Media

God’s Health Care Plan: Healing the World

M G Kizzia Leave a comment

It was 2000 years ago a man named Jesus came out of Galilee saying, The Kingdom of heaven is at hand.  It is near, or as some rude person in our day might say, “It is in your face.”  Curious… 

The people in that time and place were under the thumb of the Romans and many were not happy with that reality.  The society was fragmented.  Pharisees and Sadducees were like Democrats and Republicans: in charge of things more or less, but fighting each other and even fighting among themselves.  Many people had dropped out altogether, to form communes or live as hermits in the wilderness.  Zealots, what the Romans described as terrorists, were committing great acts of rebellion or great crimes of murder depending on who was describing those acts.  And the common people were looking for a way out: they wanted a leader, they wanted hope. And there were plenty of men and some women no doubt who were glad to step in and be that leader.  The countryside was littered with teachers, preachers, prophets, healers, miracle workers, the wise and the foolish, the sincere and the charlatans.  Many people were wary.  

That fellow John gathered quite a few followers at one time, but then he had the stupidity to insult one of the Roman Provincial Executives and he got himself arrested and eventually got the death penalty.  People might not have thought that was fair.  There were plenty of worse offenders, mass murderers and the like, sitting on death row filing appeal after appeal; but you know, when such things are decided for political reasons, they aren’t always fair.

So now this fellow named Jesus has come saying Repent (like John said), and adding The Kingdom of heaven is at hand.  That was the new part, sort of.  Some scholars asked him once, “Is this a new teaching?”  It was not.  Not really.  Back then, the people basically understood what this “Kingdom of Heaven” or “Kingdom of God” was all about:

They understood that God did not approve of any sickness, trouble, hardship, social collapse, disease or death; but then they also understood that God did not break the world.  We did.  God did not sin.  We did.  God didn’t start the trouble.  We are the ones who rebelled.  We turned our backs, and some are still turning their backs on God and we began all the trouble by our rebellion.  Now, this broken (sin filled) world plagues us and our brokenness has come back to haunt us in the form of struggle, disease and death.  That isn’t God’s fault.  Everyone understood that.

And they also understood that this broken condition was not supposed to be the end of the story.  Clearly, it was not God’s intention that we be stuck in this brokenness forever.  The prophets made that clear, for example in Isaiah (35:1-10):

            The desert and parched land will be glad; the wilderness will rejoice and blossom…

            …Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped.

            Then will the lame leap like a deer and the mute tongue shout for joy…

            …and the ransomed of the Lord will return.

            They will enter Zion with singing; everlasting joy will crown their heads.

            Gladness and joy will overtake them, and sorrow and sighing will flee away.

The Kingdom was the place (and time) when all of the brokenness in this world would be fixed, which included every disease being healed.  It was the place of no more tears.  But this Kingdom; it was like a nebulous thing, a promise for some far off future that had nothing to do with present day living.  People had to deal with their troubles, today’s being enough for today, and not live in some La-la land.  So here comes this Jesus fellow saying the Kingdom is near and you can be sure many scoffed.  “Yeah, right!  What Kingdom?”

I imagine Jesus smiled and responded something like, “This Kingdom,” and someone got healed.

The deaf dumb and blind could hear, speak and see.  Skin conditions, paralytics all got healed.  Some, so they claimed, even got raised from the dead and restored to life.  No wonder he gathered such crowds.  Yet he took the most curious position on it all.  “Don’t tell anyone.”  He would say.  Of course, they did tell, and the crowds reached the thousands where he had to borrow some fish and bread to feed them all.  But why would he say don’t tell?  How curious?

Well, it seems to me he did not want to be lumped in with all of the charlatan miracle workers and so-called healers already gallivanting around the countryside.  Obviously, he did not want to be seen as just another mumbo-jumbo magician.

Peter was perhaps the first to understand when Jesus asked, “Who do you say I am?”  I always imagined Peter stuttering a bit as he was inspired to respond.  “You are the K-K-King.”

Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.  And Peter understood that Jesus was the King of God’s Kingdom, which of course meant that Jesus was God.  Who else would be King of God’s Kingdom?

Enough people understood this on Palm Sunday to lay palms at his feet.  The Sanhedrin understood this in the last week, enough to accuse him to each other:  “The man makes himself equal with God!”  They told Pilate:  “We shall have no King but Caesar!”

