You are browsing the archive for Religion.

Those they despise …..

7:21 pm in Uncategorized by cmaukonen

Why is it that people like Mark Sanford – who has been involved in scandal after scandal, Sen. Tom Coburn – who has come out with some of the most outrageous statements and James Inhofe keep getting elected to office ? As well as any number of outright liers and crooks ?

Why do those same people as well as those who voted for them hate the idea of bank and business regulation ?

Because the people who voted these folks and others like them into office really do believe in the same things that their representatives believe in.  That’s why.

They hate Obamacare and taxes and all regulation. Not just business regulation…ALL REGULATION.   They hate being told where they can drink or eat or smoke. Who they can keep out of their establishments and schools and housing subdivisions. Be they Irish or Jewish or German or Black or Latino or Native American or Gay or Female. They hate Affirmative Action and The Voting Rights Acts and anything that gives anyone special privileges – well except them of course.

They hate being taxed to help all those they despise or because they engage in some activity or indulge in some substance that others do not approve. To charge what ever they like and pay their employees whatever they like and work them as hard as they like.

It’s not because they don’t like Federal largesse, that has nothing to do with it. They see the Federal government as a bunch of meddlesome busy bodies and the left especially so. Getting down on their churches and private religious schools – the last place they see where they still have complete control.

They want to see a world like it was in 1957 where they could do what they wanted, where they want with out fear of someone getting on their case. Where they could deny access to anyone for any reason. Especially those they despise.   And they see the only way to accomplish this to to deny the government of the funds needed to enforce those laws.  Thereby neutering it.

The Cult of Market Based Economies

6:03 pm in Uncategorized by cmaukonen

Dear Capitalism - flickr

Imagine if you will a situation where nearly everything is produced locally and trade was used only when necessary.  Where money was used rarely, if at all and giving was normal rather than the exception, reserved only for some special occasion. When one’s status did not depend on one’s possessions.   Where getting something in return for what one gave – either of themselves or what they produced – was not an issue.   Where you engaged in an activity because you wanted to or you know and felt it was the right thing to do, NOT because you expected to make a profit on it. Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it. Well this is the kind of social interaction that was the the norm thousands of years ago in a vast number of areas. it’s as being done – to one extent or another – in various alternative communities.

Then why is is this such a hard sell ?  Why is it so difficult to convince people that there are much better ways on interacting socially and – for lack of a better term – economically.

Well I think I can come up with a few reasons.   For one our market driven capitalistic society and culture to a lot of people is indistinguishable from religion.  And is some cases even a cult. Where gainsaying anything about is is considered heresy.   And suggesting that it should be replace is like being the antichrist.   There are those who cannot even imagine or contemplate doing thing any differently and if asked why not, have no answer.

Why is this so. Well for one thing we are brainwashed – programmed – form a very early age to relate in this manner. That payment of some sort is required for everything we do. How many times have you heard , “You can have a cookie after you (do the dishes, clean your room, mow the lawn etc.)” Some parents even pay their children for getting good grades in school.  I knew one fellow I was in group counseling with where he had totally ingrained this into all his relationships – even with his mother – this type of impersonal business like relationship. He could not understand why he could not get anywhere with women. We told him he was not looking for a romantic realtionship, he was looking for a business partner.  We are not taught to share and give and create with out some sort of reward. Usually monetary.

We are taught from the get go that power and prestige come from possessions and in some cases how we acquire them is not as important as  how may we have and to worship those who have the most and look down on those who have the least. So in a lot of ways it is a cultish religion. Is it any wonder that those who question this and rebel against it are treated like 16th century heretics ?  We replaced feudalism with a system that is nearly as bad. The main difference of which is the we get to choose who our feudal lords will be.

Worst of all this market oriented capitalistic culture is detrimental to the earth and nearly every thing that lives on it.   It runs counter to out very nature. It’s why we have neurosis, and circulatory diseases and immune disorders among other things.  It breeds on and  is the cause of nearly every conflict.  And contrary to the propaganda that those who preach it say, it fosters mediocrity and stagnation of creativity, ingenuity and integrity.

It won’t be easy to change this by a long shot. Changing a mindset that has been programmed into us from the beginning is very difficult.   The first thing is to begin to change our own view. Our own mindset. Stop identifying with  the market oriented commercial world.   We have to deprogram ourselves like we just escaped an Jonestown type cult.

Stop thinking that everything has to have a price.   Learn to value rather than price.   Become a social and economic heretic. Learn to give and receive and create without monetary compensation.

