I am teaching a course in Mussar, the Jewish ethical training system. One of the Mussar teachings is that each of us contains an Inner Adversary (Yetzer haRah) perfectly tailored to our own psychology, and designed to challenge us to grow ethically at every state of our moral development. It is as if we were each born with an inner moral coach who comes up with tests designed to both test the quality of our present level of attainment and push us toward an even higher one.
While I find the idea intriguing, I must admit that I tended to take it in a somewhat abstract and even off-handed manner. Perhaps because I did so my Inner Adversary decided to work overtime.
Over the past seven days I have received more hate mail that at any other time in my writing career with the single exception of the essay I published in Spirituality & Health magazine critical of The Secret. Most of the mail was from people angry over the way I am teaching a three-week introduction to Islam for Jews.
The basic criticism is that I am whitewashing Islam, making it respectable, when, in fact, it is the greatest threat to Jews, Americans, and democracy in the 21st century. I was called a self-hating Jew, and anti-Semite, a Muslim sympathizer, and a terrorist collaborator.
I admit to being naïve when it comes to people’s responses to my work, and I admit to being shocked, hurt, and not a little frightened by the venom I sensed in these emails. The synagogue hosting this seminar has hired an off-duty police officer to help insure that things do not turn physically violent.
At first I was just stunned and upset by what was happening. Then I remembered the Inner Adversary and, without putting too fine a point on this, began to see this as the work of Yetzer haRah. In other words I set up the conditions that would invite the responses that would force me to look at what I was doing.
Regarding Islam and the teaching of religion in general, I always present the religions I teach in their best light. I want people to learn something positive from these traditions. I also believe that each religion contains gems of wisdom from which all can benefit. So I teach each religion as the best and brightest followers of that faith see that faith. Once we have a sense of that, however, I can and do turn to the darker aspects of the faith.
I also got two letters from a very thoughtful and passionate man responding to my earlier post “I am not Open-Minded.” This gentleman found my basic philosophy empty of any intellectual value whatsoever. I posted both letters in the comments section of that blog entry so you can read them for yourself.
I read his two emails carefully, hoping that I might see where my logic is faulty, and where I need to rethink what I think. The truth is I am still convinced that what I say is not only true, but also compelling.
This of course doesn’t prove either point. All it proves is that I am failing to grow from the efforts of my Yetzer haRah. I’m sorry about that for two reasons. First because it might mean I have reached my intellectual plateau, and, second, because it might mean my Yetzer haRah will try harder.
Disagree with me all you want, but be nice. I bruise easily.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Religion-Science Smackdown
Monday is Religion Day at USA TODAY and this week’s paper featured an essay by Henry Brinton on honoring religion and science. The gist of Pastor Brinton’s piece is that religion and science answer different questions and therefore should not be in conflict. Religion, he says, speaks to why things are the way they are, and science speaks to how things are the way they are. If this were true there would be no conflict. But it isn’t true, at least not when speaking of the three Abrahamic religions. (The Buddha demanded from the beginning that people test his truth claims for themselves.)
To speak of science this way is to ignore the implications of science and the scientific method. Science isn’t simply a collection of facts about the mechanics of the universe; it is a philosophical stance toward that universe. Science insists that anything that cannot ever be tested and potentially disproved is irrelevant. (This leaves room for many hypotheses that may not be testable today but are open for future testing when such testing becomes possible).
The three Abrahamic religions are not about proof-tests but proof-texts. A matter is true if it appears in or can be made to appear in the holy book of your choice. Jesus is God because the New Testament says he is. Jesus is not God because the Hebrew Bible doesn’t say he is. The Bible Code was a very popular method among some Orthodox Jews for proving that the Torah was true because it showed that the Torah predicted Hitler and the Kennedy assassination (among many other historical events). It quickly fell out of favor when Christian decoders proved that it also predicted Jesus. Adherence to fixed belief rather than a willingness to undergo rigorous testing is the hallmark of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Religion and science offer two very different worldviews. Science is rooted in naturalism, religion in supernaturalism. Science can’t disprove God (God is not testable), but doesn’t need God to explain reality. Religion can’t prove God (God must not be tested), but doesn’t need proof in order to insist that people believe; indeed belief is irrelevant if a matter can be proven.
Nor can religion be confined to abstractions about “why” or lovely pronouncements about loving one’s neighbor as oneself. If religion were only about universal meaning, justice, and love we would have no conflict between religion and science or between one religion and another. But religion demands more than this. It demands loyalty to a set of untestable propositions that elevate some people over others and sanction horrendous acts of violence against those others either in this world or the next. In this sense religion is more like politics than science, more about power than truth.
