Park51

It might seem logical then that since mankind has an insatiable desire to know and a collective tendency to worship that we would have landed upon some universal system of worship.  Not so – not even close.

From the earliest human history our species has been attempting to articulate beliefs about the supernatural and the result is a myriad of belief systems we call religions.  These religions originated in various parts of the globe, using local dialect, and at different times throughout our history.  Since there is no universal human language, quite naturally we have no universal religion either.

Religious beliefs tend to be sensitive and brittle – kind of inflexible. We do not trust those who do not believe as we do, are often offended when someone expresses a different view than ours and we typically attack those who voice opposition to what we believe.  Religious differences have been the cause of more bloodshed than any other in human history; it’s estimated that more than 100 million people were killed last century in the name of God.

Much of the conflict in the world today is due to such differences as well.  At this very moment, people are being killed in Afghanistan, Gaza, Iraq, Pakistan, Rwanda and Sudan – just to name a few- do to differences of belief.

Today, in the United States, a country founded in large part as a bastion of religious freedom and tolerance, there is a national discussion ensuing that demonstrates the antagonistic nature that differences of belief can cause as the debate intensifies over the construction of a building that is intended to be a center of religious worship in New York.  It has expanded from a neighborhood discussion to a national dialogue and it has the earmarks of growing into something much more divisive than dialogue.

I attempted three times to write on this topic but found myself drifting far from my target.  I’m mostly interested in, and have attempted to limit my comments to why we humans are so brittle about what we believe, why we even concern ourselves with what another believes.  Try as I might to contain my comments to the fragile nature of the human practice of faith, I found it difficult not to jump into the debate.  I’m tempted to opine on the issue when my intention is to simply comment on the brittleness of our beliefs.

Why, when it comes to religion we can’t simply live and let live?

I’ve noticed a progression in my own stance that seems to mirror the debate at large.  There is a movement of thought that I think both sides of the argument pass through.

First:  The whole legal right argument seems to be the first stop on the train of thought.  The community wishing to build on the property in question violates no building codes or ordinances so therefore they have the right to build and nothing should interfere with them proceeding.  The legal right is not in dispute by anyone. I’ve not heard even the more strident opponents deny the legal right to build.  Since we are a country of laws then it should be game over right?  At first glance this would seem to be the case but this debate has gone past the black and white, one-dimensional discussion about ordinances, building codes and legal rights. This debate is about belief systems and this means religion which means it gets sticky – religion is anything but simple or one dimensional even when it comes to the black and white of the law.

Second: Next stop – the wisdom argument.  President Obama addressed the wisdom issue less than twenty-four hours after he pointed out the obvious legal right just mentioned.  The wisdom of building at a site so close in proximity to the scab that remains open at ground zero, said the prez, was not something he wished to comment on.  Obama was accused of flip-flopping, but he is correct in pointing to the difference between the legal right to build the mosque and the wisdom to do so. (Obama didn’t flip-flop as he’s been accused, he simply chose to sit on the fence – this refusal to take a stand is what the real criticism should be.  Here again, we want to know what he believes.)

Third:  The next level of the debate leads us into beliefs and perceptions. What are the motives of each side and what are the beliefs at the root of those motives? Here is where it really heats up.  Is one side attempting a display of triumphalism?  Is the other side islamophobic? These are relatively new words in the American lexicon but notice how confrontational they both sound.  (I don’t think I’d want to be labeled as either.)  At this point lines are drawn and it would seem a concession will be required by one side or the other.  History tells us we concede almost nothing when to comes to belief systems.

Here is a simple breakdown of the beliefs in play:

Since mosque building at certain times in history has unquestionably been a symbol of Islamic triumph (Jerusalem, Istanbul, Spain) and that there is no tangible way to determine if this is the true motive in the case of the mosque at 51 Park Place (Park51), it doesn’t seem unreasonably paranoid for mosque opponents (especially New Yorkers – 7 out of 10 oppose the mosque) to be concerned about the motive in this case. Here again, we see on full display the mistrust of another groups belief system.  The Muslim leaders claim they are not attempting to practice triumphalism but the exact opposite; they state that Park51 is intended to be place if interfaith understanding.

