::::::::
Too Much of a Good Thing: A Warped History
Some of the observations made here may ring out as oversimplifications, but given the current tendency of those in the media and the public eye to reduce nearly every idea or event of any significance down to a cute one-liner or catch phrase, perhaps this piece will be "trendy" (with no apologies to Fox News"but perhaps some to the Daily Show).
Continuing to muscle out something as mundane as, say, humanitarianism, the two most popular (and gossipy) topics of the day remain religion and politics. And even if we dare venture into humanitarianism, unheralded generosity or even philanthropy, questions always arise even there about the political or the religious "implications", as regards perceived morality (or immorality), ethics and the long term consequences for one religious movement/sect/clique or another, or for some particular political figure. Religion and politics are both deeply entwined pulse-raisers in the irrational discussions about such topics as the proposed islamic cultural center in New York, or the stoning and mutilations (of "disobedients") sanctioned by the Taliban in central Asian/middle eastern countries, where they (it? What else do you call the Taliban?) enjoys either some favor or tolerance. Two more examples of this conjoined conundrum might be the fight for Harry Reid's political seat, based up the dust-ups over archaic, religiously-tinged statements made by Sharon Angle (no angel, herself), and the continuing shadow dangling precipitously over the presidency of Barack Obama, per the debate over whether he is Christian or not (like it matters? Do you care? I don't). You might also want to consider the insidious disconnect between "In God We Trust" and the imperialistic attitude of the United States (in guns we trust), or the political ramifications that are caught up in whether the" Islamic" nation of Saudi Arabia will "allow" U.S, troops to travel through and live temporarily in their country, given the Christian tenets, proselytizing and Bible thumping they bring along. And please let us not forget "The Family", a deeply sectarian, secretive branch of fundamental Christianity, which owns and runs a townhouse "sanctuary" for U.S. senate and congressional members, many of whom have been involved in reported sex scandals, bribe taking and perhaps even worse moral abrogations. These folks have double standards for their double standards. Enough said. This becomes tedious, after awhile.
[The question of "morality" begs a comment, here. Religion has infused politics with the discussion of morality vs. immorality, making it a sometimes vocal focal point, and has circumvented any discussion of ethical behavior. In fact it ignores ethics, altogether. What is at issue in cases like the conduct of members of "The Family" is not so much a matter of morality or immorality, but a lack of morality. For these "true believers, "amorality" is the order of the day. What may be construed as "religiously moral", depending upon your selective perception, may not be ethically "right" or humanly proper. Sectarian-based, religiously inspired interpretations have made ethical misconduct and political malfeasance possible, acceptable and even "righteous". It can be the basis for justifying adultery, fraud, dishonesty and genocide and was use for justifying the invasion of Iraq. The absence of any morality is a far worse human condition than occasional pangs of immorality.]
And then there is the never-ending Israeli-Palestinian feud, which is ostensibly about holy land and one true God (which one now, really?) but is really about real estate" which is really about political power" and about which the "christian nation" of the United States is constantly attempting to intervene, because of our judaic allegiances (and oil) but which beyond religion are backed up with the largest standing arsenal in the middle East, including nukes????
Note: On August 21, Netanyahu announced that the direct peace talks (just announced by Secretary of State Clinton, would be held as planned, only if everyone heeded his caveat that Israel's' rights and sovereignty were recognized. He can say that because an arsenal. Arse-anal? Is this all about religion, real estate or politics? Where is Solomon when we need him ? The "Peace Talks" are never about peace.
Another note: I have made every effort, throughout this piece, NOT to capaitalize christian, christianity, muslim,islam, jew or judaic, because, over the centuries, all of these movements have forfeited their right to be capitalized, by marginalizing their own ethics and behaviors.
But I wander (in the desert of non-ideas) and digress (into the morass of duplicity of thought).
