What's Write with Mike?

Why do we work? In our current economy, we work for many reasons. We work to earn money, pursue a passion, express creativity, fill a societal or economic need, entertain ourselves, maintain dignity, and generally feel worthwhile. In the early days of human existence, people worked to satisfy basic survival needs. I imagine these needs were food and shelter. As early human culture moved from a nomadic one to permanent settlements, members probably shared community space, but might have divided some territory into private living spaces. As this evolved, the division of labor focused less on hunting and gathering (although these efforts were still important) and more on maintaining and improving shelter and agriculture. Still, the work that people did was primarily essential to survival.

In this early scenario, I don’t imagine that individuals accumulated private wealth. As some people came up with ideas for better crop production or better ways to live more comfortably, these innovations were shared. But somewhere along the way this changed. We can image how the concept of private property came about. My uninformed imagination sees a family whose living shelter and the land around it lay in the path to the river or the hunting grounds, or some other essential territory, and that families came up with the idea of requiring some kind of material exchange before granting other villagers access to these essential spaces. These families began to accumulate wealth at the expense of the other villagers. And somewhere along the line instead of sharing crops, livestock, and other essentials, some began to hoard them. I wonder if these arrangements were widely accepted or met with resentment and resistance?

Today there are estimated to be over 900 billionaires in the Unites States. Did the accumulation of their wealth begin in prehistoric times as cultures transformed away from nomadic ones? Greater minds than mine can weigh in on this, but I think the parallels are real. Billionaires in the United States and others among the super wealthy whose incomes fall just below the $1 billion threshold control many of the resources of the world, and exercise control over the other 342 million American citizens by controlling the job market and the availability of the products and services that enable survival and/or contribute to a higher standard of living. We serve the interests of billionaires by paying them, directly or indirectly, for the products and services they control, and by working for them to create these products and/or provide these services.

Many observers of our culture and our economy see that those whose wealth enables them to control our culture and our economy are replacing the work that Americans do with artificial intelligence (AI). As this happens, people whose work added value to our society are finding themselves unemployed, and finding it difficult to obtaining new employment. I am not making an argument here against this phenomenon. It is probably inevitable. But I think it’s important to consider how we will adjust.

A high unemployment rate might mean a mismatch between the skills of the unemployed, but it might also mean that we need fewer people to do the work that supports our high standard of living. We have temporary programs to provide assistance to the recently unemployed, but what if the need for human work continues to shrink? What if technology and machines, including AI, make our work unnecessary?

The decision to replace human workers with AI (I use the term worker to include professionals as well any anyone earning wages or a salary) is made by executives who may or may not be billionaires, but are among the most wealthy members of our society and are in a position to increase their wealth by driving less affluent people out of the work force. Should the economy punish those who are left permanently unemployed due to the shrinking need for their talents, skills, and experience?

If each of the billionaires in the United States (cited as 902 recently) were assumed to hold exactly 1$ billion in wealth (an obviously low estimate) this would amount to $902 billion. Our current unemployment rate is around 4.4%. The estimated adult population of the United States in 262 million. Clearly not all of these adults are employed or are seeking employment, but for purposes of simplification I will assume that they are. This oversimplification suggests that there might be as many as 11,528,000 adults without employment. Multiplying this by the median American household income of $84,000 (many households have more than one wage earner, but I’ll use this figure to keep it easy), there are potentially $968 billion in lost income for the unemployed. Again, assuming that the total wealth of American billionaires is $902 billion, dividing this by the estimate of 11,528,000 unemployed adults, there would be $78,244.27 available for every unemployed American. If every billionaire donated 50% of their wealth (leaving them with $500 million) to the unemployed, there would be just under $40,000 for each one.

These figures are wildly inaccurate. The population estimates are based on Google queries, and the figure of $1 billion in wealth for each billionaire is extremely low, and wrongly assumes that billionaires would have a large proportion of their wealth to sacrifice annually. It also does not consider the super rich whose wealth may fall just below the $1 billion threshold. And who knows how many adult Americans are actually without employment? I have included these figures just to make a point. As AI and other technologies increase the number of jobs lost while allowing corporations to increase profits, and as the changing needs of society might mean that the need for human work decreases, how will we respond? Could we ever reach the point where we accept that the concept of full employment is a fantasy, and that the country has enough wealth to provide a livable income for life to those whose skills, talents, and experiences are no longer needed? Or, on the other hand, should we expect government to identify needs and provide jobs that fill a need that the private sector cannot meet profitably? This last idea is objectionable in the eyes of the wealthy.

Could we ever accept a society consisting of a huge leisure class – a leisure class where AI make many types of work obsolete? If sustaining our standard of living only requires, say, 50% of the adult population to be employed, could we support this luxury? Or, instead of a permanent leisure class, we reduced the work week to 20 hours, and allowed people to share jobs. I worry that we might end up thinking that people have to have full-time jobs for the sake of working alone, not to contribute products or services that support or enhance our standard of living. Instead of assuming that the unemployed, and especially the recently jobless, should be pounding the pavement to find new work, could we accept that the economy no longer needs them? If we support more leisure time for our population, might we find more creative and imaginative ways to fill our time, perhaps ways that enhance our standard of living in ways we can’t currently conceive? Or would our increased leisure time result in people behaving in ways that are harmful to our culture and society? Or would it create a greater role for government to identify new societal needs to employ displaced humans to fill these needs? I don’t have answers, but I think it’s important to raise and consider these questions.

