Sunday, August 15, 2010

Rep. Gohmert Warns Nation About Gay Anchor Terror Babies!

Yet another wave in the ongoing terrorist war against the American way of life has been revealed in recently released classified documents that detail an insidious plot in which terrorists have been sneaking into this country on tourist visas while secretly pregnant with gay fetuses, then giving birth to gay babies who automatically become American citizens. By taking advantage of our lax immigration policy and the 14th Amendment, these gay anchor, or "Gaynchor" terror babies function as sleeper agents within the United States, assimilating into the population, taking toys away from gay American babies, and living off free government services. After blending in and learning our ways, they proceed to undermine American society from within by opening up antique shops, befriending overweight unmarried women and alcoholic female pop stars, starting celebrity gossip websites, eventually moving to states that allow gay marriage, marrying unsuspecting gay Americans, then traveling overseas on American passports to adopt absolutely adorable Chinese communist babies, and slipping them back into the country.

Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Hooterville) desperately tried to alert the Congress, and the American people to the dire security threat posed by the Gaynchor Babies by making an impassioned speech on the floor of the House and then submitting to an interview/interrogation on CNN with Anderson Cooper, where he was made to feel like the object of mockery when grilled with a relentless onslaught of direct questions. Gohmert insisted he was on a mission to warn the American people that our national security is being attacked from within, noting that "these Gaynchor babies are being smuggled into the country in the wombs of terrorists, being born as American citizens, and melding into society where they become virtual gay time bombs who will eventually explode onto the American scene with style, while attempting to convert American babies to the homosexual baby lifestyle." Gohmert then added that by sending their gay babies to the U.S. to infiltrate this country, the plot has the dual effect of further corrupting American society by polluting our precious bodily fluids and simultaneously purifying their countries of origin. He warned American parents to be extra vigilant in their mommy and me classes and private playgroups and to be on the lookout for any effeminate male babies, who are slipping their tiny feet into mommy's high heels, or perhaps getting overly cozy with a Ken doll, as these are signs that your child's playmate may just be a Gaynchor Terror Baby. When pressed by Cooper to reveal any evidence of the plot in the form of government documents, FBI reports, or sources with direct knowledge of any investigation, Gohmert got snippy, saying: "I don't need facts! I don't need evidence! Just wait 20 years when American the Beautiful has turned into America the Fabulous, and you'll see I was right!" He then turned on his heels and stormed off in what onloookers described as a something between a huff and a hissy fit.

Monday, August 9, 2010

Why Build The "Ground Zero Mosque"?

As a New Yorker living in L.A, and one who has stood at the WTC site and stared at the names of friends on a plaque, I've followed the recent controversy over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque with some interest. And, as with most public debates, it's been quickly reduced to its simplest pro and con arguments. On the pro side, it's a matter of religious freedom, a way of showing that we, as Americans are above the base, gut-level thinking that demonizes Islam based on 9/11 and world-wide extremism. Let's show the world what it means to be American by celebrating religious freedom. This is New York. We celebrate diversity. We are diversity. The con arguments are less theoretical and more emotional. It's a slap in the face to all New Yorkers, all Americans, all people - particularly those who suffered personally on 9/11.


But the more I listen to the arguments, there's another one I don't hear. It's not about permission. It's about intent. It's not about whether or not an organization should be allowed to build an Islamic cultural center/mosque so close to Ground Zero. It's a matter of why they  would want to.



Even if you ascribed the worst possible motives to those behind the project - adding insult to injury -- what harm could the insult do that could even come close to the pain of the injury? The injury was so devastating that the insult would pale in comparison. It would be a long way to go for a relatively meaningless symbolic gesture.

But, for argument's sake, let's ascribe the best possible intentions to those behind the project. A chance to show the true face of Islam and wipe away the stain of those black-hearted fools who were dumb and angry enough to be convinced that they were enacting the will of some higher power by committing mass murder. If the intention is to ask us not to judge Islam by the actions of terrorists, to show that we share a common religious tradition and to reach across cross-cultural barriers, then why do the one thing that would embitter American hearts even more? To think that there wouldn't be a strong, visceral reaction to the project is disingenuous. By announcing plans to build a mosque just blocks away from the site you not only add to the pain of those who suffered on that day and continue to suffer, but you enable every politician, not to mention every Idiot American with a Twitter account, to set out on a campaign to demonize Islam and score political points in an election year. You fail at the very thing you set out to accomplish. And, to be a bit more cynical, if the goal is mere public relations, then this is just very bad PR.


