Wanderlust

Taking into consideration the nature of curiosity, one thinks of the ocean’s vast expanse in contrast to the already breathtaking enormity of the sandy beach upon which he or she stands.  In spite of whatever geographical knowledge may reside within the individual’s educational history, for a moment, an infinite gamut of possibilities lies just beyond the horizon where ocean and sky kiss. For all he or she knows, it might as well be the very ends of the earth. Indeed, through the eyes of a child, such a sight must feel precisely this way.

Due to the numerous advances in modern-day cartography and travel, we now know this is not the case. Nevertheless, the anticipation of unforeseen potentialities does not cease simply because a textbook or road map delineates what might await us on the other side.

Academic exploration into the ‘wild blue yonder’ is of a similar quality. That is, to release the anchor of one’s preconceived notions and sail into an endless realm of possibility. Perhaps others might choose to abandon the boat altogether. If threatening circumstances, such as bloodthirsty sharks and crushing waves, were of no importance, it is not inconceivable to wish one could swim the entire length of the ocean from continent to continent. To be physically adrift in mellifluous serenity would provide revelations for which no man might ever dream to ask. But even then, numerous individuals would still refuse to leave the shore.

It is with this metaphor in mind that I approach the topics of critical thinking and academic inquisitiveness. Many subdivisions within mainstream religion denounce the practice of ‘scholarly’ investigation into holy texts, doctrines, and so on, as if a single grain of doubt or a collection of widespread knowledge is the bane of their existence.

What, I ask, are we so desperately hiding from?

Great thinkers of every generation, both religious and non-religious, boast long and relatively happy lives with no evidence of lightning bolt barrages or the gaping maw of Hell opening beneath them. Surely, I say to the faithful, the ‘Maker’ must have permitted such inquiries and investigations to occur. If not, then perhaps the driver was asleep at the wheel during the greatest intellectual and religious revolutions our world has ever seen.

Needless to say, this is highly improbable if such a power exists. It is much more likely that healthy skepticism/exploration not only enriches one’s understanding of the complexities within humankind and its ‘Maker’, but is also a vital component in the overall relationship between the two. Therefore, should not the faithful be the most receptive to questioning and ‘spiritual journeying’? Alas, this is hardly the case.

For those of us whose voyages have already begun, the ocean beneath our fragile ships reveals its true colors as time wears on. Despite promises of adventure and opportunity beyond the horizon, the harsh reality sets in that we no longer stand upon terra firma. We discover that in the midst of serenity, unforgiving chaos and bitter loneliness prevail above all else.

Is illumination worth as much?

Thinking back to life on land, we reminisce about our families, friends, and neighbors…the comforts of home. Deep down we wonder if, when waving goodbye from the shoreline, they were actually shaking their heads at us all along. Perhaps they were, or maybe they trembled from a lack of confidence, a lack of audacity to set sail on their own. For the time being, we shall never know. It is much too late to turn back.

So we sail on into the enigmatic beyond. The infinite ocean is both our friend and nemesis, for in it we find our sanity and salvation, as well as the very worst of ourselves and the world we left behind. We love and hate our host, for the gift of freedom is in itself a curse. But in time, the curse may become a gift all its own. If we are so lucky as to survive, perhaps we shall be doubly blessed with two gifts, and not just one.

Much like the sailor who sets out on the open ocean, there is yet a certainty found amidst the wild waters.  No matter what direction he sails and regardless of distance, he is guaranteed the prospect of finding land once again. A great many men have died at sea, make no mistake, but given enough resources in patience and years, the wayward traveler will eventually make his way back to terra firma, if not his own home.

However, the journey will leave him a changed man wherever he lands. Along the way he has acquired scars, both internal and external, from the struggles he faced. Friends and family alike will sneer at the blemishes.  Many will seek his wisdom, but few will listen, even less will comprehend. He is forever a stranger in the most familiar of places. Such is the price that must be paid.

Upon this reflection, the individual must decide whether or not stepping into the boat is worth it at all. Does one sacrifice a life of acceptance, affection, and affirmation from those closest to him, for a chance to discover what it means to truly exist? Is it madness, or are both options equally as foolish?

I, myself, must answer with an emphatic yes. It is irresponsible to never leave the shoreline, choosing instead to live within one’s own inadequate boundaries, but it is equally as reckless to set off on the journey to begin with, relinquishing the abovementioned privileges of domesticity (acceptance, affection, affirmation). Thus, either option is reasonably viable for human existence.

But when the proverbial bell rings for you, the all-important question will be, will you die inside your whitewashed walls, or a voyager out at sea?

Between Two Worlds

As Brennan Manning so eloquently states in The Ragamuffin Gospel:

“When I get honest, I admit I am a bundle of paradoxes.  I believe and I doubt, I hope and I get discouraged, I love and I hate, I feel bad about feeling good, I feel guilty about not feeling guilty.  I am trusting and suspicious.  I am honest and I still play games. Aristotle said I am a rational animal; I say I am an angel with an incredible capacity for beer. To live by grace means to acknowledge my whole life’s story, the light side and the dark.”

