Bay to Baker Bike Trail would be fun to ride, but if they ever complete the trail, it might take another 50 years.
New Whatcom, where Georgia Pacific once stood could be an interesting neighborhood, but the "process" (planning, cleanup, construction, whatever) could take a long time.
Bellingham's new library might take a long time in coming, but I don't use it that often. Glad there's the Internet.
A friend gave me a ride down to Mount Vernon for the first part of Over The Rainbow Festival sponsored by Mount Vernon High School Gay/ Straight Alliance.
It was a showing of the film "For The Bible Tells Me So" in M.V. High School's ornate old theater. There was also a very thought provoking discussion afterwards.
It's great to see discussion of these issues in a high school setting. Congratulations to all the folks who put this ground breaking festival together.
I wasn't able to be there for the workshops on Saturday, but glad to see the Friday night kickoff.
While most of the audience was supportive of the film, there were a few folks who were critical of the film's viewpoint. The discussion was good as it went beyond just "preaching to the choir" so to speak. I sort of felt for the few opposing voices in the discussion as it must feel kind of funny being in a room of people who are mostly disagreeing with your views.
As a lot of different perspectives on religion were discussed, one person ask if folks believe in any absolutes at all.
Several folks offered some good responses, but I didn't say anything at all. There were a lot of ideas floating about and time was limited. Also, I'm kind of shy about raising my hand.
What I would have said about absolutes would have been my thought that it's kind of presumptuous of us humans to assume that our interpretations of things are necessarily the "absolutes." Yes, maybe there are absolutes, but fundamentalists of various religions tend to think their own interpretations of things are the absolutes. That seems kind of presumptuous to me.
I'd rather think we are all learning and evolving.
Also I often say to people who think they know what the absolutes are this humbling concept. There's an old phrase which says, "Christians are forgiven, but not perfect." To me, this can mean a lot of room for dialog, rather than just saying "We know the absolute." "End of discussion."
Another person pointed out an interesting theological point. It made an impression on me. He said (if I can paraphrase it properly).
"The past has a vote, but not a veto."
To me, that means when people say "the Bible says this or the Bible says that" (other religious documents also), it has input worth considering, but there's more to the equation than just "We read that you must do (or not do) such in the Bible."
Ideas about ethics, right and wrong and so forth are good food for dialog and a reason to put on one's thinking cap.
It was a thought provoking evening. The kind of thing I often enjoy while living my life in Theslowlane.
One way religions don't want certain kinds of people to enter.
Back when I was in high school, they opened up a new bookstore in my home town called "One Way Books." It was from some kind of "Christ is the only way" outfit.
Not knowing any better, my dad thought it was named that to imply "you can't take back any merchandise." "One way, you buy it, no returns." No standing behind the product, so to speak.
Well, that's not quite the concept, but it's pretty good.
Before One Way Books, that little store was another store entirely. It was a hippy outfit called "The Bodywrapper." I'd see sexy long haired guys going in and out of there and the name Bodywrapper was kind of alluring.
Some of my early gay fantasies, just thinking even though I was never in there, except once.
The only time I was in there was with a friend who wanted to check out the waterbed in the basement. Just a fun room full of black lights and a waterbed and you didn't have to be buying anything to justify your existence there. That wasn't a sexual experience, however.
I remember lots of flickering lights and black lights. Oh, the early 1970s.
Bodywrapper eventually moved to a more sterile location in downtown Pullman. It was, basically, a clothing store. One Way moved in after Bodywrapper moved out.
In early 1970s, "One Way" became a slogan of the Jesus Freaks, as they were called. A new more conservative movement. Kind of an answer to the hippie movement. I remember thinking it was based in Spokane, WA. Not sure if that's true, but people said it was "something to put Spokane on the map like hippies put San Francisco on the map."
My art teacher referred to these people as "Freazes Cheeks."
Jesus Freaks often quarreled among themselves over interpretation and who's definition of "the way" was the real one. Now it seems like much of the world, especially the Middle East, is caught up in such quarreling.
I believe there is divine nature to this universe, but there are a lot of pathways in that direction.
Old building where the Bodywrapper and then One Way Books resided was later replaced with a Burger King. Now, even that's gone, I think from that location at least.
Generic traffic.
Two newspaper articles cross my mind in juxtaposition. Yes, they were right on the same page.
Article One:
Fresno-based Diocese of San Joaquin wants to break from US Episcopal Church because a gay priest has been selected as bishop in New Hampshire (Bishop Gene Robinson). They may align themselves with more conservative structures of the Anglican denomination that are based in third world countries.
Article Two:
Economies of many oil exporting countries growing so fast that they will be exporting less oil. Indonesia, no longer exporting oil as it's all being used domestically. Mexico may be next. In 5 years, no more Mexican exports to US. The growing population might be burning it all domestically. So said that article in New York Times of December 9 2007.
