Jesus

…For Goodness Sake

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.”
James Madison, Letter to William Bradford 1774

One of the most troubling aspects of religion, in particular Evangelical Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam, is their insistence that everything that exists, everything that is good, everything humans need to lead a fulfilling life arise from God. They also claim the Bible or the Quran are the inerrant word of God and questioning such doctrine is an evil act.

That both cannot be true simultaneously, and the more likely scenario is that neither are, is lost in the fog of blind devotion.

Religion contends there is no morality, decency, or altruism unless one is committed to faith in God to the exclusion of all others.

In reading the book, The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I am struck by the theme that actions such as his—beyond heroic by any measure in the face of the Nazi terror he opposed to the moment of his execution—were, in his own view, insufficient.

From the introduction to the book by the late Bishop of Chichester, G.K.A. Bell,

“But it was not enough for him to seek justice, truth, honesty and goodness for their own sake and patiently to suffer for them. No, according to Bonhoeffer, we have to do so in loyal obedience to Him who is the source and spring of all goodness, justice and truth and on whom he felt absolutely dependent.”

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship, Kindle Edition. (From the section Memoir by G. Leibholz, quoting G. K. A. Bell, late Bishop of Chichester)

In more pedestrian terms, being good, or opposing evil, because it is the right thing to do, is not enough in Bonhoeffer’s view; good must be done because it shows our devotion to and dependency on God for all things.

This, in a nutshell, is my argument with religion in general and the Abrahamic religions in particular. Like a virus subverting cellular processes and churning out cancerous cells, religion co-opts the innate goodness of human nature and convinces people it must be from God. It diverts resources and time to meaningless acts of worship, ceremony, and sacrifice focused on a false premise.

Even worse, religion does not just contend that good cannot exist without God; theologians like Bonhoeffer claim it is secondary to devotion to God. This disregards the clear evidence for human evolution and social development. To borrow the title Richard Dawkins gave to one of his books, it is The God Delusion.

Think about this for a moment. Acting altruistically, doing the right thing, is secondary to demonstrating devotion to God? How does one explain altruism in people who have never experienced Christianity? This doctrine’s purpose is transparent and singular: to preserve the continuity of the faith.

God created man; man devoted to God is good, so God is the only way for man to be good. If a man acts malevolently, that is the influence of evil or a lack of faith, not a failure of God.

Evolution would argue otherwise. Behaviors dominated by cooperation and mutual support are more successful at avoiding extinction (adaptation) than those dominated by competition. Inherent goodness and moral behavior—in the sense of being based on the principles of proper conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or customs—is more likely to survive “natural selection,” which undeniably drives the process of species survival or death in the world and the universe.

People who went to the memorial service in England after Bonhoffer’s execution by the S.S Black Guards believed.

“…that, on April 9th, 1945, when Dietrich Bonhoeffer met his death at the hands of the S.S. Black Guards, something had happened in Germany that could not be measured by human standards. They felt that God himself had intervened in the most terrible struggle the world has witnessed so far by sacrificing one of his most faithful and courageous sons to expiate the crimes of a diabolical regime and to revive the spirit in which the civilization of Europe has to be rebuilt.” Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. Kindle Edition.

The quote is most troubling since it illustrates how this Christian God sees innocent human sacrifice of his choosing as a valid expiation of sins committed by others against the word of this same God. This God believes that the designated human sacrifice of one of his faithful is the most expedient way to address evil.

This bears repeating.

Sacrificing one of his own faithful to expiate the sins of evil committed by others is a respectable philosophy. Worthy of praise and devotion.

Who did they commit this sin against in the first place? The same God killing one of his own as penance for the sin.

First, God sends his son, who is himself, to die a horrible death to expiate the sins of man committed against this god, beginning with the original sin of eating from the tree of knowledge, quite telling right there, then raises the dead son (again, himself, who died yet is confusingly immortal) to show his love for man.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3-16 (and you thought it was just the score of the game with all the signs on TV.)

Then, when the Nazis come along, he causes Bonhoeffer, because of his devotion and discipleship, to act in a way opposing the Nazis, knowing (he is omniscient after all) how they would react. Then this God allows the Nazis to imprison, torture, and execute Bonhoeffer to expiate the sins of the Nazis.

You will understand my confusion. And “it is a mystery” is woefully inadequate, if not morally reprehensible. I suppose the thought of a second son was never a consideration.

This begs the obvious question. Why does God intervene by directing the actions of Dietrich Bonhoeffer in heroic opposition to the Nazi terror rather than preventing the rise of the Nazis in the first place?