The human race itself is undoubtedly a bundle of paradoxes and my own existence is certainly no exception. At one time, I fervently opposed the ‘heresies’ of liberalism, homosexuality, atheism, and science. Yet on this very day, I am before the world as a proponent of individual wealth redistribution, marriage equality, agnosticism, and evolution. Oh, how time can change even the hardest of hearts.

However, despite the confident opinions I hold on such issues, I continue to exist as a living paradox in which the narrative of my previous ‘self’ is at odds with my present reality. Many willingly attribute this dichotomy to a transcendent being drawing an individual back into its otherworldly clutches, but I am not of this persuasion.

On the one hand, I am convinced now more than ever of the potentiality for the non-existence of ‘god’. The possibility of a godless universe does not drive me to madness or empty what scant meaning I may have imposed upon my life thus far. Still, a remnant of belief cowers in the far recesses of my mind. No explanation would serve its purpose enough to explain this remaining fragment of religious superstition, or ‘faith’, but nevertheless, it is there.

Even so, my rational and research-based convictions refuse to allow me the privilege of regressing back into old prejudices and ideologies. Therefore, a new perspective must be established. As stated in a previous discourse, my unbelief is rooted not in hostility or rational antagonism, but in the very lack of personal necessity for believing in or contemplating a divine being. Numerous individuals conduct themselves in respectable or morally exceptional ways regardless of their belief in a higher power or an institutional religion.

Thus, I share a common bond with my Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist brothers in so far as our systems of belief (or non-belief) function for the betterment of all persons.  Problems arise only when one’s religious beliefs perpetuate oppression, prejudice, and bigotry, consequently differentiating themselves from the common bond of healing the world. If a system boasting the ideals of compassion, salvation, peace, and love, ultimately causes dissension, strife, conflict, and hatred, some aspect is functioning improperly. Such is my own personal grievance concerning religion, particularly in the Western hemisphere. Perhaps religion is a paradox in and of itself.

I find my paradox of ‘self’ to be most intriguing due to its equal ambivalence toward belief and non-belief. Neither end of the proverbial spectrum hinders whether or not I awake in the morning, for I am a creature of two worlds. In a sense, I stand liberated on both fronts: Free from disproving or despising ‘god’ as is the case for many ardent atheists and agnostics, as well as free from the evangelical chains binding oneself to ‘god’. I do not convert, yet I do not need converted.

From within this paradoxical autonomy, the individual becomes free to explore the fringes of his or her humanity, both religiously and existentially. Fear of eternal punishment no longer governs the boundaries of one’s study or belief, but ideas such as ‘god’ are not out of the question simply because the individual may not accept it as truth. In essence, one is at peace with the intellectual chaos that originates from academic skepticism.

Assuming it has not been obliterated or forced into silence, even as we skirt the edges of non-belief, the infinitesimal remnant of an earlier religious mythos calls to us from the abyss. It does not beckon us to return, nor does it deny us its consideration. On the contrary, it reassures the intellectual nomad that all is grace, both light and dark. The wanderer need not worry, for if the ‘god’ figure does exist, it is most assuredly a benevolent one (despite the negative publicity).

Life thus far is indeed a paradox.  I too, “believe and doubt”, among many other dualities of similar magnitude.  Perhaps grace is simply that we have all gotten this far.  Therefore, in the depths of my own non-belief, I remain confident that, should ‘god’ exist, grace is sufficient enough to cover the cost of a day’s travel across an entire sea of doubt.

On Belief: An Honest Reflection

Unlike the deep-seated hostility found within the works of Christopher Hitchens (e.g. God is Not Great), or the rational antagonism of Richard Dawkins (e.g. The God Delusion), my movement into relative non-belief was one of sheer utility. Simply put, I failed to locate necessary or even practical uses for an overly ‘transcendent’ faith. Better yet, perhaps I broke from my dependence on such things. Still, I would be remiss if I did not confess to a degree of hostility regarding institutionalized religious authorities. Such a position, however, was meticulously cultivated over years of personal experience in and around the so-called ‘Church’ of American Christendom and ‘Christian’ academics. Not every incident proved disappointing, but nevertheless, my aversion to institutionalized religion is sustained by a passionate apathy brought about by the aforementioned culmination of life experiences.

Preceding my academic journey through three and a half years of collegiate-level education, I lived a modest life in my hometown of Huntington, Indiana. As far as my religiosity was concerned, I held firmly to the importance of the Ten Commandments, regular church attendance, and refraining from swearing. Any minor infraction against the abovementioned convictions precipitated strong feelings of crippling guilt, followed by a nagging compulsion to pray away the sin through asking for ‘forgiveness’ again and again…and again…and again. Without fail, the deity whom I purportedly worshipped refused to clear my conscience of even the pettiest transgression.

Following a change of heart concerning my youth ministry ambitions at Anderson University, I turned up my nose at religious academia and sought (what I believed to be) a ‘tangible’ way in which to help those in need. By sophomore year, I had immersed myself into the psychology program, nearly completing the major in two and a half semesters. During the course of my studies, a class entitled ‘Personality Theory’ landed on my academic schedule. Much to my dismay, the course presented its participants with handfuls of philosophical writings from the world of psychology, as well as works by Freud and other prominent figures. Despite a lack of trust in philosophy of any kind, I soon found myself driven to explore more esoteric works within similar fields. In a matter of months, I was well acquainted with the general ideas and writings of:

• Jacques Lacan
• Jacques Derrida
• Sigmund Freud
• John Locke
• Jean-Paul Sartre
• Plato
• Aristotle
• C.G. Jung
• Immanuel Kant

The list could have grown even more had time allowed. Even so, it goes without saying that my inquisitive nature was aflame once again.

