Faith is not just a declaration of the attributes of your God, if that is what your faith is based on, but a system of behaviors devoted to something greater than yourself. Living your faith is not just attending services regularly or mouthing words, but behaving in accordance with its precepts. This is true whether your faith lies in God, Gods, or simply the greater good of mankind.
Zack Nash lives his faith. Zack, a 14 year old freshman at Waterford Union High School, is an amateur golfer of considerable promise. On Aug. 11, he won the boys 13-14 age division at the Milwaukee County Parks Tour Invitational, a tournament for accomplished juniors run by the Wisconsin PGA Section. While talking to his mentor, the club professional, afterwards, he discovered he had violated a rule- he had been carrying one too many clubs. He hadn't used the extra club, but that wasn't the point; the rules said 14 clubs, and there were 15 in his bag. Had he discovered this during play, he could have taken a four stroke penalty and still finished second- but he hadn't; and that meant that he had signed a fraudulent scorecard at the tournament.
There was only one thing to do: he returned the medal and disqualified himself. It would have been easy to rationalize keeping it- it's a picayune rule, and he had gained no advantage from breaking it. But to Zack, you either play by the rules, or you don't. He plays by the rules.
I have no idea what Zack's faith is, whether he believes in God, or Man, or Golf. But his beliefs are devoted to something greater than himself, and he lives them. It's my belief that the world is a better place thereby. The full story is at The Journal Sentinel Online
Showing posts with label Generic Religious. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Generic Religious. Show all posts
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Who does America really hate?
It sometimes happens that a number of seemingly unrelated blog posts, conversations, and forum threads start to form a pattern. The blogosphere has been abuzz lately with the discussion about the Cordoba Initiative mosque/no-it's-a-community-center, with half of them bemoaning America's raging Islamophobia. Then today in Greta Christina's blog, I saw Atheist Meme of the Day: Atheists Experience Discrimination. But then, I've often told Atheist friends- who laughingly agreed- "You think you've got it bad? We Pagans catch flak from Christians and Atheists alike!" But wait a minute, Christians say, what about the secular progressive war on Christians? It seems we all have a persecution complex- but who does America really hate?
I didn't bother Googleing for polls on the subject; for various reasons polls on this sort of thing are notoriously unreliable. But it was Greta's post that gave me an inspiration- some of what she described are hate crimes, and we keep statistics on that. My reasoning was thus: if everybody hated each religion equally, and given that nutjobs are distributed more or less evenly, then people would become victims of hate crimes in approximate proportion to the demographic numbers of their religions. I reasoned that the skew of the numbers between the demographics and the percentages of hate crime victims would give us a hint of how people really feel. It wasn't hard to find both hate crime statistics and demographics by religion for the same year, 2008, and the results are fascinating.
Let's start with the opposite end of the spectrum to test methodology: who does America love? Protestant Christians make up 50.9% of the population, but only 3.6% of the victims of religious bias based crimes; clearly, America loves Protestants, victimizing them at only 1/14th their demographic percentage. America loves Catholics, too, although not as much; they make up 25.1% of the populace and 5.1% of the victims, for a 1/5th rate. And what about Atheists, the inspiration for this exercise? Turns out America kinda likes them; Atheists and Agnostics are 1.6% of the populace, but only 0.8% of the victims, half of what you might expect.
What about Muslims? Muslims make up 0.6% of the populace- but 7.5% of the hate crime victims. That's 12.5 times their demographic share. That makes a Muslim 62.5 times more likely to be a hate crime victim than a Catholic, and a whopping 175 times more likely than a Protestant. That's terrible- but it's not the worst. There's another religion that, judging by the hate crimes Americans commit, is hated far, far more than Islam- can you guess what that is? Go ahead, guess; I'll wait.
*
*
*
Jews comprise 1.2% of the population in the US... and 66.1% of the religious bias based hate crimes victims. A Jew in America is 4.5 times more likely to become a hate crime victim than is a Muslim. And judging by the categories of the crimes, not only do more Americans hate Jews than Muslims, but the hatred runs deeper. In the 2008 numbers for religious bias crimes, we find simple assault matching the demographic; there are twice as many Jews as Muslims, and they suffered twice as many simple assaults: 30 attacks on Muslims, 58 on Jews. But aggravated assault- a much more serious attack- tells a different tale: 5 anti-Islamic attacks, 25 anti-Jewish. And vandalism is even more striking: 30 assaults on Muslims, 742 against Jews. And that's 7 years after 9/11.
I tried to think of a witty summation, but couldn't, so here's the credits instead: religious demographics from TeachingAboutReligion.org, hate crime statistics from the FBI
I didn't bother Googleing for polls on the subject; for various reasons polls on this sort of thing are notoriously unreliable. But it was Greta's post that gave me an inspiration- some of what she described are hate crimes, and we keep statistics on that. My reasoning was thus: if everybody hated each religion equally, and given that nutjobs are distributed more or less evenly, then people would become victims of hate crimes in approximate proportion to the demographic numbers of their religions. I reasoned that the skew of the numbers between the demographics and the percentages of hate crime victims would give us a hint of how people really feel. It wasn't hard to find both hate crime statistics and demographics by religion for the same year, 2008, and the results are fascinating.
Let's start with the opposite end of the spectrum to test methodology: who does America love? Protestant Christians make up 50.9% of the population, but only 3.6% of the victims of religious bias based crimes; clearly, America loves Protestants, victimizing them at only 1/14th their demographic percentage. America loves Catholics, too, although not as much; they make up 25.1% of the populace and 5.1% of the victims, for a 1/5th rate. And what about Atheists, the inspiration for this exercise? Turns out America kinda likes them; Atheists and Agnostics are 1.6% of the populace, but only 0.8% of the victims, half of what you might expect.
What about Muslims? Muslims make up 0.6% of the populace- but 7.5% of the hate crime victims. That's 12.5 times their demographic share. That makes a Muslim 62.5 times more likely to be a hate crime victim than a Catholic, and a whopping 175 times more likely than a Protestant. That's terrible- but it's not the worst. There's another religion that, judging by the hate crimes Americans commit, is hated far, far more than Islam- can you guess what that is? Go ahead, guess; I'll wait.
*
*
*
Jews comprise 1.2% of the population in the US... and 66.1% of the religious bias based hate crimes victims. A Jew in America is 4.5 times more likely to become a hate crime victim than is a Muslim. And judging by the categories of the crimes, not only do more Americans hate Jews than Muslims, but the hatred runs deeper. In the 2008 numbers for religious bias crimes, we find simple assault matching the demographic; there are twice as many Jews as Muslims, and they suffered twice as many simple assaults: 30 attacks on Muslims, 58 on Jews. But aggravated assault- a much more serious attack- tells a different tale: 5 anti-Islamic attacks, 25 anti-Jewish. And vandalism is even more striking: 30 assaults on Muslims, 742 against Jews. And that's 7 years after 9/11.
I tried to think of a witty summation, but couldn't, so here's the credits instead: religious demographics from TeachingAboutReligion.org, hate crime statistics from the FBI
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Two more myths shot down by science.
