Americans Paying More for Less and Losing Anyway
by Carl Golden

Until recently, the feds kept interest rates low on mortgages for approximately 20 years in order to promote homeownership and economic growth -- a smart decision. Unfortunately, our national and state leadership neglected to develop and enact appropriate regulatory policies to keep banking and real estate institutions' greed in check -- a stupid decision -- which gave rise to high-risk, predatory loans and absurdly inflated housing costs that neither bore relation to the real value of a given house nor to the local average of individual and family incomes. Now, we are faced with the predictable aftermath of this unbridled greed: a housing slump characterized by rampant bankruptcies, a plague of foreclosures, increasing loss of faith in banking and real estate institutions, as well as unnecessary misery for hundreds of thousands of Americans trying to make a life and raise families.

This slump is bad news, but it will eventually turn as regulatory policies that should have been in place all along are finally set in place; unfortunately, it reveals a sinister trend in American society, which is an increasing lack of regard for ethical practice in the marketplace that doesn't show any sign of abating anytime soon. In fact, this trend is increasingly becoming the norm, exposing a dangerous lack of moral integrity in American character, a low regard of one's fellow citizens, and the rise of greed as a cultural icon. This is bad news for everybody.

Although greed is part of the human condition and is a driving force within economies, it is neither desirable nor wise to allow it to govern our lives and our country, but this is exactly what is occurring. Unbridled greed, especially in the guise of corporate profitteering, is unraveling the philosophical and moral foundations of our country, and it is undermining the strength of the family and our civic culture. The United States of America -- the home of the free -- is quickly devolving into the United Corporations of America -- the home of indentured servitude. This disasterous trend must be checked and corrected, or we will suffer more than just a housing slump.

Creationism vs. Evolution?
Lets Stop Bullshitting Each Other

By Carl Golden

The clash between religious fundamentalism and science over the theory of evolution is a product of ignorance and arrogance on one side, disingenuousness on the other side, and idolatry on both sides of the divide. The religious fundamentalists fail to understand the mythic and mystical language of Genesis, as well as all of the other books that comprise the old and new testaments, because they misinterpret the metaphorical nature of religious language as the literal "word of God", making an idol of the bible. Then, in their self-imposed ignorance, they proceed to arrogantly claim interpretive authority over all of creation while denouncing science, generally, and evolutionary theory, specifically, as godless endeavors promulgated by the minions of Satan to confuse the children of God (meaning Christians, of course, since all other religious beliefs, including Catholicism, are considered by literal fundamentalists as pathways of the damned). They have assumed knowledge, and have made idols of their assumptions. While on the other side of this contentious chasm, science, as an institution, neither affirms nor denies the existence of God since proof cannot be found that substantiates belief in the existence of a universal deity who created the cosmos. I would agree that there is nothing to warrant belief in a universal, creative deity.

However, we aren't really talking about a deity, which is to say a divine person who reigns over all of creation from some celestial realm, are we? Spiritually rooted scientists know this. Thousands of scientists around the world are practicing Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, etc., who know that reference to god does not necessarily mean "deity". They understand that such deific, or theistic, language is metaphor for a state of being that is extraordinarily subtle and aware, while at the same time fundamentally, powerfully, and mysteriously creative. So, why don't they just admit professionally that there is something more to this material universe than meets the eye?

The fact is that science has uncovered quite a bit of evidence of a universe that "self" organizes, "self" directs, "self" corrects, and "self" adapts in many ways that seem to exhibit characteristics of "consciousness". Also, there are non-temporal and non-spatial phenomena that defy conventional reason, necessitating a more holistic model of understanding. The fields of quantum physics, biology, medical science, psychology, psychiatry, parapsychology, and consciousness studies have uncovered and collected an extraordinary amount of data that supports a reasonable hypothesis of a fundamental state of being that is the "ground" of everything. There are subatomic synchronicity events that simultaneously link and behaviorally influence subatomic particles that are separated by hundreds of miles as described in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. There are unimaginable energy potentials of space itself hypothesized within Bohm's Implicate Order. Sheldrake's Morphogenetic Fields postulate biological (and perhaps social) energetic fields that contain "blueprints" for the formation of organisms (and social phenomena) as part of any organism's epigenetics. Then, there are the psi phenomena of remote viewing (clairvoyance), telekinesis, Extra Sensory Perception (ESP), Near Death Experiences (NDEs), and psychic healing, that have been abundantly documented and that profoundly implicate an order of reality that is non-dual, holistic, and conscious. In fact, when one considers the trend in evolution towards increasing orders of complexity across the kingdoms of life, then the idea of a purely material world as rich as ours derived by random associations is quite ludicrous. It appears that even life forms as simple as bacteria use chemistry to actively communicate about and intelligently respond to environmental necessities in order to adapt and survive.

