Who do you BELIEVE?

More than ever, religion disappoints me.

It promises a godly greatness and delivers an unceasing parade of SMALLNESS as human as the measure of such mortal spirit is meanness.

Who do you BELIEVE?

Apologists tell me that I am an anomaly.

*

That Muslim? Her heart is not hateful. Her posture is not a kind of intimidation. Her stare is not a kind of aggression. Her prayers do not name me - enemy. As for her acts of trespass... 

what are they but violent? 

That Charismatic? Her beliefs are not hateful. Her stand is not a kind of intimidation. Her position is not a kind of aggression. Her doctrines do not pronounce me - demon. As for her acts of false witness... 

what are they but malevolent?

That Extremist? Her thoughts are not hateful. Her disposition is not a kind of intimidation. Her angle is not a kind of aggression. Her convictions do not avow me - inhuman. As for her acts of sabotage...

what are they but cruel?

That Protestant, that Catholic, that Orthodox, that Evangelical? Her words are not hateful. Her attitude is not a kind of intimidation. Her bearing is not a kind of aggression. Her faith does not condemn me - damned. As for her acts of wrongdoing...

what are they but vicious?

*

You see

how apologists promise grace and deliver moral abdication?

*

That Muslim? That Charismatic? That Extremist? That Protestant, that Catholic, that Orthodox, that Evangelical?

I am supposed to be BLIND to their acts. Because a professed faith is a defense. an excuse. a justification. a moral "trump card".

I am supposed to be BLIND to their acts. Not because MY heart. and MY beliefs. and MY thoughts. and MY words. are... theirs.

I am supposed to be BLIND to their acts. Because a mantle of religion is a blank check to be violent. malevolent. cruel. vicious. and

loved. so loved. forgiven. so forgiven. in the name of mercy. most merciful. in the name of grace. most gracious.

*

Never mind

that Jewish human being. she cannot be corrupt.

that Buddhist human being. she cannot be abominable.

that Hindu human being. she cannot be vile.

that Christian human being. she cannot wear religion like a fraud, like an imposter, like a FAKING FAKE.

*

Apologists claim that I see not what I see.

By vowing that I see not what I see, apologists conclude that I lie.

That my trespass is violent. my false witness is malevolent. my sabotage is cruel. my wrongdoing is vicious.

*

By my denial of Muslim, Charismatic, Extremist, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical systems of belief, apologists claim that I deny the truth. By my refusal of Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian systems of belief, apologists claim that I refuse the truth.

By vowing that MY TRUTH is a rejection of what's real, apologists conclude that I am false.

That I am corrupt. abominable. vile. a fraud. an imposter. a faking fake.

*

You see

you are supposed to believe anyone who denies what "religions" insist is true and you are supposed to believe anyone who refuses what "religions" insist is real

cannot be trusted,

cannot be trusted to know what is true and cannot be trusted to know what is real,

cannot be trusted to be honest,

cannot be trusted to be moral.

*

I ask you

can apologists be TRUSTED?

can apologists be TRUSTED to know what is true and can apologists be TRUSTED to know what is real?

can apologists be TRUSTED to be honest?

can apologists be TRUSTED to be moral?

*

Or is it possible

that apologists who promise righteousness and deliver acts of trespass that are violent, acts of false witness that are malevolent, acts of sabotage that are cruel, acts of wrongdoing that are vicious

are SMALL humans;

that apologists who promise sanctity and deliver hateful hearts, beliefs, thoughts, words; and intimidating postures, stands, dispositions, attitudes; and aggressive stares, positions, angles, bearings; and prayers that name enemies, doctrines that pronounce demons, convictions that avow humans inhuman, faiths that condemn and damn

are MEAN mortal spirits;

that apologists who cannot be trusted to be good people are apologists who cannot promise love or forgiveness or mercy or grace, because apologists who deliver an unceasing parade of smallness as human as the measure of such mortal spirit is meanness

are FRAUDS. IMPOSTERS. FAKING FAKES?

*

After all, isn't it possible that "religion" is not a manifestation of "divine inspiration" so much as an execution of mortal invention

of human beings, by human beings, for human beings,

because there is mortal gain to be had by a pretension of "divine creation",

including power, wealth, immortality, etc.

for "believers"?

