Quotes of the Day -- Sunday Edition

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
― Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles à M. Claparede, Professeur de Théologie à Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de M. de Voltaire

“Is man merely a mistake of God's? Or God merely a mistake of man?”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

“All thinking men are atheists.”
― Ernest Hemingway, A Farewell to Arms

“Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead.”
― Kurt Vonnegut

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens

“For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command nor faith a dictum. I am my own god. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.”
― Charles Bukowski

“Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

“Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!”
― George Carlin

“To you, I'm an atheist.
To God, I'm the loyal opposition.”
― Woody Allen

"There is a tremendous enjoyment in having shaken off the silly, absurdly subjective rules, laws, "commandments" of religion, organized religion. It frees you to enjoy the world and life and people and to learn and love and live and grow."

--Me

Bible Facts on a Sunday

I always refer back to what Jesus said about "homosexuals" and those same-sex attracted.

That is, nothing.

Religion and Its Evolution

Face it, accept it or not.

One More Shooting and Slaughter of American Innocents

Coincidentally and eve ironically, I got this political cartoon from none other than the Salt Lake City Tribune.

The Solution to the Middle East

I figured it out.

I figured out a way to end the violence and fighting between the Israelis and Arabs and all others in the Middle East.

We--the world community--give each side one nuclear warhead with the requirement that we--that same world community---shoot off those 2 warheads at precisely the same time, at the other side.

Problem solved.

Peace in the Middle East, at long last.

Quote of the day -- on the Judeo-Christian tradition

Freedom From Religion Foundation

"As a historian, I confess to a certain amusement when I hear the Judeo-Christian tradition praised as the source of our concern for human rights. In fact, the great religious ages were notable for their indifference to human rights in the contemporary sense. They were notorious not only for acquiescence in poverty, inequality, exploitation and oppression but for enthusiastic justifications of slavery, persecution, abandonment of small children, torture, genocide."

—Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., historian and Pulitzer Prize winning author, "The Opening of the American Mind," The New York Times, 1989.

See more at: http://ffrf.org/news/day#sthash.vvxGNPNl.dpuf

Quote of the day -- for a Sunday

“This life is for loving, sharing, learning, smiling, caring, forgiving, laughing, hugging, helping, dancing, wondering, healing, and even more loving. I choose to live life this way. I want to live my life in such a way that when I get out of bed in the morning, the devil says, 'aw shit, he's up!” 

― Steve Maraboli, Unapologetically You: Reflections on Life and the Human Experience

Enjoy your Sunday, y'all.

Thoughts. On the world

The problem with most humans is that in order to live and be able to hopefully understand or make sense of it--life--is that we anthropomorphize it.

We give life and/or the universe human characteristics. We anthropomorphize our worlds and so, the universe.  We give the cold, uncaring, ever-progressing--however slowly--universe a personality and rules.  And we do this so much so we name it.

For a lot of us, it can be merely “god” or “God.” For others, a lot of others, we take it further than that, even. We give, usually him, a specific name. Some examples are, of course, Jesus, Yahweh, Mohammed, Allah, or any number of monikers. We complicate things, the world, the universe and so, our lives and our own worlds.

The only real rule is love.

Love everything. Be kind. Share. Smile. Help one another.  All good stems from one rule, this one rule.

Love.

Noah, the ark, the Bible, Christianity and God

Yesterday's important anniversary

Yesterday in 1945, the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp was liberated by the Russian army. The Nazis had abandoned the camp 10 days earlier, forcing most of the prisoners into a death march that killed thousands. Those deemed too weak for the march were left behind, including these children. 

They did not know their ordeal was over until the 322nd Rifle Division of the Soviet Red Army arrived.

Since 2005, January 27th is known as International Holocaust Remembrance Day, in memory of the victims of the Holocaust, which resulted in the murder of one third of the Jewish people along with countless members of other minorities.

See the United Nations Resolution which created this Remembrance Day at http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/remembrance/international/pdf/un_decision.pdf

Still photograph of the children from the Soviet Film of the liberation of Auschwitz, taken by the film unit of the First Ukrainian Front, shot over a period of several months beginning on January 27, 1945 by Alexander Voronzow and others in his group. Child survivors of Auschwitz, wearing adult-size prisoner jackets, stand behind a barbed wire fence. Among those pictured are Tomasz Szwarz; Alicja Gruenbaum; Solomon Rozalin; Gita Sztrauss; Wiera Sadler; Marta Wiess; Boro Eksztein; Josef Rozenwaser; Rafael Szlezinger; Gabriel Nejman; Gugiel Appelbaum; Mark Berkowitz (a twin); Pesa Balter; Rut Muszkies (later Webber); Miriam Friedman; and twins Miriam Mozes and Eva Mozes wearing knitted hats.

