Deification trivializes the message.

When we turn teachers or leaders into Gods, we trivialize their messages and their work. As example, consider Siddhartha Gautama, who was later called the Buddha, or Enlightened One. He was an ordinary man, a minor son of a regional kinglet, much like a mayor in a modern city, who left the life his parents arranged for him and pursued enlightenment. He found it, after years of thought and meditation, and then taught the method of attaining enlightenment to all those who would listen.

Later followers elevated him to some sort of Godhood. By glorifying and deifying their teacher, they raised their own status and authority. They made legends of miracles attending his birth and death. He became The Buddha, as if he were the only person who had attained enlightenment. What a farce. The followers, seeking their own self-aggrandizement, missed the entire point, which is (of course) that absolutely anyone can attain enlightenment. Buddha-hood is for every person that is willing to achieve it, not for divinities or deities. There are undoubtedly many Buddhas in this world now, but real Buddhas do not seek power, position, recognition or authority. Why should they? Becoming enlightened is hard work and it is not achieved overnight. It can't be granted to others or handed out as a reward. Everyone has to search diligently for their own enlightenment, and there is no shortcut.

But the point is that enlightenment is for everyone, not special people or godlets. Christianity shows the same pattern as Buddhism. The followers elevate their leader to the status of a god, and then worship, as if that were what the religion is about. They miss the point. Christ (another title, not a name) taught behaviors and attitudes that lead to enlightenment. The heart of Christianity is compassion, as it is in Buddhism. That heart does not lie in rituals or titles or churches. Ridding oneself of the selfishness that allows us to see others as different is hard work. Literally treating the other as if the other were our self is a hard task. Everything else is worthless posturing.

Gratitude

It seems clear to me that it takes a pure heart indeed to do good deeds without resentment. Many people I talk to have tried to be "good people" by doing "unselfishly" for family or friends. But we all have built in a sense of fairness or balance, and sometimes without realizing it we are building up a sense of expectation of payback, payback in the form of friendship or love or gratitude. When it doesn't materialize, we get gradually more resentful and cynical. "No good deed goes unpunished", we say.

In fact it seems to me that the more we do for someone, the more likely they are to resent us and avoid us, perhaps out of a sense that they owe us something. They don't like feeling obligated, some tell me. They find themselves even mildly distrustful of the person who has done them a series of services. "What are they after from me?" they ask. And many times they are right. The good-deed-doer does expect something back, and they are waiting for the person they helped to show a sense of obligation and gratitude.

Not gonna happen. That road is how you become a doormat and permanently disappointed. If you can't do a good deed just for the internal satisfaction of doing something nice, you can expect to feel short-changed. "Do unto others" is good advice, but don't expect gratitude.

Roads, bridges, gasoline

We have low gasoline taxes, high road use, heavy gas-guzzler cars, driving 3 or 4 blocks to get something, no real bicycle/motor-scooter traffic. In Italy and Switzerland (and probably in other EC countries too) the roads and bridges are maintained through a gasoline tax. They have been paying $4 to $6 per gallon for a number of years, while we were paying $1.50 (those days are gone forever). Our roads were paid for with allocations from other taxes.

What if a tax were placed on our gasoline, the funds earmarked for the roads and bridges? If the tax were high enough, say $6 per gallon or even higher, several things would happen which need to happen. 1) We'd drive the gas-guzzlers a lot less. That means lighter cars, more efficient engines with lower horsepower. Like we need 300 hp to drive to the supermarket. 2) We'd use the roads a lot less, with a lot less weight so there would be much less damage and wear to the roads. 3) We'd start using motorscooters and bicycles, and we'd make it safer for such vehicles to go places. In my town riding to work on a bicycle makes you a target for jerky teen-agers (of all ages) with their pickup trucks and huge tires. People would learn to start treating scooters and bicyclists with courtesy. 4) The roads would last longer and take less maintenance, and the bridges could be upgraded without a lot of additional tax money. 5) There would be a real incentive to develop alternative fuel sources, electrical cars, and so on. 6) There would be a real incentive to develop a mass transit system and train system that really works. 7) The air pollution and dependency on foreign oil would decrease, and we might actually find ourselves NOT going to war in oil-rich countries (undoubtedly a coincidence, given the prevalence of WMD). 8) If the gasoline tax were truly earmarked and restricted, our beloved politicians would have less opportunity to spend it inappropriately.

What we have now is laughable, especially in comparison with what is available in other countries. In Oklahoma City, for instance, there IS NO TRAIN GOING NORTH to cities like Wichita or Kansas City. The train that runs the 160 mile trip to Dallas (from Oklahoma City) takes over 5 hours to get there, because it stops and waits at every town. The trains are no good because there is no incentive to use them; because they are inconvenient and poorly managed there is no incentive to improve them.

Am I missing something, or is this a good idea that other countries already thought of?

Rich churches

Religions are among the most wealthy organizations in the world. They are exempt from income taxes because they are (in theory) charitable organizations. They were originally exempted in the US because we did not want to give government the power to tax a church or churches out of existence. The exemption has gone well past this mark.

I pass a local church with a building that will seat several thousand people. The "minister" has an expensive new car (a Lincoln Town Car), and lives in a small mansion. Don't misunderstand: I don't begrudge him/her making a high salary because the minister is obviously a talented speaker and is valued highly by his "flock". I begrudge him/her being paid out of tax-exempt funding, essentially at the expense of those of us who do pay taxes.

I have a modest proposal. How about churches pay income tax on 1) everything they EARN as a church, through investments, land sales and the like; and 2) everything they take in that is in excess of legitimate expenses and building funds. They should be donating excess funds to the poor, or to charitable institutions, or providing medical assistance. They should NOT be allowed to invest excess funds in the stock market or real estate market or whatever. They are NOT businesses, but they act like them, so let them pay taxes like other businesses.

That would be a lot of money.