How do these articles relate?
Get into the act of procreation and have all the economies grow. Eventually, they will all be colliding with one another over oil, resources, global warming and limited space.
It's called "resist change."
When America resists change, it tends to consume more.
Must be our traditions.
Now that's coming into conflict with growing world population and a tendency for everyone to want a larger piece of the pie. It's only human.
In the past, this world had less people.
It was before modern medicine.
Procreation needed to be prolific, or else we were in trouble. Maybe that's why some of the old dogmas frowned upon homosexuality.
Now days, it's a totally different situation, but religious fundamentalists keep thinking dogmas are written in stone. They say ethics have to be inflexible and unchangeable.
Can't God's mind ever change?
Maybe it's not God that's stuck in stone, it's only our perception of God that's as inflexible as a stone jacket.
Inflexible like a straight jacket.
Ever heard of the Protestant work ethic? That's one of our dogmas, here in USA.
Americans: Over working and over consuming?
Third world countries with faster population growth; now starting to consume more as well.
Population growth is starting to slow down, but we've still got a train wreck coming.
Maybe I should say we've got a car wreck coming.
The whole world is stuck in old ways of thinking. Old ways are leading to growth. We've got growth in population and growing economies. Some of that's good, but there's worrisome signs on the horizon.
To be totally fair, everyone on this planet deserves to consume as much as Americans, but someone needs to redefine what "the good life means."
Article about the growing third world economies came up with a dazzling picture of freeways in Mexico City.
I can't reproduce that. Our Bellingham freeway is "small potatoes" by comparison, but we're nowhere near as large as Mexico City. 
Bellingham freeway. I-5.
I once went to a workshop on transportation planning. The facilitator felt that the nation of China had bought their planning textbooks from American second hand shops. Textbooks written in the 1950s when freeways were new and exciting.
I'm sure there is some "greener planning" in China, but the world should look to Europe for better planning. Not the America of the 1950s.
That oil article said, gas can sell for as low as 7 cents per gallon in Venezuela.
I like the idea of gas going for over $6 per gallon and the bus being free a lot better.
Saudis and Iranians pay 30 to 50 cents a gallon for the stuff. They've got it. Might as well use it locally. That's only fair, but looks like a world car wreck is coming.
Angry men like Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and US President George W. Bush can butt heads.
We're all stuck in the past.
When a stick can't bend, it breaks.
We need some new thinking. New thinking all over the globe.
Less population growth, a different kind of economic development.
Accepting change and alternative lifestyles goes way beyond just being more open to gay people. That's a small part of the bigger picture of learning to embrace new ideas.
Here in America, living without a car is an "alternative lifestyle."
Most of my American neighbors say they can't stop driving cause they have "families to support."
Yes, families. The soccer moms excuse.
Maybe a few less families with kids can mean that more Americans will feel comfortable living in small apartments and dense urban neighborhoods. Single people seem more likely to ride the bus, or bicycle; in this culture at least.
Of course even some gay people have families to support as well. It's OK. It's just that I don't think we are running out of people very soon. There's no need to pressure folks into "family values" unless they really want to be there.
Change can be our friend. Who says dogmas and living patterns are cast in stone?
Alternative energy is change.
Turn off those headlights. Get out your dancing windmills. Let's have a different kind of party.
Amazing that people would consider it immoral to name a teddy bear after the Prophet Mohamed. "Teddy" comes from Teddy Roosevelt. All teddy bears are named after one of America's great presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, from what I hear. Otherwise, maybe they should be called "stuffed bears."
Can someone, or something be named after God? In USA it would be rare, but possible. Being named God or after the Christian prophet of Jesus might be thought of as being kind of an ego trip, but other than that no big deal.
From what I hear Jesus is a common name in many Latin American countries.
Thinking in another direction, rather than contemplating naming a person or object after a God, maybe humans shouldn't be trying to put a name on God. The mystery defies fitting into those boxes and names, such as "God the father" that we confine it to?
Is God really male, or female? Does God really exist? Especially does such an entity exist in the terms that we confine things to whenever we try to conceptualize stuff.
I believe that there is something related to the order in the universe, I guess, but just how to define that "whatever" is something that I believe we still have to learn.
It's probably worse for religion to try and name and confine the "whatever" in our limited terms. Worse than someone naming a stuffed bear one of the names that people think relates to God.
Teddy bear is named for one of our past presidents.
This logic puzzle was a topic of discussion in my local sauna.
Some might use it as proof that there can't be a God.
Here's my take on the question.
There are some assumptions behind this question. Like the assumption that any god would have to be able to do all things.
Who says God has to be able to do all things? Can't we have "God Limited?" God.Ltd? We have Lloyds Of London Ltd. Maybe God can't do everything. How do we know?
You say, "what?" God Limited?" "A god that can't do all things?"
