The Sabbath - who changed it?

The Sabbath--who changed it?

I was raised a Seventh-day Adventist, and went to Adventist schools through one year of college in 1963. I was taught all the right texts to prove that the 7th day is the true Sabbath, and all the rest of Christianity is deceived because the Catholic Church changed the day to Sunday at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

Never satisfied to just accept someone else’s word for it, I studied deeper and noticed that the Nicean Creed doesn’t claim to change the day of the Sabbath, it just says the first day of the week is the one that Christians observe. Nowhere in there does it say we used to keep Saturday holy, but now we are changing to Sunday. That would be a big change, and would not be omitted or ignored.

After I left the Adventist church in 1964, I still wondered what really happened to change the day of worship? How could such an important event just go unnoticed in the record?

(I left the Adventist church over disagreement with Paul’s attitude toward women and marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, not over any dispute about the Sabbath day.)

Since then I have spent fifty years sporadically searching for the truth about who changed the Sabbath day, why and when. I may be a little obsessive, but that is just my nature.

What I found is fascinating. The Catholic church didn’t change the day of worship, but they did choose the 27 books we call the New Testament after the Council of Nicea. The first to list these 27 books, and only these, was a bishop of Alexandria named Athanasius. So what were Christians reading from about 50 AD when Paul wrote his first epistle up until the middle of the fourth century when the New Testament came to be?

They were reading lots of other books, other gospels, other epistles, other apocalypses. But we didn’t know that for centuries, because the Catholic church weeded out all books that didn’t agree with their doctrines or practices. The Gospel of Thomas didn’t make it because it says an individual can find heaven without the intercession of the church. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the Gospel of Philllip were cut out, along with the Acts of Thecla, because they exalted women in the church, and by 325 AD the Catholic church had relegated women to secondary status, even though a cursory reading of Acts of the Apostles makes it plain that women were active leaders in the early Christian church.

I find it ironic that Protestant churches today are still using the same books the Catholic church chose for them to deny ordination to women.

That brings up another interesting question. When did the early Christian church of the apostles become the Catholic church? If the day of worship was changed by the early church (maybe even the apostles) does that have more authority than if the Catholic church changed it hundreds of years later? 

The Adventist church, along with many other Protestant churches, ignore the period of time after John died, and don’t start studying church history again until the Council of Nicea, over three centuries later. When the New Testament stops, they stop. If it’s not in the Bible, it’s just tradition. Don’t worry about it.

And yet each of the Apostles had their own disciples who carried on the spreading of the Gospel. Why shouldn’t we study them, too? 

Barnabus was a disciple of Paul, as was Silas. 

Clement of Rome was converted by Peter, and in his book Homilies he defends Peter against the “lawless” one. (More about that later.) Clement died around 100 AD. 

Ignatius of Antioch was a student of the Apostle John. He was appointed bishop of Antioch by Peter. He died in 108 AD.

Polycarp was a companion and follower of John. He was known for his speaking abilities. He died around 155 AD.

Ireneaus, the bishop of Lyons, in what is now France, heard Polycarp speak, and wrote about it in his book, “Against Heresies.” Much of what we know about other forms of early Christianity comes from his descriptions of what he considered heresy.

Clement of Alexandria advocated vegetarianism. He died about 215 AD.

Tertullian lived from 160-220 AD. He came up with the doctrine of the Trinity. It was considered heresy at first, because it didn’t fit in with monotheism. Later it was accepted and became the orthodox view of the church.

Origen is considered the first theologian. He had studied the Greek philosophers and was known for his wealth of knowledge. He was a student of Clement of Alexandria.

Eusebius was the bishop of Ceasarea. He lived from 260-339 AD. He wrote a ten volume “Church History” which ties together all of these people. How can you be a knowledgeable Christian and not be fascinated by how all these people created the Christian church?

In reading these histories it soon becomes apparent that there was no single church from the start. Each of the Apostles had their own take on what was important, and what Jesus’ ministry was all about.

But in all these books by all these writers, not one mentions when the day of worship was changed or why. That strikes me as odd in the extreme. That would be a bigger change than Passover to Easter, of which much was written.

The first mention I can find of the first day of the week being the day of worship is in the Epistle of Barnabus. The 15th chapter is all about the Sabbath and the symbolism involved in the days of the ages of the earth. And at the end of the chapter he casually mentions that Christians “celebrate the eighth day with gladness” in observance of Christ’s resurrection on that day. 

The Epistle of Barnabus was written about 130 AD. It was not written by Barnabus, since he was martyred on the isle of Cyprus in 61 AD, but probably by one of his followers. The mention of the day of worship does not indicate when it was changed, but the context makes it plain it didn’t happen recently.

Chapter 10 of the Epistle of Barnabus makes it clear that the Christians then were no longer keeping the kosher requirements for food, either.

So we know that at Jesus’ crucifixion the Sabbath was on the seventh day, when Christ rested in the tomb. One hundred years later Christians are celebrating “the eighth day” with no record of the change. How can that be?

