Not long ago I was at Stone Mountain, GA where black families can savor old-timey Southern cooking served by folks in period costume, under a mountain with the 3 Confederate general's faces carved Rushmore-like in the rock. And as the pro-slavery military men gaze over Hotlanta, in the hotel restaurant the newly moneyed blacks are throwing down $25 a plate for a buffet Roman proportions. It was hit-and-miss quality as most of these American places that try to do everything, and manage to do nearly nothing well- the catfish was like cardboard, which is an insult to the South.

Flash to Disneyworld, an impressive illusion built on 49 sq. miles of swampland- is it Seminole land?- near a highway junction to capitalize on the post-war boom. Disney was a shrewd businessman and a master storyteller- even if the stories were sometimes hokey. Johnny Appleseed is an old favorite- the man who so impressed the hateful Indians that they all converted. What stuns me is not only the scale and detail of the illusion, but the odd feeling of seeing Latino/as in Coronado Springs, where flamenco music is piped through the halls and out over a fake lake and the restaurant serves "latin tinged American food"- that's a quote, and quite accurate, since outside of steak and pasta you can only find fajitas (muy tradicional, si?) and burritos. Oh, and the servers wear shirts printed with a bright tropical fruit motif, the bananas matching their bright yellow pants. Ole!

Epcot includes a world's-fair-type area where 11 nations are 'imagineered' (stereotyped in Disney fashion?). Showcasing superficial aspects of culture and a few natives for tourists is an old European tradition. And at Disney, they do actually import young people from those nations to represent. That part intrigues me. How is their experience, both here at Disney and in the surrounding sprawl of Orlando- which over the past 30 years has mushroomed in a manner visible from space, with the usual importing of humans (half apparently from New Jersey)?

Vacation is over so I will be forced to be more concise. With no further ado: image editing fun.





This jab does reinforce the stereotype of childfree people as selfish materialists. It cannot be denied that becoming responsible for a little one places demands on one that reduce self-centeredness, in the same way the married have to share and balance their own desires a bit more than the single (ignoring those who constantly 'date'). It is also true, trolling the bulletin boards where the persecuted, misunderstood childfree minority seek community, that you will find frequent revelling in taking vacations that many parents cannot afford...and tirades against the drooling, screaming and ungrateful nature of some kids. Forgive us. We need to gloat and revel at times, to look down our noses at those who so often do the same to us. It is not mature behavior but a needed venting of steam. As for the ugly child image, I won't deny that some are well-behaved and cute. But attacking the child and family is a natural reaction to the sacred and inassailable status those two words- family and child (children) have acquired. Pat Robertson used the image of suffering children to raise money for a flying hospital in Africa, and then used the money to mine for diamonds. I acknowledge reproduction is natural; but it is also frequently accidental, or a simple cork to place in the hole of 'what is my life's grand purpose' or 'nobody loves me' or 'I want to change the world to agree with me'. It leads to much preaching- and being driven from the footpath by SUV-sized baby buggies. Sure, children are innocent; they are also instinctively selfish until properly socialized; not unlike adults, with the difference that kids are more pliable and thus there is a bit more hope for them. Adults' habits harden with age until selfishness is intractable and even lengthy therapy or religious conversion results in only superficial change.

So much for being consise. And hell with work. Childfree folks simply don't go for sacred cows, or calves.

And thus it is that I have been spending some quality time with myself this vacation, effectively deep up my own ass, but in a good way...exploring some identity issues that require probing, an insistent, unflinching, and penetrating search for meaning.

Choosing to be free of kids is one. The other, equally heretical place I find myself, is agnostic nontheism. Sometimes I find nontheism nice, clinical, without the confrontational tone or Communist baggage of 'atheist'. Other times, I welcome confrontation- it's fun to drop the "A" word when faced with a Christianists (think Islamist- those who hijack their faith to oppress others and justify violence, as opposed to a moderate, peace-seeking, neighbor-loving Christian).