Well, I guess that's possible. Still, that god would be able to do enough things.
Enough.
Maybe that's all it takes. Like the concept of "enough" versus "always striving to make more money."
Then I read the report of some travel writer describing a huge mansion in which he stated, "God couldn't even afford to live there."
We tend to view so many things in extremes. Especially things like gods. They have to be "perfect," or they can't exist. They have to be "all powerful," or they can't exist.
Those are all assumptions.
It's interesting to look at our assumptions.
I am remembering my last blog entry about religion. I wondered about the assumption that God always has to write in rigid stone. Writing in stone rather than writing in (for instance) Wikipedia. Yes, ever changeable Wikipedia. Updated always to meet changing needs.
There's a connection in the word "stone."
For some reason we often think in terms of "stone" when we think about God. "God can't make a stone larger than God can lift." "God casts all his laws in stone."
Rigid stone.
Maybe we think this way because we will find that God is "stoned on marijuana" when we get to heaven.
Oh, people are going to hate me for saying that, and I don't even use marijuana myself.
I just think that "lack of flexibility in our thinking" kills God.
Lack of flexibility kills God, or at least kills our concept of God.
Yes, it doesn't seem possible that God could ever "make a stone larger than God could lift," but we are stumbling in our own limited logic.
Believers and non believers stumbling.
We make pronouncements about the divine, but we really have a lot more to discover.
If God had given Moses the Ten Commandments in today's age, "flexible Wikipedia" might have been used, rather than "rigid stone."
"Cast in stone" is a phrase often used. One can say, "these plans are cast in stone."
Rigidity versus flexibility.
For some reason a lot of people think that God always goes the rigid route. Isn't that just another assumption?
Why wouldn't God use something like Wikipedia? Something which can be altered and updated constantly? Even altered by it's users? Like in a democracy.
Is that too flexible?
Framers of the US Constitution figured out a profound compromise between stability and flexibility. It's hard to amend the constitution, but it isn't impossible. There's even a system of courts to handle interpretation. Quite an ingenious concept. It's not mob rule, but it's not a total lock box either.
Maybe God wasn't quite as clever as the framers of our constitution? Back in the time of Moses, they hadn't even invented paper yet. Stone is a cumbersome medium of communication.
Is God dumb, or is it just people's assumption that a god would always have to write in stone?
People's thinking must be some holdover from the "Stone Age."
Then there's the concept of a law written on someone's heart. That goes way back also. An ancient idea of flexibility?
What is the heart? Some fuzzy concept? We know about the squishy heart that pumps blood.
What about the brain? Is that squishy also? A friend of mine once said he worked for a bureaucratic organization where the heads of the board of directors were filled with solid concrete.
More stuff to think about. If your brain isn't solidified yet.
The president of Iran claims there are no gay people in Iran. Meanwhile President Bush opposes gay marriage. While both presidents feud among one another, they both have opposition to gay rights in common. Maybe Bush isn't quite as harsh as the Iranian President, but watch out when people who play lip service to fundamentalist religions feud amongst one another.
Our perception of the universe keeps getting larger and larger. In ancient times, it seemed like Earth was "center of it all" and not even all of Earth was known about. The Romans had no idea that the Americas existed.
There were also many things, like thunder, that were unexplained. They were attributed to the gods.
As our knowledge grew, we started explaining things in more mundane terms. We could make statements like, "thunder is not angry gods, but more explainable events in the atmosphere."
Science has a tendency to demystify things. It tends to push the idea that "something is caused by a god" farther from the picture as understanding advances.
Does that mean science can explain God totally out of the picture?
Not really, at least in my opinion.
Here's a reason why.
While scientific understanding tends to explain God out of our little world, it also tends to expand our world. As the known world grows, the unknown world grows also.
The unknown world may even be growing faster than the known world.
The universe that we try and comprehend is much larger today than the Romans would have imagined. Not only is Earth larger than the Romans thought, it's also just a tiny speck in something even bigger. Billions and billions of stars, planets and galaxies, as Carl Sagan would have said.
There's still plenty of room for mystery. Plenty of room for God, or even gods, to hide in.
Just in case you thought the billions of stars and galaxies aren't enough mystery, I read that possibly 95 percent of the stuff in our universe is totally invisible to us. It's the so called "dark matter" and "dark energy."
What is dark matter and / or dark energy?
No one knows.
We don't see the light from it, but many astronomers think it's got to be there because they see the effects of its gravity on the stuff that we do see.
Dark energy seems to be repelling the galaxies apart at an ever increasing rate while dark matter is arranging and tugging the galaxies around in various ways.
It's like invisible hands pushing and pulling things around, but we don't see what's doing this.
For now, we can leave dark matter and dark energy in the pile of unknown. That's the pile where we toss God also.
