Secular Sacred Places

NPR did a story on Secular Sacred Spaces way back in August and I've thought about that piece quite often since then. Mostly they refer to places like Ground Zero, Gettysburg, or Anne Frank's house that feel special, sacrosanct, and somehow different from other spaces.

The story made me think about personal "sacred" spaces. For instance, when I was a kid, my family was the first one to build in a wooded cul-de-sac. It was just our home and one or two others for many years and I loved roaming the woods and climbing trees and getting muddy in the streams. And I was crushed when a new home was finally built on my favorite spot. The one with the best climbing tree and a rock covered in moss and a tiny patch of sunflowers. That was my childhood sacred space.

Today, there are little corners of the Los Angeles Zoo that are special to me. When the partner and I were broke and unemployed, we still kept our membership to the zoo and went about once a week. It made us feel like we had something when we financially had very little at all. Now, this year, we're getting married there... because the Zoo feels more sacred to us than any house of worship.

Libraries and buildings with beautiful architecture have this feeling for me, too. Libraries are one of my favorite spots to be contemplative and lose myself in rows of books. A friend and I recently visited the L.A. Central Library downtown and it is fabulously beautiful. Just check out this rotunda and chandelier.

You can keep your god... I worship knowledge and literature and art. I could hang out here all day.

GD IS LV... A powerful message for us all.

 

I saw this lovely license plate as GOP's other half and I were driving around town. Forgive the bad image-- you try taking a photo in a moving car at night!

I don't get this kind of proclamation via license plate. God is Love. Wow. Original and clever. Good for you. I hope this driver is some kind of minister, otherwise, is this really the focus of their life? Is this the total summation of their philosophy? 

"God is Love" doesn't make any sense, either. I doubt they're some kind of "spiritual" type person who thinks that Love is God... meaning that love triumphs all evil and that the presence of love and the capacity to love is the closest to godliness that any of us can get. That sort of philosophy I can get on board with. When someone is shocked by my atheism, gasps, and asks, "But what do you BELIEVE in??" I can usually at least placate them by saying that I believe in love.

But I don't think that was the message this SUV driving do-gooder was going after. I'm sure they were trying to tell us that God is all-loving. That he loves unconditionally. Well, no. 

LOVE ME OR I SEND YOU TO HELL! WORSHIP ME ON THE SABBATH OR I SEND YOU TO HELL! In most religions, you have to at least repent at the last second or be "saved" to get into Heaven. That's not really unconditional love.

Even if you belong to a religion like Judaism that doesn't believe in Heaven or Hell... you still have to admit that isn't a very loving god. The Old Testament god is certainly not a loving god, but a vengeful, spiteful, wrath and fury sort of god. Let's not forget my favorite Hollywood temple...

So.... I'm still confused. Who is this god that's all love? Because I have yet to see evidence for it.

WAIT! Unless I'm interpreting this all wrong. Could that license plate actually mean:

God Damn IS L'Heart

Of course! This person isn't religious! They're just emo and have been tortured by love! I totally get it now! Are there some interpretations that I'm missing here?

I Saw JESUS!

Jesus has re-arisen! Last night, in Beverly Hills, a friend and I saw JESUS! We saw him once on Little Santa Monica Blvd. near Canon, and then again walking down Wilshire by Robertson. It was awesome to watch the double takes passers-by would give. Apparently, he's a familiar figure to west-siders because a lot of people know about him.

He's just this incredibly tall, probably 6'6" man with long brown hair and a goatee who walks around Los Angeles in a flowing white robe. He likes flashing peace signs. The photo I got is miserable, I only caught him at the last second. With legs like that, he moves pretty fast. I'm sure superstitious types would look at this photo and think it's a ghost! I'm going to keep my eyes peeled for this guy, and next time I'm talking to him and getting a better photo!

Perez Hilton has some much better photos! I really want to talk to this guy! Alert the non-believers! I guess we're just wrong.

Feeding the "Homeless"

I did something kind of stupid yesterday. I fed a homeless guy.

