Either - Or & Other. . . .

I have always been on the side of the heretics and against those who burned them, because the heretics so often turned out to be right. . Dead, but right.
-Edward R. Murrow.

I returned a few weeks ago from a great trip to Ireland. I left the next weekend for Berkeley CA, and have been more or less on the move since. So it has been a busy six weeks.


On this last trip to Ireland I took long time Portland Instructor and friend Travis Davison. We started the journey in Dublin, at John Kavanaghs Gym. While we were at Johns I was able to watch a very interesting documentary called "The God who wasnt there". You can see info regarding this movie here:

http://www.thegodmovie.com/pagan/


Its an interesting movie that points to the mythological, rather then historic, origins of the Christian Religion. And although none of that was new for me, it did strike me as obvious that if there was a time when people needed to watch something like this, it was now. Especially in this Country.

The part of the film that really hit me wasn't the mythological aspects of the Christian religion. Those are really easy shots to launch. What struck me was the visit the narrator of the film takes back to his fundamentalist Christian school of childhood.

Having questioned and overcome his fundamentalist roots, he asks for an interview with the current principle. Who happened to be the same administrator who was there when he was a child.


The question he asked was simply this:

"Do you think its ethical to teach children this mythology, under the guise of being factual?

Do you think its a healthy, and moral thing to do to teach children nonsense, like the idea that they will burn in eternal hellfire if they don't believe as you do?"

The principle was clearly taken back by the line of questioning. And that is what really caught my senses the most. . .he was not used to being asked questions like this. And that is because we as a society don't ask these questions of these types of people.

And the thing is this. . .they are damn good questions.


Consider this. . .should someone who believes that the Earth is actually 6000 Years old, that Adam and Eve were real people who really did eat from a piece of fruit after having a conversation with a talking snake, and that at somepoint their anthropomorphic Father God (always male) will come back to Earth to save them . . . . should someone who believes that be allowed access to nuclear weapons?

Perhaps the answer is yes . . . if they have shown themselves to be rational the rest of the time. But shouldn't we as a society at least be asking these kind of questions?

And furthermore, have you heard these types of questions asked recently?

We have handed the keys to the asylum over to the inmates without ever asking these basic questions, and then we wonder why things seem so backwards so much of the time.



We had the privilege of spending a longer period of time in Northern Ireland on this last trip. In the past I had only visit for a day or two at a time. I wanted to learn as much as a could from the people who lived there about what this old conflict was really all about. What is really going on with the whole Catholic - Protestant strife.


There is a lot of History to the whole issue. And I would encourage anyone really interested to do research. The history of the Irish struggle for Independence, the repression by the British, the Ulster Irish (many who migrated to the USA), the Loyalists, the whole thing is a very interesting piece of the human story.

But barring that, here is my readers digest version which has been reduced to my own subjective vision at the time. In short, these are just my own opinions, and can barely represent a small fraction of how complicated the whole system can be.

It comes down to the Age old evil of the "Other". The cornerstone lie which states that those "people" over there, aint you.

And I will say this, Religion (in this case Christianity) has as usual been absolutely no help in this regard. But I don't really think it is the major problem either.


The problem is attachment to a simplistic model of "who" we are. This seems to exist in its strongest form when juxtaposed against "an-other" that is not you. And if this image is threatened in anyway it always tends to turn violent.

This is a necessity because, like all forms of fundamentalism, it cannot be backed by rational thought.

And we will call this above stated problem, 'Loyalists'.

For their side it really doesn't seem to run any deeper then "We are - (insert nation/race here) - and we will stay that way!" The simple minded evil of Nationalism.


On the Catholic side it is a bit more complicated. *(note: sarcasm. ..its actually really frickin complicated). The history of the Irish Catholics under prodestent British rule is filled with an incredible amount of injustice, bigotry, and repression. It seems like the British operated more or less a plantation system. With the oldboy network receiving the land, thanks to the Queens good grace, and then farming it out to the Irish Catholics who were kept in a constant state of second class citizenship.

In short the Irish Catholics had a damn good reason to want freedom from the British. They had a cause.


Take a good look at some of the murals.

I have to admit that while I try and stay as objective as possible when I travel to places like this, you can't help but see the obvious difference between the artwork of the Loyalists factions, and that of the Irish Catholic areas.

Notice that the Loyalists Art always seems to have a gun pointed in your face, and the overall craft of the work itself is pretty poor. Then look at the artistry and images of the Catholic Art.

That is the difference between a genuine cause . . . . and the cause of "We aint them, we are better".


I would also like to say that we had a fantastic time in Northern Ireland. Everyone we met was hospitable, friendly, and good spirited. It is a great place, and much of the tension seems to be slowly going away, even if the murals remain.