Even without that 95 percent of the universe people call the dark stuff, there's still a lot of the visible universe that's mysterious. Billions and billions of galaxies and lots of unexplained stuff. Even unexplained stuff right here on earth. Unexplained stuff in our ecosystems, brains, what ever.
As soon as we pull some new understanding out of the pile, we find that pile of "unknown" just gets even larger. We never seem to explain God into a corner or out of existence. The universe is far too large for that.
If our world was as small as the Romans must have perceived it to be, we would be well on our way to explaining away God. We would have explained thunder, much of weather, the flowing of streams, the chemical reactions that cause fire, evolutionary theory leading to the variety of species and so forth. Basically, we would eventually run out of mystery.
Still thinking inside the box of the Romans, God's corner is getting quite small.
As it is, we are no where near running out of mystery as our perception of the size of the universe just keeps growing along with our understanding of certain things around us.
Falling off the edge yet? Image from one of my bicycle trips down the Oregon coast.
There is a phrase that goes something like:
"The more we know, the more we know that we don't know."
There is still plenty of "place," on this huge stage we call reality, for God. More place all the time as the pile of unknown seems to grow faster than the pile of known.
It's like we're loosing ground.
It's also kind of like we are getting more humble all the time.
Yes, more humble.
In many ways, we seem to be less arrogant than the ancients who thought that man (for the most part not even women included) was the center of the universe.
Here's an analogy that I thought about this while I was mopping the floor. My custodial job gives me time for contemplation.
Ancient man sat in a room of darkness. He kept hearing a rustling sound that he thought was a mouse in the room.
"Mouse" means "God" for the terms of this analogy.
He kept hearing the rustling, but couldn't see anything due to the darkness. He thought, "it's got to be a mouse till he turned on a light."
No mouse visible.
"So, the mouse must be around the corner, behind the dresser, under the bed?"
He turns on more lights. He lights up a bigger area.
He sees under the bed. No mouse. Behind the dresser, no mouse.
Soon the entire room is lit up. No mouse can be seen and he realizes that the rustling is coming from a window shade.
Yes, there's a window shade. It's making a rattling sound in the wind.
Seeing the window for the first time is when ancient man first gains the concept that there is such a thing as an "outdoors."
In the dark room, he thought the little room was all of reality. Now he sees more. "There's such a thing as an outdoors!"
Now there's more room for mystery to lurk.
He can now ask questions like, "where does the wind come from?"
Yes, science tends to demystify a lot of things, but at the same time, it keeps pushing the frontiers of knowledge out into much larger worlds. Bigger worlds where mystery still abounds.
As the world of unknown keeps growing, I also read about many scientists describe the world that we do know in poetic and even artistic terms. Sort of like, "even the world that we do know is not really that totally mechanical either." It can be described more like a work of art than just the grinding of some impersonal machine, at least according to many scientists who I read about.
That's another whole tangent of thinking and it's quite fascinating.
It seems to me like we may have all but "proven out of existence" the god of the small world that fundamentalist religion was born out of.
That god, who is said to have "created the Earth in 6 days." Now days, he seems to be just about folk tale. That's the god who's "6 day creation special" defies geological findings.
A little while ago, I heard that, "on the 7th day, God ordered pizza."
It's believable, especially when the priest owns stock in a pizza delivery company.
The true universe is much larger and more mystical than folks living in that small world of Biblical times even imagined. Maybe they had some useful insights that we can still benefit from today, but the world is much larger and even more mysterious than that.
Now, as if that unseen 95 percent of our universe, we call dark matter and dark energy, isn't enough, there is String Theory.
Folks working on "String Theory" could be opening yet another "picture window" on the great unknown.
More dimensions.
10, or maybe even 11 dimensions!
More dimensions than just the familiar "up / down," "this side, that side" of a cube.
We can picture 3 dimensions. We can even (almost) picture the fourth dimension.
Yes, the fourth dimension.
That's the dimension which "relativity folks" describe as being "Time."
We have 3 spacial dimensions and a 4th dimension we call time.
Einstein talked about "Space Time."
Hard to imagine, but I can almost wrap my brain around it. Well not really.
String theorists even talk about something called "Brains." Yes, brains, like in our heads? Or maybe more like membranes?
No, I don't really know what the concept of "brains" means either.
So, what about the 4, or even 5 additional dimensions?
It's dimensions beyond our current conceptions.
Yes, String Theory seems to explain a lot of things in this universe that are now, you guessed it, mysteries.
String Theory is supposed to unify the world of "Quantum Physics" to the world of "Relativistic Physics."
Don't ask me why. I just know that for String Theory to work, "they" say it has to have 10 or 11 dimensions.
10 or 11 dimensions. Wow.
Then we ask, "why?"
All these dimensions have to be there because some physicists say so. A lot of physicists. Theoretical physicists with mathematical equations that look like gobble-de-gook to me.
