Addicted to Religion

I just want to preface this by saying that I’m not a psychologist or psychiatrist. I haven’t even taken the “standard” college psych class. I’m just writing from my observations and experiences. So, on with the show…

I have this theory that everyone is addicted to something. Alcohol and drugs are the common ideas that pop into people’s minds because those are addictions that cause chemical dependency, but there are many more addictions and they’re only driven by one chemical: dopamine. Gambling, shopping, BASE jumping, sex, food, hell, even politics (c’mon, you know you’ve gotten a “rush” from a heated debate and totally trouncing your freeper cousin). We’re all after that feeling of total awesomeness. It’s not that our compulsive society drives these addictions, but that our need for satisfaction drives the compulsive society.

Addictions can be treated, but the need for that next rush never goes away. my observation is that people “trade” one addiction for the next. I have a family member that is a gambler. After attending Gamblers Anonymous, he gained about 60lbs. He loves food. Well, he loves eating. It’s that rush. It makes him feel good. I’m sure everyone knows someone who has traded one addiction for another (maybe it’s you); food for exercise, gambling for shopping, alcohol for God. Yea, I said it. People don’t stop being addicted, they just focus their addiction on something else.

How many people do you know that found God after battling an addiction or rough spot? I know a lot. After all, most born-agains have the “My life was crazy until I found God” story. And, it’s not just Christian God. We all know people who have converted to another religion and became fanatics. Well, I’d like to replace the word “fanatic” with “addict.” I believe that the religious fanaticism in this country is not about God at all, but about addiction.

Think about it. Is there another explanation for religious fanatics? They’re addicted to feeling righteous, to feeling superior. But, beyond that, they display all the signs of addiction. Here are some general signs of drug use from the Mayo Clinic:

• Feeling that you need the drug regularly and, in some cases, many times a day
• Making certain that you maintain a supply of the drug
• Feeling that you need the drug to deal with your problems
• Driving or doing other activities that place you and others at risk of physical harm when you're under the influence of the drug

And my personal favorite (from the Hallucinogens section):

• Greatly impaired perception of reality

Interestingly, neglect and abuse were not listed, but from my own experiences with addicts, these are classic symptoms.

Religion can absolutely be substituted for drug in many of these cases: daily church attendance, not being able to go without church, feeling that only God can handle your problems, denying medical care to people because of religion. The impared perception of reality speaks for itself. We can plainly see that religious fanatics are not operating in the same dimension as the rest of the world. These are signs of addiction. I went to college with a girl who became “born again” and she used to pray that God would give her ideas for her assignments. She’d waste hours waiting for signs instead of just writing the paper. I thought she was just crazy, when in reality, she was an addict.

Maybe it’s too controversial to suggest that people can be addicted to religion, but I’m pretty sure that if scientific studies were conducted on the dopamine levels of religious fanatics, they would bear strikingly similar results to those of recognized addicts. Religious addiction is damaging our society, our Constitution, and it, more than anything else, drives a wedge between us and keeps us from moving forward as a people.

Enough! This Election Is NOT About Obama

Is America regressing? Seriously. What is going on with this election?

In our personal lives we change jobs, dump boyfriends and return products when they don’t live up to our expectations. Why don’t we do the same when it comes to our politics?

This election is not about Barack Obama. It is about whether or not we as Americans want to turn our backs on the failures of the past eight years and make positive progress towards a better future. It’s about reining in the corporate interests that have poisoned our economy and restoring trust in America both at home and abroad.

The past eight years have been fraught with lies, destruction, and greed. Like a cheating spouse that begs for forgiveness yet again, John McCain pleads with the American people that he is the agent of change. McCain holds Sarah Palin aloft as evidence that he is different now, different than “those” Republicans. He swears it won’t happen again because he’s learned his lesson. No matter that, since his crushing defeat at the hands of Karl Rove in 2000, his voting record shows that he votes with Bush Administration more than a majority of the time (when he manages to show up). And make no mistake, Sarah Palin isn’t a pitbull in lipstick, she’s Dick Cheney in drag…and probably a better shot.

