My book A View from the Back Pew: God, Religion & Our Personal Quest for Truth was reviewed by all three of and some comments from the reviews prompted cordial written dialogue among the three of us which led to the idea of an online panel discussion.  We utilized the just released conferencing capacity of Skype to facilitate our desire to speak directly to one another.   I trust you’ll feel the mutual respect for one another and, even though we may have some differences of opinion, the common ground we discovered because of the tolerance by all.

Thanks to Evita for controlling and directing the discussion and for keeping it moving forward, with a special thanks to Markus, Evita’s husband for getting the video put together.

The three parts of the discussion are:

1.  The Spiritual but not Religious.  Bob, although not a strict institutionalist, agreed to represent the “institution” of Christianity; Matt, a pastor in the rapidly growing trend of “House Churches” represents Christianity from a religious standpoint but markedly non institutional, and me, although I don’t profess to be any sort of spokesman for the “spiritual but not religious” movement carry the torch for this group for the purpose of this discussion.  The dialogue began in Pastor Cornwall’s review of the book when he questioned what the institution itself might be doing to created people who remain believers but choose to stand outside the institution. I was struck by his interest in why this trend was taking shape instead of chastising it like most other Christian leaders.

2.  The Community.  What happens to the individual and the community itself when people do leave?

3.  Gnosticism.  Again, this part of the discussion stems from Pastor Bob wondering if I might be a Gnostic.  Very intriguing.

I hope you enjoy the discussion as much as I did – these are three wonderful people whom I respect and admire a great deal.  I think I speak for the others when I say I hope we do this again soon.  Please let me know what you think and also any topics you’d like to se us discuss.

Share on Facebook

I don’t generally respond directly to reviews of the book, but sometimes it’s called for.  In this case, Pastor Bob focuses his review mostly on a very important discussion that may be starting in our country and it would be remiss of me – irresponsible maybe – to ignore his invitation to dialogue.

I appreciate the leadership that Dr. Cornwall displays when he sees past the inevitable differences we will have about doctrine and seeks out the higher, more fertile ground for a meaningful discussion between a representative leader of organized religion (him) and a demographic sample from the loose but growing number of “spiritual but not religious” folks (me) scattered throughout society. This spiritual but not religious demographic is growing albeit without organization and is claiming people from nearly every brand or tradition of organized religion. Although I pretend no such leadership role for this “spiritual” group, Cornwall views the book as a potential illustrative voice of what may be happening on this front.

What’s most engaging to me about this man is his willingness to look at why people might end up outside the big box of Christianity instead of chastising them for being there.  He considers, “What we on the institutional side of things can learn here is that there is a strong sense of disappointment and frustration among the populace. The traditional institutions aren’t speaking to their hearts or their minds. The question is why? Why do people feel the need to strike out on their own?” There is an undeniable and welcome sophistication and equanimity to his attitude not easily found in the Christian clergy.  He does not however, betray his position within the institution as he continues, “At the same time, I wonder if this new movement pushes the pendulum of institutionalism too far in the other direction, and what that will mean for people’s journeys as they become less and less connected to traditions once held? These are all questions that I pose to further the conversation, and not cut it off.”

Pastor Bob Cornwall asks probing and productive questions of both sides and I’m pleased that the many sticky questions posited in A View from the Back Pew are getting thoughtful and learned men like him to think and reach out in the spirit of meaningful discourse.  I’m very pleased to engage in the discussion, but I only intended to start the confab.  I would love for the conversation to expand.

I invite you over to Pastor Bob Cornwall’s blog to see my response to these and other comments from his review of the book.

I think I speak for Pastor Bob when I encourage your comments; our dialogue becomes a conversation only when you engage it.

Share on Facebook

The Lake of Fire located in Hell

According to Bell, a controversial young pastor of a mega church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Hell is real as a concept but likely not a real destination for eternal residence under the surface of the earth. He doesn’t deny Hell exists but claims it is a result of choices made because of human free will.  In other words, God allows us free will to choose to be with him (heaven) or against him (hell).  Bell claims Hell exists here on earth in the form of pain and suffering.

To suggest that God is not the vindictive, angry, punishing God depicted in The Bible is, well …  heresy (that word again) to many because Bell is being taken to the woodshed by the Evangelical community and poor Reverend Holtz has been fired for chiming in.  It seems that the United Methodist congregation in Henderson NC would rather not be lead by a pastor who eschews the literal belief of the eternal burning lake of fire.  Perhaps they need the threat of super-hot eternal punishment to keep them on the straight and narrow.

What do you think about Hell? Is it a result of human free will?  Are we condemned to it by God? Or, do we send ourselves to Hell?  Is Hell a place of being or a state of being? Is there any escape?  What about people who’ve never been exposed to the Christian belief system – are they doomed to Hell? Does Satan reside in Hell?  Demons?  Hitler?  Jerry Garcia?

What the heck, let me know your thoughts about Hell! What the heck is Hell anyway?  Who the heck lives in Hell? Who the heck send us to Hell?  Heck, is there any way out of Hell?

Oh heck, the hell if I know!

Share on Facebook

A View from the Back Pew is in the midst of a virtual book tour where bloggers and book review sites around the (virtual) world post reviews throughout the month of March.  So far, it’s been mostly fun.

Some reviews have been extremely positive while others have been critical of my point of view that asks critical questions about organized religion.  Some are a bit of both.  No real surprises.  Religious beliefs are sensitive and can be delicate possessions.  I wrote the book for people who are questioning, or considering what they actually do believe, people who may not be completely invested in what they were “taught to believe”.  It is an accounting of my own personal voyage of faith, which is far from concluded.

The Stamp of Heresy

I’ve been clear about stating I wouldn’t recommend the book to those who are spiritually fulfilled by their church affiliation.  I am not trying to preach a certain spiritual angle other than one of inquisitiveness.   The questions submitted throughout the book make some people very uncomfortable.   For this I cannot apologize except perhaps for not placing a warning label on the book.  People who are offended by asking questions about religion should not read this book. There, I’ve said it again.

Mostly, the reviewers of A View From The Back Pew have been professional and thoughtful, but more importantly, good or bad, nearly all have been intellectually honest.  There isn’t one I wouldn’t welcome a chance to go to lunch or get a cup of coffee with.

I’m selecting two recent reviewers, both faithful Christians of different denominations to offer an example of how the book might affect a reader who is an adherent.  Both of these reviewers are not people I would think to offer the book to for at least two specific reasons: one is that they were not the audience I had in mind and two; they are both lifelong adherents to their respective denominations, both asserting to be very fulfilled within those religions.

For some reason they both volunteered to read and review this book; I can’t pretend to know why they chose to but I’m happy and grateful that they did.  There is however, an illuminating difference between them – read on.

First, meet Liz who runs a site named Random Thoughts of a Lutheran Geek who reviewed the book this past Tuesday.  Liz critiqued the book and made valid, intelligent commentary.  She is a lifelong Lutheran who shares that she had been oriented toward inquiry and open to discovery through objective investigation into her beliefs.  My guess is both the church of her childhood and her parents are to be commended for encouraging such a leaning of spiritual inquiry. Liz’s Lutheran faith seems to satisfy her intellect and desire for community as well as nourish her spiritual needs – exactly what organized religion should to do.

