Nailed It

Controversial filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici claims to have discovered two of the nails used in the crucifixion of Jesus. This is no small matter.

If the nails are those of Jesus, they must contain the blood of Christ. We can test this blood for DNA. If it contains only female chromosomes, as the blood of a baby born of a Virgin must, we will have incontrovertible proof that these nails pierced the body of Jesus. But wait; there’s more.

If this blood is the blood of Christ could we clone Jesus anew? Scientists in Britian have cloned mice from fully developed blood cells. Could we not clone the Lamb? Could the Second Coming be a cloning of Christ?

While you may be disappointed that the Rapture did not happen today as predicted (I am), and that the world didn’t come to an end today as predicted (I am), it could still be an amazing day if today is the day we begin the cloning of Jesus.

I can only say, “Ecce Homo,” Simcha Jacobovici, “Ecce Homo!”

What I Believe

Every once in a while it is good to sit down and clarify what you believe. I did this recently and came up with the following:

1. Everything is a manifestation of the one thing I call God.

2. God is not good; good and bad are human categories about which God cares not one bit.

3. Life is not controllable, but you can learn to navigate it, and do some good in the process.

4. Prayer cannot change God's mind, but it might change your attitude.

5. Religion is a human invention designed to give us the illusion of control from which we can then create a sense of meaning without admitting we are creating it. In truth, we have no control, we invent what meaning there is.

6. Sacred texts always reflect the bias of their intended audience. Don’t be surprised that the Torah’s Jews are God’s Chosen; that the Gospels make Jesus the Christ; that the Bhagavad Gita sees Krishna as God; that the Qur’an holds Mohammad as the final Prophet; or that the Harry Potter series makes Harry rather than Hermione the hero. 

7. Priests, rabbis, pastors, imams, swamis, lamas, and gurus sometimes have your best interest in mind, and always have their best interests at heart. Learn from them, but never turn your life over to them.

8. At its best religion is about personal freedom, social justice, compassion for all living things, and realizing your connection with God. At its worst it is about power and control. Religion is rarely at its best.

9. Human beings can learn to see through propaganda—religious, political, commercial, etc.—overcome its divisiveness, create loving communities, and glimpse the truth through science, art, music, literature, and spiritual practice. We just don't want to.

10. Spiritual practice cuts through self and selfishness, reduces conflict, increases compassion, and reveals the nonduality of God in, with, and as all reality. 

Now it's your turn.....

Of Gods and Turtles: an Unpublished Interview

I’ve been giving a few interviews lately. This one, I am told, will not be published, so I am publishing it. I am keeping the interviewer’s name out of it as per his request.

Rumor is that you find Judaism too narrow for your tastes, and too small to hold your spiritual experiences. When did you stop being a Jew?

A Jew can’t stop being a Jew any more than a Chinese person can stop being Chinese or a Navaho stop being Navaho. I was born Jewish and I will die Jewish, and I am quite proud of being a Jew. As for Judaism being too small, all religions are too small.

What do you like best about Judaism?

Its pedagogy. Jews are doubters, arguers. We prefer questions to answers, and as soon as we have answers we think it best to question them. We deliberately misread our texts and in so doing reinvent them.

We don’t believe in fixed meanings. Meaning comes from the interaction of story and reader/listener/interpreter—the three are really one.  We have this wonderful phrase, Elu v’elu d’vrei Elohim Chayyim. Roughly translated it means: All opinions, no matter how mutually exclusive, are the words of the Living God if their intent is to search out the truth. I don’t know any other culture that values argument and doubt the way we Jews do. That alone makes me want to be a Jew.

What do you like least about Judaism?

Rules.

Do you worry about the future of Jews and Judaism?

Worry? No. Worry doesn’t do anything. But I am concerned that Jewish education has shifted to the western model of seeking answers rather than the Jewish model of learning how to sharpen one’s questions. We need an old/new kind of Jewish academy that focuses on questions and hones one’s creative, imaginal, and critical thinking skills. What we’ve got are Jewish schools that teach you the rules of Jewish life rather than how to cultivate the genius of the Jewish mind.

I’ve heard you say you are not only Jewish.

Yes. While I am tribally and culturally Jewish, and Judaism is my primary source of spiritual nourishment and expression, I draw from the wisdom and practices of many religions, especially Vendanta Hinduism and Zen Buddhism.

And you find the same capital “T” Truth is all of these?

No. I find useful insights into how to best live my life, and powerful practices that open me to realities beyond those my normal waking mind can fathom, but Truth with a capital “T” is something else. No system can articulate Truth. To paraphrase Lao Tzu, the Truth than can be named ain’t the Real Truth.

Most of your time is spent writing. If the Truth can’t be named, what is the point of writing?

I write because I have no choice. When I don’t write I feel ill.  But I never write to articulate the Truth, only to share my opinions.

What do you feel is the future of the book?

I think digital books will dominate the market sooner rather than later. I’m not one to make a fetish out of paper, though I do own hardcover copies of those books that have defined my life.

Such as?