Maybe there was no change! Bear with me here, because what follows is guesswork and conjecture, but it’s the only way I can make sense of this conundrum.

In Acts 15 we read of the dispute between Paul and Barnabus and the “apostles and elders in Jerusalem.” It seems the apostles in Jerusalem had sent missionaries up to Antioch, where Paul and Barnabus had founded a church, and were demanding that all the new converts be circumcised. The apostles in Jerusalem were preaching to the Jews who were already circumcised, but Paul was preaching to Gentiles, who were not circumcised.

It says that “Paul and Barnabus had no small dissension and disputation with them.”  In Galations 2:11 Paul says he got right up in Peter’s face. Was this just about circumcision? That would be painful enough, I suppose, and would surely make it hard to convert Gentiles, but I think there was a much larger problem here. I think Peter and Paul were preaching two different gospels and we have lost that understanding through the years as we tried to make them preach the same message. Paul is angry because he believed that Peter and James were teaching his converts the wrong gospel. It’s that old “faith vs. works” controversy at the start.

I believe that James and Peter taught from a Jewish perspective down in Jerusalem, where all their converts were Jews. They were all circumcised, they all kept the kosher laws on food, and they all kept the Sabbath. Although they no longer made animal sacrifices, believing that Christ’s sacrifice fulfilled that requirement, in most other respects they believed as Jews and acted as Jews.

However, Paul came to a different understanding. In many of the texts cited by Sabbath keepers showing Paul going to the synagogue on the Sabbath, it was specifically to preach his gospel to the Jews who gathered there. And over and over again, when he spoke to the Jews they became angry and threw Paul out or stoned him.

“But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.” Acts 13:45

“But the Jews stirred up the devout and honorable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabus, and expelled them out of their coasts.” Acts 13:50

“But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.” Acts 15:2

“And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.” Acts14:19

What was the message that Paul was preaching to arouse such anger among the Jews? If it was just that you no longer need circumcision, the response would probably be, “Oh well, too late now!” 

I believe the answer is best given by Paul in Galations 3:23-26. “But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwords be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Galations 2:16

“I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” Galations 2:21

I believe Paul was teaching that faith in God is what saves you, and you no longer need to keep the law. God will dwell in your heart and show you the right way to behave. You just have to accept Christ as your savior.

You no longer need to be circumcised, you no longer need to keep the laws on clean and unclean meats, and you are no longer required to keep the Sabbath holy. There is a message to make a devout Jew furious!

The text in Acts makes it plain that Paul and Peter came to an understanding whereby Peter continues to preach his message to the Jews in Judea, and Paul goes away to present day Turkey and Greece to preach his message. It doesn’t take a lot of reading between the lines to see two different churches emerging: one led by Peter and James which keeps all the Old Testament laws, and one led by Paul and Barnabus which does not keep the Jewish laws, but remains uncircumcised, considers nothing unclean to eat, and celebrates being released from the burdensome requirements of the Jewish Sabbath.

I believe two circumstances caused Paul’s church to become the dominant church, and the other one to fade away. I see irony here, also, because the Catholic church considers Peter to be its first leader, but their beliefs are closer to Paul’s.

The most important reason Paul’s religion survived is Paul wrote everything down. When he died all his converts could read his letters and continue to worship and preach his message. His writings constitute half of the New Testament.

Another reason Paul’s church survived is they were not in Jerusalem in 70 AD when the Romans invaded and burned down the Temple, slaughtering thousands of Jews and scattering the rest. The Christian church at Jerusalem suffered the same fate as the rest of the Jews. The Romans would not have seen any difference.

James and Peter had already been martyred, and although Clement of Rome was a follower of Peter, and defended Peter against “the lawless one” (he used another name, but it doesn’t take a lot of guessing who he was referring to), no more is heard of Sabbath keeping, kosher eating Christians after Jerusalem was destroyed. (Last line not true. See footnote below.)

Well. except for the Ebionites, a small sect who kept all the Jewish laws and festivals, and believed that Jesus existed, but not in any sense divine. They believed he was a human being, not born of a virgin, just a great prophet come to show them how to live a good righteous life. Most people today would not consider them Christian at all.

So there you are. One Sabbath keeping church, one non-Sabbath keeping church. No changing the day of worship at all--Paul started with no law and no Sabbath, and his church survived.

I can’t prove it, but it makes sense to me. Most importantly, it explains why there is no record of the day ever being changed.

Don Rogers

May 5, 2013

Footnote: I finally got a copy of the book "From Saturday to Sunday" by Samuele Bacchiocchi. The book is out of print and if you can find a new one they run about $150. I found a used one for $19.50. For those who don't know, Bacchiocchi was an Adventist theologian who studied the original documents in the Vatican and taught at Andrews University for over fifteen years. 

His research shows the early change to Sunday around the second century two hundred years before the Council of Nicea. His thesis both confirms and disputes some of my ideas. His quotes from Justin the Martyr confirm that the Sabbath and circumcision were both thrown out together as Jewish anachronisms. Justin wrote in his "Dialogue with Trypho" in 150 AD:

     " We too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbath days, and in a word, all your     festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed on you, namely, because of your  sins and your hardness of heart."