If you would expiate the sins of the Nazis by executing someone, why not direct one of the millions of munitions we dropped on Germany to hit the Führer’s bunker and expiate him all over the walls?

Or, if it would make you feel better, crash one of the B-17s being flown by a Christian into the bunker. You get a twofer, killing evil and a devotee sacrifice. Wouldn’t that be more in sync with the doctrine?

Why let innocent Germans, especially babies and children, die for the sins of the Third Reich? Is it because they weren’t good enough to expiate the sins of their fathers? Or is that “visiting the sins of the father unto the third and fourth generation” mandatory?

The conundrum of God either being unable or unwilling to prevent evil is a stubbornly persistent flaw in the arguments for God’s existence, omniscience, and omnipotence. If God is omniscient, he knew the Nazis would rise to power and develop the Final Solution. One might argue he was just a spectator at the events. Yet, even being omnipotent, he decided to cause a Lutheran priest alone to take a moral stand against it?

Seems more inconsiderate, or impotent, than omnipotent.

But I still cannot wrap my head around the contention that Bonhoeffer himself argued his actions were meaningful only if he acted as a faithful servant and believer in God. Taking a stand, fraught with risk against the power of the Nazis because they were evil was not enough, no matter how honorable.

And, of course, there are Biblical passages offering instruction in such matters.

And as he passed by he saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting at the place of toil, and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. (Mark 2.14)

“… It is Jesus who calls, and because it is Jesus, Levi follows at once. This encounter is a testimony to the absolute, direct, and unaccountable authority of Jesus. There is no need of any preliminaries, and no other consequence but obedience to the call. Because Jesus is the Christ, he has the authority to call and to demand obedience to his word. Jesus summons men to follow him not as a teacher or a pattern of the good life, but as the Christ, the Son of God.” Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship (pp. 15-16). Kindle Edition.

This quote illustrates my point. Levi, according to Scripture, follows Jesus without question or hesitation, not because he tries to do good, but because “Jesus summons men to follow him not as a teacher or a pattern of the good life, but as the Christ.”

And he said unto another. Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But he said unto him. Leave the dead to bury their dead, but go thou and publish abroad the kingdom of God.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship (p. 17). Kindle Edition.

The point is to follow him not to do good in the world—righting wrongs, challenging evil—but because Jesus is calling. Nothing else matters.

Blind faith. Great name for a rock band, poor life philosophy. Blind faith gave us the Inquisition, the Crusades, Indian Schools (our own final solution), slavery, and Nazi Germany. It continues to plague us today.

Why? What makes this calling more consequential than the altruistic acts themselves? Simple. The propagation of faith for faith itself.

Evolution postulates that natural selection—not, as it is often misinterpreted, the survival of the fittest but the survival of those who can best reproduce and adapt—promotes beneficial mutations and practices. Thus, there may have been an “evolutionary” benefit to religion.

Community, sharing of resources, commonality against enemies (there is a great deal of smiting of enemies and seizure of the spoils of war, in particular the ever so desirable virgins, with no limit of seventy-two thus trumping the Muslims, in the Old Testament) which may foster high rates of survivability and by passing on the “faith” gene, insuring continuity and spreading of the faith.

While evolution is clearest over geological time scales, there are examples of rapid change within several rather than hundreds of generations. Religion may have offered a better chance of survival in prehistoric humans until the Enlightenment.

One sign of this could be lifespan. From the time of the first homo sapiens until the Enlightenment, humans lived a precarious existence, surviving, on average, 30-35 years. Over fifty percent of humans never made it past their early thirties.

As a side note, remember they ate only organic meat, fish, and pesticide-free vegetables, yet died at thirty years of age.

With the advent of the Enlightenment—the rise of science—human lifespan began to expand worldwide, with people living well into their eighties.

Religion may have had an initial, beneficial effect on survival, but science has improved on it exponentially. And yet, a significant majority (although declining worldwide, correlating to rising educational levels) still embrace some form of religion.

Perhaps evolution is mutating the religion gene to the science gene.

 Evolution might even explain how religiosity declines as educational level increases.

Yet we still lack an explanation for Bonhoeffer’s contention that being good is not enough absent a “discipleship” committed to God. This is troubling because articulate and intelligent theologians like Bonhoeffer influence modern religions, which try to impose their doctrines in secular matters.

“Any belief system that explains the suffering of children instead of rejecting it has already abandoned morality” Betrand Russell

Bonhoeffer himself sees this as not only desirable but necessary. His opposition to Nazi Germany and their corruption of the Church was a sign that a government not molded by Christianity was threatening, ineffective, and contrary to the supremacy of the faith.