Liz was not in the least bit threatened by A View from the Back Pew, her faith is secure enough to absorb and consider something outside her own experience.  The book did not change her mind about anything (nor does it attempt to). She is a well-educated, grounded and confident Christian who honestly and directly expresses where the book frustrates her but feels no contradiction or betrayal of her faith by also revealing the good she perceives in the work; she even goes so far as to identify the type of people who might benefit by reading it: “if you need an introduction to the idea of questioning the church A View from the Back Pew might be a good place to start.”  Perceptive in the sense that this is exactly what the author would say.

Liz demonstrates balance and tolerance in her criticism with comments like:  “While I found this book to be a very interesting read, particularly his autobiographical sections, I found myself frustrated as the book neared its spirituality-centric conclusion.” Or: “I respect and honor the fact that O’Donnell calls for real questioning to be a part of our faith, even if I disagree with his final conclusions.”

Liz was careful to point out that I am in no way an atheist and that I still “revere” the teaching of Jesus.  She doesn’t denigrate, demonize or condescend simply because we differ in our understanding of Jesus’ true message and purpose.

There is maturity and self-awareness about Liz’s commentary that got me thinking. (And, of course asking questions)

As I thought about Liz, her review and her Lutheranism, it dawned on me that it should be no surprise that she was stimulated to ask questions and explore her faith.  After all, her religious tradition came into existence because a Catholic monk and theologian by the name of Martin Luther was excommunicated for questioning Rome. The essence of Luther himself is to inquire and it is alive and well in the attitude of Liz from “Lutheran Geek”.   I respect her critique as sound and honest and accept it with gratitude.

The next day, A View From The Back Pew was reviewed Frank Weathers of Why I Am Catholic.

Wow!  What a difference a day makes.  Whereas Tuesday’s critique was well organized, intellectually sound and journalistically honest, the broadside rant of Wednesday is not.  This day produced an personal attack under the pretense of a book review.  Although I can’t say I’m shocked at this Catholic’s aggressive response, I’m a little surprised by the underpinning of anger and paranoia.  But mostly I’m dumbfounded by the blatant lack of integrity. There are mystery quotes in the review that simply do not exist in the book and that’s just a start.  I‘ll not be baited into responding tit-for-tat, refuting the half-truths, fabrications and misrepresentations put forth in this “review” but I would be remiss to not respond in some way.

I have been a Catholic from birth and every moment of my education has been in a Catholic classroom so the attitude of religious superiority is nothing new to me.  But still, my rather extensive exposure to the scholarly, academic minded Carmelites and Jesuits was always honest from an intellectual point of view.  I found the discourse by this particular Catholic to be alarmingly unprincipled and manipulative.

One example of the flagrant disregard of veracity (there are several) by Mr. Weathers is when he marginalizes a key event in the book where I explain my youthful interpretation of events that took place in Rome (I tell of two interrelated events, he chooses to relay only half) where he spins the following quote which is made to look like it comes directly from the book – I suppose he is inferring here that God is talking to me: “I will make you rich, while you’re young, so you can retire early and spread this good news.”  This is not only taken out of context (even real journalists do that all the time) this is fabricated entirely!  Period.  I don’t know what else to say about a blatant falsification. The quote he cites does not exist anywhere in the book. Why?  I guess so he could portray the passage in the light he wanted to; he simply made up a quote to suit his intentions.  (Anyone who has read the book will see what this reviewer intends to do.)

I could continue to dissect the problems with this written piece from a professional, ethical point of view but it would get tedious and technical so I won’t.  But I will say this: I do not think this writer is at all ignorant about what he’s attempting to do.

But more importantly, beyond the absence of ethical standards, Weathers demonstrates the precise attitude of primacy that drove me to begin questioning Catholicism, the religion of my birth in the first place.  There is sanctimoniousness in believing one possesses absolute truth which I failed to see for a very long time. The insistence that Catholicism is superior is what prompted me to ask questions.  If it is in fact superior, which like Frank, is what I believed; I set out to understand why.  The imperiousness (assuming authority) to me began to feel like a contradiction to the humility of Jesus himself.  So, I began to ask questions.

The haughty belief of having religious and spiritual superiority can lead to a lack of moral accountability.  When one believes he or she holds the absolute truth, one justifies any means in attacking or discrediting those who question or hold different beliefs. In other words, if you begin with the presupposition that your religious belief system is perfect, whole and complete then there is no reason to inquire and those conducting inquiry of any sort are then labeled infidels or heretics.

In quintessential Catholic parlance, Mr. Weathers resorts to calling the book “heresy”.  OK – whatever.  Stick and stones…. Blah, blah, blah.

That has been the way of this church for centuries – when someone actually proffers an original thought, or when one searches an independent interpretation they are deemed heretics.  If, like in the good old days of Catholicism, that accusation carried a death sentence, I might be quaking in my Uggs.

I’m quite certain the infinite mind of God is not threatened by my inquiry.

I’m also not surprised a vintage Catholic like Frank Weathers feels threatened by a book, especially one written by a Catholic, that challenges ancient doctrine.  When a person is bound to specific doctrine and refuses to allow themselves to even consider what other systems may contribute, he or she resorts to labeling and lashing out.  It’s not OK to just believe what you believe, you must also condemn those who don’t prescribe to or share your doctrinaire world-view. These are the attitudes and assumptions that lead to rationalizing violence in the extreme that is so dominant in Church history and survives today among some factions within organized belief systems.

I am not claiming truth is relative, only that we humans, using the inadequate  tool of human language, have no way to articulate divine truth absolutely.

Catholicism is indeed a beautiful, rich articulation of truth, one I spent a great deal of my life learning about, but to say that this edition of truth is complete or that it is evolving along with mans ability to comprehend such truth is either naïve or intentionally misleading. “One of Mr. O’Donnell’s main arguments against the Church here is that she just doesn’t change, or evolve. Which is ridiculous on it’s face because of course she does!”  Calling this position “ridiculous” is not a well-reasoned argument; claiming, “of course she does” with pious tone and little rationale doesn’t cut it.  It is however, very typical.

“I state flatly that this book should be avoided.”   I find this a little flattering.  Furthermore, depending on who this message is being delivered to – I may actually agree.  If you are perfectly content with doctrine ritual and dogma, you would find no real purpose in reading it.  In fact, I’m on record stating the book is not for those who are satisfied with religion wherever and however they come to it.  A View from the Back Pew is specifically written for the person who will not, or cannot, ignore the inevitable questions that come to mind as they read, listen to or learn about the ancient doctrine of their particular belief system.  Not recommending a book, movie or piece of art is a far cry from instructing people to “avoid” it.  It makes one wonder: what is contained in this book that is to be feared?

My basic treatise is that we as a species continue to evolve in most areas of human life and that to many (but not all), the ancient doctrines of our systems of belief are not satisfying the spiritual urge we humans intrinsically possess.  I do not pretend to have answers. This book only attempts to start asking questions – very few conclusions are drawn and the ones that are, are clearly personal.  I’m not preaching a new truth, I don’t have an axe to grind nor am I trying to debunk anything.  I’m just asking! So, if you don’t care to ask, or witness one who does ask – this might not be for you.  On this point I agree with Mr. Weathers.  But don’t worry, you don’t need to avoid it, there is likely nothing contagious or nothing to fear contained in its pages.

I know it chafes some people, but asking questions has become a central activity in my spiritual practice.  Liz the Lutheran approves; Frank the Catholic does not. My spiritual journey would be much easier if I had no need to question but it would be stagnant and lifeless to me if I didn’t.