Learn to be human again.

 

Jesus Christ Superstar – A political perspective

5:37 pm in Uncategorized by cmaukonen

Religion and politics have gone hand in hand in the western world for as long as one can historically count. Indeed the Religious leaders of Israel were also the political leaders of the time, so it’s not surprise that when Rome fell leaving a political vacuum, the early Christian church took up the role.

What I think is too often missed is that the story of Jesus was as much political as it was religious. Maybe even more so. As an atheist this view makes perfect sense to me since the shrouding of political rhetoric in religious terms was quite common at the time. One could more easily speak aloud religiously when to criticize the politics could get you very dead very quickly.  In the middle east at that time speaking out against Rome would make you a galley slave if you were lucky. Much worse if you were not.

I had given up on religion by the time I was 18 or so. But when I first heard Murray Head’s Jesus Christ Superstar my reaction was that this is a very different approach. After I bought the album and listened to it and the lyrics, the message there in seemed more a call to appose Rome and the current Jewish leadership of the time than a purely religious one. No wonder the leadership wanted him out of the way.

Murray Head’s interpretation of this was quite evident.

This message was also not lost on the Roman slaves,  where they used the teachings as a call to resist Rome.  The early black Christian church rallied for the same reasons.

Which brings up the total irony of this. That the story of Jesus was as much about throwing off the chains of Roman repression and the Jewish leaders who supported them, as it was about religion.  But since then the Religious followings that came afterwards were some of the most repressive and horrendously tyrannical the western world has ever known. The Christian Church aligning itself time and again with dictators, despots  and oppressors of the worst kind.

The Delusion of a Civil Uprising in a Post Racial America

6:09 pm in Uncategorized by cmaukonen

Race Cube - Flickr creative Commons

My brother and a friend were up here in Cleveland the other day after attending a convention. After having lunch at a favorite deli of Clevelanders, we decided to head  out east to the country, as it were and see what things were like in the area in which we once lived in our youth.

As I rather expected, once we left the inner burbs and entered the outer burbs the populace became mostly white. And after we began to arrive in the more rural areas, completely white with nary a minority in sight. Pretty much typical of how things are around these parts.

But the makeup of the area had changed from what we remembered. Except for the Amish, all the small farms were gone. Oh the farmhouses and barns were still there to an extent, but it was quite obvious the land was no longer being farmed in this particular part of the county. Not even leased out to bigger agricultural interests.  What was striking was that it had become so gentrified with the big McMansions and fancy houses on acres of land.

The attitudes seem to have changed as well. Pretentious and ostentatious with racist undertones.  I was talking with a friend of mine about this who grew up in the same area and neither of us remembered anyone being like that at that time.

Read the rest of this entry →

Interweaving the thoughts in three different reads this morning.

11:31 am in Uncategorized by cmaukonen

White Picket Fence (photo: kaiyen/flickr)

I am a white male. I grew up in a rural part of NE Ohio that was nearly all white middle class. Both my parents had college degrees and both worked in professional fields. My knowledge of and experience with those who are blue collar was limited to my aunt and uncle on my father’s side of the family and a few friends.

After my father passed away,  my mother moved us down to South West Florida, which at that time was a mix of Northern transplants and Florida natives IE those born there.  Nearly all of which were white and most middle to upper middle class. We mostly shared the same world views and ideals.

There were Blacks and Seminoles in the area but I only recall meeting a few Seminole kids in school and I do not remember seeing many (if any) Blacks downtown. It was – as far as I could see – a white world.  At least that part of it. I had no negative experience with any other culture as I had little experience with any other culture. But this also meant that I could not easily relate what it would be like to be part of any other culture. I have no way of knowing what it is like to be of any other culture, to have their world view or attitudes.

My family went to the local Lutheran church – my father’s religion, though he himself did not practice it. This was largely symbolic as I never believed any of it and was later to learn that my parents did not either. It was completely white middle class.  Both of my parents were also in Europe during WWII and brought a lot of their experience there and attitudes with them. My mother also spent a good deal of her youth over seas as well, and conveyed this to us.

This is my background.  Add to this that I have had in interest in radio and and electronics which lead me at an early age to listening to international Short Wave Broadcasts and Amateur Radio. Where in my favorite thing is to be able to talk with people in other countries.  As an aside most of them refer to you as “my friend” and express more passion in the conversation than I get from talking with most American Ham Radio operators.

So when I read posts from David Seaton, I can relate easily from where he is coming from. Like his latest post.