But what they did not grasp was:  He did not come to heal and restore God’s rule over the earth right then and there. NOT YET.  God!  That HAD to be a disappointment to a lot of people.  But instead, he came to tell us about the time (the Kingdom) that was coming – still in some nebulous future – but also to demonstrate it in his life so we would know it was a REAL promise, no matter how far in the future it might be, and then he came to offer himself up on the cross as the Lamb of Sacrifice so that when the time DID come we could receive mercy, not condemnation for our rebellion.

Now he is gone.  He has ascended into heaven, as the confession says, and we are left to carry on.  We are to “Walk in His Steps,” to live with the question “What would Jesus do?”  We are the disciples now.  We are the Peters of the world, and it is now in our hands to demonstrate God’s Kingdom to the world.

Consider where Jesus, in his ministry, showed the power and the presence of God’s creative, loving Spirit and brought healing to our spiritual, mental, emotional, and physical lives.

  • Where there was evil, he brought goodness.
  • Where there was condemnation, he brought forgiveness and mercy.
  • Where there was darkness, he brought light.
  • Where there was prejudice and hatred, he brought Love and justice.
  • Where there was emptiness, he brought fullness and meaning.
  • Where there was war, he brought peace.
  • Where there was sickness, he brought health.

All of this is healing in the broadest and best sense.  The gospel of Mark begins with the words, “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”  The Good News is news about the reign of God in the whole of our lives.

Now, I cannot speak for non-Christians, and might not be able to speak for all Christians, but for those who are followers of Christ, here is what I see:

We are to pray for those who need wholeness of every kind and as we pray for the physical, spiritual, mental and emotional well being of others, we can do so with the sure and certain knowledge that these prayers flow from the heart Christ himself.  And sometimes, even in our broken, rebellious day, God heals.  The details of where, when and how the healing of persons takes place is totally in the hands of God; but the faith and trust that this is the will of God is in our hands.  (Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven).

After that, we are to heal in every way we can; healing “even the least of these” without regard for what people can pay. 

We need to NOT heal the left hand while destroying the right as in healing the body while throwing the family into bankruptcy. 

We need to heal without regard to “pre-existing conditions,” without exclusions by insurance companies (in employer monopolies) or limits by “cost benefit analysis” (as in the proposed government monopoly). 

No one should ever be put in the position where they are made helpless and hopeless and are encouraged to die and as Scrooge said, “Decrease the surplus population.”

We need to reward those who have dedicated their lives to the healing professions and find a way to protect those who do their HUMAN best from being sued. 

We need to encourage the drug companies and hospitals, through the use of profit and fair competition or by some other EFFECTIVE means to develop new and better drugs and therapies in order to stay on the cutting edge of what we humans can do to heal.

We need to each do our part to bring wholeness to this broken, troubled world.  This is what Jesus did, and it is what we should do as well.

That is what I think.  What do you think?

–Michael   “Word & Spirit: The testimony of two.”

Reflection: The Proof for God: Religion vs. Science continued.

M G Kizzia 1 Comment

            Is God a Mathematician?  That is the title of a new book by Mario Livio.  I am sure it is a fascinating book, but the short answer is, duh! Of course he is, and everything else as well if I read the PR correctly. 

            In Switzerland, Scientists are touting the new multi-billion dollar, seventeen miles worth of particle accelerator where they hope to find what THEY call “the God Particle” (The glue that holds matter together).  It is all nonsense to equate any particle with God, you know.  Particles, by definition are neither theistic nor atheistic; but I am sure they are just using the name like some manufacturer might use the terms, “new and improved,” or like so many food venders presently use the terms “natural” or  “organic.”  It doesn’t necessarily mean what it says.

            Then, another recent publication is the book by a former Christian Scientist – a reporter who reportedly went in search of the science part.  The conclusion, as I understand it, is she grew closer to some of her Christian Science family and friends, but she did not really find it – not exactly.

            I would have been surprised if she found any scientific evidence at all.

            Science and the scientific method have a marvelous place in the universe.  With mathematics, we may be able to eventually understand everything there is to know about matter and energy and the relationship between the two and science may describe for us the beginning and the end of the universe (especially if it turns out that energy can be created and destroyed after all).  But what it cannot tell us is anything of value (for example):  why we should be interested in science, mathematics and the scientific method, what good are the scientific laws and discoveries, or why we should care.

            To be sure, more of life is understood by means non-scientific than scientific and “proved true” by means other than the scientific method.  A BS degree from the university is a valuable commodity, but there are other places where a BA is much more highly regarded.

