Today is Good Friday, 2012. On this day Christians around the world commemorate the "sacrifice" of a man named Jesus. It is said that the Romans tortured him with whips, made him carry a heavy cross to the hill of Golgotha, and then nailed him to the cross and let him hang there until he died.
The central belief of Christianity is that Jesus was a human sacrifice for mankind. Somehow, Christians have accepted this teaching from an ancient, barbaric time, and still believe it today. They believe that Man committed something called “Original Sin” and that the only way he could achieve salvation from original and other sins was by means of a human sacrifice. They believe that the almighty and eternal God, who is a merciful, loving, and forgiving God, could be appeased only by this hideous bloody and grisly torture and lynching of a human being. Because an ordinary human sacrifice would not be sufficient, the Son of God had to come down to Earth to be the sacrificial victim. He had to be scourged, driven to Golgatha under the weight of the cross, nailed to the cross, pierced with a spear, and slowly suffocated until he bled to death. Crucifixion was one of the most horrible forms of execution ever devised. Yet Christians believe that it must have been pleasing to God.
Human sacrifice was an integral part of much early worship of the gods. Today many religions still use an altar, but the first altars were used to sacrifice human and animal victims. References in literature to the sacrifice of human individuals harks back to the days when this was a routine and deeply reverent practice. In the story of the Trojan War, Agamemnon tells his wife to prepare his daughter for her marriage. He then takes her to the shore and sacrifices her to the gods in order to obtain favorable winds for his trip to Troy. You can be sure that the story is not pure whimsy. Human sacrifice was well known in ancient Greece, as it was in Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, Canaan, and Israel. At the time of Jesus, human sacrifice was a recent memory.
It is clear that back in the early history of the Israelites, human sacrifice was customary. Consider the stories of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22:1-19, Japhthah and his daughter in Judges 11:30-31, King Ahaz and his son in 2 Chronicles 28:3, and King Manasseh and his son in 2 Chronicles 33:6. Later in their history, the Israelites turned away from human sacrifice and declared it an abomination.
Nevertheless, the New Testament repeatedly refers to the idea that Jesus was a sacrifice for Mankind. For example, John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the World;” John 2:2, “He is propitiation for the sins of the world;” Matthew 20, “Á ransom for many;” Matthew 26:28, “This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins;” Hebrews 9:23-28,“Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;” (See also Philippians 2:17, 4:18; Romans 12:1, 15:16; 1Peter 1:18-19, 2:5; Ephesians 1:7; and Titus 2:14).
The dogma that Jesus was crucified as a form of atonement for Man’s sins did not become established as a doctrine of the very early Church until the fourth century AD. Saint Augustine (354-430), who laid down many of the Church's doctrines, including the doctrine of atonement, said that man was doomed to Hell until Jesus redeemed him. He regarded Jesus’ sacrifice “Not as payment of a debt due to God, but as an act of justice to the Devil in discharge of his fair and lawful claims.”
Like many other aspects of Christianity, the idea of propitiating god with a human sacrifice, and even having the god himself be the sacrificial victim, was not new when the Church dreamed up this explanation of Jesus’ crucifixion. It was borrowed from old pagan myths. I have mentioned the human sacrifices carried out by early Israelites. The Canaanites sacrificed to the gods, and the prophets inveighed against the sacrificing of Canaanite children to Moloch (See Samuel 17:17; Jeremiah 7:31; Ezekiel 16:20, 20:26).
In Egypt, the priests performed human sacrifice when the Pharaoh died. The Pharaoh was believed to be a god. His family and servants were buried alive with him. Eventually the priests started substituting animals, dolls and other forms of art for living victims. In ancient Mesopotamia archeologists have found the tombs of kings with entire households that were buried alive when the king was interred.
In India, it was the custom to perform human sacrifice in order to guarantee a good harvest and appease the gods. The victim was believed to be the god sacrificing himself, in the form of a man, to himself as a god. The ancient Khonds of India believed that their sacrificial victim died for all mankind and became a god.
The ancient Greeks sacrificed a criminal at Rhodes after putting him in royal robes. They did this in memory of the sacrifice by Kronos of his “Only begotten Son.” Themistocles sacrificed Persian youths to Dionysus.
Now here we are in the 21st Century, still believing in gods and still believing that this almighty being we call God could be appeased only by this inhuman sacrifice of Jesus. We are supposed to worship this God because by this sacrifice he enabled us to be saved from the punishment we are due on account of a sin committed--not by us--but by our earliest ancestors. We are supposed to believe in this God because he performed the circus trick of rising from the dead. We are supposed to love this god because he cured a few sick people while letting the great mass of men go on suffering throughout history. We are supposed to adore this god even though he allowed the unimaginable holocaust of World War II, even though he allows millions of humans to die each year of horrible diseases, even though he allows millions of people each year to suffer and die in tornados, floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes. Well, thanks God. Thanks for nothing.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Is Obamacare Constitutional?
The constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACT) (derogatorily called “Obamacare” by Republicans) is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. It is likely that the conservative justices will try to decide this case on the basis of politics rather than a strict adherence to the law. Justices like Scalia and Thomas would have the world believe that they are strict constructionists who follow only the law, but the truth is that they are highly political and they will decide this case on the basis of their political opposition to liberals and Democrats and in the hopes that their decision will hurt the chances of President Obama being reelected.
If Scalia and his political cronies were to decide this case solely on the law, they would be compelled to uphold the constitutionality of the law. In a long list of decisions, the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly upheld the broad power of the federal government to regulate commerce even if it meant regulating private activity which might have some affect on interstate commerce.
The chief question currently before the Supreme Court is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to mandate that people buy a minimum amount of health insurance under the PPACT. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const. Art.1, Sec. 8, cl. 3, grants Congress power “to regulate commerce….among the several states.” In the case of Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, the Sixth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the PPACT by recognizing that Supreme Court precedents give the federal government great power to legislate individual activity under the Commerce Clause.
The Sixth Circuit started-out by saying that “The minimum coverage provision, like all congressional enactments, is entitled to a ‘presumption of constitutionality.’" The court went on to say that “the presumption that the minimum coverage provision is valid is ‘not a mere polite gesture. It is deference due to deliberate judgment by constitutional majorities of the two Houses of Congress that an act is within their delegated power.’ ”
The Appeals Court then went on to find that under the Supreme Court decisions, enactment of the minimum coverage provision was definitely within the power of Congress. The Court noted that in several cases, including Gonzales v. Reich, the Supreme Court has held that Congress may regulate economic activity, even if wholly intrastate, if it substantially affects interstate commerce. For example, in Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court upheld regulations limiting the amount of wheat a farmer could grow, even for non-commercial purposes.
The Sixth Circuit found that the minimum coverage provision is constitutional because Congress had a rational basis for believing that the provision has substantial effects on interstate commerce. The Court also found that Congress had a rational basis for believing that the provision was essential to its larger economic scheme of reforming the interstate markets of health care and health insurance.