So, why deny the obvious? The cosmos seems to operate at differing orders of complexity and sentience. Couldn't all of this information provide substantial and reasonable ground for hypothesizing the existence of something that people throughout the ages have related to as God, Brahma, Yahweh or Great Spirit?

Science has provided humanity with theories and hypothesis that have opened our minds, extended our senses, and explained more about our world and the cosmos than any one of us could have ever imagined. Yet, despite brilliant and mind blowing hypotheses, such as "dark matter" and "worm holes", science frowns upon mystical phenomena and spiritual language because it doesn't fit the scientific model. It makes me laugh. Have you ever sat down with a theoretical mathematician or an astro-physicist talking about "superstring theory" or "black holes" or "folded space"? Very metaphysical. Apparently, scientific esotericism is acceptable whereas religious esotericism is not. In other words, God does not fit the institutional dogma, whereas gluons and muons do. So, science has made the same mistake as the Christian fundamentalists by only recognizing "sanctioned evidence" as the literal truth while ignoring "challenging evidence" that supports the deeply sentient, spiritual, and metaphorical nature of the cosmos. Science is biased towards relatively simple material explanations, and has made an idol of its bias.

The problem for both religious fundamentalism and institutional science is their respective myopic commitments to literal linguistic models of reality that are threatened by ambiguity and paradox.

Oddly enough, however, ambiguity and paradox have been the mother and father of most of our deepest insights into the nature of the human soul and life itself. People of real faith and knowledge live every day with metaphor, ambiguity, and paradox, because we know that life is such, and we wouldn't have it any other way because contemplating the questions and the poetry of life deepens and enriches our experience of living by enabling us to touch the mystery of life in each other, in birth and death, in the world at large, in Nature, and in our explorations of the cosmos. We know that any idol, be it religious or scientific, is false because idols inherently strip away depth, ambiguity, and paradox, creating a pretense of reality that is utterly and disastrously superficial and predictable. Idols chain the mind and promote arrogance because they provide a false sense of knowledge and security; whereas, faith in the metaphorical nature of life—paradoxical as it often is—liberates the mind, ennobles the heart, and promotes humility in the face of great questions and uncertainties.

Many, if not most, persons of faith believe in a creative genius (or intelligence, or principle, or force) underlying all of creation, and that this genius is non-spatial and non-temporal, as well as transcendent, transpersonal, and deeply and mysteriously powerful in its nature. Unlike fundamentalist Christians, we do not believe in a divine person ruling and regulating all from some heavenly promontory. We know that god and the universe are one, and that religious language and scientific language are just different ways of talking about the same thing from different vantage points. So, what harm is there in recognizing that evolution is simply a scientific description of the divine creative process—as we have come to understand it—that is occurring all the time. Let's stop bullshitting each other over the differences recorded in the biblical and geological records, and start focusing on the implications of both the religious and scientific insights.

To do so, a new synthesis of religious truth and scientific truth needs to emerge. Creationism is not going to suffice, and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. Genesis was a story written approximately five thousand years ago for a culture as far removed from the modern world as the African pigmies are removed from Microsoft. Although Genesis still retains useful insights into human nature, which really has not changed very much over the millennia, it simply will not suffice as an explanation of the natural history of life as we know it in the twenty-first century. The fundamentalist notion that God put fossils into the Earth's crust just to test our faith is insane and blasphemous.

However, on the other hand, the idea that the biosphere evolved to its present state of complexity purely by random material events is foolish because the statistics of random events on a large scale over long periods of time inevitably tend towards a predictable mediocrity. Well, the biomes, ecosystems, niches, and plant and animal species of this world are anything but predictable and mediocre. No doubt there are random events occurring all the time, but these accidents occur within an extremely complex milieu of intelligences, all of which are emergent phenomena within a fundamental field of awareness and creative potential, which is just another way of talking about God.

So, let's give credit where credit is due. The theory of evolution needs to be given dual status as scientific theory and sacred story taught both in schools and churches alike. Perhaps in doing so, the age old occidental schism between the sacred and the secular would begin to heal, and humanity could begin to envision a future where the institutions of religion and science work with each other as partners mutually dedicated to understanding the whole cosmic order, both materially and spiritually.

Now, wouldn't that be a breath of fresh air?