I see this as dangerous. Bonhoeffer’s heroic actions opposing the Nazis aside, understanding his motivations—acting because it is an elemental part of his discipleship with Christ—is essential to prevent this philosophy from gaining control of secular government.

This event would threaten freedom and democracy and challenge the continuity of a moral and ethical society based on rationality not fear of the afterlife promulgated by an invisible being.

The evidence of this goal of trying to impose religion on secular government is everywhere. The rallying cry of the false contention that we are a Judeo-Christian nation is no less frightening than black-booted brown shirts ( we have those, too) screaming about racial supremacy of the white man.

When politicians embrace this philosophy for political advantage, even those who may hold sincere Christian beliefs, they betray the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.

When some within this country clamor and cry that we are a Christian nation, yet act opposite to the words and actions of the man the seek to hoist on others, they reveal the danger of such a political, rather than a genuine, act of faith.

They pose the greatest threat to this country since our founding, bar none.

Go back

Your message has been sent

Rating(Please take a moment to rate this article)

Rating: 1 out of 5.

Faith-Based Disruptions in Academia: A Challenging Trend

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

“It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you’re sincere,” is one of those sayings that, on its face, seems harmless but carries a hidden danger, as many recent incidents have demonstrated.

Belief alone, no matter how sincere, can be dangerous without context, or evidence. If faith can convince you to believe in absurdities, it can convince you to commit atrocities.

I came upon a recent story that illustrates a troubling trend. The evangelical Christians among us would force a different version of this saying on all aspects of life, most concerning being in academia.

These Christians would have the motto changed to, “It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as it comes from the Bible.” This is now their desired philosophy for educational standards in the United States.

And they would add the demand, “…and cannot be challenged or questioned but must be respected by everyone.”

The story concerns Samantha Fulnecky (see link here),  a junior at Oklahoma State University who was assigned an essay on gender stereotypes for a psychology class.

Here’s the background on the story with links to the original assignment and the article upon which the essay was to be based.

The assignment called for students to write a clear and thoughtful 650-word response to a scholarly article about gender expectations in society. According to screenshots shared by Turning Point USA’s local chapter, Fulnecky wrote in her essay that the article irritated her and described how God created men and women differently. “Society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth,” she wrote.

Mel Curth, a graduate teaching assistant, wrote as part of the grading process that she had deducted points because Fulnecky submitted a “paper that does not answer the questions for this assignment, contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive,” according to the screenshots of her messages.

Megan Waldron, a second graduate student who teaches the course alongside Curth, agreed with the grade. “Everyone has different ways in which they see the world, but in an academic course such as this, you are being asked to support your ideas with empirical evidence and higher-level reasoning,” she wrote to Fulnecky, according to the screenshots.

(see link here)

Those of you who read the assignment understand that this wasn’t an endorsement of any particular agenda. It was a discussion about gender stereotypes in society. It was not a rallying cry for societal endorsement for transgenderism.

It would seem, in the conservative Christian view, boys play with trains and planes, girls play with dolls and have tea parties. Men are rugged and virile; women are caring and docile. Men go to work, women care for children. To quote Ms. Fulnecky, God created women with “womanly desires in our hearts…to be helpers.” She offers her faith that the way God intended it to be as stated in the Bible is evidence and settled. No discussion necessary. (Satire alert!, I have to post this because you’d be amazed at the number of people who miss it.)

Now, had this been a Bible Study or a comparative religion class challenging these secular contentions, perhaps Ms. Fulnecky’s (or should I say Miss, in keeping with the dark ages philosophy) essay would have been acceptable.

This was a research assignment in an educational environment, with an expectation of academic standards, i.e., citations of sources, presenting evidence, and applicable documentation to support the position. The Bible does not meet the criteria of a peer-reviewed study.

Ms. (Miss) Fulnecky was free to argue her point of the sole existence of two genders and challenging, or concurring with, societal expectations as long as she submitted supporting evidence. She did not. She submitted biblical beliefs absent any proof. She wrote an op-ed when the assignment called for something entirely different.

The problem arose when she was challenged on her material. She did what all religious do and immediately complained she was being persecuted for her beliefs.

Nonsense.

None of the remarks on her paper suggested she abandon her faith; they simply pointed out that she had misunderstood, or more likely ignored, the simple instructions because she saw it as challenging her faith. FYI, that is what education is all about, challenging concepts and beliefs in pursuit of truth.