As with every inquisitive being, though, there comes a marked degree of skepticism and cynicism in his or her wake. For a time, my curiosity and questioning stayed within the boundaries of my previously limited religious beliefs. However, one’s mind can only be a prisoner to itself for so long. Controversial religious authors, ranging from Origen to Brennan Manning to Rob Bell, began to fill my reading list. Once heretical ideas, like universal salvation and Unitarian Universalism, became plausible realities to my ever-expanding outlook.

But not even the limitless concept of universal ‘Christian’ salvation could satiate the unfathomable schism between my head and my heart. The liberal-glossed knowledge I had gained failed to reconcile itself to the (seemingly) innate sense of there being more to the proverbial story. Something, somewhere, was bigger than even religion or belief itself. Perhaps that something was ‘god’, and perhaps it was not. Either way, my existence continued.

Through exploration (not necessarily experimentation) in Buddhist, Hindu, and various other philosophies, I reached the crucial conclusion that the entire universe did indeed share a common bond.  One summer evening, my younger sister gathered a glass jar full of lightning bugs, as children are known to do. When the call came for my siblings to come inside and go to bed, I slowly released the luminescent insects onto my arm and the picnic table upon which I sat. As I meditated through controlled breathing in the warm summer air, the cluster of fireflies pulsed with a simultaneous glow that matched my inhale/exhale rhythm. That moment, more than anything else, convinced me of the oneness and unity found within creation.

Logically, if this sameness permeated one’s rhythm and connection with a meager firefly, how much greater must one person’s connection be to another. This progression, in effect, is what paved the way for my movement toward the fringes of secular humanism. It was not until my final semester of undergraduate studies that my total exodus occurred.

In the midst of courses exploring the ethics of Christianity, theological lessons found in holy writ, and so on, I became horrifyingly aware of the dichotomy between the abstract concepts being discussed and the practical application of the methods or ideas contained therein. While displaying favoritism toward uncovering the origins of knowledge or delineating the source(s) of ethical behavior, the ‘Christian’ academia of my undergraduate career sat idly by as hungry men and women begged for change on the Anderson city streets. While consuming days upon days of students’ lives with the ancient doctrines of oppressive old men, the voices of the sick and dying cried out even louder.

I could justify the accumulation of academic knowledge about a supposedly benevolent god, a justice-based society, and a loving church, no longer. Not while lives fell to pieces as churches, scholars, and clergymen watched from the refuge of stained-glass windows. If the world was connected, as I sensed that summer night, then this was not as it should be.

Too many hours, too many days, and too many words were spent on the contemplation of the nature of ‘god’. For every hour endured in a classroom, another child became the victim of a relentless bully. For every day wasted in worry, another person went hungry. For every word written, another family lost a home to foreclosure or abject poverty. Even before my departure from ‘traditional’ Christianity, I felt that such individuals were meant to be world-changers. If that were so, where was the change?

Simple, it wasn’t there. It was elsewhere, far beyond the confines of a classroom or even a college campus. It was elsewhere, with people who rarely perpetuated a conversation about ‘god’ over against serving meals a homeless man or woman. It was elsewhere, with people who lent their hands in assistance before quoting bible verses from memory. And what’s more, the action itself (feeding, clothing, helping) still transpired regardless of whether or not the passive (prayer, god-talk, bible verses) was present at all.

Within this context, where action takes precedence over passivity, the very thing that flourishes the most is neither a religion nor a savior…it is humanity. An entire species united through a common effort to lovingly relieve the heartbreaking burdens so many carry on a daily basis. An entire species united by the common belief that such burdens can be (and are worthy of being) alleviated.  And that is very good.

Thought Experiment: The 21st Century Robin Hood

For the sake of interaction with my readers, I would like to propose a “thought experiment” to stimulate discussion. My own opinion on the topic at hand will not be revealed within the post’s content. So, read on and let the conversation begin.

The 21st Century Robin Hood

Several years into the United States’ economic fallback, movements such as Occupy Wall Street have expanded into global calls for financial reform. Not only that, but such movements and initiatives are notoriously raising awareness about issues like home foreclosure, corporately-owned politics, and so on. One would need to be willingly uninformed or simply ignorant not to know the financial hardships plaguing the “average” American citizen in these difficult economic times.

Likewise, in a world powered by technology, “identity theft” is rapidly becoming a term nearly as common as “The 99%”. One’s social and financial identity is no longer safe as a mere series of nine varying numbers, or tucked away in the confines of a bank lockbox.

That said, “Hank” is a remarkably talented computer hacker who has successfully cracked numerous bank accounts utilizing his technological prowess. To this day, Hank’s collection of “identities” ranges from 5-10 different middle-class individuals. However, inspired by news coverage regarding the OWS movement, as well as his elderly neighbor’s pending eviction, Hank has never spent a dime of the money he burglarized from his targets. For quite some time, actually, the money has been gaining interest in a secure, untraceable bank account. Today, the funds total almost $1,000,000.