As a retiree, I enjoy listening to National Public Radio on mornings when I’m not rushing out to get in a bicycle ride. Meghna Chakrabarti hosts a program called “On Point” that airs on Colorado Public Radio weekdays at 10:00 am. Last Monday my Friend Ruth and I were returning from a Mandolin Camp in Kingston, NM and were on the road somewhere north of Santa Fe, streaming Meghna’s show. The topic was peanut allergies among children, and how research conducted in 2015 (The Leap Study) resulted in new guidelines for parents of infants, changing what had been recommended since 2000. Meghna’s guests were Dr. Robert Wood and Dr. David Hill, who shared their in-depth knowledge of both the Leap study and facts about peanut allergies in general.

The Leap Study was a randomized, controlled study examining the effect of exposing infants to peanuts at an early age. It concluded that early exposure to peanuts (between 4 and 11 months of age) reduced the incidence of peanut allergies. This finding contradicted the earlier guidelines that instructed parents to avoid exposure to peanuts until at least three years of age.

A typical randomized, controlled trial is often an investigation into a medical treatment or other intervention or environmental exposure. It involves comparing one group that is randomly exposed to the intervention with a second group (control group) that is not exposed. Data analysts are blinded from knowing which group is which, but compare outcomes, trying to take into consideration (controlling for) differences in age, gender, culture, ethnicity, and other factors between the groups.

What impressed me about this broadcast was not so much the specific findings of the Leap study, but how important the scientific method is in advancing our knowledge and developing methods, practices, and products that improve our quality of life. I thought about how much we owe to the intelligent, insightful, educated, and patient women and men who dedicate their lives to science and scientific thinking. I could not help but contrast their work to what we observe today in the likes of Robert F. Kennedy Jr, contemporary policy shapers who are making decisions based on self interest and biases, and followers whose beliefs are based on assertions for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

I wondered, as I listened, what leads some people to be forever inquisitive and pursue answers to their curiosity using the best known methods available, while others fall for myths, mistaken beliefs, and conspiracies. I imagine there is a continuum of people that ranges from those who insist on facts, or at least the best available evidence, to those who fall for the types of nonsense that is spewed by QANON, Alex Jones, Steve Bannon, FOX News, religious fanatics, racists, xenophobes, homophobes, and others swayed by superstitions and fallacious assumptions. One might think that this continuum would be represented by a bell-shaped curve, but looking at contemporary American culture, I fear that it is an asymmetrical distribution, with rational people severely underrepresented.

I’m encouraged by the results of elections on Tuesday, but I also fear that if our current political environment persists, we will continue to take resources away from education and healthcare. Doing so will only add to the imbalance of rationality. On the other hand, Mehgna Chakrabarti is one of the most impressive journalists I know of. She seems to able to interview anyone from any field and discuss detailed topics with in-depth level of understanding. I can say the same thing about Terry Gross, who hosts “Fresh Air” on NPR. For the past several years Terry has been stepping back and having others host her show, but “Fresh Air”, like “On Point,” keeps a retired senior like me well-informed and curious.

I enjoy streaming murder mysteries on Netflix, Apple TV, and similar platforms. I’ve noticed some commonalities across several of the shows I’ve watched: the investigator (main character) is coping with the death of a spouse or romantic partner; a close family member (sibling or child) has personal issues with the main character that may result in conflict or simply an abundance of concern; the investigator is supervised by someone who either disagrees with the investigator’s approach to solving the crime or has some other reason for wanting to interfere with the investigation. These details add dimension to the character and create interest beyond the simple solving of a murder. But the main character’s grief, while important to the character within the drama, is not really the focus of the show, even though we do get glimpses of their grief on occasion. This is to say that, however engaging they may be, these dramas are not about grief or coping with the death of a spouse or romantic partner.

I’ve also been enjoying Severance for the past two seasons, in which Mark Scout is the main character and is coping with grief over the death of his wife. The show only indirectly deals with his grief, but his wife’s death is an important factor in the plot. He chooses to undergo “severance” in an attempt to hide from his grief. In the last episode of season two he reveals that his strategy for coping early on was to try to convince himself that she never existed. As someone who lost my spouse ten years ago to brain cancer, I can’t imagine that anyone would adopt this as a strategy for moving forward. It simply didn’t ring true for me.

Mark lost his wife suddenly to a car accident after having been married only four years. This is different from an elderly person losing a spouse after decades due to a terminal illness, and is different from my situation, where my wife died at age 57 to brain cancer after we’d been married for fifteen years. I’ve heard other widows and widowers say things like, “If I’d only told him . . .” or “I regret that the last thing I said to her was . . .” or “If I could have them back for one moment I would tell them . . .”. These must be haunting feeling to live with, and are probably much more likely to affect people who lose their loved ones suddenly. When you care for someone with an extended terminal illness, especially if the illness does not impair cognition, it is different. Denial, disbelief, and grief set in long before death, but you have a chance to express continued love and put aside petty conflicts and other differences from the moment one accepts the ultimate eventual outcome.

I’m thinking of these things today because March 31st will mark ten years since Leslie died. I’m surrounded by reminders of her throughout my house, and in the many activities I continue to do that we used to enjoy doing together. I can’t imagine ever wanting to try to forget that she ever existed. But, perhaps in coping with a sudden death after a brief marriage it might be different – I can’t say. For me, remembering Leslie is a constant source of both joy and sadness. There are many times when I still feel her presence. I don’t mean this in the sense that her actual spirit is still beside me, but rather my memory of her is still vivid and I can imagine her being near.

Leslie was diagnosed in January of 2014 and survived for fifteen months. After undergoing surgery she had many months of relatively good health, and was able to run, bicycle, hike, travel, enjoy meals, and engage in regular social activities. We were told that glioblastoma was always fatal, and that average survival after diagnosis was less than eighteen months. We had heard of rare cases of people living up to five years after diagnosis. As we entered into year 2015 with her still doing well we thought she might be among those five-year survivors. But things changed around the middle of February. She went into hospice care a month later.