I would hope that, since she was in a Pre-med program, she would realize that, once she got to medical school, if she suggested prayer as a form of therapy or treatment in a medical school class on infectious diseases or fractured bones, she would be expected to present clinical evidence of its efficacy.

If she didn’t, and was given a poor grade because of this, it wouldn’t be persecution of her faith; it would be saving the lives of patients from ineffectual treatment. Emergency rooms may be the site of many prayers, but they are not part of any treatment protocols.

Want to know the best proof that prayer is an ineffectual form of treatment? If there were even the slightest clinical evidence of the efficacy of prayer, insurance companies would be telling their clients to pray rather seeking payment for medical care.

They might even consent to offer priest, minister, or rabbi services if needed depending on what plan you had. They’d have clever marketing slogans, We Pray so you Don’t Pay. Prayer it’s not just for Sports Teams Anymore. A Prayer a Day Keeps the Doctor Away. Pray and the Pain goes away.

Ms. Fulnecky is free to hold any belief she likes, but her belief is not evidence. However, if she argued her point, contending that it is, she must expect this contention to be challenged.

This story, which began as just a local disagreement between a student and a teacher, took on national prominence with the entrance of Ryan Walters, former Superintendent of the Oklahoma School System, famous for insisting on posting the Ten Commandments in schools and imposing other Christian doctrines on the academic environment.

He thankfully resigned and now works for the Teacher Freedom Alliance (https://www.teacherfreedomalliance.com/). This group opposes teachers’ unions and touts itself as dedicated to developing “Free, Moral, and Upright Americans.”

He also sought the assistance of Turning Point America, which published a post on X (racking up, according to them, 47 million views) claiming one of the instructors was transgender, as if that in and of itself were sufficient grounds to remove this individual from teaching.

Free, moral, and upright indeed. Let’s hope Mr. Ryan never becomes a CEO of a major medical insurance company or, in light of some of the other unusual Cabinet appointments, the Director of the CDC or HHS.

The case also led to two instructors being placed on leave and one being removed from teaching when the conservative-majority legislature threatened to cut funding for the school.

All because a student, so mesmerized by religious faith, chose to ignore the plain language of the assignment, offered her religious doctrine as evidence, then was surprised and “persecuted” when the instructor pointed out the lack of evidence, the failure to follow the instructions, and graded the paper appropriately.

No one demanded the student renounce her beliefs. No one burned her at the stake. No one excommunicated her from the school. No one made her wear a scarlet letter.

She got a poor grade because she deserved it.

She was certainly free to submit evidence to support her contention. She had access to the library’s academic literature on gender and to online sources. She chose to argue on religious grounds in an educational environment where challenging the validity of any contention is integral to the process.

It was never about seeking the truth when Walters and Turning Point got involved; it was about demanding their faith be accepted on face value and threatening those who would challenge it.

The faithful opposes the disease of curiosity and resist the squandering of ignorance. They do not seek acceptance, they seek unquestioning surrender to their form of faith and seek to eliminate others.

Any resistance is seen as persecution.

Nothing could be more dangerous to education than blind acceptance of any statement or contention. That is not teaching; it is indoctrination. Religions indoctrinate the young and try to suppress any questioning of the faith, usually by instilling fear of everlasting punishment in the afterlife.

Education teaches people to challenge and question everything. It encourages curiosity, provides skills to examine the factual basis of things, and teaches people to see the value of evidence and proof.

This is an anathema to religions.

I bet the language the organizations supporting Ms. Fulnecky find most offensive (or recognize as most problematic) was the “expectation of empirical evidence and higher-level reasoning,” knowing full well that it is an impossibility concerning religious doctrines.

One can be admired for holding sincere beliefs in their faith. The truly sincere realize some aspects of faith are not subject to academic inquiry. They accept this and do not demand this doctrine be accepted as anything else but a belief absent evidence. This country offers protection for engaging in such practices and protection from these practices being imposed on others.

“But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” – Matthew 6:6

Satire is an Underappreciated Art

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

I published a tongue-in-cheek piece about the December 25th celebration of the birthday of a great human with an enormous impact on society (Sir Isaac Newton) and was met by the exact response I expected. https://joebroadmeadowblog.com/2025/12/24/for-unto-you-is-born-a-savior/

Many were quick to point out the Newton was a Christian or that his birthday is more commonly recognized as January 6, 1643. The discrepancy stems from the use (at the time) of the Julian Calendar which had the birthdate as December 25, 1642.

Which, of course, is a key element of the satirical nature. I’d never mentioned anyone else, but Christians seem to be fixated on a perception of persecution. This contention, in a majority Christian country like the United States, is a bit of a stretch.