If one accepts the idea that compassion is at the root of all religious traditions, and if even the partial intent of this project is to reach out and show compassion for the victims, this simply isn't a very compassionate thing to do. If the people behind the project really wanted to show the true heart of Islam, why do it through a building? Even though I left NY over 20 years ago and only get back about once a year, if memory serves, I'm pretty sure that the one thing NY doesn't absolutely need is another building. The city is lousy with buildings. Instead off adding to the architectural landscape, if the goal is to heal wounds, why not take that $100 million and actually heal? Start a fund for victims' families. Cops. Firemen. EMTs. Rescue workers. (Especially those whose continuing medical coverage didn't seem necessary, at least as far as Republicans in the House are concerned.) Use the money to treat wounds that may never heal. Ease suffering. Help rebuild the lives of the people whose lives stopped like a watch that got stepped on almost 9 years ago. Give money to schools. Help the sick. Give relief to families who are struggling. Momentarily put aside the symbolic gesture in favor of actual help.

At some point, it's less a matter of religious freedom than of common sense. You won't teach Americans about Islam by building a community center/mosque. Particularly on that spot in lower Manhattan. You could teach Americans about Islam through actions that demonstrate love, compassion, and a desire to heal. By doing that, you may one day discover American partners who would help you build an Islamic cultural center and mosque in the city - and that building would stand as a true monument to our mutual understanding, and mutual healing.