The anniversary of her death sometimes sneaks up on me. In years past, and again this year, I found myself out of sorts beginning early in March. This year I blamed it on the cold, dark season until one day I rode my bike past the facility where she had received hospice care and ultimately died. I wondered if my darker mood had been a subconscious memory of those horrible days ten years ago. I can’t be sure, but the thought that it might be related at least gave me a reason for that depression, and actually made me feel better. To create a fictional character who thinks, even for a moment, that it might be possible to erase a deceased loved one from memory makes no sense to me. Even if her memory isn’t in your consciousness all the time, it has found a comfortable place in the subconscious and surfaces in unexpected ways, whether it is summoned or not.

People who find themselves newly unattached and seeking a relationship later in life face a very different situation than young people due to decades of memories, life experiences, and expectations for new love. Starting to date again later in life is also probably different for widows and widowers than for people who are recently divorced. Someone who begins dating a person who has lost a spouse or romantic partner to death can’t hope to replace the deceased. They must accept that however strong and deep the new relationship, they will always be sharing their new partner with the enduring love for the deceased. Divorced singles in a new relationship might still be dealing with the presence of a former partner in their life, and the variety of emotions associated with them. These emotions might include anger, resentment, feelings of betrayal, loss, sorrow, etc. I’m oversimplifying here, but widows and widowers in many cases don’t want to forget their deceased loved ones, while divorced singles in many cases might want to forget their previous lovers. The woman who is a very important part of my life now is divorced, but I believe, after some adjustment, has become a stronger, wiser, and happier woman since her divorce. Of course, I didn’t know her as a married woman, but I see her as strong, wise, and happy today. I am grateful that she accepts and appreciates that I continue to carry Leslie in my heart, and still have plenty of room for her there, too.

Shortly after Leslie died I joined a widows and widowers support group. The facilitator was a young woman working on an advanced degree in a psychology-related field. Although inexperienced, she ran the groups well, but I quickly found that the group wasn’t for me. My coping mechanism at the time was to return to normal activities as much as possible. It was spring in Denver and the weather was warming and tempting me to get out and ride my bike. I did so, but not without spending miles pedaling with tears streaming down my cheeks. But I thought I was moving on. Many of the members of the group had lost their spouses five, ten, and even fifteen years ago, and a common theme was that they continued to be sad and lonely, and without purpose or joy. I wanted to believe, and have found personally, that my life as a widower would not be like that. Now I know that life can be meaningful and joyful ten years later, but not without a kind of sadness that engenders a certain wisdom.

The approaching ten-year anniversary of Leslie’s death, coupled with the shows I’ve seen recently, have inspired me to write this. As with much of my writing, and against what I was taught in composition classes, I did not start out with an outline or any specific idea of what I wanted to say. It’s not quite stream of consciousness, but nor is it anything close to disciplined, expository writing. But I want to close by expressing my concern with proposed cuts in funding for cancer research. America is a great country, and has not lost that greatness, in spite of what Donald Trump claims. But we cannot remain strong if we don’t continue to invest in what has made us strong. Among these are education, scientific and medical research, and efforts to promote the financial and personal well-being of all Americans. While glioblastoma continues to be a terminal and incurable disease, tremendous strides have been made in overcoming other forms of cancer. Who knows, but there might be research taking place today that is making good use of federal funds, and is only months away from a breakthrough. We can’t let this misguided, frivolous, and dangerous obsession with eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” continue, especially as it is directed and carried out by the most wasteful, fraudulent, and abusive individuals known to our country. Life itself provides great cause for grief, and we don’t need a selfish, ignorant, and deceitful cabal of “leaders” to contribute to our mourning.

At the National Prayer Breakfast on February 6th, a forum for political, social, and business elites to assemble and pray together (and likely plot MAGA strategies, including Project 2025), Trump declared that he would create a task force to root out “anti-Christian bias.”  In addressing, among others, a coalition of so-called Christian Nationalists, he inadvertently shed light on the hypocrisy that characterizes conservatives who call themselves Christians while they behave in a manner that contradicts the most fundamental Christian values.

I doubt if Trump could cite a legitimate example of anti-Christian bias.  If he means resistance to the Christian Nationalist agenda, which has nothing to do with Christianity, or if he means resistance to the desire among him and his supporters to purge and persecute members of other religions, or if he means redirecting public funds to educate our nation and fight poverty into self-enriching “churches” that hide under a deceitful religious banner to take advantage of a tax-free status, or if he means outrage at his abolition of programs to fight poverty and promote fairness, then it is true that a large segment of the American population opposes these efforts.  But if he means bias against people who truly practice Christianity, which preaches against greed, hatred, and persecution in favor of love, kindness and generosity, he will likely be hard-pressed to find an example.

One of the fundamental principles of Christianity is the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  It can be found in at least three parts of the New Testament, where the disciples were repeating the words of Jesus.

1 Corinthians 10:24 – Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.

Matthew 7:12 – Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Luke 6: 31 – And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

No one can defend the abolishment of USAID, the attacks on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, the forced deportation of people from the United States to counties where they have no expectation of being accepted, housed, or employed, the repeated slandering of Blacks, Latinos, Jews, Asians (especially Arabs and Palestinians), people of LGBTQ identity, and the persecution of any in the media, Congress, or entertainment who oppose his hateful and self-serving agenda as examples of the behavior of a man who adheres to the Golden Rule.  It is likely that Trump has never read the Bible verses cited above, and I would challenge him to cite the Golden Rule.

But we are sure to witness Trump in the months and long, long four years that follow using “anti-Christian” bias as an excuse to further his MAGA, Project 2025, and Christian Nationalist agenda.  we need true Christians, true devotees to the American Constitution, anyone with a sense of honesty and compassion, and especially Republicans with any sense or moral dignity, to stand up against Donald Trump using any and all legitimate, lawful means at their disposal.