Last night I saw a PBS documentary about the evolution trial in Pennsylvania a while back, and was thinking about it this morning while reading the news on the internet. I was remembering a line from Inherit The Wind, about science supplanting the pretty poetry of Genesis, when I saw this story: Rare photo of the “end” of the rainbow . There it was, a beautiful sight- but then I realized... it didn't lead to Asgard, and there was no pot of gold.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
In ancient Greece, soil was sacred,
says this article from Discovery News.
"Oct. 7, 2008 -- Greek temples honored specific gods and goddesses, and now new research suggests that even the dirt under such buildings held spiritual significance.
The discovery could help explain why writers like Homer and Plato wrote of "divine soil" and soil that can affect a person's soul. It may also explain how the ancients selected locations for their sacred buildings.
"Temple sites were chosen to honor the personality and aspirations of gods and goddesses, which, in turn, were shaped by the economic basis for their cults," author Gregory Retallack told Discovery News."
This analysis is based on extensive sampling of the soil beneath ancient temples, revealing geological links to the myths and attributes of the Gods the particular temples were dedicated to.
This story got me to wondering... I know a good number of UUs in the blogosphere have been involved in the building of new churches; what criteria did you use in site selection? Just whatever you could get cheap, or was it a special place meaningful to the community? How did you decide where on the plot to place the building? Was the building designed for theological symbolism, or aesthetics, or just good acoustics? I have seen so many different designs, and only rarely ever been able to talk to anyone involved in them.
And what about landscaping, memorial gardens and such? I know that traditionally, western graveyards are generally arranged so the graves face the east. Usually, Christians will tell you that's so they will see the rising sun on resurrection day, but I know the tradition is older than that. From "The Answerbag": "There are more graves that "face" East than any other specific direction, possibly more than face other directions combined. The definition of "face" is open to interpretation, as kanjalid mentions it could depend on which end the head is on. But in many 'stone age' and especially Neanderthal graves the body is laid on its left side, sometimes in a near foetal position, with the head to the north so it is facing east. Bodies have been found from later periods laid on the back, head to the north, with the head turned left or east. A very few have been found with the head south and turned right to the east. It is unknown if this reversal of head direction is significant, but there is little doubt that the face was deliberately turned to the east. ( Talk about the way we have always done it, that is a looong always,)" Was this a consideration in your design?
Saturday, June 14, 2008
A photograph of the soul?
So claims Dr. Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania, according to this story from the St. Petersburg Times. He uses a process called single photon emission computed tomography, or SPECT, to scan the brains of deeply religious people such as monks and nuns while they are praying or meditating, and has discovered unusual functioning of two portions of the brain while they were doing so.
"The frontal lobes got especially busy. They're the part of the brain he calls the "attention area." The meditators had clearly tapped their frontal lobes to focus on their task.
He also saw the thalamus kick in. That's a pea-sized piece of the brain atop the brain stem that, among other things, sends sensory information to the frontal cortex, where much of our heavy thinking happens. Whatever was happening in meditation, the thalamus was making it feel very real.
The surprise was elsewhere, in the parietal lobe, the part of the brain that helps us orient ourselves in relation to things around us. Newberg discovered that the nuns and Buddhists had actually shut down that part of the brain, suspending their senses of space and time. It was then that they entered the peak of their transcendent experiences — altered states of "timelessness and spacelessness."
If religious devotions are a brain function, that may answer the question I raised, Do we choose to believe?
"The frontal lobes got especially busy. They're the part of the brain he calls the "attention area." The meditators had clearly tapped their frontal lobes to focus on their task.
He also saw the thalamus kick in. That's a pea-sized piece of the brain atop the brain stem that, among other things, sends sensory information to the frontal cortex, where much of our heavy thinking happens. Whatever was happening in meditation, the thalamus was making it feel very real.
The surprise was elsewhere, in the parietal lobe, the part of the brain that helps us orient ourselves in relation to things around us. Newberg discovered that the nuns and Buddhists had actually shut down that part of the brain, suspending their senses of space and time. It was then that they entered the peak of their transcendent experiences — altered states of "timelessness and spacelessness."
If religious devotions are a brain function, that may answer the question I raised, Do we choose to believe?
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Is morality genetic?
There is a truly fascinating article in the New York Times magazine, The Moral Instinct , that deals with the difference between morality and social customs, whether a sense of basic morality is genetic, how one tells whether a given issue is one of morality or custom, and much more. Why can't we hear more of this sort of thing from the pulpit instead?
Monday, September 17, 2007
Intellectual rigor?
When debating the existence of God, the illogic of theism is always one of the first things to be brought up. Science, which has given us all the modern wonders is completely logical, internally consistent, and deals only with reality as we see it, not as we imagine it; faith, in the words of our own Davidson Loehr , (who is much, much kinder than many famous atheists), “lacks intellectual rigor”. Any discussion of the supernatural- that which is indefinable, undetectable, unprovable, and yet can still affect the real world- is simply irrational. To actually have theological debates- the classic (though apocryphal) example is “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin”- is just mental masturbation.
Or so it seemed for decades, until the Hubble Space Telescope was orbited. We could now see regions of space we had only imagined before... and that revealed a problem. The real Universe was not arranged the way our infallible math- the logic that traced reality and existence from the Big Bang to the present day- said it should be. The distribution of Galaxies was all wrong; the real Universe had betrayed us. How could this be reconciled?
A solution was found- “Dark Matter”. Dark Matter has gravity, we decided, so it can account for the flawed distribution of matter, but has no other attributes; we can’t see it, it doesn’t block our view of anything else, it doesn’t register on instruments, and in fact we can’t prove it exists at all- we only infer it must be there to make our theology- oh, excuse me!- astronomy work out right. How could I possibly have made a slip like that; it has much more intellectual rigor to it than theism!
Of course, as we are so certain dark matter exists, we can describe it perfectly. Dark Matter is cold, being made of slow, dense neutralinos; it sparked the creation of stars and galaxies in clumps, or “litters“... No, wait, it’s warm and zippy, it formed stars like pearls on a string... some of the debate can be seen here . That’s a lot of stew to make from meat that’s only inferred- I wonder how much Dark Matter will fit on the head of a pin?
But the problematical distribution of matter wasn’t the only shock Hubble had for them; the velocity of wandering stars and galaxies was off, too- way off. They are just moving too fast for the available energy to explain; there must be... wait for it... Dark Energy! Dark Energy is, yes, energy that shines on everything except the instruments that might detect it. It’s undetectable and unproveable, but it’s the only thing that makes the math work out right, so it must exist. Along with the other undetectable stuff. In fact, they might be one and the same!
Of course, these hypothetical constructs must only affect our understanding of the Universe around the edges, right? I mean, we couldn’t base all our understanding of physics on things that are, for all intents and purposes, supernatural, could we? Uh... “Dark matter and dark energy are two of the most vexing problems in science today. Together they dominate the universe, comprising some 96 percent of all mass and energy.”, according to Robert Roy Britt, senior science writer at Space.com . So evidently we have a firm understanding of... 4% of the Universe.