He cites many sources for Sabbath keeping by some Christian groups past the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, including a group that escaped to Syria before the Romans invaded. So strike the line about no Sabbath keepers after Jerusalem fell. 

He failed to find much evidence of Sunday keeping before 130 AD. My findings are the same, but my contention is that the removal of the Jewish Sabbath requirement came first from Paul, and the substitute day followed sometime later. I think the use of the terms "celebrate" and "gladness" in the Epistle of Barnabas in reference to the observance of the eight day is an intentional contrast with the bondage and yoke of the law as Paul referred to it. 

Bacchiocchi correctly attributes the adoption of Sunday as a reaction to the bitter, violent anti-Jewish beliefs of the second century, and the desire to differentiate the Christian church from the Jews as the Romans continued to persecute the Jews. But I don't see much evidence that he considered the idea that the seventh day Sabbath might have been rejected by some Christians long before the Sunday observance began.

Don Rogers
May 8, 2013

Facebook discussions on massacre

Let’s make Guns Scarce and Expensive.

I just sent a letter to Senator Harry Reid suggesting a solution to the proliferation of guns in our society. I think the government is going at it the wrong way. Coercive confiscation will arouse the opposition and lead to more violence and bloodshed.

What if the government declared it would buy back all guns at twice their street value? Anybody could bring them into the closest police station and after a check to make sure it’s not stolen, would get cash in hand no questions asked. An excise tax at the manufacturer would prevent new guns from flooding the market. The idea is to make guns scarce and expensive, using market forces.

Instead of taking away guns, the government would be raising their value. No problems with the 2nd Amendment there. Gun dealers and pawn shops would have a field day rolling in profits while helping take guns off the street. Every small time crook and gang-banger would be stealing guns from each other to make a quick buck.

For the funding, I suggested a website for concerned people to donate to the gun buyback fund. I, for one, would much prefer donating to get guns off the street than donating to hear more political adds on TV and radio! I think there are a lot of people who are coming to the conclusion that the time for action is upon us.

Since it would be completely voluntary, who could object? I think such a program could be up and running in a month or so.

Might even help the poor! I can see a gun totin’ redneck looking at the monthly pickup payment in one hand and his pistol in the other and deciding he’d rather keep the pickup.

Tommy Peterson likes this.

Vickie Rock Better yet ... put a huge tax that would quadruple the price of anything other than a hunting rifle or a revolver.

Donald Rogers I'm trying to stay with the carrot, rather than the stick. I think it would draw less opposition that way.

Donald Rogers Since the government would set the prices, it could favor any type of weapon desired. My own preference would be higher prices for handguns of al kinds. Long guns and shotguns OK, kind of like Canada. Yeah, political ads uses just one d. I knew that!

Laverna Satterfield Would work for some of them I guess, but I can pretty much assure you that nobody I know around here would sell back their guns for double or even triple the price if they couldn't get another one. Might sell you their spouse or first born child, but not their guns!

Vickie Rock Maybe we should make bullets for assault rifles out of reach ... financially ????

John Rogers According to an official being interviewed on NPR today, it was a rifle used in every one of the Connecticut kids murders. She was very specific. She said every bullet wound in each one of those kids was from a rifle. There are no easy answers to this issue. I don't know anyone who would sell their guns for a few easy bucks. That would simply leave those who disarm themselves at the mercy of those who would do them harm.

Donald Rogers @Laverna: Yeah, I'm aware of the cultural biases regionally. Northern Nevada has the same culture. But I think the ones who own several might part with their least favorite ones for enough money. Especially during these hard times.

John Rogers I used to hear kids in the classroom talk about the "shock factor". They were constantly trying to figure out what they could do to shock their parents and other adults. Couple that attitude with video games that make it seem fun to see body parts flying and blood spattered all over the screen. Listen to the "music" they listen to. Much of it is a lot of very angry noise. The issue is much deeper than having guns.

Donald Rogers I suspect some areas, especially rural, would be very slow to cash in their guns. Maybe the inner city kids would be more likely to trade for cash. Those in it for the money-pawn shops and gun dealers-should be easy. It would not happen overnight. But I think as more and more people see the massacres increasing and their children in schools, malls, etc in increasing danger, attitudes will be shifting. They are already. I'm just proposing an idea to avoid the bloodshed Australia went through a few years ago.

Donald Rogers @John: Several of the recent shooters dressed up in black in obvious imitation of ninjas, Batman, commandos, etc. I agree on the movies, video games, and "music'. Carolyn and I wanted to see "Lincoln" but we knew it won't be at the local theater. They only play the worst gory, violent, vampire type films to attract the kids. We will have to travel to Reno or wait for it to come out on DVD, I guess.

Wesley Rogers Wouldn't this eventually have the effect of limiting gun access to only the wealthy and creating yet another disparity?

Wesley Rogers I wasn't very keen on Patrick Moynihan's proposal to make bullets scarce and expensive with a tax either.