On January 8th I posted a video on Facebook that showed me reading the text that I’m including below. My intentions were fourfold. First, I wanted to parody the thousands of “advice” videos that flood YouTube that begin by exhorting viewers to stop engaging in a common practice. They do this by either saying “you’re doing it wrong,” or “they won’t tell you . . .”. They often have a few seconds of questionable advice that is preceded by a long preamble asking for an endorsement and arguing why the tips they are about to offer are essential for one reason or another. Second, I wanted to poke fun at the vast number of false “facts” that many “influencers” try to pass off as rigorously researched and validated. Third, more specifically, I am horrified by how easily our leaders-to-be have accepted the nonsense that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been spouting, and I wanted to show that any fool can come up with parallel arguments are are equally ridiculous. Finally, I am concerned that Mark Zuckerberg’s recent decision, in deference to Donald Trump, to suspend fact-checking on Facebook will make it easier for liars, fraudsters, charlatans, and corrupt politicians (am I being redundant?) to completely mislead the naive public. This threat might be heightened with the inappropriate use of artificial intelligence. (By the way, the term “artificial intelligence” might simultaneously refer to the technology used to create content, and also to those who fall for misinformation.)

I might have only been amusing myself and relieving some frustration by creating and posting this video. If it was annoying, misleading, or simply stupid, I apologize. Regardless, while many of my friends have decided to stop following politics and will no longer tune in to the news, I feel compelled to use the channels available to me to protest the direction of the administration that will take power on Monday, January 20th. When I heard that Trump wanted to make Canada the 51st state, annex Greenland, and take back control of the Panama Canal, I thought these would be the statements that would finally enlighten Americans to his delusional unfitness to run the country. But when I found out that Fox News has fallen right in step with him to promote these ideas, I realized our country has fallen off a cliff. I don’t think we can sit back and watch what is happening with nothing more than a groan and a shake of the head. I am choosing to use music and words to resist him and the sycophants with whom he has surrounding himself. I know it will do little good, but I don’t know if I have any other legitimate options.

Here is the content of the video I posted. It is followed by the video itself.

Stop doing this today!

I’m about to tell you something you’ve been doing all your life that is not only unhealthy and unnecessary, but expensive, wasteful, and harmful to our planet.  But before I do, please take a moment to hit the “like” button below and subscribe to my channel.  By doing so you’ll not only keep me alive on YouTube, but you’ll help me get this important message out to more people – a message that “they” don’t want you to hear, and a message that will add years to your life, bring joy to your everyday routine, and put hundreds of thousands of dollars in your bank account.  It also might just help you find or enhance your true love.

Hi.  I’m Mike, perhaps the greatest, most insightful, and most honest influencer that inhabits my household today.  So you can be confident that I have the credentials to address the topic I’m going to cover.  What I’m about to tell you is something I’m sure you’ve never heard before – something that scientists have known for a long time but have not told you, either because they don’t want to contradict conventional practices, they are intimidated by the powers that be, or they have a financial incentive to keep you in the dark.

You’ll find hundreds of pundits on the internet telling you to stop doing this or that, or change the way you do things, or point out mistakes you’ve been making your entire existence.  There may be a little truth to what they say, but for the most part they are motivated by superstition, prejudice, or the desire to enrich themselves.  I promise you that I am not one of those (but I do encourage and appreciate your financial support).

You’ve heard dieticians, gastroenterologists, cardiologists, and oncologists tell you to give up this or that fruit or vegetable, limit your intake of sugar and salt, shun gluten, quit smoking, and consume alcohol on a limited basis, if at all.  While they speak some truth, and there may be health benefits to following their advice, their messages are simplistic, limited, and fail to consider the much, much larger picture.  I view them from the same perspective as I would someone telling you to enjoy the beautiful sight of a single tree, when we need to be looking at the entire forest.

I’m here to tell you right now that you’ve been doing something your entire life that is not only unnecessary, but harmful to you, society, and the planet.  This is something that you have always believed was essential for your health and survival.  But it is not!  Yes, I’m here to tell you to stop eating today!  For your own sake, give up food immediately and entirely!

Think about it.  Who benefits from our consumption of meat, fruit, vegetables, grains, snacks, and desserts?  Who?  Farmers and grocers, that’s who.  Up until now no one has ever told you that all the nutrients and calories you need are present in the air we breathe and the atmospheric elements that we absorb through our skin and our visual, olfactory, and auditory senses.  You don’t need to be taking in solids and liquids through your mouth.  God intended your lips, tongue, teeth and throat to speak to your loved ones, sing, and give him praise, not to convert other living things that share the Earth with us into feces.

These alternate paths to sustenance, along with faith in Jesus and the rejection of food, will lead you to a longer, healthier, and more joyful life.  It’s true.  You can believe me and trust in what I say, and you won’t be hearing it from anybody else, because “they” don’t want you to know this.

Imagine a world where the hillsides and plains are not cultivated but instead allowed to grow wild as our Lord intended.  We won’t have to clear forests to feed ourselves.  We won’t have to tolerate the nasty smell of cattle feedlots or giant poultry cages.  Sewers will once again become fresh and pure streams and lakes, and bathrooms can be converted to odor-free meditation centers.  Flatulence, borborygmi, stomach cramps, and diarrhea will be unheard of.  Think of the time wasted at the dinner table and on the toilet – time you will now be able to spend worshipping and taking in the beauty of God’s planet.

Give up eating – the unnecessary consumption of food – today.   Your body, your bank account, your fellow humans, livestock, and the planet will thank you.