Science doesn’t need religion to make sense of the world. Nor does science need religion in order to find life-affirming values that transcend human whim and ego. The more science reveals the interconnectedness and interdependence of all life the more it finds scientific justification for an ethic based in mutual caring and support. True, science can be used for evil ends, but so can religion. Neither of which suggests that science and religion are without ethics, only that people ignore ethics when they no longer serve our purposes.
Similarly, religion doesn’t need science to explain the world or to live in it meaningfully. Hence the Taliban, Creationism, and any other fundamentalist faith that ignores or denies the facts of science. So what if they would never get to the moon or split the atom? Getting the heaven is the point of life, and compared to that going to the moon is a distraction.
I understand that many people want to keep religion and science separate. It makes life easier if we compartmentalize things this way: I can live as if the earth orbits the sun six days a week, and pretend that it doesn’t one day a week. What’s the harm? I can live off the oil produced by dinosaurs millions of years ago, and yet insist that in fact there were male and female brontosauruses on Noah’s ark some few thousands of years ago.
But I don’t want reductionist science or ridiculous religion. I don’t want to compartmentalize reason and faith. I want science and religion to work together and the challenge the reductionist tendencies of each. I want priests, pastors, rabbis, imams, swamis well trained in the fundamentals of science, and scientists engaged in the exploration of spiritual potential.
For me religion and science are different languages, different ways of speaking about reality. And as with all languages the each have their brilliance and their blind spots. Science speaks in facts and numbers, religion in myth and metaphor (though some scientists are discovering that metaphor is necessary for them as well). Science is prose, religion is poetry. Science would never posit, “My love is a red red rose” but that doesn’t make the statement false, just metaphoric. Science can help me understand the grandeur of a tree; religion can help me experience its magic. Science can reveal the majesty of the heavens; religion can help me feel its love. Should we separate poetry and prose, or simply recognize them as being unique unto themselves?
Science is like the score of a great symphony; religion is the act of playing that score or listening to it being played by a fine orchestra. They compliment one another. Can we separate the score from the music? Of course not.
The battle between religion and science is silly. It only happens between reductionist fundamentalists in both camps—people who wish to see their way as the only way. At the Science and Spirituality Forum I help direct at Middle Tennessee State University we invite people from all fields to offer their various understandings of life from their various disciplines not to decide which is right, but to discover that all are incomplete and in need of the others.
To speak of science this way is to ignore the implications of science and the scientific method. Science isn’t simply a collection of facts about the mechanics of the universe; it is a philosophical stance toward that universe. Science insists that anything that cannot ever be tested and potentially disproved is irrelevant. (This leaves room for many hypotheses that may not be testable today but are open for future testing when such testing becomes possible).
The three Abrahamic religions are not about proof-tests but proof-texts. A matter is true if it appears in or can be made to appear in the holy book of your choice. Jesus is God because the New Testament says he is. Jesus is not God because the Hebrew Bible doesn’t say he is. The Bible Code was a very popular method among some Orthodox Jews for proving that the Torah was true because it showed that the Torah predicted Hitler and the Kennedy assassination (among many other historical events). It quickly fell out of favor when Christian decoders proved that it also predicted Jesus. Adherence to fixed belief rather than a willingness to undergo rigorous testing is the hallmark of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Religion and science offer two very different worldviews. Science is rooted in naturalism, religion in supernaturalism. Science can’t disprove God (God is not testable), but doesn’t need God to explain reality. Religion can’t prove God (God must not be tested), but doesn’t need proof in order to insist that people believe; indeed belief is irrelevant if a matter can be proven.
Nor can religion be confined to abstractions about “why” or lovely pronouncements about loving one’s neighbor as oneself. If religion were only about universal meaning, justice, and love we would have no conflict between religion and science or between one religion and another. But religion demands more than this. It demands loyalty to a set of untestable propositions that elevate some people over others and sanction horrendous acts of violence against those others either in this world or the next. In this sense religion is more like politics than science, more about power than truth.
Science doesn’t need religion to make sense of the world. Nor does science need religion in order to find life-affirming values that transcend human whim and ego. The more science reveals the interconnectedness and interdependence of all life the more it finds scientific justification for an ethic based in mutual caring and support. True, science can be used for evil ends, but so can religion. Neither of which suggests that science and religion are without ethics, only that people ignore ethics when they no longer serve our purposes.
Similarly, religion doesn’t need science to explain the world or to live in it meaningfully. Hence the Taliban, Creationism, and any other fundamentalist faith that ignores or denies the facts of science. So what if they would never get to the moon or split the atom? Getting the heaven is the point of life, and compared to that going to the moon is a distraction.
I understand that many people want to keep religion and science separate. It makes life easier if we compartmentalize things this way: I can live as if the earth orbits the sun six days a week, and pretend that it doesn’t one day a week. What’s the harm? I can live off the oil produced by dinosaurs millions of years ago, and yet insist that in fact there were male and female brontosauruses on Noah’s ark some few thousands of years ago.
