Happened to turn on PBS last night. For about one second. Switched the channel and a little voice say to go back, that the discussion was about religion. Turned back. Sure 'nuff.

PBS is running it's membership drive. In my experience, this means they either show reunion tours from 70s rock groups (Rolling Stones, Eagles, Fleetwood Mac) or they're running wall-to-wall new-age religious indoctrination.

In this case, it was Joseph Campbell, telling me we should drop our western notions of God, "meditate" more often (by which he meant Zen-style consciousness-destroying meditation, not the conscious, thoughtful meditation that Christianity advocates), that church and state should reunite, that God was beyond all attributes and descriptions (but apparently, not those offered by Campbell, including that one), and there was a "new myth" coming in which one religious government would rule the world, and we should all be excited about that and embrace it.

Campbell says these things sweetly, subtly, kindly.

For example: Instead of just saying that religion (and certainly not Western religion) should run the government he points out cities were centered around a church. And then the political capitol. This is the sort of spiritually-centered life to which we need to return, we are told. We need replace that spiritual core.

(Translation: "My religion 'spirtuality' needs to run your government.")

For example: Instead of just telling us we need to put all global power into a few hands -- hands belonging to his kind of folk, of course -- he talks about how beautiful earth is from space. (Moyers' editors oblige and show a photo of such.) You can't see any borders or boundaries. (We pan in on the photo.) Someday, he says, we'll think of that as our nation. (The editors oblige and superimpose a photo of an African mother and her child over the big blue marble in space. She would surely approve, we're apparently meant to think. It's all for her benefit.)

Though, perhaps more likely, she or someone like her is starving because her local government has created an artificial famine and wants her kind eliminated. How are we so sure this wonderful group of people, who he wants to rule the world, won't be like that government?

Rene Girard's theories say people-groups require a scapegoat to create unity. When nations no longer compete, who will play the scapegoat? We must then turn within, against the designated ones amongst us, as in Germany or Russia.

Campbell also gets his basic cosmology wrong, whenever he has the chance.

Bill Moyers listens with rapt attention and devotion.

As I said, I don't mind that my local PBS station spends a tremendous amount of it's "viewer choice" (translation: "not viewer choice") time pushing new age religion upon the populace. I support anyone's freedom to push their own religion and religious indoctrination.

But it does bother me that they're doing it on the taxpayer's dollar.

I'm not one of these people who says religion should be kept entirely out of the state, in terms of supressing religious ideas or speech. But I do think that if you're going to use federal dollars to directly subsidize actual, direct religious teachings and indoctrination on prime time TV (we're not talking about references to the creator on dollar bills here), then you oughtta give everyone a similar slice of air time.

So, I'm eagerly awaiting the opportunity for Muslims to get a chance to explain their view of God. Then the Catholics. And let's not forget traditional mainstream protestants, as well as pentecostals. Heck, give the scientologists a few minutes too, as well as Native Americans. And atheists, Hindus... I have no objections! In fact, I think we'd all be richer for it. I love studying other people's religions.

We could allot time in proportion to demographic representation.

But weren't not going to do that, right?

Right.

As my friend says: "Separation of church and state, only as long as the religion is Christianity." ("And Judaism", I hasten to add.)

Yes, Bill; yes Joseph; yes, Mr. Soros; yes, liberal friends at my local PBS affiliate: it will be wonderful when a single government controls the world. Government has such a great track record -- perhaps you've heard of the 20th century? Now, all that power is distributed among so many different people. How great, simply peachy it will be when it's all concentrated in six or four hands. Or just two.

I know many liberals who are are smart, wonderful, intelligent, caring folks. People who can tell a good story, can be loyal to a friend. Can serve other people by building homes or supporting soup kitchens.

(Not that I don't see the same traits among conservatives.)

But my point is this: On some very major questions, questions like "Wouldn't it be great if one or five people ran the whole world?" they flunk the test. It's not even a hard question. There are these huge, stunning lapses in their cognitive framework. Holes you could toss a continent through.

So they killed the hostage yesterday?

I missed hearing about it because I was at a wedding rehearsal.

The apparent logic of the killers is appalling:

(1) If Abu Ghraib was wrong, we must do something similar.

(2) We have been appointed to represent the interests of Iraqi Muslims.

Really? Then where is God in all of this? If there is a judgement day, O Wahabbi, then why do you do his work ahead of time? You are instructed to wage war against the infidel, yes, but where does he say you must balance the books for Him? Is he not capable of doing that himself when all things are called into account?

Have you not read, "Vengeance is mine, I shall repay?"

You're part of that equation too, you know. How are you sure you have not sinned, or that you will be forgiven? Worry about that, O Wahabbi.

That problem has moved from theory to application for the kidnappers, I hear.

It says that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that he won't strive with sin forever. Thus, I believe Christians should not rejoice when they hear such people were killed, but be sad that such people were lost, and that their actions necessitated such an end.

I have never met my maternal grandfather. My mother informs me he referred to Joseph Stalin, the great butcher, as "the devil." My mother recounts how, when Stalin died, it was a "weird" time around the house.

Weird, how?

He was glad Stalin was gone, but wasn't allowed to rejoice about it.

Interesting.

That's an ethic, a tension, I fear we've lost. God is sad the sinner has died: repentence is now impossible. But on the other end, the suffering they inflicted, and planned to inflict more of, has now ended, and that is certainly a cause for celebration.