Now, let me express my gratitude to Mark Zuckerberg for deciding not to fact check posts on Facebook any longer.

People give thanks to God when they experience good fortune.  But then do we need to resent God for accidents, diseases, and injustice?  I could resent God for the death of my sister at the age of four, my wife at the age of fifty-seven, wars between groups of people with differing customs and faiths, and the multitudes of children born with life-limiting disabilities.  But doesn’t it make more sense to admit to myself that there is no God who intervenes in the lives of humans?  Using God as a metaphor for joy, love, and wonderment is a beautiful, poetic practice, but it should not be confused with the fantasy of an anthropomorphic deity overseeing the workings of everything from the universe to our personal lives.  And we can’t let those who believe in that fantasy to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.  It’s time to be outspoken in our resistance to Christian Nationalism.

I’m not sure if I have every been deeply religious. I remember going through Catechism class in the Lutheran Church before I was “confirmed” as a young teenager. My friends and I would giggle and goof off while the minister recited standard questions about Christianity and the stock answers. As I approached adulthood I started considering myself an agnostic, because I didn’t want to flatly deny the existence of some form of supreme being. Later I admitted to myself that I was an atheist, in the sense that I did not believe in any form of theism that I had ever heard of. But for most of my adult life I have been happy to let others believe what they did without feeling the need to challenge them, unless they challenged my atheism first. But in the past few years my views have changed as I see the United States drifting toward a theocracy where I will be forced to live my life in accordance with the believes of fundamentalist Christians. As I hear songs this season about the miracle of the virgin birth and the resurrection, the walking on water, healings through the touching of hands, and the need to believe in Jesus as the son of God in order to live for eternity, I can’t help but be overwhelmed by the absurdity of these beliefs, especially the more I learn about the history of the Old Testament and the Gospels.

My Christian friends tell me that faith begins where science stops. They argue that science can only tell us so much about the nature of the universe, the origins of the Earth and the life it supports, and the interplay of the physical and the spiritual. But I am not sure what faith has to do with it. The universe is what it is, regardless of what we believe. The fact that we can’t know everything does not mean that we have to make up and cling to explanations for what is beyond our knowledge. Speculating about the unknown is human nature, and testing those speculations gives rise to the scientific method. But to dogmatically claim to know the unknown and to insist that others accept this dogma is dangerous, dishonest, and cruel.

Those who tell me that they have faith in God seem to come in two varieties: those who see God as loving and protective, and those who see God as vindictive and punitive. God is described in both these contradictory ways in the Bible. Both say that faith in their God is essential for life everlasting. When I argue that if God exists she (he, it) does not make herself (himself, itself) known to us. other than what has been “revealed” to us in the Bible. Of course, they would argue that they see God in the beauty of nature, the patterns of the seasons and the comings and goings of sunlight, and the many wonderful moments of joy they have known. But then they must admit (an admission that they hesitate to make) that God is also visible in earthquakes, hurricanes, fires, drought, famine, disease, war, and other tragedies. It seems to me that when they proclaim their faith in God they are really saying they have faith in the humans that made up the stories in the Old Testament and the Gospels, and that these people were not writing from their imaginations. I don’t have that faith, and neither does anyone who has studies the origins of these writings. I guess I have put my faith in modern scholars and scientists, rather than the authors of ancient texts.

As we face a country ruled by Christian Fundamentalists, it leads one to believe that many of the fables in the Bible were written for political reasons. Kings, pharaohs, priests, gurus and other religious leaders could more easily control their subjects if they convinced them that they were the ones through whom their followers could know God and avoid condemnation to Hell. So, they wrote parables and commandments that served their own interests. I’m afraid that we’re witnessing a return of that kind of con game today. I hope that sensible and ethical people will come together to resist this new reality.

In 2017 I developed a mild seizure disorder that is easily controlled with the right medication, at the right dosage. But for neurologists, finding the right prescription can involve some trial and error. The medications have some side effects, so doctors don’t want to overprescribe. After being seizure free for six years, my neurologist reduced my medication dosage by 50%. The result was that in September, 2023, I experienced a partial complex seizure (formerly known as petit mal or absence seizures). This is a topic for a separate post, but when my neurologist put me back on my previous dose he asked me to refrain from driving for three months to make sure that the seizures were once again under control. While waiting out these three months I entertained myself by spending hours walking through the neighborhoods of northwest Denver.

My period of long walks coincided with an influx of Venezuelan refugees into Denver. These people were escaping economic crises, political turmoil, and social unrest in Venezuela, and were hoping to rebuild their lives. Denver had established a shelter near North High School, about a mile from my house. In spite of the shelter having been established by Mayor Mike Johnston and the City Council, many refugees were forced to live on the streets in encampments, enduring the coldest weather they had ever experienced, awaiting work permits so they could establish new lives in what they assumed to be a free and welcoming United States – a free and welcoming United States where new opportunities would exist. In September, October, and November of 2023 I encountered many of these people during my walks, and with my very limited Spanish I sometimes tried to strike up conversations with them. Often these were young men out on the streets who asked if I had any work for them. They were willing to do landscaping, construction, household repairs, auto repairs, housekeeping, or any other type of legitimate work to earn enough to feed themselves. I came across many young women with children, too. Their situations were heartbreaking.

Donald Trump and his MAGA supporters are portraying Venezuelan immigrants as criminals, when the truth is the vast majority of them are here to flee the conditions resulting from the regime of Nicolás Maduro, a dictator who was voted out of office recently but refused to relinquish power. There are many parallels between Maduro and Trump. We have to keep in mind why refugees from Central and South America come here to being with. The vast majority of them are seeking opportunities to work, support themselves and their families, and contribute to the American economy if they are given the chance. Trump has promised to deport them if he is elected, but we have to remember that they have no place to go if they are sent back to their countries of origin.

