This morning, at the commencement at Southeastern Oklahoma State University, the keynote speaker was Mr. Jerry Buchanan, a prominent Republican from Tulsa. During his speech, he made reference to “Obama bin Laden.” He then made a perfunctory apology, but due to his gestures (including a grin and putting his thumb to his mouth) I inferred that the apology was not sincere.
Events such as this make me wonder if Republicans consider Democrats to not be fellow Americans but to be outsiders, even enemies. Throughout human history, our species has drawn lines between insiders, whom we treat with altruism, and outsiders, whom we despise. We have steadily encompassed more and more people, and even other species and the Earth, into the “insider” group. But in Oklahoma it appears that this process is reversing. It hasn’t always been this way. Back when Republicans hated Bill Clinton, they never implied that he was a terrorist, or in other ways spewed the hatred that they now spew toward President Obama. Whether this is because the Republican Party has changed from being the party of right wing activism to being the party of personal animosity toward others, or whether it is because Obama is (part) black and Clinton is white, I cannot say.
And this is exactly what we would expect from the way the “Republican brain” works. This phrase is in the title of Chris Mooney’s new book. Mooney (author of such previous works as The Republican War on Science and Unscientific America) uses recent research into psychology to say that people whose brains have an intolerance of ambiguity tend to join the Republican Party. The process is quite simple. Some people’s brains make them believe that everything is either totally right or totally wrong; and that whatever they happen to believe is totally right; and that anyone who disagrees with them is therefore not only wrong but evil; and that they are right (or blessed by God) whenever they take actions against other people that would, in most circumstances, be considered wrong. That is, when such people are “standing up for their beliefs,” no amount of ridicule or insult or misinformation is too much to heap upon others, and God releases them from moral and legal obligations when they attack others. While this is a perfect description of Republicans, it also describes extreme liberals; however, there just aren’t enough extreme liberals to bother talking about them. And it is obvious to readers of this blog that this is the way the minds of religious conservatives work.
I believe that this was what was happening in the mind of the commencement speaker this morning. Perhaps he believes that he should extend the normal respect of shared citizenship to President Obama, but subconsciously his brain is telling him that the president is related conceptually to terrorism. And I believe that this is also why most of the audience thought it was funny. Well, if I said something like that about George W. Bush or Dick Cheney a few years ago, you can bet I would have been in immediate custody, even if it had been a sincere mistake on my part. Even if it was just a Freudian slip.
I confronted the speaker about this afterward. The speaker had told the graduates that their words should be positive, to create a positive future for themselves and a positive environment for everyone. And he had make explicit reference to Christianity being advanced by positive words. I told him that his words about “Obama bin Laden” were not positive, but were highly insulting. He agreed. He insisted that it was a Freudian slip. I asked him to write a letter of apology to President Obama, and he promised to do so. I went up to him again and told him that his apology makes a great deal of difference. And that is why I am telling you about it. I will probably never know whether he actually sends an apology, but for the record, he apologized.
It is the Freudian part that I am writing about. I actually believe that Jerry Buchanan just made a mistake. But associating people who disagree with them, especially President Obama, with evil comes naturally and subconsciously to Republicans and to conservative Christians, and it slips out even when they do not intend it to—even when they do not consciously believe it, or just when they think it is bad publicity to say it. And the laughter of the crowd tells me that Oklahoma is dangerously Red. Dangerous, because they can say all kinds of hostile and inflammatory things before they even realize what they are doing. Will actions follow words? History, even recent history, even recent American history, does not offer us complete assurance that we have nothing to worry about, especially since there are enough guns in Oklahoma to supply an army as large as that of some nations. As long as the Oklahoma House opens its sessions with creationist rants (see March 20 entry on my evolution blog) and the people of Oklahoma think that it is funny to associate the name of the president with terrorism, the ground is fertile for real trouble.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Sunday, April 29, 2012
A World of Empathy, Part One: The Novels of Graham Greene
In the event that this website malfunctions, please check my website http://www.stanleyrice.com/.
Graham Greene was a British novelist of the mid-twentieth century. I have just finished reading three of his novels, and will probably read more, because his novels are some of the best that I have ever read in which deep religious issues are brought to life.