            Consider Art, which is about as unscientific a category as you can find.  Greatness (validity) is often a matter of consensus, but not entirely so.  The art world depends on documents, expert and eyewitness testimony, and the jury of history in making its determinations.  Of course, someone can still insist that the Mona Lisa, Beethoven’s 9th Symphony and Shakespeare’s Hamlet  are not great works of art, and they may try to justify their opinion by suggesting it is all subjective and only (no more than) a matter of opinion in any case.  What that suggests to me is one of two possibilities:  either the person is a “Contrarian” which I have defined as people who get a kick out of taking a contrary opinion no matter how irrational or unreasonable that opinion may be, or the person is in some serious need of some asylum time.

            Of course the above mentioned works are great works of art, and whether we like them or not is honestly irrelevant.  The jury of history alone has declared their greatness, as any jury would say, “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

            Consider history, which is totally unscientific no matter how much historians may grumble otherwise.  It cannot be understood by mathematics.  I cannot be replicated under strict laboratory conditions, and while it may produce some good advice, it does not imply laws that can be applied invariably to the future.  History, instead, is again a matter of documents and what the archeologists can discern from their shards.  It is determined by expert and eyewitness testimony to the point where it can only be, “rewritten by the victors” (as is often the accusation for unreliability) only so far before it is contradicted by the known facts and again, by the jury of history.

            Did Alexander once conquer the oikumene?  Did Cleopatra abandon Anthony at a crucial point and thus place Egypt in the grasp of the growing Roman Empire?  Did Victoria once rule over an empire on which the sun never set?  The answer of history is absolutely yes (true, for real); and while you or I may not see what relevance such things have to our lives, that consideration is, to be blunt, irrelevant.  History is one of the only things we have that explains not only who we are, but suggests where we are going, and the jury of history proves the reality of nearly everything quite apart from what science may or may not have to say about it.

            The jury would say, “Proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”  That has always been the legal answer to the scientific method, and keep in mind that justice is also a thoroughly non-scientific subject; and to be sure, no one (other than a contrarian) wants to honestly live in a world where justice is merely a matter of subjective opinion where one opinion is equal to another.  That would put us all in danger of tyranny – subject to whoever was slick enough to obtain the judgeship!

            Do juries sometimes make mistakes?  Certainly.  Juries have been wrong.

            Do scientists sometimes make mistakes?  Certainly.  Science has constantly been revised.

            Is this true even when the appropriate procedures are followed to the letter?  Yes.

            So is science the only arbiter of reality (to determine what is real and what is not real)?  Absolutely not.  “Proved beyond a reasonable doubt” works just as well for reasonable people.  When a jury considers the facts (what hard evidence is available), studies the documents (contracts, affidavits), considers the expert and eyewitness testimony and follows the time tested procedures, they will far more often than not come to a conclusion that is beyond a reasonable doubt.  Science (for example DNA testing) may have much to contribute to considerations of the law in a given case, but be clear about this:  Law is in no way a matter for scientific inquiry or investigation.  Other forms of investigation are involved, and they often relate to motive and opportunity.

            I could go on to subject after subject that is essentially if not entirely non-scientific, but in nearly all of it, the truth (reality) is proved in the same way and by the same method, and at this point, someone must be asking, but what about God?

            Well, clearly God is not a scientific subject, being neither composed of matter nor energy.  God will never be replicated in a laboratory, proved by the scientific method or described by mathematics.  So does that mean God is not real?  By no means (unless you are truly a contrarian who is also willing to insist that art, history, the law and a myriad of other things are equally unreal).  Rather, the “Truth” of God is “proved” by other means.

            Consider the documents, the evidence or facts (such as they may be), the expert and eyewitness testimony, the jury of history, and the fact that there are billions of people alive today who will look you square in the eye and declare that God is “Proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”  You may not agree, but honestly, it is the atheists who have a terrible uphill battle, and all I can see is Solon, pushing that boulder up the hill only to have it roll down again.  I always feel sorry for anyone who has to work so hard to close the mind (and heart).

            I will say this again, science and religion have no business being at odds with each other as long as each sticks to its area of study and understanding.  It is when the Theologians deign to make definitive statements about this universe of matter and energy and when Scientists draw unwarranted conclusions about reality that excludes any consideration of non-scientific life that we all get into trouble.