Many observers argue, though it is disputed by others, that Trump’s economic sanctions against Venezuela, imposed against the advice of the United Nations, have contributed to Venezuela’s economic crisis, while increasing disease and mortality in the country. Whether or not Trump shares some of the blame for conditions in Venezuela, it is clear that refugees in the United States would have no place in their home country if they were deported. And it is not likely that they would be welcomed in Mexico or any other country south of our border either. The United States, being the richest economy in the world, is probably the only country in the Western Hemisphere that can afford to shelter and assist these unfortunate humans. Yet Trump and his MAGA supporters continue to malign and disparage these people and portray them as criminals.

We can’t be sure what motivated Trump and other world leaders to impose sanctions on Venezuela, and to be sure Trump is not the only American politician to support sanctions in one form or another. But was the intention of these sanctions to create better living conditions for the Venezuelan people, or was it politically motivated to further facilitate the collapse of a country that, under Socialist leadership and vast petroleum reserves, had once prospered? As an aside, despite his publicly condemning Maduro, Trump must admire Maduro for his success in holding on to power despite having been voted out of office by a large majority. Regardless, the sanctions have contributed to the collapse of Venezuela’s economic and social structure, and have led to the influx of immigrants into our country.

Rather than punishing countries like Venezuela and then disingenuously vilifying the victims of that punishment who have fled to the United States, shouldn’t we devise strategies to help those countries prosper so that their citizens wouldn’t have to emigrate in the first place? Surely the wealthiest nation in the world is in a position to do this, while at the same time helping make the lives of refugees here less painful. I am reminded of the opening words from Lincoln in his Gettysburg address. Although we have yet to live up to our founding fathers’ words, Lincoln reminded us that the United States was “conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men [shouldn’t this mean women and peoples of other countries, too?] are created equal.” I hope we have not given up on striving to make this vision a reality.

Following the assassination attempt against him on July 13th, Donald Trump posted to social media that “It was God alone who prevented the unthinkable from happening.” It is assumed that he meant God intervened to prevent the assassin’s bullet from striking a fatal blow to him.  I didn’t find any record of his being questioned about this statement, but I imagined what kind of dialogue might have ensued, had he been.

Trump: “It was God alone who prevented the unthinkable from happening.”

Interviewer: “Are you saying that God changed the course of the bullets that left the would-be assassin’s gun?”

Trump: “It was God alone who prevented the unthinkable from happening.”

Interviewer: “If God did prevent the bullets from inflicting a fatal strike to you, then he must be responsible for the people who took the direct hits from the shots that were intended for you.”

Trump: “It was God alone . . .”

Interviewer: “If God could stop the bullets from hitting their target, why couldn’t God have stopped them from being fired in the first place?”

Trump: “It was God . . .”

Interviewer: “Perhaps God could have kept that young man from picking up the gun to begin with.  Or maybe God could have stopped him from even planning to be anywhere near the rally.”

Trump: “The Lord works in mysterious ways.”

Interviewer: “Couldn’t God have stopped that young man’s father from ever purchasing the assault rifle, or seen to it that previous efforts to make illegal the purchase of assault rifles in Pennsylvania had been successful?

Trump: “We don’t know the mind of God.”

Interviewer: “Well, apparently you think you do, since you state that God alone prevented the unthinkable from happening.”

Trump: “That’s just the kind of statement I’d expect from the liberal, Godless, Fascist, Communist, free-speech-hating anti-American media.  After I’m elected that talk will no longer be tolerated, and you’ll have a steep, steep price to pay.

Interviewer: “Thank you for clarifying your position and your statement, Mr. Trump.

• Life begins at birth
• No, life begins when a fetus is viable outside the womb
• No, life begins at the detection of a fetal heartbeat
• No, life begins at natural biological conception
• No, life begins with in vitro fertilization
• Since we know (many believe, anyway) that sex is only for reproduction, we must also consider these concepts:
• No, life begins at contact between sperm and ovum (regardless of fertilization)
• No, life begins at coital penetration (regardless of ejaculation)
• No, life begins at genital contact (manual, oral, mechanical, or otherwise)
• No, life begins with heavy petting.
• No, life begins at arousal
• No, life begins at feelings of attraction
• No, life begins at the passing of notes across the aisle in fifth grade

Any argument can be taken to absurd extremes, and it appears that many of our nation’s courts are willing to do just that for political purposes, or perhaps to try to gain favor with their personal concept of a deity.

I’ve been listening to a radio broadcast about Mitt Romney on which Romney said his actions as a Senator were motivated by “an oath I took before God.” When I heard him say this I had to admire him for being true to his values. Unlike most Republicans today, I don’t think Romney is a hypocrite. But at the same time, his statement implies that he acts the way he does because in the end he believes his life and his actions will be judged by God. But our actions and our decisions have immediate consequences. Do religious people really base all their decisions on the promise of an eternal reward in paradise? Don’t honesty, justice, kindness, and charity exist independent of a supreme being? Don’t humans have enough common sense to know how to act in ways that serve the greater good here on Earth while we’re alive, without consideration of a payoff in the afterlife?

According to Exodus, God gave Moses the Ten Commandments to share with the Israelites after God had helped them escape from Pharaoh and the Egyptians (subsequent to God’s hardening Pharoah’s heart and sending plagues upon the Egyptians). But only Moses was permitted to meet with God, who promised death to any who set eyes on his face, or even ventured above the boundary he had set at the foot of Mt. Sinai. This is strange behavior for a loving and benevolent God, and forced Moses’ followers to trust him that the words he was sharing were actually the words of God. This isn’t so different from Evangelical preachers today who tell their congregations that God speaks directly to them, telling them what he wants the congregants to know, to believe, and to do. Perhaps Moses used his own judgment to devise the rules he wanted the Israelites to follow, but didn’t trust that they would be adhered to without the threat of divine punishment. Maybe Moses made up the whole story about God on the top of Mt. Sinai for this purpose. I know I am skeptical when I hear tele-evangelists relate the messages they have heard directly from God.

