We don't have the money...


We don’t have the money to wipe out poverty. We can’t do it. But all of a sudden, yeah, we do have $700 billion for a bailout of Wall Street.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, independent 'democratic socialist ' senator from Vermont, in a debate on "Democracy Now!".

,,,,

No-Impact-Man

The average ecological footprint in the US is 9.6 and in the EU is 4.8. In other words, we probably need more than four planet earths to sustain ourselves without depleting resources for future generations. As a an environmental politics researcher, I have to admit that I too have a considerable footprint. In spite of barely eating meat, driving no car, and sharing a house; my ‘gains’ are more than offset by the amount of travelling I need to do. Just as I was about to think that zero net impact is impossible, I learned about No-Impact-Man Colin Beavan.
Colin and his wife and child, live in New York City. About a year Colin decided go for a one year experiment: is it possible to live with a net zero impact? Among the measures he took: no electricity use, no running water, no packaged food, no food produced further than 200 miles away, composting the family excrements, no public transport… Pretty radical huh? No-Impact-Man is about to finish his one year experiment, and he will publish a book about it, that is… if the publisher agrees to a book printed on non-paper, renewable material. Follow No-Impact-Man on the web: www.noimpactman.com

,,,,

'I vote for the "we" not the "me"'



Huffington Post commentator Jan Phillips on being Christian and elections:

As for being a Christian, I have to vote for the "we" not the "me." I have to care about all of us---the poor, the immigrants, the refugees, the families in Baghdad and Afghanistan and Bosnia. I have to say NO to war, and not just this was, but all wars. Today the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen admitted that "we can't kill our way to victory." Not now, not ever.

War is an obsolete solution, as was slavery, as was child labor. I wonder if Christians really gave some thought to what their wise and holy teacher said about non-violence, about the poor, about what we do to the "least of these..." if they wouldn't cast their vote for the person who took time to remind us at the national convention that "we ARE our brothers and sisters' keepers."


,,,,

Amsterdam 2028? - 2: green logo for a green olympics?

Earlier I posted on a possible Olympic bid by the Netherlands. The theme of these games would be 'sustainability' or the green olympics. (What is NOT green nowadays?) I came across this logo:


Do you think this design effectively communicates green olympics? It certainly seems more relaxed than this one:
Some alternative designs are are inspired by other 'Dutch originals': tulips, canal houses, bridges... what is 'green' about those? Anyway, a Dutch guy designed 6 logos for Amsterdam 2028. You can vote for the best design. Here's the video:


Terribly bored and suffering a writer's block I decided to do something with 'MS Paint', the most retarded drawing program in the world. But hey, I was really bored... Can you see the ripples and the waves?By the way, I am not too supportive of a Dutch Olympic adventure, or any Olympic Games for that matter. The costs are usually frickin' high. And what's so green about megalomaniac project development and humongous passenger kilometers? Some say sports bond; then why all the nationalist fuss? Do Olympic Games really lead to peace on earth? - Russia invaded Georgia on the opening day of the Beijing Games!

If the Netherlands persists on hosting the 2028 Games, I propose some minor revisions to the Olympic Games format:
  • We return to the early days of modern Olympic history, when mixed teams competed, a Swedish-Danish team won gold in the tug-o-war (!) competition in 1900; a US-Cuban (!) team won fencing gold in 1904. How about a US-Afghan shooting team; a Russian-Georgian wrestling team, and an Israeli-Iranian synchronized swimming team in 2028?
  • Since we are talking about Amsterdam, we introduce pot smoking as an Olympic discipline, that may significantly contribute to world peace. Peace out!
Click here for part 1: Amsterdam 2028? 1: A bid for the "Sustainability Olympics"

,,,

25% Suicides Related to Homosexuality

A French study shows that a quarter of all suicide attempts among men are related to homosexuality. With women, some 10% of suicide attempts are homosexuality related.

Annually, 40,000 youngsters (in France) attempt suicide. With men, 1 in 25 attempts prove fatal; 1 in 160 attempts are fatal with women. Some 900,000 youngsters have psychological issues. Lack of understanding and empathy with parents and long waiting lists for psychiatric assistance worsen the problem. 

The findings were presented to President Sarkozy. The French government has decided to launch a campaign to support young people with emotional problems.

,,,,

How would Jesus attack Iran?

Peace I leave with you; My [own] peace I now give and bequeath to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you…
JOHN 14:27
Of course, I could be accused of being judgmental, but would I do good not to use healthy judgment and let my conscience speak?

I just cannot help thinking 'How would Jesus attack Iran?' when I hear war prone politicians and presidential and veep candidates in US elections. It seems like those who confess their religion loudest talk most favorably about war. In fact, war is called God's will! (see: here; and uh... gas pipelines are also God's plan...)
I can't help to think this is blatant blasphemy. And I am surprised and saddened to see Christians falling for this kind of dangerous nonsense.

