"GOD" is still speaking?

One of my first essays at Contratimes was titled, "The god of love." It is worth quoting the opening sentences of that essay here, as they still ring true, though perhaps for very different reasons than when I first penned them.

Permit me to announce my rejection of Christ. For if Christianity is as the United Church of Christ (UCC) suggests in its recent TV commercial, then I have no interest in being a Christian. Such religiosity is anathema to me; and I'm anathema to it.

I have indeed renounced the Christ that is not the Christ, if you will. For I do not recognize as divine the voice of the Christ presented in the various churches I used to frequent. So I not only renounce that voice, I denounce it in total. It is to me an ugly voice.

Why, on this April Fools' Day, should I return to the United Church of Christ and its rather ugly message? Well, perhaps I do so for two reasons. The first is because the "Christ" voice I hear in the UCC is remarkably similar to the voice I hear in the Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire (I am an Episcopalian in exile), which is identical to the voice I hear in the Unitarian Universalist society which I often frequented, which is identical to the voice I hear daily in the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party. It is, in the end, a political voice, not a divine one, and not even a truly religious one.

But most important, I mention this UCC voice because my hypocrisy alarm has sounded. Again.

_____________________

Let it be known that the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ is Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Let it also be known that said church is the largest fiscal donor to the United Church of Christ's "Wider Mission." (see UCC press release here)

In other words, the church in which the revered though wildly controversial Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. presided is the capstone congregation of the United Church of Christ. It is in this church, one that sits atop a particularly liberal religious denomination, where Barack Obama worshiped for 20 years. It is also the church to which Mr. Obama gave over $20,000 -- no casual sum -- in 2006.

But where is the hypocrisy in all of this? Well, perhaps it all begins years ago (1993) in the UCC's denunciation of the Boy Scouts of America (many BSA troops once used UCC church facilities). One can read the UCC's resolution, found here in PDF form, which pronounces judgment on the independent and private Boy Scouts of America's position on homosexuality.

What perplexes me, as it probably perplexes you, is how a Christian denomination could ban from its function rooms and basement dining halls, a private club known for doing good works that also happens to take a traditional view about sexuality and marriage; and yet, that same denomination has no problem accepting funds from it largest single congregation wherein is propagated blatantly racist and anti-Semitic junk -- all in the name of "the Bible." The Boy Scouts of America hardly make a peep about sexual morality; they are curiously silent, by and large, about homosexuality in particular. It's not Boy Scouts marching against gay marriage; the Scout Oath says nothing about denying gays the right to protection under law.

And yet from its most esteemed and successful pulpit, the UCC has accepted, without blushing, the sort of pornography that has come to be known as the Gospel. Bill Clinton was "ridin' dirrrrrty" on black people; Hillary Clinton ain't never been called a "n------r!"; whites rule the United States of KKK America; it was whites who killed the black Jesus (actually, it was the "garlic-nosed" Italians who did it); AIDS was invented by the white man to kill blacks. THIS is the Gospel presented in the flagship pulpit of the United Church of Christ. You know, the very church that bans Boy Scouts for their quiet discrimination.

Of course, it only gets worse when we think of the tolerance of those great men of faith lauded by the UCC's gemstone pulpit, men like Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam (a quick web search shows that Mr. Farrakhan holds some very "intolerant" views on sexuality). The Trinity United Church of Christ even published in its church newsletter an op-ed (see page 8ff here) by a man demonstrably anti-Semitic; he accused Israel of having worked with the "white supremacists" of South Africa, detonating nuclear bombs on a whim off the South African coast, and developing a bomb that would kill Arabs and blacks.

All this makes sense in a perverted way when we admit into our discussion the UCC's motto, "God is still speaking." And our reply to this God, I am sorry to say, should really be "Please, shut up." For this sort of stuff pouring from the pulpits of the UCC is not God's voice at all.

Amazingly, the UCC itself is hardly mentioned in media accounts and analysis of Reverend Wright's work (and those who echo his angry and racist beliefs). But the UCC should be held to account.

Consider this my meager start.


Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Can You Say "Oy Vey?" How About "Oops?" Sorry?

[I tip my hat to James Taranto for directing me toward the absurdity -- one that incites laughter and tears -- pulled from the Letters to the Editor section of the Concord Monitor (I used to work for its sister paper) that has inspired this post.]