Anyway, both positions- childfree and godfree- involve some inevitable degree of negativity. I can dodge 'childless', which implies lack; but how to say I don't want children, I am happy without children, children are not necessary for my happiness...without a negative? Godless agnosticism is easier, because when one feels rationality opposes superstition one can assert a positive belief in scientifically verifiable reality, in reason, in secular wisdom. But both positions are vulnerable to nihilism, especially as I mentioned as their constituents get together and vent in bitch sessions resulting from the emotional stress of being denigrated. It's like any other minority; you do spend some time reacting instead of acting. Forgive us, and don't misunderstand us. I will grant the same benefit-of-the-doubt to my over-zealous theist neighbors.

At any rate, we all have to get along. I'm not leaving, neither are my Jesus-enslaved neighbors. Same for the Israelis and Palestinians. You can lob rockets to try to scare the Jews into the sea, you can turn Gaza into a mini-Darfur, but in the final analysis you need to share. We all need to share. And it starts with respect...so, fellow childfree and godfree beings, while it would be nice to convert everyone to our way of thinking it will not happen, and it would be boring- I don't want to imagine a world where Filipinos don't crucify themselves every spring. It's colorful.

A kind friend of faith suggested that having kids would restore my trust in the universe. I can see where he is coming from in that there are many fears, about myself and our world, that contribute to my decision to not make such a commitment. To reproduce would necessarily entail letting go of those fears, relaxing the psychic sphincter and jumping off the cliff, impaling oneself with willing abandon on the dildo-like spire of parenthood. It is the same way veterans and their families are easily sucked into unquestioning nationalism- once you put your ass on the line for something, once you throw yourself to the wind, you need to believe that everything will somehow be ok because you are certainly no longer in control....which is another compelling reason to have a god, so that you can say that someone is in control. The uncertainty of chaos, and the notion that there is no meaning or purpose, causes most people an existential discomfort. This- not God's plan- is our real challenge in a material world. To find, to create meaning and good will from the pile of shit we have inherited (and continue to add to) and the thin air wafting over it.

I know blogs and bulletin boards and emails are supposed to be short, easily digestible- but fuck the (nonexistent) reader. I decided long ago that I write for me, as a journal for my own amusement, as a clarifying tool to visualize my life's direction, as a vent. I have to keep this in mind to avoid involving my ego or pandering to an audience- the only downside being that the more time you spend with your own ideas, and your own computer, the harder it is to keep your true ideas from slipping out of your lips- a workplace and marriage hazard, I can tell you. Few people want to know what you are really thinking, especially not right when you think it. Comedians shoot from the hip. Husbands should not, because self-restraint, good timing and calculated servitude are the only way to survive. Henpecking is a woman's right. Each peck is a kiss of love. Adjust your perceptions. Told you this was cheaper than therapy! Anyway, back to gods.

Last observation: National Geographic has been following the depletion of the Amazon for decades. They note that indigenous areas of Brazil (e.g. Xingu) are among the best preserved, due to religious reverence for nature. This, I think is the one form of religion that does ring true to me- that nature, its most amazing expression in the life force (read this reseach about plant/insect and plant/plant communication) suggest not to me an all-knowing designer, but nonetheless amazing forces that have evolved our delicate, interlocking world. And this world, and those forces, are worthy of respect and fear. So, as in the civil rights movement, some forms of religion can be useful for organizing social behavior. I suspect this is also why humans have music- to aid in social organization. Deep shit, wade right in.

New year, yeah, wha-ever. The seasons are cyclical and that's enough for me. My neighbor said she was going to lay low due to people shooting their guns off- seems it isn't just a tradition among the tribes of Iraq.

A bunch of robins descended on me garden today, that marks something. But here is the obligatory year-end roundup: Frist, Delay, Haggard, Santorum, Rumsfeld- finally rid of ye! Like a bout of food sickness, I feel like I've been vomiting for ages and I can't believe how good I feel that the corner has finally been turned. To hear Bush say we aren't winning (even if qualified by we aren't losing) is on the one hand simply spin, but on the other the left hook of reality connecting with the chin of a bully.