The opponents of Park51 are being labeled “islamophobic”.  They are being portrayed as prejudiced, racists and haters of Islam.  They respond by saying they are simply protecting the memory of those killed on 9/11. They also readily admit that they do not want to accede victory to the criminals who attacked so near to that location in the name of Islam; that in effect, this mosque would be a kind of tribute to the terrorists who attacked on 9/11.

Of course, this reduces each side’s beliefs to the most basic arguments and many esoteric political and philosophical justifications from both sides are being layered on top of these basic differences of belief, but –  it really is this simple isn’t it? One side wants to build a house of worship dedicated to a specific religious belief system and the other side believes they should build elsewhere in deference to the majority of its neighbors desires. One side wants the other to recognize the law, the other side concedes the legal right but seeks respect for a de facto national “holy ground”.

There are earnest and honest people on both sides of this argument, but – is this an argument that is likely to result in blood being shed? If history is any indicator, the answer, unfortunately is yes.

This is a live, dynamic example of how brittle and strident humans can be when it comes to religion.  It’s astounding that modern man so ardently defends ancient religious belief systems.

A dozen not so simple questions:

• Why are humans so sensitive about their religious belief systems?

• Why does it matter to us what another believes?

• Why do we fear what another believes?

• Why do we mistrust those who believe differently than we do?

• Why do we defend our beliefs with same vehemence we defend our offspring?

• Are we born to mistrust others beliefs or are we indoctrinated to do so?

• Why do many religions call for adherents to convert others to their belief systems?

• Are we hard wired to be defensive about what we believe?

• Are we hard wired to believe?

• Why does the human race justify killing in the name of God?

• Do Americans who claim to stand for religious freedom really want to be on the side of religious intolerance?

• Do American Muslims really want to poor salt into an open wound of their American brothers and sisters?

Got any answers?

RIDICULOUS BOTH!

This reminds me of growing up in Chicago where you had to choose.  On important religious matters in Chi-town, i.e. baseball, one could not be a follower of both the Cubs and the White Sox – you had to pick.  Not only did you have to root for one, it was also imperative that you root against the other.  In Chicago, you always had two favorite teams; the Cubs (for example) and whoever was playing against the Sox. This dogma was sacred.  (As it should be.)

To reject the science of evolution due to religious belief is simply stubbornly choosing to cling to an uninformed position.  To reject any possibility of a supreme intelligence due to science is close-minded to anything that doesn’t readily offer “physical proof”.  Having to choose one or the other of these two makes much less sense to me than being forced to choose between ball teams.

MY TAKE

Evolution articulates a picture of the truth about reality, maybe not the whole and entire truth, but the science behind this “theory” (I’m not sure why we keep calling evolution theoretical) continues to expand upon itself toward an increasingly larger depiction of what is real. It doesn’t have anything to do with religion and those who have religious beliefs that are threatened by it must have a fragile faith in their belief system.

Religion, which also attempts to articulate the truth about reality never evolves once it becomes institutionalized. To hold on to beliefs as truth that was articulated two thousand years ago is rather “un-evolved”.  Religion doesn’t have anything to do with science per se’, and those who look down on people of faith as being childish and/or superstitious are brittle in their intellect and condescending.

They both (science and religion) address the same questions from different points of view. One keeps expanding its articulation of reality; the other is stuck in antiquity.

IN OTHER WORDS (Windier, loftier, expanded version of same)

Science continues to expand upon its accumulated body of knowledge.  It continues to ask and answer questions even when the new answers or discoveries render a previous scientific doctrine obsolete.  Science does not assume any of its answers are the definitive last word – it keeps searching for better answers and a clearer picture of reality. As we are increasingly able to comprehend, science continues to evolve.