The hyper-religious responded with the usual avalanche of biblical tracts and outrage. Why, you might ask? I have no idea. Because, even if we agree to the calendar change, on December 25, 0000, I am certain Jesus was not the only birth worldwide nor the only consequential one. Nor is there any consensus on that date except it conveniently co-opted a much older Pagan celebration. And we know how the church does not like competition.

When this was all shouted at me with the vigorous use of all capital letters and the usual accusation of my being a disciple of Satan, mixed in, I will admit, with the good intentions of praying for my soul that I may see the light and come to Jesus, I said I would stick with Newton and Galileo.

This caused another round of claims that Newton AND Galileo were Christian. When I pointed out the rather threatening treatment of Galileo by the Church, i.e., house arrest and forced recantation at the threat of immolation, I was sent a slew of “authoritative” postings about the “myth” of Galileo’s treatment by the Church.

This consisted of claims that; it wasn’t so bad, his house arrest was benign, many in the church agreed with him but the bureaucracy was responsible, as if that would have somehow cooled the flames. Then, I pointed out, there is Giordano Bruno who was not afforded the “luxury” of house arrest but was put to the flame.

This is a fine example of history being interpreted by those with an agenda. And these differences arise regarding events from just a few hundred years ago for which we have fairly substantial records. Yet, they express no concern about the accuracy of their claims regarding events two thousand years ago for which we have few contemporaneous records.

What these sincere but misled individuals fail to see is their argument supports my contention. The Bible is not the inerrant word of God, but the sometimes inspirational and beautiful, sometimes banal and pedestrian, yet more often horrific words of men trying to understand a complex world, give meaning to their short, violent, and plague-filled lives, and, more troubling, exert control over the lives of others masked by the claim of doing God’s work.

The Church first resists with deadly vigor any challenges to doctrine, be it heliocentrism, genetics, or evolution. Then, after the evidence becomes overwhelming, it attempts to rewrite history with claims that Galileo was punished for his attitude toward the church and his house arrest was evidence of the church’s true goal and good intention.

Then, back to the parables and passages to reinterpret them as supporting the science all along.

Galileo, Newton, and many of the most influential pioneers of science were Christian at a time when not to be was fraught with both economic and physical challenges. It is also true that many within the Church understood the Biblical explanations were merely placeholders until discoveries based on evidence came along.

Before we understood geology and plate tectonics, a 6,000 year old earth sounded ancient.

Before we understood planetary mechanics, we believed our eyes and the sun rose in the east and set in the west.

Before we understood the symptoms and pathways of epilepsy, demonic possession made sense.

Before we turned the first telescopes on the “heavens,” we believed our planet to be unique in the universe.

Whether or not Newton was born on December 25, 1642 or January 6, 1643 is irrelevant. Whether he proclaimed himself a Christian at the time is also irrelevant. His Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica changed the world in ways even more startling than the legend of a savior born centuries beforehand whose story was manipulated by those with an agenda to make it fit prophecies affirming their particular faith.

Next year, let’s celebrate the Dec. 25th birthday of Carlos Castenada, a writer of extraordinary mystical literature. Surely that won’t offend anyone.

Religion: An Atheist’s Perspective

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

I write quite a bit about religion and the objections to it that I’ve developed over the years. My objections are not about religion itself, but the insistence on the dominance of one over any other.

When religion is defined “as an interest, cause, belief, or activity that is intensely or passionately held to,” or, “to turn to or adopt an enlightened course of action or point of view,” I have no quarrel.

Under this definition, embracing science as an enlightened course of action is a form of religion. There are distinct differences: science revises its texts when new evidence is uncovered, whereas most religions insist their holy texts are not to be refined or updated.

My main issue with what most people would consider religion—Christianity  or Judaism in this country, Islam in others—is the insistence that theirs is the only true religion and that there is a being who is the eternal overseer, has us under constant surveillance, and can intercede on our behalf if one engages in an appropriate level of worship, recites prayers seeking this intercession, and accepts the results, no matter what happens, as a “mystery.”

And in particular, when they insist on defining this country as a “Judeo-Christian” nation as if that is somehow both necessary and beneficial.

Now, to engage in one of my favorite practices, the Devil’s Advocate (which, under the title of Advocatus Diaboli, was once a position within the Catholic Church), I’d like to talk about some of the known benefits of embracing religion and misconceptions as well.