Or do we? Matter is made of atoms, which are composed of subatomic particles such as Protons, Neutrons, etc. And those particles can be broken into yet smaller particles... and in this world, normal physics no longer works; a new math called “Quantum Physics” had to be invented to explain it. The smallest of the theoretical particles are called strings , at 10 -35th meters. How small is that? If an electron were the size of our solar system, a string would be the size of a tree... strings have 10, or maybe 11, or possibly 26 dimensions. Yes, yes, we have no proof or even evidence of more than three physical dimensions, but it makes the math work out right; work with us! Why do I bring these up? because “Exotic but widely popular "string theories" of the universe explain dark matter as "supersymmetric particles" that bear no relationship to dark energy,” says Mario Livio, senior scientist at the Space Telescope Science Institute, here .
My point? Only that the layman whose knowledge of science comes from the odd course taken to fulfill the requirements of a liberal arts degree are the ones most likely to believe that science has all the answers, and that it lacks “intellectual rigor” to believe the unproven and unproveable, and then ridicule others for believing something else that’s unproven and unproveable. Theists have no corner on the “something must be out there” market, and science has no corner on truth.
Or so it seemed for decades, until the Hubble Space Telescope was orbited. We could now see regions of space we had only imagined before... and that revealed a problem. The real Universe was not arranged the way our infallible math- the logic that traced reality and existence from the Big Bang to the present day- said it should be. The distribution of Galaxies was all wrong; the real Universe had betrayed us. How could this be reconciled?
A solution was found- “Dark Matter”. Dark Matter has gravity, we decided, so it can account for the flawed distribution of matter, but has no other attributes; we can’t see it, it doesn’t block our view of anything else, it doesn’t register on instruments, and in fact we can’t prove it exists at all- we only infer it must be there to make our theology- oh, excuse me!- astronomy work out right. How could I possibly have made a slip like that; it has much more intellectual rigor to it than theism!
Of course, as we are so certain dark matter exists, we can describe it perfectly. Dark Matter is cold, being made of slow, dense neutralinos; it sparked the creation of stars and galaxies in clumps, or “litters“... No, wait, it’s warm and zippy, it formed stars like pearls on a string... some of the debate can be seen here . That’s a lot of stew to make from meat that’s only inferred- I wonder how much Dark Matter will fit on the head of a pin?
But the problematical distribution of matter wasn’t the only shock Hubble had for them; the velocity of wandering stars and galaxies was off, too- way off. They are just moving too fast for the available energy to explain; there must be... wait for it... Dark Energy! Dark Energy is, yes, energy that shines on everything except the instruments that might detect it. It’s undetectable and unproveable, but it’s the only thing that makes the math work out right, so it must exist. Along with the other undetectable stuff. In fact, they might be one and the same!
Of course, these hypothetical constructs must only affect our understanding of the Universe around the edges, right? I mean, we couldn’t base all our understanding of physics on things that are, for all intents and purposes, supernatural, could we? Uh... “Dark matter and dark energy are two of the most vexing problems in science today. Together they dominate the universe, comprising some 96 percent of all mass and energy.”, according to Robert Roy Britt, senior science writer at Space.com . So evidently we have a firm understanding of... 4% of the Universe.
Or do we? Matter is made of atoms, which are composed of subatomic particles such as Protons, Neutrons, etc. And those particles can be broken into yet smaller particles... and in this world, normal physics no longer works; a new math called “Quantum Physics” had to be invented to explain it. The smallest of the theoretical particles are called strings , at 10 -35th meters. How small is that? If an electron were the size of our solar system, a string would be the size of a tree... strings have 10, or maybe 11, or possibly 26 dimensions. Yes, yes, we have no proof or even evidence of more than three physical dimensions, but it makes the math work out right; work with us! Why do I bring these up? because “Exotic but widely popular "string theories" of the universe explain dark matter as "supersymmetric particles" that bear no relationship to dark energy,” says Mario Livio, senior scientist at the Space Telescope Science Institute, here .
My point? Only that the layman whose knowledge of science comes from the odd course taken to fulfill the requirements of a liberal arts degree are the ones most likely to believe that science has all the answers, and that it lacks “intellectual rigor” to believe the unproven and unproveable, and then ridicule others for believing something else that’s unproven and unproveable. Theists have no corner on the “something must be out there” market, and science has no corner on truth.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Sometimes, neither science nor religion has the answer
In the debates of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution, those favoring creation love to find anomalies around the edges of evolution to use as a wedge, to pick it apart- Hell, even though I believe in Evolution as to our physical bodies, I’ve done some of that picking myself . And, of course, those that favor Evolution can easily do the same thing. But sometimes a given anomaly cannot be used by either side; it is a two-edged sword. I’ve been contemplating the question of pain- and cannot find an answer in either philosophy.
Religion cannot answer why we feel pain from disease and internal problems that are not related to behavior- cancer and the like. Some try to say that it’s a punishment, but that won’t wash; as the song says, “everybody hurts, sometimes”, and everybody dies- if it were a punishment, it would imply that nobody is ever saved. Some say it’s a test- but if God knows all, why does he need to test our reactions to cancer? And even if there were some value in revealing our reaction, how does that explain the suffering of animals who cannot by nature sin? In the end, all religions have to fall back to “It’s a mystery.”
But science is no better at explaining such pain. Yes, there is considerable evolutionary advantage to pain from external sources- “Once bitten, twice shy”, but what conceivable evolutionary advantage is there to pain from ailments that are not behaviorally related? Sometimes even a relatively minor internal ailment can cause debilitating pain that renders one non-functional; that’s actually contra-survival. Other diseases that will eventually be terminal, but would allow months or years of useful parenting or reproduction have those years cut short by debilitating pain- again, that’s contra-survival. Even non-fatal ailments can have pain that is inexplicable by evolution, because we heal much faster when carrying out our normal activities, rather than staying bed ridden- and the pain can prevent that from happening... again, a survival disadvantage. Evolution has given us bodies with little or no nerve endings in various places- try pinching the point of your elbow, for example- why was it necessary for us to feel such agony over internal diseases we have no control over?
Doctors, Priests, Philosophers, in three part harmony: “It’s a mystery.”
Religion cannot answer why we feel pain from disease and internal problems that are not related to behavior- cancer and the like. Some try to say that it’s a punishment, but that won’t wash; as the song says, “everybody hurts, sometimes”, and everybody dies- if it were a punishment, it would imply that nobody is ever saved. Some say it’s a test- but if God knows all, why does he need to test our reactions to cancer? And even if there were some value in revealing our reaction, how does that explain the suffering of animals who cannot by nature sin? In the end, all religions have to fall back to “It’s a mystery.”
But science is no better at explaining such pain. Yes, there is considerable evolutionary advantage to pain from external sources- “Once bitten, twice shy”, but what conceivable evolutionary advantage is there to pain from ailments that are not behaviorally related? Sometimes even a relatively minor internal ailment can cause debilitating pain that renders one non-functional; that’s actually contra-survival. Other diseases that will eventually be terminal, but would allow months or years of useful parenting or reproduction have those years cut short by debilitating pain- again, that’s contra-survival. Even non-fatal ailments can have pain that is inexplicable by evolution, because we heal much faster when carrying out our normal activities, rather than staying bed ridden- and the pain can prevent that from happening... again, a survival disadvantage. Evolution has given us bodies with little or no nerve endings in various places- try pinching the point of your elbow, for example- why was it necessary for us to feel such agony over internal diseases we have no control over?
Doctors, Priests, Philosophers, in three part harmony: “It’s a mystery.”