Let's start with the religion topic, though, and with the myopic nature of its' haughty and arrogant selective interpretations and perceptions, ("selective perception", by the way, is the human capacity to see things they you want them to be, and not necessarily they way they actually are) and how religion has taken the notion of "a good thing" and turned it in upon itself, in order to garner and amass money, real estate and power. Again, being overly simplistic, monotheism (the oldest form with which we are all most familiar is judaism) was a spiritual and emotional response to the vagaries and multiple obeisances required by polytheism. It focused thought, tidied up loose theological and deification issues, attempted to eliminate some philosophical contradictions and gave some of those thirsting for answers to the questions of "why?" a strong rallying point. If you believe in the legend, it got the enslaved Jews out of Egypt (an anti-pyramid scheme, if you will) and coalesced at least one group of nomads into a cohesive community that began to look out for one another in useful and sometimes even egalitarian fashion. But, through the desire to organize, structurize (make the most of a good thing?) and formalize, this "movement", over time, became controversial, top-heavy, troublesome, beset by laws and ritual, adorned with garments, vestiges and decoration, and built physical monuments to its' own narrow and proscriptive perception of "human salvation". It became, some might say, oligarchic (a true pyramid scheme, this time). It became, too much of a good thing. And if, as a member, you chose not to behave according to the guidelines of the faithful, you ran the risk of being spurned, shunned (The Amish tried this a few centuries later), cut off from marriage possibilities and debilitated economically because of severely curtailed commerce (money, real estate, politics and power, again). In order to get just the bare essentials of the "good thing", you had to buy off on "too much of a good thing", which was rapidly, in the eyes of many, becoming not one"so to speak. And eventually, there were, and still remain, myriad (pyramid) versions and multitudinous authoritative interpretations of just exactly what constitutes "too much of a good thing", and which interpretation and manifestation is "more pure". But that gets into sectarianism, denominationalism and exactly which form of "too much of a good thing" is better than the other guy's. Ah, blessed duplicity.
Eventually this incongruence got to be just too much for many of those who were brazen enough to think outside the box (The Ark of the Covenant?) and they began rebelling. One enduring offshoot (among many) was christianity. It began as a protest movement (more or less) against the rigidity of the larger jewish monolith of ecclesiastical mumbo-jumbo, and sought to return (radicalize) monotheism through the (semi-pagan) creation of a god incarnate (that would be Jesus, if you are following me). While later adopting three heads, embracing adaptations of assorted pagan mythologies, creating new myths of its' own and very shortly adopting ritual, decoration, vestments and physical monuments, it became even larger and more unwieldy than judaic monotheism. Perhaps this was in large part because it was not really monotheistic, anymore. We call this behemoth the catholic church. (In time it was co-opted by the Roman Empire as a political tool and collection agency, dressed in religious shepherd's clothing)
Today "it" owns more souls and more real estate and has more collective political clout than even Republicans or tea partiers. "It" even has an infallible leader. Despite its' claims about humanitarianism, generosity, and human kindness, the meek inheriting the earth, and so on, it is an organization pre-occupied with making sure that everyone gets "too much of a good thing" and donates cash. But only, please observe, done in precisely the exact form and ritual proscription that any particular variation on the original theme (within the parameter s of its selective perception"you still with me, here?) will permit. "It" has sanctioned war, genocide, inquisitions, become wealthy through dark and foreboding relationships with autocrats, bureaucrats, tyrants, murderers, dictators , ideological fanatics and hateful iconoclasts of the worst kind. It is an oligarchy of sinister proportions almost beyond comprehension, and certainly, something a universe away in thought and practice from the original notion of the any early monotheists. It is much too much of a good thing. And when you reek of goodness, you stink.
By the time that much of central Europe was beginning to awaken to the fact that the world was expanding and moving on, rediscovering math, astronomy and sanitary practices, the protestant reformation (really just a schism) took place and this opened the door for even more denominationalism. This insurgency in new "good things" received its' most ardent boost from the founding of the new United States, and the constitutional principal of freedom of religion (how do think we got Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons?). With (by some estimates) more than 1600 protestant denominations around the world, though lacking the monetary and real estate clout of the catholic church, this group wields an enormous amount of psychological clout by inventing new definitions of arbitrary morality, spreading a gospel of guilt, and practicing a version of modified monotheism that might best be described as "Jesusology". (This is like "mythology", but with "god" attached to its backside.)The "good news" of the larger movement quickly became the universal "bad news" of far too many expressions of having too much of a good thing. Stinking goodness returns.
On the more liberal interpretive side, this meant that it was "OK" to use birth control and smoke cigarettes but you can't get an abortion even if you are raped; it is OK to build a beer distribution warehouse next to an Episcopalian Church, but you can't have a strip club next to a private Baptist high school; "thou shalt not kill", unless it is an abortion doctor; freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution but you cannot build an islamic cultural center (where people might pray to the one true god who may not be yours) five blocks down the street from a site where 17 crazy radical jihadists demolished two office towers; all men are created equal[in the eyes of god] except for poor people, stupid people, black people, muslims, certain jews, most pagan Africans and Zoroastrians. And we should been horrified that the Taliban would stone to death adulterers, but members of congress who are adulterers are re-elected and it is OK to deny health to the poor and the elderly. Or you can play with rattlesnakes and have multiple wives, but you cannot blaspheme. And you can build a liquor store, anywhere. Go figure.