Ghosts part 10 M/F Story

M G Kizzia Leave a comment

Series:  Strange Tales   Story:  Ghosts   by M Kizzia   part 10

            There was a second gate that let out of the fenced area down closer to the actual scene of the accident.  Nathan was reluctant to lead them past the angry young man again, though he added that man and the minister to his prayer list, even if that list was growing rather long.  He knew the angel only asked him to pray for the terrorist, the young suicide, and he was tempted not to worry about the others, but he also knew that Mya’s prayer list was very long and that she was praying regularly, if not continually for them all.  He could only imagine her asking God to love and help others in a completely kind hearted, loving and selfless way, and he thought that perhaps that was another lesson the grown-up world could learn from the young.    

            They saw the man as soon as they got through the gate.  He was pacing back and forth on the edge of the street.  Nathan had no trouble identifying the man as the big, burly fellow who moved up at the last to sit behind him.  “What is it, friend?”  He asked without hesitation, feeling very gregarious with Mya so close beside him.

            The man turned to face them and Mya gasped and buried her face in Nathan’s side.  The man was missing the side of his face, down to the bone and including his eye.  His right hand was missing almost up to the elbow, and the stump was a bloody mess that looked to be festering.  He recognized them right away, too, though his vision of them seemed a little skewed through that one good eye.  “The old man and the little kid.  What are you, a hundred and something?  And Kid, you must be, what, four or five?”

            “I’m eighteen.”  Mya picked an age, though she probably was not that old yet.  “And he isn’t a day over forty, though he probably was.”  She brushed Nathan’s hair again behind his ears and this time he did not mind at all.

            The big, burly man stared at them for a moment and Nathan prepared to run and drag Mya after him if necessary.  He was a bit surprised that the man did not respond to her teenaged flippancy with anger.  Instead he looked up and threw out his good hand.  “What is wrong with everybody?”  He shouted to the sky.  “So just tell me this.  When is the ambulance going to get here?  I could die before they show up.”

            Mya and Nathan looked at each other with the most curious expressions.  It was Mya who spoke.  “But we are already dead.”

            The man frowned as far as they could tell from what lips were left.  “Don’t be stupid.  We can’t already be dead.”

            A woman took that moment to come by on the sidewalk.  The burly man jumped out in front of her and began screaming.  He raised his arms, including his stump and yelled.  “Would you get me a fucking ambulance!”  Mya and Nathan were repulsed by the man’s anger, but not as shocked as they were by the woman’s response.  She screamed, making Mya burry her face again a bit deeper to prevent her own scream.  And then the woman shrieked something about a ghost and she hurried off back the way she came.  It was the woman’s terror that Nathan and Mya felt most of all, and as strongly as they felt the cruelty in the woman with the puppy.  Nathan was suddenly glad that they had not spent much time around many living people since the accident, and it reminded him once again that he and Mya had become very sensitive to the disposition of the souls of the living.

            “Damn selfish bitch.”  The burly man was saying.  “Can’t she see that I need help?” 

            “Why not?”  Mya looked up again, now that the feeling of fear had passed, and she was genuinely confused.  “I mean, we are already dead.  Why can’t we be dead?”

            “Eh?”  They had the man’s attention again.

            “You said we can’t possibly be dead.”  Nathan reminded the man.

            “Because missy.”  He spoke to Mya.  “If we were dead we would no longer exist.”

            “Not if there is a God.”  Mya said forthrightly. 

            “Maybe the spirit can survive after death.”  Nathan tried to add his own thoughts but stopped when the burly man’s frown deepened and a little piece of lip fell to the ground.  This caused Mya to hide her eyes a third time. 

            “Don’t give me that God crap and all that spiritual mumbo-jumbo.  That’s all just so much shit and you know it.”

            “No.  I know the spirit can live after death.”  Nathan was completely certain about that, obviously, and his words reflected his certainty.

“            If you believe that, you’re an idiot.”  The man walked to the back of a parked car.  “Look, I know what is real and what isn’t.  It’s like this car is real.”  He pounded on the hood, and though in fact he was putting his hand right through the hood, there was no doubt that he thought he was pounding on it.  “Science tells me what is real, and that is good enough.  If you want to believe in some fairy tale, that’s your business, but I’ll say you are an idiot.”

            “But maybe there are some things science doesn’t know.”  Nathan suggested.

            “I’m sure that is true.”  The burly man responded.  “But when they figure it out I am also sure it will be as solid and real as this car.”  He made to pound on it again and went through it again.

            “But please.”  Mya could not stand listening to the pain in the man’s voice.  “We all died yesterday.  The accident was a whole day ago.”