Instead of turning himself in, Hank withdraws every cent from his bank account and distributes the funds in small amounts to those desperately in need throughout his community. Because of his generosity, his elderly neighbor and almost six other families will be able to keep their homes (along with groceries, etc.), rather than living on the street or in their vehicles. From that day on, Hank vows to never steal another identity and keeps his promise until the day he dies.

——–

Based on the given situation, did this modern-day “Robin Hood” behave in a manner that would be deemed ethical, despite the initial thievery that accumulated funds in the first place?

Robin Hood is often painted as a heroic figure, providing for the poor and needy by swiping the excess of the rich. While such behavior may indeed be noble on the surface, does the fabled hero violate an ethical boundary that should never be crossed? Or is Robin Hood’s suspension of the ethical for a presumably higher cause justified by the ends to which he uses his means (money)?

Would the answer be different if “Hank” stole the identities from upper-class individuals as opposed to middle-class?

Would the answer be different if “Hank” chose to donate the money to a charitable organization as opposed to giving direct aid for struggling families/individuals?

Does the number of families aided by “Hank’s” donations impact whether or not his behavior was ethical in the first place?

And if “Hank” continued his pattern of thievery and benevolence, rather than vowing never to steal again, would the answer be any different?

Tithes and Taxes: A Reflection in Defense of Universal Healthcare

Every Sunday throughout the United States, thousands of Americans flock to church for worship services. Accompanying said worship services is typically a time period designated to the collection of tithes and offerings, which consequently prompts churchgoers to place a check with a pre-determined 10% of their weekly income into the shiny, brass offering plate. Aside from paying the pastor and youth leader’s salaries, tithes and offerings usually go toward church upkeep, utility expenses, etc., as well as the ‘benevolence’ fund. As the worship service concludes, families file out of the church doors and into their minivans, trucks, cars, and SUVs.  Another week has begun.

With the exception of this one ritualistic donation, many churchgoing individuals will refuse to benevolently part with a single cent during the remainder of their week, even if the opportunity presented itself on a silver platter…or in the form of a homeless man asking for silver change. Outside of the church’s concrete, plaster, or wooden walls, individuals are allegedly capable of handling their own affairs without the help of some exterior force.  What’s more, the political candidates waving the “Christian” flag the highest in the 2012 political campaign unfortunately fall into the same demographic of nominalist, “Sunday Feel Good” churchgoers.

Numerous ‘Christians’ and ‘conservative’ politicians alike defend a literal translation of their sacred text, which includes sayings like:

-“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me” -Matthew 25:35

-“If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?” – James 2:15-16

-“John answered, ‘The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same” -Luke 3:11

…yet all the while, these individuals denounce the Affordable Care Act as a gateway drug to a socialist nation state and decry supporters of any reform with the poor and underprivileged in mind as ignorant followers of a mythical “Liberal Agenda”.

Suddenly, the “blue-collar work ethic” is seemingly at odds with the loosely developed ethics present in the New Testament many so fervently defend. A nation whose citizenry favors a strict “What’s mine is MINE!” ideology can only spiral further into degradation through rampant poverty, homelessness, sickness, hunger, etc. It cannot be denied that Jesus (and many who followed after) recognized this within his (their) own historical context, and if one disagrees, perhaps more extensive study of the Bible is needed.

The problem with America, and even its floundering economy, is not “Obamacare”, socialism, or bipartisan politics. No, the problem is each and every selfish citizen (Republican, Democrat, Christian, Atheist, Student, Professional, or otherwise) who sat on their ass while passively thinking the world will take care of itself. The same people who refuse to distribute their own individual ‘wealth’ in any way, shape, or form, no matter how small, have shaped our country into what it is today. Every fundraiser, food/clothing drive, or outstretched hand passed by is one more step in the progression toward a world where universal healthcare, welfare, medicare, etc. are vital to the entire well-being of a nation…and maybe to the species as a whole. We all made this mess.

In a technologically advanced society, where mobility is rarely an issue, the connectedness that once held people groups together has frayed at the ends. When resources were scarce, trading for goods along with honest providers composed the social structure of early America. Nowadays, the dollar allows a privileged individual to buy any resource their heart desires without any consideration of the larger group. For that very reason, few flourish while many drown in the waters of debt, poverty, and joblessness. Humans (presumably) no longer need other human beings to survive.

Such a notion could not be farther from the truth.

Even wild dogs survive in packs…

Instead of taking initiative to aid those without, resources are divided amongst ourselves in highly disproportionate ways. This is a fact.  Where a unified nation once stood together to overcome difficulties of various magnitudes, individual lives with shifting priorities remain strewn about. Therefore, rather than hoping trickle-down economics finally succeeds or praying that one’s 10% tithe is eventually used to practically and positively impact the world in which we live, perhaps it is a better use of taxpayers’ money if funds are allocated to help one’s (unemployed, laid-off, single-parent) neighbor with healthcare they may not receive otherwise. The choice of whether or not to care for those who need aid is hardly a decision of who deserves to live or die, though politicians and media critics will lead the unthinking majority to believe it is.

