One Secular Coffee, Please

Some people would say that I am blessed to be living in a small town like Leavenworth, Kansas. Well, that is part of the problem. The fusion of retail business and religion is problematic everywhere, but especially so in rural areas where consumer choices are limited. Proprietors do not think twice about how their messages, subtle or overt, are received by others outside their denomination.

I recently posted the above image on social media, and while there were sympathetic comments, other remarks were quick to defend the coffeehouse. Some did not believe it was an issue at all. Personally, I wish it were not a consideration, but being a “citified” person, willingly subjected to a variety of influences, I cannot escape a feeling of unease.

We supposedly have a separation of Church and State in the U.S., though the line is becoming increasingly blurred. We need the same divide, though, when it comes to the church and business, and between church and public education. I am reasonably confident that God desires the collective good, no strings attached. I am a lot less sure that is the case from a religious perspective.

Let me state for the record that I have no objection to any individual’s right to subscribe to any religion. That is, in fact, a freedom worth defending. I would, however, prefer that you keep your beliefs to yourself in your public interactions, unless someone asks you about them. Even then, you have a right not to disclose.

The unfortunate state of affairs is that religion has consciously decided to marry politics to influence government, espousing agendas that are outdated and discriminatory at best, but often hate-inciting and oppressive. It is at the point that Christian Nationalism is now a widespread desire, fueling divisiveness the likes of which we have not seen in recent history.

Even more passive denominations are now so stained by the footprint of extremists that many of us have given up on making the distinctions. Your “good intentions” trigger all the bad connotations. They send a signal that you may not be friendly to non-believers, or vulnerable demographics like the LGBTQ community, for example, let alone Muslims, Hindus, maybe Jews, and people of other faiths. “Jesus is Lord,” on my receipt? Really?

Many religious people think there is no place that should be exempt from proselytizing. I disagree. Maybe there needs to be a law in the town charter or something that at least compels a business to overtly disclose the religion of its owner, and have it publicly displayed on the door or front window.

”Oh, no,” business owners would cry, “we could lose business if we had to disclose our religious affiliation!” Thank you for making my case. If you are so proud of your beliefs, why hide them at the bottom of the invoice? You want to take my money until I’m on to you.

I’ve patronized this coffeehouse for about two years, but only noticed this statement on my last lunch. I feel like I’ve been had, like I was tricked into endorsing something I don’t subscribe to and, by proxy, funding whatever religious causes the establishment donates to. I’m embarrassed as well as disgusted. There you have it, full disclosure of why this kind of thing irritates me so much.

Something else you should know: I am not a diehard atheist. It took me a while to figure out that religion and God are not the same thing. I thought I didn’t like God, but it turns out that what I really find troublesome is the religious interpretation of God. It would be like figuring out that you thought you hated democracy, but what you really have a problem with is (liberal) Democrats. Well, shoot, thanks for weakening democracy with the Republican candidates you vote for. In short, religion is in many ways ruining God’s reputation.

I can walk downtown to this locally-owned coffee shop, and to the other one for that matter, but both are owned by highly religious people. I am now left with a national chain that is not Starbucks, but the walk is longer and there is no place to sit once I get there. I suppose that is the penalty for adhering to one’s beliefs.

The Impossibility of Money

It should be clear by now that our current monetary systems are failing us, or at least the vast majority of us. It has reached the point for me, personally, where I am questioning the very existence of currency, let alone how it behaves. As long as we accept the contemporary and historical paradigm, we are unlikely to generate positive change (and I’m not talking about coins).

I can’t get over the irony that money is called “currency,” evoking the word “current,” as in something that flows. That is not what happens in our economies. Currency gets backed up behind the dam(n) of capitalism, hoarded by a tiny minority.

Cryptocurrency was, to me, an off-putting concept from the beginning, but I only recently figured out why. While the idea of alternative forms of transactions is attractive, this is not the answer, for many reasons.

The currency of my livelihood is words, so I am disappointed in myself for not immediately recognizing the obvious. “Crypto” is Greek for “hidden,” as in cryptozoology, the study of sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, and related legends. Fascinating, but there is not widespread subscription to the idea, kind of like cryptocurrency. The last thing we need for our economy is more hidden currency. We already have offshore bank accounts and other tax havens. We need total transparency in matters of money.

The energy demands for running blockchain are another reason for concern. The server farms consume massive amounts of electricity for their operation. The same can be said for generative AI (Artificial Intelligence), and data mining, too. Such large server farms are also incredibly loud, running twenty-four hours, seven days a week, generating noise complaints along with Bitcoin.

Beyond the energy-intensive aspect, cryptocurrency has other shortcomings. It has yet to be widely accepted by retail businesses. It requires technology that is still inaccessible to many, by choice or by reliability of internet service providers. Don’t get me started on NFTs (Non-fungible Tokens). Lastly, there is understandable consumer skepticism over crypto’s validity, valuation, and sustainability.

The most attractive attribute of cryptocurrency might be the perception that it is somehow subversive, a way of undermining conventional capitalist models. It’s complex nature and dependence on technology ensure that it will likely remain the domain of a different, tech-savvy minority. Perhaps it is the “snob appeal” I am mistaking for subversion.

A truly viable alternative currency will have to come from the bottom up, designed for communities of all levels, from local to global. As it stands now, we have currency of an arbitrary value, determined by a select minority, and that is demonstrably unsustainable, at least in the environmental sense. There exists a different model that might serve as a template.

The currency of the natural world is energy. It has an absolute, invariable value. Can energy be hoarded? Not permanently, and certainly not generationally. Various organisms are able to store energy to use during hibernation, metamorphosis, and other stressful processes and circumstances. Otherwise, energy cycles freely, allowing the proper functioning of ecosystem transactions.

The challenge of emulating a natural model is to do so without the attendant predatory and parasitic forms of energy exchange. We have that in spades in the capitalist model, and the trend is toward exacerbating that pattern rather than nullifying it.

The true revolution in currency will have to be organic. The leadership for it will probably come from Indigenous peoples, provided we allow that, and can forge alliances with labor and consumer unions. Existing models for localized currencies might help inform such a movement. Promoting interest in, and subscription to, credit unions and cooperative businesses will only enhance the effort.

The incentives for promoting blockchain tech are still profit-driven, as opposed to even trying to balance the common good. I think I have more faith in the imagination of artists to take us in a positive direction here. Pair that brand of creativity with economic and social justice disciplines, and we might be able to get something truly equitable. Finally.