Friday, April 13, 2007
A Military Chaplain Repents
is the title of this interview
with Rev. George B. Zabelka (deceased), former chaplain of the 509th Composite Group- the bomber squadron that dropped the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (Hat tip to The Witches‘ Voice ) This interview is an absolute must read for anyone considering the question of whether the UUA should become a peace church- no matter which side you’re on.
with Rev. George B. Zabelka (deceased), former chaplain of the 509th Composite Group- the bomber squadron that dropped the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (Hat tip to The Witches‘ Voice ) This interview is an absolute must read for anyone considering the question of whether the UUA should become a peace church- no matter which side you’re on.
Monday, April 09, 2007
New belief quiz
QuizFarm has a new belief quiz that is interesting, but flawed in my opinion. Try it before you read my score below, which I’ll compare with my Belief-O-Matic results. I’m interested to see if you get the same surprising results I did.
*
*
*
*
*
Ok, first my Belief-O-Matic results:
1. NeoPagan, 100%
2. New Age, 100%
3. Unitarian Universalism, 98%
4. Liberal Quaker, 97%
5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestant, 91%
Considering that I admit to being a NeoPagan and a pledge-paying member of a UU congregation, I’d say they were reasonably close.
The QuizFarm results:
You scored as Islam.
Your beliefs are most similar to those of Islam. Do more research on Islam and possibly consider taking the shahadah and officially becoming a Muslim, if you aren't already. Despite the actions of some - who go against the teachings of Islam - Islam is a religion of peace; the word "islam" means "peace through submission to God." "Muslim" means "one who submits to God." Islam is the third of the three Abrahamic faiths, and it shares much with Judaism in Christianity; its differences are the acceptance of Muhammad as the last and final prophet, and the oneness of God - in other words, that Jesus, though he was a revered prophet, was not in fact God, and only one God exists. Apparently the Taliban could not read (though their name means "students"), because the Qur'an states that men and women are equal as believers, and that all believers should be educated and seek knowledge. Modesty in dress and behavior is required in Islam for both men and women to preserve the values of society and move the emphasis from superificial appearance to intelligence, knowledge, and God.
Islam 83%
Satanism 79%
agnosticism 67%
Paganism 63%
Hinduism 58%
Buddhism 50%
Judaism 46%
Christianity 29%
atheism 8%
Ok, I can understand the high Satanism score- Satanists are quite Libertarian, as am I (although to my mind, they take the next step to full libertine). But Islam 83%? Surely the author of this test must be very niave about what is and isn’t tolerated within the faith of Islam. Yeah, yeah, religion of peace, got it... but would the average Imam take it peacefully if he knew that someone in his flock who professed to be Muslim was also a panentheist, an animist, and practiced religious witchcraft? If I have a reader more knowlegeable of Islam than I, (which wouldn’t take much, I’ll admit), perhaps they could tell me if that would be within the acceptable range of practices? Can Islam be syncretic with Wicca?
*
*
*
*
*
Ok, first my Belief-O-Matic results:
1. NeoPagan, 100%
2. New Age, 100%
3. Unitarian Universalism, 98%
4. Liberal Quaker, 97%
5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestant, 91%
Considering that I admit to being a NeoPagan and a pledge-paying member of a UU congregation, I’d say they were reasonably close.
The QuizFarm results:
You scored as Islam.
Your beliefs are most similar to those of Islam. Do more research on Islam and possibly consider taking the shahadah and officially becoming a Muslim, if you aren't already. Despite the actions of some - who go against the teachings of Islam - Islam is a religion of peace; the word "islam" means "peace through submission to God." "Muslim" means "one who submits to God." Islam is the third of the three Abrahamic faiths, and it shares much with Judaism in Christianity; its differences are the acceptance of Muhammad as the last and final prophet, and the oneness of God - in other words, that Jesus, though he was a revered prophet, was not in fact God, and only one God exists. Apparently the Taliban could not read (though their name means "students"), because the Qur'an states that men and women are equal as believers, and that all believers should be educated and seek knowledge. Modesty in dress and behavior is required in Islam for both men and women to preserve the values of society and move the emphasis from superificial appearance to intelligence, knowledge, and God.
Islam 83%
Satanism 79%
agnosticism 67%
Paganism 63%
Hinduism 58%
Buddhism 50%
Judaism 46%
Christianity 29%
atheism 8%
Ok, I can understand the high Satanism score- Satanists are quite Libertarian, as am I (although to my mind, they take the next step to full libertine). But Islam 83%? Surely the author of this test must be very niave about what is and isn’t tolerated within the faith of Islam. Yeah, yeah, religion of peace, got it... but would the average Imam take it peacefully if he knew that someone in his flock who professed to be Muslim was also a panentheist, an animist, and practiced religious witchcraft? If I have a reader more knowlegeable of Islam than I, (which wouldn’t take much, I’ll admit), perhaps they could tell me if that would be within the acceptable range of practices? Can Islam be syncretic with Wicca?
Saturday, March 31, 2007
A new fundamentalism
There’s an interesting article in the International Herald Tribune, A new fundamentalism? Some decry strident tone of fellow atheists . Reasonable atheists are starting to challenge the vicious, insulting language of the branch of atheism more correctly described as “anti-theism”, currently led by men such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. “BOSTON: Atheists are under attack these days for being too militant, for not just disbelieving in religious faith but for trying to eradicate it. And who is leveling these accusations? Other atheists, it turns out.” And none too soon, say I.
While Greg Epstein, who holds the partially endowed post of humanist chaplain at Harvard University, and Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist E.O. Wilson decry the language of the "atheist fundamentalists", there are attempts to put a decent spin on the nasty habits of Harris and Dawkins, such as the statement in the article that “His (Dawkins) attempt to win converts is clear in "The God Delusion," when he writes of his hope that "religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." I don’t see how anyone can believe that for a split second; it’s quite clearly an attempt to deflect justified anger- when, in all of human history, has anyone ever gained a convert by saying “Your God is ‘a psychotic delinquent’, your insanity is destroying the world, and teaching your faith to your children is worse than sexually molesting them.” Dawkins cannot pretend that that is the sort of rhetoric one uses to persuade people.
Sam Harris, of course, sees things differently. “Harris, author of "Letter to a Christian Nation," sees the disagreement as overblown... Harris also rejected the term "atheist fundamentalist," calling it "a silly play upon words." Sorry, Sam, but the term is fully justified. You admit to “intellectual intolerance”, saying "We do not jail people for being stupid, but we do stop listening to them after a while." Any statement about God that is stated as known fact is a religious statement, even if that statement is “He doesn’t exist”; you, Sam, are a religious fundamentalist, and a bigot to boot. There is no virtue in expressing contempt for your fellow man.
While Greg Epstein, who holds the partially endowed post of humanist chaplain at Harvard University, and Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist E.O. Wilson decry the language of the "atheist fundamentalists", there are attempts to put a decent spin on the nasty habits of Harris and Dawkins, such as the statement in the article that “His (Dawkins) attempt to win converts is clear in "The God Delusion," when he writes of his hope that "religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." I don’t see how anyone can believe that for a split second; it’s quite clearly an attempt to deflect justified anger- when, in all of human history, has anyone ever gained a convert by saying “Your God is ‘a psychotic delinquent’, your insanity is destroying the world, and teaching your faith to your children is worse than sexually molesting them.” Dawkins cannot pretend that that is the sort of rhetoric one uses to persuade people.
