How Stinky is Too Stinky?

This guy posted a good article discussing this picture. It turns up that he's a megachurch pastor and we know how I feel about that, but we will let that slide for a moment. I do not have to like his methods to acknowledge his point.

I left a comment on the blog of Shae (who is the pastor of a church in Baytown and a good guy), who was asking if Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth would wash the feet of the bin Laden (I had not yet looked closely enough at the photo to figure out quite who was whom, but it does not affect my point):

Why wouldn’t Jesus wash the feet of bin Laden? Look at the others in the picture — [edit: Kofi Annan], Merkel, Blair, Bush, [edit: former president of China], and I think the king of Jordan [edit: India] — arguably, [Annan] and Merkel are the only two who are, at least politically, more “worthy” of having their feet washed by Jesus. Mandela has been married three times [True, but he's not in the picture]. Merkel is, of course, Lutheran and a physicist and is therefore superior in all ways [I stand by this statement].

Does Osama fit the mortal definition of evil? He certainly fits -my- definition of evil, being that he willingly contributed to the deaths of quite a mass of people. Bush and Blair did/do similar. Are they less evil? Are they less evil because the people to whose deaths they are contributing are overwhelmingly a) brown and b) not Christians?

If “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (1 New Testament Some:where) then Merkel is no more worthy than Bush who is no more worthy than bin Laden who is no more worthy than me. Or Ann Richards. And, to say anything else is not only a double standard, but is to directly contradict Scripture. That is my theological argument.

My personal argument is that maybe if we’d go about washing each other’s feet more often instead of griping about sheetheads, dykes, and godless liberal sheetheaded dykes, maybe this wouldn’t be an issue and we could blog about bunnies or something.

I also stand by my statement regarding bunnies. At any rate, this fellow Boyd points out that we tend to allow patriotism to take precedence over our alleged Christianity (someone said that nationalism was one of the greater threats to Christianity ever seen by the human race. Or, I could have just made that up). God is clearly on -our- side because -we- are the good guys. Also, we have "In God We Trust" stamped on our money and that therefore makes God like us more. After all, the only way He can get any attention is by being put on some mortals' currency. Forget black holes and the Grand Canyon, those are laaaame compared to being acknowledged on the same object as George Washington.

This, I believe, is the tiny bit of something that started hurting inside of my brain as I watched the news of us bombing Baghdad and Silver Foot Junior intoning that God is (sniff) on our side. It is also one of the somethings which prevents my saying the pledge of allegiance. The something is "Who the Hell are we to judge who God likes?" I feel like we are the hanger-on kid, the one on the playground who when the big popular kid looks at him goes skipping home to his mom yelling, "He likes me! I'm popular! I'm one of the cool kids!" It's like we have to have some kind of validation, and once we think we have it, we can start beating up on the other unpopular kids because we think we're cool now.

This is starting to make me think about people interpreting the Bible to mean not at all what it means, which is a completely, utterly different subject and one into which I do not care to delve at this time. My final point is, however, that if anyone gets to have their stinky feet washed by Jesus, both physically and metaphorically, then so does everyone. God's grace is universal, and if it weren't, it wouldn't be grace. If God's grace is universal, then ours should be as well.

Atheists and Christians and making the Twain meet? Part One of however long it takes me to figure this out.

So, day before yesterday I read this over at Blondesense and was freaked right out. This occurred for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being the the serious hostility I perceived in the writing. I decided to ruminate/marinate on the subject before I posted a piteous and/or angry reply, and I am glad I did on account of what transpired in the comments, the upshot of which is this:

yes, we are bashing religion - we ALWAYS do. we are not dehumanizing religion. I don't even know what that means. Actually, if you think about it, religious beliefs are what cause most "believers" to be hateful of others and to dehumanize. AND, the catholics are the biggest bunch of racists I know.

What frustrates me and our gang here is that we could really use the majority of believers out there because most ARE good people. We need them to wake up to the fact that their leaders are using "faith" (religious beliefs) to get away with what ever they want to do. It's been working like a charm for a few thousand years now!

and

we get angry at "them, they, those..." and I especially get mad at the "good christians" who don't take a stand. THEY piss me off. Yes, I love most of them BUT THEY PISS ME OFF TO NO END. And there's nothing I can do about it.