Most religious belief systems articulate an understanding of truth originally articulated or “deposited” into human consciousness by an enlightened spiritual master.  The followers of the master then formulate the deposit into an organized system and then the belief system is typically institutionalized.  Once institutionalized, by its very nature the religion resists questioning and stymies any advancing articulation of the original deposit.  As we increase our capacity to comprehend, religion continues to stay the same.

Just think how much more we would understand as a species if religion, like science, evolved along with our ability to comprehend.

I know, I know,  I probably sound like an enlightened, well educated inhabitant of Wrigleyville, but… Go White Sox!!

It didn’t really break any new ground or institute any “new laws”.  What it did do however is place the “delict” (violation) of ordaining a woman priest right along side of the delict of a pedophile priest.  It actually states that both the bishop doing the ordination of a woman and the woman herself will be excommunicated and the pedophile priest be “be punished according to the gravity of his crime, not excluding dismissal or deposition“.

Make of that what you will, but is seems that the church still feels more threatened by women than just about any other “threat” out there – even the pedophile priest.

Here are just a few of the things to consider about women and the church:

SECOND CLASS CITIZENS

Any discussion of women’s role in the Catholic Church, and to some extent Christianity at large, must begin with the cultural atmosphere in which Christianity was formed. In the first century, women were seen as inferior to men in all ways, with few rights and little public standing. The Church’s view of women came directly from the views of society and specifically mirrors Roman law, which can be traced back to Greek philosophy.

Roman law granted women no rights, as they were considered men’s property. A man had the right to treat his wife as he wished and dole out punishment in measures of his own choosing. Women could not own property or inherit it. They could not hold public office, be parties to contracts, or be witnesses in court. Women had the same rights as slaves, criminals, minors, and the mentally deficient. According to Roman law and custom, women simply could not be trusted. The rationale for such harsh treatment was the “weakness” and “stupidity” of the gender.

Aristotle, and to a lesser extent Plato, contributed substantially to this attitude. Plato, who lived four hundred years before Jesus, believed women were a “physical degeneration” of human beings.  Aristotle, a student of Plato, took this idea further and taught that women were “defective humans,” “infertile males.” Even Jewish tradition contributed to this prejudice against women through the Adam and Eve narrative, in which Eve is essentially a by-product of Adam and bears responsibility for colluding with the serpent to bring to an end the bliss of Eden. The fall of man, it seems, was a woman’s fault.

The prevailing view in the time when the Christian Church was taking shape was that only a man was fully human, only a man was created in the image of God. Man was believed to be the one responsible for creating new life via his seed. Women were viewed as lesser players in procreation, as they were merely the “field” in which the “seed” was planted; life came from the seed alone, not the medium for the seeds’ growth to fruition.

From common law to science, these beliefs have largely been discredited. Gradually, though not yet universally, women have gained political and social stature in the civilized world, but attitudes and religious custom lag behind in many cultures even today.

The Catholic Church continues to hold firmly to some of the practices, if not the beliefs, that the founders held two thousand years ago. While we could give the founders, or “fathers of the church” a pass for deferring to the prevailing views of their time, the modern Church should be allowed no such rationalization. The Church has other positions that offend modern sensibilities, but, to my mind, none as egregious in all its continuing history.

JESUS AND WOMEN

When Jesus entrusted Mary with the news of the Resurrection, he was behaving counter to convention but true to his own track record. His treatment of women was indeed unusual for his day and time; revolutionary would not be too strong a word. He treated women he encountered during his ministry with respect, dignity, and, most importantly, equality; sometimes his disciples were shocked at the way he interacted with them. He taught women directly, healed them, ate with them, and even had a group of women who traveled with him and his disciples.

Of course Jesus treated Mary, his mother, with the utmost respect, and Mary, his mother was with Jesus until the moment of his death, but another Mary, Mary Magdalene, was found near him throughout most of his ministry as well.