It looks like a whole lot of that stress started to pass about the same time Thatcher left office.

What a coincidence.


I also dont think we have any room to speak when it comes to the issue of ignorant fundamentalists. After all, many of them our running the government of this Nation now.

I think it is fairly obvious that ALL conservatism is based on fear, always. And fundamentalists in all forms, are extreme versions of this phenomenon.


In the context of an Administration that out sources people to other Countries so they can tortured, such as Uzbekistan where they like to boil people alive, has just been caught wire tapping its own people, and too many other things to write at the moment. . . .what can you really say? These people not only belong out of public office, they belong behind bars.

It will take decades to sort out all the damage these War profiteers have done to our Nation. Sadly, their right wing familiars will distract their own voter base with meaningless issues, and superficial ploys to elicit emotional reactions, such as the "war on Christmas" and other such nonsense, and so it goes. And people consistently fall for it. In that sense, we get the government we deserve.


But here is the thing, the really silly ploys like 'wars on Christmas', will fall apart completely on their own. Witness Bill O'Reilly who went on the David Letterman show and when cornered by Letterman to produce some evidence of this nonsense trotted out one of three stories he offers. The one related to a school play.

The problem was of course that O'Reilly is completely dishonest. The play was actually a Christmas play, one that goes from church to church in that area. And Letterman, having Millions of times the viewers that O'Reilly has, allows O'Reilly to make his point for him.

For those willing to pay attention this is a daily affair, as these simplistic reactionaries make up the facts as they go. But it's only a matter of time before even the people who tend to fall for these slogans begin to realize they have been duped. And that the O'Reillys, Hannitys, and Limbaughs of the world consistently lie to them on a daily basis.

This shows an unbelievable amount of disdain for the intellect of their own fan base. As for now they simply take it for granted that their "folks" wont ever fact check. But that will change.


Let me state again that I am an absolute optimist. I think that every generation becomes more aware, more rational, and more evolved in terms of consciousness then it's preceding generation.

There are always exceptions of course. And they let us measure the change. But as a general principle I can see that reality tells us this is so. And for proof I would offer history itself.


For example, the idea that owning slaves is ok, or that women should not be allowed to vote, or hold property, the lack of any labor laws, or any child labor laws, segregation as a concept, that mass murder of Native Americans is a good thing. . . .the list goes on and on.

All these things are now considered absurd. But there was also a time when to question any of these things you would have been considered a 'radical'. And you would certainly have been out of the mainstream. Out of step with the public opinion of the time.


The vast majority of the population is completely opposed to all of the above now. Yet at one time in our society, all of the things above where considered the "norm".

Now, anyone advocating these positions would be considered a bigot. And rightfully so.

And just like when members of our generation look back on our great grandfathers generation, and they cannot understand why mixed race couples dating was considered 'immoral' and illegal by the majority at the time. . .there will be a time when our grandkids will look back on our generation with a certain wonderment at how so much of our population could be so backwards, on so many things.


One of the main conservative myths is that are ancestors (even our grandfathers generation) where some how 'more' moral.

This idea is of course completely backwards factually speaking. And yet it is always a side belief of conservatives. A poorly thought out assumption based in ignorance and supported by fear. But one that they absolutely need in order to preserve the terror of the unknown future. . .something that is key to the whole paradigm.

Try reading "Huck's Raft", a historical account of the methods considered 'normal' when educating young kids in the past. To say that they were disgusting would be an understatement. To say they were common place would be factual.


Obviously, many of the people advocating certain conservative positions in our time will eventually be labeled bigots as well. And they will be just as embarrassed regarding their past positions, as Jerry Falwell is regarding his support of segregation.

I think about our imprisonment of Japanese Americans during WW2, and I am reminded of current affairs. I think about civil rights for minorities, and I am reminded of current affairs.


So with all that said I have to explain my reasons for being such an optomist, and they are pretty simple.

People die, I am an optimist because people die.

The bitter old men who argued for slavery didn't change their minds. They eventually all died off. The bigots in the South who argued for segregation didnt wake up one day and realize that we are all equal in Gods eyes. Nope, most of them just died off.

And currently?

Sure we have some lunatic fundamentalists that conclude that two women, or two men, who love each other and wish to have all the rights that come with a full legal commitment, should never be allowed to do so. . .and some how they also feel its their business to tell them no. In their twisted logic, they fear it will affect their own marriage. Bizarre but true.


Besides the obvious stupidity that says someone "chooses" to be gay, or straight, there is the reality that many of these people already raise children. Many of these couples are families, and are raising healthy, happy, beautiful kids. And yet we would deny our brothers and sisters the right to legally make this relationship official?

Why? Because we have taken seriously the ramblings of a few loud mouth simpletons who believe that a rapture is going to come take them out of their SUV's sometime soon, and homosexuality is a choice. After all it must be in order to be a sin to God right?