It sickens me to see how Christianity today not only becomes irrelevant but outright detrimental to peace on earth.

,,,,

Tutu: Church obsessed with gays

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has accused the Anglican church of allowing its "obsession" with homosexuality to come before real action on world poverty.
"God is weeping" to see such a focus on sexuality and the Church is "quite rightly" seen by many as irrelevant on the issue of poverty, he said.
It may be good to "accept that we agree to differ" on the gay issue, he said.


Desmond Tutu makes the point I tried to make in this series on critiques on Christianity/the irrelevant church. For the full article go to the BBC (where else?...).
,,,

Bible on Homosexuality 4: Leviticus 18 & 20 - III

Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.


This is the fourth in a series on the Bible and homosexuality. In the previous post I discussed the references to homosexuality in Leviticus. I argued that these references are informed by ancient Jewish notions of purity. However, this purity notion is distinct from the notion of sin. Rather impurity is meant as a construction of the origin of life and creation and is employed to exalt God who is pure and perfect. Now I will continue the discussion on these verses in Leviticus.

The purity notion of the ancient Jews, refers to what is considered ‘original’, or from the beginning, but also as ‘undiluted’. I explained the first impurity notion in the previous post. Now I would like to turn to the second component of purity in Leviticus: purity is undilutedness.
In fact this undilutedness component is closely related with the purity as origin notion. The assumption of a beginning of things, a creator God, a beginning of time, inevitably raises the question how the pristine, undiluted state of creation was.

Ancient Jews seem to have a rather strong feeling for what is original and what is not. The division between original (pure) and unoriginal (diluted) is not necessarily based on what we would find evidence today. Rather, ancient Jewish originality notions seem to be tentatively informed. For example, a fish should have scales, so a shark impure and should not be consumed. Similarly, men should be the penetrating partner in sex, not the receiving partner. Men should not wear woman’s clothes. Animals should have cleft hooves, therefore camel are impure. Clothes should be made out of one material, so one should not wear clothing woven with two different threads.
What constitutes impurity is therefore the mixing of original elements of creation. What is mixed: materials, roles, animal characteristics, is therefore impure.

Interestingly, the homosexual references in Leviticus are only restricted to penetrative sex between men, it does not, for instance, include mutual masturbation, or lesbian sex. Homosexuality in this instance is impure because of the idea that homosexuality is not original (see previous post), but also because penetrative sex between men dilutes the perceived roles of men and women. A man should be the giver, the penetrating party in sex; the woman should be the receiver. Notice that, lesbian sex is not penetrative, in Jewish religious tradition, sex between women was not considered ‘real sex’, but ‘rubbing’. This explains the absence of a reference to lesbian sex throughout the Old Testament, and even in the New Testament there is only one reference. In the days of Leviticus, 6th century BCE, polygamy, that is marriage with multiple women was common practice. This also adds to perception that intimacy between women within one marital partnership is ‘pure’ and does not dilute the original notion of matrimony.

In sum, Leviticus refers to penetrative sex between men, as a notion of impurity by the dilution of sexual roles. This notion is informed by ancient Jewish ideas of how the world should be, rather than by sin (also see previous post. ,,,,

Critiques of Christianity 2: The Wrong Issues, The Wrong Tools

I am not sure how to continue the series I started about 'Critiques of Christianity'. Since, I am often misunderstood when I criticise. I criticize to try to make things better, not to break-down and to tred on the Church. Rather, I believe in the potential of the gospel as a relevant message in our times. However, the current representation of the gospel by the Church and Christian politics fall short. I do not expect perfection, however, whether Christendom has anything to add to today's world remains a pressing question. Let me therefore continue to pose a couple of questions.

How can the most overtly Christian political systems, such as the US and the UK have some of the worst records on social welfare and poverty? While liberal, agnostic countries such as the Nordic countries have the most developed welfare systems?

How can pro-life actually become pro-death, when abortion ratios are higher in countries with a higher percentage of avowedly Christians than in 'liberal' countries?

Perhaps these questions indicate that many traditional Christian institutions look at the wrong issues, while employing the wrong tools.

The wrong issues
For instance, the American Christian right has been much concerned about all kinds of (foreign) threats, a slight hint of caring for the poor is called 'socialism'. Instead of focussing on the issues that - according to the gospel really matter - such as the fearless advocacy the poor; a greater part of Western Christian politics focuses on the fearful protection against loss of property.