Mary Magdalene may well have been a disciple; almost certainly she was the leader of a group of women who traveled with Jesus and his Apostles: “With him went the Twelve, as well as certain women who had been cured of evil spirits and ailments: Mary surnamed the Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, Joanna the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, Susanna and several others who provided for them out of their own resources.” (Luke 8:1-3) These women, probably widows, clearly did more than cook; they likely  paid the bills.

This is not the only reference to this group of women who traveled with Jesus. Jesus didn’t exactly rail against attitudes toward women in the culture of his day, but his inclusion of them in every aspect of his ministry would certainly have been controversial. The idea of unmarried women traveling with this group of mostly married men would have raised more than a few eyebrows. Jesus clearly trusted these women and ignored society’s unenlightened view of them.

Jesus also strayed from the Jewish belief that women should not be taught. In the story of Mary and Martha, Martha invites Jesus to her home for a meal and then appeals to Jesus to get her sister Mary (yes, another Mary) to help her. Mary has been sitting at the feet of Jesus, listening to him preach while Martha prepares the meal. “‘Lord, do you not care that my sister is leaving me to do the serving all by myself? Please tell her to help me.’ But the Lord answered Martha, ‘Martha,’ he said, ‘you worry and fret about so many things, and yet few are needed, indeed only one. It is Mary who has chosen the better part; it is not to be taken from her.’” (Luke 10:40-42)  Jesus asserts in no uncertain terms the right of Mary to learn from him. He goes further to state that nobody can take that right away. He acknowledges her right to choose and defies anyone to overrule her. Mary was at the foot of Jesus and had the right to remain there. Does this right not extend to other women as well? Couldn’t this also mean that a woman has the right to choose a pastoral vocation without anyone denying her the right?

Still not sure? Try another passage.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus teaches one of his most important lessons while conversing with a Samaritan woman he meets at a well in the town of Sychar, a place and a people generally avoided by Jews. She was taboo for many reasons—a five-time widow who at that time was “living in sin” and out retrieving water at a time of day not generally acceptable for women to be doing so—but apparently Jesus was not put off.

In his conversation with this woman, he imparts some of his most important ideas about spirituality. On meeting her, he asks her for a drink of water. She is initially surprised that Jesus, a Jew, would even address a Samaritan woman, and even more shocked as he displays knowledge of her life. It is to her, individually, that he delivers the crucial sermon about “living water,” explaining that one who drinks the water he gives “will never be thirsty again.”

Jesus concludes his message to the Samaritan woman with perhaps one of the single most important parts of his theology: “God is spirit, and those who worship must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24) Then he confesses to her that he is Christ. The Gospel narrative reports that as his disciples catch up to Jesus, they are surprised to see him speaking to her but not surprised enough to comment: “His disciples returned and were surprised to see him speaking to a woman, though none of them asked, ‘What do you want from her?’ or, ‘Why are you talking to her?’”  The woman then proceeds to tell the rest of the town about her encounter with Jesus and many Samaritans beg Jesus to stay with them. He remains there for two days.

Not only does Jesus defy the cultural norm of not speaking to a strange woman of dubious reputation, he becomes the guest of a theretofore unacceptable class of people. The message of equality could not be clearer. Jesus delivers an important lesson to the Samaritan woman, entrusts her to deliver the message to the rest of her people, and then graciously allows them to host him. The Samaritan woman acts in the most literal way as a disciple or minister of Jesus: she delivers the word and the flesh of Jesus to her people. Is this not the action of a minister of Christ?

The Gospel accounts of both John and Matthew also find Jesus relying on the testimony of women to relay news and instructions to his disciples. “Then Jesus said to them [the women] ‘Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers that they must leave for Galilee; they will see me there.” (Matt 28:10) Jesus is clearly utilizing these women as witnesses to the Resurrection: “Go and find the brothers and tell them: ‘I am ascending to my father and your father, to my God and your God.’ So Mary of Magdala went and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord and that he had said these things to her.” (John 20:17-18) Isn’t this also the work of a minister of Christ—to spread the news of the risen Lord and how to follow him? According to the Church, this work is reserved for men, but evidently not according to Jesus himself.