John McCain may not think you’re stupid (that’s the purview of Karl Rove and Steve Schmidt), but he thinks you’re forgiving. He thinks that if he pleads long enough and hard enough, you’ll forgive his transgressions and give him and his friends (because, let’s be honest, John McCain is bought and paid for) just four more years. Of course, John McCain’s friends also think that your suffering is part of a mental recession and that because Americans can go to an emergency room, there's no such thing as an uninsured American.

Reality provides a different look at the situation for Americans. McCain knows this so he wants to shift the debate (and thanks to our spineless media, he’s been able to). He doesn’t want this election to be about the issues or the problems that Americans are facing. He doesn’t want to talk about the economy or the war in Iraq (the Surge is ok though); he doesn’t want to talk about renewable energy or the soaring deficit. Because he knows he will lose if Americans demand an explanation for the last eight years. He knows he will lose when people ask him “How will you help us?” and he has no answer. No, John McCain wants to make this election about Barack Obama. Just look at his ads. Doesn't look like the "respectful campaign" he promised, does it? A majority of McCain’s ads focus on Obama because McCain is attempting to force the debate away from the real issues of this election. The fact that these ads are largely based on falsehoods is lost on most Americans (thanks again, “journalists”).

Now, conservatives will point to the fact that Democrats have been in control of Congress since January 2007 and, by that simple fact, it means that they are somehow responsible for our current situation. But, until one of those yammering heads can point to what legislation, exactly, the Democrats have passed that would have caused this, their argument is moot. Unfortunately, the Dems in Congress have capitulated on every issue. They haven’t forced an end to the war in Iraq, they haven’t repealed the Bush tax cuts or ended oil subsidies, they caved on FISA. And they took impeachment off the table, right up front.

Now, in the rare instance where Congress manages to pass meaningful legislation that would actually help Americans, such as Children’s Health Insurance or enforcing the Eighth Amendment by banning torture or improving the Medicare system, Bush goes and vetoes it. So, next time your child has to go without medical care or you hear of Americans being tortured as retaliation for the torture at Guantanamo, don’t look at this Congress. Cast your disapproving eye to the Republicans who refuse to actually help Americans.

So, in the words of Barack Obama: Enough!

Enough with this fake-outrage BS. Enough with the circus and non-issues. I don’t care who is wearing lipstick or which side can feign outrage faster. This has crossed the line from tedious to ridiculous. This election is not about Barack Obama. It’s about the crises that have been created in the last eight years and what we are going to do to reverse the damage. If you think the Constitution can stand one more pass through the shredder, then go ahead and vote for the old guy who keeps changing his positions and his fundamentalist sidekick. I, personally, like the First Amendment and want to keep it around. After these last eight years, I’m going with the Constitutional Law professor and the Senator with the history of real progress.


(This pretty much sums it up)

McCain the Next 'Honest Abe'? Highly Doubtful.

John McCain claims that he is a proud to be a Republican in the tradition of “Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.” Knowing what I do about Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan, I am more than skeptical of McCain’s claim (except for the Reagan part). And, knowing what I do about McCain’s general level of knowledge (low), I am assuming that if someone were to ask him to compare himself to Lincoln and Roosevelt, he would have no clue where to start. And, just a note for his speech writers: before you write something for your candidate, make sure he can back it up when you’re not there.

Since this is kind of long, I’m going to have to do it in two parts. I’ve decided to leave Reagan out because we can all remember his policies, and Reagan was no Lincoln or Roosevelt either. I’ve highlighted some governing philosophies of Lincoln, and we’ll see if McCain is following his “tradition.”

It’s important to note that Lincoln was a Washington outsider. Lincoln spent only two years in the House of Representatives and took a ten year hiatus before he ran for President. Lincoln also had no military experience. Abraham Lincoln highlights:

• In 1846, he spoke out against the Mexican-American, which he attributed to President Polk's desire for "military glory."
• Lincoln did not support war for personal gain or presidential legacy. McCain has solidly supported Bush’s war and delusions of military glory.



• After declaring "God of Heaven has forgotten to defend the weak and innocent, and permitted the strong band of murderers and demons from hell to kill men, women, and children, and lay waste and pillage the land of the just," Lincoln became a political liability and chose not to run for re-election.
• Lincoln spoke out against injustice, regardless of the consequences. McCain used to speak out, but now he only says what the party tells him to say.