Thursday, July 15, 2010

10 False Arguments About Religion

1)    Is there a God? No. There isn’t. Yes, it’s that easy. There’s no magical sky daddy who created us and lives in a place called heaven or anywhere else. There are also no angels, devils, heavens, hells, heavenly saints or magic virgins. These categories we’ve inherited have perverted the discussion of religion, resulting in an understanding of the subject in our culture that ranges from sadly ignorant to profoundly dumb. Though it’s not entirely our fault. We’re taught from an early age that the question of religion comes down to whether we “believe in God” or not. It doesn’t. Or, it shouldn’t. The anthropomorphic God is virtual idolatry. Monotheism with a polytheistic mindset.
2)    If there’s no God then who made the world? No one. If the world didn’t work, we simply wouldn’t be here. End of story. Like Ann Richards said about George Bush: “He found himself on third base and assumed he hit a triple.” Just like us. We found ourselves alive on Earth and assumed we were meant to be here instead of looking around at a world that functions and taking delight in the fact that it does, and gave rise to us. Per Alan Watts: “Man is a little germ that lives on an unimportant rock ball that revolves about an insignificant star on the outer edges of one of the smaller galaxies.” But how cool is that?
3)    What about the conflict between science and religion? There is none. This silly alleged debate is the sad result of those who take the Book of Genesis as history instead of poetry. Science explores the origin and nature of the physical universe. Religion explores a deeper, more profound, psychological experience of human life. They work two completely different sides of the street. The nonsense that is creationism, or its uptown cousin, intelligent design -- which is just creationism with a GED -- is the sad byproduct of those who need to feel that the Bible is literally true in its entirety, or it’s rendered entirely false. This perverts both science and religion. The phenomenon of a magnificent sunset can be explained scientifically -- what causes the brilliant lights, how my eyes take in the sight and how my brain processes it, how many muscles move in my face when I smile. None of this negates or diminishes the joy or wonder I might feel sitting on the beach watching it. That is a moment for poets to write about, or artists to paint. Why do we need to feel that there is any purpose to the sunset beyond the sunset itself?
4)    Doesn’t the question of God and religion come down to faith vs. reason? No. Faith is an element in our lives. But it’s informed by reason. There are times in life that reason will only take you so far. Like when you’re in a plane that’s barreling down the runway. You can be comfortable in the knowledge that the odds are on your side and that the pilot is experienced and sober, but in that moment before takeoff you are in a world beyond your control. Experientially, there is little difference between saying “I have faith in God,” and “I believe life is good.” Either can give one the strength to persevere in tough times. Now, perhaps the God connotation is too strong for people to hear the word any differently, but there is a meaning to faith that arises out of human experience but which has nothing to do with some benevolent God looking out for you. At one of the many poignant moments in The Power of Myth -- conversations between Bill Moyers and Joseph Campbell -- Moyers asks him about faith, saying: “You are a man of faith. Of wonder.” To which Campbell replied: “I don’t need to have faith. I have experience.”
5)    What about the afterlife? There is none. There’s no beforelife. There’s no afterlife. The kingdom of Heaven is a psychological, or mystical concept that has been misconstrued as a physical place. Eternal life is an experience of the here and now. Our yearning for an afterlife is based on our insecurities and fears about death and the unknown. What we are is energy that can neither be created nor destroyed. Our lives are waves coming in off the ocean. Nothing more. There is no soul that is in any way attached to our personalities. Of course we want to think we go on. Who wouldn’t? You put all this effort into a life and then it’s like you’re mugged and it’s all taken away. But the notion of an eternal soul has to do with our common essence, not our individual existence. When the energy goes out of us, “us” goes.
6)    If there’s no God then what is the meaning of life? Wrong question? Why do we assume that meaning needs to come down from above and that our lives only have significance if they’re part of some great plan? The right question is: where is the meaning in life? Meaning is something we infer from the experience of being alive. Within the fact that our lives are finite. In fact, it’s because of that fact that life’s meaning is heightened. The meaning is in the experience.
7)    Doesn’t religious war negate the claims of religion? No. It proves the harm can be done when a cunning dictator manipulates a race of stupid, gullible, desperate people. Religious war is an oxymoron. While every tradition has blood on its hands the culprit is blind belief and obedience, and at various times in history that has been transferred from the church to the state. Marx’s opiate of the masses easily becomes the amphetamine of the extremists. Though the crime when religion is used as a justification for murder or genocide is even greater because of the inherent expectation of moral behavior. Religion can be used as a weapon only when people are stupid enough to fall for it.
8)    What about those who claim to speak for God? Villains, thieves, and con men. Or women. God is not an entity. There is no God who speaks or endorses political candidates. When a preacher or politician claims their efforts are part of God’s plan, they should have a net thrown over them, because that is insane. Anyone who claims to be receiving these messages is either crazy, or lying for power, or money. Or both.
9)    But isn’t God interested in my life? No. And neither is Jesus. Jesus doesn’t love you because Jesus doesn’t know you. He died 2000 years ago and is not coming back because people don’t come back from the dead. Jesus doesn’t want you to be rich, successful or happy. Nor does he want you to be poor, homeless, and miserable. That’s up to you. Only in America could we conflate the two things we worship: God and money. This has created some very well off happy talk preachers who have managed to sell the notion of divine sanction for greed and personal aggrandizement. This is not religion. It’s purpose-driven megachurch nonsense.
10) But we can’t have religion without God. Yes, we can. Most people in the west approach this notion as an impossibility. But as an exercise ask it as a possibility. In other words: how might it be possible to understand religion without our traditional understanding of God? Religion has not been handed down from above. It erupted from within the collective unconscious and the knowledge that our ego-driven experience of life is limited, and a more profound experience is there to be known by anyone at anytime. This awareness -- call it spiritual, mystical, psychological -- is the experiential core of religion. Of all religions. All traditions have the purpose of laying out a road map to it, not a replacement for our normal experience, but as an enhancement of it. We need to refocus religion as an activity. Not something we are. But something we do. We need to bring religion back down to Earth. Lose the Gods, heavens, angels, miracles, and childish, magical thinking, and resurrect religion as an activity of connecting with that part of us that is not us, but lives in us, or flows though us. Call it energy, being, essence, Tao, Brahman, God -- it doesn’t matter. These are just linguistic and cultural variations on a single theme. Religion is an outgrowth of a very human desire for self-knowledge and an experience not just of our common humanity, but of our unity with all life. But as long as the discussion remains mired in silly arguments between faith and reason, religion and science, or belief and atheism, we will never crawl out of this intellectual hole we’ve inherited and we run the risk of losing the message that religion is there to communicate.

This post is adapted from a book I just published: Deconstructing God – A Heretic’s Case For Religion. Available on Amazon or Amazon Kindle.www.amazon.com/Deconstructing-God-Heretics-Case-Religion/dp/1450518273/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277479153&sr=8-1

Monday, July 12, 2010

LINK TO MY BOOK ON AMAZON

www.amazon.com/Deconstructing-God-Heretics-Case-Religion/dp/1450518273/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277479153&sr=8-1