The court recognized that 18% of the non-elderly population was uninsured and that most states required hospitals to treat people’s illness regardless of their ability to pay. Such uninsured people consume over $100 billion in health care services every year. Congress found that the cost of providing care to uninsured people was passed-on from providers to private insurers which pass it on to the families they insure. This raises the cost of health insurance and drives more people out of the private health insurance market. It becomes a vicious circle, and has a profound effect on the interstate commerce in healthcare and health insurance.
The Appeals Court held that the minimum care provision is an “essential part of a broader economic regulatory scheme.” Without the individual mandate, the PPACT would result in a terrible spiral: only relatively sick Americans would choose to get insurance, leading premium prices to rise and causing the healthier of even those sick people to drop their insurance, sending prices higher and higher.
Massachusetts, under Governor Mitt Romney, recognized that it could not successfully reform its healthcare system without enacting an individual mandate. The individual mandate has worked just fine in Massachusetts. It has actually lowered the cost of health insurance for consumers, and no court has held that it is beyond the power of the legislature.
It cannot be argued that the government cannot order people to purchase a private produce. They forget that most states require their citizens to purchase automobile insurance. It is considered an important part of the laws controlling the purchase and use of automobiles. Such legislative compulsion has never been struck-down by any court.
As one who practiced law for 37 years, and who took a special interest in Constitutional law, I can say with assurance that if there were no politics involved the upholding of the PPACT would be a slam dunk. I believe that those justices who question the constitutionality of the Act do so out of their political feelings and not out of any concern with the law. I hope that they will come to their senses and uphold this Act. But if they strike it down, I hope that the American People, in their righteous anger, will not only reelect President Obama, but also give strong control of both houses of Congress to liberal Democrats.
If Scalia and his political cronies were to decide this case solely on the law, they would be compelled to uphold the constitutionality of the law. In a long list of decisions, the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly upheld the broad power of the federal government to regulate commerce even if it meant regulating private activity which might have some affect on interstate commerce.
The chief question currently before the Supreme Court is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to mandate that people buy a minimum amount of health insurance under the PPACT. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const. Art.1, Sec. 8, cl. 3, grants Congress power “to regulate commerce….among the several states.” In the case of Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, the Sixth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the PPACT by recognizing that Supreme Court precedents give the federal government great power to legislate individual activity under the Commerce Clause.
The Sixth Circuit started-out by saying that “The minimum coverage provision, like all congressional enactments, is entitled to a ‘presumption of constitutionality.’" The court went on to say that “the presumption that the minimum coverage provision is valid is ‘not a mere polite gesture. It is deference due to deliberate judgment by constitutional majorities of the two Houses of Congress that an act is within their delegated power.’ ”
The Appeals Court then went on to find that under the Supreme Court decisions, enactment of the minimum coverage provision was definitely within the power of Congress. The Court noted that in several cases, including Gonzales v. Reich, the Supreme Court has held that Congress may regulate economic activity, even if wholly intrastate, if it substantially affects interstate commerce. For example, in Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court upheld regulations limiting the amount of wheat a farmer could grow, even for non-commercial purposes.
The Sixth Circuit found that the minimum coverage provision is constitutional because Congress had a rational basis for believing that the provision has substantial effects on interstate commerce. The Court also found that Congress had a rational basis for believing that the provision was essential to its larger economic scheme of reforming the interstate markets of health care and health insurance.
The court recognized that 18% of the non-elderly population was uninsured and that most states required hospitals to treat people’s illness regardless of their ability to pay. Such uninsured people consume over $100 billion in health care services every year. Congress found that the cost of providing care to uninsured people was passed-on from providers to private insurers which pass it on to the families they insure. This raises the cost of health insurance and drives more people out of the private health insurance market. It becomes a vicious circle, and has a profound effect on the interstate commerce in healthcare and health insurance.
The Appeals Court held that the minimum care provision is an “essential part of a broader economic regulatory scheme.” Without the individual mandate, the PPACT would result in a terrible spiral: only relatively sick Americans would choose to get insurance, leading premium prices to rise and causing the healthier of even those sick people to drop their insurance, sending prices higher and higher.
Massachusetts, under Governor Mitt Romney, recognized that it could not successfully reform its healthcare system without enacting an individual mandate. The individual mandate has worked just fine in Massachusetts. It has actually lowered the cost of health insurance for consumers, and no court has held that it is beyond the power of the legislature.
It cannot be argued that the government cannot order people to purchase a private produce. They forget that most states require their citizens to purchase automobile insurance. It is considered an important part of the laws controlling the purchase and use of automobiles. Such legislative compulsion has never been struck-down by any court.
As one who practiced law for 37 years, and who took a special interest in Constitutional law, I can say with assurance that if there were no politics involved the upholding of the PPACT would be a slam dunk. I believe that those justices who question the constitutionality of the Act do so out of their political feelings and not out of any concern with the law. I hope that they will come to their senses and uphold this Act. But if they strike it down, I hope that the American People, in their righteous anger, will not only reelect President Obama, but also give strong control of both houses of Congress to liberal Democrats.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Healthcare and Seniors
I suspect that most senior citizens who call themselves Republicans are unaware of the plans that the Republican candidates for President and the Republicans in Congress have for Medicare and health care. I suggest that they find out now so that when the time comes to vote they will know who wants to abolish their right to health care in old age.
The Republicans in both houses of Congress are now on record as having voted for a budget prepared Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Chairman of the House Budget Committee, which would abolish Medicare as we know it. Ryan’s plan would save the government billions of dollars by shifting the burden of paying for medical care from the government to the senior citizens who would otherwise be covered by the current program.
The way Medicare works today, the government pays for all approved medical care of senior citizens. Let’s say that you need to have heart-bypass surgery. The surgeon will bill Medicare for the cost of the surgery, which might be in the tens of thousands. Medicare will approve a percentage of that bill and pay the surgeon. Most surgeons will accept as full payment the amount paid by Medicare, but if there is a deductable or amount in excess of the Medicare amount, most seniors are able to pay it by taking-out Medicare-Plus insurance.
Under the Republican plan put forth by Representative Ryan, the government would no longer make Medicare payments for people who are 55 years old and under at the time of the legislation. When those people become eligible for Medicare, there would be no Medicare for them. They would have to purchase private health insurance. Under the Ryan plan the government would assist people earning less than $80 thousand per year by giving them a voucher to help pay for health insurance. For people earning over $80 thousand, the voucher would be half the amount, and even less for people earning over $200 thousand per year. The voucher amount would be pegged to the cost of living.
The basic problem with the Ryan plan is that the cost of health insurance is rising at a rate far higher than the cost of living. The leading economists have asserted that in ten years, when the 55-year-old generation reaches eligibility for Medicare, the cost of health insurance will be more than double the amount provided for in the Ryan budget. That means that those seniors would have to pay an amount equal to, if not more than, the amount they would have to pay for health insurance today if there were no Medicare. Sure, this would save the government billions of dollars, but it would deprive millions of seniors of health care during that period of their lives when they are most in need.
Senior Citizens should also realize that the Republicans want to repeal the healthcare reform law, more properly known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA). The Republicans in the House of Representatives have already voted overwhelmingly to repeal PPACA (which they derisively call “Obamacare”). Fortunately, that effort could not succeed because of Democratic control of the Senate. But who knows? Perhaps at some later date Republicans will gain the strength to carry out their plan to totally repeal all of the provisions of the law. What would happen then?