The writings of Camus, Borges, and Edmund Jabes, Kafka, Nachman of Breslov, Martin Buber, Krishnamurti, Alan Watts, Ramana Maharshi, and Ramakrishna.

You also teach writing and religion. What have you learned from your experiences in these fields?

First, most people can’t write. Second, most people don’t read, which may be why most people can’t write. Third, most people studying the religions of the world are careful to defend their own against any intrusion from the outside. Fourth, some people are curious enough and courageous enough to let their defenses down and actually be touched and perhaps transformed by other religions. These are the people I love to talk with, teach, and learn from.

You work extensively in the field of interfaith. Do you find the same thing to be true there as in the classroom?

Yes. Most so–called interfaith dialogue is really interfaith monologue. True dialogue is unscripted, leaving the partners open to surprise and transformation. Few people are ever changed in what passes for interfaith dialogue today. They are too busy defending their truth to be open to challenging it, let alone changing it.

What about your experiences of the Divine Mother? You have written about this, so it is no secret that you think God is a woman.

God isn’t a woman or man. God is Reality. In Hinduism we speak of God with Attributes and God without Attributes. When I experience God with Attributes my experience is clearly feminine, relational, the voice I hear is that of the Divine Mother. But this is not to say God is a woman. God without Attributes, the most pure manifestation of God is ungendered. It is pure being, pure consciousness, pure bliss.

And you have experienced both?

No. When I experience God, I experience the Divine Mother. The pure Godhead is not experienced for there is no “I” to experience and no “other” to be experienced. All there is, I suspect, is the pure I Am of God, Reality in and of itself.

Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of humanity?

Both. If people change—if we learn to overcome our intrinsic ignorance, arrogance, greed, fear and violence—I am optimistic. If we don’t, I am pessimistic. While we are good at improving the longevity of our lives, we suck an improving the quality of our living. While we get better and better at distracting ourselves; we suck at improving ourselves.

What about global warming? Do you think we will reverse this trend?

No. It’s too late for that. And, besides, I like my air-conditioning and central heating too much to give them up, and I imagine that when one billion Chinese have these luxuries as well they won’t want to give them up either. The question isn’t can we stop global climate change, but can we adapt to it and survive it? I don’t know the answer to that, but I suggest that millions of us will die while millions also survive.

You don’t think we will switch to alternative sources of energy?

Probably not in time to save our civilization. There comes a moment in the life of every empire when they have to choose to embrace the future or cling to the past. Usually they cling to the past. And when they do they begin a long slow and often bloody decline. The American moment is now. We can choose a green future and reinvent our civilization, or we can cling to our addiction to dead dinosaurs and follow them into extinction. Right now dinosaurs are winning.

So you don’t think we can turn things around?

You know the phrase, “come hell or high water?” Well, they’re both coming, and soon.

So how does that impact your work as a spiritual leader?

I’m a teacher not a leader. I don’t like following others, and I certainly don’t like others following me. But to answer your question, my concern is with cultivating compassion and loving-kindness. No one will survive what is coming alone. If we close our hearts out of fear, we will maximize the horror of what is coming, and those who do survive it will be the most heartless of all. But if we learn to open our hearts and work together in love more will survive, and do so with heart and soul intact.

Don’t you think God will intervene? Have you no hope?

Counting on God hasn’t really worked out so well for us Jews, so I don’t do that. But what I said doesn’t preclude hope. I have no hope that we will avoid the hell and high water that is coming with climate change. I have no hope that we will create a just and equitable society in place of the plutocracy we have now, but I do have hope that we can live our dying with love and compassion.

Last chance. Is there no way we can save ourselves at all?

All right, you want hope here’s hope. I have hope in Yertle the Turtle.

Yertle the Turtle? Like the Dr. Seuss book?

Exactly. Though not in Yertle himself, for he was the king. My hope is in Mack the lowest of things. Dr. Seuss’ story is about a society where the top turtle, Yertle, rests on the backs of all the lesser turtles beneath. Mack, the lowest turtle, complains about this injustice and is told to keep still. Mack burps and topples the entire system. I have hope that some Mack will burp and the whole system will crash.

This sounds like the Tea Party.

Not at all. Tea Party turtles worship the giant tortoise on the top. They worship the system that keeps them on the bottom even as it promises them a turn at the top. Tea Party turtles never burp. The true Macks are those who realize that the entire system is sick, and that maintaining it is wrong. They are mad as hell and just won’t take it any more. Tea Party turtles are mad as hell and just keep taking it. The faux Macks will stay where they are and allow the system to continue to exploit them. The real Macks will burp, and having burped walk away. It’s like a reverse Atas Shrugged.

Ayn Rand’s novel?

Right. In the novel the creators at the top shrug off the world of the takers at the bottom. In the Yertle version the takers are at the top: the wealthy and powerful, the greedy security-military-government-industrial-financial-media complex whose only concern is with maintaining their own power, and who add nothing of real value to human civilization. In the Rand novel the average person cannot live without the genius of the superior folks. In the Yertle version the powerful cannot live without the Macks lower down. When we Macks at last know our true worth we will burp. And when we do—watch out!

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?