Greene’s novels would probably not be published today by publishers of Christian literature, because they insist on heroes who are absolutely certain about every detail of theology. Very clear and stark good and evil: this is what Christian publishers want. And most secular publishers do not want any religious characters who are not blatant hypocrites or filled with religious hatred. In modern literature, with the exception of things such as the novels of Mary Doria Russell, religious characters have to be completely good or completely evil. But Graham Greene wrote about the impossibility of being sure what is good and what is evil. This makes his novels irresistible reading for a Christian agnostic.
Greene adopted Catholicism, and whether he actually believed all of the doctrine, he certainly understood its significance, and could create sympathetic characters who believed them. If it is true that the eucharist really is the body and blood of Jesus, really, not just symbolically, and if (as the Bible says) you eat and drink damnation unto yourself if you partake of it while in a state of mortal sin, then this has some real-world consequences. You can reject it, but if you accept it, you have to face up to what it means.
Greene’s novels also focus on people who, despite themselves, have empathy, a true selfless love, for other people. We are all trapped by the web of love for others, which leads to contradictions that cannot be avoided. You can ignore it, but if you accept it, you have to face up to what it means.
Greene faces up to both of these things in two novels: The Power and the Glory, and The Heart of the Matter. In the first, a priest understands himself as a sinner, but he cannot stop being a priest, even if it sends him to his death. In the second, a man trapped by his love for two women chooses to damn himself rather than to hurt either of them.
From inside the mind of one character in The Heart of the Matter, Greene writes, “How absurd it is to expect happiness in a world so full of misery…Point me out the happy man, and I will point you out either egotism, selfishness, evil—or else an absolute ignorance…If one knew, he wondered, the facts, would one have to feel pity even for the planets? if one reached what they call the heart of the matter?” That is Greene’s point: the world is thick with the bonds of empathy, even pity, which both makes it good and fills it with misery.
In the next entry, I will explore some of the ideas in what is considered Greene’s greatest novel, The Power and the Glory.
Graham Greene was a British novelist of the mid-twentieth century. I have just finished reading three of his novels, and will probably read more, because his novels are some of the best that I have ever read in which deep religious issues are brought to life.
Greene’s novels would probably not be published today by publishers of Christian literature, because they insist on heroes who are absolutely certain about every detail of theology. Very clear and stark good and evil: this is what Christian publishers want. And most secular publishers do not want any religious characters who are not blatant hypocrites or filled with religious hatred. In modern literature, with the exception of things such as the novels of Mary Doria Russell, religious characters have to be completely good or completely evil. But Graham Greene wrote about the impossibility of being sure what is good and what is evil. This makes his novels irresistible reading for a Christian agnostic.
Greene adopted Catholicism, and whether he actually believed all of the doctrine, he certainly understood its significance, and could create sympathetic characters who believed them. If it is true that the eucharist really is the body and blood of Jesus, really, not just symbolically, and if (as the Bible says) you eat and drink damnation unto yourself if you partake of it while in a state of mortal sin, then this has some real-world consequences. You can reject it, but if you accept it, you have to face up to what it means.
Greene’s novels also focus on people who, despite themselves, have empathy, a true selfless love, for other people. We are all trapped by the web of love for others, which leads to contradictions that cannot be avoided. You can ignore it, but if you accept it, you have to face up to what it means.
Greene faces up to both of these things in two novels: The Power and the Glory, and The Heart of the Matter. In the first, a priest understands himself as a sinner, but he cannot stop being a priest, even if it sends him to his death. In the second, a man trapped by his love for two women chooses to damn himself rather than to hurt either of them.
From inside the mind of one character in The Heart of the Matter, Greene writes, “How absurd it is to expect happiness in a world so full of misery…Point me out the happy man, and I will point you out either egotism, selfishness, evil—or else an absolute ignorance…If one knew, he wondered, the facts, would one have to feel pity even for the planets? if one reached what they call the heart of the matter?” That is Greene’s point: the world is thick with the bonds of empathy, even pity, which both makes it good and fills it with misery.