The Ten Commandments that Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai might be divided into three groups. Four of them – Don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie, and don’t wish for what belongs to others – are practical rules that allow people to live in a peaceful, orderly society. I’ll call these the “Ethical Laws.” Three of them – I’m you’re only God, don’t create idols to worship, and don’t use my name in vain (this one is open to interpretation and will be discussed later) – don’t seem to have much to do with a civil society, but rather seem to cater to an egotistical, anthropomorphic deity. I’ll call these the “Loyalty Laws.” The final three – Don’t commit adultery, honor your parents, and remember the sabbath – could be interpreted as having more to do with culture, customs, and ceremony. I’ll call these the “Customs Laws.” To the extent that the last three overlap with the concepts of honesty, justice, kindness, or charity, or facilitate a peaceful orderly society, I would argue that the first four already have these covered.

I don’t think we need the threat of God’s judgment to know that we all make the world a better place when we refrain from killing, stealing, lying, and acting in an envious manner. Religious and non-religious people alike value high ethical and moral standards, and the actions of people like Donald Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Matt Goetz, Jim Jordan, Rudy Giuliani, Ted Cruz, Paul Gosar, Josh Harder, Mike Johnson, and Tommy Tuberville demonstrate that proclaiming a religious devotion does not exempt one from dishonesty and hypocrisy. Please feel free to add your own hypocrites to this list.

Today’s evangelical Christians in positions of power seem to violate the “Ethical Laws” so frequently and publicly that I was wondering if, unlike Romney, they either never took an oath with God or else don’t take that oath seriously. But lately I’ve come to realize that for them the “Ethical Laws” don’t really matter as long as they adhere to the “Loyalty Laws.” If one declares religious faith loudly enough, publicly enough, and often enough, then honesty, justice, kindness, and charity don’t matter. God will be flattered, forgive ethical sins, and reward those who praise him with admission to Heaven.

My maternal grandfather was a fundamentalist Lutheran minister in rural Pennsylvania. He and my grandmother taught my sisters, my cousins and me that the spirit of Jesus was always present and knew our every thought and action. I was six years old in 1956 when my four-year-old sister died from influenza. I remember my grandmother trying to comfort me by saying that she was so special that Jesus had called her up to Heaven to be by his side. I resented this nonsensical rationalization of death, and wondered if my grandmother really believed it. I know my mother did not. My mother later left the Lutheran church and became a Unitarian, where the “Ethical Laws” were all important but the “Loyalty Laws” mattered not at all to the clergy and the congregation. My father remained active in the men’s Bible study group at the Lutheran church, and later had me go through Catechism class and confirmation, but my path toward agnosticism had been set many years earlier. I remember being reprimanded in Catechism class for my less-than-serious attitude. My father and I never joined a church again after we moved to California when I was fifteen.

One cannot think about today’s practicing Christians without wondering about the various forms of worship and celebration there might be, the ways in which people people find strength from their faith, and the things that inspire them to believe. The Merriam-Webster dictionary offers three definitions of the word “faith”: 1 – allegiance to duty or a person; 2 – belief and trust in and loyalty to God; and 3 – firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Since atheists and agnostics don’t see any proof of the existence of God, they would see no difference between definition #2 and definition #3. So without empirical evidence of God, belief itself must provide strength and inspiration for the religious. When we see a sunrise we know that there is no golden orb tethered to the hand of God that he mystically lifts above the horizon, yet the faithful see the handiwork of God in every movement of nature. When some of us get news from the doctor that our potentially terminal disease has gone into remission, we are grateful to medical science, the efforts or our medical team, and our good luck. Others will declare that they have been blessed by God and praise his goodness and mercy. These people probably are not thinking of why their God has forsaken someone else who just saw the same doctor for the same condition and was told they only had a matter of weeks to live. Or they might simply say, “God works in mysterious ways.” Saying that God works in mysterious ways is the line that always emerges in the face of contradictory evidence for faith.

Faith in Christianity and the expression of that faith comes in many forms. People like our new Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, is said to be a Creationist, which means he takes the account of God’s creating Heaven and Earth, day and night, etc. in six days and resting on the seventh, literally. Others consider the stories in the bible to be nice parables, and gain inspiration from the words of Jesus, without having to believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection, or the promise of eternal life. Still others enjoy a lively, emotional celebration or simply enjoy the comfort of belonging to a congregation, hearing music on Sunday, singing in a choir, or listening to an intelligent, thoughtful, inspiring sermon. I assume that the majority of practicing Christians fall somewhere in between, not believing the literal creationist stories, but believing that there is salvation through believe in Jesus Christ and following his teachings. But honestly, I have no way of knowing this for sure, and I think it would be hard to honestly survey a representative sample of Americans to find out their true religious beliefs. I suspect that many individual’s beliefs are not fixed, either, but can change from day to day. Suffering and grief are powerful factors that keep people tied to a belief in Heaven. If one has lived an impoverished life or experienced chronic illness and pain, why not hope for a reward beyond Earth. And if one has suffered the loss of a loved one, the thought of being reunited with that person beyond the grave can be comforting. On the other hand, there are people who have died before us who have made our lives miserable on Earth. Will we have to suffer them when we encounter them again after we die? The thought of life everlasting itself can be frightening. I imagine a cartoon of a soul in Heaven sitting on a curb with his head in his hands and a choir of angels and a band of trumpeters behind him as he says, “Dear God, is there no end to this eternal basking in glory?”

