John Hummel's Open Salon Blog

Driving the Money Makers From the Temples

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:03:36 -0400

When I was growing up and went to church, I heard all kinds of stories from the Bible. One of the most dramatic ones was when Jesus picked up a whip and drove out the shops from the Temple (John 2:15). It was such a stark and dramatic moment when Jesus, the one on all of the paintings in the church as being this mild looking white man we were taught was so sweet and gentle, turned into a violent representation of righteous rage.

The sin, as I was taught, was that people were mixing business and religion. That religious ground and ideas were holy things that should not be profaned.

I recently caught this discussion between Rachel Maddow and a minister and he brought up an interesting term: the prostitution of the pew for politics. The idea that religious groups - and let's call it like it is, primarily right wing religious groups - are openly using the pulpit to get people to vote for their favorite candidate.

Ignore the issue of this being illegal under tax rules and regulations. What I don't understand, is why religious people allow their churches and their faith to be whored out to politics. I remember being taught in Sunday school about how Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which was Caesar - but now we have people who want to use the pulpit and not teach what they believe God taught - but to tell people to give their allegiance to a man before them.

The last time I was in the church of the faith I grew up in, I sat in horror as leaders came to speak to my local church and then, row by row, they handed out fliers for Proposition 2, the anti-gay marriage amendment for Florida. The leader at the pulpit explained this wasn't a "political issue", but a "moral one" so that's why they were taking this action. By standing there and using public pressure on people to fall in line with their political decision.

My church taught me all of my life that we allow all people freedom of religion, let them worship how, where and what they may. And then they cast it all aside because, well, there was a group of people that didn't apply to. So why not prostitute the pulpit for politics so they could have their way. I found church leaders who would tell me that a good member of the church didn't vote for anyone but a Republican.

I honestly don't know how people can tolerate their churches being just one more arm of a political party, as if they were a radio or TV station they could put their mug on and say "Jesus likes me, and so should you!"

I can't help but imagine that Jesus would be all to ready to pick up the whipped cords and drive out those people in his churches telling them " Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise."

My Follow Up Speech to Pope Benedict

Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:09:02 -0400

The following is the speech I would have given in response to Pope Benedict the XVI's that he gave at Holyroodhouse here

Mr. Benedict,

Thank you very much for your visit to the British Isle. While some may complain about the massive amounts of money - some $30 million dollars - that the British taxpayers will pay so you may visit. I consider this to be money rather well spent.

Mainly so they can look right into the face of hypocrisy and lies and learn to recognize it.

I noticed that you mentioned the Nazi's and atheists in the same breath, saying as you did:

we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny” (Caritas in Veritate, 29).

I realize it may be rude to remind people of your own dealings with the Nazi Youth Movement, Mr. Benedict. But I don't think I stand silent to that spew of lies and complete disregard for the truth that dribble from your mouth like the santorum that drips from a raped alter boy.

The Nazi's saught to "eradicate God from society" you say? Then it must have been the Catholic church that also wanted to eradicate the voice of Yahweh from discussion, since there was the treaty between Hiter's Germany and the Catholic church that set out to protect the Church's interests in that land.

But that can't be, you say? The Nazi's enforced an "atheist regime" - such as having their soldiers wear belt buckles bearing Gott Mit Uns - God With Us, the same type of battle cry that lead the Crusades out to kill Muslims in another land (another venture supported by the earlier Catholic church), or perhaps words like these were on the lips of those surely "atheist" Catholic priests who tortured Jews during the Spanish Inquisition?

I shouldn't be surprised that the Catholic Church or "your Holiness" even seeks to disregard the statements of Hitler himself, who's religiou statements are fairly well known, including from Mein Kampf:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

As far as the "evils of atheism" you allude to when you say "...let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society." If only the evidence bore this out! Which is the better society - ones such as the Netherlands where religious belief drops while they increase their efforts to care and nurture for each other? Or Britain herself, who enjoys greater and greater numbers of non-believers in the supernatural, the "divine", the teachings of sheepherders from some 10,000 years ago - and during the Enlightenment threw off the ideas of old outdated beliefs and embraced rationality.

