The truth about Obama and anti-colonialism

President Barack Obama 2011

I’ve been spending time with an interesting 75-year-old fellow who happens to be quite wealthy and quite anti-Obama. Earlier today I stood by patiently as he explained to the former mayor of a small Tennessee town (who sports a “Pray for Obama” bumper sticker on his pickup truck) that Obama is an anti-colonialist and a hater of America. He mentioned as his evidence Obama’s book Dreams of my Father.

I wanted to find out if my older friend spoke truth or merely opinion.

I may come back to this and offer additional thoughts after I conduct more in-depth, objective research and read more of the relevant articles; however, based on my friend’s description, he seemed hopping mad that anyone (e.g., Obama) could possibly be anti-colonialist because the affected nations (Africa, Middle East, etc.) would be back-asswards if it were not for the boost given to them via the colonialism in their history.

In other words, his stance appears to be that the end justifies the means.

My first impression is that this conversation took place largely in September 2010. It is old news; it’s old opinion.

One of the fundamental questions here has to do with the morality and spiritual principles associated with colonialism. So – what is colonialism, exactly?

Colonialism is essentially controlling a territory and its inhabitants. This must necessarily occur by force.
Source: Dictionary.com

A more detailed explanation of colonialism:

Colonialism is the establishment, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. It is a process whereby sovereignty over the colony is claimed by the metropole and the social structure, government, and economics of the colony are changed by colonists – people from the metropole. Colonialism is a set of unequal relationships: between the metropole and the colony, and between the colonists and the indigenous population.

The colonial period normally refers to a period of history from the late 15th to the 20th century when European nation states established colonies on other continents. During this time, the justifications for colonialism included various factors such as the profits to be made, the expansion of the power of the metropole and various religious and political beliefs.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism

What might universal spiritual principles say about the act of colonialism? The most basic, rudimentary spiritual principles include treating others as we would like to be treated; basic decency. Let’s face it: Behaving Spiritually 101 probably includes the golden rule.

If those who are making pro-colonialism arguments would not mind their own culture(s) being taken over by a foreign force and colonialized, then perhaps their views really do come from a spiritually centered philosophy. But most of us know better.

Colonialism is, in effect, a mild form of slavery.

It is not surprising to me that the most right-leaning fundamentalist Christians tend to be tolerant of colonialism; after all, the Bible implicitly allows and tolerates the practice of slavery. These ultra-conservative types have no choice but to believe that kind of elitist, controlling behavior is OK, as long as Christians are the ones doing the controlling.

When the ends justify the means, then anything becomes fair game. If the end result is my expansive wealth – which enables me to provide more financial assistance to poor people everywhere – then my participation in a major Central American cocaine cartel is OK. I can create and operate a major human trafficking ring importing Asian teenage girls into the U.S for prostitution – and of course enjoy all the frills thereof – as long as I can become rich enough to help poor people.

Do you see a problem with this?

Resources: Obama

Resources: Opinion re: Obama as anti-colonialist

Resources: More on anti-colonialism; debating colonialism

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Pitfalls: Literal interpretation of the Bible

Example #1: Some believe the Bible commands far-right politics in Ecclesiastes 10:2

creation story painting - Alfred E Newman as AdamNOTE: Updated occasionally…
During today’s hike at Radnor Lake with one of my hiking buddies who happens to be a Christian fundamentalist, I mentioned a Facebook posting I saw a few days ago by “John,” an even more conservative religious fundamentalist. John’s Facebook post implied that the Bible contains a command from God that we should have conservative or far-right political views. Here is John’s Facebook post:

I have often wondered why it is that Conservatives are called the “right” and Liberals are called the “left.” By chance I stumbled upon this verse in the Bible: The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. ~ Ecclesiastes 10:2

President George Bush as Alfred E NewmanDespite the fact that John plagiarized this comment from another forum (see Resources, below), it is nevertheless an interesting, humorous anecdote; it could even be used to create the “perfect” sound bite for Hard Right political campaigns like those of Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and others! The same kind of people who cheer for capital punishment would probably rejoice when hearing it.

John’s comment about this ridiculous Biblical interpretation elicited a string of comments from others, most of whom excitedly supported it – in effect, agreeing with one of the most intellectually challenged interpretations imaginable for this Old Testament Bible verse.

But did John really believe this? Could anyone possibly believe the Bible was actually referring to the modern political right and left? Surely not, right?