Donald Rogers Yes, it would create disparity. But if guns became as expensive as cars, those who could afford to own them would be more likely to keep them locked up to avoid theft. I think the days of keeping guns to defend your liberties is about over, unless you can find a weapon to shoot down drones with cameras and Hellfire missiles. With all of the rights that have been already taken away by Bush and Obama, I don't see any patriots from the NRA taking those rights back.

Donald Rogers The attitude of the NRA as I see it is, You can take away my right to a trial before you throw me in jail, you can take away my right to not be searched without a warrant, you can take away my right to vote by restricting the ballot box, you can take away my right to collectively bargain with my employer, but don't take my guns away--that's the only freedom I care about.

Denise Webber I'd rather keep both, (I am an American citizen who is thankful for my ancestors & the right I have to own a gun @ affordable prices) this is one time when we will have to agree to disagree; many women that r not rednecks own guns. We have laws for lawlessness, in my mind we need more jobs to process those breaking the law . And lower pay for those in Congress.

Char Schmidt NOPE, not getting my gun.... I bought mine to protect my home and family. I don't see any criminal or crook bringing in a gun for double the cash. That's insane!! Your idea will just make them try to go in to people's homes and rob them of their weapons, using their own guns and then selling the stolen property for the cash, thus keeping their own guns for more robbery. I am planning on getting another one, for added security. I have a sign in my front window... Think twice before coming in to rob me... I am a gun owner and know how to use it.

Denise Webber We care about more than just guns, and We stand for and fight for many more things the best we can just like others....u can't put us all into one box or category....I don't do that with democrats, or those against guns or etc.....I have a great respect for those with differences even when disagreeing ..... just saying

Leslie Wright Gregg I own several guns and have somehow managed to a. Keep them from being stolen and b. keep myself from going crazy and shoot people. You bet us rural people won't be giving up our guns. 1. Because we like to hunt and 2. Because we believe in our right to defend ourselves. 

You say that the days of keeping guns to defend your liberties is over? I disagree. My house has been broken into twice. (And with the economy in crisis, it will get worse) If they ever break in while we are there, I will protect my family. 

I would love to live in a world of peace but we do not live in that world.

Leslie Wright Gregg People die from drunk drivers- should we buy back their cars?

Donald Rogers A lot of people missing the point here, I think. You are attacking my idea as if I intend to take your guns away. That's exactly what I am trying to avoid. If you like your guns, you are free to keep them as long as you want. I don't want to take away your guns. I have guns myself, Locked up, by the way. But someday if money gets tight, somebody might look at his five, ten, fifteen guns and decide to take the cash for a few of them. I am convinced after looking at the evidence that the fewer loose guns floating around, the fewer massacres occur. Even Wyatt Earp made the cowboys check their guns in Dodge City. They got them back when they left town.

Donald Rogers @ Leslie: I don't know about your state, but here in Nevada if you kill someone driving drunk, the first thing that happens is your vehicle is impounded. Then you go to jail for manslaughter.

Donald Rogers If the government comes to take my guns, I would hope they would pay me well for them. I don't want to be David Koresh or "Crocodile Dundee!"

Wesley Rogers I believe that protecting our liberties from the government is over; the people have tossed out the entire Bill of Rights willingly, and there is no competing with the government's firepower (whether it's the increasingly militarized police force or the actual military itself).

Over a decade ago, I spent a one time sum of $750 for a lifetime membership in the NRA. I've come close to renouncing that membership several times due to their crude demagogic rhetoric aimed at the lowest common denominator. (I get to read their monthly periodicals). But I remain a member because I still see the utility of easy access to firearms for citizens who have no violent criminal record. Personal security is the most compelling reason for me. Restraining orders are often inadequate to protect people who are in danger of assault from someone. Since lower income populations are often less able to rely on law enforcement for protection, I worry about the worsening disparity if guns were to be priced out of legal access for the common man/woman.

I recall an op-ed written by Jerusalem's former chief of police back in 1991 after the mass shooting in Killeen TX (I'm still trying to find the op-ed to link to ... here's the one for the TX incident though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre ). The op-ed's author basically argued that a person with one pistol would never be able to kill dozens of people in Jerusalem due to the significant proportion of Israelis that carry concealed handguns. He then related an incident that happened there that shared some similarities to the TX case. If I recall correctly (and this is pure memory so I might screw up a detail or two) three armed men burst into a crowded diner/cafe and started shooting. Most of the patrons dropped to the floor for cover. Several others, however, pulled their sidearms and shot back. I believe one innocent was killed and two of the three aggressors were killed. The other was wounded and was arrested when the police arrived.
Luby's massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.orgThe Luby's massacre was a mass murder that took place on October 16, 1991, in Killeen,TX.

Denise Webber @Don.... one thing I do like/agree with is being able to choose to do something voluntarily.

************************

Good thoughts on both sides of a tricky issue.

