Waxing Poetically: News and Lifestyle with a Twist of Poetry

“Attacking or Embracing” by Abigael Escobal

Readers, it is a presidential election year in United States and for a citizen like me that usually signals my need to brace myself for the quixotic banter and pre-packaged idealism that lay ahead in every major debate until the final hand is shaken and one more innocent tot is baptized by the kiss of a politician. Over the past two years, I’ve heard arguments for change and tax hikes for the wealthy from Senator Obama and calls from Senator McCain to reduce wasteful spending by such a regal and superfluous declaration as to say that radical Islamic extremism is the transcendent or even “transcendental” threat of the 21st century. (I wonder if McCain is looking forward to a mystical terror experience anytime before his would-be term is up). With all this there lingers something even more prominent on the lips of many in Washington: The idea as expressed by John McCain and implied by journalist Ann Coulter that the United States is a “Christian” nation.

The Christian nation premise is nothing new. Many of America’s founders and law makers knew quite a bit about the Bible and Christianity as is contained and expressed in works such as Thomas Jefferson’s Jefferson Bible which argues for a moral mimicking of the teachings and ways of Jesus Christ. However, many argue that while many Biblical principles correlate well with those of the nation’s justice system, the idea of the United States being a Christian nation may be a bit misguided at best. Writer and journalist Cenk Uygur explains why when he says, “My name is Cenk Uygur. And I am proud of it. It might sound a little different to your ear, but it doesn’t make it any less American. That’s the whole point of the country. If I wanted to live in a place where your race, ethnicity or religion mattered, there were plenty of other countries to choose from. I chose to be an American because I believed we were all equals in the eyes of the law.”

Uygur speaks to the intrinsic independence required for a free nation as stated in the First Amendment of the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In light of such realities, Uygur has written a piece originally published in The Huffington Post pointing to the fact that in October of 2007 42 congressmen voted “present” (not “yea”) concerning a resolution passed by the House of Representatives that would allow the Islamic holy month of Ramadan to be recognized within Congress. Uygur identifies himself as agnostic and it is unclear from the language of his piece what his cultural religion is. However he indeed makes an effort to defend religious freedom fully, as I equally as a person of faith, uphold his right not to practice a religion. Separation of powers is explicit in American law and in such a regard, I do not support any legislative action or inaction that infringes upon that boundary. If the government wants to claim America to be an exclusively Christian nation in the name of its collective right to free expression of faith, that’s fine. But I’d be surprised if their legal council were not comprised of at least some, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics etcetera. Furthermore, are these not the same individuals who always reference theocratic governments as extreme and radical? I guess they don’t include Christians in that bunch. Alas, it seems the “transcendent threat” to which John McCain refers is being welcomed by Congress’ somewhat inhibited and non-transcendent understanding of democracy.

In sum, it may be the separation of church and state which allows each body to flourish on its own merits. Moreover, it is likely the freedom to choose one’s faith that makes each believer’s faith that much stronger. Thirdly, it may be that if we as autonomous beings were not free to choose what we believe that we would never truely believe in anything for the fact it would inevitably be taken for granted. You see, this is not a Christian nation. It is rather, a nation whose citizen are free to choose to practice Christianity. Never lose sight of that difference!

So until we meet again, I hope you will feel free to express your faith whatever it may be and may you as always… wax poetically!

Footnote:

The term transcendental has several meanings:

1. Philosophy
a. Concerned with the a priori or intuitive basis of knowledge as independent of experience.
b. Asserting a fundamental irrationality or supernatural element in experience.
2. Surpassing all others; superior.
3. Beyond common thought or experience; mystical or supernatural.
4. Mathematics Of or relating to a real or complex number that is not the root of any polynomial that has positive degree and rational coefficients (thefreedictionary.com).

The paradox of free will and freedom to choose good versus evil is surely an age-old dilemma since the very beginning of existence from all angles, the question of why we do what we do, and why we make the decisions we make . It’s all very strange and disconcerting. The following argument was initially my attempt to solve this problem but in the end, it was all much more a comedy than a solution. It contrasts animal instinct against human ingenuity and makes the case that though we human beings do have the ability to make logical choices, that can never assure that we will decide to do so.

In the Biblical Garden of Eden when God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the two were inevitably tempted toward it, with wide-eyed, childlike precociousness and when given a pass by the guile and tricks of the serpent, they felt it reason enough to throw all God’s rules aside even when God had told them verbatim they would surely die. Both Adam and Eve risked death to embrace the most base and immediate desires, rather than listen a logical argument which if followed though would guarantee eternal life with no further thoughts, questions, instructions or payment needed. Now that’s a deal that seemingly not even the most ravenous game show player could refuse (even if Howie Mandel were hosting).