Among other things, it would be an anachronism, since the words right and left were not even used to refer to politics until fairly recently in history (the political references originated a couple of hundred years ago in France, I believe). It doesn’t seem plausible that a competent, reasonably intelligent person could actually view the verse as a political commandment (even an ultra-right-wing, hardcore, young-earth-creationist fundamentalist) – that is, until John’s next two comments are considered:

… Feel free to use this quote. It is the Bible’s word not mine [sic]. And it is open to the world [sic]….:0)

There isn’t a liberal bone in my body Shakey [sic]. You should know that.. let me define [sic]: All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty~Proverbs 14:23

Wolverton BibleOK, so John really does seem to believe that Ecclesiastes 10:2 contains a political admonishment from God. That makes me wonder: How many other religious fundamentalists would interpret the verse this way? Is is really possible that more than a handful of voting United States citizens could believe such a thing?

Naturally, no Biblical commentary I could find even suggested such a preposterous interpretation of Ecclesiastes 10:2.

Even so, on a much broader scale, these kinds of logically challenged beliefs bring up a more relevant subject than possible interpretations of one mere verse. After all, individual Bible verses can be taken out of context and then used to support many wildly varying ideas and viewpoints – especially when the reader chooses to interpret ancient religious writings at literal face value. Such intellectually thin decisions (believers at some point decided what to believe) are dangerous and foolhardy – and they were almost certainly unintended from the start.

Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck - end of times, doomsday is coming!My religious hiking friend, Bill, did not agree that Ecclesiastes 10:2 commands readers to subscribe to right-wing politics; yet, Bill stated that he believes the Bible is supposed to be interpreted "literally."

My response was that there are thousands of degrees of possible "literal" interpretations of the Bible. A poetic collection of writings so open to individual interpretation means that Bill’s comment (I believe the Bible should be interpreted literally) has no practical meaning, especially without specifically defining the word "literal" at the beginning of the discussion.

Our conversation ended there. Bill did not elaborate on his comment that the Bible should be taken literally, and I did not ask.

Since the Bible (for the most part) was written in a largely poetic language of culturally relevant symbolism, metaphor, and parable, in order for a lay person to understand its exact terminology he or she would require schooling in Religious Studies, Greek, Hebrew, English literature, Ancient Culture, and a few other disciplines to boot – otherwise one may foolishly and ham-handedly believe any Biblical quote at face value. In practice, most modern American fundamentalists do not determine the proper interpretation by engaging in objective study; rather, congregants tend to adopt whatever Biblical interpretations their preacher or minister says are proper.

Why should I even bother pointing out these things? Perhaps because the potential consequences of hard right religious fundamentalism are too severe to warrant an ongoing free pass. Radical, extremist, dominionist religious fundamentalism serves little fruitful, rational purpose that I can tell – but harm is certainly done.

Food for thought

Shouldn’t Biblical literalists also believe that faith can actually, physically move mountains? Or that prayer should occur only from within a closet? Or that it’s acceptable to go on an angry rampage, overturning tables and such, when someone is doing something wrong? Or that no one can possibly dwell in heaven unless all their possessions are given away? Or that one should hate one’s own mother and father?

No – religious fundamentalists will continue to choose the Biblical interpretations advised by their preachers and leaders, regardless of whether these interpretations conform to truth, logic, common sense, and reality. Few would admit that their fundamentalist religious beliefs are predictably interpreted in such a way as to conform to current cultural norms – not the other way around.

Fideistic fundamentalism itself is a problem, not a solution. Careful study will reveal this fact to any willing, intellectually honest student with an open mind.

Resources: Literal interpretation of Bible

Sources for the comment about Ecclesiastes 10:2

Religious fundamentalism defined

Exploring interpretations of notable Bible verses

Related humor

  • Having a laugh at religion’s expense… with Joe Raiola of MAD Magazine – Excerpt: Making fun of religion, particularly the Abrahamic ones, is like shooting fish in a barrel… I mean, after 4,000 years of theological heritage, the three major Western religions believe that God/Yahweh/The Trinity allowed 18,000 people to die in the recent Japanese earthquake because a woman who never existed was induced by a talking snake to eat an apple.

Anachronisms in the Bible


Updates to this post
9/28/2011: Added a few comments and a new section of resources for anachronisms in the Bible, from various points of view (Protestant religious fundamentalist, Jewish, skeptical, secular)

Removed content
(John apparently also believes that all hard work actually brings a financial windfall.)
I could not say I was surprised; Bill and I are on different wavelengths.
While I hope Bill wasn’t using the word literal in its technically defined sense, I sense otherwise.
To those who value reason and intellect (rather than seeing logic as an enemy of faith), that is obviously not how the Bible was ever meant to be interpreted.