Study of the Benefit of a Religious Upbringing

In 2018, Harvard University published a study in the American Journal of Epidemiology that demonstrated that being raised with religious practices had a positive effect on early adulthood. (“Associations of Religious Upbringing With Subsequent Health and Well-Being From Adolescence to Young Adulthood: An Outcome-Wide Analysis,” Ying Chen and Tyler J. VanderWeele, American Journal of Epidemiology, online September 13, 2018, doi: 10.1093/aje/kwy142)

“Participating in spiritual practices during childhood and adolescence may be a protective factor for a range of health and well-being outcomes in early adulthood, according to a new study from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Researchers found that people who attended weekly religious services or practiced daily prayer or meditation in their youth reported greater life satisfaction and positivity in their 20s—and were less likely to subsequently have depressive symptoms, smoke, use illicit drugs, or have a sexually transmitted infection—than people raised with less regular spiritual habits.” https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/religious-upbringing-adult-health/

I would argue that these religious prohibitions on certain activities are a temporary measure, effective until one matures into a rational being. Religion then serves a diminished, or perhaps even an unnecessary, purpose.

Study of the Efficacy of Prayer

 1998. Herb Benson, a cardiologist at Harvard, led what became known as the “Great Prayer Experiment,” or technically the “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP). (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16569567/)

The study consisted of three control groups.  A control group (no prayer) and two groups that received intercessory prayer from various Christian denominations. The two groups receiving prayer differed: one knew they were being prayed for, while the other did not.

“Complications did not vary as a function of prayer. But 59% of those who knew they were being prayed for experienced at least one complication compared with 52% who received no prayer, a statistically significant result. This might reflect the creation of unrealistic expectations from knowing one is the recipient of prayer and experiencing stress when those expectations are not met.” (https://www.templeton.org/news/what-can-science-say-about-the-study-of-prayer)

What does this mean? I suppose that would depend on one’s perspective. At a minimum, it challenges the belief that inexplicable things must be the work of an interested or faithfully petitioned god.

Perhaps it is the pageantry of religious ceremony in our formative years that provides a benefit. As I am writing this, I am listening to a mix of Gregorian Chant and Handel’s Messiah, works inspired by faith. No one can resist being inspired by the sounds of Plain Chant or the Alleluia Chorus from the Messiah echoing in a magnificent cathedral.

And I can still recite the Mass in Latin and remember the cue to ring the bell.

I think believing in something beyond one’s understanding isn’t necessarily bad, unless one insists, by persuasion or force, that others adhere to the same concept.

I have a good friend I’ve known since the 8th grade. Kent Harrop is a retired minister who fully embraces his faith. He and I once collaborated on a blog called the Heretic and the Holy Man, where we discussed our different perspectives on faith in a civil manner. I enjoyed it quite a bit. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which of us is the heretic.

Kent now coordinates a group called Pray and Paddle (https://www.facebook.com/prayandpaddle) and writes inspiring and intriguing articles for the Pray and Paddle blog (https://www.prayandpaddle.org/news)

I would encourage you to read Kent’s writing. He often turns me back from the brink of total dismissal of organized religion through his well-crafted words. Now that I am back in New England, I plan on attending one of these events. I hope Ken won’t mind if I go with the Fish and Paddle version.

Embrace your religion however you see fit, be fervent in whatever faith you embrace. But remember, no one path, not religion or science, has all the answers, and we are all seeking them in our own way.

Let’s Just Kill ‘em All, God Will Sort Them Out

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

The score so far is:

US Military 8 – Alleged Drug Boats 0

We’re off to an undefeated season.

Due process is such a woke thing. About time someone ignored it for a more expedient form of American Justice. Something those Central and South American countries apparently don’t remember, but we are reminding them.

Don’t make us come back there like we did before. Our CIA has a long memory and plenty of new tools. Nobody wants that again, do you?

But what do you expect by sending your poison to our country? And don’t give me that “we wouldn’t sell it if Americans weren’t buying it and making money” nonsense. You are doing this to yourselves.

I mean, if it looks like a drug-carrying boat, operates like a drug-carrying boat, and is located on the common course of drug-carrying boats, what else could it be? A fishing boat? Come on, be serious.

Three strikes and we have every right to turn you into a thoroughly disassembled with extreme prejudice former drug carrying boat.

Right?

Sure, the unintended consequences may drive up the cost of fish in some areas of South America, but who cares? We can send our American fishing boats there to sell fish to them and we won’t make them pay any tariffs on it for the service.

Why should we wait to have incontrovertible evidence of their purpose?

Why should we have to wait for them to enter our jurisdictional waters before we use one of our very effective weapon systems and obliterate them?

What did you say? “What if we tried the same logic?” Is that some kind of threat? It’s a foolish one.

