Maybe it’s all part of a great big ineffable plan. All of it. You, me, him, everything. Some great big test to see if what you’ve built all works properly, eh? You start thinking: it can’t be a great cosmic game of chess, it has to be just very complicated Solitaire. And don’t bother to answer. If we could understand, we wouldn’t be us. Because it’s all â€” all â€” ”
INEFFABLE, said the figure feeding the ducks.
-Terry Pratchet and Neil Gaiman, Good Omens
As you probably know, Iâ€™m religiousâ€“Tibetan Buddhist, to be preciseâ€“so I do understand the idea of following religious moral rules even if that puts you sort of outside lockstep with modern society. I tend to view religion as a separate (complimentary) sphere to say, science. And while we do things differently across the international religious dateline, I know that a lot of Christian-variations feel the same way.
Part of the reason I know this is because I was raised Catholic.
And thatâ€™s why the arrogance of modern Christians is often breathtaking and baffling to me, that they think they know Godâ€™s will to the point theyâ€™re willing to legislate it. I mean, the last I looked, there were at least six different variations on what you could argue was Godâ€™s effort at the clearest commands, the 10 Commandments, which between Exodus and Deuteronomy actually come out to more like 17 Commandments.
But somehow they absolutely 100% know Godâ€™s word on fetal tissue used in research.
When I was a kid, and Mom was still trying her best to raise me as a Good Catholic, I had a book called something like Why Does God Allow Bad Things to Happen. It was not, as I recall, Catholic-specific, but non-denominationally broad and probably bought as a form of self-defense.[note]Some personality traits are apparently set from an early age, and â€œwhy why why, but why, ok how?â€ was apparently present early on.[/note]
The book was full of examples of bad things God allowed to happen, and asked questions like â€œif God doesnâ€™t want you to rob a bank, why doesnâ€™t he just put a giant bag over the bank every night to keep everyone out?â€ and it was illustrated with something like a Ziploc dropped over a cartoon bank, and a cartoon robber trying to figure out how to get past it.
The answer was always a variation on a two themes: free will and the ineffable nature of God. In short, God wants us to have choices and for those choices to be made with the guidance of his wisdom for the circumstances of our lives, and we canâ€™t actually know what God wants from us, or anyone else, because that Plan is ineffableâ€“literally unable to be known by mortal mindsâ€“so we just do the best with the circumstances in front of us and trust that God will trust us, too.
It seems to me the height of conceit and arrogance to assume a mortal human could understand the will of God, let alone be able to perfectly apply that will to modern life. If you believe, after all, that God can speak to you, where the N of you is Very Quite Large, then why couldnâ€™t God simply reach into the mind of everyone and speak to all at once? Why are some people the special folks God speaks toâ€“not really a question in Catholicism, which has its hierarchy of chatting, but a big, big issue in Protestantism, which holds that everyone has equal access to God.
The minute you start hearing God tell you things, youâ€™re removing yourself from that equal access situation and insisting God has spoken to you and only you in mysterious ways.
What especially boggles me is this: say Marco Rubio continues his NO ABORTION EVER rhetoric, and continues to insist that this is because he knows Godâ€™s will. Whatâ€™s to stop someone else from coming up and saying â€œsorry, but God spoke to me and said that abortion is okay, because itâ€™s one of his tools for teachingâ€“people learn different lessons from abortion, and hey, itâ€™s also how he gets necessary donated tissues to researchers who will cure all kinds of diseases in His name!â€
Now you have belief in Godâ€™s word being spoken to you in two separate people, with two separate belief systems, andâ€¦thereâ€™s no way to balance out who is right or not, short of God actually speaking to the entire world at once.
Of course, none of this is really about religion. If it were, Mitch McConnell and his Republican cronies wouldnâ€™t have voted to lift a moratorium on the use of donated fetal tissue from voluntary abortions in 1993. Yet many of the GOP members who voted for that medical research are now speaking out against Planned Parenthood, and itâ€™s not because theyâ€™ve gotten more religious in the last 23 years. Itâ€™s because weâ€™re gearing up to what is going to be a very contentious election cycle for the GOP, and as usual, politicians are pandering to the extreme members of their baseâ€“the ones who vote in primary electionsâ€“in an effort to secure money and, ultimately, nominations.
In his sign-off from The Daily Show last night, Jon Stewart said â€œthe best defense against bullshit is vigilance. So if you smell something, say something.â€ You have to decide what your own olfactory tolerance is, but at least for me, when people begin talking about the voice telling them to control the actions of everyone around them, I think a lot less God, a lot more charm and kool-aid.[note]Which, as my pal Laurie points out, was actually Flavor-Aid. Isnâ€™t it weird how the name-brand became the cultural trope, and not the fact? Thereâ€™s probably something incredibly meaningful and relevant in that.[/note]
If nothing else, ask yourself this: when the federal funds Planned Parenthood receives do not go towards abortion, what do Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and the rest of the GOP politicians gain from defunding Planned Parenthood?