I am grateful to all the reviewers on the blog tour for taking time to read, consider and review A View from the Back Pew.  And I respectfully and sincerely want to thank Liz and Frank  - Liz for prompting new questions for me to consider and Frank for reminding me why I began asking such questions in the first place.

Share on Facebook

Certainly, you have noticed in our little corner of your universe here that the public relations spin put on your word over the past few millennia has really gotten out of control.  It is my belief that both You and mankind would benefit greatly from a new image consultant.  May I humbly suggest Tim O’Donnell?  He truly has your best interest at heart.

Thank you, and have a nice eternity.

Respectfully,

Kevin -

How cool is that?  Well, to me, very cool indeed!

A few months ago I began sending out what is known as Review or Advance Reader’s Copies of my first book, A View from the Back Pew: God, Religion & Our Personal Quest for Truth. (March 1, 2011) It is important for an author to get feedback on their work but I’d be lying if I said all feedback is the same.  There were a few people who received advance copies of the book that I ardently wanted positive affirmation from.  The writer of this prayer is one such reviewer.  He is an author.  He is a painter. He is a gifted professional musician, a photographer, a world traveler and storyteller without peer.  In short, he is one of the most creative people I’ve ever known.  His feedback on my book was invaluable as it improved the final edition and his endorsement is more rewarding than he could know.  I won’t flatter myself by calling him a peer but to receive praise from an artist of his ilk goes a long way in choking back the trepidation I feel about exposing myself as I do in the pages of A View from the Back Pew.

His name is Kevin O’Donnell.  Although we both grew up in the same small town in northern Illinois, attended the same Catholic grade school and high school and share the same last name, we are not related.  Kevin is four years older than me and he is legend in our hometown as one of the true real artists Mundelein has ever produced.  If a small village – which is all it was when we grew up – can produce a renaissance man, Kevin O’Donnell is the real deal.

Fadó: A Memoir of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness By: Kevin O'Donnell

The day I heard Kevin wrote a book I bought it; it was one of the rare times I’ve finished a book in one session.   I enjoy reading about the Irish and I’m somewhat of a connoisseur of the written memoir.  O’Donnell’s book Fadó.  (Pronounced f’doe, is an Irish expression meaning “long ago” or “in years past”) is part memoir, part historical exposé on Irish immigrants, and part intimate family portrait.

Fadó will remind the memoir enthusiast of Angela’s Ashes (Frank McCourt) in style with a little of the blunt, sheer madness of Running with Scissors (Augusten Burroughs). Brutally honest, heartbreaking and hysterically funny – Fadó is fun, but also at times, tense and emotional.  It takes you on a trek through time from the quaint Irish island of Arranmore to the burgeoning suburbs of Chicago and back again.

O’Donnell is painfully honest about his parents, his brushes with Catholic priests, the Chicago pub scene, the Irish, and his own family foibles. The striking portrait of Mr. John O’Donnell, Kevin’s father is moving and memorable.

Fadó speaks directly to those of us who grew up in an America that was much different than it is today.  O’Donnell is an exacting historian with the flair of a poet.  His storytelling will grab you until the end.  When I finished Fadó, I felt like I’d just spent a few hours in the pub being regaled with stories of a dear friend – you will too.

When I called Kevin out of the blue to ask him to review my book he graciously and enthusiastically agreed to do it.  I was honored to send him the book, but nervous because I knew Kevin would pull no punches in his assessment – this is an Irishman full of the Blarney to be sure, but not a bull-shitter in the least. I knew he’d tell me the truth.

Kevin had to put the book aside for a time as his travels called him abroad but I was thrilled to learn that his wife Colleen read it while he was away.  They agreed not to discuss my book until Kevin had completed his review.  When I got his report I was ecstatic.  They both liked my book and Kevin wrote an in depth review and sort of an editor’s list of things he “liked” along with a sizable list of “not so much”. The things he liked filled my sails with fresh wind and the “not so much” gave me pointers that made the book better than it was when I sent it to him.

He concluded his three-page opinion piece with the prayer at the top of this page.

How cool is that?

To read Kevin’s book, Fadó for yourself go here now:

Share on Facebook

I ended the last post with the following question:

To Believers and Atheists alike:  Could you/would you believe in God if there was no formalized doctrine attached to it?

Well – would ya?

I should probably rephrase the question because it is loaded with loaded words.

Try this:  Could you allow for the existence of universal intelligence in the absence of an organized belief system?

Well – would ya?

I ask because there is a paradox at the intersection of the debate between atheists and theists. They both point to religion as the linchpin of their position.

The Intersection

The atheist uses religion to make the case that the entity we’ve been trained to call God does not exist.  They call the narrative (Bible for example) a fairy tale and point out the doctrine (church teaching) has inconsistencies, contradictions and errors. Atheists from Maher to Hawking to Dawkins rail against organized religion much more than they posit a hard-core denial that such an entity exists.  Further, the attacks on religion are almost exclusively aimed at fundamentalists, namely creationists – a cynically easy target. If the so called “fairy tales” were not attached, would the idea of universal intelligence (God) be more palatable?  I wonder!

Believers on the other hand, use religion as grounds to argue the entity we’ve been trained to call God does exist.  “It must be true”, they insist, “because it says so in The Bible”.  This reasoning of course starts with a presupposition that the text is inerrant and absolute.  Often, facts are ignored or refuted if they contradict a position of faith, which leads to defending ideas such as the world being created in six days or that God made the first man from dust. The monologue of pop culture clergy from the likes of Graham and Osteen rely heavily on literature of the Bible as a basis to their worldview and teaching about reality.  Without the extraordinary assumption that the text of religion is absolute and true, would the concept of God (universal intelligence) still be independently arrived at?  Does the believer need doctrine in order to believe? I wonder!

One problem with the debate is that dogmatism dominates the arguments on both sides.

Dog•ma•tism: the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or opinions of others.

The dogma of the atheist is in demanding visible, physical, irrefutable proof.  It maintains that because God can’t be proven, universal intelligence is non-existent.  It is as fundamental a position as one could take.  But nothing in the universe can be proven before it becomes known by us to exist.  Did electricity exist before it was discovered?  Was the earth ever really flat?   Science does a remarkable job advancing human knowledge as it continuously uncovers “mysteries” about our condition and our origin.  Science itself is not dogmatic because it never rests on its findings, it is never satisfied that what we know now is the last word.  Often science refutes findings of a previous generation because it continues to question everything, even ideas thought to be irrefutable.  The human capacity to comprehend reality continues to evolve and science keeps expanding its ability to articulate it.  Science keeps pace with humanity.  Science has become a good friend to the rationale human mind and it has earned that position.

The dogma of many theists is insisting that what was written thousands of years ago makes up the totality of understanding mankind will ever need and that advancement is not welcome.   Typically, an ancient mystic articulated God’s essence and his followers tacked the ideas to paper.  Powerful institutions have been erected with a main goal of protecting the doctrine of a specific theology.  Religion resists expansion of the understanding laid down in antiquity even though the species asking the questions has evolved exponentially in its capacity to comprehend.  The ancient prophets and mystics responsible for most of the religion being practiced today articulated their ideas contemporaneously.  That is, they spoke in the language and style of their place and time.

Would the language of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad or The Buddha be different today than it was when they deposited their wisdom into human consciousness?