Actually, he probably wasn't even homeless. He wore cheap dirty clothes, but he probably has a place to live. He was standing on the corner by my neighborhood Starbucks. As I passed he asked, "Could I have a dollar? I'm just trying to get something to eat." As someone who has occasionally given money to "beggars" and immediately regretted it, I instead offered to purchase him some food.

"If you prefer that, sure." OK, I said, and as he followed me he asked, "Is it OK if we go to Quizno's?" As that's where I was going myself, I said that was fine. After I ordered my sandwich, I told the lady to get the guy whatever he wanted. He then asked me if it was OK if he got a Combo. I was a little irritated that he was taking advantage of my generosity. But.... I had offered. And really, at this point, what was a couple more dollars? So I paid for his sandwich plus a drink and whatever else he got. He thanked me several times and I was relieved that he never said "God Bless You"...

I did all this, and quite frankly, I felt like a bit of a chump afterward. Why did I buy this particular guy a sandwich? People ask me for change or a dollar every day and I usually pass them by. But this guy had a specific request for food. Other times, when I've made the offer to purchase food for someone, they backpedal and say they need the money for the bus or other random things. But this guy took me up. Maybe he was truly looking for money to buy food. But he wasn't starving. He was by no means skinny. Frankly, he was rather obese. But that doesn't mean he couldn't use the nutrients.

I've never been starving, but I've gone without eating because I couldn't afford to eat. I've had times where I almost passed out because I was trying to stretch my groceries by eating less. But when it's gotten truly desperate, I've been lucky to have people who could help. So I'm sympathetic. 

And yet, I still feel like I was a fool, like this guy took advantage of me. This isn't directly related to religion or the normal topics of this blog, but it still sort of feels like a moral-ish question. What do you think?

Crystal Cathedral files for bankruptcy OR Jesus and Money

Boo hoo. Your giant mega church just filed for bankruptcy. You avoided paying vendors to the point that they felt they had to sue you in order to get their money. Reverend Schuller has been at the head of the church since he founded it in a drive-in movie theater decades ago. He tried to pass on leadership to his son, but then removed him when there was some kind of family disagreement about the direction in which the church should head. Now, Schuller's daughter, Sheila, runs the church.

She said the bankruptcy declaration "is just one more chapter in the book that He is continuing to write -- and we know that God's plans are good -- we have no doubt His chapter will be good!"

Ha. Yeah. Chapter 11 in the Good Book. Schuller isn't the worst of the worst. He doesn't practice hate speech. He doesn't espouse a completely literal take on the Bible. On the topic of homosexuality and gay marriage, he generally dodges around it, saying that he thinks that male/female marriage is the ideal... blah, blah, blah.  But he believes in destiny and that God meant for him to carry His message and all that.  Most of their sermons are completely generic and carry a message about "YOU can do it, just trust in God and he'll take care of EVERYTHING" and phony self-esteem messages.

The biggest problem I have with the Crystal Cathedral and similar type churches is how much money they suck out from trusting citizens. That money could be put to soooooo many better uses. Instead, it constructed a multi-million dollar building out of glass.

It also is just plain silly. Take, for example, this interview the church had with an author about God and Money. Appropriate, I thought, given the church's financial troubles. Let me give you the highlights of the author's financial advice:

First, pray. Invite the Lord of the universe to be part of your financial life. Then secondly, review. Review what you had come in and go out that week [...] And then lastly, celebrate [...] celebrate when the Lord allows you to pay off that credit card. Celebrate together.

SSC:    How did you get into the finances found in God's word? I find that fascinating.
HD:     Well back in the early seventies, my business partner asked me to join him in a study of the bible to find out what it said about money. We didn't know. We had new families and a new business. So we spent a year and read through the entire bible and identified two thousand three hundred and fifty verses dealing with money.
SSC:    I had no idea there were that many bible verses on money.
HD:     It totally blew us away. Fifteen percent of everything that Jesus said had to do with money.
SSC:    Wow, so it must be important.
HD:     It is. And I think the real key for us is that Christ knew that from time to time all of us would have struggles over money. I believe He wanted to equip us to handle money wisely so that's why He gave us these principles that are so applicable today.