This is the best posting I've read on the shooting. It comes from Coach Kevin Keathley: 

I see so may people writing we need tougher gun control laws or we need tighter security within the public school systems. I couldn't disagree more. Evil will always find a way to committ evil acts & crimes. A security guard, police officer or metal detectors won't stop it from happening. Our faith should be in the Lord & what he promises. When you put your faith in man is when disappointment will occur. Living in fear is exactly what homegrown terrorists & foriegn want us to do. I don't want my kids going to a school that feels more like a prison.... it should be a place to learn & grow as an individual. We will never STOP evil acts for God says so.

Donald Rogers Usually when I get asked if I believe in God, I try to be as honest as I can. I say "I don't know" or "I haven't seen enough evidence." But today let me say, if there is an all seeing, all loving, all powerful God, and he just stood there with his hands in his pockets while six heroic teachers and twenty innocent children were shot multiple times in a time span of ten or fifteen minutes, and he didn't lift a finger to stop it, he needs to hang his head in abject shame!

Carey Zegart Two things come to mind. First, if you believe in God, then this may provide some comfort. If you don't or aren't sure, comfort will elude you. Secondly, The best answer I've heard to why God lets things like this happen is from "Oh God," the movie staring George Burns as God and John Denver as the one person God reveals himself to. Person: Why God do you let these horrible things happen?" God: I don't let these things happen, you do!" We chose this path when we chose sin and just as God came and made things right again in Noah's day, he will return one day (Jesus) and make the world right again. It's ironic in that often it is the atheist that has more faith than the Christian. Besides God told us that evil will explode in the last days. There's nothing going on that he did not say or that the bible would not have predicted would happen. Things are unfolding as was foretold. He could have also chosen to save his son Jesus from dying in agony, but did not. How arrogant we are when we misbehave and then complain when God doesn't bail us out of the mess we created! Sometimes a father must let his son get in trouble in order to learn a bigger lesson or one that will stick with him. Sadly, I don't think we learned anything this week. God says to expect more of this, not by his doing,but by ours.

Donald Rogers Thanks for your thoughtful answer but I'm not buying it. The idea of trusting in God and not protecting yourself is the attitude of the Jews as they were marched off to the ovens. The motto of the Israeli army today is "Never Again!"

 Jim Parker Believing in God hasn't prevented previous killings such as this. I think God would be a lot more supportive if humankind took and worked on responsibility for their own issues. The coach is right in that we cannot live in 'armed camps' or in the USA at least, gun ourselves up even more, as the NRA would have you do. Just a Canuck's unsolicited opinion . ..

Carey Zegart Yes, but a Canuck who grew up in Canada, lived in the US and has traveled much of the world and seen and experienced many cultures and ways of looking at things. Do not discount you own opinion; it's probably more valuable than a lot of peoples' facts.

Carey Zegart Thanks Don.

Jim Parker Thanks Carey.

Welfare and Drugs

Welfare and drugs

I had a discussion on Facebook a while back with some Christian people who praise the Lord when appropriate, pray for everybody at a moment’s notice, but think it is a great idea to drug test welfare recipients before they can get any help.

If the mother fails, do the children go hungry? Do they suffer from hunger if she is too sensitive or proud to go pee in a bottle for food? For sure drug testing mothers will make more hungry children!

The following emotional paragraphs by me ended the discussion on Facebook:

“There will never be a solution. We are beating our heads on opposite side of the wall. I can still   remember the horror of sitting in the back seat of the car as my mother sobbed in the front seat after being totally humiliated in the county welfare office. My dad had just abandoned her and us boys, and there was no food in the house. I was eleven years old. She eventually went from door to door offering to iron people’s clothes or clean their house. We lived on donations and handouts for about two years.”

“You are looking for ways to refuse welfare to needy people. I have worked my whole life to make it easier for hungry children to eat and needy people to get help. We are on opposite side of the wall and my head and my heart are hurting.”

Many years ago when my wife Carolyn was a young girl, being raised by a father who would go on alcoholic binges periodically, there would be days when there was nothing in the house to eat but commodity cheese and cornbread. Carolyn’s maternal grandparents had a small farm near Caddo, OK, where they raised chickens, dairy cows, geese, etc. Carolyn found out years later that  her grandparents would not share milk and eggs with her family because they judged that Dan Wright was an alcoholic and it was his duty to feed his family, not theirs. (“I found out when we moved to Caddo that they were pouring their excess milk out to feed the cats.” Carolyn)

I’ve never understood the Biblical concept of punishing the children and grandchildren for the sins of the father.

A few years ago a local neighbor lost his job in the mines because he failed a random drug test for marijuana one Monday after a weekend partying with friends. He had two children; a teenage daughter and a boy of about eleven. Carolyn and I and another neighbor, Marilyn Files, understood what was going to happen in that family. In fact it was Marilyn who first heard the news and proposed that we help.

We went to the grocery store and bought cereal, milk, rice, beans and canned food--and when the children were in school we called the mother and took the food over to their house so the kids wouldn’t have to know. We all understood how they felt. All us us have been there.

None of us are perfect. All of us have our own faults and weaknesses. Some people can’t handle alcohol. Some can’t handle other addictive drugs. Some can’t handle gambling. Some can’t handle overeating. Some can’t handle not judging other people.

Jesus said, “Feed the hungry.”