Because science keeps expanding our knowledge of reality and religion persistently turns us back to antiquity, the gap between the two increases.  This expanding gap tends to make religion look – well, immature (not fully developed) when it comes to advancing thought.  Answering questions about reality is the objective of science and religion.  Some in the world of science refuse to allow for anything not quantifiable in the physical realm and many in the world of religion overlook physical realities in favor of ancient metaphysical articulations.

Theists label atheists as evil and immoral while atheists accuse the theist of being irrational and superstitious.  And so the hard line positions with the inherent mistrust for one another remains.

Could it be that the two parts – physical and metaphysical – combine to make up the fullness of reality? Does reality encompass the natural and the supernatural?  Is it possible that the declared conflict between science and religion will dissolve someday and embarrass mankind for fueling the longstanding fight between them?  Is it possible that the two will someday combine to advance our comprehension of the universe and offer future generations a sort of “theology of reality”?  Or will the gap between science and religion endure and widen as science continues to advance human understanding?

What can we do as individuals to bridge the gap we might feel in our own perception of reality?

We can start by dropping the dogma to ask intellectually honest questions and trust where our inborn sense of reason takes us.

Share on Facebook

Oh holy night?  Not exactly, not according to this message.

The billboard doesn’t bash one over the head with a blatant attack. It’s meaning is clear but the tenor is subdued.  The subtlety is refreshing compared to the derisive tone taken by many atheists today.

Atheist Billboard

The editorial content of the board states simply and directly:  “You KNOW it’s a Myth.  This Season, Celebrate REASON!”  No insults, ridicule or denigrating references to fairy-tales so commonly used in the atheist nomenclature of today.  At the bottom it simply states the name of the organization – American Atheists, tenders a simple slogan – Reasonable since 1963 and pitches the website – atheists.org.

I may not agree with the atheist but I tip my hat to this organization for the non-hateful attitude of the message. I’m not insulted or offended – actually I applaud the civilized attitude of their holiday greeting.

I’ll wager the response from the faithful will be less so.

The site claims a threefold “purpose” of the billboard.   The guess here is that they will achieve one of stated purposes.

The three as stated on atheists.org:

1. To encourage atheists who “go along to get along” to come out of their closets.

It is doubtful a “closet atheist” will find support in making public proclamations about his position because anything on this billboard.  But, why would an atheist even be in the closet to begin with?

The worlds two largest belief systems are waging war against each other in one fashion or another around the globe and heck, they both theoretically worship the same God – imagine the scorn and contempt one might face if they publicly reject the entire idea of God.  The fact that 91% of Americans claim belief in God coupled with the obnoxious way in which religion and politics have braided together in our culture – yes, I get it.

I never thought I’d say this but I sympathize with atheists – I sympathize with anyone who has legitimate reason to be afraid to speak on their beliefs if so inclined to do so.  The voice of religion can be very shrill.

2.  To attack the myth that Christianity owns the solstice season.

Most solstice celebrations are tied to one religious tradition or mythology or another so the debate that it might be Persian, Pagan, Hindu or Hopi really doesn’t belong in an argument supporting atheism anyway as the solstice has been linked to the divine for much longer than the Christmas story.  The atheist pointing out that other traditions “own” or share the solstice seems to counter the rejection of the divine and singles out one religious tradition over all others.

The atheist, it seems should reject any and all celebrations of the solstice, not just the most popular one of the day.  This stated objective clearly illustrates the contempt for Christianity this organization has and it’s intense bias against it confounds the atheist tenet that no God exists.

3.  To raise awareness of the organization and the movement.

This purpose will be achieved. It is sure to create controversy and, in turn garner attention to the American Atheists.  Cable news has been covering it, newspapers are giving it play, the networks will jump on the story and it will surely become great fodder for the blogosphere.

Almost every week there is a religion related topic in the news and this billboard and its message will be the next topic in an ongoing discussion this country is having about religion.  (The “ground zero” mosque, Qur’an burning, presidential beliefs, creation without creator, who know the most about religion etc., etc.)

A Closer Look

A closer look at the American Atheist website begs the question:  What exactly is this group attempting to articulate? The definition of atheism is “the belief that God does not exist” but there is a pronounced disconnect between this definition and the propaganda the site proffers.  It focuses almost exclusively on the concept of religion and there is little mention of God.

The atheist treatise as relayed in this website is mostly political and concentrates on church and state issues, prayer in school etc. and does very little to present its beliefs about the entity at the center of religion as well as at the core of atheism – God.

Religion and God are not the same thing.

I can actually claim some common ground with the atheist – about religion.  While doing the research for A View from the Back Pew I asked many of the same questions most atheists seem to ask.  The inquiry usually begins at the level of religion because it is religion that causes the most immediate consternation to the rational mind.  I came to many of the same conclusions the atheist does –about religion. I suspect most atheists would agree with much of my commentary and many of my criticisms – about religion.   If you listen very closely, the atheist monologue seems to center on the rejection of formal religion and kind of sidesteps the discussion of God.  Many atheists seem to leave a tiny opening about the possibility of a “something else out there”.

A couple of basic questions to atheists and believers alike. They are not intended to be flippant:

1.  Are you sure you are an atheist? Is it the concept of God you deny or is it the institution of formal religion that you reject?  It’s plain to see the stance taken against religion by nearly all self-professed atheists but also, except in the most ardent, the “no god exists” position seems a tad less strident.  I would offer the American Atheist website as an example of atheism being preoccupied with religion –especially Christianity.

2.  Why do you feel a need to evangelize about atheism? If you feel so strongly that formal beliefs systems are at fault for much of current and historical human strife, why do you spend energy, time and treasure to get your own word out?  Why would you feel compelled to place a billboard in the first place?

The two largest religions in the world today have as part of their mission the call to the faithful to convert others.  Isn’t this the precise cause of the historical strife you attack religion for?  The beliefs humans hold about the divine are brittle and withstand little challenge before a seeming innate need to defend; isn’t the act of trying to win over believers to your way of thinking (or believing) just more of the same? (This is a sincere curiosity; I’m not being facetious.)

3.  To Believers:  Why is the position of the atheists so viscerally abhorrent to you? Intellectually, the position that there is no God is not unreasonable so why do you attach evil motives to it?  (Satan?)  Why is it that religious adherents feel threatened in any way by atheism?  (This is also not a facetious question.)

4. To Believers and Atheists:  Could you/would you believe in God if there was no formalized doctrine attached to it?

Share on Facebook

Pope Benedict XVI

In a book released yesterday titled Light of the World, the Pope made news by saying the use of condoms is acceptable in certain circumstances.  It was widely reported he was isolating his approval to male prostitutes because that was the example used to illustrate a situation where it was more important to prevent disease than to condemn homosexuality or prostitution.  Scholars were quick to point out he was using an esoteric tenet of moral theology that acknowledges varying “degrees” of evil and that preventing the transmission of disease to ones partner is “less evil” than the non-sacramental sex act itself.

OK – whatever.

I was prepared to criticize the Pope because it seemed, by the narrow scenario described in the book he was saying that there was no scenario in which the use of condoms could apply to women.  I assumed it obviously had to do with the contraceptive element of condom use.

I would have been wrong to do so – it would have been premature recrimination.

Fr. Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman, reported today that in light of the confusion, he directly asked Pope Benedict to clarify his remarks because there was much consternation throughout the world about his intended meaning. The pope clarified his position by saying it didn’t matter if a condom was used by women or men, that the prevailing issue was preventing the passing of disease to ones partner.

Wow.  This is huge!