Well, I take their word for it. That's all I can say. I got a "D" in basic algebra.
So far, String Theory, or even dark energy and dark matter have not been totally proven. It's just that a lot of scientists think we are really on to something. On to something rather profound in explaining more of this universe.
We just keep asking more and more questions. Our world keeps getting larger and larger and there always seems to be plenty of room for something folks can call a god.
I guess one can say, "it can truly be seen as an artistic, fantastic and mysterious world out there."
In some conservative Christian circles, there is a connection being made between the slave trade and abortion. Both are seen as related around the question "can someone be defined as human with basic human rights?"
This dialog is revolving around the film Amazing Grace which talks about abolishing the British slave trade in the early 1800s.
Interesting concept, but I have a different view.
Scientists and theologians will ponder the question, "when does human life begin" for years to come. Answers have not been conclusive, to me at least. Meanwhile, it's known that thousands of people die each day from malnutrition. I recently saw a sign up on the campus of Western Washington University stating that 1,208 people die each hour from malnutrition. That's an amazing number!
Can the world feed all her people, or is overpopulation going to lead to mass suffering and death?
I would say that in an ideal world, a totally ideal world, there would not be abortion. That's an ideal world. I actually don't know of anyone who thinks abortion is wonderful, like for instance, "go out and get an abortion for the fun of it." In an ideal world, there wouldn't be abortion, but there also wouldn't be unwanted pregnancy. There also wouldn't be starvation or environmental degradation.
How can we get closer to living in such an ideal world? To me, that's a more important question than whether someone is "pro life," or "pro choice."
Often, in the name of "pro life," funding is cut off to important family planning organizations that help address the issues of unwanted pregnancy and world population explosion. There are many good things that these organizations do of which abortion may be just a small part of the picture. About the good work that many of these groups do, I hate to use this analogy, but cutting their funding can be a case of "throwing out the baby with the bath water."
Yes, reducing world population is an important goal toward reducing death and suffering. Think about even the over 40 million Americans with no health insurance, not to mention that 1,208 starving world citizens per hour that I saw depicted on that campus sign.
Then there is the question of the morning after pill. It's still after a pregnancy begins, but do we define a small culture of cells the same as a human being? Of course, prevention is the best strategy. Prevention of unwanted pregnancy. Good sex education, anyone? "Abstinence only" doesn't seem to work.
At best, these are all complicated issues with many shades of gray. Just passing laws against abortion isn't going to solve these problems.
A religious columnist, of the right wing variety, was talking about Islamic extremists. He was saying that they don't mind America's capitalism, consumption or freedoms.
Instead, he said, the extremists don't like America's feminists and gays.
Yes, a right wing religious fanatic would say that.
He thinks USA could reduce the hatred that Islamic extremists hold toward this country if we just decide to hide our feminists and gays. Show the so-called "decent heartland of family life" side of America. Then, extremist anger would soften, supposedly.
Well, it ain't gonna work. Not that way, at least.
America could show it's "family heartland side" till it's "blue in the face," or "red in the face" as in "red states - blue states."
It's not gonna work. It's not enough. The Islamic extremists would not be impressed.
Those type of extremists would still not be satisfied until Israel was wiped off the map.
The extremists would want to eliminate Israel and her people.
Then the extremists would turn on one another. Actually they are already turning on one another.
Sunnis versus Shiites, various tribes, clans.
They're fighting among themselves anyway.
That's what is meant by the term "mean spirited."
We shouldn't try to appeal to that kind of hatred. It would just turn us sour also. Turn us into "angry extremists" ourselves.
Hopefully, the world doesn't have too many hostile extremists in it.
We should appeal to the more humane mindsets that are out there also. Appeal to the more humane mindsets by supporting our gays and feminists; for instance.
As for how to deal with the hostile mindsets in this world, it is hard to say what the best strategy would be.
Ignoring the hatred might be a good strategy.
Yes, ignoring it.
You may think I am crazy.
I know, there is the phrase "squeaky wheel gets the grease." At the same time, when media focuses on all the hostility, rather than more positive things, it does create "copy cat" hostility in it's wake.
Ignoring the angry screamers, in this world, might be worth considering.
America has tried war against hostile elements.
"War on terror," "War in Iraq."
Outcome is dubious at best.
I could do a bad pun and say, "outcome is Dubya at best;" as in George Dubya Bush.
I know that's a bad pun.
USA's war effort, in Iraq, may be just playing into the hands of the hostile ideologies anyway.
Putting one set of religious fanatics in power over another.
We are really stuck trying to play referee.
We've tried to be referee in the Middle East for years and it seems like practically no one is impressed.
Well, there does have to be some defense against terrorism. Defense like having the police around to protect people from crime.
Maybe we should not call it a "war on terrorism" as "war" is too negative a response. "Police work" might be more effective.