Senior citizens who are beneficiaries of the Medicare Part D drug program should be aware that the PPACA provides for the eventual elimination of the “doughnut hole” and has already begun to close it. The “doughnut hole” is the period during which seniors have had to pay the full cost of their prescriptions after they amassed $2,700 in drug costs. After $2,700, Medicare did not resume paying for drug expenses until seniors reached $4,350 in out-of-pocket payments, a figure most seniors never reach in one year. The PPACA has already cut the doughnut hole by $500 and has instituted a 50 percent discount in brand-name drugs. For many seniors who simply cannot afford to buy their essential medications during the doughnut hole, that will be life saving. If the law is repealed, the doughnut hole will remain. Of course, many Republican leaders want also to repeal the whole Medicare Part D drug program and make seniors pay the full cost of all medications.
The PPACA also provides many provisions that will benefit seniors as well as everybody else. Included are provisions that forbid insurance companies from denying coverage on account of preexisting conditions, from placing lifetime or annual caps on coverage, and from rescinding coverage after a patient files a claim. The law creates a long-term-care insurance program, financed by voluntary payroll deductions, to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disable. It eliminates co-payments for preventative services and exempts preventative services from deductibles under the Medicare program. There are many other provisions, too numerous to set forth here, benefiting seniors.
Seniors should be aware of the position of the current Republican candidates on health care. All of the candidates have shown support for the Ryan budget plan that abolishes Medicare. All of the Republican candidates, including Mitt Romney, would repeal PPACA. For example, Michele Bachman, who has called for repealing PPACA, has also called for the phasing-out of Social Security and Medicare. Governor Rick Perry has plainly stated that he considers Medicare and Social Security to be unconstitutional. He calls Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.” Ron Paul has long held that Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional. Herman Cain wants to totally eliminate Medicare and Social Security. Newt Gingrich has argued that Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs are fiscally unsustainable. He would replace Medicare and Social Security with private accounts so that seniors could save their money and pay for private health insurance. For low income seniors, he would offer vouchers similar to those offered in the Ryan budget plan.
If you are a senior citizen, or somebody who is on the brink of qualifying for Medicare, you have to ask yourself: Do you want to have Medicare abolished as the Republicans have already tried to do? Do you want to go on paying the full cost of medications after reaching the doughnut hole? Do you want the Medicare Part D program abolished? Do you want to restore the practices by insurance companies of denying coverage on account of pre-existing conditions, lifetime or annual caps, and other factors?
I would think that regardless of whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, you would strongly oppose the Republican efforts to eliminate your health benefits. You should remember this when the time comes to vote for the next president and U.S. Congress.
The Republicans in both houses of Congress are now on record as having voted for a budget prepared Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Chairman of the House Budget Committee, which would abolish Medicare as we know it. Ryan’s plan would save the government billions of dollars by shifting the burden of paying for medical care from the government to the senior citizens who would otherwise be covered by the current program.
The way Medicare works today, the government pays for all approved medical care of senior citizens. Let’s say that you need to have heart-bypass surgery. The surgeon will bill Medicare for the cost of the surgery, which might be in the tens of thousands. Medicare will approve a percentage of that bill and pay the surgeon. Most surgeons will accept as full payment the amount paid by Medicare, but if there is a deductable or amount in excess of the Medicare amount, most seniors are able to pay it by taking-out Medicare-Plus insurance.
Under the Republican plan put forth by Representative Ryan, the government would no longer make Medicare payments for people who are 55 years old and under at the time of the legislation. When those people become eligible for Medicare, there would be no Medicare for them. They would have to purchase private health insurance. Under the Ryan plan the government would assist people earning less than $80 thousand per year by giving them a voucher to help pay for health insurance. For people earning over $80 thousand, the voucher would be half the amount, and even less for people earning over $200 thousand per year. The voucher amount would be pegged to the cost of living.
The basic problem with the Ryan plan is that the cost of health insurance is rising at a rate far higher than the cost of living. The leading economists have asserted that in ten years, when the 55-year-old generation reaches eligibility for Medicare, the cost of health insurance will be more than double the amount provided for in the Ryan budget. That means that those seniors would have to pay an amount equal to, if not more than, the amount they would have to pay for health insurance today if there were no Medicare. Sure, this would save the government billions of dollars, but it would deprive millions of seniors of health care during that period of their lives when they are most in need.
Senior Citizens should also realize that the Republicans want to repeal the healthcare reform law, more properly known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA). The Republicans in the House of Representatives have already voted overwhelmingly to repeal PPACA (which they derisively call “Obamacare”). Fortunately, that effort could not succeed because of Democratic control of the Senate. But who knows? Perhaps at some later date Republicans will gain the strength to carry out their plan to totally repeal all of the provisions of the law. What would happen then?
Senior citizens who are beneficiaries of the Medicare Part D drug program should be aware that the PPACA provides for the eventual elimination of the “doughnut hole” and has already begun to close it. The “doughnut hole” is the period during which seniors have had to pay the full cost of their prescriptions after they amassed $2,700 in drug costs. After $2,700, Medicare did not resume paying for drug expenses until seniors reached $4,350 in out-of-pocket payments, a figure most seniors never reach in one year. The PPACA has already cut the doughnut hole by $500 and has instituted a 50 percent discount in brand-name drugs. For many seniors who simply cannot afford to buy their essential medications during the doughnut hole, that will be life saving. If the law is repealed, the doughnut hole will remain. Of course, many Republican leaders want also to repeal the whole Medicare Part D drug program and make seniors pay the full cost of all medications.
The PPACA also provides many provisions that will benefit seniors as well as everybody else. Included are provisions that forbid insurance companies from denying coverage on account of preexisting conditions, from placing lifetime or annual caps on coverage, and from rescinding coverage after a patient files a claim. The law creates a long-term-care insurance program, financed by voluntary payroll deductions, to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disable. It eliminates co-payments for preventative services and exempts preventative services from deductibles under the Medicare program. There are many other provisions, too numerous to set forth here, benefiting seniors.
Seniors should be aware of the position of the current Republican candidates on health care. All of the candidates have shown support for the Ryan budget plan that abolishes Medicare. All of the Republican candidates, including Mitt Romney, would repeal PPACA. For example, Michele Bachman, who has called for repealing PPACA, has also called for the phasing-out of Social Security and Medicare. Governor Rick Perry has plainly stated that he considers Medicare and Social Security to be unconstitutional. He calls Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.” Ron Paul has long held that Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional. Herman Cain wants to totally eliminate Medicare and Social Security. Newt Gingrich has argued that Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs are fiscally unsustainable. He would replace Medicare and Social Security with private accounts so that seniors could save their money and pay for private health insurance. For low income seniors, he would offer vouchers similar to those offered in the Ryan budget plan.
If you are a senior citizen, or somebody who is on the brink of qualifying for Medicare, you have to ask yourself: Do you want to have Medicare abolished as the Republicans have already tried to do? Do you want to go on paying the full cost of medications after reaching the doughnut hole? Do you want the Medicare Part D program abolished? Do you want to restore the practices by insurance companies of denying coverage on account of pre-existing conditions, lifetime or annual caps, and other factors?