Shall we compare the records of when Religion ruled and when Secularism started to hold sway? The "Dark Ages" lead to the shutdown of all increase of knowledge - if anything, the discoveries of the ancient Greeks in mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, biology were all but lost during the time when the Catholic Church held Europe within its grasp. It wasn't until humanity stopped looking to the clergy and the Bible for truth and actually opened their eyes again we found we were not at the center of the universe - for all of the punishments inflicted upon thinkers such as Galileo - I'm sure he appreciates finally being "pardoned" by the Church for the sin of having been right all along.

Or perhaps you speak of the technological advancements the world has made, such as treating the sick and freeing people of pain even against the Catholic church's early prohibitions against dissection and research. Or is the ability for men to search the Heavens not for invisible being who sit silent and mute so against your senses?

And yet- for all of the technology that moving to a more secular, a more scientific, a more "atheistic" world where we embrace reality and probe at it instead of hiding in the shadows and pointing to the words of men long dead like you and your clergy - all of this advancement hasn't seem to help your organization become more moral.

It wasn't atheism that when disease rears its head around the world seeks to spread disinformation regarding the prevention by using condoms or even educating people about sex. The Catholic church wants to keep millions ignorant and makes up blatant falsehoods that allows a terrible disease to go on inflicting millions more.

It wasn't atheism that sought and seeks still to keep women as powerless as possible, who denies them full membership and even leadership. It is instead the Catholic church that even now seeks to roll back the clock on women's control over their bodies and force them to bear the babies of their rapists or fathers, and excommunicates the doctors who give life saving treatments while pardoning the rapist of children.

It wasn't atheism that allowed the raping of children and their cries for help to go unheeded over the majority of the 20th century, but your own actions in hiding such offenses from the eyes of the secular law that would have seen such evil men punished for their crimes. It wasn't atheism that had the Catholic church move pedophile priests from one parish to the next so they could victimize more weeping children - and then terrify them into silence with tales of a burning afterlife that met them if they dared speak out. An organization that even now is more intent on blaming children for being abused than for the adults who actually violated the innocents.

So again, thank you Mr. Benedict for coming to this location. So people can look upon a lying, uncaring, criminal and child rapist protecting man who claims to speak for Yahweh - and know evil the next time they hear it.

The Mormon Church Proves One Can Not Serve Two Masters

Tue, 5 Jan 2010 20:01:48 -0500

In a press release issued by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka “Mormon” or “LDS church”), the LDS church proved how difficult it is to serve two masters - in this case, the basis of their beliefs of denying civil rights to others, and the obligation not to allow their dalliance into political action.

Take the case of Mr. Danzig. In June 14, 2006, Mr. Danzig wrote a letter to the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune¹, detailing how he was a member of the LDS church in good standing, but felt that he could not vote for amendments that would bar homosexuals from marrying based on his political beliefs. While his religious beliefs as a member of the LDS church informed him that he could not personally support gay marriage, he didn’t see how he could deny such a right to other people since his religious beliefs should not preclude others actions.

In February 2008, Mr. Danzig gave up his membership in the LDS church. Now, at this point, the story might be said and done. Happens all the time - people have a difference of opinion or ideas with their religion, and leave it to pursue others.

In the case of the LDS church, however, they want to have it both ways. They state that “Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are encouraged to study, learn and ask questions in their quest for knowledge.” Fair enough. And then they follow it up one paragraph later with “Honest disagreements are not the same as public advocacy of positions contrary to those of the Church. When disagreements arise, the principle of the Church is that local leaders discuss these matters with members with love and concern. This was the case with Peter Danzig.”

So get that right, folks. It’s all right to question the Church as a member - but if you publicly question the faith, then you’re going to be in trouble. That was Mr. Danzig’s failing, evidently - he should have taken his objections up with Church leadership, then shut up about them, because the last thing we want is for there to be a public discussion of things.