This combination of technical and commercial perfection combined with a lack of elementary common sense is what makes him the perfect metaphor for America today… with the rest of the world tagging along.

And the subject of Pam Spaulding’s front page post.

Chad Nance who is a freelance journalist in Winston-Salem and is covering the election here in NC, recorded the wife of NC Sen. Peter Brunstetter confirming that she believes that Amendment One’s destiny is not only to save marriage, it apparently also has something to do with white power preservation. (!)

Which runs along the same lines as what Alngela Merkel expressed a few years ago concerning Germany’s attempts at a multicultural society.

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has courted growing anti-immigrant opinion in Germany by claiming the country’s attempts to create a multicultural society have “utterly failed”.

Speaking to a meeting of young members of her Christian Democratic Union party, Merkel said the idea of people from different cultural backgrounds living happily “side by side” did not work.

She said the onus was on immigrants to do more to integrate into German society.

“This [multicultural] approach has failed, utterly failed,” Merkel told the meeting in Potsdam, west of Berlin, yesterday.

Her remarks will stir a debate about immigration in a country which is home to around 4 million Muslims.

Last week, Horst Seehofer, the premier of Bavaria and a member of the Christian Social Union – part of Merkel’s ruling coalition – called for a halt to Turkish and Arabic immigration.

All speaking to a single thread – a similar view, that of the white Anglo Saxon cultural world view which is especially prominent here. A view that Chris Hedges has expressed is bound to destroy those who hold on to it.  One not of American exceptionalism, but of white exceptionalism.

When the most basic elements that sustain life are reduced to a cash product, life has no intrinsic value. The extinguishing of “primitive” societies, those that were defined by animism and mysticism, those that celebrated ambiguity and mystery, those that respected the centrality of the human imagination, removed the only ideological counterweight to a self-devouring capitalist ideology. Those who held on to pre-modern beliefs, such as Native Americans, who structured themselves around a communal life and self-sacrifice rather than hoarding and wage exploitation, could not be accommodated within the ethic of capitalist exploitation, the cult of the self and the lust for imperial expansion. The prosaic was pitted against the allegorical. And as we race toward the collapse of the planet’s ecosystem we must restore this older vision of life if we are to survive.

The war on the Native Americans, like the wars waged by colonialists around the globe, was waged to eradicate not only a people but a competing ethic. The older form of human community was antithetical and hostile to capitalism, the primacy of the technological state and the demands of empire. This struggle between belief systems was not lost on Marx. “The Ethnological Notebooks of Karl Marx” is a series of observations derived from Marx’s reading of works by historians and anthropologists. He took notes about the traditions, practices, social structure, economic systems and beliefs of numerous indigenous cultures targeted for destruction. Marx noted arcane details about the formation of Native American society, but also that “lands [were] owned by the tribes in common, while tenement-houses [were] owned jointly by their occupants.” He wrote of the Aztecs, “Commune tenure of lands; Life in large households composed of a number of related families.” He went on, “… reasons for believing they practiced communism in living in the household.” Native Americans, especially the Iroquois, provided the governing model for the union of the American colonies, and also proved vital to Marx and Engel’s vision of communism.

Marx, though he placed a naive faith in the power of the state to create his workers’ utopia and discounted important social and cultural forces outside of economics, was acutely aware that something essential to human dignity and independence had been lost with the destruction of pre-modern societies. The Iroquois Council of the Gens, where Indians came together to be heard as ancient Athenians did, was, Marx noted, a “democratic assembly where every adult male and female member had a voice upon all questions brought before it.” Marx lauded the active participation of women in tribal affairs, writing, “The women [were] allowed to express their wishes and opinions through an orator of their own election. Decision given by the Council. Unanimity was a fundamental law of its action among the Iroquois.” European women on the Continent and in the colonies had no equivalent power.

This ethic that dates back to the Holy Wars and Crusades. That white Anglo Saxon protestant world views should trump all else is destroying the planet. A belief what we here and Europe to a lesser extent is keeping us culturally, socially and even scientifically back in the late 19th century at best. Getting past this arrogant, self righteous view is paramount to any chance at advancing and the trick is to do it with humility.

Here is the problem we face though.  It is very, very difficult for someone to come up with ideas and/or solutions to problems for situations of which they have no personal experience. It takes someone with immense empathy and insight to do so. It’s the main reason why AA and other 12step groups have been successful where the  medical and psychological fraternity has not.

