Interfaith and Abrahamic Faith

I got an interesting email from an NGO promoting interfaith efforts around the United States. As founder and director of Wisdom House, an interfaith center in Nashville, I am all for such efforts. What I found interesting, however, was the opening line of the promo:

“Religious diversity is an essential value in many faiths, including Christianity, Islam and Judaism.”

Really?

The Hebrew Bible makes it clear that there is only one true faith, and the Jews have it. If biblical Jews had any interest in other religions it was to destroy them, and while rabbinic Judaism lacked the power to continue in that vein, and with some amazing Medieval Jewish-Sufi exceptions, I don’t see where the rabbis were all that eager to claim equality with other religions. 

Jesus in the New Testament doesn’t sound like a universalist to me: “I am the way and the truth and the life, No one comes to the Father except through me,” (John 14:6). And the Catholic Church’s extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation) doesn’t sound all that welcoming of interfaith.

And while the Qur’an does say “Mankind! We created you from a male and female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you might come to know each other,” (The Qur'an , 49:13), Islam still argues that the Qur’an is the only uncorrupted revelation from God, and Judaism and Christianity are less than perfect faiths.

So are interfaith efforts really part of mainstream Abrahamic thinking? I don’t think so.  If religious diversity were really an essential value in Christianity, Islam and Judaism, why would we need an NGO to promote it?

Let’s be honest: no religion is all that interested in any other religion, and authentic interfaith dialogue, dialogue that could lift us out of our respective boxes and into a more universalist frame of mind and heart, is revolutionary and subversive work. Which is why it is so desperately needed.

Jewish Fall Holy Days

We Jews are in the early weeks of our fall holy day period. There are three parts to this season that are of spiritual interest: Selichot, Yamim Noraim, and Sukkot.

The month of Elul is the final month of the Jewish liturgical calendar, and is devoted to the practice of selichot, seeking forgiveness. While Jews do teach about the importance of forgiving others, our primary focus is on asking others to forgive us.

When we ask forgiveness we humble ourselves, and when we humble ourselves over the hurts we have caused others, we are more willing to forgive the hurts others have caused us. Throughout the month of Elul and even more intensely during the Yamim Noraim (Days of Awe from Rosh haShanah to Yom Kippur) we approach family members, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and others with whom we interact and say, “If I have hurt you in any way knowingly or unknowingly, advertantly or inadvertently, I ask your forgiveness.”

What if the other person refuses to forgive us? We must ask again. How many times must we ask? While Jesus said we must ask 490 times (7 x 70, Matthew 18:22), our rabbis capped it at three. If after sincerely asking forgiveness three times the other still refuses, God will forgive you, and the matter, at least as far as you are concerned is settled.

Rosh haShanah, the first of the Days of Awe, is the anniversary of creation, and our time to honor God, the Source of Creation. (This year Rosh haShanah begins at sundown on September 28^th) For me God is the Source and Substance of all reality, and Rosh haShanah is the time when I remember that all life is a unique yet temporary manifestation of God the way each ray of sunlight is a unique and temporary manifestation of the sun. I use Rosh haShanah as a time to realign my life with creation so that my living is in service to all life.

Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement (At-One-ment, October 7^th at sundown) is the culmination of all this effort. We have made peace with our neighbor, peace with nature, and now it is time to make peace with God.

For me, making peace with God is about remembering that God isn’t about salvation or damnation, reward or punishment. God is about reality for God is reality. I make peace with God by realizing that life is wild, unpredictable, often horrifying, and yet always hopeful. I remind myself to not expect things to be other than they are, and to be thankful for all that they are. With this act of radical acceptance comes radical forgiveness, and, for me, this is what Yom Kippur is all about.

A few days after Yom Kippur we celebrate Sukkot (October 12 at sundown), our holy week celebrating the fall harvest. We build and dwell in flimsy booths (sukkah/sukkot, plural) to remind ourselves of our nomadic origins, our wanderings in Sinai, our sheltering of both harvesters and harvest during the autumn ingathering, and the fragility of life. We decorate our sukkot with fruit, give thanks for the earth’s bounty in a ceremony of waving lulav (a palm front bound with myrtle and willow branches) and etrog (fruit of a citron tree), study the Book of Ecclesiastes, and share meals with friends during the week.

The harvest decorations remind us of the power of fertility even in the midst of fragility. Eating with friends reminds us that friendship is best way to navigate the chaos of life. And studying Ecclesiastes links all of this to a way of life: eating and drinking in moderation, finding meaningful work, and cultivating strong friendships.

This is a challenging season for Jews both logistically and spiritually. There is lots to do, and much to ponder. And while the doing may be for Jews, the pondering is a good idea for everyone.

Jews for Krishna

The fall issue of Reform Judaism magazine contains a passionate, even angry, attack on Jesus, Krishna, and John Lennon’s “Imagine” by Dr. Ze’ev Maghen of Bar-Ilan University. The essay is adapted from his book John Lennon and the Jews. I looked the book up on Amazon and it supposed to be an emotionalist appeal to Jews to love Judaism. I didn’t feel the love.

 In the essay, Dr. Maghen writes about meeting Israeli Hare Krishnas at Los Angeles Airport (LAX). After a few moments comparing notes about life in Israel, he wants to know why these Jews have dropped Torah for Gita. They explain that their new religion is better than their own religion, which drives Dr. Maghen crazy. The Krishnas reply in kind, and yet another opportunity for real meeting and dialogue is lost in the haze of emotionalism. Somehow this leads him to John Lennon.

 Dr. Maghen doesn’t want to imagine there’s no heaven...no hell…nothing to kill or die for…no countries …no religion, etc. Me, I am more Lennon than Lubavitch. In fact I’m more Lennon than Lennon—I don’t have to imagine there’s no heaven or hell, I know there’s no heaven or hell; I think religion and politics are human inventions, and heaven and hell are just carrot and stick used to keep people in the fold. While I would be willing to die to save lives, and can imagine myself killing someone to protect lives, killing and dying for abstractions like religion doesn’t appeal to me at all.

True, I find the idea of “living for today” shallow, preferring to live in the moment rather than for the moment, all-in-all I like Lennon’s song. Anyway, Hare Krishnas don’t agree with Lennon either, so what’s the fuss all about?

My real problem with Dr. Maghen: He writes, "I passionately believe we ought to subordinate head to heart and rationality to emotionalism" (p. 213); "So far from being a function of logical or pragmatic thinking, Jewishness today is both a product and a producer of passion” (p. 248); and “love is a better motivation than Truth" (p.261). I believe just the opposite, and prefer head to heart, reason to emotion, logic to passion, and Truth to love. People who don’t often scare the crap out of me.

Here’s my advice to Dr. Maghen: The next time you meet Jews who have left Judaism talk with them don’t yell at them. Ask them why they left? Ask them what they found in their new faith that they couldn’t find in their old faith? Share in a passionate but nonjudgmental way why Judaism works for you. We can learn much from those who leave the faith.

And here’s my advice to Jewish Hare Krishna’s: stay away from LAX.

The Future Looks Bright

The Palestinian Authority is pushing the United Nations to declare Palestine an independent state in 2011 the way it did for Israel in 1948. They have further announced through their ambassador to the UN, Maen Areikat, that this new state will be Judenrein, literally, clean of all Jews. The last leader of a state speak this way regarding Jews was Adolph Hitler.