In the next entry, I will explore some of the ideas in what is considered Greene’s greatest novel, The Power and the Glory.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
The Armageddon Mindset
According to a 1999 poll, which is the most recent data I could find, 40 percent of Americans believe the world will end in a battle of Armageddon. About 45 percent of these people believe that the Antichrist is on the Earth now, and that Armageddon will happen during their lifetimes. This means that 18 percent of Americans believe that there is no future to the world past the end of their lifetimes. This is a large enough segment of the population that it is politically important, especially within the Republican Party.
Two things are impossible if you really believe that the world is ending soon. First, it is impossible to take any serious action about any environmental issue. We environmentalists can explain all day long that environmental destruction, particularly global warming, will prove disastrous to people in the future—in fact, in the near future. People who believe there is no future find such concerns literally incomprehensible. They may, in principle, assert that God is the Creator and we have no right to destroy the creation, but they simply cannot convince themselves of this, no matter how hard they try.
Second, it is impossible to take any serious action about fiscal responsibility. People with the Armageddon mindset overwhelmingly want the government to spend less money. But the reason is not in order for the government to have a sustainable future—since there will be no future—but in order to not have to pay taxes. Evidence for this is that these people call for unlimited spending on defense, which just might hurry up the Armageddon that they anticipate. They talk about the future of their children—a future they believe will not exist on Earth—and may try hard to believe it, but they cannot convince themselves of this, no matter how hard they try.
The Armageddon mindset is totally incompatible with any kind of scientific thought. This website is about ecology and evolution, about the effects of evolution on humans and the relationship between humans and the global ecosystem. The Armageddon mindset cannot be touched by reason or evidence, or perhaps even by direct experience. The only thing that scientists or scientifically-minded citizens can do is to write off the Armageddon folks and not even try to talk with them. Unfortunately, they are a major political force.
What should thoughtful people do about this, if anything? Please post your responses in the comment box below if your browser shows it; otherwise send comments to abutilongr@gmail.com. I hope you can enlighten me with some uplifting thoughts. This essay will appear soon on my website.
Two things are impossible if you really believe that the world is ending soon. First, it is impossible to take any serious action about any environmental issue. We environmentalists can explain all day long that environmental destruction, particularly global warming, will prove disastrous to people in the future—in fact, in the near future. People who believe there is no future find such concerns literally incomprehensible. They may, in principle, assert that God is the Creator and we have no right to destroy the creation, but they simply cannot convince themselves of this, no matter how hard they try.
Second, it is impossible to take any serious action about fiscal responsibility. People with the Armageddon mindset overwhelmingly want the government to spend less money. But the reason is not in order for the government to have a sustainable future—since there will be no future—but in order to not have to pay taxes. Evidence for this is that these people call for unlimited spending on defense, which just might hurry up the Armageddon that they anticipate. They talk about the future of their children—a future they believe will not exist on Earth—and may try hard to believe it, but they cannot convince themselves of this, no matter how hard they try.
The Armageddon mindset is totally incompatible with any kind of scientific thought. This website is about ecology and evolution, about the effects of evolution on humans and the relationship between humans and the global ecosystem. The Armageddon mindset cannot be touched by reason or evidence, or perhaps even by direct experience. The only thing that scientists or scientifically-minded citizens can do is to write off the Armageddon folks and not even try to talk with them. Unfortunately, they are a major political force.
What should thoughtful people do about this, if anything? Please post your responses in the comment box below if your browser shows it; otherwise send comments to abutilongr@gmail.com. I hope you can enlighten me with some uplifting thoughts. This essay will appear soon on my website.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Technical Glitches
The host of this blog (blogger.com) has some unresolvable technical difficulties. There appears to be no way to resolve them at this time. I do not know how to contact anyone at blogger.com to report the problem. Do they have any quality control? In particular, information about me and about the followers does not appear on the page. Meanwhile, you can still read the posts and comment on them. It is possible that I may soon post a link that will redirect you to a blog hosting service that works the way it is supposed to. Keep checking. I will continue to post new essays.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Another Conservative Camel
This essay, like the previous, is adapted from one that will appear on my science website.