Yet, somehow, someway, somewhere in the deepest, blackest recesses of our minds, we human beings will still reach the forbidden fruit. We are often the the ones to laugh at danger. While the the other creatures retire to the comfort of their caves, holes and nests, We wrestle alligators and hunt bears for the thrill. While the birds of the sky fly south to escape the harsh air of winter, we prodigious, fun-loving and earth-walking homosapiens who have not even the slightest natural ability to fly, volunteer to jump out of planes and “almost” die by allowing gravity to hurl and tumble our bodies to ground and at the proper time, pulling open our “death saving” parachute in order that we prevent our untimely (but quite likely under normal circumstances) deaths; and While the unwitting beasts of the wild instinctively scavenge for the proper food to best fit their nutritional daily recommended allowances, humans fumbling though their refrigerators will say a hardy, “f*** you” to the broccoli on their left and instead snatch up the “one third of a baby cow” angus burger to their right. Finally, lest we forget the paradox of human relationships. Unlike Johnny Bumble Bee and Felicia Fox who are likely in search of the strongest, smartest and healthiest mates in the hive or pack, the young men of our time often notice that the ladies love the bad boys, dropouts and beer swillers.

The examples are many and though this post is partly in jest, it is nevertheless based fully on real life observations. The anguish and absurdity of this shot essay is factual and shows freedom of choice might actually be a kind of cosmic joke. If so, God, or at the very least, nature is awesomely hilarious!

In closing Below is the parable “Good God, Evil God” by Khalil Gibran from his book The Madman to put all the points discussed together without making anyone’s brain short out. Read it carefully and with much thought. See what meaning you can take from it. What does it say to you about the nature of man? What does it say for man’s concept of God?

“The Good God and the Evil God”

The Good God and the Evil God met on the mountain top.

The Evil God walked away cursing the stupidity of man.

Keep waxin’ folks! I’ll be here.

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting today that a federal judge has ruled from a 2005 suit filed by several Christian high schools that the University of California is fully permitted to disallow credits from any high school courses whose texts propagate the infallibility of religious arguments in place of empirical or historical evidence and do not allow critical thinking.

According to District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles, he does not begrudge any school the right to teach religion, but draws a clear line when arguments of Biblical infallibility are stated as facts in the text. Examples include Biology for Christian Schools which unabashedly opines on the first page that “if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong” and Christianity’s Influence on America which according to one UC professor on the course review committee, the primary text, published by Bob Jones University, “instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events.” UC standards deny credit from any courses which include religious doctrine as fact and exclude current scientific theory.

Christian schools claim that UC’s code infringes on religious freedom. “It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools,” said attorney Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom. Yet, UC does allow texts which advocate religious views when used in a companion or supplemental capacity for analytical purposes. Judge Otero also made it clear that he felt that after review, the plaintiff presented no evidence and Christian school students were being denied admission into UC based on their religious orientations or personal beliefs.

It appears as if this kind of thing is happening - where religious beliefs creep into text books and squash, pummel, mutilate rational thought all too often. I was personally unaware that this was major issue. Even as a believer in Biblical teachings, I’ve always appoached the Bible from the context in which it was written and have very quickly and easily found that while it contains brilliant philosophy in my view, it has absolutely NO science in it whatsoever and any historical data therein must be verifiable outside of Biblical texts in order to carry any weight at all. As for the Bible’s infallibility, a consensus as has yet to be settled - and while as a practicing Catholic I fully believe the Truth of God is infallible, I still find interpretations of what that Truth is to be varied at best.

With that said, I have taken Courses in which religious text were to be read as literary works, such as The Inferno, Fear and Trembling and even the Bible itself. I can only tell you that reading the books this way allowed me to have a clearer understanding of what I believe and any restriction on free thought would have probably crippled my faith rather than uplifted and sustained it. Any such prohibition, to me, turns God into some kind of magical, Orwellian Big Brother clone. The very idea makes me want to vomit a bit. Faith by indoctrination is no different than slavery and mind control. Christian’s: If you really want to teach people the Gospel say, “This is what I believe” and leave the rest to your students… PERIOD!

Photo: Most Holy Name of Jesus Parish, Pittsburg, PA

Apparently, the Archdiocese of Cincinnati has drawn up a list of inappropriate behaviors which its priests must avoid if they want to love and serve their Lord. The list includes kissing, hugging, tickling and even wrestling and makes only a few exceptions for friendly gestures such as handshakes, pats on the back and high fives. The list comes in response to a recent earnest and sorrowful apology by the Pope this past year for years unrecognized abuse the Church. Victim advocacy groups are generally in support of the measure.