Yes, police work, like "good intelligence," "breaking up terror plots" and so forth.
We can still use the military for this. No, I am not advocating disbanding the military and just relying on underfunded local police.
We do need some kind of force to deal with hostility, but we don't need to blow it out of proportion.
Maybe we are allowing ourselves to be dominated by the negative. It's too much "Tit for tat."
Ignoring the terrorists, or at least treating it more as "common garden variety crime" is worth considering.
We should not let the terrorists and bigots of this world govern our thinking.
RE: Congressman Goode's worry about immigration
"First to be sworn-in using Koran," or is that spelled Quran?
I've seen it both ways.
Life is getting more complicated. English is a complex language, due in part to a lot of words "migrating in" from other languages. Immigration and assimilation of words from all over the world.
Vitality, but complexity as well.
Spelling has never been my strong point.
There is Republican Congressman Virgil Goode's letter expressing fear that if America doesn't tighten up on immigration, a lot more Muslims will be going to Congress.
Yes there is a lot of immigration from parts of the world with high birth rates. Since Goode is a Republican, I ask, "what are Republicans doing for birth control and family planning around the world?"
I am afraid not much.
There are high birth rates in some Islamic countries, also countries where the Catholic Church is big. Most of our immigration comes from Catholic countries, but in Europe, that is a different story. The Europeans are closer to Islamic neighbors.
Keith Ellison is native born anyway.
Church and State
As for the controversy, of course Keith Ellison has the right to be sworn into Congress over what ever text he chooses. We don't have establishment of Christianity, or any other religion by our government.
Some people worry about any religious folks serving in Congress.
One can often feel caught between fundamentalists of Christianity versus fundamentalists of Islam.
Of course there are religious people who aren't fundamentalists. Possibly even the majority of religious people.
Has anyone stopped to ask, "what type of politics does Keith Ellison espouse?" He is a Democrat.
I assume the majority of his district's voters have asked those questions, last November, and were satisfied with his answers. He did win the election.
I wondered what his stands have been on issues like gay rights and woman's rights.
Had not heard anything about this in the media frenzy, so far.
One often hears that women and gay people are not respected in countries with large Muslim populations.
Well, I found the web page keithellison.org, after turning off my radio. Looking up "issues," one finds his stands are quite good, in my opinion.
There are open minded people in all faiths, including Islam.
Our country torn apart by close minded ideologies from overseas?
Islam can be a worry, but so can conservative Christianity.
Several Anglican churches, in the US, have chosen to split from their denomination over the issue of ordination for openly gay bishops. These churches have joined up with a more conservative branch of their denomination. A more conservative branch that in based in Nigeria.
Outside influences from the nation of Nigeria! Can our American way of life survive?
Coincidentally, several of these churches happen to be in the same state that Virgil Goode is from; the state of Virginia.
Lots of news on the radio about how badly the war in Iraq is going. It's a lost cause.
This may be a bit simplistic, but the "religious right," in this country, is wrong. Maybe our "religious right" put too much faith in deeply religious people of the Middle East. Maybe they thought the religious folks of that region would co-operate in a fledgling democracy. "After all, aren't they moral people with deep religious convictions, albeit Muslim?"
Well, the intolerance of that region has turned to sectarian violence and civil war. Religious fundamentalists will do that.
Here in America, it took our so called "good people;" often religious people, several hundred years to craft the liberal democracy we now enjoy. In the "good old days," we nearly exterminated the American Indian and made their religions illegal, until more recent times. We've had slavery and our own civil war.
It took us several hundred years and we are still learning the lessons of tolerance. Still learning how to celebrate diversity. If the Middle East learns these lessons in 50 years, it will be moving faster than our past history.
We have come a long way as a liberal democracy. We even have liberal and accepting religions.
We need to tend to our own needs better, so as to become an even greater example of civilization to the world. Continue to put our own house in order.
Just think, what if all the billions spent on "military in Iraq" could have been used domestically, on things like alternative energy. Our foreign policy could advance past the ulterior motive of keeping oil flowing.
That would be "domestic spending;" not the priority of most Republicans. It would also be idealism. Daring to dream.
Some would scoff, but look what so called "realistic thinking" has brought us - a lost cause in Iraq and a black hole for large sums of money, not to mention all the lives lost.
Right at the start, it looked like getting rid of Iraq's dictator had some merit. I admit, I was a fence sitter (undecided) on the question of yes, or no, back in 2003.
Now it looks like the various religious fanatics in that region are making any positive outcome improbable.
Former Congressman Mark Foley, the former mayor of Spokane and now Pastor Ted Haggard - conservatives in the news with gay sex issues.
I once had a good talk with a pastor friend of mine. He was a liberal pastor. We were discussing the fundamentalist Christians who say, about gay people, that they, "love the sinner, but hate the sin."
Well, my pastor friend said, kind of jokingly, "what they really mean is this."
