What to Get for the Man Who's always Offended?

This started out as a letter to the editor of my local rag, in response to a spectacularly idiotic letter published in the edition of 12/12/10. The letter went like this:

“Happy holidays” is offensive 

It’s “Merry Christmas” - not “Happy holidays” - and yes, it’s a religious holiday. 

Some undoubtedly will argue that there are people who don’t celebrate Christmas, which is absolutely fine. Yet they take the holiday pay and the time off from work. 

If you are that opposed to Christmas, then volunteer to work in place of those who do celebrate it and turn down the holiday pay universally associated with Christmas. 

In a world of withering political correctness, “Happy holidays” is an offensive phrase to those of us who celebrate Christmas. 

So “Merry Christmas” to all of you.

Usually such inanity merely makes me chuckle and/or shake my head in wonderment, not so much at people’s boundless bone-headedness but also at their willingness, nay, eagerness to put said bone-headedness on public display.

But this time around, rather than just move on to the next page, I found myself musing on the reason (if “reason” is the right word) someone would take offense at being greeted with “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” And so it was that I drafted a quick letter to the editor...which turned out to be about twice as long as the paper claims to want them to be (although I note that they violate their guidelines pretty frequently), and which I decided not to cleave to the bone to satisfy somebody’s arbitrary word count. So here’s my take, in all its verbose glory:

I had a nice little chuckle from the letter titled “‘Happy holidays’ is offensive” in Sunday’s Argus Leader. It’s always amusing at this time of year when people decide to be “offended” if they are not greeted the “right” way, or if they see “Xmas” instead of “Christmas” (ignorant, perhaps purposely, of the fact that since the earliest days of the church X—the Greek letter chi, from the Greek word for Christ—has been used to represent Jesus, and thus as an abbreviation is no more disrespectful than, say, WWJD), or when they see themselves as soldiers in the nonexistent “war on Christmas.” Oh, what fun it is to see people tie themselves into knots of indignation for no reason at all.

But I find myself wondering why someone would be offended by receiving the “wrong” greeting. Seems to me that it’s nice to be greeted at all, and nice that the person doing the greeting seems to understand that there are many holidays at this time of year, not just Christmas, and that the real offense would be to presume that the person being greeted celebrates a particular one of them.

So why take offense at what is obviously such an innocent greeting?

The answer, I think, is simple: Selfishness. Sheer childish self-centeredness. If you don’t greet ME the “right” way, the way I want to be greeted, then I take offense! I am indignant! I instantly recognize you as someone who is “opposed to Christmas” (as the recent letter has it)—that is, you are my enemy, and you must be crushed!

As a fan of irony, I enjoy how this “I am offended” mentality is so completely at odds with the message of Christmas—peace, goodwill, that sort of thing—and indeed so contrary to the teachings of him who the “offended” profess to follow—you know, the fellow who proposed people turn the other cheek, love their neighbor, forgive their brother “until seventy times seven,” etc. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus admonish his followers to take up arms if our neighbor wishes us “Happy Holidays” or a local ad touts its “Xmas” sale.

My advice to the “offended": Get over yourselves. We are told that this season all about Jesus (I refuse to repeat the gratingly idiotic rhyme that we see see all over the place at this time of year)—which is another way of saying that it’s not all about you! The coming of the Savior does not depend on other people greeting you with the exact phrase you wish to hear when you wish to hear it.

Relax, for goodness’ sake. Enjoy the holidays a little!

---

What Passes for Christianity

I thought I was done with this subject when I wrote about it here a couple-three months ago (Said, and Done)...and it's true that I can't get all that worked up about it anymore, being now on the outs and no longer having any material stake in what happens. But the assaults upon the character of--nay, the character assassinations of some of my friends and former co-workers in the local synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), by self-styled "reformers" who think they're pretty swell Christians, is really over the top.

(These "reformers" remind me a lot of Tea Partiers: They're certainly angry, but it's hard to know exactly why. They say it's because the ELCA voted last year to allow its congregations to call "practicing" gay clergy, but given that no one tells any congregation that it may or may not or must or must not call a particular pastor, their all-consuming angst and ire seems more than a little overdone. Not unlike Tea Partiers' "anger" about taxes, which are at their lowest level in years. And as with Tea Partiers, these "reformers"--who travel under such banners as WordAlone and Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC) and LutheranCORE and, most recently, the North American Lutheran Church (NALC)--speak frequently of their burning desire to "take back" "their" church...though, as with the Tea Partiers, it's unclear from whom they intend to be "taking back." Which leaves one to conclude that, as with the Tea Party movement, it's really about making sure that "the other" is kept at bay.)

Well, whatever. I'm not a Lutheran and I no longer work in a Lutheran organization, thanks to the "reformers" and their successful efforts to siphon funding away from their church's national and local offices. But I am a "Lutheran in-law" and, as indicated, I have friends who still have to put up with the slings and arrows of outrageous "Christians," so, my hard feelings notwithstanding, I find I'm not as far removed from the matter as I had thought.