It looks like the Pope meant much more than what it appeared he was saying just yesterday doesn’t it? As I perused the blogosphere last evening I saw many people trying to interpret what Pope Benedict was saying and the conversations ranged from hopeful to hateful and everything in between.  I commend The Vatican for quickly clarifying the actual, factual intentions of The Holy Father.  This too indicates a shift of consciousness and sense of obligation of The Vatican to communicate to the world in perhaps a new and evolved way.

By clearly and plainly including heterosexual use of condoms (in certain circumstances), it seems the Pope is serious about offering more than lip service in helping to fight the epidemic of AIDS.  Now his priests and Catholic missionaries, especially in Africa, have a legitimate tool in fighting against it.

Yesterday his remarks seemed narrow, a little confusing to some, open to interpretation by others and isolated to a group where contraception was not at issue.  Today however, quite a different story this becomes.  For the first time The Vatican is defining a scenario where contraception is acceptable.

This is very big news.  Anyone not acknowledging the magnitude of this clarification needs to have their head surgically removed from their keister.

I for one, am shocked at the pragmatism and humanity of the Pope – Congratulations Benedict!  I applaud your wisdom.

Read the AP story about todays clarification here:

Share on Facebook

O’Reilly, in pressing his point after the conversation with the ladies of The View got heated, said it was “Muslims” who attacked us on 9/11 without the qualifier of “extremist” or “terrorist” attached.  After ten years two things should be sort of understood:  On the one hand, when talking about 9/11 and the attack, when one says “Muslims”, it is implied that the speaker means “Muslim terrorist”, and on the other we should be mindful that when we do speak of terrorists we do not lump all Muslims into the category. So, O’Reilly misspoke when he stated his point without the qualifier, which he readily admitted and (sort of) apologized for.  The women from The View who walked off showed an inability to put up with another “view” on the matter.  They demonstrated the typical human intolerance most have when deep-seated beliefs are challenged.

I believe we’ll see more of this type of confrontation about this issue – a lot more.  Our inability to absorb challenges to what we believe seems to be a basic part of being human and it would be comical if it weren’t for the way it often ends – in insult or injury.

But it made me think about the “wisdom” issue again.  Even the most vocal and ardent opponents of the mosque Park51 acknowledge the right to build, the issue has always been about the wisdom of building it.  The president demonstrates a lack of leadership by not weighing in on the issue but his reluctance is understandable only to a point.  He must be careful that he does not choose sides but in the silly-season that he finds himself with the mid-term elections, he’s choosing sides every single day on one issue or another.  More than seven out of ten Americans don’t think the mosque should be built at the proposed site, so he risks little political capital in making a stand.  To hear and see him stumping on a daily basis, behaving in a most partisan way and then not offer an opinion on this matter seems a little out of step, maybe even disingenuous to some.  Hence the “disconnect” with the average American O’Reilly speaks of.

It seems President Obama is uniquely positioned to offer some real leadership on this issue, which could serve to bring the level of rhetoric down a notch and serve both sides of the argument well.  It’s too easy to stop at simply saying that the Muslim community on New York City has the right to build, there is much more to being a good neighbor than to simply exercise ones rights in a given situation. It might be legal to blast a stereo until ten pm in your neighborhood, but if your next-door neighbor just got out of the hospital and needed extra rest would you exercise the right and ignore his need for quiet.

This issue is not as complicated as we’ve made it but it shows how thin-skinned we humans are when religion is involved.  It has always been the source of great conflict and clearly it remains so.  Maybe a good old-fashioned, uncomplicated little parable might go a long way in simplifying the issue and bring the discussion out the ivory tower.

Neighbors: A Parable

John Parks, an executive in a downtown advertising agency had big plans for his next quarterly bonus. The kids college funds were in place, the house is almost paid off, retirement is in sight and he decided it was time to fulfill a longstanding dream of buying a 1972 red Corvette.

Red Vet

Ah yes. The red Corvette exactly like the one his next-door neighbor Ben Washington bought three months earlier.  The two best friends, John and Ben, had long planned to buy identical red corvettes so they could tinker, cruise the open roads and take car trips in tandem while talking on blue tooth.  They both worked hard to get ahead, provided a safe, idyllic suburban life for their families and were looking forward to some serious playtime with matching big-boy toys; a shared hobby as they grew old together.

They each grew up poor, John Parks on a farm in Indiana and Ben Washington in a housing project in St. Louis.  They met at college in Illinois where they both received football scholarships and became friends their freshman year.  Many of the other players came from the affluent suburbs of St. Louis or Chicago and most had nice cars and new clothes.  Ben and John were initially bonded by their relative lack in comparison to the other boys.  They both majored in business and worked hard on the gridiron; they became star players then graduated and established careers in the same midwestern city.   Eventually they ended up living next door to one another and raised families.  Although their suburban neighborhood was made up of a rainbow of ethnicity, background and creed, they belonged to a close-knit group of hard working, middle class families with similar values of family, country and faith.

John and Ben talked often about buying matching Corvettes, the chosen model had meaning as a symbol of how far they’d come from those days of lack; they chose 1972 as the model year because that was when they first met, red because that was their team color and Corvettes because – well, they were red blooded American males!

Everything was going according to plan and each man had made room in their respective garages to house their new toys.  Then tragedy struck.

Ben was the first to locate and purchase his ’72 red Corvette.  A week after the purchase he was out cruising one evening after dinner in his new “Vet” with his seventeen-year-old daughter and lost control navigating Riverbend Road just outside of town. Ben was killed and his beloved daughter Victoria (Vicky) seems likely to spend at least the next several years in a wheelchair.  The accident devastated the All-American Washington family, deeply affected John, his wife Ellen, their two daughters and the rest of the neighborhood as well.

John was deeply saddened by the loss of his best friend and was struggling with depression over the incident.  He’d been side by side through much of life with Ben, even longer than he had with his wife Ellen; they practically grew up together.  In time, John decided he would proceed with his plan to honor his lost buddy and buy an identical 1972 red Corvette.  Ellen tried to get him to change his mind but he stubbornly refused to abandon the plans that originated many years ago over beers with his lost pal.  “It’s what I’d want Ben to do if our fates were reversed” was his response to Ellen.

After searching for just the right car John finally found the one.  The owner agreed to let him take it home for a weekend test drive and John was thrilled.  The annual neighborhood block party was that weekend and he couldn’t wait to park it in the driveway and display it for all of his other neighborhood buddies to see how he was going to honor Ben’s memory.  He was excited to tell them how he was dedicating the car to Ben, how he would keep Ben’s memory alive by going forward with the plans they made together.

On Friday night he pulled it into the garage and spent the rest of the evening giving it a thorough inspection and first thing Saturday morning he planned to take it out for a long, early morning test-drive in the country.  Then he’d bring it home to wash it then park it in his driveway in all of its sparkling, cherry glory for all the neighborhood to behold during the block party.  A fitting tribute to Ben, he thought.

The day went exactly as planned until he got to the party.  The reception from the neighborhood was mute as he got the cold shoulder from everyone.  This wasn’t the reaction he had anticipated.  The general and outward jocularity usually evident in the banter between the men was missing and the other guys seemed uneasy around him.  The tension became palpable.  He wasn’t sure exactly what was wrong with everyone but he figured it would go away after the party got rolling; after all this was a fun loving bunch of old neighbors who had literally raised their families together – they had their differences over the years but they always worked them out amicably.  This group was like a big extended family, a true example of  “neighborhood” as they often boasted.  At first John wasn’t too concerned.