He never said, ”But not if they’re on drugs.”

He didn’t say, ”But not if they drink to excess.”

Or, “But not if they have a gambling problem.”

Or, ”But not if you think they aren’t trying hard enough to find work.”

Jesus just said, ”Feed the hungry.”

Jesus said, “Visit those in prison.”

He didn’t say, ”He made his bed, now let him lie in it.”

Or, ”He shouldn’t have done the crime if he didn’t want to do the time.”

Have you visited a prisoner lately? Have you sent a letter to someone in prison? Jesus said we should. He also said we are not to judge.

Another story of charity occurs to me that has been overlooked and under appreciated until now. When I was entering my junior year in high school, the Seventh-day Adventist church in Merced, CA, saw fit to provide me a scholarship to Lodi Academy, a parochial boarding school about 75 miles away. I’m sure that money came from several individual church members, but I never knew which ones.

But it was a mixed blessing because the school had a rigid dress code for the students. No Levis or jeans were allowed, and no tee shirts also. I hadn’t had any slacks or dress shirts for years, I think, at least since my dad left our family.

One summer day before the school year started, Mr. Robles came to our house, picked us up in his car and took my mother and me to Stefani’s, the biggest clothing store in town, and I got several pairs of slacks, a bunch of shirts, and a new suit with a white dress shirt and tie, and also lots of socks and underwear. I don’t know to this day if that was his money or from the church. I don’t know if it was his idea or his wife put him up to it. I just know that he was there and paid for all of it.

I very much appreciated it and thanked him, although probably not enough.

But in the back of my mind, I remembered overhearing some of the other church members being critical and even judgmental of Mr. Robles because he worked for the Post Office on Sabbaths. His wife was a member of the church, but he did not join because--some people said--he didn’t want to give up his good government job, which required work on Saturday.

Years later, after he retired, he was baptized into membership.

He has been gone for many years now, but I would want him to know that he did more of God’s work that day at the clothing store than a hundred of the critical backbiters who never missed a Sabbath at church, and who never missed a chance to judge another’s weakness.

The Code

THE CODE

One of the things that drives me nuts about Liberals is that they are too nice. Right wing fascists stomp Liberals every time they argue, because Liberals are too polite to deal with the actual ideas behind the words that they hear.

I firmly believe that Liberals must use the same words their opponents are using behind closed doors, or they will keep losing in the marketplace of ideas. If hate isn’t dragged out into the fresh air and sunshine, it can’t be overcome.

As the campaign gets closer to the election, the racism is bleeding closer to the surface, getting much harder to ignore. The objections against “Obamacare” are nearly always non specific, because many of the objectors have no idea of what’s in the Affordable Care Act, they just know a nigger did it so it must be repealed. 

Following is a list of commonly used phrases in our political speech, and the real meaning afterwards.

• We think his birth certificate is a fake. He isn’t qualified to be president.

We don’t believe a nigger should be allowed to be president, ever!

• He’s not a real American. He’s from Kenya or Indonesia.

Real Americans are white, not niggers like Obama.

• We think Obama should be impeached for being a Socialist, or a Muslim, or something!

We really want to lynch the nigger from a tall oak tree, but they won’t let us do that!

• Our primary goal is to prevent Obama from getting a second term.

We will talk jobs, jobs, jobs, but will do everything we can to prevent the economy from improving while Obama is in office. Then we’ll blame the nigger for the bad economy.

• I’m tired of the government spending my hard earned tax dollars on welfare slackers.

I saw a nigger buying steaks and roasts at Wal-Mart and I know they must be on welfare because none of us white people would hire a lazy nigger.

• I think the government should drug test all people on food stamps. I don’t want to pay for their drugs.

Everybody knows that niggers are all crackheads and heroin addicts. Just look at the prisons! They’re full of niggers busted for doing drugs. 

• We’re going to require that all voters present a photo ID or they will not be allowed to vote.

We don’t believe any niggers should be allowed to vote, but this will keep out the older niggers who were born at home and don’t have a birth certificate or driver’s license.

By no means is this a comprehensive list, so keep your ears tuned to the sounds of bigotry, and recognize that much of the generic anti-Obama talk is actually anti-nigger talk. 

I have my objections to certain things Obama has done, but I can speak of specific things in each case, and it’s always the policy I object to, not the man behind the policy.

I'm Down

I’m Down

Maybe it’s the wind and snow today, on June 5, that got me down. I’ve lived here in Windymucca for over thirty years now, so I should be used to it, but it is still a shock when it happens. Yesterday the temperature was in the nineties with bright sunshine. Then in the afternoon the wind turned on like a switch had been flipped, and we were stuck on I-80 for a couple of hours when 60-70 mph winds blew trucks over. Many trucks were trying to pull left down into the median to keep from being blown over. The slope of the right shoulder made the danger worse. This morning the temperature had dropped fifty degrees and it snowed from nine ‘til noon. We shut off the coolers and fired up the furnace again. I was so enjoying summer!

