Keepin’ ’em down...

One of the great satirical songs of the ’70s was Randy Newman’s “Rednecks,” in which the character singing boasts of “keeping the niggers down.” Now, as one of the great turnabouts of the ’10s, Rick Santorum boasts of keeping the rednecks down.

When Santorum claimed that Obama was a snob for wanting everyone to go to college, he simply reinforced the opinion of Palin et al that higher education turns people into liberal elitists. Real Americans are down-to-earth people and don’t need fancy eddication. Besides, if they need anything beyond readin’, writin’, and ’rithmatic, there’s always Sunday School.

But I suspect Saint Rick has a hidden agenda. Because he knows that the more educated a person is, the more likely he or she will question things that ought not to be questioned, beginning with the literal truth of the Bible. How you gonna keep ’em down – on the farm, in the factories, wherever – if they stop and figure out the foundation of your morality is a sham?

Of course, Randy does sing about “college men from LSU – went in dumb, came out dumb, too”; so maybe Rick has a point.

For the love of God...

I’ve been working my way (again) thru the dvd set of The Sopranos and recently viewed episode 3:12 (“Amour Fou”) in which a priest tells Carmella, “God loves you more than you can know.” This triggered in me an agnostic scoff, along with a remembrance of the Sunday school adage, “God is love.” But it also got me thinking....

During the years I delved into Krishnamurti’s teachings, I balked at his premise that love was the underlying power of the universe. It was the way he baldly stated it as a given, clearly exempt from the questioning to which he demanded every thought or belief be subjected, that struck me as somewhat hypocritical. My problem, I realized later, came down to vocabulary, since “love” is so carelessly bandied about in so many ways.

But when I consider “love” as resonance or affinity, it not only explains attraction between people (a physical or hormonal resonance) or empathy for others (affinity for their suffering), it also applies to the underlying nature of Reality: it is the resonance of subatomic particles and their affinity for one another that is the very glue that holds existence together, and is also reflected by gravitational attraction in our larger world. It is nothing less than Tao. Which makes “God is love” a simplistic way of stating, “Tao is affinity.” Which means God is affinity as well – and affinity is God (or, to use a less loaded term, Tao). I’m not sure that’s what K had in mind, but it resonates with me.

On the human plane, love/affinity is caring for other human beings, is stewardship of Nature, is a desire for tranquility/peace, all of which means achieving resonance with existence. Now if that is the case, isn’t it strange that people who claim the necessity for “preemptive” war, who place the interest of humans over those of the environment, who denigrate the needs of fellow citizens if it means a greater tax burden on themselves, and who spew the greatest amount of vitriol on behalf of their stances, are often those who profess a love of God?

A cult by any other name...

There may come a day, although probably not in my lifetime, when a Scientologist is a viable candidate for President of the United States. Give it a hundred years or so. Because when you figure the exponential rate of progress, that would pretty much jibe with having a Mormon run for president just shy of two centuries after that religion’s founding.

Some might look askance at the prospect; after all, isn’t Scientology a cult? That may be true, but it’s no less a cult than Mormonism was in the early 1800s. And if some Americans (arguably not as many as necessary) are willing to install in the White House a person who accepts as truth that religion’s foundation, revelations, and cosmology, then there’s no reason to suppose that after another century citizens won’t be just as willing to give a pass to someone who accepts L. Ron Hubbard’s science fiction as gospel.

Today’s cult is tomorrow’s mainstream faith, and you can work that backward as well. All it takes is indoctrination by family and community to accept the most outlandish claims as truth. Mitt Romney probably believes what he was brought up to believe because, like most of us, he doesn’t pause to question it. But really, Mitt: inscriptions on gold plates? magic underwear? baptizing the dead? (And really, so many of you others: virgin birth? god in three persons? transubstantiation?)

Considering today’s brouhaha over insurance coverage for contraception, there’s no question that things have gotten out of hand when “religious freedom” is invoked in order to give religion the freedom to quash the rights of individuals who may not even subscribe to its mandates. And giving free rein to religion is but a step toward allowing religion to reign over us all.

Romney’s religion might seem strange to some, but I suspect that, if elected, he would be just as unlikely to impose his beliefs on America as our first Catholic president JFK was. Maybe in his heart of hearts, he knows it’s all pretty silly. Rick Santorum, however, is another matter entirely. Because he represents the most dangerous cult of all, America’s equivalent of the Taliban.

At least a Scientologist candidate might make things interesting.