Bombs over Bangkok, that's a shitty way to ring it in. They immediately say the Muslims weren't involved, to lower tensions, but I'll be watching. Nobody dead, anyway. Speaking of which, let's bring out our dead.

President Ford, Saddam Hussein, James Brown. Don't know anything about the first, nobody will miss the second much- well, ok some Sunni Arabs are still convinced he was their man, and he did decently by the economy and education if you didn't cross him, plus he wasn't a messianic towelhead- did I say that? But then, most folks miss the stability he enforced. The last, however, the Godfather of Soul, is a real loss. Say what you will about the PCP and domestic violence, the man was a poet, a true student of the school of hard knocks, a pioneer of Black Power and, need I say it, a Sex Machine. His grooves infected my white father, re-infected Africa, from whence they derived their roots, and it's a shame. Rumor in a local barber shop was that Al Sharpton was going to cut his hair to mark the passing of one of the great Geri-curl pompadours of all-time.

For reasons relating to the vital originality of black (or brown if you prefer America, I will also report that other talk of the barbershop included a swapping of local slang, still in its seminal stage- "hoonin", the action of driving on a freeway, derived from the onomatopeia of wheels at high speed...which was answered with "get hat", the act of leaving a gathering which is, of course, marked by getting and donning one's hat. Neither of these, too my knowledge, has yet caught fire- perhaps mention among high rollers could place such coinage in a key rap tune, but you heard it here first.

For no reason at all, I also recall months ago talking to a friend whose granddad lived in a sod house in S. Dakota. When deep snow buried them- and, I hear this works during dust storms- they would tie a rope to themselves so that they could find their way back from the outhouse. She mentioned that and I asked whereabouts, having seen the Badlands and the Black Hills, and I said something I am apt to like, wasn't that Lakota land? And the look that crossed her face was like the sound of a Marine locking and loading, or the howl of a drunk crowd of Okies at a Merle Haggard concert. White pride hackles full mast. And I don't get it!

It does no violence to the memory of our forebears to acknowledge that they could have done better. History is ostensibly useful in that we can examine and avoid some things we look back on and see were wrong- Trail of Tears, smallpox blankets are good examples. I refuse, incidentally to eat at a restaurant calling itself CLAIM JUMPER. Anyway, to say that our ancestors were the products of their culture, of their era, and to admit that in those times and places legislated racism was part of the landscape, and one which they benefitted from, this does them no dishonor. We are not saying they should have known better, they should have done differently. Even I, whose Quaker ancestors dealt fairly with natives under Willy Penn and then helped slaves escape in the Underground Railroad- I could walk off guilt free, even compared to some of my black neighbors whose free black ancestors had slaves themselves. But I acknowledge the social construction of race and the benefits my family derived/s. I know the whole Republican shtick: my ancestors worked hard, they suffered, it was tough to be a pioneer, they risked their lives for the betterment of their families in a lawless and dangerous land (all statements that, incidentally, remind me of the situation of undocumented Mexicans). But all the same, the land they were able to claim was not available to blacks. It came from natives. The mortgages that were opened up after WWII instituted redlining by the Federal government and created the suburb/ghetto split we all recognize- the 'wrong side of the tracks'. These laws and patterns were unfair, and our ancestors benefitted from this, did they not? The irritation caused by mentioning facts, by rounding out the historical account of our brave grandfathers with a bit of the dark underbelly, this is the least we can do. Those who want to live with unblemished heroes are in denial of our humanity- that which makes us all less tha perfect, prone to err, and products of our time and culture. It is why you can sit with senior citizens from England, who are ostensibly speaking English, and not have a clue what they are on about half the time. They drop a reference, you don't relate. You drop one, they haven't the foggiest. Our myopia is forgivable...and we need not be apologetic in accepting the facts. But to see them buried in period re-enactments that glorify the petticoat with a token savage on the side, I'd rather not buy a ticket to that museum at all. But the tension of that moment, when I insulted her granddad, haunts me- I intended no harm yet I am stuck dodging the guiltof our collective historical white man's burden. Not it!