Yet, my contention is this: With all respect to victim advocacy, is there something to be said about a society who tells its children that priests, police, doctors and parents are perfect people who can do wrong? While I understand that emotional trauma can easily silence a victim, (even for 30 years or more) shouldn’t children be told that bad behavior is bad behavior NO MATTER who the victimizer is? I think it was best said by the late George Carlin in his book When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops when he reminded Catholic children to speak up by kicking such priests in the groin and saying, “F*** you, Father! I don’t do that!” and then running away and TELLING EVERYBODY! It is that simple!

So I beg you, Catholics! For “the love of God,” tell your kids the truth and raise them with common sense and of course… wax poetically!

Yes, I’m that bold. I’m giving all you readers an open forum to discuss what your beliefs are. It will be anonymous and you can be of any faith or none at all. Swing by and shoot the breeze.

In the meantime, here’s my attempt to play Shakespeare and wax poetically:

A Poet’s Solace (English Sonnet)

When boredom strikes within the poet’s heart,
He drowns the page beneath a barren stare.
But should his somber emptiness depart,
It all too likely grips him unaware.
Yet if he does retrieve his solemn wish
To take his creativity to brim
‘Tis likely he should ask his mind to fish
And so it makes a catch and sings a hymn!
He chants on high what fortune has foretold
And with such peace his heaving heart abounds!
For not for every treasure bathed in gold
Would he relinquish such a grace he found!
So now and evermore the poet sings
That this be how an angel gets his wings!

While Perusing for ideas for my blog the other day I came across something on Youtube called “The God Delusion Index.” This is a quiz given by an atheist to determine how delusional a person is by the fervency of his/her spiritual beliefs. After taking the satirical quiz, I score in the range of mildly (and according to the quiz, healthily delusional). It got me thinking though of all the atheist arguments I’ve heard over the years like, “If there’s a God, why is there evil?” “How come God doesn’t heal amputees,” and “If marriage is overseen by God, how come half of all marriages end in divorce?” Then it occurred to me that this type of faulty logic is part of something I like to call the “God is magical” fallacy.

The “God is magical” fallacy is the idea that believers actually think there is an omnipotent force waving a magic wand-like thing ready to grant wishes like Aladdin’s genie. Better yet, some atheists will say that believing in God is like believing fairies or giant angels with harps who live in a big, white castle and go bowling during thunder storms. Because they (atheists) believe that believers believe this crap, they look upon religion and faith as silly irrational, nonfunctional and irrelevant. George Carlin once described people’s belief in God as a belief in God an invisible man who lives in the sky. In light of this view, I’d have agree that that view does seem quite f****Ing kooky!

However, what is to be said about believing that like can have purpose and direction? What can be said of the fact that good and evil do as a fact exist in most people’s minds? What is to be debated about the Big Bang Theory which assumes life did have a creation point and beyond that the first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed but only changed? Is this a natural form of afterlife?

I personally give reasons and questions such as the above for my personal belief in God, but atheists I talk to never seem to consider a God that might work within nature rather than against it. So, I say to them, “The God I believe in didn’t intend you to regenerate your amputated limbs and that same God gave you the free will to choose good or evil, to make yourself sick or healthy or to be a good spouse or not.” I say to them “When I pray it’s about knowing where I stand with the good part of the Universe and it’s never about winning the lottery”. The Universe doesn’t run well on selfishness.”

Beyond that stuff I don’t know if the religious teachings are literal or allegorical, who wrote what verse or who said it. The only thing I know for sure is that I see objective truth in my faith and I will never lose any of that truth for as long as I live. That, My Friends is how I believe in God. No has been able to deny me my logic yet.

Until next time… Wax the best you can!

At the request of a friend, I will include some sources this time. The text is made up of
Confucius’ Doctrine of the Meanin the first few pages, the rest are the words of Deuteronomy 30:19, Revelation 3:16 and Jesus in the Gospel of Mathew 6:4. Peace be with you all and wax poetically as always!

Having a Choice to Do Good or Evil and Your Secrets That God Knows:

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So [therefore] choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants. [If you should be, or] because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.

The path may not be left for an instant. If it could be left, it would not be “the path”. On this account, the superior man does not wait till he sees things, to be cautious, nor till he hears things, to be apprehensive.

There is nothing more visible than what is secret, and nothing more manifest than what is minute. Therefore the superior man is watchful over himself, when he is alone. so that [his] giving will be in secret; and [his] Father who sees what is done in secret will reward him.

While there are no stirrings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, or joy, the mind may be said to be in the state of Equilibrium. When those feelings have been stirred, and they act in their due degree, there ensues what may be called the state of Harmony. This Equilibrium is the great root from which grow all the human actings in the world, and this Harmony is the universal path which they all should pursue.