Indeed, I proved that to myself a couple of weeks ago when I spotted in the Rapid City Journal a brief article, "Bishop warns four congregations violate church law." The article reported that "a Lutheran pastor from Philip [S.D.] and the four Evangelical Lutheran Church in America congregations she leads have been told by their bishop that they are in violation of church law for affiliating with another Lutheran association and withholding funds from the South Dakota synod."

Asked by the reporter to comment on the article, a friend of mine who is an associate to the bishop misspoke. He said the letter was not a "censure," when in fact it was. In the trade we call this "a mistake."

But in the world of righteous and self-righteous Christians, evidently, there is no such thing as a simple mistake. Everything is part of a grand underhanded conspiracy against them. Nobody's motives are innocent. A follow-up comment on the newspaper's website--perpetrated, predictably, by one of the local pastors who has been most vocal in excoriating the ELCA for its sins and heresies and who likes to demonstrate what a fabulous Christian he is by slinging lots of mud--gives the proof. This great "Christian" writes:

I have been in direct conversation with the pastor involved. The information from the assistant to the bishop who is quoted in the article is incorrect if not intentionally misleading.

Ah, the passive-aggressive junior-high balderdash: Not sufficient nerve to actually come out and call the other guy a liar--which this so-called pastor can't and couldn't know--but just enough to sling mud at the other guy's back. "...if not intentionally misleading." How charming. How typical. As is the parting shot to his comment:

There is no reason for [the associate to the bishop] to be spreading this "disinformation."

Nor is there any reason to be casting aspersions in re my friend's motives, if any, for using the words he used, but there they are anyway. Eighth Commandment? What Eighth Commandment?¹

Add to that another bit of slander popped up on my radar screen a few days ago, courtesy of a "discussion" group called Friends of LCMC. The subject line of the thread in question is "Bishop Zellmer: Kool-aid drinker."

Well, that's certainly attention-getting, no? If there's anything these guys are good at, it's getting attention. And smearing people with whom they disagree. Long ago I noted that the members of these various "discussion" groups on this and related topics are far more interested in slandering other people than in actually "discussing" anything. Evidently this will serve as a cornerstone to their new denomination.

The thread--remarkably uncharitable and ill-tempered, even by these people's own standards--seems to have begun when someone posted to the group an "important news" item drafted by the pastor whose comment I quoted above. It starts off pretty straightforwardly, summarizing the facts of the "censure" against the congregations and their pastor. But this individual is incapable of maintaining the pretense of impartiality for long, and soon has to give the back of his hand:

Frezil [the pastor] is on medical leave recovering from surgery for colon cancer. She is scheduled to return from leave in two weeks.

It is fascinating that Zellmer chose to take this action while Frezil is on medical leave.

It's interesting that he chose to have this done while he was visiting Cameroon (no doubt, spending the synod's supposedly limited funds).

Ah, again with the snide, underhanded, reach-around smear: "It is fascinating..." "It's interesting..." "...supposedly..." Not exactly coming out with a full-fledged accusation but certainly insinuating, with smarmy smugness, that something here doesn't smell quite right. And then, for lovers of irony such as myself, he proffers this little gem:

I guess the bishop has decided it is time to play hard ball with any and all who dissent.

Wow...the guy vilifies his bishop, then follows up by slamming him for "playing hardball" with those who go against the policies of their denomination. Astonishing. And, I have to assume, he delivers it with a completely straight face, too.

Of course, this being a "discussion" group, that post is followed by a couple of other comments that are delivered with the same degree of Christian love and charity as the initial comments. First you have the bloke who asserts that his bishop has

...in-hailed (sic) what we, in the early WordAlone movement, referred to as the "blue gas" (i.e., the historic episcopate). He follow-up (sic) his inhalation with a chug-a-lug of ELCA kool-aid regarding the party line against LCMC.

Yes, how astonishing that a bishop of a religious body would feel obliged to uphold the policies of that body. It defies the imagination. And then someone else piles on with this shining little bit of bilious nonsense:

We could use the LCMC secret weapon. Our very own LCMC mascot to perform an exorcism on the bishop.

I confess, I have no idea what that means. I suppose the "secret weapon" and the "mascot" must refer to something that is well known to the inner circle of the movement but is no more than a wink and a nod to those of us who are not among the chosen. But I do, of course, understand full well the meaning behind the references to exorcism and Kool-Aid. The latter, of course, is a reference to the people at Jonestown who, under the sway of their leader, the Rev. Jim Jones, drank poisoned Kool-Aid. I find that right-wingers like to throw that insult at people pretty frequently, their intent being to say that one's disagreeing with them automatically means that one must be so mentally impaired that he or she blindly follows orders from another even when to do so is suicidal. And the former, the snide comment about exorcism, quite plainly is intended to assert that his bishop has been possessed by demons--how else to explain the fact that someone disagrees with us when we know what God wants, except to say that that benighted soul must be in the thrall of the devil?--and must be exorcised in order that he see the light, i.e., agree with us.