Sam Harris, of course, sees things differently. “Harris, author of "Letter to a Christian Nation," sees the disagreement as overblown... Harris also rejected the term "atheist fundamentalist," calling it "a silly play upon words." Sorry, Sam, but the term is fully justified. You admit to “intellectual intolerance”, saying "We do not jail people for being stupid, but we do stop listening to them after a while." Any statement about God that is stated as known fact is a religious statement, even if that statement is “He doesn’t exist”; you, Sam, are a religious fundamentalist, and a bigot to boot. There is no virtue in expressing contempt for your fellow man.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
For UUs living outside New Orleans,
This is Shrove Tuesday, also known as Mardi Gras. I said it that way because while most Protestant denominations pay scant attention to Lent and Mardi Gras, it seems that many UUs have taken a step beyond inattention to cultural illiteracy on the subject- which I think is a shame.
I’ve been thinking about this since doing coffee hour Sunday, with our service group, The Channing Club. When we do coffee hour, we like to decorate the table holding the cream, sugar, and snacks. This time we did a Mardi Gras theme, and I wore the green, purple, and yellow jester’s hat I picked up in New Orleans. A number of people asked why the hat, and I usually smiled and answered “Just confirming what everyone always suspected about me.” But there were a surprising number who actually hadn’t a clue about Mardi Gras. “Oh, what, is that this weekend?” “Well, Tuesday is technically Mardi Gras, but it’s actually the end of the whole Carnival season.” “Really!”
It surprised me how many knew how little about Mardi Gras, even to the point about not knowing about its connection to Lent. Of course, there wasn’t time while serving coffee for lectures on the subject, nor is it my place to do so. But a lot of Protestant denominations are rethinking their position on Lent, thinking they may have been hasty ditching it along with other Catholic practices in the schism, that it may have been one of the babies in the bathwater- and I think they may be right, and that it wouldn’t hurt we UUs to take another look at it.
Those who know Lent only from childhood Catholic friends who had to give up chocolate or gum or comic books for a month are unaware of the valuable symbolism involved. Lent commemorates Jesus' first step into his ministry- he spent forty days in the wilderness praying, fasting, learning to handle doubts and temptations. Those who practice Lent do so because they are aware that whether they like it or not, their lives too are a ministry; that the world will judge Christianity by the actions of Christians. The idea is to spend forty days out of the year in spiritual contemplation, practicing and testing your discipline and devotion.
This seems to me to be an excellent practice for UUs to adopt. It’s non-denominational; Jesus didn’t invent the practice- the forty day trial is a recurring theme in the Bible. For example, Moses stayed on the Mountain of God forty days (Exodus 24:18 and 34:28), Elijah traveled forty days before he reached the cave where he had his vision (1 Kings 19:8), Nineveh was given forty days to repent (Jonah 3:4). Thus, a UU Lent would include a tradition that Jews and Muslims could share as well, and excludes no one- though a Pagan, the Divine knows I could certainly use periods of discipline and contemplation. Even some atheists may benefit from a little introspection. I think if carefully thought out, a UU Lent could be a useful and unifying practice for us.
I’ve been thinking about this since doing coffee hour Sunday, with our service group, The Channing Club. When we do coffee hour, we like to decorate the table holding the cream, sugar, and snacks. This time we did a Mardi Gras theme, and I wore the green, purple, and yellow jester’s hat I picked up in New Orleans. A number of people asked why the hat, and I usually smiled and answered “Just confirming what everyone always suspected about me.” But there were a surprising number who actually hadn’t a clue about Mardi Gras. “Oh, what, is that this weekend?” “Well, Tuesday is technically Mardi Gras, but it’s actually the end of the whole Carnival season.” “Really!”
It surprised me how many knew how little about Mardi Gras, even to the point about not knowing about its connection to Lent. Of course, there wasn’t time while serving coffee for lectures on the subject, nor is it my place to do so. But a lot of Protestant denominations are rethinking their position on Lent, thinking they may have been hasty ditching it along with other Catholic practices in the schism, that it may have been one of the babies in the bathwater- and I think they may be right, and that it wouldn’t hurt we UUs to take another look at it.
Those who know Lent only from childhood Catholic friends who had to give up chocolate or gum or comic books for a month are unaware of the valuable symbolism involved. Lent commemorates Jesus' first step into his ministry- he spent forty days in the wilderness praying, fasting, learning to handle doubts and temptations. Those who practice Lent do so because they are aware that whether they like it or not, their lives too are a ministry; that the world will judge Christianity by the actions of Christians. The idea is to spend forty days out of the year in spiritual contemplation, practicing and testing your discipline and devotion.
This seems to me to be an excellent practice for UUs to adopt. It’s non-denominational; Jesus didn’t invent the practice- the forty day trial is a recurring theme in the Bible. For example, Moses stayed on the Mountain of God forty days (Exodus 24:18 and 34:28), Elijah traveled forty days before he reached the cave where he had his vision (1 Kings 19:8), Nineveh was given forty days to repent (Jonah 3:4). Thus, a UU Lent would include a tradition that Jews and Muslims could share as well, and excludes no one- though a Pagan, the Divine knows I could certainly use periods of discipline and contemplation. Even some atheists may benefit from a little introspection. I think if carefully thought out, a UU Lent could be a useful and unifying practice for us.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Do we choose to believe?
What is belief? There are many definitions, but the one that covers more uses of the word than any other I am aware of is the mental acceptance of the truth or factuality of a claim. The “claim” can be of any nature- a statement, an assumption, even the evidence of your senses- “I can’t believe my eyes.” Many attempt to make a distinction between what we know and what we believe, but this is a false distinction; as individuals, we have no source of information that can be trusted as absolute objective fact, not even our senses. As individuals, we live in a subjective world, a mental model that we hope is a close match to the objective world.
Belief is how we construct that mental model, and it is arrived at in many ways. We can largely trust our senses, but not completely; as Scrooge said to Marley, “a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheats.” Even when operating in perfect order, our sense are still not adequate to determine fact, as they are subject to our perception- was that two faces, or a vase? Was that a bird or a bat- or a meaningless ink blot? Authority is another way we construct the model- but of course we must realize that those authorities are also fallible. Logic is another method, but logic has its limitations as well, and we cannot predict when a new discovery will upset the old rules. Belief is the weighing of all these factors- largely unconsciously- and assigning a level of trust to each claim.
What sorts of proofs and evidence we trust most is a function of our personality types. Some trust authority to a much higher degree than others- when faced with that old question, “Who you gonna believe- me, or your lying eyes?”, the answer would be, “You.” Some trust past experiences highly- how highly can be demonstrated by an anecdote I heard at a seminar. The speaker was an author, a blond Caucasian woman, who had been partly raised in China and so spoke several dialects like a native. She said that quite often she would ask a local something, and be told “I don’t speak English”- the local having been so accustomed to the “fact” that Westerners don’t/can’t learn Chinese that it didn’t sink in that she had addressed them in Chinese!