Would you like to get into the discussion of homophobia and homosexual protestant pastors who travel with transvestites? I didn't think so.
The islamic faith, on its' face another monotheism , born say many of an unholy co-mingling of the thought of the two first great monotheisms, and fleshed out by a blind, illiterate self-proclaimed prophet, mixes those two earlier thought lines, introduces new cultural proclivities and prohibitions, rules, addendums and restrictions, and opens the door to innumerable variations and shades of interpretation (denominationalism). Today you can pick from primitive, radical, moderate or extreme (Sharia) versions. Islam also makes wild promises about after-lives (to promote martyrdom) and says one thing (depending upon which sect you listen to) and then practices another (very much like their christian brothers and sisters...except that most muslims hold sisters in lower regard than camels and donkeys). It might be fair to say that almost no one, even the majority of various muslims, understand the scope of the wide-ranging views held by assorted members of this faith, and certainly western christians understand even less. Some jews seem to understand their muslim brothers and vice-versa (they are, after all kissing cousins and both claim to know Abraham), but just as many who might claim this mutual tolerance and good will, will also gladly cut one another's throats (literally), and the christians will happily hand them the knife (or nuke) with which to do it.
I must offer this observation about the outwardly hostile, vengeful and retaliatory nature of "radical" muslims (who are not really radical anyway, since "radical" means "root" and if they were all radical, they would go back to their roots and eschew hatred and violence.. but then so would christians and the State of Israel"oh, well) against the western world: they have been treated badly, treated as second or third class humans, derided, chided, maligned, attacked and belittled for so long (christians are great at selective perception. Did I mention that?), that they must look at western wealth and success and have some form of penis envy. Perhaps they have no choice but to lash out when the oppressions and humilities become too great to suffer quietly? I wonder how our friends, the Saudi oil barons feel about that? And I would also guess that the US backed state of Israel starving out helpless Palestinians in the Gaza strip is not helping to abrogate this situation, either.
Having broached that taboo observation, let me also say that "radical" muslims and "radical" christian and "radical" jews, who thump Korans, thump Bibles and look upon the slaughter of anyone "not their kind", are all simply "rednecks". They have all come from the same gene pool that severs the links between their lizard brain and their logic circuits at birth, renders them reptilian, and allows them to be nurtured by the "too much of a good thing" aspects of their respective faiths. In order that someone can gain money, real estate, power and influence. Gawd forbid, they should deny anyone the opportunity to share in the bounties of their "too much of a good thing".
I have a vision of radical Arab muslims, living side by side with Appalachian Bible thumpers and Montana white-supremacist militiamen, along the border of the Gaza strip, which is being patrolled by catholic Mexican drug lords, driving American made Humvees.
Which brings us to democracy.
Christopher Hitchens says (quite accurately) that" Religion poisons everything". More precisely, the arrogant selective perception (by religionists) of what is right and what is not, moral or not, based upon whose interpretation of what constitutes "too much of a good thing" is the real evil at work, here.
An aside: I heard an author on NPR this morning say that she has never seen a dispute or schism or argument occur between christian and muslim factions that did not have a "secular trigger". So this begs the question, which came first, Hitchens or the egg?
Democracy began as a good thing. The Greeks invented it (mostly), the Romans corrupted it, the Church has abused it and the United States brought it back into fashion in 1780 something. Contrary to current popular thought and tea-party claims, this country was never intended to be "under God", not to mention to be any form of christian nation. But as freedom of religion has allowed religion to "poison everything" (mostly by giving it unbridled non-sanction, in the form of tax-free status for real estate, freedom of speech and the acceptance of implied norms of morality), democracy has become "too much of a good thing". While purporting, on the one hand, to give the "people" a voice (including, now, ruthless corporations, and claiming that all men are created equal (except for women and people of color), establishing truth and justice for all (if you can afford enough lawyers and you are white), democracy in the United States has undergone a death from the sheer weight of being "too much of a good thing." (I hear a libertarian clapping in the back of the room)
As in religious movements, wherein this poison seems to abound, the same would appear to hold true for political movements, even democracy. As those availably recorded in recent history would seem to indicate by their evolutions, they all begin with the notion of setting men free, establishing a new norm for equality and sharing the wealth, and so on: creating a good thing. Marx, Mao, the French revolutionaries, the Russian revolutionaries, the American revolutionaries (and more): they all had the same notion. And they have evolved, however, into some form or other of oligarchy, mal-distribution of wealth and human inequality, and ultimately, then, being driven by some form of militarism. Despite the English Magna Carta, Britain went on to enormous imperialistic adventures, post WWII saw Russia (The USSR) become a mega-maniacal land-grabbing abuser of personal freedom, China is masking its' dependence up a failing communism with tremendous economic growth (based upon western consumption) and the only hopeful signs are beginning to emerge in South and Central America, where new forms of government are resisting American and European imperialism and finding their own voice in the international milieu.