If God does work in mysterious ways, who are we to assume that our good fortune, or bad fortune, have anything to do with those mysterious ways? My disbelieving self until recently was content to let the religious hang on to their faith unchallenged. When my non- belief was confronted by one of the faithful, my response was usually, “I’m glad you have your faith, but it just doesn’t work for me.” But lately I’m more likely to push back a little harder, depending on why someone might be wanting to interrogate me on religion. As an increasing number of politicians propose and even pass legislation that imposes Biblical law that has nothing to do with “Ethical Laws” on the American people, I believe it is time for people like me, who have politely kept their doubtful views to themselves, to speak up. If we were all more outspoken, I think we’d find that there are a lot more people than we assume who don’t buy into the Christian point of view (or any other fundamentalist view).

If closet non-religious people are more prevalent than the general public thinks, we should ponder why they remain closeted. People who run for office must believe that, unless they come from the most progressive of districts, they can’t get elected if they don’t have some kind of religious affiliation. Other religious skeptics fear that many Christians equate religiosity with morality, and fear that they will be viewed suspiciously, even thought to be immoral, if they deny religion. Others may hold on to the slightest superstition, thinking that even though the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection, and the promise of life everlasting don’t make much sense, just in case the threat of Hell is real they will not declare their doubts. Still others may say they don’t believe in any conventional religion, but they just can’t comprehend nothingness. Of course agnosticism and atheism are not synonymous with nothingness. Religious skeptics are open to the infinite mysteries of the universe. The more science learns about the origins of the universe, the solar system, our planet, and life on our planet, the more we realize how much greater the mystery really is. If there were a deity responsible for creating all this, it would be an insult to conceive of him as the anthropomorphic being described in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Etc. In some ways, I like the approach Iris DeMent has taking in her song, “Let The Mystery Be,” of which there are many recorded versions. Of course, this doesn’t mean we should suspend our scientific inquiries, but we need to refrain from imposing simplistic, superstitious, disproven explanations on the American people.

I said I would discuss more about God imploring Moses to forbid the Israelites from taking his name in vain. Exodus 20:7 says, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in Vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” I was raised to believe that this meant using the word “God” in a curse, such as saying “God Damn It,” a frequent utterance from my father. Now I believe that to be a trivial interpretation of that commandment, and I think that most conservative Christian politicians and Christian nationalists violate this commandment all the time. My interpretation is that to use God’s name in vain is to say you are speaking or acting on behalf of God when in fact you are acting in pure self interest, or using God’s name to deceive, manipulate, mislead, scare, or anger people. When these people tout their own righteousness, assert the godlessness of their opponents, tell you what God wants for our country, or that their actions are motivated by a deep faith, they are using God’s name in vain. They do not exist any closer to God, or have any greater insight into God’s will than you or I do when we ask ourselves how an honest, just, kind, and generous person should act. And since their behavior leads me to believe that honesty, justice, kindness, and generosity are not values they honor, I believe their every actions are acts of vanity. And yes, I am talking about the likes of Donald Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Matt Goetz, Jim Jordan, Rudy Giuliani, Ted Cruz, Paul Gosar, Josh Harder, Mike Johnson, and Tommy Tuberville. It would be easy to add another fifty or sixty names to this list.

“Don’t Tread On Me” has become the pet slogan of the 2nd Amendment zealots. In my neck of the woods I see lots of pickup trucks with this phrase printed on a yellow decal with a coiled rattlesnake. This is often next to another sticker that says something like, “When you come for mine, you better have yours.” The right wing has done a good job of convincing its followers inaccurately that sensible gun laws would mean all guns would be outlawed. But is America now facing a real, and quite different threat from the Christian Nationalist movement? Women are losing the right to control their own reproductive organs. Books in our libraries and schools are being banned. Scientific subjects that contradict biblical accounts of creation are being called into question. Funding for secular public schools is being cut. Laws are being proposed that would make it a crime for two consenting adults to engage in a loving relationship. These changes are based on a misunderstanding and misreading of a single book compiled from many writings over a long, long time to which divine origins are wrongly attributed. As a non-religious person with progressive political views, I feel as though a new wave of conservative politicians are treading on me, and sadly, people like me are too naive, trusting, and polite to recognize it, admit it, and speak out against it. We are not doing enough to ensure that in a democratic way, it goes no further than it already has.

The “God” that these Christian Nationalists claim to bow to, and the one of which I am declaring my skepticism, is the one that has many contradictory profiles in the Bible. But even the most confirmed atheist must concede that we are governed by higher powers. If we think of these powers as godlike, then, speaking for myself, I took an oath before a concept of god on the day I was born. In accepting life I accepted the gravity that keeps me tethered to my planet. I accepted the oxygen that fuels my muscles and my brain. I accepted the cycles of seasons and days, of rain and sunshine, of bounty and famine. I accepted the need for water and nutrition, and I accepted the temperature limits outside of which I could not survive. I did not have to acknowledge these things, for by simply living I was making good on this oath. There is no promise that our Earth will sustain life forever. We know it won’t. But human behavior is increasing the odds that the Earth will be less able to sustain life in a matter of generations, rather than in a matter of ages, epochs, or periods of time.

I hope that people who share a concern for our planet’s ability to sustain life recognize the unspoken oath we have taken, and the responsibility that places on us. We have to oppose laws and values that don’t recognize, and in fact even deny this responsibility. We must support each other in standing for the values of honesty, justice, kindness, and charity, and oppose those who want to govern us based on an archaic vision of God. If fundamentalists want to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, let them do so. But they do not have the right to transform our country into one that conforms to their views, or oppressively subjects America’s citizens to their views.