Let the states of equilibrium and harmony exist in perfection, and a happy order will prevail throughout heaven and earth, and all things will be nourished and flourish.

What do you believe? It seems simple to answer for some people who have firmly planted feet in one area or another. One says, “I’m a Democrat!” or “I’m a Christian!” or an or “I’m an Environmentalist!” while happily smiling and shaking hands with Joe Schmo and Sally Bag-o-nickels. But If you’re anything like me, the lines and limits aren’t so neatly drawn for you. Thus a dilemma arises.

Growing up I was the type of kid who asked questions, heard answers and then formed my own opinions about the world spinning under me. I asked all the questions in the known Universe from little things like, “Who invented underwear?” and “Why do baby’s cry?” to the profound childhood query of, “Mommy, is there a toy store in Heaven?” to my loving mother gently replied, “I don’t know, but there could be.” Around age seven when I asked about when the Jewish family across the street believed in God, I got the kind reply,, “They believe in God… they just don’t celebrate Christmas.” So basically, I was the Socrates of little kiddies, minus the students.

The same spirit of questioning stayed with me me though to high school when my new knowledge of the Protestant Reformation had me questioning my Catholic faith and my knowledge of the two party system had me voting Independent by age 18. I now consider my a Libertarian: I’m socially liberal with the exception of my pro-life stance, and fiscally conservative with my full belief in the free market and overall capitalism and my belief that socialism goes against human nature. These days, I’ve also been listening to philosophy podcasts from UC Berkley to generate ideas for my screenplay. So my brain has had a lot of time to think about beliefs in general.

Yet my religious affiliation is boarder still. I’m currently a practicing Catholic but my inner most being still has a sense of exploration. I have many interests in the philosophical parallels between the teachings of Jesus, the Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Krishna, and Mohammad as is evident in my doing my comparative scripture study in the past two weeks. This week my beliefs were tested even more when a Youtube user invited me two nights ago to watch his videos on Islam when while looking up a single text in the Qu’ran, (Koran) I ending up reading a few chapters and finding so much of my “personal” faith in it (if not all of it through the “lens of my own interpretation” of certain texts).

So in the spirit of my own weirdness, I’d like to ask you what you believe. You can post any view, so long as it is not hateful or violent. Even if you think I’m crazy, I don’t mind hearing it. So come on and wax poetically!

FOX NEWS: NEW YORK — A Muslim group, in collaboration with a Brooklyn imam once investigated as a possible co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, paid $48,000 to run Islamic advertisements on the city’s subway cars this September.

According to reports, the Islamic Circle of North America has begun a campaign called the Subway Project to support dispelling of common misconceptions and the goodness within about Islam. However, the report states, that 1995,imam (prayer leader in a mosque) Siraj Wahhaj, a U.S.-born Muslim convert, is assumed to have provided supportive testimony for Omar Abdel-Rahman who was convicted to a life sentence for his role in the 1993 World trade center bombing.

Wahhaj has been qouted on the FOX website as saying in one sermon, “In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing, and the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”

Hmm this sounds a bit Rev. Wright-like to me i.e., “So-called democracy will crumble” v. “Americas chickens are coming home to roost”. Hmmm? You make the call. Ironically the message on one one of of the posters I saw on the FOX site was completely harmless in my eyes. Yet, I am quite put off by Wahhaj’s statement above mainly for it’s ambiguous meaning. I’m really not sure where this campaign will go. I guess we’ll have to keep an eye out. Just in case he is up to anything, but we won’t really know until someone gets a bit more information on this guy. So until further notice… keep waxing poetically!

Dear Readers,

Hi there, I thought I’d say just a few thing about my intentions with this comparative scripture study that I’ve been posting for the past two weeks. Take me at my word when I say that this is not an attempt to preach.

Foremost, I want to be clear that I make no attempts at manipulating scriptural meanings. I wish to present the various passages as they appear in their respective books. In very many cases, I lay out entire passages unabridged and without any alterations. Those changes I do make are only related to specific names, groups or individuals to which they relate in their cultural interpretations in order that the parallels are more easily noticeable when held up away form their cultures’ perceptions. My intent is to expose object truth in philosophical parallels only. It is not my intent however in any way to say that the cultures out of which these faiths grew are not unique to the people and places from which they came… because they are in fact very different in many ways.

With that said, I’d also like to make clear that any conservative opinion that opposes my claims need only research my claims. (i.e., if you think my observations are errant in any way, look them up yourself say by copying the texts into your search engine and then cross checking them with your own sources). I’m fully willing to hear your arguments. Nevertheless, I hope you enjoy the study.

Sincerely,

Mike