"Hate the sinner, but find the sin absolutely fascinating."
He was a liberal minister, himself. Not a fundamentalist.
I remember he used to participate in panel discussions about Christianity and homosexuality. These were sponsored by the Gay People's Alliance at Western Washington University (called LGBTA now). This was clear back in the late 1970s. They used to make up a panel discussion with a gay person, a liberal Christian minister and someone to represent fundamentalist, or "conservative Christian" points of view.
Sometimes these discussions would get heated, but usually they remained civil. Thought provoking.
On another, somewhat related note.
Hurray Democrats
I think everything, I voted for, passed this time. I voted a winning ballot for a change. People voted my way on the initiatives and also all the candidates, here in the 40th legislative district of Washington State.
Hurray Democrats.
Usually, my vote is against the tide. This time it was with the tide.
US involvement in Iraq and the greater Middle East may have just made things even worse. Fanned the flames more.
If there is any good to come from this, it could be the total discrediting of right wing politics in USA. It may have taken this to discredit much of the religious right and the Republican agenda.
Hopefully, at least much of Congress can change in November.
Many folks keep holding signs that say "impeach Bush," but it is really Congress which has that power. Voting in November may be a step in that direction, but the process is fairly slow. Bush's second term, in the White House, will be over before long anyway. Likely before an impeachment process can unfold.
My, how time flies.
Also, of course, it isn't just the American right wing that's discredited. Fundamentalism looks bad all over the world. Whether it is the "Christian Right," "Islamic Fundamentalism," or what ever, it all looks perverted.
I hope more liberal and tolerant voices can be heard from all corners of the world. Liberal religions and so forth.
.
He could do a lot of damage if he were high in the polls. Bush's low approval rating can help pull down the fortunes of "Focus On The Family" type groups that oppose alternative lifestyles.
My poem.
Religious intransigence. Intransigence almost sounds like insurgency. "Islamic fundamentalist insurgents." "American way" intransigent platforms.
Battle between "closed minded" minds.
Having to keep order with the barrel of a gun.
Policing the world, rising deficits, overpopulation, greenhouse gases, too much "hot air."
It isn't working very well, or at least so say the polls.
The world is hard to manage, especially the intrasigent, insurgent, fundamentalist sides of the world.
Our President on a rough ride.
We need more "alternative lifestyles." Innovate cause there's got to be better ways.
When a sinking ship speaks out against gay rights, hopefully folks of common sense will swim away. Hopefully folks can swim to new paradigms.
The "big guy" may have known all along. In the Libby "CIA leak case," news is talking about President Bush and Vice President Cheney possibly requesting that the information be released.
At the same time we are reading in the news that Jesus may have requested his disciple Judas provide information which helped lead to the crucifixion. Rather than betraying Christ, Judas may have been acting on request of Christ.
Is the "religious right wing world view" crumbling?
People are discussing more gospels and truths that were edited out of the Bible that so many folks are used to.
Gnostic Gospels. Diversity, even in early Christianity. Contradicting points of view. Pluralism, even early on.
Of course politicians have acted in the past, as many do today, to try and put a spin on truth and simplify things. The books that are included in our current Bible were chosen most likely by political process in Roman times. Something called the Canon. Some say divinely inspired.
Like the divine right of kings?
News keeps coming up to jar people from long established ways of thinking.
To top it all off, another missing link in the theory of evolution has been found. A fish like creature with limbs allowing it to crawl around in shallow waters.
It's the slippery slope.
"If we give the fish stubby limbs, next he'll grow legs!" "He'll start walking all over the Earth." "Heaven forbid." "We can't have that."
Yes, I do believe in some kind of God and universal order, or maybe I should say orders; Gods? It is just that our rigid concepts for the nature of these things are not the whole story.
Humans still have a lot to learn, but fundamentalists are often threatened by new information.
Speaking of stepping out on legs...
Is the below picture a walkway or an artwork? (See description below).
It's fuzzy truth. I recently walked along this creation at the campus of Western Washington University.
Sign says, "A work in WWU's out door sculpture collection." "This is not a university walkway." "Use caution."
It didn't say not to walk there, so I did. No one minded.
It added a new twist to my exercise program that evening. A nice little jog.
I often like to jog around Western's campus. It is good exercise climbing that hill from downtown Bellingham to the campus. Also it is more interesting than just plodding along some trail, or along a busy street.
Better than running on a treadmill at the gym. That would remind me too much of the economy.
Marketplace orthodoxy?
The artwork can be inspiring, but be careful. Life is not always what one expects.
While this may not be practical for mortals, Jesus would probably open the border and welcome everyone in. Then folks would come to him and say, "you're crazy." "There isn't enough bread to go around." "There's only two loves."
Jesus would then say, "don't worry there's plenty." He would start cutting the loves and everyone would eat. Miraculously, there would be 7 loves left over after the feast.