I would think that regardless of whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, you would strongly oppose the Republican efforts to eliminate your health benefits. You should remember this when the time comes to vote for the next president and U.S. Congress.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Newt the Salamander
Newt Gingrich, former Loudmouth of the House, won a plurality of the votes in the South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary because the ignorant rednecks of that benighted state liked his aggressive way of attacking liberals. Despite their claims to “Family Values,” the right-wingers of that state were able to overlook Newt’s many moral failures because their belief system is ultimately built on the same kind of hypocrisy that underlies the career of Newt the Salamander.
Why is it that so many ultra-conservative Republicans like this slimy reptile? I suspect that they recognize in him the same set of rotten moral values that they hold. Most of them claim to have “Family Values,” but in reality, most of them live morally hypocritical lives just like Newt. He appeals to their darker natures, their resentment of the more educated and intelligent liberal Democrats, and their hatred of blacks and immigrants.
In one editorial, The New York Times described some of Gingrich’s many inflammatory rants against Democrats including the claim that President Obama and his party are “left-wing radicals” who lead a “secular socialist machine.” He accused them of producing “the greatest political corruption ever seen in modern America.” And then averred that: “The secular-socialist machine represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did.”
Recognizing that he was in South Carolina, the bigotry capital of America, Newt stooped to abject racism in his fight for the nomination. This is not new from the former Georgia congressman. He had previously charged that President Obama displayed “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.” In the South Carolina fight, he repeatedly called Mr. Obama “the greatest food-stamp president in American history,” and lectured a black questioner at a debate about the amount of federal handouts to blacks, suggesting their work ethic was doubtful. Once again, the South Carolina right-wingers (who no-doubt drip with nostalgia for the good-old days of racial segregation) approved of Newt’s appeal to their hatred of blacks.
Gingrich appeals not only to racism but also to every form of bigotry available. He has claimed that advocates for gay rights are imposing a “gay and secular fascism” using violence and harassment. He stated that Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the Supreme Court is a “Latina woman racist.”
The most disturbing thing about Newt is not his long history of marital infidelity. It is his blatant hypocrisy. Newt repeatedly denounced President Clinton for immoral behavior when the House tried to impeach Clinton for the affair with Monica Lewinsky. Nevertheless, Gingrich was, at the same time, while married, having a sexual affair with a female staffer. Newt’s history of marital infidelity is epic, especially when seen against the background of his moralizing criticism of Bill Clinton.
Gingrich has been married three times. In 1962, when he was 19 years old and she was 26, he married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher. In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Battley after having an affair with Marianne Ginther. Battley said that Gingrich visited her while she was in the hospital following cancer surgery to discuss the details of their divorce. Six months after the divorce from Battley, Gingrich wed Marianne Ginther.
In the mid-1990s, while still married to Marianne, Gingrich began an affair with House of Representatives staffer Callista Bisek who is 23 years his junior. They continued their affair during the period in which Gingrich was a leader of the Republican investigation of President Clinton’s Lewinsky scandal. Marianne claims that after Newt took-up with Callista, he told her that he wanted her to agree to an “open marriage” which would allow him to continue his affair with Callista while still married to Marianne. In 2000, Gingrich divorced Marianne and married Callista.
In a 2011 interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Gingrich addressed his past infidelities by saying: "There's no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.” This is Newt’s excuse for infidelity and hypocrisy! He loved America and worked too hard! If anybody swallows that line of crap, they deserve to have Newt as their president.
While Slick Mitt Romney may be the leading flip-flopper among the Republican presidential hopefuls, Newt is not far behind. In 2004, Gingrich repeatedly bashed then Democratic nominee for President, John Kerry, saying his flip-flop on Iraq war funding disqualified him from being president. Gingrich said on Fox News: "You can't flip-flop and be commander-in-chief." Nevertheless, Gingrich has repeatedly flip-flopped on the issues.
On Meet the Press, Gingrich said: “I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond.” When David Gregory asked him: “But that is the individual mandate, is it not?” Gingrich replied: “It’s a variation on it.” Nevertheless, in May 2011, Newt issued a statement saying: "I am against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone because it is fundamentally wrong and I believe unconstitutional."
As of March 7, 2011, President Obama had not yet announced that the United States would be involved in a military action to institute a no-fly zone over Libya. When asked by Greta Van Susteren on March 7: “What would you do about Libya?” Gingrich replied: “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more likely they were to survive ... This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.” On March 23, after President Obama ordered U.S. forces to be actively involved in instituting a no-fly zone over Libya, Gingrich said: “I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot ... I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.”
In 2007, Gingrich favored "mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system.” In 2008, he even produced a video with Nancy Pelosi on the urgent need to stop global warming. Later in 2008 he said: "A carbon cap and trade system ... would lead to corruption, political favoritism, and would have a huge impact on the economy."
In a recent editorial, The New York Times pointed-out that: “Newt Gingrich’s victory in South Carolina turned on an almost comically broad deception, an inversion of the truth in which the insider whose personal wealth and political experience are entirely creations of Washington becomes the anti-establishment candidate. That it worked speaks poorly of voters who let themselves be manipulated by the lowest form of campaigning, appealing to their anger and prejudices.” The editorial goes on to point out that: “For years, he was a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage company, making more than $1.6 million over eight years. He also cashed in on his influence by selling access to health-care companies and insurers, bringing in $37 million over eight years.”
Former Republican Leader of the Senate and Presidential Candidate Bob Dole recently said that Newt Gingrich did not listen to others or take advice. Said Dole: “It was his way or the highway.” This, no doubt, partially explains why, earlier in the current campaign, most of Gingrich’s campaign staff quit on him. It is hard to imagine him as President of the United States. He is a deceiving, manipulative, flip-flopping, egotistical, hypocritical salamander, and the people who are enthused by his appeals to anger and prejudice are no better than him.
Why is it that so many ultra-conservative Republicans like this slimy reptile? I suspect that they recognize in him the same set of rotten moral values that they hold. Most of them claim to have “Family Values,” but in reality, most of them live morally hypocritical lives just like Newt. He appeals to their darker natures, their resentment of the more educated and intelligent liberal Democrats, and their hatred of blacks and immigrants.
In one editorial, The New York Times described some of Gingrich’s many inflammatory rants against Democrats including the claim that President Obama and his party are “left-wing radicals” who lead a “secular socialist machine.” He accused them of producing “the greatest political corruption ever seen in modern America.” And then averred that: “The secular-socialist machine represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did.”
Recognizing that he was in South Carolina, the bigotry capital of America, Newt stooped to abject racism in his fight for the nomination. This is not new from the former Georgia congressman. He had previously charged that President Obama displayed “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.” In the South Carolina fight, he repeatedly called Mr. Obama “the greatest food-stamp president in American history,” and lectured a black questioner at a debate about the amount of federal handouts to blacks, suggesting their work ethic was doubtful. Once again, the South Carolina right-wingers (who no-doubt drip with nostalgia for the good-old days of racial segregation) approved of Newt’s appeal to their hatred of blacks.