            “Yes.”  Nathan took up the cause.  “If you were bleeding for a whole day, you would be dead by now, except you are already dead.”

            “What are you talking about?  Did that concussion rattle your brains?  That kid only blew up ten, not five minutes ago.”  He went as if to look at a watch, but that part of his arm was missing.

            “But.”  Mya was not for giving up, but the burly man was not going to listen.

            “Look.  I don’t want to hear about your God.  I don’t want anything to do with a God because there is no such thing.  I don’t want some freakin’ fairy tale hanging over my shoulder telling me what I can and cannot do.  I am my own man, the captain of my soul and master of my fate or whatever.  And even if there is a God, I don’t want anything to do with it.  A pox on your moronic God.  He should leave me alone forever and I’ll do just fine without him, and when I die, and when you die, I am sure we will all just blend back into the universe and cease to exist.”

            Nathan was concerned for the vehemence and seriousness of the man.  He thought it best if they did not tempt him any further, but Mya was still not giving up.

            “But.”  She tried again, but the man’s shout cut her off.

            “Screw your God.  He can leave me alone, forever!”  He said, and suddenly he began to sparkle like the old woman sparkled, except his sparkles were pitch black, of a kind that swallowed all of the light rather than giving light.  It started out in small spots, but as it spread, the spots began to join with others and became black blotches all over him.  The man screamed.  Nathan heard, “Not that.  I never knew. Not alone.”  Or Nathan thought he heard those words.  Mostly he just heard screams.  Mya had her face pressed into Nathan’s chest and she was crying her eyes out.  Nathan was frightened half out of his mind, but he could not tear his eyes away to save his sanity.  Then it was over.  The man was gone and only a black wisp like smoke remained.

            Then Nathan heard a voice come from the smoke that frightened the other half of his mind.  “Would you like to join him?”  The voice asked.  “It will be very easy.  Curse God and die.”  Nathan nearly lost his wits completely on hearing that, but Mya was dragging him to his knees by then and he wrenched his eyes from the black wisp to see her kneeling and watch her clasp her hands in the classic position of a child at prayer.  Her eyes were shut tight, too, and Nathan thought that was a good idea.  Nathan squeezed his eyes shut and felt his mind and his heart go out to the God of Gods.  “Please, please.”  That was all he could think at first.  “Let there be light.”  That came to him.  “The darkness can’t stand against the light.” And slowly he regained his wits.  “God, give that man another chance, just a little more time to see the light, and please send a better messenger than me.  Please, please God, please.  The man can’t hear me.  I tried.  I tried.”  After another moment he opened his eyes, and he saw that there was an actual light shining over his shoulder.  He knew, without looking, that it was the angel, and the wisp of darkness stood no chance at all.  When Mya opened her eyes, she saw the man sitting on the curb, gasping for air.  With that done, Mya took Nathan’s hand and quickly led him away. 

            “We have so many to pray for.”  Mya remarked.  Nathan agreed and he lifted up a prayer then and there for the suicide bomber.  He was told to pray for the man but thus far he had not actually prayed a bit.  He had just said he would like he always did when he was alive.  Then he added a prayer for the angry young man, and one for the minister, and another one for the business man and the hungry man from the hospital.  Then he started on his daughter and eventually worked his way through everyone he could think of.  He did not pay much attention to where he was going, but trusted Mya implicitly to lead him carefully down the street.

Reflection on Science vs. Religion

M G Kizzia Leave a comment

            It really is nonsense, you know.  Science deals with matter and energy and the interplay between those two worlds.  Religion deals with what matters and what energizes, if I can play with those two words.  There is no crossover (or minimal at best).  Science and Religion should walk hand in hand through life.

            Of course, you realize it is not just religion that runs in non-scientific realms.  We should include philosophy, history, law, and a host of other non-scientific subjects.  As my friend at the University says, “You can get a degree in the Arts (BA) or the Sciences (BS) and both are equally valid; but to be well rounded you probably need some of both.”  I concur.  Hand in hand is the way all of the arts (including religion) and sciences should be.

            I think the trouble brews when people on one side cross over to the other side, as it were, without justification, reason or often common sense; and invariably without admitting that this is what they have done.  I recall Carl Sagan’s opening of his most famous book:  “This universe is all there is, all there was and all there ever will be.”  How does he know this?  It is a plain and clear philosophical statement based on rather obvious presuppositions and it certainly isn’t remotely a scientific statement.  I found it a strange way to begin a science book; yet I suspect he wanted to cut off any appeal to religion at the outset, but in doing so I fear he cut off his proverbial nose to spite his face.  Since then, scientists (such as Hawking) have toyed with the idea of parallel universes, among other things.  So it goes.