It is striking how interesting -- and perhaps even prejudiced -- some people can be. Take Mr. Peter Davis of Laconia, NH, for example. Here is a passionate man, full of fire and political consternation. Here is a man clearly given to analyzing the most complicated issues; he is probably noted around the house for his scrupulous attention to detail. He's probably got a ferret's relentlessness for sniffing out balderdash and rot. Surely his recent letter to the editor of the Concord Monitor ably bolsters that perception. If it doesn't, well, then surely it might present him a moment to reflect on his presumed certitude.

In response to an opinion column published in the Monitor on Sunday in which the word 'kafuffle' appeared, Mr. Davis takes a very curious tack. (How could he know that kafuffle can also be spelled 'kerfuffle' and that it comes from the Gaelic words meaning 'confusion' and 'disorder?') See for yourself:

For the Monitor:

What is a "kafuffle"? It's not in the dictionary. Is it just another proofreading error? Or is it a further example of your acquiescence to the Israelization of American culture by attempting to pass obscure Yiddish words into the mainstream of the American language?

It's bad enough that we are steered toward war with the entire Arab world and beyond because our "friend" Israel won't relinquish its occupation of Palestine and make peace with its neighbors. Still we are suckered into giving Israel, the 14th richest country on earth, billions and billions of our tax dollars in foreign aid every year, and we gave it carte blanche to rampage through Lebanon destroying everything in its path and inflicting collective punishment on its people, an aggression internationally condemned as a war crime, yet condoned by the Bush administration and sheepishly accepted by the American people.

How can we hold our heads high and proud when our own county illegally attacks and invades an Arab country that had done nothing to us, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and wrecking their entire infrastructure, clearly Bush war crimes, all for the benefit of Israel because Saddam was assisting the families of Palestinian martyrs in their struggle against the illegal Israeli occupation of their land? We shouldn't be proud to be associated with Israel, and I don't appreciate their insidious adulteration of our language.

PETER DAVIS
Laconia

What Mr. Davis fails to note is that the word was actually coined by George W. Bush during a pig roast in Texas. The president had a huge and happy mouthful of ice cream and peach cobbler when he was asked, "Why are the Israelis building a wall?" Bush replied, "They're fearful." But all the scribes heard was "kerfuffle." So, in a roundabout way, the word does have Jewish origins.

But only to Mr. Davis from New Hampsha!

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Prophet Of Bale

Supporters of atheist -- and ersatz philosopher -- Richard Dawkins have visited us at Contratimes. One supporter has even gone to rather great lengths to convince me that Mr. Dawkins is an original and compelling thinker. Today, I concede that he is:

A renowned atheist cited the "Jewish lobby" as a model for his campaign to promote atheism in the United States.

Richard Dawkins said he wanted to gain the same kind of influence as the Jewish lobby, saying it "monopolizes" U.S. foreign policy.

"When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told -- religious Jews anyway -- than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolize American foreign policy as far as many people can see," Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist who advocates atheism, told the Guardian newspaper. "So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."

Dawkins, an Oxford professor who wrote the best-seller "The God Delusion," told the Guardian that he wants to organize American atheists to counter the influence of religious groups.

"I think some sort of political organization is what they need," he said.

I wonder if Mr. Dawkins is the least bit suspicious that he might suffer from a Jew Delusion.

James Taranto, always wry and ironic, had this to say in response to Mr. Dawkins original thought:

Embracing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories does not seem the most effective way for atheists to expand their influence, at least not in America. Besides, to what end exactly does Dawkins seek to expand atheists' influence? Does he want to create a homeland for atheists, à la Israel? But there already was one--it was called the Soviet Union--and we all remember how well that worked out.

I concede that none of this destroys Mr. Dawkins' able arguments against the existence of God. Surely I can excuse his ignorance about America; I cannot expect him to know that a fairly large contingent of Christians in this country has vigorously defended Israel without any assistance from a "Jewish lobby." Consider Mr. Dawkins' ignorance of America excused. But I cannot absolve him of his blatant and public anti-Semitism; nor can I help him understand the capacious and able Christian mind he loathes. He may consider me deluded. But if his perspicacity leads to the type of thought quoted above, then I delight in the God Delusion.

(Perhaps Mr. Dawkins' remarks have been ripped from some justifying context. I would love to know.)

Peace.

BG

If you are interested in reading my starting points when discussing atheism, see my Letter to Christopher Hitchens.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

HT: James Taranto/Wall Street Journal