I'd rather stay home and stew in a broth of beer and my own bile, trying to discern if the nearby explosions are fireworks, firearms, or pissed-off Muslims.

Do Mexicans take jobs white and black Americans want? Nope. Told you so... The only terrible sucking sound I hear is the sound generated by immigration critics. They suck- and loudly.

To continue the post below, I am torn between the traditions of an ethnicity, which should be expressed to assert diversity as human reality in the face of a mob majority. Yet I cringe at the notion that G-d wants anyone to wear a hat; largely because those who wear the largest hats most constantly are so often engaged in puffery, attempting to intimidate their more secular brethren, or perhaps attract gullble mates, by clownish displays of piety. Bigger breasts for the ladies, bigger shoes, cars, beards, earlobes or hats for the men...if you have ever thought that perhaps men were just strutting about the earth like so many turkeys, check out the India/Pakistan border. It would have been jjst a bit more appropriate to have John Cleese be the reporter, however (see: Ministry of Silly Walks)

So let me extend my mistrust to the military as well: don't trust anyone who proclaims their identity via a funny hat. Unless your life depends on it, like when you call the cops (and hopefully in such a case you are white so they don't shoot the wrong guy). Try Dave Chappelle for a far more eloquent presentation of that American dilemma.

One Golden Rule for nontheists: Don't trust men in funny hats.

The Catholics are easy targets here; the sun revolves around the earth! Wait, no it doesn't.



Double-plus-ungood if they also have a long beard. Here is how you might address men with funny headgear:

YOU: Hello, I was wondering, why do you wear that hat?
IMAM: In our religion, we believe-
YOU: (turning to flee) Thanks!
IMAM: But wait! You asked-
YOU: It's ok, you already told me what I needed to know.

Some display their religion to publicly assert the existence of their ethnicity; you know, I'm here, I'm queer, don't put me on that train. I support such political and social motives. Then there are those who wear hats because they think God wants them to. God told me to wear a hat, or carry a dagger, or shave my pubes.

Try this: put on a nice hat, and enter a Catholic cathedral. Odds are, a stern old lady will command you to remove it, if not physically swoop down and smack it from your head in a gesture of Christian kindness.

Now: Go to your local mosque on a Friday without a hat, or with the wrong style of hat. Odds are a brother will lend you a little cap, or ask you if you forgot yours. Very kind of him, and he will also be happy to advise you if your toes are not in position, because we all know God likes toes just right.

But does God want us to wear hats or not??? This is truly bewildering. Maybe the Catholics and Muslims could arm-wrestle over this one, and God would bless the winners. Best out of 3, that's a nice prime number symbolizing the indivisible nature of Allah for the Mohammedans and the Trinity for the Papists.

And wow! Surfing for answers on such things does turn up some truly titillating stuff.

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 16:

Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah:

While we were returning from a Ghazwa (Holy Battle) with the Prophet, I started driving my camel fast, as it was a lazy camel A rider came behind me and pricked my camel with a spear he had with him, and then my camel started running as fast as the best camel you may see. Behold! The rider was the Prophet himself. He said, 'What makes you in such a hurry?" I replied, I am newly married " He said, "Did you marry a virgin or a matron? I replied, "A matron." He said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you may play with her and she with you?" When we were about to enter (Medina), the Prophet said, "Wait so that you may enter (Medina) at night so that the lady of unkempt hair may comb her hair and the one whose husband has been absent may shave her pubic region.

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 17:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

When I got married, Allah's Apostle said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have married a matron' He said, "Why, don't you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?" Jabir also said: Allah's Apostle said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?'