Maybe it’s the news that millions of wage earners in Wisconsin voted for a governor that promised to prevent them from bargaining for better pay, and intends to cut their retirement and benefits and lay off thousands of them. Talk about chickens voting for Colonel Sanders! I think H. L. Mencken had it just right when he said, ‘‘Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”

I even know good Democrats who think if we concentrate on cutting government spending and reducing the deficit we will get our prosperity back! The blinders are so tight they can’t see that Europe is trying that austerity program right now with devastating results. Their unemployment is at 11% and rising, and England is going into a second recession. Greece is having massive riots in the streets and the neo-Nazi fascists are becoming stronger, just as in Germany and Japan eighty years ago. Fascists seem to know how to end depressions, and they forced the USA to end our depression on December 8, 1941.

Most people are too young to remember, and schools don’t seem to mention Herbert Hoover much anymore. He tried to restore prosperity by not spending for over three years, and plunged the nation into the worst Depression in history.

Yeah, I’m down because I know that the government is not spending enough money, the middle class is shrinking, the reduction in wages will lead to a reduction in tax revenues, which will increase the deficit and the government will reduce spending even more, and the debt spiral will put us right back into another recession. Yep, those who forget history...well, you know the rest. 

But I think the real reason I’m down is related to a poll showing the growing ignorance of the American population on many levels, not just economic. We rank 47th in the countries of the world in math and science. Almost half of people polled in a recent survey believe the world is less than 10,000 years old, in spite of incontrovertible evidence that it’s much older. Much of the intelligence deficit is directly caused by fundamentalist Christian preachers who seem to think they are smarter than scientists who have spent a lifetime studying the real physical evidence.

Measuring atomic decay provides the most accurate time measurements we know. Using Carbon 14, Potassium 40, and Uranium 235, this earth can be measured back millions of years. Now that we can study human DNA, we can trace the migrations of humans out of Africa, and how some turned right into Asia and some turned left into Europe, knowing by the rate of mutations when that occurred. We can precisely measure the speed of light, and know that if stars were created after the earth just 6,000 years ago, we could not even see any stars on the other side of our galaxy, let alone the rest of the universe. The Hubble telescope sees stars thirteen billion years away.

Not only is religion stifling knowledge, they are not even improving the moral quality of society here on earth. The worst atrocities seem to come from the hate and competition of religions, whether Catholic, Orthodox and Muslim slaughters in former Yugoslavia, or Hindu Muslim carnage in India and Pakistan. Many preachers, pastors and priests are still advocating that all people with sexual preferences different than their own should be killed, or at a minimum imprisoned.

One church has a growing scandal from priests abusing thousands of children all over the world. Adherents of this religion still believe it was just a few errant priests, even though the evidence is that the whole institution has known of the problem for decades, if not centuries, and has denied, hidden and enabled the abuse for all that time.

This church still claims moral authority to deny women birth control or abortions. Could it be they are running short of altar boys?

Other evangelical churches are becoming famous for the variety of sins by their clergy. They get caught with girlfriends; they get caught with boyfriends; they get caught with prostitutes; and I believe for every one caught there are ten that just haven’t been caught yet.

I recently found out about a woman friend in town who was in foster homes for much of her childhood. In every one of several foster homes she lived in, all fine Christian families, she was raped by the father. She said it became so routine she told the last guy, “Hurry up and get to the good part where you buy me ice cream and make me promise not to tell.” Carolyn says she still shudders and leaves the room when a rape scene comes up on the TV or in a movie.

All of the evangelical churches are also opposed to abortion and birth control. Maybe they need more foster kids? Well, they’re getting them! In states which refuse to teach comprehensive sex education in the schools, the unwed birth rates are higher than in the remaining states where kids get a complete education. Cause and effect are not much studied in schools governed by fundamentalist Christians.  

Every religiously upright, devout Christian I have ever known seems to have trouble with those pesky marriage vows. They preach the sanctity of marriage and boast of their fidelity, but when you really get to know them it’s just the getting caught that seems to bother them. They want to be known as righteous Christian men, but they want to sneak around and have fun on the side--and get self-righteously indignant and offended when asked about it.

Do they really believe in heaven? Do they really believe in hell? Are they all thinking that after they are done sneaking around they can just ask God for forgiveness and he’ll open wide those gates? What kind of a useless religion is that?

I don’t believe in a heaven or hell after I die. I believe in heaven or hell right now. I can make life heaven and I can make life hell for myself and those around me, just by the actions I take every minute of every day.

I love my wife. I want our life to be as heavenly as possible, because I’m not convinced there is another life. This life is the only one I know for sure I’m going to live. Why would I want to screw it up and make it hell for both her and me?

Our marriage is not held together by a legal contract (although we got one for tax and child custody reasons). It is not held together by some magic words a preacher or priest said in a ceremony. Our love is sustained and strengthened by trust.

I made her a promise forty three years ago to love her and care for her and never hurt her for the rest of our lives. My honesty and integrity are on the line. 

I try to avoid any situation which might make her wonder about my faithfulness. I don’t understand the games people play, trying to make their partner jealous by flirting with others. I don’t want my wife anxious or worried or jealous--I want her happy and confident in me.