JEWISH MEN

And the argument that the Church cannot depart from Jesus’ own recruitment policies contains a major inconsistency. Following the same line of logic, since the men Jesus selected as disciples were all Jewish, only Jewish men should be eligible for the priesthood. So how did the Church adapt its personnel policy to include non-Jewish men as priests? Why were Gentiles acceptable when Jesus clearly chose all Jews? Why did the early leaders take that liberty? Didn’t they expand, or change, the scope of Jesus’ own selection process to be more inclusive? Would Jesus have objected to the inclusion of women as priests?  Is it even reasonable to assume he had intended such a fraternal organization?

The Fathers of the Church took great (and enlightened) initiative in allowing the inclusion of Gentiles; why did they stop at the inclusion of women? Why do they still? Why not adapt to the message of equality that Paul states in Galatians: “You have all clothed yourself in Christ, and there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”(Gal. 3:27-28)

WOMEN AND THE FUTURE

Continuing to deny women the right to be ordained is the single most perilous position the Church can take for its long-term survival. The arguments against ordaining women are severely outdated, the rationale for the status quo is increasingly scanty, and the stance against women is more and more indefensible to the modern mentality. It is a position that prompts the world to view the Church as sexist, chauvinistic, and perhaps even misogynistic.

Ordaining women is the single most important change the Church must make to survive in the future.

From a practical point of view, the dwindling numbers of priests demand it. The danger of driving women, and the children they raise, away from the Church demands it. Plain, impartial, egalitarian morality demands it. It is inevitable. Any well-run organization would be (or should be) reconsidering its recruitment policies.

If the Church is good at anything, it is good at surviving. It may take time, but sooner or later, women will be ordained priests, and the time won’t come a moment too soon. Personally, I find the Church’s treatment of women to be archaic and repugnant. To think that Jesus, if he intended to start a church in the first place, would exclude women from ministering to the souls of mankind seems ludicrous, if not unimaginable. The Church views and treats women with the same respect they were given in society over two thousand years ago. One is hard pressed to find one intelligent argument that favors this status quo.

Thomas Aquinas said: “The male sex is more noble than the female, and for this reason Jesus took human nature in the male sex.”  Aquinas is considered one of the most enlightened theologians in the history of Christianity. Does this statement from such a theological “superstar” merit defense today? Do the leaders of the Church today actually believe this to be true?

The idea that women can’t do the work of priests defies any psychological, spiritual, theological or practical answer one could attempt to put forth. To believe that women would do anything short of making the Church a more loving institution, a more viable choice in the marketplace of religion, and help it fulfill its true mission seems to verge on the phobic.

Undoubtedly, this is one of the historical hard-line positions bound to crumble in the future. We don’t need a crystal ball to see plainly that the Church will not survive forever if it holds to this doctrine. The only obstacle is the hard lines held by men in power. When these men and their hard lines pass the torch to more enlightened and evolutionary leaders, this anachronistic stance toward women will change.

Will it be too late? Maybe.

“Are there dangers in being ‘spiritual but not religious’”? (SBNR)

CNN.com recently ran a story with this question as the headline and according one person quoted in the story by John Blake, there are indeed dangers.

This is a very interesting and loaded question.  The idea of being spiritual but not religious (SBNR) is popular cultural theme today among the American “faithful” – those within formal religious belief systems and especially among those not adhering but believing. (Yes, it is possible to be a believer without being an adherent.)

Blake cites a survey by LifeWay Christian Resources that reports 72 percent of 18 to 29 year olds, so called millennials, claim to be “more spiritual than religious”.   Not surprising – this is becoming an increasingly common claim, although not necessarily limited to the demographic cited in this poll as increasing numbers of people from the all generations are becoming comfortable with this description of their religious/spiritual leanings as well.