That, however, isn’t the part that drew my attention. It was this statement:

In his Tribune letter-to-the-editor, Mr. Danzig said he “was troubled that my church requested I violate my own conscience to write in support of an amendment I feel is contrary to the constitution and to the gospel of Christ." In reality Church leaders had asked members to write to their senators with their personal views regarding the federal amendment opposing same gender marriage, and did not request support or opposition to the amendment.

I hate to besmirch the honest of the LDS church newsroom, but I am a living example that this statement is simply not so.

In early 2008, I sat in the Apollo Beach Ward, Brandon Stake building located in Ruskin, FL. There, a local Stake representative was holding up ballot forms to get what would become Proposition 2, or the Florida Marriage Amendment, onto the ballot for the citizens of Florida to vote on. This ballot would define marriage as the union of only one man and one woman.

This gentleman explained that this was “not a political issue, but a moral issue” - basically saying that while he was espousing a political view, holding up a sheet asking people to get onto a voting measure a law (hence making the action political), and expressing the LDS church’s position that gay marriage was wrong (and therefore should be illegal for everyone, including those who may have a difference of religious opinion who might think that gay marriage was A-OK in the eyes of their religion) - however, by stating “it’s a moral issue”, that wiped away any indication that this was a political action.

At this point, this “moral not political” ballot measure request was handed out, row by row, to the congregation, and we were asked to turn them back in to our local ward leaders.

I refused. I felt that this was a violation of not only the separation of church and state in attempting to establish religious beliefs upon others - but a violation of the LDS church’s teachings. In LDS church doctrine, there are series of statements of the principles of the LDS faith. Of them, the 11th lays out the LDS church’s belief regarding the separation of church and state:

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may.

By passing out this ballot, by telling members that this was a “moral issue” that they deny others the right to marry because of the LDS church’s beliefs regarding the religious nature of marriage - they were altering the statement of “allow all men the same privilege” to be altered to “unless you’re gay.”

The LDS church, in its press release regarding Mr. Danzig, was attempting to serve two masters: their religious beliefs, and the legal requirements. As such, they tap dance to make sure that their actions could not be construed as being in violation of religions being used as a platform for political action - which would violate their tax independent status.

But not only that, but the press release attempts to balance two others masters: that of the Truth, and Lie. I can express the personal experience that puts the lie to “we only told people to act out their personal views.”

This tap dancing takes the press release in any number of directions. It’s acceptable to question Church teachings - but only as long as you don’t take it public, even if you object to an issue over legal versus religious reasons. The church might tell its members that gay marriage is wrong, support ballot measures to outlaw gay marriage, pass out ballots in church and encourage members to fill them out - but surely we want people to express what their conscience feels, and have no interest in actually telling them how to vote!

There are times when you must call a lie out for what it is. The LDS church all but picked up their members’ hands and pushed the button for them as to what they should vote on, and proved that while they might state to allow people to “worship how, where and what they may”, that only goes as far as to whether or not the LDS church agrees with “what they may” in the first place.

1 Sadly, the letter is now in the Salt Lake Tribune archives, and I’m far too cheap to spend the $3 to get it out.

I want to like Rick Warren. If only he wasn’t such a jerk

Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:12:23 -0500

Rick Warren resembles a giant teddy bear. Just look at the man. He looks like that big, fuzzy uncle you always wish you had. Not the creepy “let’s me know you a game played in the basement”, or the loud drunken kind. But the cool kind – the one that you talked to because there was no way you were going to talk to your parents about sex or which college to go to. He’s got the goatee, the fuzzy brown hair on top, the casual shirts. Like “Uncle Buck”, without the John Candy.

I want to like the man. I really do. I read about his reverse tithing, where he now gives way 90% of his proceeds to charity. His invocation at Obama’s inauguration was a bit vanilla side, but I’m actually glad he showed some restraint.

As Pee Wee Herman said, though, “Everyone has a big but. Tell me about your big but.” My big “but” with Mr. Warren is – he’s still kind of a jerk. At least if you’re gay. Or an atheist. Or, it seems, perhaps anything but a “died in the wool” Jesus fan.