Not surprisingly Israel is resisting this effort, and counting on the United States to veto what is most likely an inevitable General Assembly endorsement of an independent Jew-Free Palestinian State. This is, in my view, the exact opposite of what should be done. Here is my suggestion:

First, rather than resist the declaration, Israel should announce that if the UN decrees an independent State of Palestine, Israel will the first state to recognize it. Once established, Israel will then demand that the new state negotiate borders with Israel. Lots of neighboring countries have border disputes that are settled amicably. Take India and Pakistan for example.

Second Israel should agree with Ambassador Areikat about Palestine being Jew-free. As the ambassador implied, if Palestine has even one Jew the Palestinian people will be unable to define themselves. The same is true of Israel. As Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told the General Assembly just over a year ago, “A final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians has to be based on a program of exchange of territory and populations.” Lots of neighboring countries have amicable population exchanges. Take India and Pakistan for example.

Finally, Israel should make it clear that as a sovereign state Palestine is now responsible for the acts of terror its citizen commit against Israel. Rocket attacks from Gaza, for example, must now be considered an act of war. Just as the United States held the Taliban responsible for the acts of Al-Quaeda and used that as justification for conquering Afghanistan and establishing its own pro-US government, Israel will have every right under international law to do the same once Hama resumes rocket attacks on Israel after the declaration of an independent State of Palestine.

Give the increase in anti-Israel sentiments in newly democratic Egypt and other Arab countries, this declaration of war will no doubt bring about a full fledged Arab attack on Israel. Given the pro-Israel sentiment in the US, this will bring America into a war with all Arab states and, in all likelihood, Russia. At this point one of two things will happen. Either Jesus will return, or the resulting World War will bring the US economy out of recession. Clearly a win–win for most Americans.

Fighting the war assumes, of course, that the US can convince China to lend us the money we will need to fight the war. If they do we will win, and when we win we will find ourselves in control of vast oil-rich territories that we will then turn over to the Chinese to cover all current and future debt to that country for the next 200 years. This in turn will allow us to make the Bush tax cuts for the rich permanent. The future looks bright.

Can There Be Judaism Without Belief In God?

Can there be Judaism without belief in God? This was a question asked of a variety of Jewish thinkers in the September/October 2011 issue of Moment Magazine. Sadly, I was not among them. But that is what blogs are for. So, I ask myself, can there be Judaism without belief in God?

First, let me make clear what was not asked, namely, can there be Judaism without God? The issue here is belief in God and not the reality of God per se.

Since God is not the issue, the answer to this question depends on one’s definition of Judaism. Borrowing from my teacher Mordecai Kaplan, I define Judaism as the evolving religious civilization of the Jews—in other words Judaism is what Jews do and the stories we tell ourselves to explain why we do what we do. Defined this way, can there be Judaism without a belief in God? Absolutely, and we can see hints of this in those forms of Judaism where Land has replaced God, and others where Folk has replaced God.

The content of the civilization we call Judaism isn’t fixed or even self–evident. This is why there are so many brands of Judaism. The existence of “Judaism” only requires people willing to fill the meme “Judaism” with ideas that matter to them, demand that their ideas are somehow “Jewish,” and then spend their lives arguing in defense of them. This can even be done—and I am a prime example—when you know the entire enterprise is a literary creation fashioned and refashioned by thousands of Jews over millennia.

When I play the game Monopoly and put up hotels on the square marked “Marvin Gardens,” I don’t for a second believe that I own actual hotels on actual property called Marvin Gardens. It is the conceit of the game, and, since it is a game I enjoy playing, I suspend disbelief and play. When people stop enjoying Monopoly the game will fade away. The same is true of Judaism: As long as Jews want to play, Judaism will exist; and as long as Jews can reinvent the game so that we do want to play, Judaism will thrive. The danger today isn’t a lack of belief in God, but a lack of a Jews knowledgeable and daring enough to reinvent the game in their own image.

One might define a serious Jew—the kind of Jew we need to keep Judaism vibrant and alive—as a person who chooses to argue about, challenge, and reinvent the game of Judaism more than she or he chooses to argue about, challenge, and reinvent any other game, even if, like me, she knows the entire enterprise is make–believe. Serious Jews are a dwindling commodity.

So, Can there be Judaism without belief in God? Yes. Can there be Judaism without serious Jews? No.

Choosing Life

It is one thing to be pro-life and seek to protect the unborn, and it is another thing entirely to stand by and let a mother die. That is what doctors at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix discovered when faced with the choice of saving a pregnant woman's life at the cost of her unborn child, or withholding surgery and letting the woman die.

The doctors at this Catholic hospital chose life—in this case the life of the mother. It is a horrible choice to have to make, and regardless of one's position on abortion, one should sympathize with those asked to make it. But Bishop Thomas Olmsted of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix had no such sympathy, and stripped the hospital of its Catholic affiliation.

The hospital was not receiving money from the Diocese, so there is no financial loss, but St. Thomas will no longer be able to celebrate Mass, and can no longer display the Blessed Sacrament in its chapel.

I am not a Catholic, and maybe that alone should cause me to refrain from commenting on this issue, but even if it should, it won't. The reason for saving an unborn child over the mother of that child is theological: the mother has had the opportunity to accept Jesus and be saved, while the baby has not. In other words, the mother can die and go to heaven, but the baby cannot. Can it be that Bishop Olmsted believes that this deceased baby is locked out of heaven? Does he really believe that God's heart is narrowed by the Church's theological imaginings?

I can only assume he does, but I can't. Our ideas about God: what God can and cannot do, and who God will and will not save, are just that—our ideas. God is always bigger than our ideas. Even God says so: "My thoughts are not your thoughts" (Isaiah:55:8).

What religion needs is a little humility, a commodity too few religions have. When forced to choose between saving the life of the unborn or saving the life of the unborn’s mother, let’s not pretend to know the will of God, but rather let’s open our hearts to the struggle of the living to make that decision. Sometimes the mother must take precedent over the baby, and sometimes the baby must take precedent over the mother. And sometimes it just isn't so clear.

So whatever choice is made, let us realize we are always choosing life, and have compassion rather than condemnation for those forced to make it.

Christ Whisperers

Christ whisperers…. Christ whisperers…. Just let that phrase sink in a moment…. Christ whisperers. It has a powerful ring to it, doesn’t it? I think so. That is why I am going to start a new training program for those who are struggling to tame the wild evangelicals among us.

If you’ve read this blog for any length of time you know I regularly run into evangelical Christians promoting their brand of Christianity. I love these people, and I’m fascinated by their faith and beliefs. And I want to return the favor of their fervor by freeing them from the fear-based religion that has ensnared them. But how?

Argument doesn’t work. Science doesn’t work. Reason doesn’t work. And, God knows, satire, sarcasm, and a smile that could melt the Great Wall of China doesn’t work either. What might? Christ whispering.

Fundamentalists of all types—Jewish, Christian, Muslim, humanist—are herd animals. They stay among those who believe as they do, venturing out only to recruit people to the herd. And when they do venture out they are a bit nervous. Suddenly they are bombarded by input that challenges their worldview. That’s why they come on so strong. They are afraid.

For example when someone tells me the earth is only 10,000 years old I have two choices. I can argue with them and insist that the earth is only 5771 years old (that is the Jewish view), or I can pick up a rock and show them something that is far older than 10,000 years. If I choose the former I am condemned to hell. If I hand them the latter they are apt to hurl it at my head. Neither option is helpful. Now there is a third: Christ whispering.