Quote of the day--on "the Lord's day"

Think about it.

Israeli military: above the law, decency, humanity and international law

An Israeli judge ruled today that their nation's military was in no way responsible for the death of a protester he bulldozed because the Israeli government wanted to destroy homes in the Gaza Strip. The news and headline today:

Israel judge rules Rachel Corrie responsible for her own death

Parents of American activist Rachel Corrie fail in their attempt to place blame on Israel after their daughter was killed by a bulldozer in Gaza at a protest

JERUSALEM — Nine years after their daughter was crushed by an Israeli military bulldozer in the Gaza Strip, the parents of American activist Rachel Corrie lost their legal bid Tuesday to hold Israel responsible for her death and force authorities to reopen the investigation.

A Haifa judge rejected the parent's negligence lawsuit, calling Corrie's death an accident that she brought upon herself by refusing to leave what had been declared a closed military zone. "It was a very regrettable accident and not a deliberate act," said Judge Oded Gershon.

And sure, people will take sides--the driver did see her, he didn't, whatever.

As you can tell here--and as you would guess if you know me--I'm on the side of the protester and her family. I find it at least extremely difficult to believe that the driver of the bulldozer didn't see her or know she was there. She "was wearing a fluorescent orange jacket and standing just a few feet away" from the bulldozer and driver at the time.

In fact, I'll go one step further on this. I feel sure the official order from the Israeli government was to go forward with the destruction of the homes no matter what. It may well have been only spoken but I feel strongly that was their position.
This flies in the face of decency and of humanity, as I said in the title, above, but it also goes against international law. A nation and its government isn't supposed to tear down anyone's home, regardless.

Was the young lady--Rachel Cory, 23--pushing her luck?

Apparently the answer to that is yes.

Did the right thing happen? Should she have been killed so a nation's government could tear down homes they didn't want?

Absolutely not.

Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-israel-corrie-verdict-20120829,0,4476903.story

Timely video of the day

In case you don't have the patience to listen to the song:

Cain slew Abel Seth knew not why
For if the children of Israel were to multiply
Why must any of the children die?
So he asked the Lord
And the Lord said:

"Man means nothing he means less to me
than the lowiliest cactus flower
or the humblest yucca tree
he chases round this desert
cause he thinks that's where i'll be
that's why i love mankind

I recoil in horror from the foulness of thee
from the squalor and the filth and the misery
How we laugh up here in heaven at the prayers you offer me
That's why i love mankind"

The Christians and the Jews were having a jamboree
The Buddhists and the Hindus joined on satellite TV
They picked their four greatest priests
And they began to speak
They said "Lord the plague is on the world
Lord no man is free
The temples that we built to you
Have tumbled into the sea
Lord, if you won't take care of us
Won't you please please let us be?"

And the Lord said
And the Lord said

"I burn down your cities--how blind you must be
I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we
You must all be crazy to put your faith in me
That's why i love mankind
You really need me
That's why i love mankind"

Quote of the day, Sunday edition

“The best remedy for those who are afraid, lonely or unhappy is to go outside, somewhere where they can be quite alone with the heavens, nature and God. Because only then does one feel that all is as it should be and that God wishes to see people happy, amidst the simple beauty of nature. As longs as this exists, and it certainly always will, I know that then there will always be comfort for every sorrow, whatever the circumstances may be. And I firmly believe that nature brings solace in all troubles.” ~-Anne Frank

Same-sex attraction: Transcending both time (history) and nature

I've said this before.

Most people either don't know or deny it but actually, same-sex attraction not only is nothing new and is not, actually, a sign of some moral degradation of our age. Far from it.

It transcends both humankind's history as well as nature.

Some proof I found by accident, earlier today, in an article:

When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John."

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual."

As much as some religious people--Christians, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Mormons and others--won't like it, same-sex attraction has not only been around since the beginning of humanity but it was sanctioned in their own, early church. To hear so many Christian Fundamentalists speak of it, they would have us believe that marriage between a man and a woman is the only relationship ever given the okay by their churches and the only thing that has made sense in history and so, today.

It's just not true.

I know that whole thing about knowing history is inconvenient but saying anything other than this is at least untrue if not an out-and-out lie, like it or not.