Then he basically says to not spend more than you have to on anything and put all surplus money towards paying off debt. Well, DUH. I don't think you need Jesus to tell you that. I also find it interesting that he left out verses like this:

"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'"

-Matthew 19:23-24

"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" -Matthew 19:21
 

I'm just saying that it's almost impossible for a Christian to NOT be hypocritical. 

So, if the Crystal Cathedral didn't espouse the worst kind of Christian hate, can I still be pleasantly amused by their Chapter 11?

I just think that if you're going to be a church or pretend to be a prophet in the name of Jesus, you can't go around collecting and spending millions annually.  It's hypocrisy and a waste of money and time that could be devoted to something better.

Electing Judges

This is one of the most time consuming tasks and confusing tasks for me as a voter. How do I figure out whether to vote "Yes" or "No" for all of these judges? To be honest, this year, I'm voting straight Democrat for all of the elected officials. I'm sure there are some independent candidates who are worthwhile, and I'm sure not ALL Republicans are complete social conservatives. If we weren't living in a political era of staunch partisanship,  I would at least consider other candidates. But right now, I'm voting Democrat 100%.

But judges don't have a political affiliation. So where do you start?  I begin with the American Bar Association. They are an independent association of lawyers and law students that provide accreditation to law schools and seek to help their profession and increase diversity and reduce bias in the courts. They tend to lean to the liberal side and back Roe v. Wade 100%. This year they also put out an official statement urging every state in the union to permit same-sex unions. Go ABA! The ABA also rates judges on levels of qualification.

I also refer to the League of Women Voters, which is basically non-partisan, but it gives a lot of good information on all of the judges on the ballot, including endorsements, which I find rather telling.

Finally, I use a crazy conservative site, Judge Voter Guide to let me know who to vote against. They are soooooo conservative that they disapprove of even the most moderate Republican judges. Basically, they hate all judges, but really do their research (however misguided it may be)!

Supreme Court Justice
Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye: Yes. Although she is a Republican, nominated by Gov. Schwarzenagger, and is religious, she has been rated as "exceptionally well qualified." The perception is that she's fairly moderate, and socially liberal. She comes from an immigrant family and grew up extremely poor. I'm a sucker for American Dream stories. I tend to find these types to be empathetic individuals. I think she'll be fine.

Ming W. Chin: Yes. This is a tough one because he was a part of the minority decision to vote against Same-Sex marriage, but he has also voted against parental consent for abortions. Again, voted "well qualified."

Carlos R. Moreno: YES! This is an easy one. Voted for Same-Sex Marriage, against parental consent... very liberal.

Court of Appeal 
Robert M. Mallano: YES
Victoria G. Chaney:  NO
Jeffrey W. Johnson:YES
Judith M. Ashmann: YES
Walter Croskey: YES
Steven Suzukawa: NO
Orville "Jack" Armstrong: NO

Paul H. Coffee: NO
Steven Z. Perren: YES
Laurie D. Zelon: YES

Frank Y. Jackson: NO
Tricia A Bigelow: NO
Elizabeth Annette Grimes: NO


Office No. 28
Mark K. Ameli: YES
Randy Hammock: NO


Office No. 117
Tom Griego: YES A user comment made me look more closely at this race, and it appears that
Alan Schneider: NO  Schneider is actually more qualified and is endorsed by both sides. See recent  post for more info!

Office No. 136
Amy D. Hogue: YES

Superintendent of Public Instruction
Larry Aceves: YES (Both seem to be decent choices, but I like Aceves emphasis on peer training for teachers and his endorsement from the LA TIMES)
Tom Torlakson: NO

County Assessor
John Y. Wong: NO Actually, after a comment from a reader, I looked into this race more closely.
John R. Noguez: YES (endorsed by Democrats)   Please see my more recent post for more info!

Whew. This was really difficult and time consuming. With most of the judges, I simply decided to vote against those who were endorsed by right wing conservatives. Personally, I don't think the electorate has any business voting for judges. I think they should be appointed and reviewed. They shouldn't have to think about getting re-elected, only about making sound and fair decisions. Leave politics to politicians.

