They are still doing it. Day after day, people are still finding the courage to walk away from a cult and look for a real life in the real world outside of sectarian walls.
To borrow (respectfully) from Paul Simon, I am here applying part of his song title not to myself as being still crazy, but rather to myself as being still happy with my decision of thirty-six years ago. But I am utterly flabbergasted when I am again reminded that there are so many who are still crazy, still completely enslaved by a heavy-handed, authoritarian belief system that orders their daily lives down to the tooth brushing.
Again today, my email was flagged to alert me to a newly posted comment on the Non-Believer blog site which I discovered last year and have mentioned previously here. Another youthful-sounding person shared her story (as the latest comment on the long post by Joy) of having finally managed to escape the cult of Armstrongism and is now dealing with the long and difficult carry-over of damaged family ties, self-doubt, questions of all kinds regarding belief. She calls herself a new-age atheist now. And the pain of her experience is palpable in her words.
My surprise at the phenomenon is itself a surprise. Why do I continue to be caught in the swirl of questions about that old madness? Simply because I think of it as it relates (actually, no longer relates) to me personally. After thirty-six years enjoying freedom of thought, I actually do NOT think about the old madness and for my part, it has ceased to exist. Sadly, for many a young person born to parents who were shackled by that system, the whole mess exists very powerfully. Even today, more than a decade since the basic sect known as the Worldwide Church of God fell into a dysfunctional mode and lost its old name as well as most of its followers, the cult still injuriously affects people. As I understand, from scattered notes and comments around the web, there now exist far more than one hundred splinters of the old Armstrong empire. Any one of those, whether now grown fairly large (meaning more than, say, ten thousand adherents), or as small as the known strangeness of a couple worshipping alone, still grasping to the old tenets but with no group to call a church, is still harmful. In whatever form it takes, I find it all quite sad that the residual madness still hampers life for some who can't shake it.
Then again, what difference is there, really, between these duped and the masses (pointed reference) of duped all around us? My own world of freedom-from-religion is daily pressed up against that other world of belief in one thing or another. The constitutional freedom-of-religion is something I honor and cherish for my nation, but that doesn't prevent my pity for the millions who are emotionally strapped into the seats on that spaceship to nowhere, expecting to eventually arrive at some pearly gate. So much of life daily on this planet is lost and counted as worthless to people who see that imaginary afterlife as most important. They apparently have found their pearl of great price and have sold everything that life could bring them so they can devote themselves to the protection of that pearl and its promise.
Oh, well - everyone deserves the same rights I enjoy. I choose to worship life as I know it.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
King George and Same Sex Marriage
One of many recent editions of the national news dedicated to the hot topic of the day included yet another congressman being asked questions about his views on marriage equality and whether he lines up with the views the President stated on the matter. He was also asked how he felt this was received by citizens of his state and the churches of his state.
Interesting in the premise alone.
A specific query in this interview was, When do you think government should lead on social issues and when is it better left to the American people to lead?
In the matter of marriage equality - oh hell, let's simplify it - in the matter of equality, our government led on this long before we even had a real government. When our rebellious forefathers decided this new land should be free of the many prevailing restrictions under a stodgy old form of government from across the ocean, a declaration of independence was drafted in which lofty but fundamental ideals were set forth. The very concept that all men are created equal was enough to bring the anger and force of centuries-old traditional governmental controls down on our tiny upstart experiment. The idea that these equal individuals should all enjoy unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - well, it was rebellion enough to start the revolutionary war. A small, under-developed association of colonies with a non-existent military set out to throw off the shackles tightly held by the most powerful force in the world of that day. And only a tiny group of dedicated men of action and courage led the way. These men were no doubt distrusted by many colonists and were expected to lead the fledgling American way of life into sure destruction. Yet free thinking and determination prevailed.
The war was won, in a way, but the devil in the details still has to be fought and overcome.
Our national constitution, while not stating some of the language in the identical way as the earlier declaration, still made our self-determined national freedoms clear and went even farther in defining many of them. Yes, these freedoms still must be argued today and some were argued with more violent war within the first century of our nation's existence. Yet little-by-little, our country evolves in its grasp and its exercise of freedom. Ugly back-steps are often taken when too many people succumb to greed, corruption, racism, nationalism, basically anything guided by fear, and our freedoms again are threatened.