The wrong tools
Also, the legalistic focus in the realisation of God's kingdom on earth seems to lead to the exact opposite. For instance, the law is seen as the supreme instrument to impose societal change. Whereas there's a very good argument to look at things more substantially; not banning abortion, but creating the best circumstances for a healthy and supportive parentship as an alternative to abortion. (George Monbiot wrote an interesting contribution on how pro-life becomes pro-death)

I hope a focus on issues such as care for the poor, the environment and emancipation will unlock the potential and treasure that undoubtedly is enshrined in the Christian gospel.

,,,,

Nobody's F*s Matt Damon: On Palin



When Matt Damon wrote the script of his debut 'Good Will Hunting', he - of course - assigned himself the role of the genious, outsmarting everbody, youngster. But really, Matt Damon for President is not such a bad idea, he would not be the first actor to become US President ...

,,,

Bible on Homosexuality 3: Leviticus 18 & 20 - II

Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.


In the light of purity as ‘original’, the Leviticus laws stress the idea that man and all creation are broken from the beginning. Impurity sets in even before conception. Therefore a menstruating woman is considered impure, and semen is impure, and even sex is impure. This notion is distinct from the notion of sin. Newborn babies are considered impure, even when they are not in the capacity to do wrong. A baby was considered impure for the first eight days of his/her life and then circumcised.
Considering this ‘original impurity’ notion, gay sex is impure, for it relates to both sex and semen. Indeed, the ‘original impurity’ perspective leaves little room for interpreting gay sex as sin an sich.

Why would the ancient Jews go through so much lengths to stress how impure humanity is from its very beginning, even before conception? It is crucial to understand their view of God as pure and perfect, holy. In an act of worship, this perfection is contrasted with the original imperfection of men. In the face of so much perfection, man would surely die. In fact, if Leviticus is taken literally, everyone deserves capital punishment. This ultimate sanction was not restricted to gay sex but also, for example, to anyone who curses his/her parents. If this law was ever implemented, there would have been no Jewish people. The reason that the Leviticus laws were put in place was not to implement, like we do with laws nowadays, the reason was to forge a tribal (national) identity of a worshiping community.

The condemnation of gay sex as a sin, instead of a religious notion of impurity, invariably is discriminatory because other purity provision are not taken as seriously. Moreover, the Leviticus provisions have gained a additional meaning in the Christian tradition. Jesus’ condemnation of those who fanatically preach to live by the law is a clear amendment to a legal and prescriptive reading of Leviticus. Clear instances f Jesus liberal interpretation of those Leviticus provisions that deal with questions of purity is are plenty. Jesus condemns the religious authorities who are concerned about washing cups but their insides are like the white of gravestones; when people complain that his disciples do not wash their hands, again he points at the importance of what is inside, rather than the outside. In a reference to the purity laws on washing hands Jesus says that it is not what goes into thee mouth that defile a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles. When he explains this to his disciples, Jesus makes a distinction between purity and real sin. ‘What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. for out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile. (Mt. 15:18-20)

In sum, from the perspective of original impurity, homosexuality in Leviticus is not referred to as a sin, but mentioned in the context of impurity, a notion that is meant to exalt God, not to be implemented as a legal provision.

,,,,

Bible on Homosexuality 2: Leviticus 18 & 20 - I

Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.


I continue with part two on a series on the Bible and homosexuality. The this and the next two posts will be dedicated to Leviticus. Seemingly the harshest texts in the Bible on Homosexuality, Leviticus 18 and 20 have regularly been used to argue against homosexuality today. Besides being the harshest texts, they might also be the hardest to interpret. Leviticus was written in the 6th century BCE. To fully appreciate and understand these ancient texts today, we would have to overcome the gap between our culture and norms and those of ancient Israel.
Clearly, ancient Jewish culture is very different from our Western culture. Leviticus in this respect is a case in point. Often cited as a book of law, in fact it is something quite different from our legal constitutions. Whereas Leviticus deals with issues of religion, morality and – more prominently – 'purity', our legal codes are relatively amoral, void of explicit references to a certain religion and is barely concerned with purity, let alone religious purity.

The texts on homosexuality in Leviticus written in the context of religious purification laws, nothing like what we – in the West – are familiar with. According to these text the sexual penetration between men is a religious taboo, and should even be sanctioned by death penalty. Other cases liable for penalty include the wearing of clothing woven with different materials, sex with a woman in her period, and the consumption of lobster or porc.

But what does purification or purity actually mean? The ancient Jews had a simple view of how the world should be. This is reflected in the Genesis creation account. Rather than a literal report about the foundations of the earth and life – as some fundamentalist Christians believe today – Genesis is an account of how things should be. Purity in Leviticus therefore relates to a notion of how the world should be. There seem to be two measures for purity. (1) pure is ‘original, and (2) pure is ‘undiluted’. Both of these purity notions are a reflection of the Jewish creator-god, itself the origin and undiluted.

,,,,