It's something to think about, but problematic in our practical world. I wouldn't recommend trying it literally, but it's worth a thought. For instance, scientific innovation may not be a worker of miracles, but it's better than nothing. When people say, "there are too many people and too many cars, the traffic's terrible," get folks to ride the bus. When New York City was considered too big because there was no place to put all the horse manure, the streetcar came along.
We can build up, instead of out. Up zone for density. We can keep adapting for a while, but short of something miraculous, birth control, in the countries where the immigrants come from, is needed also.
It was rebroadcast over KUOW Radio.
Ron Sims is King County Executive and Hutcherson is a reverend.
Interesting to note that Sims is a reverend also. Religious ideas can certainly be interpreted many ways.
Also interesting to note that both men are black.
Civil rights was the topic. Should civil rights protections include sexual orientation?
Sims is in favor, Hutcherson is against.
The debate was lively and spirited.
Rather than me regurgitating the debate, here is a thought that came to my mind just before the broadcast.
One must ask, "why it is against the law to discriminate on the basis of religion, but not against the law to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?" Religion seems to be a more divisive and contentious factor than sexual orientation.
I am actually religious, myself, but I am not a fundamentalist. I follow a "liberal" interpretation of Christianity.
Under the original 1964 civil rights act, it would be illegal discriminate against someone describing themselves as "fundamentalist." How about "Islamic Fundamentalist" for instance? That would be considered "religion" and thus protected. However, sexual orientation can still be discriminated against.
Hum.
Isn't religion something people choose as Hutcherson claims that sexual orientation is? Religion can certainly stir up a lot of problems.
Also, of course, as Sims maintains that sexual orientation is not a choice. Science may not be 100% certain (like fundamentalist religions claim to be), but scientific evidence tends to lean toward sexual orientation's biological basis. There are DNA studies and so forth.
Religion, is a matter of choice.
Actually some people might even dispute that. There are religious determinists, but that's another digression.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act only covers race, religion, creed and national origin.
Even sex (whether you are a man or a woman) is not protected. Not protected in the 1964 constitutional act. That's why women will often remind us that we still don't have the ERA.
In most states and local areas, other categories have been added to civil rights. Women (or I should say men and women) are protected this way.
Age has been included, handicap status, marital status and some other things, in various states and localities.
17 states have now added sexual orientation to the list. Washington just passed this protection, last legislative session, but it is being challenged by a possible initiative.
Sexual orientation is a category that I think is at least as deserving as the original 4.
Hutcherson's perspective is kind of scary even though he has a right to his views, just like everyone else. He seems to think one interpretation of the Bible is "God's law" and this nation is based on that.
Sharia Law? Ops, I guess that's Islam. Sharia law is basically governing civil matters under Islamic religious code.
Sims spoke about the need to separate civil law from the various interpretations of religious belief.
Yes, I agree. America has got to be a nation with many flavors of religious, and even non religious belief. Otherwise, look at all that sectarian fighting in the Middle East.
Hutcherson says he doesn't want to be forced to hire a gay person. Well, that is kind of a libertarian argument that can also be used against other civil rights protections as well. Keeping that idea in mind, it is good to point out that Washington State's sexual orientation law would not force Hutcherson to hire gay people in his church. Religious institutions are exempt under that provision. Also smaller businesses with just a few employees or rental units are exempt. If you still wanted to discriminate against a gay person, (or non gay for that matter) in your church or renting a room in your private residence, the new law would not apply.
It does apply to larger things; for instance corporations and government agencies. A somewhat gentle law with quite a few exceptions. Trying to be nice and cater to objections.
Now, would Sharia law be that kind? Whoops, I guess that's Islam. Would fundamentalist religious law, of any kind, be that nice?
Hutcherson, like so many of the fundamentalist persuasion, puts one rigid interpretation of a religious doctrine over everything else. In my mind, a loving spirit matters most and people will always have different interpretations of doctrine.
Yes I say Boy because religion was kind of being macho and aggressive. He kept trying to dominate with one point of view or another and not letting other points of view be heard in the class. He kept fighting others because he said, "there's only one way." Didn't listen to others.
So the teacher finally had to expel him.
It's not that religion can't go to school. If he behaved, he'd be okay. Many of our country's founding fathers (and mothers) were deeply religious, but many of them were too pushy about their diverging points of view. They basically had to kick religion out of school. There were so many different kinds of founding folks that they had to agree on a truce. They had to not let any one religious view try and take over the school.
Sometimes it was an uncomfortable truce, but they had little choice. They didn't want the school torn up with fighting kids.
Today the teacher says religion might be able to come back, but he has to learn to be multi-cultural. He might be allowed to come back if he is willing to take a class on "comparative religions." He has to learn that his many differing points of view are basically all okay. Even lack of a religious point of view is okay.