But democracy in the United States of America seems to be dead. It has killed itself with its' own hype, its' own bravado and braggadocio, its' seemingly endless wealth and capacity for simultaneous creation and destruction, creativity and wastefulness, a "too big to fail" posture and a nearly now silent voice of the people. It has collapsed under its' own weight of self-delusion and empty cultural sprawl. (Read any good Howard Zinn books, lately?).
Another way in which to view this scenario is to return to the pyramid scheme metaphor. When you have too much of a good thing, then your self-image, your view of your own existence, your "selected" perception is blurred to the point where you might begin to believe that you really are too big to fail. This not only allows, but also creates, a social/monetary/cultural pyramid which is upside down: all of the wealth and the power are piled on the top, and all of pressure and stress is on the small point at the bottom: the people, whose voice is no longer heard, because the din of the roar of the party being held on top is deafening. Anybody remember, "Let them eat cake"?
By both having and being "too much of a good thing", and "using up" instead of utilizing resources (a consequence of having too much of a good thing), and allowing religion to infiltrate, color, modify and taint nearly every aspect of our secularity, democracy has lost its underpinnings. It has believed its own swagger, wallowed in its own opulence, glossed over details and created ideological wastelands that are so trash-laden with old ideas, bad ideas, archaic laws and laws of temporary convenience, misconceptions and emotional and psychological abuse of its' citizens, that the dastardly practice of selective perception (and memory) has become commonplace.
The United States is locked in an entwined pattern of religious and political nostalgia. Thought patterns are too much anchored in a longing for a past (that was not really very good"memory tricks have led us to believe otherwise ) and there is a great longing for a return to yesterday, last week, last decade, a desire for a misty-eyed sentimentality not unlike the onemaintained by those who wait for the return of Jesus, or Moses or Mohammed. This is a destructive, backward-thinking, festering wound of the consciousness. Looking over one's shoulder is not altogether bad, when you are eager to see who is coming behind you, and to help prepare the way. When nostalgia prevents you from ever looking forward, you are surely bound to run into a wall.
Nostalgia is but one of the tools that religious movements (and their leaders) and political movements (and their leaders) employ routinely to create patterns of selective perception, to subtly coerce people into seeing only what they wish to see, remember what they only wish to remember (some of which was never really there, in the first place)in order to make life appear easier to swallow and help make daily trials and tribulations easier to excuse, thereby always promising that tomorrow will be better, that the salvation of some kind will come any moment, and that conformity to the status quo, or a return to a former one, will make everything "OK". It won't.
Nostalgia, incidentally, is ably enabled by gullibility and naivete'.
I would like to add, here, a comment by William Grieder, in this book Come Back, America, as regards the typical function of democracy in the United States, today. He says this is what Washington (DC) portrays as "statesmanship": "When official America talks of "bipartisan compromise", it usually means the people are about to get screwed".
It is time to return to secular politics and stop eulogizing dead or mythic religious cultic figures (you have several from which to pick) as part of a political strategy. And it is time to stop making icons of dead political has-beens as though they were religious icons or prophets (I pick Ronald Reagan). It is time to stop mixing religion and politics (Sarah Palin and the 700 Club be damned). To use a different metaphor, mixing religion and politics, two examples of too much of a good thing, together in the kitchen of human commerce is a bad cultural culinary practice: it produces a stew which is foul to the taste and contributes nothing the nutrition of thought required to help both the brain and spirit grow and create cultural newness, vibrancy and human sustainability.
When any "entity" becomes "too much of a good thing", it becomes a bad thing. Like too much ice cream, too many French fries, too many martinis, too many sectarian branches of one idea claiming to be the one true way. And intermixing the two discussed here, is simply a bad move. Why? Didn't your mother ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?