• However, in 1854, Lincoln returned to politics in response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which expressly repealed the limits on slavery's extent as determined by the Missouri Compromise.
• Lincoln was involved in politics to promote justice and the ideas of the founders, not for personal gain. McCain does not support equal rights for all Americans.



• Lincoln is well known for ending slavery in the United States. In 1861 – 1862, however, he made it clear that the North was fighting the war to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery. Freeing the slaves became, in late 1862, a war measure to weaken the rebellion by destroying the economic base of its leadership class.
• When Lincoln had to fight a war, he had sound principles. He did not fight war based on personal feelings or philosophy. Again, McCain supports endless crusades based on the mistaken ideas of a few.



• In 1863, when Lincoln saw support for his war wavering, and people were disturbed by the draft, he knew he had to make a statement to win back the people. Hence, his decision to go to Gettysburg and urge the Union to highly resolve that the dead there "shall not have died in vain" was Lincoln's way of saying that if the Copperhead peace democrats get their way, then the men who there gave the "last full measure of devotion" will have done so for no reason at all. In the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln was proposing this question: what would these men who died for this cause want us to do--quit now or finish the job? How the country answered this question would determine the 1864 election.
• Public support in a time of war is always hard to maintain in the face of high casualties. And, we’ve heard Bush say that the soldiers who’ve died in Iraq will not die in vain. And that giving into calls for peace would make the whole effort in vain. So what’s the difference? Well, for starters, Lincoln was fighting a war to protect the integrity of American, and it had a clear definition of success: The southern states return to the United States of America. In Bush’s war and with McCain’s support, the Global War on Terrorism has become a quagmire with no clear goals or definition of success. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so all those that have died have died in vain because Bush and McCain have chosen not to pursue the real terrorists who harmed America.



• Even before the war ended, Lincoln was actively pursuing a reconstruction strategy. Determined to find a course that would reunite the nation and not alienate the South, Lincoln urged that speedy elections under generous terms be held throughout the war in areas behind Union lines. His Amnesty Proclamation of December 8, 1863, offered pardons to those who had not held a Confederate civil office, had not mistreated Union prisoners, and would sign an oath of allegiance.
• Lincoln understands that a solid strategy needs to be in place if the region is going to rebuild. He did not tear down the system of government and replace it with partisans. He allowed the people to continue to govern themselves. McCain has supported the complete destruction of Iraq and the installation of Bush partisans, which has not helped the reconstruction effort.



• Besides the war, Lincoln took a hands-off approach to legislation, where he allowed Congress to write the legislation and he vetoed only those bills that threatened his war powers. Thus, he signed the Homestead Act in 1862, making millions of acres of government-held land in the West available for purchase at very low cost. The Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act, also signed in 1862, provided government grants for agricultural universities in each state. The Pacific Railway Acts of 1862 and 1864 granted federal support for the construction of the United States' First Transcontinental Railroad, which was completed in 1869. Other important legislation involved economic matters, including the first income tax and higher tariffs. Also included was the creation of the system of national banks by the National Banking Acts of 1863, 1864, and 1865, which allowed the creation of a strong national financial system. Congress created and Lincoln approved the Department of Agriculture in 1862, although that institution would not become a Cabinet-level department until 1889.
• In his legislation, Lincoln showed that he supported a strong government. He supported the first income tax and higher tariffs. I don’t know if McCain could be more of a polar opposite on this issue. Lincoln also supported government grants for education, and large federal projects for infrastructure. McCain, like Bush, supports only private, for-profit industry. Additionally, Lincoln supported a growing federal government, but supported by the higher taxes and tariffs. This is where I believe McCain is more like Reagan; he says he supports small government, so he reduces taxes, but continues to expand the federal government without the necessary funds. Lastly, Lincoln did not meddle in legislative affairs or veto based on his personal beliefs. McCain has promised more Bush leadership: Approve only what he personally believes in, make no compromises or attempts to see an issue from the majority’s point of view. From what McCain has promised, he could not be more opposed to Lincoln’s governing style.