It's probably a bad sign when you quote yourself, but I will anyway. In my previous post on the subject, I included a comment that I had left on the blog operated by the pastor whom I have quoted above, a comment I concluded thusly:

Is that your idea of "church?" Is that your idea of "Christianity?" If so, you are welcome to them both.

My feelings in that regard have not changed since I wrote that post almost three months ago. Nor have I changed my belief that this "reform" of theirs--CORE, NALC, whatever they wish to call it--stands scant chance of success. Successful institutions are built on something, for something. An institution built on opposition, on negativity, on character assassination, cannot long endure, simply because its so-called leaders must forever keep the "faithful" riled up. There must always be an opponent, there must always be an enemy, there must always be a siege, a conspiracy, a death-struggle that we are eternal victims of. There must always be a hated and reviled them so that there can be a pure and holy us, otherwise we are nothing.

A group can go on that for awhile, but in the long-term it can't hold together. Sooner or later there's going to be yet another disagreement within the ranks, yet another heresy, yet another blasphemy that simply cannot be tolerated by those of us who have the inside line to God's thoughts. Which will mean another split, another round of mud-slinging and name-calling and arm-wrestling to see who's the "better" Christian.

Which, come to think of it, is another bonus to those of us who appreciate the ironic.

---

¹Depending on your religious tradition, it could be the Ninth Commandment. It's the one about bearing "false witness," in any event.

Said, and Done

This is a long screed, even by my standards. Some background must be painted first:



For the past eight and a half years I have been Communications Director for the South Dakota Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), an organization that uses the word "synod" in the sense of a diocese or district office. It's been a good gig and I've mostly enjoyed it, especially in the past couple of years as I've been able to expand more into digital communications efforts as opposed to Yet Another Newsletter.



That all came to a screeching halt a little more than a month ago, however, when my position was eliminated because of significant budgetary shortfalls. (And not just me: Since my departure, one of my former co-workers is also now everyone's former co-worker; and another has been cut to one-quarter time. Nor are they out of the woods yet.)



Why the budget crunch? In the main, is has to do with a vote taken at the ELCA's national gathering--Churchwide Assembly, in their parlance--last August. First they dopted a Social Statement, "Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust"; then, as if that wasn't bad enough, the voting members adopted a set of Ministry Policies Resolutions that, among other things, committed the ELCA to finding a way for people in "publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as rostered leaders of this church."



Meaning: If an ELCA congregation wishes to call a pastor who is a "practicing" homosexual, it's okay with the home office. Previously, gay or lesbian pastors were expected to be celibate, same as unmarried heterosexual pastors. (You can read the summary on their website.)



At that point, something that may be accurately described as all hell breaking loose occurred. A small but astoundingly noisy contingent decried the action as a repudiation of Holy Writ and began a concerted effort to rouse the rabble and move away from the heresy enacted by their church's governing body forthwith. The biggest noisemaker in this scenario was and is an outfit that calls itself Lutheran CORE (COalition for REnewal). They've done an excellent job of keeping pots stirred, fires stoked, and emotions at fever-pitch.



It's no stretch to say that my final six months (as it turned out) with the synod largely were devoted to helping my boss, the local Lutheran bishop, calm people down. Our message was unwavering: There's a lot of ground to be covered before anyone really knows how everything will sort out, and it's easier to burn down the building in the heat of passion than to build it back up again. Plus, no matter what policies and procedures are ultimately worked out, no congregation will be forced to call a pastor they don't want.



And usually our efforts--pastoral letters, video messages, resource materials posted to the website--would indeed have the effect of getting people to calm down and take a couple of deep breaths.



Which Lutheran CORE couldn't have, of course. Calm, reason, thoughtfulness--these are not the sorts of things you can launch a revolution from! The CORE organizers have been very good at keeping the coals raked up.



One of their tactics has been to convince individuals and congregations that they should withhold their giving to ELCA, since ELCA is the bad guy who's wrecking "their" church. Unfortunately for me, the traditional path of money to the ELCA is collection plate -> synod -> ELCA, so withholding contributions to the national organization meant withholding contributions to the local office. Thus the budget shortfall.



It's been nice working with you. Here's your water wings.



Now, at this point, I no longer have a dog in the fight. I care about the fate of my friends back at the office, but I no longer have a professional stake in the organization's future. Shoot, I'm not even Lutheran! However, I did dedicate nearly a decade of my life to the enterprise, and I am the sort of person who takes pride in his work. So to see it all crumbling down because of self-righteous, self-centered bigots is pretty galling.