Put the proselytizing Christian at ease by inquiring more deeply into their faith. Don’t ask them why they believe as they do, but what benefit they find in it. How does their faith make them more loving, just, and kind? Ask them what they get from believing as they do. If they have had deeply moving faith experiences, ask them to share those with you. Take the position of a National Geographic reporter seeking to understand the natives of South Religioustan. Speak calmly. Softly. Whisper.

Whispering will draw them closer to you. A natural rapport will develop between you. They will relax, and respond positively to your welcoming tone and body language. Now subtly take out a pocket watch and swing it where it will catch their eye. As their eyes follow the watch back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, they will become a bit drowsy. As they begin to fall into a light trance suggest they read Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. Help them notice their eyes wanting to close. Invite them to close their eyes, and take a few moments to simply stand or sit comfortably. And when they do…run like hell!

If you would like to offer this training in your community, let me know. There is a small fee, and you will have to bring your own pocket watches.

Goodness and God

Is something good because God says it is good; or does God say something is good because it is good? The question as old as Plato, and as current as this morning.

If we argue that something is good because God says its good, then we have to accept as good genocide (Deuteronomy 7:1-2; 20:16-18), slavery (Leviticus 25: 44-46), the stoning to death of non-virgin brides (Leviticus 20:10 & 13), and a host of other immoral acts made moral by God. And if we say that these good deeds are no longer good, but bad; no longer moral, but immoral, we will have to show where in the Bible (Jewish or Christian) God changes His mind. If we can’t, then you will have to admit that we are changing God’s mind, which may not be moral at all.

If on the other hand, we argue that God affirms what is already in and of itself good, then we would have to admit that God, at least when it comes to morality is irrelevant.

Morality is not a stationary target. Slavery was moral once, but no longer. Sexism was moral once but no longer. Anti-Semitism was moral once but—outside of some liberal colleges, universities, and not so liberal White Supremacist groups and madrasas, is no longer. And God had nothing to do with these changes. In fact there are some among the godly who insist that God still demands sexism despite the shift in secular thinking on the matter.

The interesting thing isn’t what God thinks but what people do. Atheists and believers act exactly the same when it comes to morality: each decides what is good and then looks for a rationale to back up their choice. Atheists may look to science, theists to God, but neither is willing to admit that they just made it up.

So you can be good without God and you can be good with God because in the end people can be good and bad and God really has nothing to do with it.

What God Wants

Warren Jeffs, convicted leader of a breakaway polygamist group, says he is only following God’s Word. According to God, in a message delivered to the court through His disciple Jeffs, “I, the Lord God of heaven, call upon the court to cease this open prosecution against my pure, holy way.” If the court continues its prosecution, God will “send a scourge upon the counties of prosecutorial zeal to make humbled by sickness and death.” While I am not certain I understand this last sentence, it doesn’t sound good. Thank God it doesn’t really come from God.

Or does it?

How do we know when God speaks to us for real, and when it is just a con? The answer is simple: When God says what we want God to say, we believe it is God who is saying it. When God says what we don’t want God to say, we believe it isn’t God saying it.

For example, Jews believe (or used to believe) that God told them not to eat pork; St. Peter, himself a Jew, heard God say we can eat whatever we want. The Jews think Peter was simply a pork-loving Jew who wanted to eat ham without guilt. The Christians think Peter was God’s vehicle for ending a dietary code no longer valid now that the Messiah has come. How can we know which of them is right?

We can’t. So we don’t even try. Rather we simply do what we want to do, and call our doing an act of faith. I’m not proposing polygamy or kashrut. I’m simply pointing out that if we are going to call the latter an act of faith, we have to accord the same right to the former.

Polygamy is, of course, against the law. And, if anti-Sharia laws go into effect, kashrut too will be a felony since Muslim and Jewish dietary laws both outlaw pork. But the fact that the state can dictate to God what is godly simply suggests that when it comes to religion the Founding Fathers’ Constitution trumps the Almighty Father’s Commandments.

Again, we don’t mind this when the court rules in our favor, but we hate it when it rules against us. Many of us want the state to rule against Sharia and for Christian norms as they understand them. But when that same court violates those norms by allowing the teaching evolution rather than Intelligent Design or disavowing prayer in public schools (by which is meant prayer to Christ not Krishna) they claim the court is acting against God.

You don’t have to an atheist to see that God wants whatever believers in that God want. Anyone who rejects the word of God coming to us through His prophet Warren Jeffs is proving that point even as most would deny doing it.

$kin Deep

I’m not wealthy, nor did I ever think I would be, but I always felt I should have more money then I do. Now I know why I don’t: I’m not pretty.

According to University of Texas economist Daniel Hamermesh in Why Attractive People Are More Successful, pretty people average $230,000 more in earning over one’s work-life than unattractive people. If you were smart enough to save that $230,000 as it came in, it could amount to millions. And all because you’re pretty.

Is this fair? Should there be an Ugly People’s Disability Act that boosts the income of the unattractive to match that of attractive people? I look the way I do because of my parent’s genes and because I never met a hot fudge sundae I didn’t like, and that too can probably be blamed on my parents’ genes; can I sue my parents for lost wages?

I checked into this with a lawyer I know who makes more and looks better than me, and he said no. I simply have to compensate for my looks with competence. He wasn’t kidding. What is the ratio of competence to beauty? He didn’t know.

I watch the folks on Fox & Friends (I would now change the name of their show to Foxy Friends) who seem to excel in looks while being a bit on the lighter side of competence, and wonder how I can compete. Then I watch Rev. Al Sharpton who makes up in decibels what he lacks in looks. Maybe that’s the way to go: loud and proud.

I’m really at a loss. And worse, I’m in my sixties so my level of attractiveness, as low as it is, is only going to get lower. Well it may be too late for me, but there are millions of Americans for whom some redress is possible. Here is my suggestion:

Take a look at yourself in the mirror and decide if you are pretty or not. If you are, print up some cards that read, “I’m sorry you’re not as pretty as me; here’s $100.” Put fresh $100 bills in each card, and start handing them out to the unattractive people on the street or in the office. After you’ve given away 2300 cards you can stop and just go about your business.

I look forward to getting your cards.

Sunrise, Sunset or Galileo Shmalileo

Just when you thought we’d put the Dark Ages behind us, the Chicago Tribune reports that the Society of St. Pius X (no relation to Malcom) is urging the Catholic Church to once again reject the findings of Galileo Galilei and abdandon it belief in heliocentrism, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun. Galileo had his telescope to prove his findings; the Society has the Bible:

"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, while the nation took vengeance on its foe.… The sun halted in the middle of the sky; not for a whole day did it resume its swift course." (Joshua 10:12-14)

The group’s concern is that by admitting the Bible is wrong with regards to astrophysics, the Church is losing its capacity to rule our lives. This is from the Tribune:

"Heliocentrism becomes dangerous if it is being propped up as the true system when, in fact, it is a false system," said Robert Sungenis, leader of a budding movement to get scientists to reconsider. "False information leads to false ideas, and false ideas lead to illicit and immoral actions — thus the state of the world today.… Prior to Galileo, the church was in full command of the world, and governments and academia were subservient to her."

I for one am always nostalgic for the Dark Ages, so bring it on Pius X! But as always there are those who just have to disagree. Take for example Ken Ham, founder of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY (the state, not the jelly). Now Ken believes there is scientific proof that the earth is less than ten thousand years old, and that humans coexisted with dinosaurs, and even has a triceratops in his museum with a saddle on it! Ken says that the Bible is mum about the structure of the solar system.