An Inconvenient Truth Banned

By Carl Golden

I can't say that I was shocked when I heard the news that Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, has been banned from classrooms in Federal Way, WA, because the Hardisons -- a couple of misguided fundamentalist Christian parents -- do not want their daughter exposed to Mr. Gore's troublesome message. After all, the literalist tradition of American Christian fundamentalism is notorious for cultivating small-minded, ignorant people who have made it thier business to pull the nation back into the Dark Ages. God forbid that this world-class documentary may actually cause the young Miss Hardison to think. What a travesty that would be. No, I am not shocked, but I am irritated and disturbed.

The irritation arises from the fundamentalist Christian couple, Frosty and Gayla Hardison, who made the original complaint via e-mail to the school. They have no business complaining about Mr. Gore's film and the facts about Global Warming that it presents because they do not know what they are talking about. In fact, they have made a point of not knowing. They have trussed up ignorance with religious clothing and made an idol of it. So, why should we take anything they have to say on the subject seriously? If they want to criticize the message of An Inconvenient Truth and the science behind the message, then they should first do their home work. They should ask questions, study the facts, and seek understanding about the phenomenon with an open mind. This is what reasonable people do.

Of course, there is the catch -- the Hardisons and most fundamentalist Christians have neither open minds nor are they reasonable. Having grown up in America, I am all too familiar with the Hardison's brand of religious lunacy. Fundamentalist Christians are infamous for attacking reason, reasonable principles, reasonable people, reasonable institutions, and reasonable causes. The Hardison's misguided crusade is just another irritating attack in the same vein. Fortunately, for them (and unfortunately for us), they are American citizens whose right to free speech is inalienable. So be it. I would not have it any other way. They are free to speak their minds (deluded as they are). Usually, such nonsense is ignored by our society -- no harm, no foul.

However, the exclusion of Mr. Gore's film from a public school district is more than just another testament to the droning idiocy of America's religious right. It is a failure of a public institution to protect the public from unreasonable people making unreasonable demands. It is one thing to tolerate the fundamentalist Christians; it is another to accommodate their wishes to the detriment of the public, especially when the subject matter is as important as global climate change.

I am disturbed that the Federal Way School Board and David Larson, a lawyer and school board member, decided to promote the ban last Tuesday night, claiming that the documentary should have been presented with an opposing view that would have provided balance to Al Gore's message. I am alarmed that on the heels of the ban, school board members adopted a three-point policy, which requires, among other things, that teachers who show the movie must present a credible and legitimate view that opposes the perspective of Global Warming. Apparently, Mr. Gore's bonafide facts about the increase in carbon-based gasses in our atmosphere and the corresponding increase in average global temperatures, which are well documented and researched climatic phenomena, should be countered with other facts. What other facts? The problem with this policy is that there are no credible and legitimate facts that oppose the scientifically founded view of Global Warming, and the idea of presenting a biblically-based counter argument as suggested by Mr. Hardison, who believes that the Earth is 14,000 years old and that in the end times everything is supposed to burn up because the Bible says so, is just absurd.

It is worse than absurd because requiring students to listen to ridiculous "Book of Revelations"-based arguments in a serious venue will cause some confusion and a general erosion of respect for teachers, as well as academic and religious institutions amongst the student population. (Of course, we already have a problem with respect in our nation's schools, so this may be a moot point.)

By accommodating and institutionalizing the Hardison's irrational complaint, Mr. Larson legitimized it. What was he thinking? It is one thing to give the Hardisons a tolerant ear out of respect for their parental concern and constitutional rights, but it is quite another to institutionalize a district wide ban because the Hardisons have a problem with exposing their child to the truth. Evidently, Mr. Larson is misguided too, and he has no place on a school board, except for sitting in the corner reserved for dunces. His decision blasted another hole in the United States' weakening cultural dike that is holding back an ugly deluge of religious, social, and intellectual ignorance and intolerance.

Fortunately, most Americans are not fundamentalist Christians, but the ranks of fundamentalists are growing in number and influence. This is not good news. Think about the sacking and burning of the great Library of Alexandria, the Dark Ages, the Salem Witch Trials, Hitler's Third Reich, or the McCarthy Era. America is great because we built our society upon rational principles of human enlightenment, and we defended our society from both external and internal threats to our intellectual and religious freedom. Our public institutions are the fundamental bulwark to these threats, and we are greatly dependent upon them to maintain and protect our moral and intellectual integrity. What is happening in the schools of Federal Way, WA, is just wrong and un-American. The members of the Federal Way School Board need to do right by Americans, not American fundamentalists. Rescind the ban.