In the previous essay, I wrote about how conservatives, such as Oklahoma state representative Sally Kern, are straining out gnats and swallowing camels, to use the same wonderful imagery that Jesus used in criticizing the conservatives of his day. In that essay, I explained that the gnat that the conservatives were straining out was gay rights. They claim, totally without evidence, that homosexuals will bring about the collapse of America. Meanwhile, they ignore the clear dangers posed by our destruction of the environment, dangers that are severe enough to cause our downfall. Conservatives supposedly believe that the environment is God’s Creation, but they seem to not believe this very passionately. And the Bible has identified one particular environmental problem—the loss of topsoil, resulting from the failure to let the fields rest from agriculture—as one of the principal reasons that the Kingdom of Judah fell to the Babylonians.
There is another major theme that conservatives ignore. While they scream about homosexuals, they ignore the problem of poverty. I know that some conservatives (among them Sally Kern) make a show of working in soup kitchens, but they staunchly and zealously support the economic structure that reinforces poverty. They want what they call a “free market” in which the rich can get richer by oppressing the poor. For example, they believe that banks should have unlimited rights to do whatever they want to their poor creditors, such as charging usurious interest rates that not only force the poor to remain poor but drive them further into poverty and prevent them from ever repaying their debts. (At the same time, conservatives utterly reject a free market approach to solving the marijuana problem.) The burden of debt is so heavy, and the bank CEOs are getting so rich from it, that most Americans (the middle class, not just the poor) feel utterly crushed by it. But conservatives want to maintain this system. The freedom of the free market is enjoyed only by the very wealthy. Judging from its actions, the Republican Party would rather have America collapse than to have the taxes on millionaires raised even slightly.
This situation brings to mind some things that the Old Testament prophets said. The second prophet who went by the name Isaiah (chapter 40, verse 1) spoke words that have been immortalized in the music, played each Christmas, by George Frideric Handel: Comfort ye my people, cry unto them that their warfare is accomplished. How can I express the feeling of relief that comes from this music and these words? You can just feel the burdens of a nation sliding off of our shoulders. But how is this to be accomplished? Not by the free market. According to the third verse, a voice cries in the wilderness. And what does this voice say? The fourth verse says, “Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill made low.” The meaning of this passage is clear to everyone except conservatives. The rich and powerful will be humbled, and the poor shall be raised up. Not just given some food in a soup kitchen, but actually lifted out of grinding poverty. The only way that our nation, like ancient Israel, can experience relief from our burdens is by making our social relationships more equitable. This is not a call for socialism or communism; there will always be some people who are richer than others, often but not always because they deserve to be. But the extreme disparity between rich and poor in America—which is greater than any other nation in the industrial world and greater than any time in the last hundred years—has to end. The laws and policies that enforce this disparity have to change. As the first Isaiah said (chapter 3, verse 15), God opposes those who “grind the faces of the poor into the dust.”
The solution to our environmental problems also depends on bringing relief to the poor. If people are desperate, they will do whatever they need to do in order to survive. For example, they will try to raise food in marginal soil, which will erode away and cause deserts to spread. There is no hope for our Earth, just as there is no hope for our society, unless the valleys are exalted and the mountains humbled.
Conservatives consider themselves defenders of Biblical religion. But the only thing some of them talk about is how evil homosexuals are. And their solution is that these evil people need to come to their churches and donate money. Conservative churches cannot make money off of denouncing the rich or defending the Earth. On the issues that the Biblical prophets considered most important, conservatives are eerily silent.
Announcement: I want to ask again if anyone wants to submit comments on what you would like to discuss. Unfortunately, at the moment, Blogger is malfunctioning and I cannot read your comments. I hope I can fix that problem soon.
In the previous essay, I wrote about how conservatives, such as Oklahoma state representative Sally Kern, are straining out gnats and swallowing camels, to use the same wonderful imagery that Jesus used in criticizing the conservatives of his day. In that essay, I explained that the gnat that the conservatives were straining out was gay rights. They claim, totally without evidence, that homosexuals will bring about the collapse of America. Meanwhile, they ignore the clear dangers posed by our destruction of the environment, dangers that are severe enough to cause our downfall. Conservatives supposedly believe that the environment is God’s Creation, but they seem to not believe this very passionately. And the Bible has identified one particular environmental problem—the loss of topsoil, resulting from the failure to let the fields rest from agriculture—as one of the principal reasons that the Kingdom of Judah fell to the Babylonians.