"There's a big difference between looking at the origin of the planets, the solar system and the universe and looking at presently how they move and how they are interrelated," Ham said. "The Bible is neither geocentric or heliocentric. It does not give any specific information about the structure of the solar system."

Now when you have people who think the Flintstones was a documentary claiming that your biblical notion that the sun revolves around the earth isn’t biblical, you know you’ve got a problem. But don’t laugh. In a couple of years Texas science books will teach the heliocentric controversy right next to a short biography of the paleontologist who found the triceratops with the saddle.

America our future is bright, but only because we are so dim.

Pewless in Seattle

Americans love God, but according to the new Barna Group survey on religion in America, we don’t care to visit him all that often. According to Barna while the number of Americans attending religious institutions went up for a moment after 9/11, the number of those who eschew houses of God has increased from 24% in 2001 to 37% today. Holding steady at about 95% is the number of Americans who claim to believe in God.

While the Barna people didn’t survey me, they certainly have me pegged. I believe in God, but I rarely attend worship services. Why? Because the God I believe in has little or nothing to do with what goes on in most houses of worship.

I experience God as Mother and understand God as the ungendered source and substance of reality. My God is unconcerned with religion and the things that many religious people care about: who wins, who loses, and whom God loves best. My idea of God is closer to the ideas of Spinoza, Emerson, and Ramana Maharshi, then it is to the theologies I hear articulated in most Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Hindu houses of worship. So I rarely attend worship services, and yet I cannot shake my experience of God.

The truth is, however, even if I found a community that promoted an idea of God similar to mine, I still wouldn’t attend all that often. While I benefit from and enjoy ecstatic chanting (kirtan in its various forms), and find extended periods of silence in contemplative communities valuable (I just spent a rich and wonderful week at Wisdom House in Litchfield, CT, a spiritual retreat sponsored by the Daughters of Wisdom), I don’t find myself drawn to regular community gatherings. I seem to be less and less in need of an on-going spiritual community. I have my friends, my books, my practice, and my dog, and that seems to be enough. At least for now.

So before clergy and laity start advocating for change in response to the Barna numbers, they ought to find out what the unchurched are doing instead of church. If they are like me, the future of spiritual retreat centers is bright, but that of formal houses of worship is troubling.

Let me know: Do you go to a house of worship regularly? Why or why not?

Pretty? Pay Up!

I’m not wealthy, nor did I ever think I would be, but I always felt I should have more money then I do. Now I know why I don’t: I’m not pretty.

According to University of Texas economist Daniel Hamermesh in Why Attractive People Are More Successful, pretty people average $230,000 more in earnings over the course of one’s work life than unattractive people. If you were smart enough to save that $230,000 as it came in, it could amount to millions. And all because you’re pretty.

Is this fair? Should there be an Ugly People’s Disability Act that boosts the income of the unattractive to match that of attractive people? I look the way I do because of my parent’s genes and because I never met a hot fudge sundae I didn’t like, and that too can probably be blamed on my parents; can I sue my parents for lost wages?

I checked into this with a lawyer I know who makes more and looks better than me, and he said no. I simply have to compensate for my looks with competence. He wasn’t kidding. What is the ratio of competence to beauty? He didn’t know.

I watch the folks on Fox & Friends (I would now change the name of their show to Foxy Friends) who seem to excel in looks while being a bit on the lighter side of competence, and wonder how I can compete. Then I watch Rev. Al Sharpton who makes up in decibels what he lacks in looks. Maybe that’s the way to go: loud and proud.

I’m really at a loss. And worse, I’m in my sixties so my level of attractiveness, as low as it is, is only going to get lower. Well it may be too late for me, but there are millions of Americans like me for whom some redress is possible. Here is my suggestion:

Take a look at yourself in the mirror and decide if you are pretty or not. If you are, prorate the $230,000 extra you will earn because you are pretty, and start giving that money away to the unattractive people who live around you. Have some cards printed up that read, “I’m sorry you’re not as pretty as me; here’s $100,” and but a fresh $100 bill in the card and start handing them out on the street or at the office. After you’ve given away 2300 cards you can stop and just go about your business. I look forward to getting your cards.

Avoid Future Disappointment & Regret

I love watching television. I find it both entertaining and educational. Just the other day I was watching a commercial for gold plated faux $50 coins and learned that by buying today I could “avoid disappointment and future regret.” Now that is something worth knowing!

Disappoint happens when I desire one outcome and receive another less desirable outcome. Regret is when I engage in an action designed to bring me (or someone else) pleasure, and which ends up bringing me (or someone else) pain. I can eliminate both by purchasing a gold plated faux $50 coin for about ten bucks plus shipping and handling. It sounds like a good deal. But is it true?

The only way to test the truth of this commercial is to buy a coin and see if, from the moment it arrives, I avoid disappointment and future regret. This would, by definition, take me the rest of my life, so buying this coin to test its truth claims is one long-term commitment I am not eager to make. Hence I cannot comment meaningfully on its truth claim.

What I can do, however, is think a bit more about disappointment and regret. Just a bit more—after all, this is only ten dollars worth of worry.

It seems to me that when it comes to disappointment, the Hsin Hsin Ming (On the Faith Mind) by the seventh century Chinese Ch’an master Chien-chih Seng-ts’an, offers the best advice: “If you wish to see the truth then hold no opinions.” If you want to avoid disappointment, simply accept reality as it is.

Future regret is similar. Future regret is a karmic ripening that happens when your intent while acting in this moment doesn’t match the result of that action at a latter moment. Karma yogis tell us that we should relinquish the results of our actions, doing what is right and good now, and knowing that we have no control over the outcome. But does that do away with regret?

It does if you hold to the notion of holding no opinions. If you have no opinions, no preferences, then whatever happens is simply reality and you deal with it without any extraneous emotions such as disappointment and regret.

The challenge is achieving the mindset of Chien-chih Seng-ts’an. The very desire to do so sets in motion the very things you desire to avoid, so you are screwed as soon as you begin. And because this is so, it will take you a lifetime filled with disappointment and regret to achieve your goal, if you achieve it at all.

So in the end it may be a lot easier just to buy the gold plated faux $50 coin. Which is why I watch so much television in the first place—you learn lots of stuff.

God is Messing with Texas

I believe God controls the weather, and uses the weather to reward and punish people. I believe this because it is in the Bible, and because most of my neighbors seem to believe it as well. It is comforting to believe what everyone else believes. Easier too.

Over the years I’ve been told that extreme weather is God’s punishment for American acceptance of abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage, and other sins of liberalism. I don’t doubt this at all. What I don’t understand is why God hates Texas, that bastion of all things godly.

Texas is boiling. July has been the hottest and driest month in Texas since Noah. The government is spending millions of dollars on a treatment plant that will allow Texans to drink their own urine, but the only showers the state can count on are golden ones.

But why? It can’t be Global Warming because Global Warming is a liberal hoax. It can’t be El Nino or El Nina because we put up a fence to keep Mexicans out. So it can only be God:

“Take care not to be lured away to serve other gods and bow to them. For the LORD’s anger will flare up against you, and He will shut up the skies so that there will be no rain and the ground will not yield its produce; and you will soon perish from the good land that the LORD is assigning to you.“ (Deut.11: 16-17)

Sure you could say God was only threatening the Jews in Israel, but we didn’t limit God’s wrath to the past in the past, so we can’t do so now. So what god is Texas worshipping that is getting the LORD so angry?