I can’t imagine you’d be so naïve as to target one of our commercial fishing vessels and blow them up. You must realize that would be a Trump-Hesgeth wet dream come true. They’ve been itching for a war of their own to prove the effectiveness of their concept of lethality.

But we know what you’ll do, nothing. You’ll just wail and gnash your teeth over the unfairness in the balance of power.

And now that we’ve found an effective deterrent, why stop there?

I mean, if we know somebody is dealing drugs and we know where they are and we know when they’ll be there, let’s dispense with the formalities of due process and just kill ‘em.

Come to think of it, what better way to decrease the prison population? I mean, with a recidivism rate of 66% (the highest in the world, woo-hoo! we’re number 1) and the highest incarceration rates (woo-hoo, we’re also number 1), our current get-tough approach to lock ‘em up ain’t working. We keep making the mistake of letting them go.

But wait, there’s more.

What if we made every felony a death penalty case, especially if we do it at the time of the arrest? Think of all the money and time we could save. Sure, there’ll be a lot of unemployed judges and correctional officers. Still, there’ll be plenty of jobs open on American fishing vessels plying the waters off Central and South America, or at companies building new boats for the Central and South Americans who actually want to fish.

And on the odd chance that we kill an innocent person (something that probably has happened with the death penalty, but doesn’t diminish its deterrent effect, right?) our faith as a Christian nation will soothe our troubled souls with the comforting thought they are safely in the hands of a loving American flag wrapped God.

After all, we are the real chosen people, as the Bible says.

I do wonder about something though.

We do have incontrovertible evidence that the Chinese, and perhaps some American companies, provide many of the precursor chemicals producing these drugs.

Haven’t seen us sink one Chinese freighter yet. Or send DEA or the FBI after those American companies, perhaps due to their largesse in political contributions. Or I guess the agents are too busy deporting the entire McDonald’s and Walmart workforce and making us safer. I certainly feel safer knowing it wasn’t me who couldn’t understand what the drive-up at McDonald’s was saying when I wanted a cheeseburger. Damn foreigners, speak English!

Or could it be something else?

It’s easier to pick on the ones who can’t fight back. It’s the favorite tactics of schoolyard bullies. Just out of curiosity, I wonder where the masks ICE agents wear are produced? The irony would be too much to bear if it’s China, but bringing those jobs home could balance the budget and help pay for the Trump Ball Room.

I say we go for broke and use all those expensive weapon systems at home (but far enough away so the left-wing media doesn’t start posting images of bodies with some reassembly required floating in the water) instead of giving them to other countries.

P.S. Speaking of the Trump Taj Mahal Ballroom and Bankers Banquet Facility, will the first dance between Donald and Melania be accompanied by the theme from Beauty and the Beast?

But it Says it in the Bible

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Of all the terrifying trends under the umbrella of Mr. Trump, the rise of Christian Nationalism is the most sinister and dangerous. It is a descent into the vortex of anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-enlightenment leading to a society run by dominant males and subservient females.

In a country of 300 million people with access to modern medicine, terabytes of data, and instant worldwide communication, a significant number still believe in signs, astrology, magic, angels, and Biblical abiogenesis.

These fundamentalists, preying on these dark ages beliefs, would drag us back into the era of witchcraft and demons with their medieval philosophies.

Their authority for such a philosophy resides in a book translated from ancient languages to Greek, Latin, German, and English, with hundreds of versions and conflicting translations of the text. And keep in mind that for most of the period since the first written versions of the Bible were translated into Latin, the lingua franca of the church, it was a sin punishable by death to translate it into a language anyone outside the clergy could read.

And when these Christian Nationalists offer Mr. Trump as the one to battle the rise of this mythical Anti-Christ, it goes beyond the hysterical to tragic.

Trump is the least likely of any to be an example of Christian piety or defender of the faith. Even if he had the good fortune to be around during the time of Jesus Christ and heard him speak, his only chance at entering heaven would be to ride one of the crosses in the back row. Redemption by way of good timing rather than a shining paragon of the faith.

Which leads me to wonder why people fail to see the contradiction in that story. If we assume the circumstances of the crucifixion to be accurate, those two criminals on the crosses in the back row didn’t need to seek redemption, didn’t need to repent, didn’t need to do anything but have the good/bad fortune to be crucified at the same time as Jesus. Hmm.

But putting Mr. Trump and other contradictions aside for the moment—oh, that I wish that to be possible—let’s look at this authority.