Marriage equality, as all equality, is part of the fabric of our national character. In my humble opinion, it appears clear that any desire to deny any citizen the right to the pursuit of happiness is directly antithetical to our way of life as a nation. It would appear that millions of us in this supposedly advanced society would rather move back under the flag and heavy hand of King George in 1776. Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams, Washington and all the other founding fathers would surely shake their heads in bewilderment upon seeing what little true advancement in ideals and fundamental human decency we express today. They would certainly admit that they did not get it all perfectly worked out, but as certainly, they would still stand by their huge sacrifices and monumental undertaking that started us on a road we should be able to walk.
Why do we humans continue to tie our own shoelaces together and then get pissed off at the floor that smacks us in the face?!
Interesting in the premise alone.
A specific query in this interview was, When do you think government should lead on social issues and when is it better left to the American people to lead?
In the matter of marriage equality - oh hell, let's simplify it - in the matter of equality, our government led on this long before we even had a real government. When our rebellious forefathers decided this new land should be free of the many prevailing restrictions under a stodgy old form of government from across the ocean, a declaration of independence was drafted in which lofty but fundamental ideals were set forth. The very concept that all men are created equal was enough to bring the anger and force of centuries-old traditional governmental controls down on our tiny upstart experiment. The idea that these equal individuals should all enjoy unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - well, it was rebellion enough to start the revolutionary war. A small, under-developed association of colonies with a non-existent military set out to throw off the shackles tightly held by the most powerful force in the world of that day. And only a tiny group of dedicated men of action and courage led the way. These men were no doubt distrusted by many colonists and were expected to lead the fledgling American way of life into sure destruction. Yet free thinking and determination prevailed.
The war was won, in a way, but the devil in the details still has to be fought and overcome.
Our national constitution, while not stating some of the language in the identical way as the earlier declaration, still made our self-determined national freedoms clear and went even farther in defining many of them. Yes, these freedoms still must be argued today and some were argued with more violent war within the first century of our nation's existence. Yet little-by-little, our country evolves in its grasp and its exercise of freedom. Ugly back-steps are often taken when too many people succumb to greed, corruption, racism, nationalism, basically anything guided by fear, and our freedoms again are threatened.
Marriage equality, as all equality, is part of the fabric of our national character. In my humble opinion, it appears clear that any desire to deny any citizen the right to the pursuit of happiness is directly antithetical to our way of life as a nation. It would appear that millions of us in this supposedly advanced society would rather move back under the flag and heavy hand of King George in 1776. Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams, Washington and all the other founding fathers would surely shake their heads in bewilderment upon seeing what little true advancement in ideals and fundamental human decency we express today. They would certainly admit that they did not get it all perfectly worked out, but as certainly, they would still stand by their huge sacrifices and monumental undertaking that started us on a road we should be able to walk.
Why do we humans continue to tie our own shoelaces together and then get pissed off at the floor that smacks us in the face?!
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Perfect Congress
After another of the many Bernie Sanders interviews I have witnessed, I got to thinking of how wonderful it would be if more independent-minded legislators were in our national congress. [ Understand here, I am using the word Congress to include both houses, not the singular House of Representatives that has come to be the popular usage nowadays.] Sanders is now a Senator from Vermont, elected to that seat in 2006 after sixteen years in the House. He is an Independent, and he is a thinking person who looks at all possible sides of arguments before giving his opinions. Though he caucuses with (has more in common with at present) the Democrats, he has no trouble speaking up against those same colleagues if he views them to be leaning in some unreasonable direction. He has even suggested that it might be a good idea to have someone more progressive who could run in a primary against President Obama. Not afraid to speak his mind, this Congressional Independent. Too bad we can't clone Sanders!
Naturally, we all would like to surround ourselves with those who are more like us. It's human logic, human nature - call it what you will. Since I am not in Congress, it obviously isn't exactly "surrounding myself" I'm concerned about here, but it's all about seeing the nation better represented - of course, by those who think more as I do. Often that means, to me, simply stating it as "those who think." Yes, it is unfortunate for us all, but I absolutely reject for the most part the concept that either a Democratic or Republican politician can allow him/herself to think and act in any way that contradicts party politics. My personal guess is that once a person gets elected as a major party representative, more than 90% of the thinking(!) is done by the party and the individual veers from the party line rarely and at his/her own peril.