So too is the fact that the people behind Lutheran CORE have displayed complete indifference for the pain and suffering that they are causing throughout their church. (And beyond: Sooner or later budget shortfalls will inevitably affect the work that the ELCA does around the world.) It's completely understandable, of course: They're having loads of fun strutting around, holding secret meetings, organizing task forces, and, generally, biting the hand that feeds them. (At the time of my leaving the synod's employ, the number of local pastors who had resigned from the ELCA roster because of their much-vocalized disgust at its heresy was exactly zero. That's the same number of them who had removed themselves from the ELCA health plan in protest. And as for the number of them who had disassociated themselves from the nasty ELCA's pension plan? You got it: Zilch. Can you spell "hypocrisy?")



And so it is that I was rather peeved when a blog post on the Lutheran CORE website popped up in my Google Alerts (which I set up to keep tabs on news about or affecting my erstwhile employer and have not yet canceled) a couple of weeks ago. The post, "ELCA taking hard line against those who dissent from actions on sexuality or redirect benevolence giving" is a long one, which you can read here.
The part of it that ticked me off is this offhanded bit:

Many ELCA congregations have chosen to redirect their benevolence giving away from the ELCA churchwide organization because they believe the actions of the assembly violate the clear teaching of the Bible and the ELCA Constitution which states that the Bible is “the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of (the church’s) proclamation, faith, and life.” The changes in benevolence giving have resulted in some cuts in churchwide and synodical budgets. (Emphasis mine.)

Some cuts. See, that's all it is for them, for they have nothing on the line. They take no risk, they suffer no consequences. Some cuts. Like, we'll cancel the daily deliveries of fresh tropical fruit and designer water. Oh, and we can all share just one limo to and from the office, can't we? After all, "some cuts" must be made, yes?



Expletive!



So I jotted a comment to the blog post, which was written by an acquaintance of mine. I predicted at the time that the comment would not be approved for posting to the blog, a prediction that to date has been accurate. I also opined that there was a 50-50 chance that I would receive some kind of acknowledgement or reply outside of the blog, which has not happened either. But that's okay. I have a blog too, after all.



Here's the comment I sent:

Let's call things as they are, David, for once. "The changes in benevolence giving have resulted in some cuts in churchwide and synodical budgets"--what we mean by "some cuts" is that real people are being really hurt by the callous indifference of those who love their church so much they can't wait to rip it to shreds. Self-aggrandizing and self-serving pastors who exhort their congregations to withhold funds from the ELCA and the synod have the direct effect of putting people out of work.



I am one of them. And neither the first nor the last.


This bizarre obsession with what other people hundreds or even thousands of miles away may or may not be doing with their body parts has had a very real and very painful effect on me and my family. But it seems that all of these "concerned" pastors are far too busy unzipping to see who has the biggest theology to care about who gets hurt by their posturing and posing.



Is that your idea of "church?" Is that your idea of "Christianity?" If so, you are welcome to them both.

It really is quite astounding to me how eager these people are to destroy that which they keep referring to as "their" church. Of course, they see it as saving, not destroying, but that's because they have let their collective Messiah Complex get out of hand. Only they see what's going on; only they can lead the charge to save "their" church. Anyone who disagrees is as best deluded, at worst evil. For only they know, absolutely and without doubt, what God wants. Only they can properly interpret the various obscure Bible verses that may or may not apply, therefore any other interpretation must perforce be wrong. See above in re deluded or evil.



In this funhouse-mirror view of things, they are not hate-filled, stone-hearted bigots. God is! And as good God-fearing Christians, they must of course carry out his narrow-minded, prejudicial agenda, yes? So don't blame them--they're only doing what God wants!



Such tiny, narrow boxes "believers" insist on cramming their God into, no? In that regard they are in fact no different from the ancient pagans, who attributed to their gods the full range of human shortcomings and foibles. Human beings are prone to anger, suspicion, anxiety, pettiness...stands to reason their Creator must be too!



It is more than a little telling that, in the course of their incessant talk about the desires and intentions of the Creator (which are stunningly in sync with their own desires and intentions), one small possibility never seems to occur to them:



Maybe they're wrong.



A great many of these folks insist long and loud that God "never changes," that the Bible is his immutable word and that it too is immutable and not subject to interpretation except by themselves to their own ends. To the latter: Nonsense. The Bible is and always has been wide open to interpretation. The idea that its contents--whatever importance one chooses to give them--are invariably crystal-clear, straightforward, and self-explanatory is sheer silliness. Were it true, there would be no need for the mountains of books about the Bible; no need to annotated editions of the book. There would be no point in Bible study, if the Bible is as clear-cut as some insist, for there would be nothing to discuss; one might just as well hold discussion groups on the owner's manual for a toaster. There certainly would be no reason for homilies and sermons, were the Bible verses on which they are founded so transparent that anyone could read and understand them as easily as the instructions of a tube of toothpaste.