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html

Sometimes I kind of like that Muhammed guy! Now excuse me while I go surf for some pics of virgins to fondle...

A friend recently sent me a link to a Newsweek Rabbi wondering 'why atheists are so angry'. Angry? Goddammit, we are not angry! He also included his complete response- which is too long and untimely to make the mailcall at newsweek, so I'll give him his 15 minutes with my massive readship here.

Why are many atheists angry? Good question. I hope my answer may shed some light. But first, I would request in a future column you ask why so many Christians seem so threatened by those who insist there might not be a god, or who insist on the removal of godly superstition from government, or the equal elevation of their faith (such as the Wiccan wife of a fallen soldier)? Christians make up the majority of our country, yet they act as if they are still being crucified by the Romans. It is you and I, the agnostic, the Jew, the Muslim, who are justified in feeling threatened in our daily affairs; who are regularly being told we are going to hell, by people knocking on our doors and blaring from our radios.

I, for one, would have 'under God' out of the pledge. It offends me, because I know precisely whose God they are referring to. It might be yours and theirs, but we both know it isn't Krishna, or the aliens of the Scientologists, or the Earth of the Pagans. The most basic religious freedom is freedom from religion, and I will do my utmost to keep church and state separate, and make sure godless Americans have a seat at the table when national policy is made. I give credit to moderate Christians and the majority of Jews who do not seek to impose their faith on others, or merge church with state. But I, for one, am not angry, but rather extremely annoyed to be immersed in a society of sleepwalkers, who smugly believe in an invisible man simply because they want to- it satisfies their psychological needs- not because of any rational evidence. This mass suspension of rationality, combined with an attitude that such beliefs are beyond criticism because to critique a religion offends people- leads to a climate where religious extremists can advance their agenda under a cloak of selective historical legitimacy and behind a shield of sacred-cow civility. In the history of our nation, from slavery to the extermination of Indians to the invasion of the Phillipines, each time we assured ourselves that we were fulfilling God’s will. In each war, our solders invoke him like a bunch of Sunday football players. Do they really imagine God favors one team over another? Confidence in divine sanction is deadly and dangerous because it allows no doubt and silences doubters. Your faith may not have lent itself to such travesties since the time of David; but faith in general, and the peculiar Christian faith in this nation, certainly do.

Why are you a Jew? Likely because you were born into a Jewish family. If you had been born in India, odds are you would be Hindu; in Thailand, likely a Buddhist. Very few people consciously choose their faith. Atheists are among the few who do, and they do so by careful, demanding, critical analysis. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings- I do not believe the origins of the universe are knowable or comprehensible to the human mind (to wit, the best evidence in physics we have on the subject is scarcely comprehensible to most), but I seriously doubt the existence of a divine consciousness, as there is no evidence for it. Perhaps the angry atheists who write to you are simply very irritated, agitated to the point that they boil over. If Christmas ran all year, wouldn't you too become a bit weary of every one wishing you a Merry one? Is it not annoying for people to assume you are Christian, or do you wear distinguishing headgear to fend them off? I do my best to hear with gracious ears when someone ways "God Bless you." To them, it is the nicest thing that they can say, and they are sincerely wishing me the best. But day in, day out, on the TV, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus...especially in the recent political climate, with intolerant, crusading creationists infiltrating school boards and the Federal government, my kind and yours are truly threatened. And this threat rests on a foundation of seemingly harmless faith.