It can’t be the god of the gay agenda, or the god of liberalism, or the god of compromise—Texas is the bastion of conservative, dominionist, and even secessionist Christianity. Is there a single state in the Union that loves Jesus more than Texas? I doubt it. So what could be the problem? Unless…

When Christianity started there was a notion that the God of the “Old Testament” was not the God of the New Testament, and that the Old Testament God should be abandoned. But it is the OT God that uses weather to punish people. Could it be that what we are seeing in Texas today is the wrath of the OT God aimed at Texas because Texas has sided with Jesus? Clearly Gov. Perry’s rally calling people to Jesus didn’t bring a change in the weather. Maybe that’s because the God of the weather isn’t a Christian.

I can’t pretend to know. But I will tell the people of Texas this: God is messing with you, and you had better find out why and fast. I suggest Gov. Perry hold a second prayer rally, and this time limit it to Jews. Have the rabbis of Texas pray for rain. They may be the only Texans left who believe in the God of weather.

If I Had 1000 Terrorists

“I would waterboard 1000 terrorists to save one American life.”

That’s what the bumper sticker read on the Ford Bronco driving in front of me this afternoon. It is a compelling confession. I couldn’t help wondering if it were true.

Based on the other stickers the truck carried, I wondered if the driver of the Bronco would waterboard 1000 terrorists to save one baby killing abortionist even if he or she were American. I think the driver would have the same reservation about saving one can gay American married to another gay American. In fact I doubt he would waterboard anyone to save President Obama who is a straight American with two kids.

Interesting questions to ask the driver at a stop light, but given the fact that waterboarding doesn’t result in good intelligence, does it really make sense to imagine that waterboarding 1000 terrorists would save even one American life? I suspect the driver would really want his sticker to read: “I’d waterboard 1000 terrorists just for the freaking hell of it.”

I guess that’s why I don’t drive a Ford Bronco: I wouldn’t waterboard anybody.

If for some reason I did have 1000 terrorists on hand I’d put them in prison rather than waste time and water on waterboarding them.

Where would one get 1000 terrorists anyway? I don’t think we have that many on hand. And if we did, why give them to someone, especially someone who drives a Ford Bronco?

Of course if I did have 1000 terrorists I imagine the government would think I was a terrorist mastermind and come after me. So I’d either refuse the delivery of 1000 terrorists or call the authorities once I had them. I’d call them even if I had only 999 terrorists. Or even 998. In fact if I had only one terrorist I would turn him or her over to the authorities. I just don’t want them around.

I had the opportunity of pulling up next to the Ford Bronco and asking the driver if he plans on getting his hands on 1000 terrorists, but when I looked into the front seat it had that, “I have no sense of humor and I will kill you for being a smart ass” look, so I just let him get ahead of me when the light turned green.

Are You Afraid of God?

Are you afraid of God? Millions of Americans seem to be. Their fear is tied to their belief in eternal damnation in Hell. The Hebrew Bible, the Christian Old Testament, knows nothing about this. For the early Hebrews everyone suffered the same fate: we all went to Sheol, a lifeless place similar to a Motel Six where they forgot to leave the light on for you.

Hell comes to us via the rabbis who probably borrowed the idea from Zoroastrianism. The rabbis made little use of the idea, while their their Christian rivals seem to obsess over it.

Oliver Thomas writes about this in USA TODAY (Monday 9/8/11). According to Thomas, when Jesus speaks of "eternal" punishment the Greek New Testament uses the word aionos which is better understood as "final" rather "eternal". And almost every reference to Hell is a reference to Gehenna, the valley on the south side of Jerusalem where garbage was dumped in Jesus’ day. Jesus’ message was this: change your life (teshuvah in the Hebrew, repent in English) or your final destination will be the garbage dump. Or, as Rev. Thomas puts is, repent or you wind up wasting your life.

If Jesus did not teach eternal damnation, why insist he did?

The answer, I think, is simple: fear brings power; the only way we can get people to follow stupid ideas is to scare them out of thinking any other ideas. This is what fundamentalism does to people. It robs them of the ability to think by scaring them away from questioning their beliefs at all.

If the motivations of the masters of this madness are clear—fear brings them power—it still leaves us with the question as to why people adhere to these ideas? To be blunt: Why volunteer to follow a preacher who preaches a sadistic god and a religion of hate? I can only think of one reason: the people who follow sadists are themselves sadistic.

When I suggest this to fundamentalists they are horrified, and claim they do not believe in eternal hellfire for their own benefit but because this is what the Bible teaches. This is, of course, nonsense. The Bible can be read many different ways. There are as many love-based versions of Christianity, for example, as there are fear-based ones. So why choose fear over love, torture over forgiveness; anger over compassion? There can only be one answer: they like the fate that befalls those who disagree with them. They are sadist.

I find this answer inescapable and very troubling. Please show me where I am wrong.

Religion By The Numbers

According to a study by University of Nebraska-Lincoln professor Philip Schwadel the higher one’s level of education the broader and more liberal one’s religious beliefs become.

I would like to take credit for this. I would like to think that as students are exposed to my World Religions class or my Religion in America class they become more open in their thinking about religion in general and their religion in particular. But, according to Schwadel this trend begins when people enter the eighth grade, so I really can’t take credit at all. It is cool, though.

The study shows that “for each additional year of education past grade seven” Americans are

1. 15% more likely to attend a worship service in the past week
2. 13% more likely to do that worship in a less strict mainline church
3. 14% more likely to believe in a Higher Power than a personal god
4. 13% less likely to think one religion us true and the others false

I am confused as to how I am to read these numbers. Am I to multiply these percentages by the number of years of schooling one has past the seventh grade? Does this mean that if you make it through high school you are 75% more likely to attend a church? Or that if, like me, you have 13 years of post-seventh grade education you are 169% more likely to think truth is present of more than one religion? How can you be 169% anything?

So what does this study show? It shows that some of us (that would be me) haven’t got a clue how to read sociological studies that include numbers. If you can help me out with this, please do.

In the meantime, I am gearing up for my fall classes and the off-chance that I will get a group of students who 1) have made it through the seventh grade; 2) did so on actual merit and not because their teachers cheated on their No Child Left Behind tests, and 3) are 196% more likely to believe in an impersonal god.

War Against the West or War Against the Rest?

To speak of an Islamic war against the West, as many do, is to miss the greater truth of our time. Islam is only one front of a larger war, the war of fundamentalism against post-modernity; What Christian, Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish fundamentalisms have in common is a modernist obsession with answers cast in affirmations of pre-modern theologies.

Fundamentalism is all about answers, and their primary enemies are reason, free thought, and the scientific method, all of which are rooted in questions. When their answers are questioned they become afraid; when they become afraid they become aggressive; and when they become aggressive they become violent.

How do we who side with the reason, science, and freethinking win this war? I don’t know if we can. Indeed it may already be lost. Look at our debt ceiling “debate.” No matter what the facts there will be members of Congress (both Tea Party and Progressive) who will vote against raising the debt limit believing either than the country will not crash, or that it is preferable to crash than to borrow. This is a martyrology common to fundamentalisms. It is better to die for one’s faith than question it.

The same mentality is at play in the “debates” over evolution and climate change. According to fundamentalists science is simply a matter of opinion; facts have nothing to do with it. Facts are simply what we say they are, and truth is measured in decibels rather than empirical evidence. The louder you scream your “facts” the more “true” they become. This is true on the right and the left, and the middle—if there is still middle—has been silenced by all the screaming.

