The Term "god" is Not Necessary

A FRIEND'S COMMENT: 
            The word "god" represents so many different things to many different people. It's like the word "love" ... cannot be defined. Whatever heals your soul...

MY RESPONSE: 

          Unfortunately, you're right. God or gods always have been in the eye of the beholder ... which is not the solution but the problem. The god with which blameless children are brow-beaten into guilty submission, the god under which slavery was sanctioned, males kept ascendant, and women denied their reproductive rights, the god under which women are closeted away and beaten for any perceived infraction, the god by which genital mutilation is practiced, the god under which children are denied basic, and sometimes life-saving, medical attention, the god that calls for young men to strap bombs to themselves and murder innocents ... yes, may not be the god of love or cosmic spirituality. But where's the distinction?

          If you allow one person's "benign" beliefs - on the continuum from flower children to those who atrociously behead "infidels" - where do you draw the line? Who draws the line? Could not an almighty god - creator of the universe, keeper of naughty or nice lists, and grantor of eternal life - done a better job at defining exactly what's wanted of his/her/its creations? If a bee sipping a flower's nectar or the touch of a lover's fingertips or a blazing sunset or the smile of an infant "heels the soul," lovely, but why not just call it what it is? Nature or human nature. Why confuse these grand feelings by trying to make them grander than they already are? Neither the term nor the idea of a god is necessary.

          By the way, I wish I could agree with you, because I know you to be a warm and caring person, but the terms "god" and "love" most certainly can be defined. They're in the dictionary. The precise meanings of god and love (yes, in various forms) only become vague and subjective when it suits the agenda of the person speaking those words to be elusive, obfuscating, and expansive to the point of meaninglessness.

"Fear itself" is to Be Feared

SUNDAY NIGHT I FELT FEAR - REAL FEAR. I was winding down on my recliner, channel surfing, and stopped at a Pen America panel discussion, “On Fascism,” moderated by Jelani Cobb, a writer for The New Yorker. I was tired after a busy day celebrating my wife’s birthday, and the last thing I needed was to inhale the stench wafting out of the White House or to flash on the unconscionable goings-on there. Despite the powerful impulse to change the channel, I watched the end of the program.

The speakers were warning of the very real threat that fascism poses to our democratic way of life. Cobb concluded that this is “primarily a crisis of education. We’ve defunded education to such an extent that people don’t recognize the threat to democracy when they see it.” As a college instructor I know that he is absolutely correct. Many, if not most, Americans have no real understanding of democracy, how it works, and why it needs vigilant safeguarding. For the first time in the many months of continual atrocities emanating from the Oval Office, I FELT FEAR.

Not the in-your-head concern and trepidation that comes from an academic realization that Trump could very well rip this country apart. What I experienced was physical. My legs were tremulous and weak, akin to the sensation one gets standing too close to a picture window in a high-rise building. I became aware of a budding nausea. It may have been a mild panic attack or the “fight or flight” impulse. Who knows, but whatever it was, I was alarmed that I was reacting to hitherto unimaginable events not only intellectually but physically. In short, I became aware that I am scared. Scared of where Trump, unfettered, may take us ... to a fascist nation with a president for life?

Anyone who’s buried his or her head, taking counterfeit comfort in the unsustainable belief that “it can’t happen here,” better pull his head out of the sand and get mobilized ... before it’s too late ... if it isn’t already.

A Living Nightmare Nears

     In the old days (meaning pre-2017), after being overwhelmed by a depiction of terrifying, dystopian future - as by the film (“1984”) or by the TV series (“A Handmaid’s Tale” on HULU) - one could collapse back deep into one’s chair and exhale the words “Thank goodness that’s not really happening.” Not anymore. 
     Today we are on the threshold of becoming society in which government can decree a lie to be truth and truth to be a lie (“1984’) and one in which the lives of citizens are thoroughly and harshly controlled by a male-dominated government based on hypocritical religious fundamentalism (“A Handmaid’s Tale”). Recent events demonstrate that these nightmare scenarios can no longer be dismissed as far-fetched, futuristic fantasy. 
     If you’re one who’s tempted to sneer at the real and present danger, consoling yourself with the thought “it couldn’t happen here,” do keep in mind that only 80 years ago there were many in one of the most civilized and culturally advanced nations of Europe who were prone to think the same thing - too many of whom shortly after were no longer around to think anything.

DUH ... I GET IT NOW

Those of you who’ve seen my Facebook postings in recent months have heard me wonder repeatedly: “Where are the good Republicans?”  My naive assumption being, while parties may disagree diametrically on the issues, at the core we all want the same thing - the greater good of the American people.  If that ever was the case in American politics, it certainly ain’t now.  