It’s the reason why I can no more relate to what it is like being a poor Black or even a poor white is like in this country or anywhere else, as much as I would like to.  Why Bill W. said in founding AA, “I need another Alcoholic” someone who knows what it’s like that can relate.  And why economists have no more a clue as to help main street than the local barber does to fix a BMW.  It’s where too many on the left fall flat.

And it’s why any and all attempts of forcing other groups and cultures into adopting our ways of thinking and our world views and repressing and treating them as some how inferior to us and vice versa is not just morally wrong, but also destructive to them and to us.

We need to learn how to accept people as they are first. To work on understanding where they are coming from. Then helping people to help themselves but only when asked.  Sometimes the most difficult thing to do is to NOT stick our noses in where they are not wanted.  After all we might just learn something from them in the process.

The Hazards of Religious Fundamentalism in Politics

7:38 pm in Uncategorized by cmaukonen

The Ancient Greeks – whom we say we got our idea for Democracy from – where a lot more morally advanced than we are now. Oh they had a God of war but the also had a Goddess of love, beauty and sex. A God of music, healing, plague, prophecies, poetry. A Goddess of wisdom and Zeus – The king of the gods, the ruler of Mount Olympus and the god of the sky, weather, thunder, law, order.  It all kind of balanced out.  This is not to say that the ancient Greeks did not go to war, they did and often but it was usually about power and land, not about their gods and beliefs.

It really wasn’t until the rise of the Abrahamic religions did people start to war of beliefs.  The belief that there is One and only one God and that the God we worship is the one and only one God, which makes Us the Chosen People and all others heretics and disciples of the devil.   Of course once you put yourselves above all others, this makes justifying their elimination very easy. Even commendable.  And in every case this God is of the male gender, making the repression of women a significant part of the belief system.

Religious fundamentalism – especially in the Abrahamic religions – is not knew. I fact all three began this way. Most especially Christianity with the Roman Catholic church where challenging church doctrine was punishable by torture and eventually death.  This carried on even after the protestant reformation where those who were of a different belief were persecuted and quite often killed for their beliefs, however pacifistic they may be.

Religion and more importantly religious fundamentalism has been behind nearly every war from the get go.  From the early Christian Crusades and the Catholic Churches conquest of Spain though the 20th century and up to this very day, as Frank Schaeffer points out in this Alternet article.

Just take one example of religion’s baleful influence: President Woodrow Wilson’s messianic religion-inspired intervention in World War One. “My life would not be worth living” Wilson wrote, “if it were not for the driving power of religion, for faith, pure and simple.” (Letter to Nancy Toy, 1915.)

Wilson’s religious views were the driving force in his political career, informing his quest for world peace. And like all fanatics he decided to achieve this “peace” through war. The devout Woodrow Wilson upset fellow Presbyterians as he moved the nation toward entering World War One, including William Jennings Bryan, who quit as secretary of state in protest.

What did Wilson’s religious idealism actually achieve? Germany’s loss of World War One led to the rise of Hitler, and the Second World War. Wilson picked sides between two equally tarnished nationalistically-inspired colonial contenders and weighed in. So Wilson set the stage for the rise of Hitler and World War Two. With no World War Two there would be no Israel because there would have been no holocaust. Zionism would have simply become a forgotten quirk. And there would have been no Cold War either, maybe not even a Soviet Union.

The twentieth century began with wars rooted in religion and nationalism and ended as the century of wars rooted in ideological atheism led by the likes of Stalin, Hitler and Mao. Now the twenty first century seems to be shaping up to be the age of renewed wars of religion led by fundamentalist fanatics on all sides who believe in the divine destinies of their nations and/or religions.

These fanatics – they are all of the far right – have ranged from the Ayatollah Khomeini to George W Bush, from the far right leaders of the state of Israel to far right American fundamentalist like Michelle Bachmann who – if she and her fellow travelers have their way – would replace the Constitution and Bill of Rights with the Bible and turn America into a (Reconstructionist) theocracy.

But what is religious fundamentalism ? Or more specifically Christian fundamentalism. Wikipedia defines thus.

Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian fundamentalism, is defined by historian George M. Marsden as “militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism.” Marsden explains that fundamentalists were evangelical Christians who in the 20th century “militantly opposed both modernism in theology and the cultural changes that modernism endorsed. Militant opposition to modernism was what most clearly set off fundamentalism.”[1] The name is taken from the title of a series of essays published by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (now Biola University), The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth.