I wouldn’t mind if the guy showed some consistency. First you have him endorsing California’s Proposition 8 stripping marriage rights from homosexuals. So right here, we have a gentleman who has no problem telling his followers “Hey, there’s this law out there that deals with homosexuals, and I’m going to speak out on it.”

Kind of a jackass move, but hey – free speech and all. He gets to say that. Of course, I’m certain he’d have no problem speaking out about other government actions. You know – like Uganda’s law that sentences people to lifetime in prison for one homosexual act, or offers the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality”, which includes if you “use alcohol or drugs.” That’s right – if two gay people meet up in a gay bar, and one buys another a drink – they can be sentenced to death if the two of them are caught hooking up later.

Surely something that draconian, that clearly “Old Testament” style that goes against Mr. Warren’s beloved Jesus, the man who forgave the woman caught in adultery from being stoned to death – surely he’d speak out against such a rotten, horrid law?

“But Warren won't go so far as to condemn the legislation itself. A request for a broader reaction to the proposed Ugandan antihomosexual laws generated this response: "The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations." On Meet the Press this morning, he reiterated this neutral stance in a different context: "As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides." Warren did say he believed that abortion was "a holocaust." He knows as well as anyone that in a case of great wrong, taking sides is an important thing to do.” (Source: Newsweek, The Human Condition Blog, emphasis added)

Bullshit. This from the guy who has no problem speaking out about 146,000 Christians he claims were killed without anyone speaking out on it (I wonder if 45,000 of those are because they lack insurance?). He has no problem telling his flock how moral it is to keep people who love each other from enjoying the same legal benefits as everyone else who gets the word "married"next to their names."

Mr. Warren has taken sides in the past on a great many political issues, as we’ve already seen. He wants to point to the cross, tell us to think “What would Jesus do”, and then when confronted by the reality of something that Jesus would oppose (like "sexual preference genocide") – his response boils down to “Well, I guess I don’t have an opinion when it comes to defending fags as opposed to condemning them.”

Perhaps he’s just a coward who doesn’t want to lose whatever foothold so-called Christian groups (and I use the term lightly) such as The Family have in Uganda, which has been a source of this horrific legislation. Maybe he’s afraid that if he admits that, yes, even “teh gays” has as much a right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – then perhaps they could get married and then all of society would collapse or something.

Whatever the reason, I’d like for Rick Warren to be that cool Uncle Buck guy. Problem is, I don’t think Uncle Buck was a bigot. And at least he was honest enough to tell you what he really thought, instead of hiding behind Jesus to disguise his prejudice.

The War on Christmas - Batter Down

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:11:14 -0500

When I was growing up, my friends were obsessed with sports. Baseball cards (which they were certain would lead to riches to pay for college) or tracking the stats of any given team. As their fervor grew, there came to be camps favoring one team over the other.

If you were a fan of the local Portland Trailblazers, then you were “cool.” Didn’t matter if you couldn’t name a single player. Didn't matter if you were the guy who knocked over mailboxes and kicked babies - nobody could be a Trailblazers lover and be entirely bad. Everyone was excited to have the Trailblazers win any game. Wearing T-shirts, singing the songs they made up for them on the radio, talking about how awesome it would be to have them win the championships.

Of course, everyone agreed that the players from every other team (except maybe Michael Jordan, who everybody thought was awesome) were losers. They sucked. *You* sucked if you liked any player of any other team ever.

We all knew they sucked! Why? Well, because they didn’t play for the Trailblazers! They had to be rotten players, or cheated all the time, or just all around smelled bad. Like poop.

If you weren’t a store that didn’t festoon your place of business with Trailblazers regalia, or have your employees where Trailblazers shirts, or hats, or at least a pin – well, what kind of creeps were you? Trailblazer haters, that’s what you were! If the radio of the market wasn’t turned to playing the game that night so people could rush from their cars into the store to breathlessly ask “What’s the score?”, then clearly you were simply unfit to live for the crime of being anti-Trailblazers.