The recent appointment to the Supreme Court of an intemperate and clearly politically biased, not to mention somewhat paranoid, individual, despite the very valid and mostly ignored concerns about his fitness for the hallowed office - and worries about all that his lifetime appointment portends for a diverse America - sad to say, has left me disillusioned (as in stripped of my illusions).  The national Republican leadership has no higher purpose than to keep power and advance a retro rich, white, male agenda at any cost.  Lies, manipulation, distortion, attacks on vital American institutions, like our free press and the FBI and the Justice Department, are all acceptable means to achieve their power-mongering and avaricious ends.  Why did it take me so long to understand, yes, Virginia, there are downright evil people in this world, in this country?  Duh.  

The reality must be faced that there is no reason to believe that the last major confederacy of cold, cruel, conscience-less men - the hierarchy of the Nazi Party in Germany 80 years ago - could not recur, this time here in America.  We have a leader who openly admires dictators.  We have a Republican majority that would gladly appoint him President for Life.  And now we have a Supreme Court which may not be able to stand up to any such travesty.  

All that’s needed now is a Trumped-up national emergency during which Constitutional protections can be suspended for the higher goal of restoring “law and order.”  To quote the notorious line from a film about a human transforming into a monstrous fly:  "Be afraid; be very afraid." 

How do you like being on the butt-end, Mr. Trump?

The man who has lowered the bar on presidential civility and, well, maturity by calling competing candidates and world leaders childish names, disparaging the appearance of women (not to mention boasting about pawing them), telling so many lies that fact-checkers are having meltdowns, et cetera, et cetera, is so stung by criticism, perceived insults, and alleged lies that he wants to stop publication of the Trump inner circle tell-all book, Fire and Fury. He’s sicked his snarling shysters on the author, trying to intimidate him in order to derail release of the book. Trump’s legal storm troopers are making the spurious claim Trump is libeled and slandered. So much for the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.

A President, or any other public official for that matter, cannot be libeled or slandered. A public official is fair game, even for lies or misinformation. If that weren’t the case, almost every candidate for the presidency in recent years would be awaiting sentencing, being guilty of libeling and slandering each other. There’s only one narrow exception, and three things – all of them - must happen for that exception to kick in. 1. It must be proved that the statement about the President is untrue. 2. Then it must be proved that the source of the statement knew it to be false. 3. Then it must be proved that the source intended to do damage to the President’s reputation or livelihood by making the false and defamatory statement. I don’t think Mr. Trump would get past step 1.

There is hardly a precious Constitutional freedom that the current “Leader of the Free World” has not threatened or ignored. We need not delve deep into history to see representative governments overthrown and dictatorships arise. For a long time we have deluded ourselves into believing that the rise of a Nazi-like cabal (or 1984 dystopia) could not possibly happen in America. But, unfortunately, it most certainly can if we sit by idly, turning a blind eye to the goons as our rights are toppled like so many bowling pins by a clueless and vindictive chief executive.

What's in a Name? Baggage, Very Often

            Pop Quiz.  "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" is from:

1.      The Rose starring Bette Midler

2.      The Purple Rose of Cairo written and directed by Woody Allen

3.      The Rose Tattoo by Tennessee Williams

4.      Sweet Devotion Roses by FTD

5.      Romeo and Juliet by W. Shakespeare

            You don't really need me to tell you the answer, do you?  (*If you do, it's at the end of this piece.) 

            So, what's in a name?  A lot, if the name is "atheist."  Much negativity attaches to that label.  By definition, in fact.  The term "atheist" seems to have made its appearance in France in the late-1500s in the form of athéiste.  It evolved from the Greek atheos, which was assembled from:  a (without) + theos (deity or god). 

            My beef with the word "atheist" is that it suggests one is lacking something, one is without.  How can one be lacking or without something that does not exist?  Should one be labeled an aclausist if one believes there is no Santa Claus?  Or an apanist if one denies the existence of Peter Pan?  Silly, right?  If one rejects the existence of Santa Claus or Peter Pan, one is considered sane and a realist.  But, to one who does not believe in the existence of a god, no such latitude or respect is granted. 

            Synonyms for "atheist" include such euphemisms as:  nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic, nihilist, and so on.  All of them negative to one extent or the other. 

            "Nihilist" I find particularly disturbing.  Google "nihilist," and the first definition provided is:  the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.  It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence.  A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.  Gulp! 