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Jesus Calls Mel Gibson

"Hey, Mel. Yeah, it's me - Jesus. Yeah, long time. So, 'sup? How's business? Uh huh. Cool. How's the wife? ... Oh. Sorry, man. Yeah, I know, can't live with 'em... But, listen, about that - kind of the reason I called. I've been hearing some things... Yeah, I know. Rumors. Doctored tape. I'm sure. Hey, you march to your own drummer, the haters try to bring you down. Trust me, I know. But, still, the things I'm hearing, they've got people upset...  I'm not saying which people, but I think you know what I mean. Anyway, I just thought I'd call, maybe chat a bit. Cool. Now, put your ear a little closer to the phone, I want to make sure you hear this: So, Mel...  WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM, ASSHOLE?! YOU JUST DON'T FUCKING GET IT! I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE CRACKED OPEN THE BOOK LATELY, BUT I'M JEWISH, YOU SHRIMPY LITTLE FUCK! SO, THE JEW-HATER SHIT! NOT COOL WITH ME! AND, WHILE YOU'RE AT IT, MAYBE YOU WANT TO REEL IN THE 'N-WORD' SHIT, TOO, 'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHICH PICTURE OF ME YOU'VE GOT HANGING IN THAT SURVIVAL BUNKER YOU CALL A CHURCH, BUT TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT IT! I'M NOT EXACTLY SWEDISH, KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING?! I'M ON THE DARK-SKINNED SIDE, SO WHEN YOU START TOSSING AROUND THE ETHNIC SHIT, IT REALLY GOES UP MY ASS SIDEWAYS! AND AS FOR SMACKING AROUND WOMEN -- NOT FUCKING COOL! ... I DON'T GIVE A SWEET SHIT WHAT SHE SAID! YOU DON'T HIT WOMEN! ... NO, IT WOULDN'T MATTER IF SHE PUT THE KID DOWN FIRST! YOU DON'T HIT WOMEN! YOU DON'T HIT ANYONE!  WHICH PART OF 'BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS' DON'T YOU GET, SHRIMPZILLA?!  ... DON'T GIVE ME YOUR FUCKING EXCUSES?! NOT MY PROBLEM YOU CAN'T HANDLE YOUR HIGH. HOW 'BOUT YOU LAY OFF THE SACRAMENTAL BLOOD OF ME FOR A NIGHT AND CRACK OPEN A SNAPPLE?! HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GONNA FALL DOWN THE SAME 12 STEPS?! ... OH, YOU LIKE BAR-HOPPING!? HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT CROWBAR-HOPPING, 'CAUSE I HEAR ABOUT ANY OF THIS SHIT AGAIN, I WILL TAKE A FUCKING CROWBAR AND GO ALL JOE PESCI ON YOUR FUCKING HEAD! THAT'S RIGHT, SUGAR TITS, THIS TIME I REALLY WILL COME BACK FROM THE DEAD AND HEAD STRAIGHT TO MALIBU JUST SO I CAN KICK YOUR ASS UP AND DOWN THE PCH FROM GLADSTONE'S TO ZUMA! NOW, MAN UP, SHRIMPENSTEIN! YOU HAVE THE BALLS TO CALL YOURSELF A CHRISTIAN?! YOU TALK THE TALK? NOW WALK THE FUCKING WALK! ... WHAT? ... OH, PLEASE, DO NOT BRING UP THE MOVIE! PASSION OF THE CHRIST, MY ASS! THANKS FOR THE VALENTINE! YOU REALLY THINK THAT'S A CHAPTER OF MY LIFE I NEEDED TO RELIVE!? YOU ALSO MADE LETHAL WEAPON 4, YOU WANT PROPS FOR THAT, TOO?! ... I THOUGHT SO. LISTEN, MAN, I DON'T LIKE MAKING THESE CALLS. I DON'T LIKE PLAYING THE HEAVY. I'M A PEACEFUL GUY, BUT SOMETIMES YOU PEOPLE REALLY FUCKING PISS ME OFF! WHATEVER PSYCHO SHIT YOU'RE WORKING OUT, WORK IT OUT, MAN, JUST WORK IT OUT ...  OK. PEACE OUT... OH, BEFORE I HANG UP, ONE MORE THING: YOU GOT PAT ROBERTSON'S NUMBER?

(The preceding transcription was not excerpted from my new book: "Deconstructing God - A Heretic's Case For Religion." It would have been if I'd thought of it before the book was published and put up for sale on Amazon. $14.95. Get yours today.)

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Deconstructing God -- A Heretic's Case for Religion

My new book will be out on Amazon in a few weeks but is available now at the CreateSpace estore. https://www.createspace.com/3424145. Please buy it. This is my initial low-key marketing effort. More aggressive efforts to follow.

"Although I don't agree 100% with Ian Gurvitz's analysis of religion -- who does on this subject? -- I loved reading this insightful, funny, and illuminating book. And we both think Pat Robertson is a douchebag." Bill Maher