Some trust logic so highly that they feel no need to test a conclusion logically arrived at. This is why for centuries tomatoes were believed poisonous in Western Europe; the plant is a close relative of the Deadly Nightshade, and tasting your fingertips after handling the leaves and stems will tell you they contain some of the same toxins. Q.E.D.! When two or mores types of evidence agree, belief in the conclusion is strong indeed. It only makes sense that heavy objects fall faster than light objects; look, a rock falls faster than a feather! This was so convincing that it was believed for thousands of years.
What controls how our minds balance the different types of evidence? What makes a person prize logic so highly that he writes off his own powerful emotional experiences, as Scrooge did, as, “an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato.” What makes another trust authority so highly that if his reading of the Bible led him to believe there was an invisible bridge across the Grand Canyon, he would take the leap of faith and step out upon that bridge? What part does education play in assigning values to evidence, what part experience- and what part genetics?
I look at my own experience. Though raised in a devout atmosphere, at no time did the Bible stories seem any more real to me than Greek myths. I remember quite clearly, my age in single digits, lying awake at night wondering what was wrong with me that I couldn’t believe. Surely, at that age, that came from within- believe me when I say that fifty years ago in Indiana grade school children were NOT taught to question God or Christianity! On the other hand, despite years of trying on atheism- back when I bought into the false choice of either Jehovah or nothing- I could never accept that, either. Even though I share with Richard Dawkins a high I.Q., a technical education, and a tendency toward linear thinking, I cannot deny the Divinity my heart knows exists.
Is it possible that we can no more choose how we believe than we choose our sexuality?
Belief is how we construct that mental model, and it is arrived at in many ways. We can largely trust our senses, but not completely; as Scrooge said to Marley, “a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheats.” Even when operating in perfect order, our sense are still not adequate to determine fact, as they are subject to our perception- was that two faces, or a vase? Was that a bird or a bat- or a meaningless ink blot? Authority is another way we construct the model- but of course we must realize that those authorities are also fallible. Logic is another method, but logic has its limitations as well, and we cannot predict when a new discovery will upset the old rules. Belief is the weighing of all these factors- largely unconsciously- and assigning a level of trust to each claim.
What sorts of proofs and evidence we trust most is a function of our personality types. Some trust authority to a much higher degree than others- when faced with that old question, “Who you gonna believe- me, or your lying eyes?”, the answer would be, “You.” Some trust past experiences highly- how highly can be demonstrated by an anecdote I heard at a seminar. The speaker was an author, a blond Caucasian woman, who had been partly raised in China and so spoke several dialects like a native. She said that quite often she would ask a local something, and be told “I don’t speak English”- the local having been so accustomed to the “fact” that Westerners don’t/can’t learn Chinese that it didn’t sink in that she had addressed them in Chinese!
Some trust logic so highly that they feel no need to test a conclusion logically arrived at. This is why for centuries tomatoes were believed poisonous in Western Europe; the plant is a close relative of the Deadly Nightshade, and tasting your fingertips after handling the leaves and stems will tell you they contain some of the same toxins. Q.E.D.! When two or mores types of evidence agree, belief in the conclusion is strong indeed. It only makes sense that heavy objects fall faster than light objects; look, a rock falls faster than a feather! This was so convincing that it was believed for thousands of years.
What controls how our minds balance the different types of evidence? What makes a person prize logic so highly that he writes off his own powerful emotional experiences, as Scrooge did, as, “an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato.” What makes another trust authority so highly that if his reading of the Bible led him to believe there was an invisible bridge across the Grand Canyon, he would take the leap of faith and step out upon that bridge? What part does education play in assigning values to evidence, what part experience- and what part genetics?
I look at my own experience. Though raised in a devout atmosphere, at no time did the Bible stories seem any more real to me than Greek myths. I remember quite clearly, my age in single digits, lying awake at night wondering what was wrong with me that I couldn’t believe. Surely, at that age, that came from within- believe me when I say that fifty years ago in Indiana grade school children were NOT taught to question God or Christianity! On the other hand, despite years of trying on atheism- back when I bought into the false choice of either Jehovah or nothing- I could never accept that, either. Even though I share with Richard Dawkins a high I.Q., a technical education, and a tendency toward linear thinking, I cannot deny the Divinity my heart knows exists.
Is it possible that we can no more choose how we believe than we choose our sexuality?
Friday, January 05, 2007
Five Theological Questions Meme
In her Friday 1/05 entry, Ms Kitty lists Five Theological Questions her mentor had asked. It brought back a lot of memories for me- when I had my first crisis of faith some 37 years ago, I began an intensive philosophy/religion search. In the course of that search, I ran across a number of similar lists, some ancient, some modern, and so these are things I have pondered many times over many years. Although my answer have varied over the years, and may do so again for all I know, I do have a current set of answers, and so I’m going to treat her questions as a meme.
1. Who am I and what is my purpose (the question of Being)?
I began as a not quite blank slate upon which much was written and much was asked. I did not frame the questions, but I am responsible for my answers. I am the total of all my decisions to date. One of those decisions was my purpose: to leave this world in a better shape than I found it. That means, at minimum, to follow the moral code I have adopted, one based on the principal of least harm. What more it may mean I’m still exploring.
2. What must I do to be made whole (the question of Salvation)?
I do not accept the basis of the question. I do not believe in Original Sin; we are born perfect, ready for heaven. When we sin, we are writing for ourselves a record that will be very painful to read when we achieve enlightenment- but that is our pain, self imposed, a pain that in our better moments we will embrace to aid our growth, like the pain involved removing a splinter. There is nothing else to be “saved” from.
3. Who or what is in charge (the question of God)?
There is a big and a small component to this. The small component is my life; I am in charge of that. Sure, there are times when I’d like to palm off the responsibility of making decisions to someone else... but it’s my duty, and I cannot give it to someone else even if I wanted to- because even that act is itself a decision, a decision to shirk my duty. Even to do nothing at all is a decision to accept another’s decision.
The big component is the world, and no one is in charge of that. The way in which we are made in God’s image is that we, too, have the power to create, the spark of unpredictability. God does not cause bad things to happen to good people; we do, by working at cross purposes. If mankind ever united in a cause, then that collective decision would be in charge... until then, no one is.
4. How do I know what I know (the question of Authority)?
Small surprise as a Unitarian but first I drip what I know through the filter of reason and logic. But I also know that logic often fails us, as I discuss here . Then it becomes time to ask your gut. Does my soul know this to be true, no matter what my mind says? Am I trying to argue myself out of what I know is right?
As to Authority... well, this may sound arrogant, but I accept no authority outside myself for the truly important questions of life. I’ll listen for wisdom, listen to proffered advice- but I regard no other mortal to be an authority on my soul.
5. And What does my death mean (the question of Time)?
This is something I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about. One reality at a time is my motto. I have faith that if I make myself truly worthy of this world, I have no need to fear what I find in the next one.
Tag: anyone who has answers ready!
1. Who am I and what is my purpose (the question of Being)?
I began as a not quite blank slate upon which much was written and much was asked. I did not frame the questions, but I am responsible for my answers. I am the total of all my decisions to date. One of those decisions was my purpose: to leave this world in a better shape than I found it. That means, at minimum, to follow the moral code I have adopted, one based on the principal of least harm. What more it may mean I’m still exploring.