After about an hour, things hadn’t improved, the tension mounted and he considered leaving.  He then noticed a group of about six of his buddies; beers in hand, begin to drift his way.  He also noticed the entire group of neighborhood women huddled around Eva Washington and his own wife Ellen glaring at him.  He finally began to realize what the problem might be.  Maybe Ellen was right after all.  John felt defensive.

His six neighborhood buddies finally arrived at the picnic table in the corner he had staked out for himself.  They gave each other apprehensive nods and little hand signals.  They had known one another for a long time, where had all the uneasiness come from wondered John.

Finally Ian Bolden spoke up.  “Hey John, I see you went ahead and bought the Corvette.”

John replied, “I haven’t actually bought it yet Ian, just home for an inspection and test drive. Pretty sweet huh?”

Then Dave Martin from across the street chimed in “John, do you really think it’s a good idea to buy the same model car that Ben was driving when he had the accident?”

“Sure Dave, you know we were planning this together and I can’t think of a better way to honor Ben’s memory than to follow through with a plan that meant so much to him – he was my best friend and I’m sure he would want me to carry out our plan.  I’m sure of that” he said, with a little more emphasis than he intended.

“Have you asked Eva and Vicky how they feel about it?” asked Ian.

“Well, no – I guess I thought they’d appreciate my memorial to Ben – why fellas?  What’s going on?”

Dave explained, “Eva Washington was freaked out when she saw you pull away in that car this morning and she’d been trying to keep Vicky from seeing it all day while you were out washing and waxing it.  When she wheeled Vicky out of the house to bring her to the party, the poor girl fell apart and had to be brought back in side – she refuses to come out.”

Ian added, “The red Corvette brings back very painful memories of her dad and that terrible night of the accident.”

Jim Rose from the other side of the cul-de-sac spoke up, “John, after hearing your motives for buying the car, I think I speak for all of us in saying we feel much better about why you’re considering it – right fellas?”  They all nodded or voiced agreement as Jim continued, “John, nobody is going to argue with your right to buy that car and we certainly now understand your motives are not selfish, but at the same time, we hope you will understand the pain it would cause Eva and Vicky being forced, by such a vivid reminder to relive that awful night every time you take the car out of the garage.  It’s not your fault that the accident happened but in this neighborhood we’ve always watched out for each other’s families when necessary and it seems that maybe Ben would understand and probably prefer you protect his wife and daughter from the painful reminder even if it meant finding another way of honoring his memory.”

Ian spoke up again; “John, again, you certainly have every right to buy that car and although your sentiment to honor your buddy is noble, we question the overall wisdom of having that identical red Vet so close to the people who may never fully heal from the terrible night where Ben lost his life and Vicky the use of her legs.  The reminder is just too vivid to allow them to move on.”

“Yeah,” said Dave, “maybe you could even buy the car and store it somewhere else, just keep out of sight of Bens family”

“Yeah, that way you could honor your pact with Ben and protect his wife from the memory at the same time.” added Jim.

“Well,” John began slowly, processing as he spoke to his buddies, “I guess in my zeal to honor Ben, I neglected to think through all of the ramifications of my actions; I would never intentionally hurt Eva or Vicky or any of you goofballs either for that matter.  This neighborhood has always been a special place and I guess I was blinded by my passion to keep Ben a viable part of it – I’m very sorry…” His lip quivered and his eyes welled with tears.

Ian cut him short; “John, no need to beat yourself up over this – you’re a good guy, we all know that and we know you’re in pain over Ben, just like we all are.  And we know you’ll do the right thing.  Like the great neighbor you have always been, you’ll consider your neighbors feelings before you act.”

“Yeah,” chimed Dave, “that’s all we can really ask of each other in the end any way is to be considerate of others because we’re all in this together.”

After a long and awkward pause, John said firmly, in a strong, clear voice,  “The car goes back tomorrow – first thing.  And thanks you guys.  It takes good neighbors to tell a guy when he might be hurting a mutual neighbor.  I’ll find another, more appropriate and considerate way to honor Ben.  Without your courage to call me out I could have greatly insulted the last people in the world I’d wish to harm.”

“And thank you John for not digging your heals in on the Vet just because you had the right to… your wisdom to know the difference between your rights and your duty is why we all love having you as a neighbor and I suspect it’s one of the traits that Ben loved about you too.” Ian said as he put his arm around John’s shoulder.

After that the group of seven neighbors, all misty eyed but laughing walked over to the keg, filled up their red plastic Dixie cups and toasted their fallen buddy Ben.

Then, slowly, after returning the Vet to the cover of the garage, John made his way over to speak directly to Eva – one neighbor to another as they hugged and cried and laughed as the group joined them in telling stories of Ben, their neighbor kept alive in their memory.

No mention of the red Corvette was again necessary – everyone just understood John was doing the right thing – the neighborly thing.

Share on Facebook

From A View from the Back Pew; a soon to be released, destined to be a classic, outstanding read which I’m sure you and all of your friends will soon have on your bookshelf.  (Quit snickering, one can dream.)

The larger point I’m making both here and in the book is that I respect the way many atheists arrive at their belief about the existence of God.  I do not agree with the conclusion of the atheist but most I’ve encountered have come to their interpretation in an intellectually honest way.  They asked the questions.  They arrived at their conclusion using the gift of their own mind, relying on the power of reason.  I get that.  I respect that.

Whereas I’m increasingly dubious about organized religion myself, I’ve concluded something very different than the atheist about the existence of the entity we’ve been trained to call God.

Knowing religion is not the same as knowing God.

Now along comes a Pew Forum Survey on religious knowledge that further reinforces one of my hunches about atheists – that they, as a group, know more about religion than the average, God-fearing American.

Wait! What?

That’s right – the survey reveals that atheists scored the highest marks on the just released Religious Knowledge Survey.

The Pew Forum asked more than 3,000 Americans 32 questions about religion.  The range of questions were: religious history, teachings of major religions, religious leaders, scriptures, global geography of religion and the role of religion in American public life.  It was not exactly a trivia contest, nor were the questions focused on what Pew may have deemed the most “essential” tenets of one religion or another.  According to Pew, “the questions included in the survey were intended to be representative of a body of important knowledge about religion; they were not meant to be a list of the most essential facts.”

On the whole, Americans averaged 16 correct answers of the 32 questions to form a perfect bell curve.  Among the more interesting findings:

Atheists and Agnostics scored the highest, averaging about 21 correct answers, Jews were next at 20.5 correct; white Evangelicals got about 17.5, white Catholics came in at the exact national average of 16, black Protestants came in a 13.4 and Hispanic Catholics at 11.6.

Almost nine out of ten knew that a teacher could not lead a prayer in a public school classroom but most did not know (77%) that a teacher could read from the Bible as an example of literature.  Most know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (71%); Moses was the figure that led the exodus from Egypt (72%) and that most people in Pakistan are Muslim (68%).

About half (55%) knew that The Golden Rule (Do unto others…) was not one of the Ten Commandments; could name the four gospels (45%) or that the Jewish Sabbath begins on Friday (45%).

Almost half of all Catholics (45%) do not know that their church teaches that the bread and wine used in Communion actually becomes the body and blood of Christ and is not merely a symbolized ritual. More than half of all Protestants (53%) do not know that Martin Luther was responsible for the Reformation that originally made the first break in the Christian religion. Only 16% know that Protestants traditionally teach that salvation comes through faith alone.