There is another major theme that conservatives ignore. While they scream about homosexuals, they ignore the problem of poverty. I know that some conservatives (among them Sally Kern) make a show of working in soup kitchens, but they staunchly and zealously support the economic structure that reinforces poverty. They want what they call a “free market” in which the rich can get richer by oppressing the poor. For example, they believe that banks should have unlimited rights to do whatever they want to their poor creditors, such as charging usurious interest rates that not only force the poor to remain poor but drive them further into poverty and prevent them from ever repaying their debts. (At the same time, conservatives utterly reject a free market approach to solving the marijuana problem.) The burden of debt is so heavy, and the bank CEOs are getting so rich from it, that most Americans (the middle class, not just the poor) feel utterly crushed by it. But conservatives want to maintain this system. The freedom of the free market is enjoyed only by the very wealthy. Judging from its actions, the Republican Party would rather have America collapse than to have the taxes on millionaires raised even slightly.
This situation brings to mind some things that the Old Testament prophets said. The second prophet who went by the name Isaiah (chapter 40, verse 1) spoke words that have been immortalized in the music, played each Christmas, by George Frideric Handel: Comfort ye my people, cry unto them that their warfare is accomplished. How can I express the feeling of relief that comes from this music and these words? You can just feel the burdens of a nation sliding off of our shoulders. But how is this to be accomplished? Not by the free market. According to the third verse, a voice cries in the wilderness. And what does this voice say? The fourth verse says, “Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill made low.” The meaning of this passage is clear to everyone except conservatives. The rich and powerful will be humbled, and the poor shall be raised up. Not just given some food in a soup kitchen, but actually lifted out of grinding poverty. The only way that our nation, like ancient Israel, can experience relief from our burdens is by making our social relationships more equitable. This is not a call for socialism or communism; there will always be some people who are richer than others, often but not always because they deserve to be. But the extreme disparity between rich and poor in America—which is greater than any other nation in the industrial world and greater than any time in the last hundred years—has to end. The laws and policies that enforce this disparity have to change. As the first Isaiah said (chapter 3, verse 15), God opposes those who “grind the faces of the poor into the dust.”
The solution to our environmental problems also depends on bringing relief to the poor. If people are desperate, they will do whatever they need to do in order to survive. For example, they will try to raise food in marginal soil, which will erode away and cause deserts to spread. There is no hope for our Earth, just as there is no hope for our society, unless the valleys are exalted and the mountains humbled.
Conservatives consider themselves defenders of Biblical religion. But the only thing some of them talk about is how evil homosexuals are. And their solution is that these evil people need to come to their churches and donate money. Conservative churches cannot make money off of denouncing the rich or defending the Earth. On the issues that the Biblical prophets considered most important, conservatives are eerily silent.
Announcement: I want to ask again if anyone wants to submit comments on what you would like to discuss. Unfortunately, at the moment, Blogger is malfunctioning and I cannot read your comments. I hope I can fix that problem soon.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Conservatives: Straining Out a Gnat and Swallowing a Camel
I have adapted this essay from one that will appear on my website soon, but have changed it to expand upon the religious message for this blog. My website is devoted to science, not to religion.
Conservatives are missing the point not only of what is important in the world but even what Jesus said. They are focusing their attention on things that are not important and are ignoring major problems that will destroy our nation and world if left unsolved. I focus on the first of these “camels” in this essay.