 

Epilogue

I am not an anomaly.

I see human beings, "members of religious communities", being human.

I see "members of religious communities" parading an unceasing panoply of smallness as human as the measure of such mortal mean-spiritedness is abysmal.

I see sanctimonious and self-righteous parades WEARING RELIGION like JUDGES IN JUDGMENT.

*

You see

how a "professed faith" that insulates "the faithful"

from scrutiny,

from consequences,

from justice,

is LOUD and PROUD and here and now?

*

I am not an anomaly.

Because it is possible that I am not the only one who DENIES and REFUSES and REJECTS prayers that name enemies, doctrines that pronounce demons, convictions that avow humans inhuman, faiths that condemn and damn.

*

I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE who knows what is true and I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE who knows what is real

is not what "religions" and their systems of belief tell me,

is not what apologists and their claims promise me,

because I am not the only one who knows what is true and I am not the only one who knows what is real

is what "religions" and apologists deliver:

love that DENIES love. forgiveness that REFUSES forgiveness. in the name of mercy that REJECTS mercifulness. in the name of grace that LIES with gracelessness.

M

*

Note

The use of "she/her" is not to exclude "he/him", but rather, to state the obvious, "a pretension of 'divine creation'" is as much "her" "execution of mortal invention" as "his". For all the "mortal gain to be had by a pretension of 'divine creation'" is also "hers". 

Or am I the only one who sees "how a 'professed faith' that insulates 'the faithful' from scrutiny, from consequences, from justice" wears "she/her" pronouns like basic b!tches in heat for "power, wealth, immortality"?

M

In Judgment

The following is a song in the form of a spoken poem...

In Judgment

What is there to say

that hasn't been said?

that hasn't met the moment

of the living and the dead?

with hands that lift no one,

and feet that don't rise,

and howls that mean naught

but crocodile cries?

*

What is there to do

that hasn't been done?

that hasn't been thought or writ

or felt or won?

for the license of the few

to terrorize the many,

to lionize and glorify 

a parking lot penny?

*

We can listen to the noise

that says nothing at all

and do everything we're told

is best for us all.

But crocodiles and pennies,

don't die for the light -

they live for their own

and their right of might.

*

So before you halo

a sinner as a saint,

with a fabulist's brush

dipped in liar's paint -

remember to honor

the truth raw and bare,

the truth real and honest,

the truth just and fair.

*

Or listen to the noise

that cares not one bit

that it cleaves us into factions

of hell-fire and spit.

*

Follow who you follow

and do what's been done,

what's been thought and writ,

what's been felt and won,

for the pleasure of the few

to dominate the many,

to worship and revere

every bankrupt penny.

*

Parrot who you praise

and say what's been said,

that hasn't met the moment

of the living or the dead,

with words that lift no one

on waves that don't rise,

like brittle crocodiles

howling post-truth lies.

Further Reading

Author's Note (unpublished, tvfs) to In Judgment (above, tvfs)

M

Charade You Parade

'Identity' isn't a 'free pass' or a 'blank check' or a 'rubber stamp'. Which is to say, who you are doesn't give you permission to be a version of you that is your worst. It doesn't authorize, nor does it bless, the visions and beliefs that marinate and inflame every heart and any mind. Whether the 'identity' you claim follows from 'religion' or 'race' or 'nation', the charade you parade is

identity 

releases you from any and every mortal and immortal injunction.

Charade You Parade

I

'Identity' is not a recent scourge, but it is persistent. I suspect because it boils down to -

I am therefore I can.

* 

For example:

I am 'religious', therefore I can hate people who believe differently from me. I am 'deeply religious', therefore I can harm people who believe differently from me.

Why?

Because the exercise of 'religious practice' is - not (a) solely a belief in inhuman power(s), is it? - for it is also (b) a 'free pass' and a 'blank check' and a 'rubber stamp' - for (c) any belief derived from (a) - and (d) every practice derived from (a) - regardless of whether or not (e) such beliefs or such practices are 'good' or 'just' by

mortal judgment.

*

Case in point:

People who testify to 'being devout' exercise a 'pious practice' of hierarchy as though hierarchy cannot be a 'practice' separate and apart from (a). Despite the 'moral rightness' of such hierarchy not following from being part and parcel to (a) - but rather from being (c) and (d).