Interesting (to me) in Blake’s article were comments from the noted Jesuit, John Martin, S.J.  Father Martin is the author of several noteworthy books, (especially his spiritual memoir, My life with the Saints), editor of the Catholic magazine America and budding pop star.  (Martin has been dubbed “Chaplain of The Colbert Report”.)

Father Martin uses snide language to describe those who claim to be “spiritual but not religious”.  Words like complacent, self-centered, petty and lazy as he infers selfishness as well.

I should have learned a long time ago not to argue with a Jesuit but I can’t resist responding to this display of superiority and condescension. I do this at the considerable risk of looking stupid, as I’ve never met a Jesuit who was not exponentially more intelligent than me.

I’ll respond to his insults one at a time.

“Being spiritual but not religious can lead to complacency and self centeredness”

Complacent:  Most people in this country are born into a religious tradition. We are indoctrinated into belief systems that tell us what to believe, how to behave and how to interact with the entity we have been trained to call God.  Millions of adherents to various belief systems remain in their flock from cradle to grave and have a religious and/or spiritual experience that fulfills their needs.

But for an increasing number, the religion of their birth falls short of addressing their spiritual needs, answering their big questions or syncing with their inclinations about the non-physical part of life.  Many are not satisfied, fulfilled or content with formal religion and adopt a “spiritual” path as opposed to an inherited “religious” one.

There seems to be a growing discontent with doctrinal and dogmatic approaches to the Divine. The Catholic Church itself reports that about one third of its adherents have fallen into the “lapsed” category.  To simply write this off as complacency seems to dodge the real issues many people have.

Is this a good trend or a bad omen?  From the church’s point of view it is obviously not a positive swing.   But, is it even appropriate to judge it good or bad?  Is it simply more provocative evidence that suggests the human species is continuing to evolve while our belief systems have been stymied and remain stagnant?

Father Martin calling SBNR people “complacent” demonstrates a tone deaf sanctimoniousness that shows he may be a little out of touch with the spiritual and religious realities in the U.S. today.

It takes courage and hard work to overcome indoctrination. It takes initiative to ask questions.

From another point of view, it could be argued that some who remain bound in a relationship with an institution simply out of guilt or a sense of uninformed and uninspired obligation are the ones who lack initiative; those who stay bound to a religious belief system out of fear and a lifeless sense of duty might be the epitome of complacency.

Not that the initial deposits made to the belief systems were inherently wrong, but to not allow them to evolve is perhaps a form of “institutional complacency”.

Self-Centered:  I think most people who claim to be “spiritual” would agree with then center-of-self aspect, but without the negative connotation Martin seems to be using.  The church has stayed in business precisely because it has gone to great lengths to prevent people from looking inside to find connection to God.

Nearly all of the spiritual masters and the original depositors of the world’s main religious belief systems have pointed mankind inside to make the vital connection to his spiritual source, including and maybe especially Jesus.  It is the institution of the church that has injected itself between mankind and God.

The church has a survival motive to influence humankind that it must use the church as an intercessor to reach God when it just might actually be in the center of the self that we actually find what Jesus was pointing us toward when he said, “the kingdom of heaven is within”.

“If it’s just you and God in your room, and a religious community makes no demand on you, why help the poor?”  (Selfish)

Helping the poor: Fr. Martin is obviously talking about the collection plate here.  He makes the not so subtle inference that a person can’t “help the poor” without making a deposit into the collection plate – the “demand” made by the “religious community”. He makes at least two presuppositions here: one, that the collection plate is used entirely to assist the poor and two, the only way to help the poor is to give to the church.

Both assumptions are wrong.

Whereas the church he represents does many things in to ease suffering, it is the reckless and possibly immoral use of money earmarked for the poor that raises the shackles of many Catholics – lapsed or otherwise.

To illustrate this point specifically, I’ll just ask one question:  How much money from the collection plate, given in the spirit of “helping the poor”, has been redirected to deal with criminal priests?