P.S. The spacing throughout this post is kind of wonky... sorry about that. Blogger is funny sometimes. 

California Propositions 2010

This November 2nd, California will confuse and befuddle its electorate by putting before them the task of voting on numerous Propositions. While some people adore propositions because they believe in direct democracy, I abhor them because they bring us nightmares like Prop 8, ruin the state budget, and contradict existing laws. Anyone can get a Prop on the ballot if they have enough money to get enough signatures from harried customers outside of Trader Joe's.

So, in short, I don't like Propositions. It's also nearly impossible to tell sometimes if they're even good or bad. Sometimes they have good ideas, but bad execution, or have no allocated funds, and put California even further into debt. California politicians hide behind these Props, hoping that some rich citizens will put up the cash to get medical marijuana legalized or some other such legislation. Of course, dirty Republicans do the same... hoping that some rich citizens will put up the cash to ban same sex marriage. Propositions are generally bad news, but they're still up for a vote and intelligent votes matter, so here's my take on them.

Prop 19: Legalizes Marijuana in California
Awesome. Let's figure out the details later. Neither of us smoke, but we don't want our friends who do partake to be arrested for it. Let's tax the hell out of it, decriminalize it, regulate it, and keep folks out of jail. Done. Yes on 19.

Prop 20/27: Redistricting of Congressional Districts
Prop 20 essentially upholds Prop 11 from this summer's primaries that establishes a 14 person committee to redraw California districts. Consists of Democrats, Republicans, and individuals who aren't registered with either party. But I guess Prop 20 futzes around with what was already established in Prop 11. It's funded by a billionaire, Charles Munger, Jr., the son of a Wall Street tycoon.

The idea behind fussing with redistricting is that it would make districts more fair and less tailored to individual party preferences and would make each district more homogeneous. The idea is to reduce the gerrymandering of districts. It's very anti-incumbent. But my real question is how this 14 person committee is going to be held accountable. How do we know that it will be fair? Opponents to Prop 20 state that it contains Jim Crow type laws because it "mandates that all districts (including Assembly, Senate, and Congress) must be segregated by income level and mandates that all districts be segregated according to 'similar living standards' and that districts include only people 'with similar work opportunities." (that's straight from the rebuttal to the arguments for the prop, so it's hard to know if that's true?) The Sacramento Bee is the only newspaper to editorialize against the bill, and the League of Women Voters has also come out against it.

PROP 27 basically negates Prop 11 from the primaries and keeps redistricting in the hands of the Legislature.

I'm going go with the Sacramento Bee on this one and vote NO on 20 and 27 to let Prop 11 do its job. Let's see if this committee can do a better and more fair job of drawing up districts. We'll see how that goes and then change it if necessary.

PROP 21: Establishes $18 annual vehicle license surcharge to help fund state parks and wildlife programs and grants surcharge vehicles free admission to all state parks.
Awesome. I'm willing to pay this because I'm a big animal/nature loving hippie and I always forget to purchase a parking pass ahead of time when I go to state parks. So, yeah. I'm willing to do that. Sorry if you aren't. YES on 21

PROP 22: Prohibits the state from borrowing or taking funds used for transportation, redevelopment, or local government projects and services.
Um.... Boy, this sounds nice. It's mostly funded by the League of California Cities, but as the Sacramento Bee points out, in a year where city managers have awarded themselves with gigantic salaries and perpetrated massive fraud (as in Bell, CA), this doesn't sit very well with a lot of people. Transportation workers and libraries support Prop 22, while health and education workers worry that this will limit their own funds. I say that while the state is in financial crisis, let's not limit our ability to make ends meet. NO on 22

PROP 23: Suspends implementation of air pollution control law requiring major sources of emissions to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming until unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or less for full year. 
Um. FUCK NO. NO ON 23. Yeah, so let's just go back to polluting. I doubt that this will create more jobs and those jobs will simply be lost once this is repealed and these laws are enforced. Let's move forward and create jobs surrounding green and renewable energy and businesses. What a joke. NO NO NO NO NO on 23