Closing side note: The article has much more historical fact and proof of Christianity's acceptance and inclusion of same-sex couples in it, too, in case you're either interested or still not believing what's said here. Link: http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

Quote of the day

“We can reject everything else: religion, ideology, all received wisdom. But we cannot escape the necessity of love and compassion.... This, then, is my true religion, my simple faith. In this sense, there is no need for temple or church, for mosque or synagogue, no need for complicated philosophy, doctrine or dogma. Our own heart, our own mind, is the temple. ... The doctrine is compassion. Love for others and respect for their rights and dignity, no matter who or what they are: ultimately these are all we need. So long as we practice these in our daily lives, then no matter if we are learned or unlearned, whether we believe in Buddha or God, or follow some other religion or none at all, as long as we have compassion for others and conduct ourselves with restraint out of a sense of responsibility, there is no doubt we will be happy.” ― Dalai Lama XIV

Fighting. At the Church of the Nativity. In Bethlehem. At Christmas. Just as Jesus would have wanted

Can you believe these people? Here's the description of the video from YouTube: "A fight broke out at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem after rival groups of Orthodox and Armenian clerics clashed over the boundaries of their jurisdictions inside the church." Nice. So much for that "turning the other cheek" stuff, eh? WWJF? (Who would Jesus fight?) Then, not to be outdone, the Jews got into it: Israelis Clash Over Strict Religious Codes

Seriously, does it not seem as though the whole world has gone mad? (I must say, however, that I love that smiling, laughing kid in the middle background of the picture. He's totally loving it. I hope he's not a brat.) Link: http://www.npr.org/2011/12/28/144364324/israelis-clash-over-strict-religious-codes

Growing hate attacks: signs of hard times?

I heard, earlier in the day, there was an anti-semitic attack here in the States, in Indiana, actually, at Indiana University and found this at the Daily Kos from the IU website:


In the last week, rocks have been thrown through windows at the Helene G. Simon Hillel Center and the Chabad House Jewish Student Center, and a rock was thrown at the staff directory sign for the Jewish Studies program. There has also been vandalism of Hebrew books at the Wells Library.  All these incidents have been reported to police and to the FBI and all are under intense investigation.


Doesn't it seem like we should and would be so far above and beyond this kind of ignorance, no matter the economy?  I would have hoped so.


Then, today, I see this:


Hate crimes jump across England, Wales, N Ireland

By The Associated Press
12.01.2010 5:30pm EST

 (London) More than 50,000 hate crimes were reported last year across  England, Wales and Northern Ireland – a rise of 12 percent over the last year.

What is this about, anyway? 

 I don't suppose we can assume any direct correlation between the incident and the statistics but it does seem that the economies across the world may have something to do with it.  And if so, does it mean that, as long as we live, until we reach some educated, enlightened "Nirvana", that we'll always have this kind of ignorant response to difficult times?

Hopefully the economies and crimes aren't related because if they are, I see it getting worse before it gets better, any time soon.

Naturally, I hope I'm wrong.

Links:  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/1/74514/2225

http://www.365gay.com/news/hate-crimes-jump-across-england-wales-n-ireland/

Let's hope he's wrong about war with Iran (guest post)

May 29, 2010

The Coming Iran War

It's happening again.

The same forces -- with a few new additions and minus a few smart defectors -- who pushed the United States into a needless and deadly war with Iraq are now organizing for the next war.

This time the target is Iran, which, just like Iraq, is said to be on the verge of creating weapons of mass destruction.

Also, just like Iraq, its president is a supposed madman determined to destroy Israel.

In fact, in the case of Iraq, that president, Saddam Hussein, not only threatened to "incinerate half of Israel," he actually launched 39 SCUD missiles against Israel during the 1991 Gulf war.

That war finished off Saddam as a power.

But that was not good enough for Vice President Dick Cheney and his war profiteering buddies. Ten years later, with Cheney in the vice presidency and 9/11 as the pretense, the Cheney crowd led America into a war to depose Saddam. The goal: to turn Iraq into an American protectorate in order to make tens of billions of dollars for themselves and their corporate allies. So far, 4,400 Americans, 318 allied forces, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died to advance that agenda.

But Cheney also enlisted a gang of war cheerleaders who had no interest in making money off the conflict. Those were the neocons who pushed for war out of the belief that eliminating Saddam Hussein would be good for Israel.

The Cheney gang consisted of people like Doug Feith, Joe Lieberman, John Bolton, Frank Gaffney, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, Scooter Libby, Bill Kristol, Elliot Abrams and their various allies in government and media. The Israel lobby is also a member of that gang -- although it operated with nothing like the vigor that it now dedicates to the anti-Iran effort. (The pressure exerted by the lobby is a big part of the reason so many Democrats supported a war they knew was wrong.)

Of course, Iraq did not have WMDs and the Bush administration almost surely knew it. (If Iraq had them, we would no more have attacked Iraq than we now attack North Korea. In fact, the evidence that a country does not have WMDs is our willingness to consider bombing it.)

But, no matter, the gang of war profiteers and neocon ideologues were hell bent on war anyway. The supposed WMDs were just a pretense.

This would all be for the history books (and the grieving widows, parents, grandparents, children, partners, sisters and brothers of the fallen Americans) if the same scenario was not being played out today.