To the former: It has always seemed to me that God is all about change. Golly, doesn't the Bible make that clear? He seems to be all about throwing out the old and ushering in the new. Did not he send his son to establish a new covenant? Or was it merely to review the terms of the old one? From the first line of Genesis, it's all about upsetting the apple cart, shaking up the status quo, changing things! Strange, then, that religion puts such a high premium on tradition, on precedence, on fossilization. It seems to me another example of human beings creating God in their own image, of building a nice, safe, matchbox-sized container for him, cramming him in here, and insisting it can be no other way. For to contemplate any other way is scary.



In that context, then--God as the elemental agent of change--it seems not impossible that the Creator is doing what he does best, viz., stirring things up. I have more than once had the thought that it may be that the Creator has decided that Creation is at the right point to deal with a new idea, that it's okay for people to be different. Perhaps God has decided that humanity has reached a point in its development where it can and should and must begin to accept the fact that sexual orientation is just one tiny little part of the whole being, and in turn accept the fact that homosexual individuals are, well, acceptable. This would indicate that God has a higher opinion of humanity than I do, but that would come as no surprise.



Why would God think that this is the time, given the hatred, suspicion, and downright inhumanity that humanity displays? Beats me. If he does so think, presumably he has his reasons.



And if he does so think, then all of those "Christians" working so hard to "save" their church are in fact positioning themselves as speed bumps in God's plan. If God wants change, as I believe is possible and even likely, then what does that make those who are standing in the way of change?



Which would fit into my opinion that these people who are so determined to make sure that the other is kept out, that only like-thinking, right-minded, "pure" people are admitted, have been so deluded and turned inside out by Old Scratch that they honestly think they're gloriously marching to God's drumbeat when in fact they are pitching for the other team. The idea that God wants bigotry, hatred, and exclusion as the foundation of anything done in his name is ludicrous. Old Hob, on the other hand, would find such building materials right up his alley.



And that's why I believe that ultimately any new church body created by Lutheran CORE is doomed to fail. Well, one of the reasons:



First, whatever they may develop would be an institution founded on negativity, an institution founded to be opposed to something--in this case an acceptance of people who sexual orientation is different than what we like, which makes it different from what God likes, which makes it wrong--rather than to put forward any nurturing, meaningful, or enlightening ideal.It would be an undertaking founded on the notion "We are right and everything going on around us is scary and wrong." It would not be the first such undertaking, and it's unlikely to be the last. But even to a cynic such as yours truly, it's hard to imagine that there is that large a pool of frightened, hate-filled people to sustain the enterprise, much less that the pool will continue to grow. It seems that the best and most successful human endeavors are established on principles of advancement, improvement, forward-thinking--not retrenching, insulation, parochialism.



Second, and perhaps most important (given my cynicism), is the apparent nature of those leading the charge to their shimmering new future: They strike me as angry, frightened, smug, self-aggrandizing malcontents. Such personalities, in the long run, make poor leaders, for sooner or later, and probably sooner, they will be disappointed. It is inevitable, for being disappointed in other people is a cornerstone of their existence. They are in a constant state of anticipation of the next slight, the next brush-off, the great disappointment. So all will be skittles and beer at the outset, for they will be free of the heretical oppression of the ELCA, happily swimming with others who think and believe and look like them, everybody in lock step doing the Right Things and thinking the Right Thoughts, and it will be good.



But these are human beings we're talking about here, folks, and eventually one of them will have a Different Thought! And then it will be beer and skittles no more. It will in fact be Great Disappointment. And again it will be Sturm und Drang all over again, and distrust and suspicion and accusations and ill-will and on and on. For that is the nature of such people. They have already demonstrated that they cannot and will not accept different ideas. They have already demonstrated that they cannot and will not accept the doctrines of live and let live or to each his own or agree to disagree. Why would we expect them to suddenly change their stripes once they've succeeded in tearing apart their old church in the pipe dream of building their new, shiny, better one? There is no reason to think that the first instance of disagreement or discord will not cause the entire endeavor to re-fracture and the cycle to repeat itself ad nauseam.



But knowing that their efforts are doomed to collapse on them gives me no pleasure, for the ultimate failure will occur only after thousands of people, maybe more, have been hurt.



And as is always the case, it will be all the wrong people. It already has been.

I Know Several People Who Could Stand to Read This

C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity (1952):

Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.

A good many people of my acquaintance seem to think that sex is indeed the center of Christian morality, as well as everything else, and I hold them directly responsible for the abrupt elimination of my position with the local Lutheran synod.

Nor has it escaped my attention that most of these people--most, though not all, pastor--decry "society's" overemphasis on sexuality and yet themselves seem incapable of talking about anything else. Merely an observation.

Playing God?

Here's a fun story from the Telegraph:

Russia plans to stop asteroid crashing to Earth

Russia wants to send a spacecraft to knock the large Apophis asteroid off a possible collision course with Earth.