            On the other side, I know there are sincere people (I trust they are sincere and well meaning, too) who insist that the world was created not all that long ago in a literal seven days.  I can see the hair rising up on the back of the neck as I say that.  Nothing could be further from even the most basic facts we have been able to discern, scientifically, about the universe in which we live.  I do wish, though, we could all try and reason with such people and bring them to a point of common sense rather than ridicule them with our sharp and sarcastic tongues.  Ridicule will only deepen the determination – and sarcasm is not a good social skill.

            But here it is:  Most scientists I know are believers and attend church regularly, and most theologians I know respect the science that made possible a fresh cup of coffee every morning (even if the laws of motion and gravity do not always cooperate when one is still half asleep).  But for the most part, theologians and scientists respect and appreciate each other.  Rather, it is in the board rooms, the news rooms, the schoolrooms, on the street corners and in the work places and play places where religion and science duke it out – in places where there aren’t any real theologians or scientists.  That is where you find the fundamentalist who gets (rightly) angry at being ridiculed but who nevertheless steps into his car, drives home, turns on the lights and television to stew.  (Technology may be the step-child of science, but without science there would be no child at all).  So he enjoys the benefits of science, but I suppose it must be a pick and choose as to what scientific facts he will accept and what he will reject.  A sad story.

            On the other hand, though, no matter how firmly the other person says they will only accept as “Real” those things that science has proved or likely will prove, you and I both know they do not live in a world devoid of love, beauty, and at least the hope of justice (all non-scientific concepts).  No one lives there, nor would any sane person want to.  But then, philosophy, history, the law, the arts – these are not the issue.  It just seems to be religion, and if I may be blunt, I would guess it is often the concept of God that such people find most irksome.

            There were ten of us out back a few nights ago.  It was a lovely evening with the sun setting dutifully in the west.  One woman remarked at how beautiful the sunset was and in no time there were eight of ten in agreement.  It was a beautiful sunset.  The ninth person said it was beautiful, too, what he could see of it.  You see, he confessed that he was color blind so all he saw was shades of tan and browns; yet he accepted the word of the other witnesses and said he saw the beauty in what he could see.

            Now, the tenth shook his head, and he apologized.  “I’m sorry.  I have never been able to see sunsets as beautiful.”  It was like he was confessing some flaw in his character or make-up.  It was like he wanted to see the beauty, a beauty which he had no doubt was there, only he was not capable.  We all hugged him and assured him that we all have our blind spots and that was OK.

            I suppose he could have been crass.  He might have said, grumpily, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”  That is this kind of thing we hear a lot of these days.  It suggests that beauty is only an opinion and even if everyone in the world disagrees with him, his opinion is still as good as any.  There is a subject worthy of consideration, but for now I want to point out what he did not say – what no sane person would imagine saying:

            “Beauty is an illusion, a fantasy.  You are all living in a fairy tale.  Can’t you handle the real world?  I think maybe you are all suffering from some pathological delusion.”

            Of course no one would really say that about a beautiful sunset, or anything declared “beautiful” because beauty is clearly something real even if it is not a proper concept for scientific study.  Yet when it comes to religion in general, and especially to God…

A thought about Sarah you-know-who

M G Kizzia Leave a comment

People, for God’s sake leave the poor woman alone!  She was a VP candidate, normally worthy of about two seconds of scrutiny.  I would bet there are plenty of Americans who have no idea who Joe Biden is.  Palin was a VP candidate, and lost no less.

Look:  regardless of how you view her personally, politically, or whatever, she is a human being.  Trysaying that three times fast.  She is a human being.  I haven’t seen this big or this vicious a feeding frenzy in the media since… well, ever.  I don’t believe even the eternally despised Bush (the one responsible for every ill conceived of by the  human mind) was treated this badly.

A word to the wise to the Washington Press Corps and their Talking Head friends on the tube:  even the dullest Americans are beginning to catch on.  I am hearing from the most ordinary folks (most of whom you would not know on a bet) that “If the media hates this person, they must be pretty good.”  And, “If the media likes this person, we better watch out for them!”  I would strongly recommend backing off for a while.  Don’t think for a minute the viciousness won’t translate into votes, so for now, why don’t we all…chill.