2. What must I do to be made whole (the question of Salvation)?
I do not accept the basis of the question. I do not believe in Original Sin; we are born perfect, ready for heaven. When we sin, we are writing for ourselves a record that will be very painful to read when we achieve enlightenment- but that is our pain, self imposed, a pain that in our better moments we will embrace to aid our growth, like the pain involved removing a splinter. There is nothing else to be “saved” from.
3. Who or what is in charge (the question of God)?
There is a big and a small component to this. The small component is my life; I am in charge of that. Sure, there are times when I’d like to palm off the responsibility of making decisions to someone else... but it’s my duty, and I cannot give it to someone else even if I wanted to- because even that act is itself a decision, a decision to shirk my duty. Even to do nothing at all is a decision to accept another’s decision.
The big component is the world, and no one is in charge of that. The way in which we are made in God’s image is that we, too, have the power to create, the spark of unpredictability. God does not cause bad things to happen to good people; we do, by working at cross purposes. If mankind ever united in a cause, then that collective decision would be in charge... until then, no one is.
4. How do I know what I know (the question of Authority)?
Small surprise as a Unitarian but first I drip what I know through the filter of reason and logic. But I also know that logic often fails us, as I discuss here . Then it becomes time to ask your gut. Does my soul know this to be true, no matter what my mind says? Am I trying to argue myself out of what I know is right?
As to Authority... well, this may sound arrogant, but I accept no authority outside myself for the truly important questions of life. I’ll listen for wisdom, listen to proffered advice- but I regard no other mortal to be an authority on my soul.
5. And What does my death mean (the question of Time)?
This is something I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about. One reality at a time is my motto. I have faith that if I make myself truly worthy of this world, I have no need to fear what I find in the next one.
Tag: anyone who has answers ready!
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Nice quote
"When I was told that my lost pearl necklace had been turned in, my first thought was that I must be living right. It occured to me later that the person who found my necklace and turned it in was the one who was living right."
Thursday, November 02, 2006
The best explanation
of the difference between Theists, Atheists, and Mystics I’ve ever seen. Lots of other cool stuff there, too.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Reason in religion
I number of thoughts ran through my head while preparing for my presentation on Paganism in America for our small groups meeting yesterday. I’m frequently asked how I can believe that stuff, when I’m otherwise so rational... which reminded me of Spinoza, who laid out his philosophy as theorems and proofs, like geometry class... which reminded me of an incident in high school that can help explain “how I can believe that stuff.”
There’s a classic theorem algebra teachers spring on a class that’s getting cocky (which I have to admit we were, hard as that may be to believe), that proves that two equals one. The obvious assignment is to identify the erroneous step. The catch is that there is no error- when you examine one step at a time. It’s an exercise in seeing the big picture; you’re supposed to realize that one step creates a situation in which another step, which would ordinarily be perfectly valid, is rendered indeterminate. Most of the class did not catch it.
But my point is not the math skills of my classmates- the important point is that despite their finding no error in the logic, none of them were convinced that two equals one. Their intuition was that the conclusion of flawless logic was still wrong. When you look at the history of science, it’s a continuous story of not understanding where your logic breaks down, and taking an intuitive leap instead. Socrates believed that heavy objects fall faster than light ones- and why shouldn’t he? A rock does indeed fall faster than a feather; the technology of the day had not produced conditions which would belie that conclusion. Galileo realized that air resistance skewed the results, but his figures broke down when artillerymen started wondering why doubling the charge of gunpowder didn’t double the speed of the cannonball- they had come up against the totally unexpected sound barrier. Newton’s physics were so convincing that even after Hiroshima there were scientists who said it just couldn’t be- it violated the laws of the conservation of energy. And even Einstein’s logic couldn’t explain the quantum world- and now some of the proponents of string theory are calling into question the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe.
Reason is our most important tool in understanding our world- but it is not our only tool. Sometimes, it is not even the right tool... sometimes, a transcendent leap is required; linear logic is no longer capable of explaining what is going on. Two does not equal one. The human heart is one such situation- and that’s how I can believe all that stuff.
There’s a classic theorem algebra teachers spring on a class that’s getting cocky (which I have to admit we were, hard as that may be to believe), that proves that two equals one. The obvious assignment is to identify the erroneous step. The catch is that there is no error- when you examine one step at a time. It’s an exercise in seeing the big picture; you’re supposed to realize that one step creates a situation in which another step, which would ordinarily be perfectly valid, is rendered indeterminate. Most of the class did not catch it.
But my point is not the math skills of my classmates- the important point is that despite their finding no error in the logic, none of them were convinced that two equals one. Their intuition was that the conclusion of flawless logic was still wrong. When you look at the history of science, it’s a continuous story of not understanding where your logic breaks down, and taking an intuitive leap instead. Socrates believed that heavy objects fall faster than light ones- and why shouldn’t he? A rock does indeed fall faster than a feather; the technology of the day had not produced conditions which would belie that conclusion. Galileo realized that air resistance skewed the results, but his figures broke down when artillerymen started wondering why doubling the charge of gunpowder didn’t double the speed of the cannonball- they had come up against the totally unexpected sound barrier. Newton’s physics were so convincing that even after Hiroshima there were scientists who said it just couldn’t be- it violated the laws of the conservation of energy. And even Einstein’s logic couldn’t explain the quantum world- and now some of the proponents of string theory are calling into question the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe.
Reason is our most important tool in understanding our world- but it is not our only tool. Sometimes, it is not even the right tool... sometimes, a transcendent leap is required; linear logic is no longer capable of explaining what is going on. Two does not equal one. The human heart is one such situation- and that’s how I can believe all that stuff.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Our most intractable sin
That was the subject of Rev. Clear’s sermon of a week ago , one that really intrigued me, and so I thought I’d give it a wider audience. While you’re there, you ought to look at all his sermons- we are truly fortunate to have him here in Indy.
I wonder
Our oldest cat, Laurie, has entered her winter depressive phase. She is the feral who chose to be a housecat when the universe betrayed her by turning cold and nasty . Every year, when the climate turns cold 24/7 instead of just the momentary burst of weather, she gets depressed and needy. She only goes out to potty, then dashes back in as if afraid she’ll be caught out there. She starts becoming very clingy, needing reassurance that we really love her, that we didn’t allow the weather to become nasty as a punishment.
It can get very trying being loved so intensely. She starts sleeping in the bed with us- not at the foot, but worming her way up to the pillows and trying to get full-body contact across my head, or climbing onto my chest. As she’s a two foot long kitty, 18 lbs., this means that I lose a lot of sleep during this period. I tell her, “Can’t you see what this is doing to me? I’m a zombie all day from lack of sleep. Yes, yes, I love you, but this is very annoying!”
Then suddenly I wonder if God ever feels that way.
It can get very trying being loved so intensely. She starts sleeping in the bed with us- not at the foot, but worming her way up to the pillows and trying to get full-body contact across my head, or climbing onto my chest. As she’s a two foot long kitty, 18 lbs., this means that I lose a lot of sleep during this period. I tell her, “Can’t you see what this is doing to me? I’m a zombie all day from lack of sleep. Yes, yes, I love you, but this is very annoying!”
Then suddenly I wonder if God ever feels that way.