To dig more into the survey findings you may do by clicking here.

There are numerous ways in which to interpret this data of course but education impacts the survey the most; the higher the level of education the better the score.  Nevertheless, the most intriguing and poignant revelation is that atheists, people who have determined that God does not exist, displayed the highest degree of religious knowledge over all other survey groups that just happen to be “believers”.

How can this be?

First off and notably, many atheists are well educated.  In my experience, many began their trek toward atheism by questioning the tenets of the religion they were born into and found it lacking in some fundamental way.  Seems obvious enough, if they found the religion of their birth to satisfy their intellectual scrutiny, there’d be no need to part ways.  That’s not shocking, but why does religion fail the test of reasonableness in the atheists mind in the first place?

The world’s main religions find their roots in antiquity.  The people who first articulated these wisdoms spoke to followers in a contemporaneous way, that is, they spoke in the manner and custom of the culture they were speaking to.  They communicated their ideas within the boundary of human capacity at that time.  In fact, the original depositors of faith (Abraham, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, etc.) were articulating at the frontier of human thinking about the most difficult concept for humans to put into words – the very essence of the intelligence that organized the universe – the essence that religion teaches us to call God (or Yahweh, Allah, Father, Spirit, etc.).

When the religions that dominate the world today were first articulated, human beings believed the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth and that women were a defective form of the human male; before we discovered gravity, electricity or the molecular nature of matter; and well before we invented the printing press, the telephone or the automobile.

So, for the educated and inquiring mind of today to conclude that religion is “superstitious” or a “fairy tale” should not jolt or insult anyone. The capacity of the human mind to comprehend has advanced many times over since most religious deposits were made into human consciousness, yet the deposits are to be considered incontrovertible “fact”, that any expansion of the deposits is unnecessary and even somehow “blasphemous”, “heretical” or “sacrilegious”.

As our comprehension of the physical world vis-à-vis science expanded exponentially throughout centuries, our static articulations of the metaphysical world came to be viewed as quaint to the point they’ve ceased to satisfy the modern mind that has embraced scientific knowledge as the only credible portrayal of reality.

To many in the modern world, religion has crossed the line from “quaint” to being anachronistic.   Really, who can blame the atheist for rejecting ancient text as a guide to spiritual understanding?  We should have been advancing our spiritual understanding right along with our advancement in understanding of the natural world.  The fact that religion in the generic sense passes itself off as the last word, that it is irrefutable is why many reject it. Why does our knowledge in nearly every discipline of thought except the spiritual, continually increase as we continue to expand our ability to understand?

However, just because our understanding of the physical has vastly outpaced our articulation of the metaphysical does not necessarily render the metaphysical realm non-existent.

My aforementioned “hunch” about atheism is that religion itself creates more atheists than scientific knowledge does.  My hunch is supported by the results of this poll.  The people in our society who have concluded that God does not exist, by-and-large are the ones who have actually taken the time, put in the effort and used their brain to query religion and because it is laden with ancient metaphor and allegory, which they call “fairy tale”, conclude God must not exist.

To me it is a faulty conclusion.  Just because mankind stymied any advancement of the articulations about God by making the various religious belief systems the last word about the metaphysical does not mean God (just a word) does not exist.

But at least the atheist does not sit lethargically in a pew and believe “just because” they were told to believe. That’s why I’m not in the least bit surprised that this most recent Pew Forum Survey reveals atheists as being more knowledgeable about religion than all other denomination of “believer”.   The atheist has activated his mind on this topic while many (not all) “believers” inertly accept a pre-packaged set of beliefs and rituals without any thinking on the matter whatsoever.

I’ll say it again -  “I may not agree with the conclusion an atheist draws about God, but at least he has asked enough questions to draw a conclusion.”

If you’d like to test your knowledge of religion you can take shortened version of the survey here.  Let me know how you score.

Share on Facebook

God delivers message.

This trend probably traces back to 9/11 but one could argue that religion was making its way into public life during the rise of the Moral Majority more than twenty years ago.  But the persistent discussion about religion really came to center-stage nine years ago.  At first it seemed like dialogue might serve some greater good, that maybe a sense of understanding would lead to tolerance and maybe, who knows – result in a real shot at peace.  The tone of today suggests otherwise.  We are not gaining understanding of each other’s belief systems we are adding to the mistrust, we are not becoming more tolerant, we are becoming more parochial, we are not closing in on peace we are expanding the confrontation.

When I look at what dogmatic religion has done to our species, I often wonder what God might think about what’s happening in the world today. What would God, Allah, Yahweh, Spirit, (or whatever you call that Entity) say if He were to address us directly.  What if God held a news conference and addressed us in modern language that forced us to override the ancient texts we rely on to guide our behavior and our beliefs?  What if “the word of God” was delivered on videotape for all the world to see and hear and not delivered through mystics of antiquity channeling God?

Yes, I really do wonder about stuff like this – and more so all the time as I see the ever increasing preoccupation with religion in modern society.  We want answers about truth and the worlds predominant systems of belief steadfastly and continuously turn to ancient writings to get the answers.

During the recent ninth anniversary of 9/11  I was reminded of an article I read many years ago in, of all places, The Onion.  (The Onion is a satire on the news that usually has funny and poignant takes on the events of the day.)  As we know by living in a society that still relishes and protects free speech, humor and its first cousin satire, is a powerful way to address serious subjects.  Look at the way in which people like Jon Stewart and Bill Maher increase the political awareness of huge blocks of people simply by cracking wise about current affairs.

It took a long time for anyone to joke about 9/11 and even today I rarely hear comedians joke about it, but The Onion published the following bit of satire two weeks after the events.  It was timely then and considering the tone and topic of discussion of today, it’ worth reading again.

Enjoy.  This is worth reading.

God Angrily Clarifies ‘Don’t Kill’ Rule

SEPTEMBER 26, 2001 |

NEW YORK—Responding to recent events on Earth, God, the omniscient creator-deity worshipped by billions of followers of various faiths for more than 6,000 years, angrily clarified His longtime stance against humans killing each other Monday.

God

“Look, I don’t know, maybe I haven’t made myself completely clear, so for the record, here it is again,” said the Lord, His divine face betraying visible emotion during a press conference near the site of the fallen Twin Towers. “Somehow, people keep coming up with the idea that I want them to kill their neighbor. Well, I don’t. And to be honest, I’m really getting sick and tired of it. Get it straight. Not only do I not want anybody to kill anyone, but I specifically commanded you not to, in really simple terms that anybody ought to be able to understand.”

Worshipped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike, God said His name has been invoked countless times over the centuries as a reason to kill in what He called “an unending cycle of violence.”

“I don’t care how holy somebody claims to be,” God said. “If a person tells you it’s My will that they kill someone, they’re wrong. Got it? I don’t care what religion you are, or who you think your enemy is, here it is one more time: No killing, in My name or anyone else’s, ever again.”

The press conference came as a surprise to humankind, as God rarely intervenes in earthly affairs. As a matter of longstanding policy, He has traditionally left the task of interpreting His message and divine will to clerics, rabbis, priests, imams, and Biblical scholars. Theologians and laymen alike have been given the task of pondering His ineffable mysteries, deciding for themselves what to do as a matter of faith. His decision to manifest on the material plane was motivated by the deep sense of shock, outrage, and sorrow He felt over the Sept. 11 violence carried out in His name, and over its dire potential ramifications around the globe.