In truth, unless individuals finally accept responsibility, stand up, work together, and start contributing to the well-being of their neighbors (be it next door or the next state), the United States as a third-world petro-state will continue to look more and more like a plausible reality.

Deciding to provide care for any and all individuals is a human choice, not political or religious…and regrettably, to hate and oppose such a decision may be the most inhumane opinion a man (or woman) can hold. Jesus and other revolutionary individuals not once condemned someone who sought help due to a pre-existing condition, if so, nobody would have been healed and the history books would probably read a lot differently.

The message is clear: If you have the resources, it is your charge to help.

Tables in the Temple: Indignation and Anger Among Peaceful People

A vast majority of global religions possess a component exclusively dedicated to emphasizing the importance of a peaceful disposition in order to establish a benevolent and mutually beneficial world order. From Buddhism and Christianity to Jainism and Islam, peaceableness consumes the very essence of these religions’ founding figures and their respective teachings. Of course, the fundamentalist phenomenon reveals itself off and on throughout a religion’s lifespan, promoting a message that runs counterintuitive to the belief system’s traditional tenets, but by and large, the religious individual remains true to being peaceable.

However, one instance in the Christian faith arises that deserves more than a passing glance into the complexities of practicing peace. In all four canonical gospels, Jesus of Nazareth is portrayed as having used physical force to ‘cleanse’ the temple of moneychangers. Overturning the “den of thieves” (Mark 11:17), Jesus responds with what many call ‘righteous indignation’ to the corruption establishing itself in the temple. Nevertheless, such a display is undeniably atypical for the man who preached the turning of one’s cheek and the dusting off of one’s sandals. Perhaps this is due to a translation error or a scribe’s marginal comments on a manuscript (though unlikely). Even so, a vital message can be derived from this event regardless of its historicity.

Any individual intending to take seriously the peaceful message contained in the world’s religions (or a code of ethics) strives above all to be a ‘peacemaker’. From opposing unnecessary violence to conducting oneself in a relatively peaceable manner, the peacemaker does not blatantly support strife. But this begs the question of whether or not there is ever a viable exception to the practice of peace, though not necessarily in the sense that one regresses to violence as a means of obtaining peace (as many would assume or suggest). Based on the experience of Jesus in the temple, one witnesses a situation in which the garb of peace is cast off momentarily in an effort to achieve a higher purpose or end result. The phrase ‘righteous indignation’ is perhaps the best descriptor for such a phenomenon, as a key difference seems to exist between indignation and pure, unadulterated anger. To be indignant is to experience what is “perceived as unfair treatment” (Webster’s Dictionary) toward oneself or another, whereas unadulterated anger arises for any variety of reasons no matter how unwarranted.

In the example provided by the canonical gospels, unfair treatment exists in the form of transforming the temple into a marketplace, or disgracing the sanctity of a given place, practice, or people. For many peacemakers (and even those who are not) in today’s society, unfair treatment exists in the form of oppression or the dehumanization of certain persons, places, or things. As the temple itself was defiled by those who would cheapen its purpose, so too are many human beings similarly cheapened to political ideologies, objects, or the means to an (often financial) end. In a manner similar to Kierkegaard’s “teleological suspension of the ethical” for furthering the purpose of a given religious sphere, a suspension of peaceableness must be a conceivable possibility for peacemakers, even as one attempts to imitate the ethical construct and lifestyle presented by Jesus.

If the ‘body’ (whatever it may truly mean) is indeed a ‘temple’, should individuals who seek to be stewards of justice, service, compassion, [eventual] peace, and so on, sit idly by while presumably sacred human lives are cheapened by politics, economics, capitalism, or even religion itself?  The answer is, or should be, a resounding “No”.

Peaceful people, or those who strive to be, are not allotted the privilege of doing nothing if they truly seek to spread a gospel, a belief system, a philosophy, or an ideology. Instead, they must stand against the ‘unfair treatment’ imposed upon others by whoever and whatever the perpetrator may be.  As mentioned before, this does not imply a primitive regression toward violent behavior, but rather a certain degree of marked hostility that others may observe and deem as hypocritical of an aspiring peacemaker. Still, as regrettable as it may be, indignation is often a necessary step in the progression to standing up against horrible and intolerable instances of ignorance, oppression, hatred, etc.  It is a task that must be undertaken with extreme reservation, but also with the hope that, for all of the ills indignation (righteous, or otherwise) may precipitate, it may also bring with it a better future.

The Powerlessness of the People

A personal word is required before I begin:

Many individuals have severed ties with me in the past year for the seemingly outspoken and ‘rebellious’ nature of my writing and viewpoints. In my own defense, I must say that frankly I could not care less. History is made by the few who choose to take a stand against an otherwise insurmountable force of oppression. While I may not be at the nearest “Occupy” protest or detonating car bombs on behalf of my personal convictions, they are what they are and will be shown as such until the freedom of expression is forbidden. My writing is never a ploy for attention or the ramblings of a scorned adolescent. These issues are of vital importance to human beings all over the globe, be they religious, political, social, or what have you. I have simply made it my goal to expose the ‘other side of things’ for what it is worth…

A Wisconsin senator by the name of Glenn Grothman recently proposed a bill that would label single parent and gay parent(s) households as a cause of child abuse. Under such legislation, if it were to pass by some stroke of bad luck and ignorance, both types of household would face the potential loss of their child(ren) on the grounds of child abuse. This includes widowed spouses, divorced couples, gay individuals, and so on.