Fair enough, I realised. Which, this discussion also led to a clarification on the use of the word "Christian." Bloggers on this particular blog coined a term a while back, "Christianistas" either in response to the use of the word "Islamists" in the media, or to differentiate from normal people who, unfortunately, seem to share a religion (though, in my opinion, not a faith) with these power-hungry crackheads. Which is a totally academic term.

I can completely understand where your average atheist, Atheist, agnostic, unaffiliated and unconcerned, or other nonmainstream religion practicer comes from on account of the Christianistas do the same damn thing to your average mainline Protestant. And also to your completely non-average, non-mainline, but still essentially Lutheran, Protestant. I am really quite sure that the Quad preachers will show up next week.

And Jersey Cynic, who was the author of the post in question and the above comment bits, raises an incredibly fair point: "good Christians" are being anything but "good" if we/they do not put the smackdown on this kind of BS. Of course, going about that could be vaguely frightening and inconvenient (and will probably annoy Amber if she is with me when it happens), but when people are preaching hate in public, it is necessary that the smackdown be put on it or it will just grow.

Martin Niemoller, who spent time in Sachsenhausen and Dachau, but fortunately survived, wrote this:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

It is incumbent on those who call themselves Christians to speak out for those who are NOT Christians (and for those who are not their denomination), lest something similar happen. And no matter what anyone says, if we just let it go, it WILL happen, because that is how it happened in the first place.

What does this mean for relationships between nonbelievers and Christians? I think it is a critical time for us to prove that we are, in fact, able to love those who may or may not love us back, who do not agree with us. If we are to call ourselves Christians then we most certainly make an attempt at behaving like that guy who we believe is the Christ. Otherwise, we can have all the faith in the world (as to move mountains, as it were) and we will yet have NOTHING.

If that happens, all the dogma and platitudes and feeling secure in ourselves will be for naught, because if the God in whom I put my faith does, in fact, exist, then He is going to think that we are full of crap and is going to let us know about it. Looking at the way that Christianity has evolved since the time of Jesus of Nazareth, I can completely see why people choose to turn away from it, and I honestly think the only reason why I have not is because I would rather try to fix it than give up.

Probably more later.

From the Department of You have Got to be Kidding Me:

Tom %&$(@#* Cruise is making a new movie. Why do I care? Because the movie is Valkyrie, and %&$(@#* Cruise is meant to play Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, who is the guy who attempted to assassinate Hitler in the 20 July plot with a briefcase full of explosives.

Danger, Will Robinson, Danger: Historical blah blah blah ahead.

Hitler wasn't killed by the blast (obviously). There were two bombs; von Stauffenberg had previously lost his right and and all but three fingers of his left, so when he was attempting to arm them in the bathroom, with not a lot of time, he was only able to get the one armed. For reasons unknown to history, he did not put the second bomb in the briefcase, but handed it to his assistant instead. He went into the conference room and put his briefcase under the table, then left to "make a call." One of the guys still in the meeting room moved his briefcase down to the far end and behind the table leg because it was in the way and people kept kicking it. Thus, the blast was deflected.

However, a recent History Channel documentary which completely reconstructed the whole thing, what actually happened, and what could have happened, showed that if von Stauffenberg had put the second bomb in the briefcase anyway, Hitler would have been screwed. von Stauffenberg and his aide were executed the next day.

Anyway, Tom %&$(@#* Cruise? To play von Stauffenberg? Fortunately, the Germans have banned %&$(@#* Cruise from the country on account of he is a Scientologist. Now, on a humourous level, I think this is great and that more Scientologists should be banned from more places, especially when their name is Tom %&$(@#* Cruise. However, I'm not sure it's the best thing in the world to ban Scientologists from a country on a serious level, because even though I think they are full of shit, allegedly, they should still have the right to practice their religion. Except for the part where they tell Brooke Shields that she shouldn't take antidepressants.

Anyway, my hope is that the movie makers will continue with Valkyrie, and will pick someone who is not annoying to play von Stauffenberg.