(I realize this seems like a cheap shot but my intent is to counter Father Martin’s point about charity and the “demand” from the “religious community”.  Many dollars put in the collection plates on Sunday have been used to deal with that particular “religious community” problem.  It seems disingenuous to invoke the collection plate at this time in church history.)

When a “spiritual” person decides to contribute to society or to “help the poor”, he or she does so because on the road to true “spirituality”  (tangible personal connection to God) he or she realizes that they are connected to every other living entity on this earth and giving to those in need becomes a natural and organic human obligation.

It is through this understanding that “helping the poor” becomes a spiritual practice and not a response to a “demand” made by an institution.

“Religion is hard. Sometimes it’s just too much work.  People don’t feel like it.  I have better things to do with my time.  It’s plain old laziness”.

Lazy: In some ways I agree with Fr. Martin on this point.  We’ve all heard people say, “I’m spiritual but not religious” and know they are simply copping out.  With some people, it is obvious they are just too lazy to apply themselves to religion, spirituality, the differences between the two or any serious consideration of the larger questions of life.  It’s easier, more expedient and simply more politically correct to invoke the “I’m spiritual” quip.

Maybe some people are using this growing pop-culture meme of being “spiritual but not religious” because they just don’t want to make the commitment to get up and go to mass on Sunday and it’s just easier to explain that they are “spiritual but not religious”.  Yes, these are the lazy ones Fr. Martin refers to.  They do exist.

But, I’ve also heard people say this with sincerity and a much more convincing posture.  We are all made up of flesh and bone and “something else”.  Many people work very hard at understanding this something else and go to great length to study and learn just what it might be and how it relates to their personal walk in the world; they study different traditions, philosophies and belief systems to find a deeper and more meaningful connection to this “something else” and find it to be the entity we are trained by religion to call God.

From a purely intellectual point of view, it might be said that the “lazy” thing to do is to just accept your indoctrination without ever questioning or challenging the so-called “mysteries”.  How many people sit in the pews on Sunday not really awake or alive?  How many people have questions about specific doctrine and ritual but simply conform because they are “too lazy” to investigate for themselves?

There are many paths on the mountain that lead to the summit of such realization and for a person to explore more than one of those paths is anything but lazy.  These people, if persistent, will eventually begin to ascend the mountain and have a good chance to reach the summit.  Those that circle the mountain and shout up at those on different paths, “you’re on the wrong path” may never actually give themselves a chance to ascend.

Sorry Fr. Martin, name calling and casting aspersions on people who sincerely try to seek a relationship with God, even though they attempt to do so without the ritual and dogma of your belief system is precisely the attitude that causes many to add the “but not religious” part to stating their spirituality.

Do you think Jesus, perhaps one of the most spiritual people to ever live, would feel at home in The Vatican?

CNN.com story: http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/personal/06/03/spiritual.but.not.religious/index.html?hpt=C1

(LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK OF THE COVER)

Advance copies are being sent out this week, hopefully to readers and reviewers who will give it rave reviews.  (One can hope.)  It’s not that I don’t trust the judgment of those who I’ve already shared the manuscript with, but to this point I’ve shared it mostly (but not entirely) with a circle of friends, acquaintances and friends of friends who have been very kind.  The praise likely feels somewhat obligatory or compulsory for readers who receive the manuscript directly from an author seeking affirmation than it will be for the people who make their living beating up on novice authors like me.

But, I’m ready to put the book out there for scrutiny. I think the team of designers and editors that were assembled to shape and polish my manuscript are second to none; I’m proud of what we’ve created, my confidence is increasing about sharing my message and enthusiasm from all parties involved is on the rise.

I’m excited to get the book on the bookstore shelves, online booksellers and the myriad of new technological options that readers have these days like Kindle, Nook, iPad and others.   Mostly, I’m excited for you to read it. You are where the proverbial rubber meets the road. Beyond the circle of supporters and past the critical reviews, I’ve written it for people just like me, people asking questions about God and religion and I look forward to your feedback even more than that of the critics and the book trade at large.