PROP 24: Repeals recent legislation that would allow businesses to lower their tax liability initiative statute. 
During budget negotiations this past year, California created new tax laws that would allow businesses to save money. The debate is over whether this benefits small business or fat cat corporations. Does this save the state budget or drive business/jobs away from California? Eliminating those tax breaks would bring in $1.3 billion to the state which would most likely, in turn, go to our schools. That's a good thing. I'd also like to point out that MAJOR funding for the "No on 24" campaign has come from Viacom, Time Warner, and other big corporations. Obviously, they stand to benefit. However, almost all newspaper editorials have come out against Prop 24, as have a lot of genuine small business owners. This has already been in effect for two years, I guess a few more years can't hurt. NO on 24.

PROP 25: Changes legislative vote requirement to pass budget and budget-related legislation from two-thirds to a simple majority. Retains 2/3 vote requirement for taxes.
Thank goodness. I've been hoping to see this on the ballot for awhile. Part of the reason that California can't get a budget passed on time is because the minority of Republicans in this state hold the budget hostage. It's infuriating. Just look at the supporters (Federation of Teachers, Professional Engineers, Nurses Association) versus the opponents (Chevron, Philip Morris, Anheuser-Busch, Shell Oil). It's kind of obvious who stands to benefit from giving Republicans more control than they've earned in this state. YES ON 25. YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!


PROP 26: Requires that certain state and local fees be approved by two-thirds vote. Fees include those that address adverse impacts on society or the environment caused by the fee-payer's business.
No. I think I made my opinion clear on 25. This kind of shit ruins our state every year. This would mean that before the State Legislature decides to levy fines on polluters, they need Republican approval. Republicans who are funded by companies like those who oppose Prop 25. Number one supporter of Prop 26? You guessed it, CHEVRON. I'm sure they'd love to stop paying fees for ruining the environment. NO ON 26!!!!!!!!!!!

PROP 27: see above PROP 20
NO. 

Many thanks to Ballotpedia for being a valuable resource for info on the Propositions. Grab your "Official Sample Ballot" and fill in your choices ahead of time to avoid panic in the voting booth! Tomorrow, I will try to tackle the judges for our district! Yipes!  
 

Computer Crap Out

Thank you, Mac Store of Pasadena for fixing my computer for free! Apparently, my video card has a history of being fickle, and they replaced it for free. Thank goodness, because that was a serious moment of panic.

Otherwise, I'm working on pouring through all of the Nov. 2 election material so that I can get some really good stuff on here. Stay tuned! Those judicial elections are so tricky!

According to this, I was Wise in Kindergarten

This has been bugging me for almost a year.

I pass by this congregation almost every day on my way home from work. It's in West Hollywood in a heavily Orthodox Jewish part of the city. For almost a year now, this sign has been bugging the heck out of me.

So, does this mean I was becoming wise at the ripe old age of FIVE? Because that's when this god character really started to spook me. He was like Santa Claus, only instead of deciding whether I got presents or coal, he decided whether I went to Heaven or HELL. Whether I got to hang out with angels in the clouds or be tormented by devils with pointy sticks in the eternal fire. To me, every little infraction was worth confession. When I received First Communion in the 2nd grade, my catechism teacher told us that if we prayed with our hands folded and fingers pointing down....we were pointing towards HELL! If we kneeled with our little butts rested against the pews... Baby Jesus would CRY!

I also started to worry as I got older that God/Jesus was some kind of pervert. If he was always watching... was he watching me in the shower???? Now, I understand that my childhood ideas of god and religion were...well... childish. But some people do interpret religion literally. 

But my real question is, why would anyone want to believe in a scary, vengeful god? Why not believe in the lovey-dovey all-is-forgiven, try-to-be-nice-to-everyone god? It seems like hypocrisy to only behave "morally" because you're scared shitless that your god will smite you. And what a terrible way to live anyway. If god is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient... you should theoretically be OMNIFRIGHTENED! And that just doesn't seem very wise to me.