“I tried to put it in the simplest possible terms for you people, so you’d get it straight, because I thought it was pretty important,” said God, called Yahweh and Allah respectively in the Judaic and Muslim traditions. “I guess I figured I’d left no real room for confusion after putting it in a four-word sentence with one-syllable words, on the tablets I gave to Moses. How much more clear can I get?”

“But somehow, it all gets twisted around and, next thing you know, somebody’s spouting off some nonsense about, ‘God says I have to kill this guy, God wants me to kill that guy, it’s God’s will,’” God continued. “It’s not God’s will, all right? News flash: ‘God’s will’ equals ‘Don’t murder people.’”

Worse yet, many of the worst violators claim that their actions are justified by passages in the Bible, Torah, and Qur’an.

“To be honest, there’s some contradictory stuff in there, okay?” God said. “So I can see how it could be pretty misleading. I admit it—My bad. I did My best to inspire them, but a lot of imperfect human agents have misinterpreted My message over the millennia. Frankly, much of the material that got in there is dogmatic, doctrinal bullshit. I turn My head for a second and, suddenly, all this stuff about homosexuality gets into Leviticus, and everybody thinks it’s God’s will to kill gays. It absolutely drives Me up the wall.”

God praised the overwhelming majority of His Muslim followers as “wonderful, pious people,” calling the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks rare exceptions.

“This whole medieval concept of the jihad, or holy war, had all but vanished from the Muslim world in, like, the 10th century, and with good reason,” God said. “There’s no such thing as a holy war, only unholy ones. The vast majority of Muslims in this world reject the murderous actions of these radical extremists, just like the vast majority of Christians in America are pissed off over those two bigots on The 700 Club.”

Continued God, “Read the book: ‘Allah is kind, Allah is beautiful, Allah is merciful.’ It goes on and on that way, page after page. But, no, some assholes have to come along and revive this stupid holy-war crap just to further their own hateful agenda. So now, everybody thinks Muslims are all murderous barbarians. Thanks, Taliban: 1,000 years of pan-Islamic cultural progress down the drain.”

God stressed that His remarks were not directed exclusively at Islamic extremists, but rather at anyone whose ideological zealotry overrides his or her ability to comprehend the core message of all world religions.

“I don’t care what faith you are, everybody’s been making this same mistake since the dawn of time,” God said. “The Muslims massacre the Hindus, the Hindus massacre the Muslims. The Buddhists, everybody massacres the Buddhists. The Jews, don’t even get me started on the hardline, right-wing, Meir Kahane-loving Israeli nationalists, man. And the Christians? You people believe in a Messiah who says, ‘Turn the other cheek,’ but you’ve been killing everybody you can get your hands on since the Crusades.”

Growing increasingly wrathful, God continued: “Can’t you people see? What are you, morons? There are a ton of different religious traditions out there, and different cultures worship Me in different ways. But the basic message is always the same: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism… every religious belief system under the sun, they all say you’re supposed to love your neighbors, folks! It’s not that hard a concept to grasp.”

“Why would you think I’d want anything else? Humans don’t need religion or God as an excuse to kill each other—you’ve been doing that without any help from Me since you were freaking apes!” God said. “The whole point of believing in God is to have a higher standard of behavior. How obvious can you get?”

“I’m talking to all of you, here!” continued God, His voice rising to a shout. “Do you hear Me? I don’t want you to kill anybody. I’m against it, across the board. How many times do I have to say it? Don’t kill each other anymore—ever! I’m fucking serious!”

Upon completing His outburst, God fell silent, standing quietly at the podium for several moments. Then, witnesses reported, God’s shoulders began to shake, and He wept.

Share on Facebook

Kind of sophisticated and worldly, no?

Just me being a smartass you say?  That’s fine too because that’s probably the next thing I’d say in describing myself if pressed to go further.

But back to the affiliation thing… Check out the cool ninety-second video; it shows the origin and development of five of the main religions that dominate the world today, when they began and how they spread throughout history.

Why does religion spread in the way you just saw?  Is it a natural function of an idea whose time has come?  Does “Absolute Truth” propel these systems of belief?  Do they spread by the unseen power of God himself?  Does the religious ideals with the most “truth” grow the fastest and the farthest?

Or – Does the one that grows the fastest have the best evangelists, the fastest ponies, the biggest megaphones or the smartest leaders?

Some spread regionally via the human grapevine, from one clan to the next and seem to have been contained by natural geographic borders like Hinduism or Buddhism.  The two largest, Christianity and Islam surpassed the natural containers of their origin and expanded much more prolifically because as part of their respective doctrines there is a call for the faithful to convert the rest of the world to their way of believing.  Muslims and Christians have clashed throughout history at various outposts throughout the world in their separate attempts to convert native populations.

When religious ideas claim God as their source, those ideas take a posture of absolute truth.  Christian and Muslim conservatives use the word “inerrant” when describing the contents of their holy texts.

In•er•rant: adjective.  Incapable of being wrong.

“Inerrancy” as a theological concept is a tad dogmatic or inflexible wouldn’t you agree?  Incapable of being wrong?  Jeez!

Today, we are on the precipice of another potentially major flare up between the two super powers of the theological realm.  The differences have always had to do with what is held as truth contained in the sacred texts that Christians and Muslims hold so dear and this newest potential confrontation is focused exactly on those written words.

A small town Christian fundamentalist pastor named Terry Jones from a tiny and (heretofore) obscure congregation called Dove World Outreach Center is the man holding the torch that could ignite the flames.  His matchstick might simply set a small bonfire in a backwoods town, but his hatred of Islam displayed by burning a pile of Islamic holy books called the Qur’an might ignite a conflagration that will burn a worldwide swathe of destruction.

A look at the website if DWOC in Gainesville, Florida reveals the extreme end of the Christian spectrum that their beliefs contain.    http://www.doveworld.org/

They are an apocalyptic group that believes we are nearing the “end times” and some of their rhetoric suggests they might enjoy taking the initiative in bringing about the holy doomsday events.  They call for their followers to “stand up”, offer ten reason to burn a “Koran”, explain why Islam is of the devil, claim God hates lukewarm churches and so on and so forth – blah, blah blah.

These so-called Christians are extremists.  And most in the civilized world understand the problems in the world today are pretty much lying at the doorstep of such fundamentalist extremism.  Extremists of any religious group that claims to possess the “absolute truth” are dangerous to the world because, to their way of thinking, they operate with the authority and permission of God.  It’s one thing to presume your belief system is singular “truth” and it’s OK to practice in ways of your own choosing, but when a fringe group takes their practice of religion to the level of vilifying, hating and attacking those of a different belief system – well, that’s how atrocities like 9/11 happen in the first place.

The criminal terrorist zealots gave Islam a bad name that it’s still trying to recover from.  This nut job in Gainesville is about to do the same for Christianity.  The rest of the world might not distinguish American Christianity from the ignorance and intolerance such behavior would portray.

If Jones follows through on such a provocative action, we Americans will find ourselves in the ironic position of asking the world to see our Judeo-Christian country by the majority of its citizens and not just a radical fringe group spewing hate and kindling violence.

Burning the Qur’an certainly doesn’t rise to the level of violence and viciousness of the attack on 9/11 but it matches it in stupidity.

Share on Facebook

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?

Share on Facebook

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!!

Share on Facebook

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.

Share on Facebook

“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

Share on Facebook

(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!

Share on Facebook

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.

Share on Facebook