Secrets don’t stay secret, be sure your sins will find you out, what you sow you will reap, and there really is such a thing as Karma. Knowing that what you do today will make the rest of your life more like heaven or hell is the best religion in the world. 

Well, it’s two hours into a new day, I feel better for getting this off my chest, and I think I’ll feel even better after a hot bath and warm bed. 

I think I’ll wait for sunrise and a reread before I publish this.

Don Rogers  June 6, 2012

STOP the DEATH tax

STOP the DEATH tax!

This little poster was put up on Facebook by a relative and good friend who lost her teaching job along with many thousands of others because the crooks on Wall Street crashed the economy, gave themselves huge bonuses and salary increases after begging the government to bail them out, and then stashed the loot safely in the Cayman Islands or Switzerland.

And now she is campaigning to let the corrupt financiers and banksters give all this money tax free to their pampered prodigal progeny when they die!

The government is so broke they are talking about closing all the Post Offices on Saturdays and laying 10,000 postal workers off. Freeway bridges are collapsing and killing people because the government doesn’t have enough people any more to inspect them. They are discussing cutting the number of government inspectors at chicken processing plants to save money. Each inspector will have to inspect three chickens a second! I’m sure glad I went veggie last year.

When the property values plunged, the local tax base shrunk so there was no money to pay teachers, so hundreds of thousands were laid off all over the country, and many schools were closed.

Thousands of millionaires and billionaires are waving the flag, pledging allegiance, and wearing patriotic buttons on their lapels, at the same time they are stiffing their country by dodging taxes, moving their factories out of America, and keeping their kids safe at home while the children of working people have to join the military because there are no jobs.

I keep hoping that someday working people will notice that neither party has done anything for them lately. Barack Obama and George W. Bush used the same source for all their economic advisors--Goldman-Sachs. There was lots of help for banks in trouble, but nearly none for homeowners being foreclosed on by the banks.

Isn’t the Democratic party for the unions? Who signed the NAFTA agreement, the worst kick in the crotch ever for American working people? Who called me and my union brothers “f**king retards”? Who is standing by while state governors defy federal law and ban union negotiating rights and equal pay provisions for women?

Since the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court, billionaires are now wholly funding their own personal candidates for president. The 1% have bought almost all of the rest of the politicians, who have passed laws allowing them to pay much lower taxes then working people do. 

Back in the Fifties, when the top marginal tax rate for millionaires was 90%, there were lots of jobs, the economy was booming, we were building millions of miles of new freeways, and had money enough to send men to the moon, beside sending five million GIs to college for free.

Now that millionaires are paying 14% or less, like Mitt Romney does, the country is going broke. That’s not a coincidence--that’s a consequence!

When the DEATH tax, more correctly known as the Federal Inheritance Tax, was passed during the Great Depression, it was designed to prevent a few rich families like the Rockefellers, Astors, Morgans, etc. from sucking all the money up and becoming permanently wealthy for generations, leaving the rest of us destitute. It only applies to millionaires and above, and it doesn’t leave them penniless, either. 

They are still plenty rich--rich enough to buy whole TV networks and hire lying loudmouth shills to convince people that it would be a good thing to get rid of all that government regulation so that we can choke on the smog and watch the rivers catch fire like we used to back in the good old days.

Meanwhile, our country is going down the tubes! The government we get is only the government we are willing to pay for. 

We have a whole bunch of Tea Party idiots in Congress who are proud they are starving our government. They brag about drowning it in the bathtub. They are too stupid to notice that countries without a government look pretty much like Somalia or Afghanistan.

It pains me to see smart people who should know better--who are earning government paychecks and surviving on government benefits--benefits they paid for with years of paying payroll taxes--cheering these politicians on and voting for them to “cut government spending” and prevent “tax hikes” and “stop the death tax”.

We are destroying our nation here, folks. We are starving it to death! 

What will we have when it’s gone?

Where will you live when the banksters forge new mortgage papers and kick you out of your house. They do that, you know! Good government is your only hope, and we’re losing it!

How will you eat when you are laid off your job for being too old or unhealthy? Have you called for reservations at the downtown mission soup kitchen yet? Government regulation is the only thing between you and that reality, and it’s fading fast!

Have you reserved a room in an “old folks home” yet? When the government is gone, Social Security is gone. Medicare is gone. Unemployment compensation is gone.

I just sent in my 1040 yesterday. Yeah, it’s not much fun. But fair and equitable taxes are the key to national prosperity. “To whom much is given, much is required.”

As the country collapses around us, too many people are shirking their patriotic duty and not paying their share of taxes. If all the people who piss and moan about other people not respecting the flag, or not pledging allegiance, or protesting in the streets would instead piss and moan about the lazy, greedy, rich parasites who spend their days concocting new schemes to cheat the rest of us out of our retirement, our savings and our houses, maybe we could effect some change here! 

Maybe we could save the good government that millions have worked so hard to preserve and defend for over two hundred years.

But I despair!

Sometimes I just want to jump straight up and and go running down the road quacking like a duck!