In Jesus’ day the Pharisees were a religious group that closely resembled the conservatives of today. They focused their righteous zeal on obeying minor Biblical laws in exquisite detail, while ignoring the important things. For example, they figured out intricate rules for how to tithe not just their income but also the herbs that grew in their gardens. Jesus denounced them in one of the angriest speeches in recorded history, preserved in the twenty-third chapter of the gospel of Matthew. He said to them, “You tithe mint and dill and cumin, while ignoring the weightier matters of the law.” He summarized their brand of religion by saying that they were “straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.” Besides being a masterful bit of humor, this statement made it clear that religious conservatives, then as now, pay attention to small things that are not a problem—you could eat quite a few gnats without noticing them—and ignore major problems. Nor did they do so at random; conservatives, then as now, gave the most attention to the rules that would give their religious hierarchy the most power, and ignored all the principles that would empower and bless the poor and downtrodden, and save the Earth.
One example of modern conservatives straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel is the crusade of Sally Kern, an Oklahoma state representative, against gay rights. She gave a speech that was secretly recorded and a few minutes of which have spread around the internet, in which she compared gays to a spreading cancer and said that they were more dangerous than terrorists. It is not my intention to criticize her in detail, because I am no expert on the issue of gay rights.
The point I want to make here is that Sally Kern was straining out a gnat. There is no evidence that gays and lesbians are ruining society. Sally Kern, like anybody else, has the right to consider their actions to be wrong, but that is not the same thing as saying that they are destroying the country. I know some gay men, and they have never tried to recruit me to their ranks. They consider themselves to be born gay, and therefore they do not believe in recruitment. They just want people to leave them alone and give them the rights of American citizens. Did homosexuality cause Mesopotamia to fall? Persia? Rome? The British Empire?
Meanwhile, conservatives like Sally Kern are swallowing a camel. Gay rights will not destroy America, but our ecological problems may destroy us. Take, for example, the loss of our topsoil through wind and water erosion. This is a problem conservatives ignore. But it will, not many decades from now, undermine our ability to raise food.
Moreover, the sin of ruining the environment was one of the principal reasons, according to the Bible, that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah fell to the Assyrians and Babylonians. In the laws of Moses, the Israelites were commanded to let their land lie fallow every seven years, and to recover from the strain of agriculture. This law has been known as the Sabbath of the Fields. There is no evidence that the Israelites ever obeyed this law. According to tradition, the Israelite nation persisted for 490 years; therefore they owed the land 70 years. Near the end of the second book of Chronicles, the writer drew a clear connection between Judah’s failure to keep the Sabbath of the Fields and their downfall. The writer said, “And so the land enjoyed its rest.” The Israelite homeland lay fallow for 70 years.
The Bible clearly indicates that failure to take care of the land can cause a country to collapse, just as an individual can be hurt if a camel sits on him. There is no such statement about homosexuality—the gnat in the cup—causing a nation to fall. Why don’t modern conservatives decry the way America is destroying God’s creation, instead of spending all their time attacking gays?
I have started tweeting. Follow me on Twitter, @StanEvolve.
Conservatives are missing the point not only of what is important in the world but even what Jesus said. They are focusing their attention on things that are not important and are ignoring major problems that will destroy our nation and world if left unsolved. I focus on the first of these “camels” in this essay.
In Jesus’ day the Pharisees were a religious group that closely resembled the conservatives of today. They focused their righteous zeal on obeying minor Biblical laws in exquisite detail, while ignoring the important things. For example, they figured out intricate rules for how to tithe not just their income but also the herbs that grew in their gardens. Jesus denounced them in one of the angriest speeches in recorded history, preserved in the twenty-third chapter of the gospel of Matthew. He said to them, “You tithe mint and dill and cumin, while ignoring the weightier matters of the law.” He summarized their brand of religion by saying that they were “straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.” Besides being a masterful bit of humor, this statement made it clear that religious conservatives, then as now, pay attention to small things that are not a problem—you could eat quite a few gnats without noticing them—and ignore major problems. Nor did they do so at random; conservatives, then as now, gave the most attention to the rules that would give their religious hierarchy the most power, and ignored all the principles that would empower and bless the poor and downtrodden, and save the Earth.
One example of modern conservatives straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel is the crusade of Sally Kern, an Oklahoma state representative, against gay rights. She gave a speech that was secretly recorded and a few minutes of which have spread around the internet, in which she compared gays to a spreading cancer and said that they were more dangerous than terrorists. It is not my intention to criticize her in detail, because I am no expert on the issue of gay rights.