But I don’t want reductionist science or ridiculous religion. I don’t want to compartmentalize reason and faith. I want science and religion to work together and the challenge the reductionist tendencies of each. I want priests, pastors, rabbis, imams, swamis well trained in the fundamentals of science, and scientists engaged in the exploration of spiritual potential.
For me religion and science are different languages, different ways of speaking about reality. And as with all languages the each have their brilliance and their blind spots. Science speaks in facts and numbers, religion in myth and metaphor (though some scientists are discovering that metaphor is necessary for them as well). Science is prose, religion is poetry. Science would never posit, “My love is a red red rose” but that doesn’t make the statement false, just metaphoric. Science can help me understand the grandeur of a tree; religion can help me experience its magic. Science can reveal the majesty of the heavens; religion can help me feel its love. Should we separate poetry and prose, or simply recognize them as being unique unto themselves?
Science is like the score of a great symphony; religion is the act of playing that score or listening to it being played by a fine orchestra. They compliment one another. Can we separate the score from the music? Of course not.
The battle between religion and science is silly. It only happens between reductionist fundamentalists in both camps—people who wish to see their way as the only way. At the Science and Spirituality Forum I help direct at Middle Tennessee State University we invite people from all fields to offer their various understandings of life from their various disciplines not to decide which is right, but to discover that all are incomplete and in need of the others.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Open-minded? Not Me.
During a talk on Judaism delivered at a synagogue last week, I nonchalantly mentioned that I thought of myself as a humanist. I went on to define this as someone who assumed that all systems of belief were of human origin reflecting human biases, concerns, and limitations, and that religion told us more about the worshipper than about the object of their worship. I said that this is why I am so comfortable in interfaith settings—not because I believe all religion is true, but that I believe no religion is true.
The congregation froze at this remark, and the host rabbi leaped up to say how wonderful it was that I felt free enough to share my thoughts, and by doing so proving just how welcoming Judaism is to a wide range of opinions. As the rabbi put as much distance between my ideas and his as possible, I was once again surprised at the seeming rarity of what is to me common sense.
During the question and answer period people sought to reject (as opposed to rebut) my humanism and reaffirm their theism, and I did my best to honor their beliefs. I am always happy to clarify what I believe and inquire with real curiosity into what you believe, but I never argue. And because I don’t argue many people complimented me on my open-mindedness.
I didn’t say anything at the time, but the truth is I am not open-minded. While I rarely get upset when someone disagrees with me, the reason I don’t has nothing to do with being open-minded. Put it this way: I am convinced that the moon is a rock. If you insist it is made of green cheese, I won’t argue with you, but the reason for not arguing has nothing to do with my willingness to entertain the possibility that you are correct in your assessment of the moon. I won’t argue because arguing with someone who believes something so outlandish is simply a waste of time.
Applying this to religion, I do not for a moment imagine that any book is divinely revealed; that any religion is anything other than a human creation serving the socio-economic and political desires of those who created it and gain power and authority from it; or that any idea about god is God.
Do I believe in God? God for me is Reality, the IS-ing of things: that intrinsically creative process that manifests as everything and nothing. God is neither to be feared nor worshipped, but wondered at and marveled over and lived with deep humility, courage, and chutzpah. God is an ever-surprising, irreducible, uncontrollable, celebration of creativity worthy of the deepest respect, awe, reverence, humility, and even love.
God isn’t anywhere or anything; God is everywhere and everything. God doesn’t choose, reward, or punish. God isn’t conscious of me. On the contrary: I am a way God becomes conscious of God. Is any of this Jewish? Not exclusively so, but the language of Judaism works as a way of articulating my beliefs.
For example, I am convinced that Reality is an intrinsically creative process (In the beginning God created, Genesis 1:1); that Reality is a multi-pronged evolutionary experiment in life creation (I will be what I will be, Exodus 3:14), with a penchant for sentience (Let us make humanity, Genesis 1:26); that consciousness pervades all reality (the whole world is filled with God’s glory, Psalm 72:19); that some sentient beings are capable of discovering and consciously participating in the moral nature of Reality as humans perceive it (Do justly, love mercy, walk humbly, Micah 6:8); that the religious geniuses of all time have discovered and articulated the same ethic: Love your neighbor as your self (Leviticus 19:18), and that over time such people continue to expand our understanding of neighbor to ultimately include all reality (Love the Lord your God, Deuteronomy 6:5).
I also believe that just as birds build nests, and beavers build dams, humans make music, art, literature, science, ethics, philosophy, religion, and contemplative tools that sharpen our awareness of the grand play of life. This is why I love what I do, and am blessed to be able to do it. Just don’t imagine my joy at learning the myriad ways we humans make sense of reality has anything to do with being open-minded.