The ambitious plan envisages the co-operation of Nasa, the European and Chinese space agencies to pull off a mission with echoes of a Hollywood blockbuster.

Anatoly Perminov, the head of Russia's space agency, said it would assess the difficulties of knocking the asteroid Apophis out of harm's way.

The 885-foot-wide asteroid was first discovered in 2004. Astronomers estimated the chances of it smashing into Earth in its first flyby in 2029 were as high as 1-in-37, but have since lowered their estimate.

The rest of it is here.

Now, setting aside for the moment the fact that I already saw this movie, I am left with the same question I have whenever I read about this sort of thing, viz., do we know for a fact that it would be a good idea to stop an 885-foot-wide asteroid from crashing into the Earth?

Sure, it sounds like the sort of thing we should take on. But here's the thing: My chums on the right-wingnut fringe of society keep insisting that stuff like stem-cell research, cloning, genetics research, unplugging a dead person's respirator, etc., etc., is wrong because it's "playing God." And they always say that as if it's a bad thing, playing God, although, I dunno, I can certainly think of worse examples to imitate.

But let's go along with the idea that "playing God" is a bad thing. And let's skip over my usual question, namely, "Don't we 'play God' much if not most of the time?"...like, say, every evening when I take my cholesterol medication without the slightest thought given to whether God wants my HDL to go down and my LDL to go up, or whatever's supposed to be happening. We'll leave all that for another day.

But back to the asteroid Apophis: How do we know that God hasn't sent it hurtling toward Mother Earth because that's how he plans to end the world? To my knowledge, most religions preach some kind of end-of-days scenario, however vague or specific they prefer to make it. Maybe Apophis is it!

Maybe this is supposed to happen!

And maybe our attempt to prevent it from happening is, well, "playing God." Which, we previously agreed, is a bad thing.

At this point you might say, "Well, you know, if God wants this to happen then it will happen. Nothing we can do to thwart God, after all."

To which I say, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, there, buckaroo! How come you're not so sanguine about, say, genetics research? Or cloning? I mean, if God doesn't want us monkeying around with those things, either, then can we not safely assume that all the effort will simply come to naught and we have nothing to worry about?"

One might--might!--almost form the opinion that it's only "playing God" if it's something of which we disapprove. Otherwise it is both hunky and dory.

So, first thing we need to do is get Bruce Willis. He knows how to handle asteroids.

Giving Christianity a Bad Name

As if God doesn’t already have enough on his plate, his so-called friends are busy burning up bandwidth with such twaddle as that reproduced below, which entered my inbox this morning. To make matters worse, it comes from a minister of my acquaintance…who, you would think, should know better. You would think so wrongly, as it happens.

I hereby spare you the torture of reading it in the original form, which necessitated endless scrolling and squinting against ill-advised color schemes. (Hint: Red type on a black background is to be avoided.) I haven’t corrected the punctuation and other oddities (“the ex-vocalist of the AC/DC”), either. Nor have I made the slightest attempt to verify whether “these facts” are indeed facts.

---

DID YOU KNOW THESE FACTS?

I SURE DIDNT TILL NOW

Death is certain but the Bible speaks about untimely death!

Make a personal reflection about this.....

Very interesting, read until the end.....

It is written in the Bible (Galatians 6:7):

'Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man sow, that shall he also reap.

Here are some men and women who mocked God:

John Lennon (Singer):
Some years before, during his interview with an American Magazine, he said:'Christianity will end, it will disappear. I do not have to argue about that. I am certain. Jesus was ok, but his subjects were too simple, today we are more famous than Him' (1966).

Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.


Tancredo Neves (President of Brazil ):
During the Presidential campaign, he said if he got 500,000 votes from his party, not even God would remove him from Presidency.

Sure he got the votes, but he got sick a day before being made President, then he died.


Cazuza (Bi-sexual Brazilian composer, singer and poet):
During A show in Canecio ( Rio de Janeiro ), while smoking his cigarette, he puffed out some smoke into the air and said: 'God, that's for you.'

He died at the age of 32 of LUNG CANCER in a horrible manner.


The man who built the Titanic
After the construction of Titanic, a reporter asked him how safe the Titanic would be.

With an ironic tone he said:

'Not even God can sink it'

The result: I think you all know what happened to the Titanic


Marilyn Monroe (Actress)
She was visited by Billy Graham during a presentation of a show.

He said the Spirit of God had sent him to preach to her.

After hearing what the Preacher had to say, she said:

'I don't need your Jesus'.

A week later, she was found dead in her apartment


Bon Scott (Singer)
The ex-vocalist of the AC/DC. On one of his 1979 songs he sang:

'Don't stop me; I'm going down all the way, down the highway to hell'.

On the 19th of February 1980, Bon Scott was found dead, he had been choked by his own vomit.