The point I want to make here is that Sally Kern was straining out a gnat. There is no evidence that gays and lesbians are ruining society. Sally Kern, like anybody else, has the right to consider their actions to be wrong, but that is not the same thing as saying that they are destroying the country. I know some gay men, and they have never tried to recruit me to their ranks. They consider themselves to be born gay, and therefore they do not believe in recruitment. They just want people to leave them alone and give them the rights of American citizens. Did homosexuality cause Mesopotamia to fall? Persia? Rome? The British Empire?
Meanwhile, conservatives like Sally Kern are swallowing a camel. Gay rights will not destroy America, but our ecological problems may destroy us. Take, for example, the loss of our topsoil through wind and water erosion. This is a problem conservatives ignore. But it will, not many decades from now, undermine our ability to raise food.
Moreover, the sin of ruining the environment was one of the principal reasons, according to the Bible, that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah fell to the Assyrians and Babylonians. In the laws of Moses, the Israelites were commanded to let their land lie fallow every seven years, and to recover from the strain of agriculture. This law has been known as the Sabbath of the Fields. There is no evidence that the Israelites ever obeyed this law. According to tradition, the Israelite nation persisted for 490 years; therefore they owed the land 70 years. Near the end of the second book of Chronicles, the writer drew a clear connection between Judah’s failure to keep the Sabbath of the Fields and their downfall. The writer said, “And so the land enjoyed its rest.” The Israelite homeland lay fallow for 70 years.
The Bible clearly indicates that failure to take care of the land can cause a country to collapse, just as an individual can be hurt if a camel sits on him. There is no such statement about homosexuality—the gnat in the cup—causing a nation to fall. Why don’t modern conservatives decry the way America is destroying God’s creation, instead of spending all their time attacking gays?
I have started tweeting. Follow me on Twitter, @StanEvolve.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Requesting Your Input
As we begin the third year of this blog, I will continue to post essays that I have written based upon news items, books I have read, and selections from my books. I am a scientist, but my essays will not be limited to science. For example, in early 2010, I wrote about agnostic ideas found in the Bible and in works of music such as Carmina Burana and Die Winterreise.
But starting this year I would like to actively request ideas from my readers. You have always had the comment box, but I would now like to invite you to use it to suggest ideas and share your own insights, not just to respond to what I have written. What topics, related to religion and science and life, would you like to discuss? I think our small blog community could benefit from your insights. Our community is small, because I have not advertised this site on my other outlets. I am a professional with regard to evolution and ecology, and their political and religious connections, but I am an amateur with regard to many of the things I write in this blog. Amateur is not a bad word; in its Latin roots, it means “one who loves.” I love to discuss topics on which I am not an authority. Which is why it will be particularly interesting to draw in your insights.
Some readers find it difficult to post comments, since Google requires you to have an account with them in order to post your comment. If it is easier for you, feel free to send your comments to abutilongr@aol.com.
Let me know what you are thinking, by writing in the comment box. Also, feel free to send the link to other people you know who would be interested in the discussions on this blog.
I have also started tweeting. Follow me on Twitter, @StanEvolve.
But starting this year I would like to actively request ideas from my readers. You have always had the comment box, but I would now like to invite you to use it to suggest ideas and share your own insights, not just to respond to what I have written. What topics, related to religion and science and life, would you like to discuss? I think our small blog community could benefit from your insights. Our community is small, because I have not advertised this site on my other outlets. I am a professional with regard to evolution and ecology, and their political and religious connections, but I am an amateur with regard to many of the things I write in this blog. Amateur is not a bad word; in its Latin roots, it means “one who loves.” I love to discuss topics on which I am not an authority. Which is why it will be particularly interesting to draw in your insights.
Some readers find it difficult to post comments, since Google requires you to have an account with them in order to post your comment. If it is easier for you, feel free to send your comments to abutilongr@aol.com.
Let me know what you are thinking, by writing in the comment box. Also, feel free to send the link to other people you know who would be interested in the discussions on this blog.
I have also started tweeting. Follow me on Twitter, @StanEvolve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)