Vice President Cheney was wrong to deride the “reality based community,” and right to point out its growing irrelevance. “Reality is what we [meaning the Bush administration] say it is,” he said. And he was right. In a world where reality is spin spun loudly, can reason prevail? I doubt it.

Humanity is too young to know if this is a pattern or not. But we may eventually discover that there is a cycle to human civilization: we move from pre-modern superstition to modern science/reason to post-modern questioning of everything and then become so frightened by existential absurdity and the possibility of nihilism that we reject reality and take refuge in fundamentalist sureties. This leads to a long period of scientific and economic decline that results in on-going religious wars among competing sureties that eventually exhausts people to the point where they are willing to give reason a shot once more. Unfortunately rationalism in turn collapses into nihilism and the cycle continues.

My guess is we may be on the verge of a return to pre-modern religious wars and the violence such madness entails. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.

My guess? There is a war. And we have already lost.

The Muslim Radicals We Need

Asra Q. Nomani, in a USA Today op–ed piece (End gender apartheid in U.S. Mosques, July 11, 2011) calls upon U.S. Moslem women to use the U.S. court system (and the threat of losing religious tax-exemptions) to force mosques to end gender discrimination. This is nonsense.

Gender discrimination in Islam, Orthodox Judaism, Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and certain Protestant Christianities is not a matter of policy but divine revelation. For the courts to go against the perceived will of God is anathema to the separation of Church and State. Even those who deny there is a separation of Church and State would suddenly discover it if the State went after religion in this way.

This is not a civil rights issue, as Ms. Nomani claims. Discrimination against women (and others) in religion is not unconstitutional. Secular authorities have no right to say what is and what is not Divine Law. Only you do.

If you don’t like the teachings of your faith, join another, or create your own. It is that simple. If you believe that your religion misrepresents the word of God, why stay within it?

If Ms. Nomani doesn’t want to pray in the basement of her mosque, she should start her own mosque. This is the kind of Islamic radicalism Islam needs: free people creating free mosques; American Muslims creating American mosques that celebrate American values in a Muslim frame, and Muslim values in an American frame.

Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, the founder of Reconstructionism Judaism, called this living in two civilizations. He sought to blend the best of Judaism with the best of America, and created his own denomination in the process. And part of his impetus was the synagogue’s discrimination against Jewish women. Ms. Nomani can and should do the same.

Is Rep. Michelle Bachman a Bigot?

“Hey, I’m not anti-Catholic, I just think the Pope is the Anti-Christ.” While not a direct quote (I will get to those in a moment) from Rev. Mark Schroeder, president of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, this is essentially his message in a July 18, 2011 piece he wrote for Religion News (www.religionnews.com).

The issue is whether Congresswoman and Presidential Candidate Michelle Bachman, who was once a member of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, is anti-Catholic. On that issue Rev. Schroeder wrote, “Michele Bachmann is no longer a member of our church, and we are not in any position to comment on her current religious views. But we can say that her previous membership in our church does not make her guilty of being an ‘anti-Catholic bigot.’”

The reason why is that the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod itself isn’t anti-Catholic. As Rev. Schroeder wrote, “WELS holds to the historic Lutheran position that the Roman Catholic papacy fits the biblical characteristics of the Antichrist. We do this without reservation and without apology. We believe that our doctrines cannot be tempered by political correctness or modified to align with changing culture or public opinion.”

Holding such views about the Papacy isn’t the same as being anti-Catholic, and, as the good reverend says, “we rejoice that even in the Catholic Church (where we believe the gospel has been distorted) there are many Catholics who hold to a simple faith in Jesus Christ as their savior and who will ultimately be saved.”

Even in the Catholic Church? This is like someone saying, “I’m no Anti-Semite; some of my best friends are Jewish.”

Really if you think the Papacy is the Anti-Christ it stands to reason (which, I know, often has no place in religion) that those who follow the Anti-Christ are your enemies. But does this make you a bigot?

Merriam-Webster defines bigot as “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.” When Rev. Schroeder says “our doctrines cannot be tempered by political correctness or modified to align with changing culture or public opinion,” is the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod being obstinate or intolerant?

Of course it is. Being bigoted (as defined by Merriam-Webster) is, for many religious denominations, what being religious is all about. But do Michelle Bachman and Rev. Schroeder hate Catholics? I doubt it. In fact, I bet some of their best friends are Catholic. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Bad Gods Make Good People

In a recent study of the impact of religious beliefs on human behavior* researchers found that those who believe in a punishing god are more likely to avoid cheating than those who believe in a loving god.

The reasoning is simple: if you think God is watching over you and ever ready to condemn you for sinning, chances are you are not going to sin. I get this. Whenever I’m driving and see a police car, I immediately make sure I’m not exceeding the speed limit. I don’t’ want a ticket. If I thought the officer would only give me a wink and a warning, hell what’s twenty miles over the limit anyway?

Researchers call this the supernatural punishment hypothesis or SPH: “the SPH specifically predicts that it is the punishing aspects of gods and the threat of divine punishment, rather than any loving or compassionate traits, which are responsible for keeping adherents from crossing ethical boundaries in anonymous situations where they would otherwise be tempted.”

Basically science says fear works, and that believing in a punishing god keeps you more moral than believing in a loving god. This is good news for the religious unless, of course, you’re the kind of religious who believe in a punishing god who will punish you for believing in science, in which case you are massively conflicted.

This must also be troubling to people like me who just can’t muster this kind of fearful belief. But there is hope!

The study also found that there was no statistical difference between believers and nonbelievers when it came to cheating. Both believers and nonbelievers cheated, on average, 11 out of 20 times. But believers who believe in a god of love cheated more that believers in a wrathful god and those who did not believe in god at all.

What does this mean? First, people cheat. And we do so over 50% of the time. Second, God has nothing to do with it: religious people are no more moral that unreligious people. Third, among religious people, the frightened are more moral than the beloved. And fourth, science proves the power of god! Unless of course you’re an atheist, which the study shows, is just as good.

*(Shariff, Azim F. and Norenzayan, Ara 'Mean Gods Make Good People: Different Views of God Predict Cheating Behavior', International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 21:2, 85 – 96)

America First Pledge

I am envious of Grover Norquist. First he's named after a Sesame Street character, and how cool is that? Second he controls the votes of hundreds of legislators and through them has his fingers on the throat of America. And all because of a simple pledge he concocted in the 80’s.

The idea of tying politician’s hands by getting them to sign pledges is an appealing one, as the growing number of pledges attests. So I want to create my own pledge and get politicians to sign it as well. Here’s what I’m considering:

The America First Pledge

I,______________, pledge to my constituents and the American people that I will:

1. put the welfare of the United States and her citizens ahead of partisan bickering, political gerrymandering, and personal gain;

2. value empirically verifiable facts over political propaganda, rational discourse over politically expedient demagoguery, sound science over cultural bias, and well-documented facts over well-spun lies; and

3. uphold these two promises even at the cost of my status within my party, my party’s status within the nation, and my own reelection.

Signature: _________________________

Date: _________________________

Witness: _________________________

Witness: _________________________


If you like this pledge, let me know. If you want to tweak it to make it better (but not longer), post your suggestions in the comments section of this blog. And if you have any idea how to promote this pledge to make it as ubiquitous as Mr. Norquist’s, please share your wisdom.

Color Them Orange

The Orange Order, a Protestant brotherhood, annually celebrates the 17th century defeat of Catholics by Protestants in Ireland. That’s 400 years ago. That’s a lot of annual parades, though I can’t say for certain when the parade thing started.