On a similar note, radio show host Rush Limbaugh recently came under fire for publicly insulting Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke. Despite a half-hearted ‘apology’, nearly forty sponsors removed financial/advertising support from Limbaugh’s program and multiple syndicates have dropped Limbaugh’s show altogether.

Both of these situations exemplify the overzealous bigotry and prejudice plaguing American society in the 21st century. However, a difference exists between the two instances, found largely in the complexities of the situations and their subsequent outcomes. Whereas Rush Limbaugh’s lambasting met a relatively abrupt end, losing credibility, sponsors, and money in the process, Grothman’s witch hunt for single and gay parent households may not conclude with such brevity. Fueled by his political standing as a senator, the issue at hand will likely receive more attention than it deserves, even if the legislation never sees the light of day.

The overarching problem with the Grothman’s of the world is the highly influential position politicians, lawmakers, officials, etc. occupy in this country. As previously mentioned by both myself and other commentators numerous times, rarely do these individuals truly represent the voice of their constituents. Instead, politicians operate based on a cocktail of fundamentalistic religious beliefs, campaign funders, and their checkbook balance. When the ‘decision-makers’ of our supposedly “great” nation no longer work for the ‘People’, but are employed by corporations, special interests, and a falsely-constructed set of biased values (if they can be called that), there is a major problem. The interests of systems that do not equally value human worth bleed into politics and the everyday lives of citizens. From genetically modified food corporations like Monsanto to the looming threat of an American attack on Iran, the voice of the ‘People’ is often stamped out due to groups and factors more powerful than the citizenry.  In essence, the ‘People’ become powerless.

Conversely, the ‘People’ do not avoid culpability either. In the wake of disproportionate power, perhaps the ‘People’ suffer from a case of learned helplessness. (I personally must confess to this phenomenon from time to time). Whether or not this is the case is of minimal importance. Examples are everywhere…Americans are, for the most part, silent. Like a flock of flighty sheep, U.S. citizens choose the ‘bread and butter’ lifestyle of reckless passivity and follow a path deprived of critical thinking, so much so that when true movements of radical social upheaval dawn on the horizon, very few know how to handle them. Take, for example, the Civil Rights Movement, American socialists and communist sympathizers in the 1950s, Vietnam war protests, LGBTQ rights, Occupy Wall Street, or any other social movement in the past 100-200 years. When true change is desired in any nation, the few stand against the many…and it is certainly a struggle. Imagine the possibilities if more than a few stood against those groups who would have them silenced.

America truly was built on this foundation. Revolutionary thinkers opposed to the ‘corporation’ of King George III’s United Kingdom. Perhaps it is time to re-evolve as a nation once again, to stand and reclaim control over the people in control who would persecute single parents, women, men, homosexuals, and maybe even those ‘pesky’ liberals.

There is a vital difference between the practices of caution and safety. Safety appears to suggest a degree of apathetic disconnection from true engagement. As a first world country, safety is often a principle highly instilled in younger generations through education, religion, and parental instruction.  For fear of loss, damnation, condemnation, harm, injury, death, etc., children (and even adults) are instructed to be ‘safe’ in all they do. All too often, safety also becomes paralleled with comfortability or contentment. In an effort to remain ‘safe’, individuals refrain from tossing their proverbial hat into the ring and choose to go about life in a state of ignorant bliss. On the other hand, caution implies a milder degree of safety without the added side effects of contentment and comfort. One does not engage in revolution and restoration, because he or she is content and comfortable with the way our world operates. An individual throws him or herself into the fray, because something about the way in which the world’s business is conducted is bothersome and disconcerting. This practice of cautionary engagement is what must be required of every concerned citizen if change and progress is to continue…not just for women, children, or homosexuals, but for all of us. Humanity.

The price of silence is, and always has been, too high.

Shadows of the Divine: Jungian Mythology and “God” in 21st Century Religion

Psychoanalyst Carl Jung extensively analyzes both the human psyche and various corresponding mythologies in his work, Man and His Symbols. Therein, he explores the intricate components of humanity’s psychological make-up, which includes (but is not limited to) the animus/anima, the archetype(s), and the ‘shadow’. The latter concept is defined as the portion of a human’s psyche where attributes, instincts, and character flaws/weaknesses foreign to the particular individual’s personality are housed. For instance, a self-evident introvert’s ‘shadow’ appears in dreams and unconscious processes as a confident, powerful extrovert…and so on and so forth.

In a sense, the idea of the Jungian ‘shadow’ extends far beyond the reaches of one’s dream mythology or the aforementioned unconscious processes in which it is commonly found. Within the social circles of highly conservative politics and religion (not necessarily the moderate-minded), the ideation of “God” has established itself as a tertiary manifestation of the Jungian ‘shadow’ in the human psyche alongside ‘shadows’ found in dreams and person mythologies. Academically speaking, the term “God” (“Allah”, “Yahweh”, etc.) alludes to the transcendent occurrences and realities in human existence that possess no rational explanation. It is the signifier of something larger than oneself, the reason and purpose for the meticulous organization of the world today.