            A nihilist is pretty much of necessity an atheist; but an atheist need not be a nihilist.  Far from it.  I am an atheist, and I ascribe to the basic values of human decency.  About most things I am not pessimistic, nor do I condemn existence.  I believe in love and friendship and family and community and art and the New York Rangers.  I strive to be a good citizen and to help others where I can.  I just don't need the supervision of a supreme being or the threat of everlasting punishment for me to be ethical.  Being a good citizen and good neighbor simply comprise the logical, responsible, and ultimately satisfying way to live. 

            So, back to "atheist."  There have been numerous attempts to come up with a word or label that better captures what it means to be liberated from superstition and the supernatural.  They include secularist, naturalist, secular naturalist, humanist, secular humanist, rationalist, free thinker, and "bright" (for the curious: http://www.the-brights.net). 

            My preference is "secular humanist," although, granted, it is neither catchy nor self-explanatory.  Over the centuries, greater minds than mine have been wrestling with this appellation issue, so I doubt very much the conundrum will be resolved by anything offered by this blog.  Consequently, next time you use or consider the term "atheist," do remember that the negativity is in the eye of the beholder.  An atheist by any other name very likely will be a cultured, community-minded, considerate, and caring person.    

            (*The quote is part of Juliet's rationalization of her love for Romeo, who bears the name of an enemy family.)  

Dating "Under God, Indivisible ..."

            It was more than 40 years ago that I gave up the notion of a god.  In the intervening decades, my position concerning believers and non-believers has been, to put it colloquially, "whatever floats your boat."  If the belief in a god or the Buddha or the Great Pumpkin gets you through the day, who was I to interfere? 

            In those rare instances when the subject of religion came up among friends or family, I would simply say, "I'm not religious," and leave that to the listener to decode.  Occasionally, I humbly and somewhat disingenuously would add the palliative, "I envy those who have faith, someone or something to turn to in tough times, but I just don't have that in me."  If the result was a "poor Angelo" sentiment, that was fine with me so long as the matter was concluded and the conversation moved on to a less dodgy topic, like politics. 

            All by way of saying, yes, I'm an atheist, but I never felt the need to wear it on my sleeve.  I was not about to go door to door, with Darwin's The Origins of Species under an arm, to knock and inform the annoyed, mid-meal resident of the good news: there is no god!  Proselytizing has never been my thing.  Not to mention I'm not particularly clever on the spot.  As a playwright, I can sit down to think things through, organize my thoughts, and then set them down in the form of scintillating dialogue.  Standing at the door of a master of the house who's still chewing on his pork chop, I would not be at my best. 

            A person's religion was always irrelevant to me.  In the wild and crazy 20 years between marriages, I dated Christians, Jews, a practicing Buddhist, and even flirted with a Muslim woman.  I couldn't have cared less how or what a person worshiped.  All I looked for were the three "Ys":  pretty, witty, and sexy. 

            Nevertheless, on one occasion religion did rear its ugly head, when I was living in Park Slope, Brooklyn.  One sunny late afternoon, I packed up my portable folding picnic table, some snacks, a couple of stemmed glasses, and a cooler containing a bottle of chilled white wine, and headed out to nearby Prospect Park for a free concert in the park.  When I got there, I set up the table, popped the wine bottle cork, and poured two glasses of wine. 

            A few yards away, on a picnic blanket, sat a blue-eyed blonde.  I strolled over to the young lady, introduced myself, and asked her if she'd care to join me for a glass of wine.  (Yes, I really did that.)  She smiled, said yes, and joined me at my table. 

            The young lady, let's call her Betty, and I began seeing each other.  But it wasn't long before she told me she was a Presbyterian or Lutheran or some such Protestant denomination, very much involved in Sunday services and Bible study groups and other church activities. 

            No problem, I told Betty.  I'm not religious, but I do respect the beliefs of others.  Naively, I thought that would be the end of the matter.  Not so.  On my next phone call to arrange a date, Betty told me she couldn't see me anymore.  Why?  Because she could not imagine being involved with someone who did not share her religious convictions.  Period.  Since we'd only been out a handful of times, it was far from a crushing blow, but it certainly was irritating.  

          Today, thanks to the Internet and TV marketing, we know that there are online match-making services that can prevent that kind of religion faux pas.  I'm talking about JDate (for Jews), ChristianMingle, and CatholicSoulmates, among others, helping to "find God's match for you."  Really?  Lotsa luck with that.  It wouldn't surprise me if, somewhere in cyberspace, one might stumble across GreatPumpkinPartners.com.