Gingrich appeals not only to racism but also to every form of bigotry available. He has claimed that advocates for gay rights are imposing a “gay and secular fascism” using violence and harassment. He stated that Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the Supreme Court is a “Latina woman racist.”
The most disturbing thing about Newt is not his long history of marital infidelity. It is his blatant hypocrisy. Newt repeatedly denounced President Clinton for immoral behavior when the House tried to impeach Clinton for the affair with Monica Lewinsky. Nevertheless, Gingrich was, at the same time, while married, having a sexual affair with a female staffer. Newt’s history of marital infidelity is epic, especially when seen against the background of his moralizing criticism of Bill Clinton.
Gingrich has been married three times. In 1962, when he was 19 years old and she was 26, he married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher. In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Battley after having an affair with Marianne Ginther. Battley said that Gingrich visited her while she was in the hospital following cancer surgery to discuss the details of their divorce. Six months after the divorce from Battley, Gingrich wed Marianne Ginther.
In the mid-1990s, while still married to Marianne, Gingrich began an affair with House of Representatives staffer Callista Bisek who is 23 years his junior. They continued their affair during the period in which Gingrich was a leader of the Republican investigation of President Clinton’s Lewinsky scandal. Marianne claims that after Newt took-up with Callista, he told her that he wanted her to agree to an “open marriage” which would allow him to continue his affair with Callista while still married to Marianne. In 2000, Gingrich divorced Marianne and married Callista.
In a 2011 interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Gingrich addressed his past infidelities by saying: "There's no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.” This is Newt’s excuse for infidelity and hypocrisy! He loved America and worked too hard! If anybody swallows that line of crap, they deserve to have Newt as their president.
While Slick Mitt Romney may be the leading flip-flopper among the Republican presidential hopefuls, Newt is not far behind. In 2004, Gingrich repeatedly bashed then Democratic nominee for President, John Kerry, saying his flip-flop on Iraq war funding disqualified him from being president. Gingrich said on Fox News: "You can't flip-flop and be commander-in-chief." Nevertheless, Gingrich has repeatedly flip-flopped on the issues.
On Meet the Press, Gingrich said: “I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond.” When David Gregory asked him: “But that is the individual mandate, is it not?” Gingrich replied: “It’s a variation on it.” Nevertheless, in May 2011, Newt issued a statement saying: "I am against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone because it is fundamentally wrong and I believe unconstitutional."
As of March 7, 2011, President Obama had not yet announced that the United States would be involved in a military action to institute a no-fly zone over Libya. When asked by Greta Van Susteren on March 7: “What would you do about Libya?” Gingrich replied: “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more likely they were to survive ... This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.” On March 23, after President Obama ordered U.S. forces to be actively involved in instituting a no-fly zone over Libya, Gingrich said: “I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot ... I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.”
In 2007, Gingrich favored "mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system.” In 2008, he even produced a video with Nancy Pelosi on the urgent need to stop global warming. Later in 2008 he said: "A carbon cap and trade system ... would lead to corruption, political favoritism, and would have a huge impact on the economy."
In a recent editorial, The New York Times pointed-out that: “Newt Gingrich’s victory in South Carolina turned on an almost comically broad deception, an inversion of the truth in which the insider whose personal wealth and political experience are entirely creations of Washington becomes the anti-establishment candidate. That it worked speaks poorly of voters who let themselves be manipulated by the lowest form of campaigning, appealing to their anger and prejudices.” The editorial goes on to point out that: “For years, he was a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage company, making more than $1.6 million over eight years. He also cashed in on his influence by selling access to health-care companies and insurers, bringing in $37 million over eight years.”
Former Republican Leader of the Senate and Presidential Candidate Bob Dole recently said that Newt Gingrich did not listen to others or take advice. Said Dole: “It was his way or the highway.” This, no doubt, partially explains why, earlier in the current campaign, most of Gingrich’s campaign staff quit on him. It is hard to imagine him as President of the United States. He is a deceiving, manipulative, flip-flopping, egotistical, hypocritical salamander, and the people who are enthused by his appeals to anger and prejudice are no better than him.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Slick Mitt
George Romney, father of Mitt Romney, and former governor of Michigan, was too honest. He admitted that when he visited Vietnam he was “brainwashed” by the generals. For this candor he lost his bid to be Republican nominee for president. His son Mitt learned the lesson well. He decided that the last thing you need in politics is honesty and integrity. With his abundant fortune, and vulpine character, he is now the frontrunner in the race to get the prize that escaped his father.
In 2006, when Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he supported and signed a health care law that became the model for the federal health care law, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) signed by President Obama. The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage. It provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL) who are not eligible for Medicaid. The law also subsidizes health care insurance for those earning up to 300% of the FPL.
Now that he is again running for President, Romney has condemned the federal health care law that was based on his state law. His most fervent distinction is that his was a state law and that the law signed by President Obama is an excessive exertion of federal power. This is not the first time Romney has had to explain his many flip-flops on political questions. Like all of his other flip-flops, however, the explanations he provides are little more than nit-picking and quibbling.
In 1994, when Mitt was running against Ted Kennedy for senator from Massachusetts, he said: “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.” During the 2002 governor's race in Massachusetts, Romney said: "The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's." Yet, when he first began campaigning for president, Romney came out in support of state laws forbidding abortion and criticized the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. He said: “I am firmly pro-life.”
In his 1994 senate run, Romney indicated that he opposed prayer in the schools. In 2007, he called for allowing prayer in school ceremonies.
When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney strongly advocated stem-cell research and promised to lobby President Bush to provide federal funding for such research. During his presidential campaign, however, Romney renounced his 2002 position and said that he now agreed with Bush's decision to ban federal funding for stem-cell research.
In Romney's 2002 race for governor, he said: "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.” But just before declaring his candidacy for the 2008 Republican nomination for president, Romney joined the National Rifle Association. He said: "I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I'm a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms.” The Associated Press reported in April 2007 that Romney never sought a hunting license in any of the four states where he has resided.
In 2002 Romney supported the right of homosexuals to form civil unions and said he would support domestic partnership benefits. He said: "All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation." During his first campaign for president, however, Romney stated that he is opposed to such civil unions as well as same-sex marriages.
These are just a few of the issues on which Slick Mitt has changed positions since he started running for president. Romney has calculated that the base of the Republican Party is far more conservative than the electorate in Massachusetts. He simply could not get nominated with the positions which he embraced during his races for senator and governor of Massachusetts. He appears to have calculated correctly. Republican voters do not care that this man is a total fraud and liar. They like him now that he is speaking like a true conservative. What does this say about the values of the “values” Party? Is honesty not one of the Republican values?
In an editorial, The New York Times said of Mitt Romney: “It is hard to find an issue on which he has not repositioned himself to the right since he was governor of Massachusetts. It is impossible to figure out where he stands or where he would lead the country.”
Romney called himself the candidate of “change.” What did he mean? During the 2008 run for the presidency John McCain made a good point when he said that sure, Romney was the candidate of change because had changed his position so many times.
What this country needs is not the small change of an imposter like Mitt Romney. It still needs a man of integrity like Barack Obama.
In 2006, when Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he supported and signed a health care law that became the model for the federal health care law, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) signed by President Obama. The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage. It provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL) who are not eligible for Medicaid. The law also subsidizes health care insurance for those earning up to 300% of the FPL.