As an organized movement it began within Protestant churches—especially Baptist and Presbyterian—in the United States in the early 20th century. Many such churches adopted a “fighting style” and certain theological elements, such as Dispensationalism,[2] but it is not an organized movement and has no national body or official statement.

Fundamentalism arose out of British and American Protestantism in the late 19th century and early 20th century among evangelical Christians.[3] The founders reacted against liberal theology, actively asserted that the following ideas were fundamental to the Christian faith: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ

In other words the belief that the Bible (or Qur’an or Talmud) is the only source of truth and all else is heresy.    And in nearly every case beginning with the Popes of the Holy Roman Empire, the head of state was also the self ordained representative of  god.  Whose word could never be questioned.  This same kind of exceptionalist thinking also leads to a kind of rigid fanatical nationalism as  Frank Schaeffer says.

It’s no accident that the most dangerous cultures today are also the most religiously observant societies. The ultra-religiously observant USA embraces perpetual war as a way of life. With our notion of “exceptionalism,” we fear the “other” who might challenge our notion of having been chosen by God for some special task.

Like the USA the state of Israel has become an intransigent provocation to the world as it slides inexorably toward becoming the next apartheid state taking up oppression based on race and tribe where South Africa left off. Israel is the place where a demographic minority of the “chosen” already represses (and/or has expelled) the majority of the “un-chosen.”

As for the ultra religious state of Pakistan it was actually founded on self-aware religious difference! Pakistan is now the leading exporter of terror worldwide alongside Iran. Both Iran and Pakistan’s intelligence agencies are the purveyors of terror. And both countries (when not busy condemning people to death for the crime of heresy etc.,) see themselves as having special prophetic religious destinies.

But this literal interpretation of the religious documents – which they also apply to political, historical and economic documents as well – is selective. Choosing only to take those passages that fit their agenda and dismissing those that do not.  Which makes one wonder whether or these fundamentalists are simply closed mined megalomaniacs using religion as a cover or rational for their persoanl agenda.

They fear tyranny, repression and subjugation and counter it with their own version of tyranny, repression and subjugation. And being Gods Chosen they believe that it’s they duty to convert all those who do not believe as THEY do or eliminate them.  Its this back/white view of the world and selective editing of their religious views that also attracts some of these same people to Leo Strauss and Ayn Rand, even though this may appear to be counter intuitive.  It’s this Nietzsche narrative that they find attractive. Which also makes one wonder just how truly religious these fundamentalist Christians really are.

But it is the rise of the  fundamentalist black/white good/evil world view into politics and economic policies that is the most troubling. For the world is not black/white and good/evil. And as Shakespeare observed in Hamlet;
“Why then ’tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

It’s My Party And I’ll Believe What I Want To

6:13 pm in Uncategorized by cmaukonen

We have all heard and asked this question. A million times or more. “How can these people still belive this stuff when all the facts prove otherwise ?” The left asks this of the right and the religious of the atheists and so on and so forth. Well there just might be a perfectly logical reason for this.  What David McRaney calls The backfire Effect.

The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.

The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.

Wired, The New York Times, Backyard Poultry Magazine – they all do it. Sometimes, they screw up and get the facts wrong. In ink or in electrons, a reputable news source takes the time to say “my bad.”

If you are in the news business and want to maintain your reputation for accuracy, you publish corrections. For most topics this works just fine, but what most news organizations don’t realize is a correction can further push readers away from the facts if the issue at hand is close to the heart. In fact, those pithy blurbs hidden on a deep page in every newspaper point to one of the most powerful forces shaping the way you think, feel and decide – a behavior keeping you from accepting the truth.

In 2006, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler at The University of Michigan and Georgia State University created fake newspaper articles about polarizing political issues. The articles were written in a way which would confirm a widespread misconception about certain ideas in American politics. As soon as a person read a fake article, researchers then handed over a true article which corrected the first. For instance, one article suggested the United States found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The next said the U.S. never found them, which was the truth. Those opposed to the war or who had strong liberal leanings tended to disagree with the original article and accept the second. Those who supported the war and leaned more toward the conservative camp tended to agree with the first article and strongly disagree with the second. These reactions shouldn’t surprise you. What should give you pause though is how conservatives felt about the correction. After reading that there were no WMDs, they reported being even more certain than before there actually were WMDs and their original beliefs were correct.

Because of this engaging in online battles with people in an attempt to prove you particular point of view being the correct one, may in fact be a profound waste of time.