Is there such a thing even possible to consider as a perfect Congress? No, there cannot be, in the truest sense, because that body is constructed of just people and people are far from perfect. Still, the very reason to have a Congress, in our constitutionally based society, is to have capable people gathered to represent all of us in legislating the direction in which we all are to be governed. It seems to come as a given expectation that this body of representatives should meld into something more perfect than just the sum of its imperfect parts. Decent and dedicated folks who truly do want to represent us all and act on behalf of the whole of our nation should by virtue of that call to decency and gravity, become better humans in support of the body politic.
With this in mind, and knowing (as I am confident I do know and my knowledge is empirical), that our two-party power structure is marginally effective due to infighting and hugging party lines, I feel strongly that my concept would work. Perfect? No, it cannot be. Far better for our nation? Absolutely.
My concept is probably far too idealistic to ever hope we might see it happen, and of course, it would never be constructed purposely within the national legislature. But maybe it should be. Each body of the congress should be generally made up of three self-balancing groups: Republicans, Democrats and Independents. There could have been placed in the constitution, (could still be by amendment) some limiting language that would prevent massive over-loads of any one party. It would be simple to have a limit of 40% of any one party making up a legislative body. If that meant that today, the House of Representatives were made up of exactly 40% Dems, 40% GOP and 20% Independents, think how many more bills would get handled with fairness and proper discussion on the merits of the legislation. My personal preference would be that ALL of the representatives would be Independents, but it's not what I advocate because as an Independent, I am able to recognize that the resultant free-thinking mass would not be any more workable in a practical way than is the current mess created by the two-party structure.
Perfect, in my practical view then, would be to have 40% of any legislative body made up of Independents, 30% Republicans and 30% Democrats. This would clearly place the onus of persuasive reasoning and convincing argument upon either of the major parties to attract the required majority vote numbers by tapping into the pool of independent thinkers on any issue. What a beautiful world this would be!
Naturally, we all would like to surround ourselves with those who are more like us. It's human logic, human nature - call it what you will. Since I am not in Congress, it obviously isn't exactly "surrounding myself" I'm concerned about here, but it's all about seeing the nation better represented - of course, by those who think more as I do. Often that means, to me, simply stating it as "those who think." Yes, it is unfortunate for us all, but I absolutely reject for the most part the concept that either a Democratic or Republican politician can allow him/herself to think and act in any way that contradicts party politics. My personal guess is that once a person gets elected as a major party representative, more than 90% of the thinking(!) is done by the party and the individual veers from the party line rarely and at his/her own peril.
Is there such a thing even possible to consider as a perfect Congress? No, there cannot be, in the truest sense, because that body is constructed of just people and people are far from perfect. Still, the very reason to have a Congress, in our constitutionally based society, is to have capable people gathered to represent all of us in legislating the direction in which we all are to be governed. It seems to come as a given expectation that this body of representatives should meld into something more perfect than just the sum of its imperfect parts. Decent and dedicated folks who truly do want to represent us all and act on behalf of the whole of our nation should by virtue of that call to decency and gravity, become better humans in support of the body politic.
With this in mind, and knowing (as I am confident I do know and my knowledge is empirical), that our two-party power structure is marginally effective due to infighting and hugging party lines, I feel strongly that my concept would work. Perfect? No, it cannot be. Far better for our nation? Absolutely.
My concept is probably far too idealistic to ever hope we might see it happen, and of course, it would never be constructed purposely within the national legislature. But maybe it should be. Each body of the congress should be generally made up of three self-balancing groups: Republicans, Democrats and Independents. There could have been placed in the constitution, (could still be by amendment) some limiting language that would prevent massive over-loads of any one party. It would be simple to have a limit of 40% of any one party making up a legislative body. If that meant that today, the House of Representatives were made up of exactly 40% Dems, 40% GOP and 20% Independents, think how many more bills would get handled with fairness and proper discussion on the merits of the legislation. My personal preference would be that ALL of the representatives would be Independents, but it's not what I advocate because as an Independent, I am able to recognize that the resultant free-thinking mass would not be any more workable in a practical way than is the current mess created by the two-party structure.
Perfect, in my practical view then, would be to have 40% of any legislative body made up of Independents, 30% Republicans and 30% Democrats. This would clearly place the onus of persuasive reasoning and convincing argument upon either of the major parties to attract the required majority vote numbers by tapping into the pool of independent thinkers on any issue. What a beautiful world this would be!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)