Now that he is again running for President, Romney has condemned the federal health care law that was based on his state law. His most fervent distinction is that his was a state law and that the law signed by President Obama is an excessive exertion of federal power. This is not the first time Romney has had to explain his many flip-flops on political questions. Like all of his other flip-flops, however, the explanations he provides are little more than nit-picking and quibbling.
In 1994, when Mitt was running against Ted Kennedy for senator from Massachusetts, he said: “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.” During the 2002 governor's race in Massachusetts, Romney said: "The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's." Yet, when he first began campaigning for president, Romney came out in support of state laws forbidding abortion and criticized the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. He said: “I am firmly pro-life.”
In his 1994 senate run, Romney indicated that he opposed prayer in the schools. In 2007, he called for allowing prayer in school ceremonies.
When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney strongly advocated stem-cell research and promised to lobby President Bush to provide federal funding for such research. During his presidential campaign, however, Romney renounced his 2002 position and said that he now agreed with Bush's decision to ban federal funding for stem-cell research.
In Romney's 2002 race for governor, he said: "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.” But just before declaring his candidacy for the 2008 Republican nomination for president, Romney joined the National Rifle Association. He said: "I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I'm a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms.” The Associated Press reported in April 2007 that Romney never sought a hunting license in any of the four states where he has resided.
In 2002 Romney supported the right of homosexuals to form civil unions and said he would support domestic partnership benefits. He said: "All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation." During his first campaign for president, however, Romney stated that he is opposed to such civil unions as well as same-sex marriages.
These are just a few of the issues on which Slick Mitt has changed positions since he started running for president. Romney has calculated that the base of the Republican Party is far more conservative than the electorate in Massachusetts. He simply could not get nominated with the positions which he embraced during his races for senator and governor of Massachusetts. He appears to have calculated correctly. Republican voters do not care that this man is a total fraud and liar. They like him now that he is speaking like a true conservative. What does this say about the values of the “values” Party? Is honesty not one of the Republican values?
In an editorial, The New York Times said of Mitt Romney: “It is hard to find an issue on which he has not repositioned himself to the right since he was governor of Massachusetts. It is impossible to figure out where he stands or where he would lead the country.”
Romney called himself the candidate of “change.” What did he mean? During the 2008 run for the presidency John McCain made a good point when he said that sure, Romney was the candidate of change because had changed his position so many times.
What this country needs is not the small change of an imposter like Mitt Romney. It still needs a man of integrity like Barack Obama.
Friday, December 16, 2011
The Birth of Jesus
Now as we approach the Christmas holiday we should take a look at the true history of Jesus' birth. Scholars agree that the story of the Nativity is fictitious. This does not mean that we should not celebrate Christmas, but it does mean that there is nothing wrong with taking Christ out of Christmas. People have celebrated the winter solstice for thousands of years. Long before the birth of Jesus, people celebrated the birth of other pagan gods at the winter solstice. The winter solstice is a bleak time of year when the days are short and the nights are long. People have always needed something to pick-up their spirits at this time of year. That is the true purpose of Christmas, and the real reason why we celebrate Jesus' birth at this time of year. Here is the true story of Jesus' birth.
In the first place, the story says that Caesar ordered a census to levy taxes and that Joseph, as a descendent of David, had to travel to Bethlehem, the city of David, to register (Luke 2:1-5). This was supposed to fulfill the prophecy that the “Messiah” would be “from the house of David.” The story is inherently preposterous!
There is no evidence that Augustus Caesar ordered a worldwide census at the time of Jesus’ birth. There was a census under Quirinius, the Governor of Syria (Luke 2:2), but that occurred after the death of Caesar and years after the birth of Jesus. The late Raymond E. Brown, S.S., a Catholic priest, internationally regarded as the dean of New Testament scholars, and former Professor of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary in New York, said in his magesterial "The Birth of the Messiah," “Luke’s reference to a general census of the Empire under Augustus which affected Palestine before the death of Herod the Great is almost certainly wrong.” Said Brown, “Luke begins his story with a reference to a census of the whole world ordered by Augustus, conducted by Quirinius, and affecting Joseph, a Galilean inhabitant of Nazareth, so that he had to go to his ancestral city. This supplied the occasion for the birth of of Jesus in Bethlehem....this information is dubious on every score...We have no evidence of one census under Augustus that covered the whole Empire, nor of a census requirement that people be registered in their ancestral cities.” In a census, they counted people at their place of domicile, not where they were born. They would not have required Joseph to travel to Bethlehem. The Romans cared nothing for genealogies. They would have wanted him to stay in Nazareth and be counted where he lived.
The distinguished biblical scholar, E.P. Sanders, points out that David lived 42 generations before Jesus. He asks, why would would the Romans require Joseph to register for a tax in the town (Bethlehem) of an ancestor who lived 42 generations earlier? He describes Luke’s story of the Nativity as “Fantastic!” Bart D. Ehrman asks, “Can it be possible that everyone in the empire was to return to the place their ancestors lived a thousand years earlier?”
Another mistake by the authors of the Gospels is that they place the census of Quirinius and the birth of Jesus during the Reign of Herod. Scholars know that Herod was already dead at the time of Quirinius’census. Raymond E. Brown says, “...the one and only census conducted while Quirinius was legate in Syria affected only Judea, not Galilee, and took place in A.D. 6-7, a good ten years after the death of Herod the Great.” Moreover, Caesar would not have taxed Judea while Herod was king. And, at the time of Jesus’ birth, Bethlehem would have been in an area that was exempt from taxation.
The world's most highly recognized biblical scholar, a Catholic priest named John P. Meier, notes that it would have been impossible for Mary to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem in an advanced state of pregnancy. Meier says, “Somewhere aroung 7-6 B.C. a Jew named Yeshua, a shortened form of the Hebrew Yehoshua (Joshua), was born in the hillside town of Nazareth in lower Galilee. The Infancy Narritive traditions that locate his birth in Bethlehem of Judea (traditions isolated in chap. 2 of Matthew and Luke respectively) are probably later Chriustian theological dramatizations of the belief that Jesus was the royal Davidic Messiah.”
Jesus obviously was not born in Bethlehem. He was not born on December 25 either. Nobody knows the date on which Jesus was born, but it definitely was not December 25That was the date of the birth of the Greek/Roman god Mithras. The story of Mithras is similar to the story of Jesus.
Mithras was the god of light, or the Sun, and was born of a virgin. He was identified with a bull who had to die as a sacrifice for all humanity. His worshippers believed that Mithras promised resurrection from the dead and that he ascended into heaven. The worship of Mithras included forgiveness of sin by baptism of initiates and a communion of bread and wine to commemorate Mithras’ last meal on earth.
The early fathers of the Christian Church did not know the date when Jesus had been born, so up until the fourth century AD there was no celebration of Christmas. The worship of Mithras presented a real problem for the Church fathers because of the similarities to the worship of Jesus. There were pagan festivals around the time of the winter solstice, such as the Roman feast called Saturnalia which was dedicated to the god Saturn. In around 353 AD, the church fathers decided to combat Mithraism and other pagan holidays by celebrating the birth of Jesus on Mithras’ birthday, December 25. Merry Mithramas!