Hierarchy, therefore unsurprisingly, is neither a belief nor a practice subject to mortal opinions by exercisers of a 'religious practice' of hierarchy. For arguments that question the 'goodness' or 'justness' of hierarchy, on the basis of other systems of belief, are reflexively dismissed and reviled. 

Because people who testify to 'being devout' exercise a 'pious practice' of habitually dismissing and reviling other systems of belief. Including scientific systems of belief, secular and humanistic systems of belief, atheistic systems of belief, etc., no?

*

II

Which is to say, when 'identity' boils down to - I am therefore I can -

'identity' 

is too often a 'free pass' and a 'blank check' and a 'rubber stamp' for any idea and every agenda derived from I am therefore I can, 

regardless of ethical systems of belief.

* 

For example:

I am 'racial', therefore I can hate people who are 'racially' differently from me. I am 'deeply racial', therefore I can harm people who are 'racially' differently from me.

Why?

Because 'being free' is - not (f) solely a human right to self-determination, is it? - for it is also (g) a 'free pass' and a 'blank check' and a 'rubber stamp' - for (h) any idea or feeling or sense originating from (f) - and (i) every agenda or act or conduct arising from (f) - regardless of whether or not (j) such ideas or such agendas are 'right' or 'wrong' by mortal reason.

*

Case in point:

People who publicly defend an expansive and inclusive 'idea' of 'freedom' while unapologetically defending a suffocating and brittle 'agenda' that restricts and excludes as though (f) is not everybody's right to 'be free'. 

Because the denial of some liberties of some people is 'right'. Because the advancement of everybody's liberty is 'wrong'.

For I am 'free' to deny anybody's liberty if I am so autonomously-determined. Never mind that 'freedom' that issues forth from both sides of a people's mouth, defends nobody's 'freedom' from

illiberalism's repudiation of ethicism.

*

III.

Which is to say, when 'identity' boils down to - I am therefore I can -

'identity' 

is too often

authorization that blesses the erasure of mortal guardrails. 

*

For example:

I am a 'patriot' of my 'nation', therefore I can hate people who stand with a 'nation' different than mine. I am 'deeply patriotic', therefore I can harm people who stand with a 'nation' different than mine.

Why?

Because an 'oath of allegiance' is - not (k) solely a vow of fidelity and loyalty, is it? - for it is also (l) a 'free pass' and a 'blank check' and a 'rubber stamp' - (m) to wrong (n) in the name of (a) and (f) and (k) - regardless of whether or not (o) such wrong is 'lawful' or 'honorable' by

mortal authority.

*

Case in point:

People who sanction hostility against and towards political entities, including people and states and nations, as though (k) halos acts of aggression as 'patriotism'.

Because (l) and (m) and (n) and (o).

Because violence that serves the glory of one's own political entity, one's own people and one's own state and one's own nation, is a kind of 'respect' or 'duty' or 'love'. Not for a mortal 'fatherland'. Nor for an immortal 'father'. But for a release from any and every mortal and immortal injunction

to be a version of you 

free from the charade that 'identity' is a right, instead of a wrong.

 

 

More

Too often when we talk about 'identity' - we're talking about an 'idea' that has become a 'justification' that has become an 'agenda' -

to 'enforce' obedience and submission

to enforcers and enforcement -

*

Too often when we talk about 'identity' - we're talking about a kind of power and a kind of control -

to rob and strip and dispossess people of their rights and freedoms and liberties,

because they're 'non-conforming' or 'different' or 'not one's own' -

*

Too often when we talk about 'identity' - we're not talking about 'believing in an inhuman power' part and parcel to 'the exercise of religious practice' or 'a human right to self-determination' part and parcel to 'being free' or 'a vow of fidelity and loyalty' part and parcel to 'an oath of allegiance' - 

*

Too often when we talk about 'identity' - we're talking about the make-believe, the fiction, the lie that 'identity' is a right

to wield 'religion' and 'race' and 'nation' as the full armor of God

to wrong

with an inexplicable impunity that I suspect boils down to - the charade that parades: I am therefore I can.

M

*

Note

"the full armor of God" is a reference to Ephesians 6:11

M