The version of the Bible most people are familiar with, the King James Version (KJV), was a product of, wait for it, political intrigue. James, the son of Mary Queen of Scots, needed to shore up his power with the ardent Scots, who hated the English Catholics, and with the other various factions.

Meanwhile, the Protestants created their own version in the Geneva Bible. And in an interesting side note to the history of the Bible in America, it was the Geneva Bible that accompanied the Pilgrims to America.

Here’s the same passage in the KJV and Geneva Bible.

Isaiah 7:14 1599 Geneva Bible
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

KJV
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Not a lot of difference, but how can the inerrant word of God be different depending on who is doing the translation?

Just for fun, here’s a version from the Orthodox Jewish Bible.

Yeshayah 7:14
14 Therefore Hashem Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the unmarried young virgin) shall conceive, and bear Ben, and shall call Shmo Immanu El (God is with us)

Here’s the same verse in the New Revised Edition Anglicized Catholic Edition

Isaiah 7:14
14 Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

Now here is where it gets interesting. The whole virgin thing has a glitch. In the original Hebrew, the word in the verse is “alma” which means young woman. Other words represent “virgin” such as “betulah.” Why is “alma” translated as ‘virgin’ in most versions, you might ask? And why do we call him Jesus instead of Immanuel or Shmo Immanu El?

Again, the politics of power and control.

The Catholic Church in 451 A.D. was the dominant force in the known world. There were factions and disagreements, so a meeting was called to resolve and consolidate the faith into one doctrine. The Council of Chalcedon.

You may have heard about an earlier meeting, the Council of Nicaea, which resolved the issue of the dual nature of Jesus. At the time, some believed God to be eternal and Jesus to be created by God, also eternal but only from the point of his creation. The Council at Nicaea said nope. Jesus and God are the same; thus, the beginning of the Holy Trinity, or at least leading to more creative interpretations to concoct that myth.

By 451 A.D., more heretics began teaching conflicting doctrines, an intolerable situation to Rome, thus a more refined explanation arose from this new council.

1. God the Father almighty and in
2. Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord,
3. who was born of the holy Spirit and the virgin Mary.

“These three statements wreck the tricks of nearly every heretic. When God is believed to be both almighty and Father, the Son is clearly proved to be co-eternal with him, in no way different from the Father, since he was born God from God, almighty from the Almighty, co-eternal from the Eternal, not later in time, not lower in power, not unlike in glory, not distinct in being. The same eternal, only-begotten of the eternal begetter was born of the holy Spirit and the virgin Mary. His birth in time in no way subtracts from or adds to that divine and eternal birth of his: but its whole purpose is to restore humanity, who had been deceived, so that it might defeat death and, by its power, destroy the devil who held the power of death. Overcoming the originator of sin and death would be beyond us, had not he whom sin could not defile, nor could death hold down, taken up our nature and made it his own. He was conceived from the holy Spirit inside the womb of the virgin mother. Her virginity was as untouched in giving him birth as it was in conceiving him. ” The Council of Chalcedon – 451 A.D.

The reality of an eternal God and of Jesus —the key to everlasting life —was the source of the Church’s authority. John 14:6 (KJV) “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Her virginity was as untouched in giving him birth as it was in conceiving him.

The Council of Chalcedon – 451 A.D.

But some thought of Jesus and God as separate. The council put an end to this heresy. “Whilst remaining pre-existent, he begins to exist in time.” More illogical contortions to prove the impossible.

But that wasn’t enough to satisfy the needs of religious abhorrence of earthly pleasures. Jesus could not be tainted by such things.

“By an unprecedented kind of birth, because it was inviolable virginity which supplied the material flesh without experiencing sexual desire. What was taken from the mother of the Lord was the nature without the guilt. And the fact that the birth was miraculous does not imply that in the lord Jesus Christ, born from the virgin’s womb, the nature is different from ours. The same one is true God and true man. … Her virginity was as untouched in giving him birth as it was in conceiving him. The Council of Chalcedon – 451 A.D.

And the subsequent translations of the Bible were molded to fit the doctrine.

If one wants to submit a document as evidence in court, one must prove both its origin and authenticity. We have hundreds of court cases trying to interpret the language of the Constitution, and that is in the original English.

Why would any modern nation, or world for that matter, choose to ignore science and enlightenment and base a society on a book of questionable origin, with myriad interpretations, and modified over the millennia by organizations with a stake in the results?

Because it’s in the Bible?

P.S. Another interesting tidbit. The American Standard Edition of 1952 used the words “young woman” instead of “Virgin.” It took the fundamentalists until 1978 to get it changed. Biblical politics? Who knew?