Anyway, who wants to have their defeat at the hands of heretics (i.e. Protestants) rubbed in their faces every year? Certainly not Catholic teens, hundreds of whom attacked police in Belfast before and after the Orange Order parade. (Where were they during the parade? Watching the parade, of course. Who doesn’t love a good parade?)

“We ain’t dead yet you heretical bastards” they might have shouted before and after the parade if they had asked me what to shout during their clashes with police who may or may not have been heretical bastards but who were certainly trying to keep those heretical bastards from getting hurt by (or hurting?) the Papist bull dogs who hounded them. “We ain’t dead yet.”

You might wonder why religion and violence go hand in hand. It’s simple. People are intrinsically violent. We are also intrinsically religious. Hence we are intrinsically violent when it comes to religion.

I was listening to a televangelist the other day who said, “Jesus came as a Lamb, but he’s coming back as a Lion.” We don’t want our gods to be like Mr. Rogers. We want them to be like Mr. T. That’s why Jesus, who was mostly like Mr. Rogers, had to be transformed into Christ, who is mostly like Mr. T.

Of course when I say “we” I mean mostly boys and those girls (like that televangelist) who have surrendered to boys and their gods. Left alone, girls have a different idea about gods. Girl gods tend to be wide of hip, large of breast, and more focused on crop yields than body counts. Not that they can’t whip your ass if provoked, but mostly they aren’t about war. That’s why most boy religions keep girls in the back room. We only want to hear about peace and love after we massacre those we fear and hate. Read your Bible, people!

Personally, I don’t like religious victory parades, and I don’t care to see Yaweh in the ring with Allah, or Jesus the Lionheart taking on Pope AntiChrist the XXXXII, though I might pay to see Saraswati and Aphrodite mudwrestle. I am a boy, after all.

Anyway, I just want to send a heartfelt congrats to the Protestants on their victory, and my condolences to the Catholics. But not to worry me boyos, you’ll get those heretics in the afterlife.

Jews are Cool. Judaism? Not so much.

Jews are cool. Not all of us, of course, but many. Some are humanist and some are Hasidic— being cool isn’t a denominational thing. It is a matter of being at home with yourself while dancing on the cutting edge of your culture.

Jewish establishments (those exceptionally uncool masters of money and meme) seem to understand the marketing potential of cool (though not its essence), and spend enormous sums of cash imitating it. But imitation cool isn’t cool; it is lukewarm crap. Which is exactly what so much Judaism is today is: lukewarm crap. To be cool you have to have the chutzpah to either fail miserably or succeed magnificently, and official Judaisms are too afraid to do either.

The other day my friend Rabbi Robert Barr (who is cool) told me about the demise of the music publisher JDub, one of the few vibrant lights of Jewish cool. Once funded by the uncool in search of cool, it is sad that JDub will die not for lack of quality and imagination, but for lack of funds.

Is this what we can expect of Judaism in the 21st century: a lukewarm and well-funded rehash of pre-modern Judaism with a splash of faux kabbalism added so we can stamp “New and Improved” on the box? I suspect it is. And, with it comes the growing irrelevance and marginalization of Judaism to postmodern reality.

Think about this for a moment: If it weren’t for Goldman, Sacks, Madoff, and Abramoff would we ever read about Jews in the mainstream press? And if not for rising anti-Semitism, the never-ending Arab-Israeli conflict, and the apocalyptic snuff-theologies of fundamentalists drooling over the deaths of millions of Jews as prelude to Jesus' Second Coming, I suspect Judaism would be as relevant to post-modern culture as the Amish.

This is not the fault of funders, of course. By the time they have the funds to share, they are probably so out of touch with cool that even the tepid is too hot to handle. This is the fault of Jews who know little and demand less, and who support synagogues without getting involved enough to be bored, demand change, or quit. This is the fault of rabbis, cantors and Jewish educators who think their job is to teach the past rather than invent the future. And it is my fault for having given up, and settled for digital rants from the sidelines.

So good–bye JDub; good–bye cool; good-bye meaningful Judaism. Hello…….?

I Wanna Be God

Ben Ferguson of Memphis Fox News took to the streets to see if anyone could answer this question: "Can you name the candidate who is running for president who believes that if he is a good person, he will get his own planet?"

The answer is Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman, both of whom are Mormons. Part of Mormon doctrine is that all good Mormon men get to become Gods of their own planet. Jesus’ Dad was once a man who became a God and had a kid who is now also a God.

"Would you vote for someone for president who believes that if they are a good person, you will get their own planet?" Ferguson asked passersby, "You want your own planet, don't you?"

Mr. Ferguson’s intent was to ridicule Mormonism. Tennessee has a history of anti-Mormonism, but I found the question pertinent.

Would I vote for someone who hoped to rule a planet one day? Damn straight I would! How refreshing to vote for someone who thought he had a real chance at become a God rather than settle for the normal political hubris of demi-god.

And would I want to be God of my own planet some day? Absolutely. Sure I know how hard it is to be God. I’ve seen the Futurama episode where Binder becomes God (Godfellas, 3/17/02), but I still think I could pull it off.

I would probably do away with a few things. People for one. Actually that might just do it for me. But if I had to have people I would do away with free will. Why make a world where moms can kill their babies and get away with it? To give Nancy Grace a job? Not worth it.

And what is so great about free will anyway? If I didn’t have it, would I miss it? No. If people only had desires that were kind and just, would we long for murder and mayhem? I doubt it.

People tell me that God had to give us free will so that we could freely choose to love him. Of course if we don’t love God we burn in hell for eternity, so how free is that love anyway? But if this really matters, I’d create a world where you didn’t have to love Me. Really what do I care if humans love Me? I’m God for My sake!

And I’d do away with heaven and hell also. In my world people would die and become compost thereby helping other life to grow. This is much better than the narcissism of eternal life.

Some Mormons are complaining that becoming a God is a minority position among Mormons. Too bad. What’s wrong with a religion that goes for the gold? Stick to your guns, Mormons! And good luck with those planets, and the presidency.

Of Mayans, Mormons, and French Fries

I’m sitting at IHOP reading USAToday uncomfortably aware that the man in the booth across from mine is watching me. As I finished the News section, which I always read first, I grabbed the Sports section, which I never read, and offered both to my neighbor.

“Paper?” I said.

“No thanks,” he said, “I never read the thing. When I want to know what’s going on in the world I turn to the only source you can trust, the Bible.”

“Fair and balanced,” I said smiling.

“Just and true,” he said, not smiling.

“Really?” I said. “The Bible keeps you up on the day’s news?”

“It tells me what's really going on. You think those papers know anything? They distract you with the surface stuff, but the real news is that Jesus is coming back and soon. All these wars and the debt ceiling are just signs of the Apocalypse. The world comes to an end December 21, 2012.”

“That may be,” I said, “but that isn’t in the Bible, that’s the Mayans.”

“The Mayans were Jews who came here before Jesus, and Jesus came to them and gave them their calendar and told them and us when the world was going to end and when he was coming back.”

“That may be,” I said, “but that isn’t in the Bible, that’s sort of from the Book of Mormon.”

“I don’t know about Mormons, but I know about the Bible. December 21, 2012—the end. But you know that don’t you?”

“What do you mean?”

“You’re the rabbi. I’ve seen your picture in the paper.”

“I thought you didn’t read…”

“You know Jesus is coming back and you’re doing everything you can to stop it.”

“Me personally?”

“You and all the other Jews who deny the Lord.”

