Tag Archive for 'christianity'

Bong Hits 4 Jesus

On Saturday, there was a New York Times article about a free-speech case dividing Bush and the Religious Right (if you can imagine that). Briefly (and quoting the NYT article):

As the Olympic torch was carried through the streets of Juneau on its way to the 2002 winter games in Salt Lake City, students were allowed to leave the school grounds to watch. The school band and cheerleaders performed. With television cameras focused on the scene, Mr. Frederick and some friends unfurled a 14-foot-long banner with the inscription: “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”

Mr. Frederick later testified that he designed the banner, using a slogan he had seen on a snowboard, “to be meaningless and funny, in order to get on television.” Ms. Morse found no humor but plenty of meaning in the sign, recognizing “bong hits” as a slang reference to using marijuana. She demanded that he take the banner down. When he refused, she tore it down, ordered him to her office, and gave him a 10-day suspension.

Ok, putting aside the legal ramifications and precedents and what not, let’s get to the crazy stuff. The Bush administration is siding with the principal and the school board which are being represented (sans fees) by Kenneth Star (you know, the Clinton thing).

And in the opposite corner are the ACLU and the National Coalition Against Censorship — not much surprise there. But, right behind them are …

… the American Center for Law and Justice, founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson; the Christian Legal Society; the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization based in Arizona that describes its mission as “defending the right to hear and speak the Truth”; the Rutherford Institute, which has participated in many religion cases before the court; and Liberty Legal Institute, a nonprofit law firm “dedicated to the preservation of First Amendment rights and religious freedom.”

I don’t get this at all. What, exactly are the issues of “Truth” and “religious freedom” here? If taken seriously, the sign was condoning illegal drug use in the name of Jesus. If taken not seriously, the sign was merely a prank by a high schooler. What, exactly, are these organizations doing?

My feeling is that they are all involved because and only because the sign had “Jesus” on it. They view tearing down a sign that says “Jesus” as blasphemy or something. The marijuana reference is secondary and is not the real issue because is it about the most innocuous, harmless, non-blasphemous thing that could have been written.

Don’t believe that? Well, I wonder how many of these religious right organizations would be so involved if the sign read “Smoke Crack 4 Jesus” or “Sodomize 4 Jesus” or “Vote Democrat 4 Jesus”? These would all be “First Amendment”, “right to speak” issues as much as “Bong Hits”, would they not?

Sphere: Related Content

Who cares who murdered Jesus?

While doing a little research for another post I’m writing I came across Antisemitism and the Crucifixion of Christ: Who Murdered Jesus? and I just have to write this quicky. (Stay tuned … this site is going to be fodder for a lot of my posts.) Now I’ll admit that I haven’t read the entire page (because it’s rather long and it’s 1:43 in the morning and I just want to get something written so I can get some sleep) but here goes anyway …

I have one good thing to say about my Fundamentalist Christian upbringing: I never thought twice about who killed Jesus. I didn’t got even the slightest hint of antisemitism from my family, church, pastor, or teachers. We thought the Jews were going to Hell because they didn’t believe that Jesus was the Son of God but we didn’t hate them.

I honestly think that the first I heard of antisemitism because the Jews “murdered” Jesus was all the hoopla from Gibson’s film (which I saw and which brought tears to me eyes; but tears of laughter because of the far-too-many so-over-the-top dramatic falls of the Jesus character while lugging his cross through the streets).

Call me sheltered or stupid but I just don’t get it. I mean, isn’t His death the whole freakin’ point of Jesus coming to earth? If He (He being Jesus) didn’t die then good ol’ Gibson (and perhaps you, dear reader) wouldn’t be a “Christian” and would be stuck trying to find two young turtle doves as atonement for this coming Saturday at the temple instead of just being able to kneel at your bedside and say a few “Hail Mary’s” or “Our Father’s” or whatever. Jesus even said that He came to die. He had to die. That was the whole plan from the get go!

So, who cares who did what to whom? The only thing of any consequence is that Jesus did die which made possible the redemption of the entire human race.

I just don’t get it.

And I sincerely apologize for the gratuitous use of the bold tag.

Sphere: Related Content

Pastor = Shepherd; Church = Flock; Sheep = Dumb Animal

The word pastor comes from the Latin word for shepherd. There are a lot of shepherds in the Bible. Jesus called himself “The Good Shepherd” and told a parable about a shepherd. Shepherds were there when Jesus was born. The 23rd Psalm says that “The Lord is my shepherd” and God calls himself a shepherd in Ezekiel. David was a shepherd before he killed Goliath and Abel (the “good” son) was a shepherd.

A shepherd takes care of the sheep. He leads them here and there to find food and water. He looks for the lost sheep and returns them to the fold. He puts his own life on the line for the sheep; defending them from the lion and the wolf. The shepherd knows his sheep; the sheep know their shepherd and will follow only him. The shepherd keeps his sheep and the goats separate; the sheep on the right, goats on the left.

The job of the pastor is, as you might expect from the etymology of the word, similar to that of the shepherd. He takes care of his sheep — i.e. his congregation. He leads them through the Bible to find nourishment and refreshment. He puts his metaphorical life on the line to protect them from the evil predators Satan, the humanist, and the religious pluralist. The pastor knows his sheep and they whole-heartedly — one may dare say blindly — follow him. He religiously affirms and reaffirms his congregation’s sheep-ness while pointing out the world’s goat-ness.

But there is another aspect which is often overlooked and which, I think, makes the metaphor that much more apt. Sheep are dumb. The Bible always describes sheep without a shepherd in a most negative way. They are “scattered” and “food for every beast” (Ezekiel 34:5), “wandering” and “afflicted” (Zechariah 10:2), “distressed and downcast” (Matthew 9:36). The sheep cannot survive on their own. They absolutely need a shepherd and are absolutely dependent on him. For he, and he alone, can feed them and save them from getting eaten alive. Now this dependence (dare I say addiction?) gives the pastor/shepherd a tremendous amount of authority over what his flock does and thinks. He decides what they eat and drink; he decides where they can go and can’t go; he is responsible for their complete wellbeing. They know his voice and follow no other. The shepherd basically has absolute power over his flock and we all know what absolute power does. If this sounds like I’m talking about Waco or Jonestown, I’m not — although these were extreme examples of what I am talking about. But the Koreshes and Joneses of the cult world aside, there is more coercion and manipulation in Sunday church in Anytown, USA, than one may think.

Ok, before you get all upset, I’m not talking about every pastor and every church and every congregation member. But, how often do you really think about what your pastor says? How often do you disagree with him/her? If you never do, let me suggest you think about this a little harder. Do you agree simply because you always agree with your pastor? Do you think it’s possible to always agree with someone — especially when it comes to religion? My wife and I have a lot in common but we don’t agree on everything.

I think a lot of people think they are thinking for themselves. They read the Bible and try to figure out what God is telling them. But many times they come up with exactly the same result as what their pastor preaches from the pulpit. Now, this may be construed as confirmation that they agree with their pastor. It may also be construed as “leading the witness”, coercion, or worse.

Sphere: Related Content