Campinas (IN 2005)
In Campinas , Brazil a group of friends, drunk, went to pick up a friend.....

The mother accompanied her to the car and was so worried about the drunkenness of her friends and she said to the daughter holding her hand, who was already seated in the car:

'My Daughter, Go With God And May He Protect You.'

She responded: 'Only If He (God) Travels In The Trunk, Cause Inside Here.....It's Already Full '

Hours later, news came by that they had been involved in a fatal accident, everyone had died, the car could not be recognized what type of car it had been, but surprisingly, the trunk was intact.

The police said there was no way the trunk could have remained intact. To their surprise, inside the trunk was a crate of eggs, none was broken


Christine Hewitt (Jamaican Journalist and entertainer)
said the Bible (Word of God) was the worst book ever written.

In June 2006 she was found burnt beyond recognition in her motor vehicle.


Many more important people have forgotten that there is no other name that was given so much authority as the name of Jesus.

Many have died, but only Jesus died and rose again, and he is still alive.

'Jesus'I have done my part, Jesus said

'If you are embarrassed about me,

I will also be embarrassed about you before my father.''

Lord, I love you and I need you, come into my heart, and bless me, my family, my home, and my friends, in Jesus' name. Amen.'

---

Oh my.

As usual, one wonders where to begin. First off, the whole thing is pretty damn insulting to God, for it all boils down to “If God gets mad at you he’s gonna kill you.” Worse, in the case of “the man who built the Titanic,” God kills dozens of people and terrifies hundreds because he’s mad at one guy.

I don’t know what you think of God, but as is so often the case it appears that I have a higher opinion of him than some of those who make a big deal about how Godly they are.

(It’s really quite astonishing to think that this was being promulgated by an ordained minister of a “real” denomination, and not prefaced with anything along the lines of “Can you believe the hokum some people send around?” One wonders what sort of things are being taught in their seminaries.)

It’s also difficult to see why God would be so upset with John Lennon. I don’t think Lennon was mocking God. I think Lennon decried what he perceived as the Beatles’ insane popularity, and the public’s insistence on hanging on everything the Beatles said or did.

Also, it’s playing a little fast-and-loose with the facts to say, “Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.” Lennon's murder came nearly 15 years later. As my old debate coach was wont to say, “Your causal link is a little casual.” But in my experience, “Christians” don’t mind jettisoning the truth in order to make their point. Assuming that God is really that thin-skinned, why would he wait so long to smite someone who “mocked” him?

I have no idea whether the Billy Graham-Marilyn Monroe anecdote is true, but let's say it is. How, exactly, is her statement "mocking" anything or anyone? She is made to say she doesn't need Jesus. Okay. You may believe she was wrong, but to be mistaken is not to be mocking. And, again, it seems to be a little insulting toward the Creator, for it pretty much casts him in the role of saying, "Well, okay, I sent this guy to preach to her one time and she wouldn't listen, so ba-zip! off with her head." Wow. I had the impression that Jesus instructed his disciples to have more perseverance than that, but apparently not.

And all of this begs one big, fat, bug-eyed question: What about people who don’t “mock” God (no matter how fast-and-loosely you define “mock”)? I mean, everybody dies, no? And some very good, very devout people die ghastly deaths. So what’s up with that? The anonymous author of this pretty un-Christian piece of drivel would have us believe that those who “mock” God will die a horrible death. I happen to think that God’s got a stronger ego than that, but for the sake of argument let’s go with it. You mock God, you get smote or smitten or whatever the past tense of smite is. But that would imply that those who don’t mock God don’t get smote—don’t get murdered, don’t get cancer, don’t die of drug overdoses—and, well, sorry, but that just ain’t true. And I’d be willing to bet that plenty of people who do “mock” God—again, whatever that may mean—live long healthy lives and die peacefully in their sleep at the ripe old age of 89.

In short, it doesn’t work that way. God—any god worthy of the proper-noun status—is bigger than that. He must be, or he wouldn’t be worth discussing. And I submit that any religion that holds--as this bit of balderdash certainly implies—that you have to be real careful not to tick God off lest he send a lightning bolt your way isn’t religion at all but mere superstition.

It’s what I call Great Pumpkin Theology. You remember that bit from “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown,” where Linus, in the pumpkin patch awaiting the Great Pumpkin’s arrival, promises Charlie Brown or Sally or somebody to put in a good word for them if the Great Pumpkin arrives. And then he panics, for he said if. “I mean when! …I'm doomed! One little mistake like that can cause the Great Pumpkin to pass you by.”

Well, I am of the opinion that a good many “godly” people are in fact thinking of the Great Pumpkin.

And isn’t that a form of mockery?

Love-Hate?