The last time you got into, or sat on the sidelines of, an argument online with someone who thought they knew all there was to know about health care reform, gun control, gay marriage, climate change, sex education, the drug war, Joss Whedon or whether or not 0.9999 repeated to infinity was equal to one – how did it go?

Did you teach the other party a valuable lesson? Did they thank you for edifying them on the intricacies of the issue after cursing their heretofore ignorance, doffing their virtual hat as they parted from the keyboard a better person?

No, probably not. Most online battles follow a similar pattern, each side launching attacks and pulling evidence from deep inside the web to back up their positions until, out of frustration, one party resorts to an all-out ad hominem nuclear strike. If you are lucky, the comment thread will get derailed in time for you to keep your dignity, or a neighboring commenter will help initiate a text-based dogpile on your opponent.

There may actually be a very good reason for this. That our tendency to hold onto some belief or information when challenged could be a self preservation technique.

Have you ever noticed the peculiar tendency you have to let praise pass through you, but feel crushed by criticism? A thousand positive remarks can slip by unnoticed, but one “you suck” can linger in your head for days. One hypothesis as to why this and the backfire effect happens is that you spend much more time considering information you disagree with than you do information you accept. Information which lines up with what you already believe passes through the mind like a vapor, but when you come across something which threatens your beliefs, something which conflicts with your preconceived notions of how the world works, you seize up and take notice. Some psychologists speculate there is an evolutionary explanation. Your ancestors paid more attention and spent more time thinking about negative stimuli than positive because bad things required a response. Those who failed to address negative stimuli failed to keep breathing.

In 1992, Peter Ditto and David Lopez conducted a study in which subjects dipped little strips of paper into cups filled with saliva. The paper wasn’t special, but the psychologists told half the subjects the strips would turn green if he or she had a terrible pancreatic disorder and told the other half it would turn green if they were free and clear. For both groups, they said the reaction would take about 20 seconds. The people who were told the strip would turn green if they were safe tended to wait much longer to see the results, far past the time they were told it would take. When it didn’t change colors, 52 percent retested themselves. The other group, the ones for whom a green strip would be very bad news, tended to wait the 20 seconds and move on. Only 18 percent retested.

When you read a negative comment, when someone shits on what you love, when your beliefs are challenged, you pore over the data, picking it apart, searching for weakness. The cognitive dissonance locks up the gears of your mind until you deal with it. In the process you form more neural connections, build new memories and put out effort – once you finally move on, your original convictions are stronger than ever.

This may also explain the phenomenon know as The True Believer Syndrome.  Where people will hang onto their beliefs even in the presence of conflicting data.

True-believer syndrome is an expression coined by M. Lamar Keene to describe an apparent cognitive disorder characterized by believing in the reality of paranormal or supernatural events after one has been presented overwhelming evidence that the event was fraudulently staged.

Keene is a reformed phony psychic who exposed religious racketeering-to little effect, apparently. Phony faith healers, psychics, channelers, televangelist miracle workers, etc., are as abundant as ever.

Keene believes that “the true-believer syndrome is the greatest thing phony mediums have going for them” because “no amount of logic can shatter a faith consciously based on a lie.” That those suffering from true-believer syndrome are consciously lying to themselves hardly seems likely, however.

It’s like being in a very scary situation where you are about to jump right out of your skin. If someone says “You look marvelous”  you ignore or brush it off. But if someone says “What’s that ?!” You want to jump right up and grab the ceiling. Ever since the Dot Com bubble burst, it has been just one scary thing right after another.  And it’s not just the right either. The left has it’s own version with the extreme environmentalists and health freaks all convinced that they will parish as well. All this lack of security has us all on edge. Looking for the next bad thing and something to blame it on. Me as well. I know when I am very anxious,  I will pay more attention to the negatives than the positives in my life.

So maybe when the right keeps yelling “We want out country back” what they are really saying is “We want out security back.” That Peaceful Easy Feeling they had before reality intruded.

 

 

 

 

 

True Believers

6:30 pm in Uncategorized by cmaukonen

“I saw someone peeing in Jermyn Street the other day. I thought, is this the end of civilization as we know it? Or is it simply someone peeing in Jermyn Street?” Alan Bennett
Well the date of the rapture, apocalypse etc. has come and gone. Many people apparently believed that it was going to come and even though it did not – and likely will not for some time to come, say a couple thousand years or so, give or take a few thousand – most of these same people will continue to believe and believe in the person who made this prediction. With Camping not even opening the door. Read the rest of this entry →