“That’s pretty much all of us,” I said. “In fact, in American today, that pretty much defines what it means to be a Jew: we are just like you except we deny the Lord.” I was trying to bond with this guy, and failing miserably.

“Damn straight. You know you can’t stop him, and he is going to kill you all. All but some who will go to Israel to welcome him and worship him.”

“144,000,” I said.

“That’s right. Why don’t you want to be among them?”

“What makes you think I don’t want to be among them?” I said.

“Well, you’re sitting here in IHOP rather than in Jerusalem. He won’t come until all you Jews move to Israel.”

“Where he will kill us.”

“Yeah, but only if you don’t accept him as your Lord and Savior.”

“And that is going to happen on December 12, 2012? What about the pastor who says it’s going to happen on October 21, 2011.”

“He doesn’t know his Bible,” he said.

“Maybe he does. Maybe he knows it better. Maybe he’s just not a Mayan Mormon like you.”

That was a conversation killer, and I regretted saying it as soon as I heard the words come out of my mouth. I should have apologized, but the man had already shut down. He took a last sip of his coffee, exited his booth, and walked to the cashier to pay his bill.

I turned back to my eggs. They were cold, and I wasn’t hungry any more. I waited until the man had paid for his breakfast and left the restaurant. I then stood up to do the same. Something called my attention to the plate of French fries lying on his table. Most were laying on one side of the plate but two—one long, one short—lay on the other side in a cross formation.

“Jesus? Is that you?” I said silently. I waited for a reply. Nothing. I walked over to the cashier and waited for her to take my money. Two pens lay on the counter in cross formation. “Jesus?” I thought.

I kept seeing crosses all day. On my drive home I even saw two Mormon missionaries on their bicycles. I was hoping they’d knock on my door, but I knew that even then I wouldn’t believe. If a Mayan dropped by however, all bets are off.

Fat and Fatter in Tennessee

One good thing about living in the fourth fattest state in the US is that I look normal. According to our local newspaper, more that 75% of Tennesseans are obese or overweight. That means that obesity here is the norm. When we see someone who isn’t fat we assume they are ill.

According to a variety of scientific studies, we Tennesseans are fat because we are poor. Lucky for us we don’t value science all that much (Darwin is the Devil reads one bumper sticker), and when we look at people in poor countries they don’t look fat—they look like they’re starving. That’s why we send them money. And Jesus.

Just the other day I walked into one of our town’s two yogurt bars. The yogurt comes out of huge kegs like beer. You can sample all the flavors and then make your own yogurt treat. There are over a dozen toppings to choose from to help disguise the fact that you are eating yogurt in the first place. They charge you by weight—the weight of the yogurt and toppings, not your own weight.

Anyway, I walk into the yogurt bar and work my way through the samples. A gaggle of tween–age girls are doing the same. By the time I’m done I’m full, and don’t feel like eating any more yogurt. The girls feel the same and leave without buying anything. The clerk, a high school girl, is disappointed and a bit disgusted. She looks at me hoping I will not follow in the footsteps of the tweeners. I want to, but I’m too old to think eating this way is cool, so I buy a cup of yogurt. It was a bit bland, so I add some peanuts to it. Then some coconut. Then some hot fudge. Then some whip cream. I’m still not hungry, but I make the clerk happy, sit myself down at a table, and eat it all.

By the time I’m ready to leave, I’m feeling really bloated. I notice that the clerk is thin, and probably never eats the stuff she sells. I am feeling very fat, especially when compared to this young woman. My salvation lies outside.

As soon as I step out into the street, I’m surrounded by my obese fellow Tennesseans. As I walk the two blocks to my car the people seem to get even bigger, and I start feeling thin—hey, it was yogurt I was eating, not ice cream; and I probably walked off the calories by now anyway, and—my God!—how can these people let themselves get so fat? Have they no self-respect, no self-control? Maybe they are poor and just can’t afford to eat more healthily. Maybe I’ll send them some money. And Jesus.

Of Gods and Dogs

I have a friend who is going through something of a spiritual crisis. All her adult life she believed in Pre-Tribulation, the belief that all good Christians are raptured to heaven before God turns the earth into a living hell for seven years prior to the coming of Jesus. Believing herself to be a good Christian and certain to be raptured, she thought she would escape the horrors of God’s wrath.

But now she is studying with a new pastor and he has just about convinced her that Post-Trib theory is correct and Pre-Trib is heresy. Post-Tribulation theory says that the rapture will come only after all humanity—Christians and nonChristians alike—suffer the wrath of God—and it’s coming soon.

I feel for her; this is scary stuff. She never asks me which I believe knowing that Judaism is a Trib-free faith. So the last time she mentioned her crisis I asked a different kind of question: what about our dogs?

I prefer to dogs to people. I can see why God would hate people enough to torture them. I have those feelings myself. But I can’t see how God could hate dogs, or why God would torture them. Dogs should be raptured before the Tribulation, or at least they should if God loves dogs.

“Do you think God loves dogs?” I asked. My friend didn’t know. The Bible doesn’t say. Which led me to an interesting observation: you never hear of Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Confucius, Mahavira, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Madame Blavatsky, L. Ron Hubbard, or any other founder of a faith having a dog. Presidents often have dogs, but Popes never do. Why is that?

I can think of two reasons why religious founders don’t have dogs. Either they don’t like dogs, or dogs don’t like them. Or maybe they don’t like dogs because dogs don’t them, or dogs don’t like them because they don’t like dogs. Personally I wouldn’t want to follow any sage that didn’t love dogs and wasn’t loved by them. Of course if I’m going to use the dog standard I have to deal with the fact that Hitler had a dog who seemed to love him. Do dogs love unconditionally, or was this an evil dog? I don’t know. The Bible doesn’t say.

Anyway, even if it’s not foolproof, I think the dog standard is a good one. I know Zen Buddhists for whom the question “Does a dog have Buddha nature” is crucial, but I think they’ve got it backwards. For me the crucial question is, “Is it the Buddha’s nature to have a dog?”

I think I’m going to join only those religions where the founders had and loved dogs. Let me know if you know of any.

Are You a Good Person?

I was browsing the religion section of the Franklin Barnes and Nobel when a well–dressed young man asked me, “Interested in these kinds of books?”

“Yes,” I said.

“Mind if I ask you a question?” he said.

“No.”

“Are you a good person?”

“Sometimes” I said, knowing where this conversation was going. “Sometimes I’m a real SOB.”

“Have you ever told a lie or taken something that wasn’t yours?”

“Sure.”

“Then you’re a liar and a thief. Are liars and thieves good people? Do you know what happens to liars and thieves? They spend eternity in Hell. Their only hope is accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Are you ready to do that?”

“Burn in Hell or accept Jesus?”

“What?”

“You asked me if I’m ready to burn in Hell or accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior. I’m not ready for either. In fact I don’t believe in either.”

“But …”

“Listen, if you really believe that the Creator of the Universe is a sadistic torturer who needs the death of an innocent in order to forgive the guilty, you’ve got a major problem. If you dare speak of God as Love, and then imagine a god who will roast you in Hell for telling your friend she doesn't look like she's gained weight when in fact she does, then you're sick. We create gods in our own image, and if this god is your image I suggest you need serious psychiatric intervention. We’re you abused as a child by your dad? You should get help.”

“F#ck you!” he said as he stormed away.

I called after him: “Do you know what God does to people who swear? He makes them burn in Hell for ever.”

He gave me the finger. Jesus would be proud.