And Heaven help you if you ever admitted to liking some other team, especially at school. It was like the kiss of death for your popularity. You would be shunned into Outer Darkness. Your entire family consigned into utter black holes of reputation. People would even despise your *dog* for being a Trailblazers hater.

You didn’t even have to *say* you didn’t like the Trailblazers. If you didn’t proclaim your love of the Trailblazers – well, then you still sucked. It was the Trailblazers, or nothing.

It’s not just the Trailblazers that inspire this sort of outrage. Any team anywhere in the country – I’d dare say anywhere in the world – can inspire this kind of devotion. Who hasn’t heard of Red Sox fans supportive of their team to almost violence? Or fans of Manchester United taking to the streets in rage when their team wins or loses?

Or – people freaking out because you wish them Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas?

You’ve probably heard the stories by now of American Family Association deciding to boycott Gap, Inc because they didn’t mention “Christmas” in their holiday ads. Even though at the beginning of their “Holiday songs”, they clearly did. It’s not enough, we’re told, to wish people Happy Holiday.

Nope – if it’s not “Merry Christmas”, then you suck. You’re evil. You are ignoring everything the holiday is about. You know, the celebration of Saturnus, or the Yule Gods of Germanic lineage, or any number of things before Christians came onto the scene.

It doesn’t matter that there are several religions that celebrate that time period. See, our team is the most important one. It has the best players on it, the best colors and shirts and hats and if you don’t love it as much as we do – then you must be an awful person! And you smell bad – like poop!

The more I look at the “War on Christmas” nonsense, or really any other “if you’re not in my religion than you must be a bad person” arguments, the more I realize it’s about people treating their faith as sports teams. It’s not about using religious beliefs as a moral code to treat others more humanely, to care for the sick and the poor. It’s not about reading through religious beliefs to get some idea of what reality is, what the Divine has in store for humanity.

Nope. It’s a game with competing players, and if you’re not on *my* team, if you don’t acknowledge that *my* side is the best of them all – then you’re a big hater of my side, and I’m going to hate on all of you and your family and your business and you’re stupid dog until you do.

It’s the same attitude described by American Family Association because The Gap isn’t putting Christmas on every T-shirt they sell with a big picture of baby Jesus saying “Born of 100% Authentic Virgin!”. It’s the attitude of a town hosting a nativity set on a public square that felt that heaven forbid the local atheists group have a sign praising atheistic veterans. I mean – they weren’t even asking to take the nativity set down, just to acknowledge there were other beliefs out there.

Not good enough for that town – it was Jesus plus nothing, or nothing. And since then, people have been protesting because those mean, evil atheists had the audacity to say there was some other team other than the Trailblazers (I mean, Christianity) and ruined all their fun by making them have to take their ball and go home rather than admit another team even *exists*.

Or the family suing because a nativity set isn’t allowed in the public square any more. I mean, it always has before! Everyone knows the Christmas is the bestest greatest holiday ever, and if you don’t agree then you’re plainly evil!

I don’t mean to feel like I’m picking on just the Christians, but there is this vocal annoying subset that gets worked up every year because they feel they are the most important thing on this planet from December 1^st until December 26^th, and curse you if you feel otherwise. And I ask, with all humility, with all understanding:

Please shut the hell up.

If you’re going to attend your religion, great. Want to festoon your house with lights and trees and Jesus statues next to Frosty the Snowman and Santa offering a crib to the Virgin Mary – more power to you. Want to go to your friend’s houses and sings carols, or host a big event at your church? Swell. I’m all for it.

But if you’re going to get all pissy because I say “Happy Holidays” to acknowledge my Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Santeria, atheist, *and* Christian friends to include everyone in this time of year – you know, the time decided to “Peace on Earth, Good Will to Men” by your own religion – well, then I guess I’m going to have to take my authentic 1991 Trailblazers basketball and go play with my friends and leave you to rant and rave on your own.

Because you *suck*.