Salvation Show

         As I followed the many news reports covering the selection and investiture of the new pope, I marveled at the hordes of people, both Roman Catholic and otherwise, who followed a selection process with the same intensity you would expect if they were following their own spiritual destinies.  I also could not help but be reminded of the parallels between modern history and ancient history: comparing the crowds greeting and acknowledging Pope Francis with New Testament narratives of Jesus Christ being hailed and enthusiastically greeted with a parade of palms and with much rejoicing as he entered Jerusalem, only to be turned against, vilified, and crucified a few short days later.  Christ was hailed as a new spiritual leader, and then his fickle followers found themselves disappointed, so disappointed that their cheers turned into jeers.

          By the way, if at the outset you think that this posting might a simple and easy castigation of the pope, you will be mistaken.

That the pope leads one of the most powerful, one of the richest, organizations in existence today is certainly no secret.   Political leaders meet with him and give him his due respect as such a leader.  The Roman Catholic Church commands of billions of dollars and millions of people, and the Pope is the Supreme Authority of the Roman Catholic Church.  I have no problems with the acknowledgement of such power.  I may take issue with the way the billions of dollars are invested and with certain policies, but that belongs in a different posting.

History tells us there have been good popes and bad popes; I do not know why people have problems with that.  There have been good queens and kings, and there have been bad kings and queens.  There have been good emperors, and there have been bad emperors.  There have been good presidents and bad presidents.   Yes, the Catholic Church has made bad decisions, terrible decisions, which have affected millions one way or another.  So have various nations throughout history.   

Through the centuries, the pope has remained a source of holy awe by Roman Catholics.  Respect is both understood and understandable.  “Holy awe,” as evidenced by the recent videos, photographs, and reports, is quite another subject.  Surely, in this day and age, we are all cognizant of what it takes to be a powerful leader of a powerful organization with powerful dollars behind it.  I do not quibble about the basic business knowledge and acumen needed to lead.  I do wonder though how “holiness” can exist in the same job category that contains the words “power” and “money.”

          The pope is considered “infallible” by his followers.  The doctrine of papal infallibility states that when the pope teaches ex cathedra (“from the chair”) his teachings are perfect, incontrovertible, and omniscient. Such infallible papal decrees must be made by the pope, in his role as leader of the whole Church, and they must be definitive decisions on matters of faith and morals which are binding on the whole Church.  The doctrine was defined at the First Vatican Council in 1870, although it existed long before 1870.  What if the pope, in his ex cathedra role, declared that half of the Vatican’s wealth should be distributed to the needy and hungry?  I wonder if the various Vatican counsels would still follow his orders as they are pledged to.  I wonder how long he would remain pope after such a declaration.

The issue of infallibility of one person it seems to me is grounded in arrogance and vanity, an arrogance in which one equates oneself with God, and hence equates with pride which is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.  Over and above any interpretation of sin, in an era where we are all too familiar with the frailties of human nature, how can such a proclaimed attribute be taken seriously?

By the way, I do not lay any blame upon new Pope Francis personally for this double crown of thorns of infallibility and holiness.  These are responsibilities contained in the job description, and, let us be honest, it cannot be a job that very many people want.

However, what is more disconcerting are the people who need to believe in that infallibility, who need to believe in that absolute holiness, in that one man's absolute perfection.  They need their leader to be perfect so they can cling to an ideal of a certain type of faith, actually the same type of blind faith contained in that mob that turned against Christ within a matter of days.

What about those droves who look upon the pope, or look upon any leader or teacher, as the perfect avatar of wisdom and spirituality?  We are not talking about the simple need to be lead; we are talking about that need to be lead by one who is thought of as perfect, who will give without fail the most profound and perfect advice.   

We look for answers to life’s most profound questions, and we want those offering up answers to proclaim their words with final authority.  We demand guarantees.  We demand that they possess that impossible quality of infallibility.  When you think about it, the pope is really only giving people what they want.

However, when we discover that the true answers in life must be discovered within ourselves, that no one individual outside of ourselves has the perfect answer, that those perfect answers can only come about when we dwell, meditate or pray, we become disillusioned.   When we realize that we have to “do the work” ourselves, that what we perceived as the promised answers (the Promised Land?) are only really words, that disillusionment magnifies.  The hordes of people, instead of accepting responsibility for themselves, for their own souls, basically say to the pope “Okay, Papa, tell us exactly what to do and we know we will then go to heaven.”  When it is realized that no one can tell anyone exactly what to do in order to attain the ideal of heaven, a sense of betrayal follows.  The mob turns.

  Centuries ago the mob turned because they discovered they were not lead by a king who would literally raise them above their earthly human condition; they misunderstood the lessons.  Today’s mobs turn in a different way, they turn cynical, critical and fall into despair, because they STILL misunderstand the lessons, the lessons of all the truly great and profound teachers.

In the little known Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is quoted as saying:  If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.

        Buddha admonishes:  No one saves us but ourselves.  No one can and no one may.  We ourselves must walk the path.

        The Bhagavad Gita teaches:  It is better to live your own destiny imperfectly than to live an imitation of somebody else's life with perfection.

        In Luke, Christ assures us:   Everyone who seeks, finds.

         In the end, those who follow any leader, religious or political, or any faith, religious or political, with blind awe and devotion only fail themselves; they fail their already-perfect souls by not creating a human experience of understanding that is meant to enhance even more those perfect souls.

        If you are going to have blind faith in anything, have blind faith in your soul.