However, the “God” concept has more or less become (or perhaps, already was) the ‘shadow’ for many religious conservatives.  In their day-to-day lives, certain individuals deny the existence of contempt for society’s “undesirables”, such as homosexuals or abortion-having women, shaking their heads at those who publicly advocate the death and damnation of such people (politicians, Westboro Baptist, etc.) on the grounds that judgment should be “left to God”. Yet on a deeper and more profound level, the shifting of supposed judgment and punishment onto the “God” concept serves a detrimental purpose to the individual’s psyche by repressing and displacing bigoted prejudices onto the Divine, a “being” that operates on a presumably higher plane of existence.  In turn, the individual believes and behaves in such a way that allows them to avoid confronting his or her own misguided prejudices, due to the fact that the deity whom they worship will allegedly “level the playing field” upon death. The disgust and fear-laden biases remain buried within the human psyche, providing the individual with a clear conscience, yet come Sunday morning worship services or Wednesday evening bible studies, such suspicions and preconceived notions are publicly affirmed.

As previously mentioned in an earlier writing (see “The Defamation of Social Stereotypes”), personal mythologies play a major role in human psychosocial development through childhood and beyond.  Whereas the dream-induced and unconscious mythological ‘shadows’ possess the capacity to display positive aspects of one’s hidden character, the Jungian ‘shadow’ of a hateful “God” concept fabricates a mythology that is detrimental both to the human person and to organized religion itself, consequently destroying the sociological function of religion (i.e. a general means of dealing with and explaining the issues of human experience) and favoring instead a construct of psychological repression, prejudice, and vague feelings of self-entitlement.

**FOR MORE WRITINGS ON THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MYTHOLOGY, SEE MY NEW BOOK FRAGMENTUM UNDER ‘BOOKS’ AT THE TOP OF MY BLOG**

We the People: The [Pending] War for America

Journalist Bill Moyers recently interviewed a social psychologist named Jonathan Haidt regarding the dichotomy between conservative and liberal mindsets in contemporary America. In Haidt’s own words, right-wing thinkers consider themselves to be defenders of a “Protestant work ethic”, which accordingly uses the Middle-Eastern notion of karma as it is found within Buddhism or Hinduism. Simply put, what goes around comes around–if an individual is poor, he or she evidently failed to work hard and live a moral existence…if one is rich, vice versa. When showing a clip from the Republican debate, Ron Paul is asked if someone who decides not to (or cannot) spend the money on healthcare should deserve to die…cheers and applauds roar a “YES!” over the crowd. On the other end of the spectrum, left-wing liberals are presumably “more likely to go with care” over a sense of consequential entitlement. Such is one of many culprits in the Democratic support of legislation like universal healthcare and the Republican opposition.

The bipartisan divide in 21st century America has reached staggering proportions, as per the usual, during this campaign season. From the cushioned seats of Congress to the armchair pedestals of family gatherings, politics can dominate popular conversation, especially concerning the taboo issues of abortion, taxes, war, and *oh dear god*, even GAY MARRIAGE.

Lovely table talk, indeed.

Even larger than this bipartisan war occurring between candidates and citizens, though, is the looming specter of an all-out war to reclaim what it means to “be” free, nay, what it means to be a human being. Perhaps this war will not be fought on the front lines of a foreign land, American soil, or even with weapons at all. Its roots are visible in nearly all facets of everyday life for this country’s inhabitants. Listening to the media’s coverage and well-crafted press releases, contemporary society chooses not to see that the framework of America is crumbling…no, not the moral fabric that liberal-hating, homophobic McCarthyists like Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney jabber on about…the very structure of what used to make this country worthwhile is circling the drain.

The time is coming where everyday citizens will have to stand to seize control over a life and existence that was once theirs.

Through fascist legislation pieces like SOPA and PIPA, the great keystone of “American” life (i.e. Freedom of Speech) was put under fire and threatened with extinction as far as technology and online publishing is concerned. Popular media outlets, such as Facebook and Twitter, sell out to government agencies and provide full access to the citizenry’s private lives/information under the guise of stamping out terrorism. It is a small wonder why ‘hacktivists’ like the supergroup Anonymous (or WikiLeaks for that matter) flourish across the globe. News outlets like FOX NEWS cover strictly biased stories, such as the lawsuit to prevent a massive crucifix to be erected at Ground Zero, then permitting hateful “Christian” comments on their (professional) Facebook page calling for the violent execution of the equal rights individuals responsible for the case. The Indiana state government approves the teaching of creationism in schools to counteract hostility toward a rational, scientific model. Accurate science in schools? Heaven forbid. Organic food advocates Whole Foods Market (WFM), Organic Valley, and Stonyfield, sell out to the USDA to allow the deregulation of genetically modified fodder and produce, not to mention the spraying of Round-Up pesticides. Helpful, person-oriented facilities like the national organization Planned Parenthood are brought to the chopping block and defunded by people-pleasing groups due to one controversial, yet legal, service offered. Users of birth control become the objects of religious demonization and its manufacturers, the Devil himself. The list literally goes on and on.

