makes me wonder why the preacher didn’t find someone else. Since the 1980s, Stewart has served prison sentences for offenses ranging from stink bombing to kidnapping and is currently serving three consecutive life sentences. Some of Stewart’s bizarre and illegal behavior occurred during the period when he was wearing his wig and wielding his famous signs – not that wearing the wig and wielding the signs weren’t bizarre, but they appear to be about as close to normal as Stewart got. The only things the preacher said about Stewart were that he did the sign thing – and it was good, and he’s now in jail – that’s bad. Pretty slim biography for a role model. Maybe the preacher didn’t want to go too deeply into the bio because doing so would have raised questions about Stewart’s psychological stability. And those questions might lead questioners to conclude that maybe it’s okay not to be too much like Rainbow Man after all. If Rainbow Man’s the best hero the preacher could come up with, I think there may be a serious paucity of worthy role models in the christosphere these days.

Partway through the sermon, my skepticism kicked in and I thought, “Damn! What a great scam! If I wanted to attend hundreds of sporting events around the country without paying a dime, I could go to churches, talk about my conversion to Christianity and subsequent ministry, swindle them out of enough money to pay for gas and tickets, and have all the hot dogs and beer I want at any sports venue I choose! Too bad Rollen beat me to it.” All I could do at that thought was grin and say to myself, “Rockin’ Rollen may be crazy, but he’s crazy like a fox.”

– the chaplain

 

Happy Draw Muhammad Day

How could I possibly resist an opportunity to a) promote freedom of speech, and b) poke a stick in religion’s eye?

Happy Draw Muhammad and Promote Freedom of Speech Day!

– the chaplain

 

Religion + Capitalism = Big Bucks For Some

AOL posted a slideshow about ten Religious CEOs today. Their spread featured representatives from a range of religions. That’s not surprising. There is a mindset which holds that having some religion is better than having no religion, and that most religions are equally commendable. There’s also a mindset which holds that all religions are not equal, that some religions are more right and more commendable than others, or that one’s own religion is right and all others are wrong. Then there’s yet another mindset which holds that gods materially reward the faithful and withhold material blessings from the unfaithful. Then there’s yet another mindset which holds that capitalism and Christianity go together like bread and butter, salt and pepper, wine and cheese. I wonder how believers in this last group felt upon learning  that several of our nation’s successful capitalists are not Christians? That thought may make them get up off their knees, put down their Bibles, gulp down their tea and grab their guns in a hurry.

If you haven’t read the AOL post, you may be wondering who these successful capitalists are. I, being an incredibly nice person, will save you the bother of scrolling through AOL’s slideshow. Here, for your viewing pleasure, is a composite of AOL’s photos:

Religious CEOs

Were you surprised by any of these? The only ones I knew about previously were Neil Clark Warren and Tom Monaghan. Given Paris Hilton’s notoriety, I was amused by Conrad Hilton’s appearance on the list. My guess is that her apple fell quite a long way from her tree. Also, given Wal-Mart’s reputation for treating its employees like shit, I couldn’t help being amused by Sam Walton’s inclusion. Yes, indeed, he’s a fine example of an upright Christian businessman if ever there was such a thing.

Okay. Now that I’ve seen AOL’s Religious CEOs presentation, I’m looking forward to a feature about Irreligious CEOs. How long do you suppose I’ll have to wait for that one?

– the chaplain

 

Conservative Christian Republican – You Can Guess the Rest

A conservative Christian Republican politician starred in several news items at The Washington Post and Talking Points Memo today.

There. I’ve given you all the clues you need to figure out where this is going. Like many of his fellow conservative Christians, Republicans and politicians, Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) is a vocal proponent of “family values” and abstinence-only sex education for teens, and an equally vocal opponent of homosexual marriage. Given all of those credentials, I must say that I’m shocked, shocked I tell you (and I know you’ll be too), that Rep. Souder’s “family values” don’t include monogamy. Well, he says they do now, but that must not have been the case for quite some time.  How else can one explain the fact that the married Rep. Souder had a lengthy affair with a staffer who joined his team in 2004? Surely an upright “family values,” “marriage is between one man and one woman” conservative Christian wouldn’t have been *gasp* a hypocrite!

How many of these stories have to emerge before conservative Christians and politicians who espouse conservative Christian talking points will lose all credibility with the American public? My skepticism about outspoken Christians, and outspoken politicians who profess to be Christians, has grown to the point that, the next time I hear someone remotely like Souder say the words “family values,” I’m going to hire a PI to dig up the dirt. Is there a Republican currently in Congress who has not had, or is not having, an extramarital affair? I know Democrats are far from saintly, but hypocrisy of this sort seems to be a particular specialty of conservative Christian Republicans. Why does anyone believe a word any of them say? I’m at the point where I’ll demand to see unexpired government-issued photo ID before believing them when they tell me their names.

Whenever news like this breaks, one of the first things people want to know is exactly who was involved. I can do better than tell you (her name is Tracy Jackson). I can show you: ——————>

Even better than names and photos, Talking Points Memo has video! If you’d like to see Mr. Souder and Ms. Jackson in action, click on the video below.

Uh, I guess I should warn you – the video is not pornographic (that’s probably a blessing). It’s not even romantic or titillating. It is ironic, though. In this video, Souder’s paramour interviews him – I know you’re waiting breathlessly – about his position on abstinence-only sex education. I suppose they didn’t dare to venture too closely to other “family values,” such as monogamous marriage between a man and a woman. That would have taken brass balls of a size and strength seldom seen among mere humans.

Given recent revelations about George Rekers, it’s probably safe to say that there is one bright light here for Souder’s fellow “family values” Republicans and conservative Christian homophobes: they can take solace in the fact that, unlike Dr. Rekers, Mr. Souder had an affair with a female.

– the chaplain