Monday, July 24, 2006
The problem with saying “God is love”
You hear this phrase all the time. Whether the speaker means that God is all loving, or that love itself is God, it’s a comforting sentiment. The kind of person who would say that is not the kind who would worship a vengeful God, a God who could condemn frail mankind to everlasting damnation- that’s why we hear it said at UU churches so often.
The problem is that the kind of person who would say that frequently cannot understand the type of person who worships the vengeful God. They cannot believe that anyone really, down deep, believes it. They all too often tend to think that a person espousing hatred in the name of God is only using religion for their own ends, that a true religion could not advocate violence. They are wrong. It’s gratifying that so many people cannot believe that sincere, profound religious faith could possibly lead to violence, mass murder, genocide, but they are wrong. This misunderstanding leads to mishandling any situation that involves it.
This misunderstanding caused the tragedy in Waco. The “experts” in the Justice Dept. advised Janet Reno that nobody could really believe that stuff- the gullible Branch Davidian followers, perhaps, but their leader couldn’t possibly actually believe it. They believed that David Koresh was just another religious scam artist, and if they hit them hard he would fold. Big mistake- one that resulted in a holocaust that cost a lot of innocent lives.
I hear the same misunderstanding frequently in any discussion of the troubles in the Middle East. When one points outs that the charter of Hamas calls for the obliteration of Israel, otherwise sensible people say “They don’t really mean that- they’re practical people; give them the right deal and they’ll accept it.” No, they won’t. Or rather, they will accept concessions, then go on killing anyway... because they really do believe it. They really do believe the existence of a Jewish state is an insult to Islam. The reason for the attacks is not the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, or the exact borders of Israel; the problem is the existence of Israel. They do not want a restoration of the 1967 borders, they want the 1947 borders.
There are other Muslims who believe in the World Caliphate. They call the United States “The Great Satan” not because the US supports Israel, or because of economic injustice, or because of environmental concerns; the oppose the U.S. because it is committed to secular government. To someone like Osama Bin Laden, the greatest tragedy in human history was when Turkey stripped the Caliphate of secular power and became a secular state. This is why Al Queida started targeting Iraqis instead of US soldiers after the elections; the concept of a secualar Iraq is anathema to them. They really do believe that there are only three things a Muslim can do when meeting an unbeliever: convert him, subjugate him, or kill him.
Yes, I hear you screaming at me, “Islam is a religion of peace! You’re misinterpreting those passages, it’s a bad translation!”. Fine, I believe you- but I’m not the one you have to convince. I’m not the one slowly sawing a man’s head off, drowning out his screams with shouts of “God is great!”. It’s not gentiles you must convince that Islam is a religion of peace- it’s Muslims who need to be convinced of that. And yes, it’s a minority of Muslims who believe in violence- but it’s a much larger minority than the “God is love” crowd believes it is. To field a soldier- any soldier, be it American, Israeli, or Hezbollah- a huge support staff is required. That soldier must be trained, equipped, fed, clothed, housed, and paid. His weapons must be paid for, maintenanced, stored in good condition. Heavy weapons, such as the Katyusha rockets Hezbollah is firing off at such a prodigious rate, require large crews, equally well trained. And when you have 13,000 such rockets, you also need a huge building and maintenance staff just to store them.
My point? If there are 100,000 terrorists worldwide, (remember that attacks aren’t limited to the ME; it occurs in Africa, India, Malaysia, Russia, the Philippines, other places), then there are millions of Muslims directly supporting them, and there are tens of millions more who know exactly what’s going on but will never tell the authorities. Still a minority of Islam, to be sure- but big enough to ensure that there will never be peace. And no solution can be found until everyone- Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Pagan or Atheist understands what the problem is. Until you understand that millions of people really do believe that God calls for innocent (in western eyes) men, women, and children to be killed on a daily basis, you are part of the problem.
The problem is that the kind of person who would say that frequently cannot understand the type of person who worships the vengeful God. They cannot believe that anyone really, down deep, believes it. They all too often tend to think that a person espousing hatred in the name of God is only using religion for their own ends, that a true religion could not advocate violence. They are wrong. It’s gratifying that so many people cannot believe that sincere, profound religious faith could possibly lead to violence, mass murder, genocide, but they are wrong. This misunderstanding leads to mishandling any situation that involves it.
This misunderstanding caused the tragedy in Waco. The “experts” in the Justice Dept. advised Janet Reno that nobody could really believe that stuff- the gullible Branch Davidian followers, perhaps, but their leader couldn’t possibly actually believe it. They believed that David Koresh was just another religious scam artist, and if they hit them hard he would fold. Big mistake- one that resulted in a holocaust that cost a lot of innocent lives.
I hear the same misunderstanding frequently in any discussion of the troubles in the Middle East. When one points outs that the charter of Hamas calls for the obliteration of Israel, otherwise sensible people say “They don’t really mean that- they’re practical people; give them the right deal and they’ll accept it.” No, they won’t. Or rather, they will accept concessions, then go on killing anyway... because they really do believe it. They really do believe the existence of a Jewish state is an insult to Islam. The reason for the attacks is not the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, or the exact borders of Israel; the problem is the existence of Israel. They do not want a restoration of the 1967 borders, they want the 1947 borders.
There are other Muslims who believe in the World Caliphate. They call the United States “The Great Satan” not because the US supports Israel, or because of economic injustice, or because of environmental concerns; the oppose the U.S. because it is committed to secular government. To someone like Osama Bin Laden, the greatest tragedy in human history was when Turkey stripped the Caliphate of secular power and became a secular state. This is why Al Queida started targeting Iraqis instead of US soldiers after the elections; the concept of a secualar Iraq is anathema to them. They really do believe that there are only three things a Muslim can do when meeting an unbeliever: convert him, subjugate him, or kill him.
Yes, I hear you screaming at me, “Islam is a religion of peace! You’re misinterpreting those passages, it’s a bad translation!”. Fine, I believe you- but I’m not the one you have to convince. I’m not the one slowly sawing a man’s head off, drowning out his screams with shouts of “God is great!”. It’s not gentiles you must convince that Islam is a religion of peace- it’s Muslims who need to be convinced of that. And yes, it’s a minority of Muslims who believe in violence- but it’s a much larger minority than the “God is love” crowd believes it is. To field a soldier- any soldier, be it American, Israeli, or Hezbollah- a huge support staff is required. That soldier must be trained, equipped, fed, clothed, housed, and paid. His weapons must be paid for, maintenanced, stored in good condition. Heavy weapons, such as the Katyusha rockets Hezbollah is firing off at such a prodigious rate, require large crews, equally well trained. And when you have 13,000 such rockets, you also need a huge building and maintenance staff just to store them.
My point? If there are 100,000 terrorists worldwide, (remember that attacks aren’t limited to the ME; it occurs in Africa, India, Malaysia, Russia, the Philippines, other places), then there are millions of Muslims directly supporting them, and there are tens of millions more who know exactly what’s going on but will never tell the authorities. Still a minority of Islam, to be sure- but big enough to ensure that there will never be peace. And no solution can be found until everyone- Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Pagan or Atheist understands what the problem is. Until you understand that millions of people really do believe that God calls for innocent (in western eyes) men, women, and children to be killed on a daily basis, you are part of the problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)