I am sorry if asserting, publicly and not quietly, that there is no God offends some. They might examine their own childhoods for the trauma or brainwashing that drives them to embrace a supernatural entity. You confess to viewing the atheists with pity; and I will confess to viewing the Jews in particular with some considerable puzzlement. How any all-powerful and compassionate God could allow individuals under his watch to suffer the Holocaust is completely beyond me. No theory of free will or 'testing our faith' justifies such a God. The only God that could exist in this world of suffering is that of the Theist scientists, who kicked off the Big Bang and watches from an impersonal distance. The prayer-answering, activist, control-freak, miracle-performing God makes no sense at all. Either this God is all-powerful but fickle, inactive of late, sadistic or lazy; or It is all-loving but powerless to interfere. Invoking 'God works in mysterious ways' or 'God has a plan' are the weakest excuses for these inconsistencies imaginable. Bush has a plan for Iraq, too; do you buy that one? If there is a God, his record of rescuing people is extremely spotty. Or do you believe He will save you if you pray hard enough? Rwanda bet? Shall I praise God for the tsunami, imagine it came to destroy Muslims, or just blame it on the invisible boogie-man, Satan? Do I sound angry? I'm not; my sarcasm just illustrates my incredulity with the faithful masses, aptly characterized in the Bible as sheep. The Bible is also right about the wrath of a scorned woman; these truths, however, do not make the entire book true; one may find gems even in a landfill. To say this may sound malicious or angry, but I am afraid such assertions are a necessary smelling salt under the noses of those who may never have questioned their particular tome of myths.

If there is one reason I am angry, it is that the faithful have made Athesist a dirty word; by associating it with Communism, and assuming that without God no morality is possible, we and the Pagans have been tarred with the same brush wielded against Satanists, assumed to be not only without any good qualities but in active promotion of something evil. It is a disservice to athesits, agnostics, secular humanists, and naturalists to assume that we live without hope or mortality simply because we don't call on an imaginary being to provide it. I grant that some atheists are obsessed with criticism; they are defined by what they don't believe, and not what they do believe, which leads them to express themselves in negative terms. They are skeptics by nature, bah-humbuggers. I do not define myself this way. I do not have a lack of faith- rather, I have the presence of rationality, an overriding belief in rationality, in science and the observable, measurable, testable universe, which those of faith leap over like so many tooth fairies. And I am not without hope. Many of us who are godless find hope within ourselves for the same reason religious people look to the heavens- we all need it. Altruism is a natural consequence of being an intelligent social animal; we are aware of our species existence and have the unique opportunity to plan for its welfare. I admire my neighbors whose faiths drive them to do good works; if the Easter Bunny or a little green man told you to go out and hlep others, power to you, keep on doing it. I, for one, don't need an old book from some cave to tell me to do right and give to others. I simply believe that each person must find the strength to deal with life and to create paradise-like conditions here on earth- or people must help each other to do so. Nontheists do not waste on time praying for a spirit to rescue us, or hoping for a nicer place after we die. We want social justice, we want environmental preservation, we want and end to war, we want quality education and health care, here and now. Perhaps we would be more effectively organized if we got together every week, and more motivated if we meditated on our ideas and sang some songs. This individualism is a weakness of our faith- it keeps us atomized and prevents us from organizing for greater social good. The Brights, in particular, are seeking to remedy this inaction and the negative reputation nontheists have garnered under the Athesist banner.

Bottom line, the young scientist in your article who wants to 'get something done’ personifies the infidel I am and the sort I know- a bit impatient, but very ambitious, and very often driven to help others in life precisely because this short and sometimes brutish life is the only shot we have. That, my friend, is the perspective of eternity- from ashes to ashes, from dust to dust. Amen.

This is almost as much fun as America's Army- where war is just a game, or at least your child's training for war starts out that way... this is almost as much fun as Kuma, who are already preparing to (virtually) attack Iran...way to cash in on, and promote, human misery! Somewhere, in a dark undisclosed location, Dick Cheney is having a Very merry with that in mind.

HISTORY CHANNEL- Crusades (Activision)

"Travel back in time to the bloodiest period in history. The Holy Wars have begun and all must go to defend the land against the infidels! The call to action must be heeded by all; young and old, rich and poor will need to put differences aside until victory is immanent. You will command archers, infantry, crusaders and priests in this Real-Time Strategy game presented by The History Channel. Conquer challenges, master missions and defeat your enemy with armies of troops willing to die for their beliefs and land. Be apart of the righteous fight to preserve all that is good!"