In the first place, the story says that Caesar ordered a census to levy taxes and that Joseph, as a descendent of David, had to travel to Bethlehem, the city of David, to register (Luke 2:1-5). This was supposed to fulfill the prophecy that the “Messiah” would be “from the house of David.” The story is inherently preposterous!
There is no evidence that Augustus Caesar ordered a worldwide census at the time of Jesus’ birth. There was a census under Quirinius, the Governor of Syria (Luke 2:2), but that occurred after the death of Caesar and years after the birth of Jesus. The late Raymond E. Brown, S.S., a Catholic priest, internationally regarded as the dean of New Testament scholars, and former Professor of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary in New York, said in his magesterial "The Birth of the Messiah," “Luke’s reference to a general census of the Empire under Augustus which affected Palestine before the death of Herod the Great is almost certainly wrong.” Said Brown, “Luke begins his story with a reference to a census of the whole world ordered by Augustus, conducted by Quirinius, and affecting Joseph, a Galilean inhabitant of Nazareth, so that he had to go to his ancestral city. This supplied the occasion for the birth of of Jesus in Bethlehem....this information is dubious on every score...We have no evidence of one census under Augustus that covered the whole Empire, nor of a census requirement that people be registered in their ancestral cities.” In a census, they counted people at their place of domicile, not where they were born. They would not have required Joseph to travel to Bethlehem. The Romans cared nothing for genealogies. They would have wanted him to stay in Nazareth and be counted where he lived.
The distinguished biblical scholar, E.P. Sanders, points out that David lived 42 generations before Jesus. He asks, why would would the Romans require Joseph to register for a tax in the town (Bethlehem) of an ancestor who lived 42 generations earlier? He describes Luke’s story of the Nativity as “Fantastic!” Bart D. Ehrman asks, “Can it be possible that everyone in the empire was to return to the place their ancestors lived a thousand years earlier?”
Another mistake by the authors of the Gospels is that they place the census of Quirinius and the birth of Jesus during the Reign of Herod. Scholars know that Herod was already dead at the time of Quirinius’census. Raymond E. Brown says, “...the one and only census conducted while Quirinius was legate in Syria affected only Judea, not Galilee, and took place in A.D. 6-7, a good ten years after the death of Herod the Great.” Moreover, Caesar would not have taxed Judea while Herod was king. And, at the time of Jesus’ birth, Bethlehem would have been in an area that was exempt from taxation.
The world's most highly recognized biblical scholar, a Catholic priest named John P. Meier, notes that it would have been impossible for Mary to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem in an advanced state of pregnancy. Meier says, “Somewhere aroung 7-6 B.C. a Jew named Yeshua, a shortened form of the Hebrew Yehoshua (Joshua), was born in the hillside town of Nazareth in lower Galilee. The Infancy Narritive traditions that locate his birth in Bethlehem of Judea (traditions isolated in chap. 2 of Matthew and Luke respectively) are probably later Chriustian theological dramatizations of the belief that Jesus was the royal Davidic Messiah.”
Jesus obviously was not born in Bethlehem. He was not born on December 25 either. Nobody knows the date on which Jesus was born, but it definitely was not December 25That was the date of the birth of the Greek/Roman god Mithras. The story of Mithras is similar to the story of Jesus.
Mithras was the god of light, or the Sun, and was born of a virgin. He was identified with a bull who had to die as a sacrifice for all humanity. His worshippers believed that Mithras promised resurrection from the dead and that he ascended into heaven. The worship of Mithras included forgiveness of sin by baptism of initiates and a communion of bread and wine to commemorate Mithras’ last meal on earth.
The early fathers of the Christian Church did not know the date when Jesus had been born, so up until the fourth century AD there was no celebration of Christmas. The worship of Mithras presented a real problem for the Church fathers because of the similarities to the worship of Jesus. There were pagan festivals around the time of the winter solstice, such as the Roman feast called Saturnalia which was dedicated to the god Saturn. In around 353 AD, the church fathers decided to combat Mithraism and other pagan holidays by celebrating the birth of Jesus on Mithras’ birthday, December 25. Merry Mithramas!
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Born In The Wrong Century
Sometimes I feel like I was born in the wrong century. I am an atheist who has spent his life studying religion and theology, and has written a book entitled “The Case Against God, A Lawyer Examines the Evidence” (Which is available on Kindle), and yet I do not fully understand why so many people believe in God. I realize that there are millions of atheists like me, and that there are probably millions of people who share most of my beliefs. I know that the number of atheists continues to grow around the world, but I am still puzzled by the prevalence of religion in our society. Why is this so?
I recognize that we all think that we are correct in our opinions and beliefs. People who believe in God are often quite certain that nonbelievers are terribly mistaken or downright evil. Atheists think that believers are terribly mistaken or downright stupid. How can we be sure that we are right?
I recently listened to several televangelists on T.V. On the same day I also listened to the channel that broadcasts the thinking of the Catholic Church. The Catholic channel was quite moderate and thoughtful, but it was nevertheless focused on this being whom I believe to be mythical—God. I find that most people with whom I speak believe in some kind of God, even if not in one of the organized religions. The televangelists, unlike the Catholics, speak to the ignorance of their listeners. Their silver-tongued orators appeal to their listeners’ emotions, prejudices, and hates. But their message is not substantively different from the message of the quiet thoughtful priests and laymen of the Catholic channel. It is that there is a God who created, controls, and continues life on Earth and in heaven. It is that we should love and worship that God because he is all loving and good. The thing that amazes me is not that the yokel televangelists believe in God and spread their ignorance around the world, but that moderate and intelligent priests and philosophers like the speakers on the Catholic channel hold a set of beliefs about God that is as absurd as the beliefs of the rednecks.
On the same day I also listened to the PBS science show, NOVA, and heard a discussion of the possibility of a multi-universe or “Multiverse” by the physicist and writer, Brian Greene. Green postulated that there may be an infinite number of universes out there, which would mean that statistically speaking, there would probably be a universe exactly like ours with everything the same as in this universe, including our galaxy, solar system, planet, humans, and an identical reproduction of each of us. This gives rise to the question of whether, if I were to die, I would continue to live in another universe, and therefore be immortal. I have never believed in life after death, but I recognize that the idea is not forbidden by the laws of physics. This does not, however, change my core belief that there is no life after death.
For most of the people in the world there is no philosophical postulate like the one by Brian Greene. They simply feel that after we die our soul goes to heaven and lives eternally in heaven with great glory and happiness. I know that there is no basis for such thinking, and I am absolutely certain that it is wrong. I am also quite certain that death means the end of all life, memory, thinking, feeling, everything. I am firmly convinced that even if the Multiverse concept is correct, this life of mine, this brain, this body, this mind and memory, this being, will, for all intents and purposes, cease to exist. Even if an exact reproduction of me were to exist in a different universe, and even if that being continued to exist long after I am dead, I am certain that I would not experience that life or know about it.