 

      Until next time, LL&P!

  

References:

First Vatican Council, "First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church", chapter 4, 9
infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error", P. J. Toner, infallibility, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910. 

 

 

 

The Sharps and the Jets

         With the decision to allow knives into the airline passenger cabin, it seems that the Transportation Security Administration has forgotten why it was formed after 9/11.  While they try to assure that razors and box cutters will still be prohibited, I am a bit confused.  I guess that no one at the agency realizes that a blade from a pocket knife can in fact be sharpened to a nice keen edge. 

Sports equipment such as billiard cues, ski poles, hockey sticks, Lacrosse sticks and golf clubs will also be allowed.  I guess none of the smart guys ever heard of the damage that the pointed end of a ski pole can do, and that golf clubs, hockey sticks, Lacrosse sticks and billiard cues can be used to whack a person in the head, break a limb, and if you jab someone hard enough with one of those things, well, you can kill. 

Have I been watching too many CSI episodes perhaps? 

The specifics are that passengers will be able to carry-on knives that are less than 2.36 inches long and less than one-half inch wide.  Do the smart guys know where the jugular vein is located?  Do the smart guys know how close the jugular vein is to the skin?  Do the smart guys know that an eyeball can be pierced?   

Maybe I have been reading too many Lee Child, David Baldacci, Brad Thor, Steve Martini, and Jeffery Deaver novels.  (Not that any of them might have written of passenger jet hijackings, but you do get a whiff of versatile and effective manslaughter techniques.) 

What is the TSA thinking of?  Oh, that’s right.  They are not thinking.   

They are not remembering what happened on 9/11; and, as a side note, although it was widely reported that the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters in their attack, the weapons were not recovered, and investigators believe other types of knives were used. 

TSA maintains that the new regulations will allow them to better focus efforts on finding "higher threat items such as explosives.”    Higher threat?  They do not think that the danger of a slit throat or two falls under the category of “higher threat”?  

They go on to say that the newly-permitted items are “unlikely to result in catastrophic destruction of an aircraft,” and that policies already in place, such as hardened cockpit doors, federal air marshals, crew members with self-defense training, reduce the likelihood of passengers breaching the cockpit.  Let us say that potentially you have half a dozen guys on one plane bent on creating mayhem with their sticks, poles, and knives:  I for one would not care to gamble that heartbreaking destruction is impossible. 

Theoretically, the new rule will allow screeners to focus on finding explosive device components and other things that can be "catastrophic" to a plane, speed trips through security checkpoints, and "address the hassle factor." 

Sure, we all bemoan the inconveniences of flight security.   The need to arrive at the airport an hour and a half to two hours before flight time is a real pain.  Ask yourself seriously, though, to weigh the lesser of the inconveniences:  arriving an hour earlier for your flight, or finding yourself on an airliner being aimed towards the closest tall building. 

Now I am the last person who wants to live in a police state, and I believe our individual freedoms are important to maintain.  However, when I get on an airplane, a train, a boat, I want to know, not feel that I am, but know that I am as safe as possible from the even remote possibility of a repeat of 9/11.

TSA spokesperson Nico Melendez said that removing small knives and some sports equipment from the list prohibited items “will help align TSA’s list with international standards and help decrease the time spent rescreening or searching bags for these once prohibited items.”  International standards? Has the TSA ever heard of El Al?  An Israeli airline, and with all that can be implied with it being an Israeli airline, El Al is about the safest way you can fly.  When was the last time El Al reduced its security efforts?   

"It's as if we didn't learn anything from 9/11," said George Randall Taylor, head of the air marshal unit of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA). "Flight attendants are going to be sitting ducks.”  A union representing 90,000 flight attendants called the measure "a poor and short-sighted decision by the TSA."  "Continued prohibition of these items is an integral layer in making our aviation system secure and must remain in place," the Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions said in a statement.

We Americans seem to have conveniently short memories, and we want it all: we want to be safe, yet we do not want what we regard as our freedoms to be affected.  I ask you, what harm is it in demanding and requiring that a passenger not carry a knife, or any other weapon, on board a plane?  Yes, some will say that you erode one freedom you erode them all.  But, remember, being a passenger on an airliner, just as with driving a car, is not a right; it is not a freedom.  It is a privilege (which we may pay a lot for these days in dollars and cents, but a privilege nonetheless).   

Is the purpose of this relaxing of weapons carry-on truly due to the desire on the part of TSA to make our lives as travelers easier?  I doubt it.  If anyone in the government was really serious about making flying easier they would enact legislation requiring wider seats in every class.   

TSA just recently signed a deal to spend $50Million on new uniforms.  All the budget cuts currently under review, the rampant fear-mongering about reduction in social services, and the TSA has $50M to spend on uniforms!  This reeks of the same bile as Senatorial vacations and perks. 

Wait a minute, with the reduction in TSA security, the current number of agents won’t be needed right?  What will they do with the money left over from the uniform budget?  Return it? 

            Maybe the money should be set aside for a contingency terrorist victim relief fund.

 

            Until the next time, LL&P!

 

 

References:

http://www.nbcnews.com/travel/tsa-allow-passengers-carry-small-knives-planes-1C8700194

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/travel/tsa-carry-on-changes/index.html?hpt=hp_bn10

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/03/06/tsa-rule-change-knives-down-shoes-must-go/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/tsa-signs-50-million-uniform-deal-as-billions-in-federal-cuts-ripple-across/