Wow. Who wrote that crap promo text? Sounds just a bit biased and one-sided, doesn't it? Hardly promoting world peace and understanding in the Middle East. I mean, our troops who are in Iraq now are charged with protecting, assisting, training, working side-by-side with (shudder) Muslims, are they not? They are dying for American Interests (oil), for WMD- well, OK, maybe just a previous, abandoned wishful dream of WMD..they are dying to build a new Iraq. They are dying, ostensibly, for Iraqis, because we are such a generous nation we wish to bestow 'democracy' upon them, but alas they are proving unworthy with their uncivilized tribal quarrels, thus we will be morally justified in abandoning them soon, dicks in hands, high and dry...

Anyway, this whole escapade of Bush's crusade (his word choice, not mine) could be put into context by recalling the British occupation of the 20's, and also the Crusades. Remember, it's Istanbul not Constantinople?

So what's this about sending priests and soldiers to die for 'their' land, to claim victory over 'infidels', and and to fight for 'all that is good'? That's a pretty selective reading of History that the (gung-ho militaristic) Channel should be ashamed to put their name to. I mean, the game itself purports to allow for even-handed gameplay: you can also switch sides and play the Muslims, defending your land against the infidel (Christian) invaders, protecting all that is good by killing greedy, murderous Christians. Which is what I'm going to do today, in the spirit of Christmas. And after that I might join America's Army and see if I can do a little fragging...you know, pretend to be an American Muslim soldier grown tired of the racism of my comrades...or maybe friendly fire is magically disabled in their realistic simulation? Merry Christ Mass, NSA, and Happy Holy Days.

Ok. Jesus was a nice guy. We can agree on that much. But Old Testament Genesis as history or science? Lewis Black puts that in persective.

Merry F-ing Xmas indeed. I sang some Carols at a friends' party last night and even though they're ecumenical, and it was a Buddhists' idea to do it, I still couldn't enjoy the nostalgia of my youth because I kept choking on 'King" and 'Lord" and 'Praise' and 'Adore' and 'Reign' and all the other dogma embedded in those cheery ditties. It is a slippery slope; if you cede one notion of those old books to the believers- for example, the central notion that Christ was born a savior, died for your sins- you run the risk of having to swallow the whole damn book, or spend your time defining which bits you feel are universal wisdom and which are the detritus of human history. I don't deny there is some good writing in there- good characters, plots, and even some gems of wisdom- but I am not sure I want to sift through a mountain of steaming horseshit for a few (manufactured) diamonds.

About the only tune I really, fully enjoyed was "We Wish You A Merry Christmas", which sums up both a noble cultural tradition of, say, 16th century England (sharing food with neighbors, giving to the poor in your neighborhood) and the ravenous, secular spirit of consumption that defines much of the joy of the modern celebration. To wit:

We wish you a Merry Christmas;
We wish you a Merry Christmas;
We wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Good tidings we bring to you and your kin;
Good tidings for Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Oh, bring us a figgy pudding;
Oh, bring us a figgy pudding;
Oh, bring us a figgy pudding and a cup of good cheer
We won't go until we get some;
We won't go until we get some;
We won't go until we get some, so bring some out here

We wish you a Merry Christmas;
We wish you a Merry Christmas;
We wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.


Indeed. Well said, old boy.

One more thought; if you make up 80% of the population, how is it that your religion is under threat? If the majority feels threatened, imagine how the minorities feel.

Ah. Yes. Here it is, the link to the video of the show about the Lubavitcher who threatened to sue the Port of Seattle if they didn't add a Menorah alongside the Christmas trees...or are they just secular holiday trees? Give me a break.

The Pastor Fuiten is a turd and an insult to Christ, who was a decent, credit-hating, prostitute-helping, hippie. I bet Fuiten smokes meth with Mel Gibson.