• Lincoln largely relied on the Calvinistic "doctrine of necessity" and not organized religion to guide his beliefs. Lincoln’s religious skepticism was fueled by his exposure to the ideas of the Lockean Enlightenment and classical liberalism, especially economic liberalism. Consistent with the common practice of the Whig party, Lincoln would often use the Declaration of Independence as the philosophical and moral expression of these two philosophies.
• This may be the most important point because it talks to governing and leadership style. Lately, the Republicans have come to be dominated by the Christian Fundamentalists, but this was not what the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln intended. Lincoln based his beliefs on Enlightenment-era philosophies, not religion. The Declaration of Independence was his guiding document. Lincoln believed that America’s destiny was to be shaped by the principles of its founding, not by the Bible. McCain has promised to turn this nation over to the Christian Extremists, which is not something Lincoln would ever do.
  
  
  From these ideas, I can only conclude that Lincoln was a man of great principle. He believed in truth, justice, and enlightenment. When he had to fight, he did it judiciously, and based in solid principle. When he led America, he thought about what was best for the nation, not just for his supporters. Lincoln guided this nation through a time of great turmoil, and while he was not perfect, he was thoughtful. McCain promises to be none of these. McCain is a war monger who will continue the harmful, un-Constitutional policies of President Bush and the Christian extremists. If any candidate in this race is like Abraham Lincoln, it is Barack Obama, which these highlights make very clear. McCain should be ashamed for trying to degrade the memory of a good president for his own political gain!
  
  Coming soon: Is McCain a Roosevelt “Rough Rider?”

Republicans Are the REAL Terrorists

Everybody prepare to run to the hills! If Obama wins the nomination, the terrorists will certainly celebrate in the streets by slaughtering thousands!

Please, this is such a line of crap that the GOP has managed to sell. And truly, they are the ones who are terrorizing the world (feigned shock). They have engaged in an illegal war on false pretenses. They’ve caused the death of hundred of thousands of Iraqi civilians, millions of refugees, and they knowingly send young Americans to die a horrific death in a foreign land. They have turned an admittedly suppressed nation into a battle ground between god knows how many players. They demand that other people conform to their idea of democracy while they desecrate the democracy of their own country. They spread lies about their opposition and attempt to stifle any free speech and debate.

The thing that makes the least sense in the whole Republican fear mongering machine is that they equate liberals to terrorists. Now, the Islamic extremists that Bush is fighting are religious CONSERVATIVES! They’re conservative! They’re religious nut-bags like Hucakbee, Buchanan, Falwell, Haggard, etc. There is no liberal Islamic terrorist wing! So, for Republicans to imply that liberalism is a threat to world peace takes a complete suspension of reality and facts. But, apparently, they’re very good at that.

The terrorists would be more apprehensive of a Democratic administration because they know that the Democrats are interested in catching the actual terrorists, like Osama bin Laden, who is still roaming free somewhere between Afghanistan and Pakistan. They know that the moderate Muslims would have a backing in the formation of a new government in Iraq. They know that they will receive welfare from Bush. That forming a new government would actually be up to them and that the US won’t back their civil war. Bush continues to egg them on by being obstinate, pugnacious, and wrong.

Now, McCain, Rove and the rest of the neo-conservatives would be right about one thing. Terrorists would celebrate the end of the fake justice of the military tribunals, Guantanamo, and the secret CIA prisons. Of course, so would most of America and the rest of the civilized world. So, between a return to justice and an end to the hostilities in Iraq, the terrorists would be back to fighting themselves instead of America.

Bush has single-handedly done more to create terrorists and breed hostilities towards Americans than any Islamic extremist could have ever hoped to do. Aside from the lies that got us into Iraq (and that’s a big aside), look at how poorly he continues to handle Afghanistan. The training ground of and host to the planners and perpetrators of 9/11 has largely been ignored. And, surprise, the Taliban are resurgent. But, for some reason, that’s NATO’s problem? I’m not following that logic. And then there’s his bellicose rhetoric on Iran. Even after the NIE determined Iran had stopped enriching uranium years ago, he and his cronies continue to push the idea that Iran is developing weapons to destroy humanity (I suppose Bush thinks that’s his domain, so he’s offended by anyone else who might want to do that). They say, “may be,” when they should really say “probably not” and “we have no evidence of.”