This being my first book, I’m learning more everyday about the world of publishing.  I spent my career hurriedly slapping ink on a daily sheet as a newspaper publisher so urgency was always one of the key elements in that kind of publishing.  Of course content was paramount but headlines and deadlines ruled the day – everyday.  It has been said that journalism is literature in a hurry, or that newspapers are the first draft of history.  Both very romantic ideals of course, and I thrived on the daily action but publishing a book, I’ve learned, is different in many ways.

Solid, compelling content is still paramount to be sure, but style, appearance and a certain ideal of artistic perfection takes precedence over speed.  I mean jeez, the book has been done now for quite some time and it still won’t see the light of day until this fall.  All very foreign to my background of publishing in a hurry; I’m from the school of write it, edit it and print it. (Sometimes: Write, print –  then edit.)

Somehow though, at my age, this new process of publishing seems appropriate.  I’m probably not as fast as I once was, and I’m definitely not always in a hurry anymore but hopefully, I’m a little more refined, a skosh more patient and a tad more cogent.  Like fine wine, I think this book has been aged just enough and is finally ready for tasting.  Come fall, let me know if you agree – what kind of taste this wine leaves on your palate.

The publication date for A View from the Back Pew is set for October 1, 2010.  I’ve got lots of things to learn and to do between now and the time the book hits the “streets” but now that the editing, shaping, rewriting and design is done I’ve also now got time to finally pay attention to this blog.  I’m excited about this too.

It’s been a while since I wrote and edited daily editorials so I’ve been anticipating my entry into the blogosphere for some time now.  Putting my two cents in is one of my best skills. (My opinion is rarely worth more than that.)

I’m ready to start publicly addressing what has been a private quest for much of my life, I’m ready to engage in dialogue and if necessary, debate and defend my positions about God, Religion and Our Personal Quest for Truth. My goal is to be a conversation starter or to contribute to an already ongoing dialogue started by someone else.   My hope is that you’ll join me with your contribution here through your participation in the conversation.

Lucky for me there currently is a lot of fodder in the news, the opinion columns and the blogs for me to jump right in.

Over the next few days I’m going make my “maiden posts”.  One on a recent news item about a Catholic priest who has made recent commentary about people who claim to be “spiritual but not religious” and another on a news story about the nun who was recently excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

I look forward to sharing my point of view and more to hearing yours.

Welcome to the Back Pew – this is going to be fun!

THE TOPIC
Although my interests vary widely, (I am a news hound, political junkie, sports fanatic, music lover, opinionated observer of pop culture and a general know-it-all) I’m centering this space on the primal questions we humans have been attempting to answer since we began walking upright on this planet: “Where did I come from?” “Where am I going?” “What is my purpose?” I call what’s at the heart of these and similar questions our “Ascending Urge.”

The answers to these audacious questions are offered from science, philosophy and theology among other disciplines of thought, all of which offer much to the conversation. Some from these varying schools of thought claim their point of view offers the only viable answers.

Whereas I don’t necessarily agree that one discipline has a corner on Truth, I’m wildly interested and wondrously fascinated by all.

There is likely more than one path to truth and this space is dedicated to discussing any and all. If you find the discussion of truth or reality interesting, you’ve come to the right place.

THE GUIDELINES
First and foremost, this will be a safe harbor to state your own opinion no matter how out of “mainstream” others may consider it.

The expectation is tolerance.

In fact, the only thing that won’t be tolerated here is intolerance. You’re invited to vociferously and vehemently oppose another opinion, but you will be discouraged from attacking the person offering the point of view you oppose. Ideas are fair game to be assailed, as long as respect is maintained for those proposing them. No name-calling, personal insults or remarks about another’s mother.

The belief here is that honest dialogue allows for an evolution of understanding for those engaging in the dialogue. A safe place to deposit one’s opinion is imperative.