From food sources to free speech, the “haves” and lunatics of American politics and society (be they conservative or liberal) are striving to suppress the voices who represent the true American public. Millionaires who pay a pittance in tax dollars and Bible-thumping fanatics endeavor to constrain the liberties that the general public has apparently taken for granted too long. The hands of these money-hungry individuals controlling and making decisions for all of our lives must be smacked as a parent would smack a child’s grubby hands in the cookie jar, or else it will all too soon be too late.

If a homosexual couple wants to proudly wear a wedding band, declaring their individual personhood and love, good.
If a woman is a victim of rape, psychologically unable to handle the strain of an unwanted motherhood, and seeks an abortion, good.
If a family eats organic produce to promote healthy lives, good.
If someone does not wish to conceive a child at the time and takes contraceptives, good.

What America is bearing witness to in the 21st century is the dehumanization of humanity itself. When personal decisions and lifestyles are approved or denied within a limestone building brimming with old, worthless politicians bought and paid for by corporate money, humanity is no longer human. Whether a person is religious or not, the freedom of the individual’s choice is inherently the very essence of what it means to exist as a human being and not another more primitive creature. When such a freedom is revoked and transmogrified into a sociopolitical issue pertaining to the maintenance of a status quo, people no longer control their own lives, becoming instead a game-piece in the inexhaustible board game of first world politics.

Stand. Rise. We ARE the people.

The Defamation of Social Stereotypes

American media and advertising outlets receive a sizable amount of criticism based on the sexual content often found, whether intentionally or through subtle innuendo, within their marketing content.  Admittedly, the human body’s public exploitation is an over-emphasized aspect of the human experience, done all too frequently in a tasteless and trashy manner.  However, when granted a position in the upper echelons of 21st century social criticism, sexuality ultimately manifests itself as a moral and religious ‘evil’ or becomes the direct opposite, catapulting sex into the limelight on a pedestal of conscious fixation.  Lurking in the shadows of hyper-sexuality in American culture and media is a threat altogether more dangerous to 21st century society than images better-suited for an adolescent’s suggestive daydream. Simply put, this threat is nothing less than the deceptive images of stagnation and social stereotypes that have served as advertising fodder since the dawn of the ‘nuclear’ family in America.

Plenty can be said in favor of the feminist argument concerning the portrayal of females in a culture (and era) claiming to be progressive (e.g. the doting housewife who cooks and cleans, never leaving the comforts of her domicile and always pleasing her patronizing husband). Religious leaders like the infamous Mark Driscoll would be more than happy to further this oppressive stereotype, as evidenced in his new book on marriage. That said, the stereotyping no longer stops with the fairer sex. Social classes and the male gender also undergo a demeaning process of social typecasting in modern-day media.

Whereas the portrait of America was once a vast image of progression and forward movement, sickening amounts of poverty, unemployment, and homelessness have shown recent generations otherwise. The fleeting notion that anybody possesses the ability to “pull themselves up by their own bootstraps” is an undeniably false and fanciful idea that belongs within a utopian work of literature. Certain individuals will live and die on the streets…a horrible and vivid truth all must come to realize. However, the stereotype most devastating to the American mindset is that of the ‘immovable’ socioeconomic spectrum. In popular television shows, such as The Middle and many others, the typical ‘American’ family is merely a victim of their economic circumstances, unable to move beyond mediocrity and into a more fulfilling life. Both parents flounder about in mediocre jobs, trying to make ends meet in order to pay for a mediocre car and a mediocre home in a mediocre town. Millions of viewers tune in each week to witness a family unit as lively as a fish flopping on the docks with a hook in its gills.

The stereotypical “American” Dream is certainly not an achievable reality for all individuals, as many who read this will testify to from first-hand experience. The danger of such a hopeless portrayal of social class, though, lies in the fact that modern-day media (television, advertisements, etc.) often becomes the only living mythology the American public has the capacity to integrate into their own lives. When socioeconomic stagnation prevails as the reigning standard for a select population, apathy or defeatism becomes the virtue and mythology by which the individual and his/her society operates.

Likewise, when fathers and husbands publicly become the equivalent of intellectual brick walls, as well as the asses of various familial jokes, standards for impressionable (and not so impressionable) young men will develop accordingly. Of course, the same goes for the impact of intellectually inferior female characters.  In a world of postmodernity, personality types, as well as social and gender roles, mimic the relativity of this intellectual movement itself. The dolt of a father who incessantly fails to locate whatever waits “behind the milk” or the foot-servant wife who pants like a dog when “hubby” comes through the door are no longer edifying or accurate archetypes that should be presented to the coming generations.

21st century America relishes in the self-conception of being a progressive and free-thinking society (for the most part), yet pushes the same tired and stereotypical portrayals of ‘average’ life through the tubes of televisions, computers, and billboards.  Be it a family hopelessly trapped by their social status, a rail-thin wife Swiffer-ing her kitchen, or another forgetful father on a primetime sitcom, such archetypes are invariably harmful for the future of a nation already wallowing in emotional ignorance, financial despair, and societal disparity. Every American family will never be drowning in a deluge of wealth and every married couple will never be perfect, but without a compendium of forward thinking, more progressive archetypes and mythologies, future generations of young Americans will be left with a hulking corpse of moribund, cookie-cutter stereotypes upon which to build the foundations of their own society.