And now we have McCain, who used to be semi-independent. But, he continues to sell the lies that were manufactured by the neo-cons. He continues to champion Republican terrorism, and will continue to make America a target for future terrorist attacks. The best policy for America is one where we help the world, not destroy it.

Jesus Was A Democrat

Jesus was a Democrat. That’s the secret that the Religious Right doesn’t want you to know. Jesus preached fairness, tolerance, peace and responsibility, all of which are Democratic principles. Republicans have continuously acted in the name of war, greed, fear and hatred, none of which are supported by the teachings of Jesus.

Here are some of the tenants of the Democratic Party: An honest, open and accountable government, fair trade and corporate responsibility, government responsibility to all its citizens, separation of church and state, and equal opportunity and equal justice for all. Democrats believe that the government exists for the benefit of all and that the government should adopt policies that enable all people to succeed. Democrats also believe that war should be used as a last resort, and only to protect America.

So what does the Bible teach us about these principles?

Honest, open and accountable government: Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops. (Luke 12:2-3)

Fair trade and corporate responsibility: Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. ... For where you treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Matt. 6: 19, 21) 

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (Matt. 6:24) 


Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth. (Luke 12:15).

Government aid to all: I was hungred and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in. Naked and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.... Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matt. 25:35-40)
If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. (Matt. 19:21).

Separation of church and state: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. (Matt. 22-21).

Equal opportunity and justice: Ye have heard that it hath it said, thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you. (Matt. 5: 43-44);
Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. (Matt. 5:7).

War: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Matt. 5:9).

So, how can the right be religious? One idea is that the leaders of the right focus on personal behavior instead of social behaviors, sin versus injustice. Of course, when you look at the personal behavior of Republicans, sins abound. Extortion, money laundering, drugs and sex are all scandals that have tainted Republican leaders (check out Republican Sex Offenders for continuously updated examples). A better argument is that the conservative leaders know that they can mobilize the “single issue” voters. The GOP rails against progressive positions on gay rights, gun rights, and abortion in order to attract Christian fundamentalists. They manipulate the teachings of Jesus for the sole purpose gaining votes.

What I don’t understand is how people could be so willing to ignore the book that they live by. I don’t see how people can cast aside the very phrases that they use to shape their existence. And I certainly can’t excuse the fact that they are willing to forgive those leaders who claim to live by the Bible but are then caught doing just the opposite.

Maybe we should challenge the leaders of the religious right to live by the teachings of Jesus. We should challenge them to tolerate, help and pay their taxes. I’ll tell you one thing, if this country were run by the teachings of Jesus, it would be a very liberal nation.

So, I’ll leave you with one last teaching, and maybe it is the one that the religious right should be most concerned about:

Hypocrisy: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith, these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. 

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.... 

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ... ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matt. 23: 23-28).

Jesus Take The Wheel? Not On This Crazy Train...

Now, don't get me wrong. I am supportive of religions and of people practicing their religion of choice. But, to me, religion is personal and should remain so. I fully believe in separation of Church and State, and I am more than put off when people suggest it should be otherwise.

The other day, I happened to drive by this "mobile billboard," so I stopped to take some pictures. 

What do you think? Is this going too far?

So, is this supposed to mean that marriage is more important than the 10 Commandments or was the guy just too lazy to take down one sign before putting up the other? I guess I could call the number on the back of the truck to find out.

"Truth not tolerance." Catchy, but I don't that that was Jesus' message. This is a very disturbing set of ideas, and the more I look at this, the more sickened I become. 

For someone who is supposedly against same sex partnerships, that's an awful big picture of two men kissing. Do you suppose he took that picture himself or just surfed the internet until he found a suitable image?

Good quote. I guess he hasn't heard this one: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." First Amendment, Constitution of the United States of America.

Wait, what is that on the windshield?

Oh, it's a parking ticket! Hahaha, guess you can't park that "trailer of trash" on a bridge overlooking the freeway. Hold on. Is that a video camera? Am I being recorded as I laugh and take pictures? I must be! And that man cowering in the back seat must be the owner of this monstrosity. And he's too spineless to come out and take ownership of his offensive ideas. Sickening. 

In case you were ever wondering why people think the Religious Right is crazy, this is a prime example.