But here is my reason for optimism again. . . .when polled as to whether gay marriage should remain illegal, 80% of the youths under the age of 25 stated flatly, absolutely no.

So no, the current generation of bigots probably wont come around. A few might, and there is always that hope for the individual. But in large number no, they wont change their opinion.

But, they will all die eventually. And that is how our system betters itself.

When society as a whole is undergoing major changes in perspectives, it will always cause a certain fear based backlash by the cells of the organism which can't adapt.

Sometimes the entire process may take several generations, as the old cells need to die off. But they always do, and change always occurs. And I would offer, always for the better.


Fundamentalism is just a contraction to the past based on fear, ignorance, and self hatred, and it always fails.

The only question is whether or not it will occur in our lifetime, or our grandkid's lifetime.

That is my own optimistic view anyway. And as I stated, its a fairly easy case to make when looking back on history.


If you have read this BLOG before then I can imagine this question:

"How can you judge fundamentalism as obscene, if you also believe everything is in the end ruled by determistic laws. Without any force of free will?"

There are a variety of ways to explain that process, and apparent contradiction in paradigms. We could say big picture, small picture. Or using Buddhist terminology we could say absolute and relative truths. The difference between the two in conversations causes an extreme amount of confusion at times.

As a practical example, I would say that slavery in the USA was by definition, "obscene". At the time however many religious people used scripture as a rationalization for it's existence.

Now that may seem silly to us today, and I would agree that most Christians in the USA would call slavery "obscene" now, in 2006.


However, I would also point out that many, not all, but many "Christians" 200 Years ago would not call slavery obscene. In fact, it may have seemed out of the mainstream to think so.

Segregation is another good example. How many white Southern Christians believed segregation was 'obscene' in the 1920's?

I have no doubt that some did, but was it the majority?

Again, I would bet that the majority, though not all, of Christians in the South would now say that segregation is obscene.

But I also know that as recently as the 1960's it was a huge controversy that Billy Graham did not allow segregation in his services. And as a result, he was often barred from using churches, and found himself having to rent out town halls, and other buildings, for his preaching.


That said, the current generation certainly finds slavery and segregation to be obscene. At least the majority within this Country.

I would call that process of change evolution.

Not evolution of the biological kind, but rather an evolution of thought, of consciousness, of the 'grid', or what we perceive as reality for our world. And I think that in retrospect we came to that position through a process of trail and error.

Through suffering.

And we. . .using "we" in the broadest sense, as in mankind, culture at large, etc, learn from those experiences. . .and that changes our reality.


And that is the answer to the question, as well as a very important point. . . .I am not a believer in "destiny".

There is an assumption that if their is no 'free will' as it is thought of by most people, then everything must therefore be fate. And that is not factual.

One does not automatically imply the other.

You can think it out yourself and realize that for yourself. I will write more on this later.


I was asked in a round about way recently, by a semi sincere questioner, as to whether my business was affected in the middle part of the Country. The unstated implication being that the sharing of views as I try and do, and as I try an encourage, would show a negtaive effect on my job.

All I could really think as he was wandering around that topic was this. . ."Are we really that F^*$ing shallow?"


Cesar Chavez told his early supporters that it would be a hard sacrifice when it comes to starting the union. That some of them would serve as posts, and others as boards, and that together they would form the bridge. Understanding that many others would walk over them to a better place. And he spent 22 hours a day organizing, while living his own life of relative poverty, in order to do just that. Here was a true American hero. A man who sacrificed much. . .

. . . .and we are afraid to stand up to a local Church which wants to ban Catcher in the Rye cause it aint Christian enough? Or we find ourselves worried that by stating the obvious against those that take the positions of bigots, we may turn a few people away?!

Would we let something as minor as that scare us off from standing up for what we believe in?


Do we really still believe that the pursuit of wealth is where its at? Have we never actually read what Jesus Christ had to say on that topic?

Have we figured out yet that being in the 'majority' isnt usually a good thing? And that being 'radical' is rarely a bad thing?

Are we really that fucking shallow?

I think we are much stronger that that.


So the question is, if change occurs, if evolution is a reality. . .does that therefore mean there is a 'designer' a planner, or even an 'individual' who is "free" (also, does one 'automatically' imply the other? You can use reasoning and conclude it does not) to make that change.

And I think that question has already been answered. . . . .and I also think it will take us several generations for the implications of that answer to really sink in, and filter through our cultures. And I think that will be a good thing when it does.

And by good thing, I use 'good' not in a "moralistic" sense of the word, but good in a practical sense. . .ie: less suffering, more happiness and Love.


On pretending to know what God does or does not do on tending his garden...

"God is the Garden"
- Albert Einstein

*** *** ***