My perplexity about the beliefs of others is that I do not understand how they can go on believing in God or anything supernatural without having even a scintilla of evidence to support such beliefs. After I lost all belief in God, I became able to see the many absurdities that surround religion, absurdities that I had previously taken for granted, like belief in the sacredness of holy water or the usefulness of blessing the throats on the feast of St. Blaise. I took for granted that God was situated in the sanctuary of the Catholic Church, and that you had to genuflect each time you walked in front of it. I took for granted that a priest on the alter had the power to change ordinary bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ—and that for some reason, the most important thing you could ever do was eat Christ’s body and blood.
I recognize that I am simply one person who insists that his atheism is correct, but I also recognize that my ideas are supported by many brilliant people. Most of the world’s leading scientists do not believe in God. Most of the highly intellectual thinkers in the world are atheists. Thus, I am not alone. I’m sure that most of those scientists have the same problem I have understanding why so many people believe in and worship a non-existent being.
It is amazing to me that people pray to God for help of some kind or other. There has never been any evidence that God answers prayers. People pray to God for health, but there is not a single case that anyone’s health was ever helped by the hand of God. People point to the Bible as evidence that God has performed miracles, but study of the Bible reveals that it is simply a book of myths with practically no historical value (See my book, “The Case Against God”). There is no evidence of any kind that God or anybody else ever performed miracles.
If millions of people around the world agree with me, why do I feel that I was born in the wrong century? Perhaps it is because I am mystified by the fact that so many other people continue to believe in God and in all the accessories of religion. I would think that it is self-evident that there is no God. I would think that all of the things surrounding religion are so absurd that uneducated, simple, even stupid people would recognize the facts. But as I watch television, I see intelligent priests and laymen seriously discussing concepts like prayers for the poor souls in Purgatory, prayers to the saints, devotion to the Virgin Mary, and the healing powers of places like Fatima and Lourdes. To me, such talk is incredibly stupid, yet the people who engage in it do not seem like stupid people.
I am not surprised by the hillbilly televangelists roaring out against sin in their southern drawls, but I am simply amazed to see priests of the Catholic Church draped in elaborate vestments, carrying out ancient rites in gigantic cathedrals, surrounded by golden statues, crucifixes, chalices, and other sacred items of priceless metals. It is as if God would want to be worshipped with an elaborate and dazzling display of finery.
A friend of mine said that one day there will be no churches and that places like St. Peter’s Basilica will be museums. I am sure that he is right, but I still wonder why it is not like that today.
I recognize that we all think that we are correct in our opinions and beliefs. People who believe in God are often quite certain that nonbelievers are terribly mistaken or downright evil. Atheists think that believers are terribly mistaken or downright stupid. How can we be sure that we are right?
I recently listened to several televangelists on T.V. On the same day I also listened to the channel that broadcasts the thinking of the Catholic Church. The Catholic channel was quite moderate and thoughtful, but it was nevertheless focused on this being whom I believe to be mythical—God. I find that most people with whom I speak believe in some kind of God, even if not in one of the organized religions. The televangelists, unlike the Catholics, speak to the ignorance of their listeners. Their silver-tongued orators appeal to their listeners’ emotions, prejudices, and hates. But their message is not substantively different from the message of the quiet thoughtful priests and laymen of the Catholic channel. It is that there is a God who created, controls, and continues life on Earth and in heaven. It is that we should love and worship that God because he is all loving and good. The thing that amazes me is not that the yokel televangelists believe in God and spread their ignorance around the world, but that moderate and intelligent priests and philosophers like the speakers on the Catholic channel hold a set of beliefs about God that is as absurd as the beliefs of the rednecks.
On the same day I also listened to the PBS science show, NOVA, and heard a discussion of the possibility of a multi-universe or “Multiverse” by the physicist and writer, Brian Greene. Green postulated that there may be an infinite number of universes out there, which would mean that statistically speaking, there would probably be a universe exactly like ours with everything the same as in this universe, including our galaxy, solar system, planet, humans, and an identical reproduction of each of us. This gives rise to the question of whether, if I were to die, I would continue to live in another universe, and therefore be immortal. I have never believed in life after death, but I recognize that the idea is not forbidden by the laws of physics. This does not, however, change my core belief that there is no life after death.
For most of the people in the world there is no philosophical postulate like the one by Brian Greene. They simply feel that after we die our soul goes to heaven and lives eternally in heaven with great glory and happiness. I know that there is no basis for such thinking, and I am absolutely certain that it is wrong. I am also quite certain that death means the end of all life, memory, thinking, feeling, everything. I am firmly convinced that even if the Multiverse concept is correct, this life of mine, this brain, this body, this mind and memory, this being, will, for all intents and purposes, cease to exist. Even if an exact reproduction of me were to exist in a different universe, and even if that being continued to exist long after I am dead, I am certain that I would not experience that life or know about it.
My perplexity about the beliefs of others is that I do not understand how they can go on believing in God or anything supernatural without having even a scintilla of evidence to support such beliefs. After I lost all belief in God, I became able to see the many absurdities that surround religion, absurdities that I had previously taken for granted, like belief in the sacredness of holy water or the usefulness of blessing the throats on the feast of St. Blaise. I took for granted that God was situated in the sanctuary of the Catholic Church, and that you had to genuflect each time you walked in front of it. I took for granted that a priest on the alter had the power to change ordinary bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ—and that for some reason, the most important thing you could ever do was eat Christ’s body and blood.
I recognize that I am simply one person who insists that his atheism is correct, but I also recognize that my ideas are supported by many brilliant people. Most of the world’s leading scientists do not believe in God. Most of the highly intellectual thinkers in the world are atheists. Thus, I am not alone. I’m sure that most of those scientists have the same problem I have understanding why so many people believe in and worship a non-existent being.
It is amazing to me that people pray to God for help of some kind or other. There has never been any evidence that God answers prayers. People pray to God for health, but there is not a single case that anyone’s health was ever helped by the hand of God. People point to the Bible as evidence that God has performed miracles, but study of the Bible reveals that it is simply a book of myths with practically no historical value (See my book, “The Case Against God”). There is no evidence of any kind that God or anybody else ever performed miracles.
If millions of people around the world agree with me, why do I feel that I was born in the wrong century? Perhaps it is because I am mystified by the fact that so many other people continue to believe in God and in all the accessories of religion. I would think that it is self-evident that there is no God. I would think that all of the things surrounding religion are so absurd that uneducated, simple, even stupid people would recognize the facts. But as I watch television, I see intelligent priests and laymen seriously discussing concepts like prayers for the poor souls in Purgatory, prayers to the saints, devotion to the Virgin Mary, and the healing powers of places like Fatima and Lourdes. To me, such talk is incredibly stupid, yet the people who engage in it do not seem like stupid people.
I am not surprised by the hillbilly televangelists roaring out against sin in their southern drawls, but I am simply amazed to see priests of the Catholic Church draped in elaborate vestments, carrying out ancient rites in gigantic cathedrals, surrounded by golden statues, crucifixes, chalices, and other sacred items of priceless metals. It is as if God would want to be worshipped with an elaborate and dazzling display of finery.
A friend of mine said that one day there will be no churches and that places like St. Peter’s Basilica will be museums. I am sure that he is right, but I still wonder why it is not like that today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