Earlier in May, Turkey and Brazil -- after months of intense negotiations -- persuaded the Iranian regime to accept a deal that would have vastly reduced its ability to produce a nuclear weapon. The Turkish-Brazilian deal was almost identical to the one President Obama and our allies pushed the Iranians to accept back in October.

Only this time, it wasn't good enough. The Obama administration ignored the Turkish-Brazilian breakthrough, saying its goal was crippling sanctions and that it was close to achieving them. Of course, few believe sanctions will have any significant effect other than to punish ordinary Iranians, people who are suffering quite enough under a monstrous regime.

But the administration seems to have been sold a bill of goods that leaves the U.S. with only two choices: sanctions or war. The diplomatic option seems to be off the table, pushed off by pressure from various warhawks, neocons, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his allies in Congress. (Obama originally favored open-ended diplomacy with no deadline; Netanyahu somehow convinced him that a deadline on diplomacy made sense. It doesn't.)

Even some of the more progressive voices are falling for this false choice largely because the lobby -- although clearly struggling as J Street moves into clear ascendancy among young and middle-aged Jews -- still manages to intimidate.

The other day, an Op-Ed appeared in the Jewish newspaper, Forward, by Rabbi Eric Yoffie, head of the Reform Jewish movement in America and a progressive, that read like something out of 2002.

Yoffie's piece is a cris de couer, urging all Jews to support a hard line on Iran. "Now is the time," he writes, "to pressure our government to move more emphatically to counter the Iranian threat.

Yoffie's piece is significant on two counts. The first is that he does not push the ridiculous line that a nuclear Iran would happily commit suicide in order to destroy Israel. The rabbi clearly knows enough about international relations and human behavior to understand that there are limits to what nations will do to make a political point and that national suicide is not one of them.

No, his description of the threat to Israel is both more subtle and more honest.

He writes, "Even if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons and never use them, the danger to Israel would still be intolerable. Israel cannot live in the shadow of a nuclear Iran. In the minds of its own citizens and of the world community, Israel would cease to be a safe place to live."

There is truth in that. The thought of a nuclear Iran so close to Israel is upsetting. But then so was the Cold War. And so is the fact that North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Russia all have nuclear weapons -- not to mention all those missing nukes which could end up, God forbid, in the hands of terrorists. And such is life these days in New York City, Washington, London and -- especially -- Seoul, where, just under the surface, is the fear that a catastrophe could happen at any time.

It also should be noted that for most of the world, the idea that Israel has 200-plus nuclear weapons and, unlike Iran, has not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty is itself deeply troubling. In fact, much of the world believes that Israel is so vehement about Iranian nukes because it wants to remain the only nuclear power in the Middle East, leaving it free to do what it wants, whenever it wants to. It enjoys its hegemony. That is what Yoffie is hinting at.

Nonetheless, I agree with him that the world, and not just Israel, would be better off if Iran never develops nuclear weapons.

But my idea of how to prevent a nuclear Iran is rather different than the rabbi's.

Here is Yoffie: "There is no conceivable solution to the threat of a nuclear Iran that will not require American leadership. All of the options -- whether economic sanctions or military action -- are impossible without American support."

Funny, Yoffie refers to "all" of the options when he only names two -- sanctions or war. It is as if he intended to include the one option that makes sense, diplomacy, and changed his mind at the last minute. The "all" is a remnant of a thought he would not permit himself, either because he honestly opposes diplomacy or because he doesn't want to cross AIPAC.

Yoffie's alternatives are no alternatives at all. Sanctions won't work (except to punish ordinary Iranians and enrich those who defy the sanctions) and "military action" will produce nothing except more dead -- including Americans -- and, quite possibly, a regional war. War would also eliminate any chance that Israel will ever have peace with the Muslim world and would destroy America's standing in a critical region.

What is Yoffie thinking when he rules out diplomacy but rules in a third Middle East war? Is the preemptive slaughter of innocents really a legitimate option for civilized people in 2010? Well, it isn't for me or for the Reform Jews who look to Yoffie for leadership. (Jews are mostly doves and Reform Jews, to their credit, are the most dovish of all.)

It is war, not diplomacy, that belongs off the table. I'm sure Rabbi Yoffie knows that. That is what he should have written.


MJ Rosenberg.Senior Foreign Policy Fellow, Media Matters Action Network

Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters

Will we ever stop this?

New reports out yesterday tell of approximately 500 people--Christians--having been killed as retaliation, by Muslims.

Really.

Muslims killing Christians.

Christians killing Muslims.

Protestants fighting with Catholics in Ireland. And for centuries.

Jews being discriminated against, beaten, abused and/or killed for centuries.



At what point will mankind stop this idiotic, ignorant insanity?

Why can't we "lame und lame lie"?

Live und let live...