It's not often I find myself agreeing with Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. In fact, I think this is the first time he and I have been anywhere near the same wavelength. But life is strange, and outrageous events may create outrageous alliances. Here, via Catholic Online, is what Donohue has to say about John McCain's thrilled acceptance of the endorsement of notorious anti-Catholic bigot John Hagee:



Catholic League: McCain's Next Move
3/7/2008

Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

“So no one should take from my criticism of McCain on this issue that I in any way think he is anti-Catholic."
NEW YORK, N.Y. (Catholic League) - Catholic League president Bill Donohue issued the following remarks today regarding Sen. John McCain’s ties to Pastor John Hagee:

“Now that he has secured the Republican nomination for president, and has received the endorsement of President Bush, McCain will now embark on a series of fundraising events.

When he meets with Catholics, he is going to be asked about his ties to Hagee. He should also be asked whether he approves of comments like this: ‘A Godless theology of hate that no one dared try to stop for a thousand years produced a harvest of hate.’

“That quote is proudly cited by David Brog in his recent book, Standing with Israel. Both Brog and Hagee clearly identify the Roman Catholic Church as spawning a ‘theology of hate.’

“This is nothing if not hate speech. There are so many good evangelical leaders in this country—Dr. James Dobson, Dr. Richard Land, Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, Dr. Al Mohler, Chuck Colson—and none has ever insulted Catholicism. To be sure, they have expressed theological differences, and that is to be expected; that is all fine and good. But they have never sought to denigrate Catholicism.

That’s what makes this situation so outrageous. Of all the great evangelical leaders, the one McCain cites as ‘the staunchest leader of our Christian evangelical movement’ just happens to be a Catholic basher.

“In 2005, when I was fighting with those senators who were making it all but impossible for pro-life Catholics to get on the federal bench, I said the following: ‘So as not to be misunderstood, let me repeat what I’ve said before: the Catholic League believes there are no anti-Catholic senators.’ That remains true.

“So no one should take from my criticism of McCain on this issue that I in any way think he is anti-Catholic. If anything, John McCain has been a good friend to Catholics. But he and his staff have thus far grossly mishandled this issue. We await their next move.”


In case you're unaware, here's the deal: Televangelist Hagee, who has charmingly referred to the Roman Catholic Church as “the Great Whore,” an “apostate church,” the “anti-Christ,” and “a false cult system” (indeed, he cites the Catholic Church as Hitler's inspiration for the Holocaust), last week endorsed McCain, who said he was "very proud" to receive the hatemonger's blessing.

At the time I had this thought: More than once, I have been informed by someone whose opinion I did not solicit that I could not "call myself a Catholic" and a member of the Democratic Party. The flip side of this would be that "good" Catholics can only be Republicans. Well, now they have a Republican presidential candidate--all but nominated--who has enthusiastically accepted, after prolonged wooing, the endorsement of a Catholic-hating bigot.

Leaving me to wonder what "good" Catholics will now do. Do they vote for a godless baby-killing Democratic candidate (whoever that may be) who does not cleave to the church's party line? Or do they vote for the GOP candidate who embraces a Catholic-hating TV preacher but who spouts the right kind of rhetoric?

I'm only kidding--I knew all along that they'd come up with some way of lamely justifying McCain's buddy-buddyness with Hagee, and now the McCain camp

Now the McCain camp has thrown them just the sort of bone they'll need to pretend they're not doing what they're doing, viz., backing a candidate who in turn is backed by someone who would just as soon see them dead. Here's what's come out of the Not-So-Straight-Talk-Express in light of the Hagee scandal, per the Associated Press:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain repudiated any views of a prominent televangelist who endorsed him last month "if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics."

If. If? Has there ever been a better non-repudiation? Can it really be that Senator McCain, who is quick to point out that he sent a couple of kids to Catholic school, really not see that Hagee and his comments are offensive, are incendiary, are hate-filled? Note too that he doesn't repudiate Hagee--and he certainly doesn't reject Hagee's endorsement--but rather falls limply back on stating that he doesn't agree with everyone who endorses him.

But he doesn't do very much to distance himself from Hagee...or, more to the point, the equally hate-filled voters who agree with Hagee's bigotry. Rather, he's trying to win votes from both Catholic and Catholic-bashers.

Once upon a time I had a fair amount of respect for the Arizona Senator, and was one of those who thought it would interesting if he ran as John Kerry's VP back in 2004.

Now he's emerged as just another politician who will do anything, say anything, roll in any mudhole with any pig, just as long as it translates into votes.

And Here's What We're Up Against

Just one of the headlines out there this morning:

Thousands call for teacher's execution

That one's from the Globe and Mail in re Gillian Gibbons, the British teacher in Sudan who's literally in mortal peril because one of her students named a teddy bear Mohammed. Which, apparently, is an insult to Islam, which in turn is always a hangin' offense according to way too many of its adherents. Which is why we are, as near as I can tell, shoveling sand. You can never make any headway with blind religious extremists, and it doesn't even matter what the religion is.