The congregation froze at this remark, and the host rabbi leaped up to say how wonderful it was that I felt free enough to share my thoughts, and by doing so proving just how welcoming Judaism is to a wide range of opinions. As the rabbi put as much distance between my ideas and his as possible, I was once again surprised at the seeming rarity of what is to me common sense.
During the question and answer period people sought to reject (as opposed to rebut) my humanism and reaffirm their theism, and I did my best to honor their beliefs. I am always happy to clarify what I believe and inquire with real curiosity into what you believe, but I never argue. And because I don’t argue many people complimented me on my open-mindedness.
I didn’t say anything at the time, but the truth is I am not open-minded. While I rarely get upset when someone disagrees with me, the reason I don’t has nothing to do with being open-minded. Put it this way: I am convinced that the moon is a rock. If you insist it is made of green cheese, I won’t argue with you, but the reason for not arguing has nothing to do with my willingness to entertain the possibility that you are correct in your assessment of the moon. I won’t argue because arguing with someone who believes something so outlandish is simply a waste of time.
Applying this to religion, I do not for a moment imagine that any book is divinely revealed; that any religion is anything other than a human creation serving the socio-economic and political desires of those who created it and gain power and authority from it; or that any idea about god is God.
Do I believe in God? God for me is Reality, the IS-ing of things: that intrinsically creative process that manifests as everything and nothing. God is neither to be feared nor worshipped, but wondered at and marveled over and lived with deep humility, courage, and chutzpah. God is an ever-surprising, irreducible, uncontrollable, celebration of creativity worthy of the deepest respect, awe, reverence, humility, and even love.
God isn’t anywhere or anything; God is everywhere and everything. God doesn’t choose, reward, or punish. God isn’t conscious of me. On the contrary: I am a way God becomes conscious of God. Is any of this Jewish? Not exclusively so, but the language of Judaism works as a way of articulating my beliefs.
For example, I am convinced that Reality is an intrinsically creative process (In the beginning God created, Genesis 1:1); that Reality is a multi-pronged evolutionary experiment in life creation (I will be what I will be, Exodus 3:14), with a penchant for sentience (Let us make humanity, Genesis 1:26); that consciousness pervades all reality (the whole world is filled with God’s glory, Psalm 72:19); that some sentient beings are capable of discovering and consciously participating in the moral nature of Reality as humans perceive it (Do justly, love mercy, walk humbly, Micah 6:8); that the religious geniuses of all time have discovered and articulated the same ethic: Love your neighbor as your self (Leviticus 19:18), and that over time such people continue to expand our understanding of neighbor to ultimately include all reality (Love the Lord your God, Deuteronomy 6:5).
I also believe that just as birds build nests, and beavers build dams, humans make music, art, literature, science, ethics, philosophy, religion, and contemplative tools that sharpen our awareness of the grand play of life. This is why I love what I do, and am blessed to be able to do it. Just don’t imagine my joy at learning the myriad ways we humans make sense of reality has anything to do with being open-minded.
Friday, February 13, 2009
What's Love Got to Do with It?
Valentine’s Day is February 14th and one billion Valentine cards will be shipped worldwide. One billion affirmations of love and affection! Add to that tons of candy and perhaps a few diamonds and we have a celebration of love that might actually shift the consciousness of the planet. Unfortunately all it does is feed the profit margin of greeting card companies.
The only thing I know about Valentine’s Day is the 1929 Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre in Chicago when Al Capone’s Italians gunned down seven of Bugs Moran’s Irish. I always assumed this was contrary to the spirit of the day, but it turns out I was wrong. There are three saints called Valentine who vie for the honor of being THE Saint Valentine and all three of them were murdered: Valentine of Rome was martyred around 269 CE, Valentine of Terni was killed during the persecution of Christians in 197 CE, and a Valentine about whom nothing is known except that he was martyred in Africa. So blood and murder rather than candy and diamonds are the real traditions of the holiday.
How did we get from martyrs to lovesick chocoholics? I’m coming to that. But first I think it is important to note that the original love celebrated on Valentine’s Day was love of Christ. These three Valentines were killed because of their love of their Lord and their faith. Jews, Christians, and Muslims love their martyrs. There is something about dying for one’s religion that speaks powerfully of… what?
What idea would I be willing to die for? This is a very different question than its corollary, what idea would I be willing to kill for. I’d being willing to kill you for disagreeing with me about the merits of mint chocolate chip ice cream, the musical quality of the Beatles White Album, and even which Dr. Who is the real Dr. Who. But die? No thanks. I’d rather live to think another thought another day.
But it might be wise to have one day each year set aside to explore where love turns bloody. And this is where the romance comes in.
There is a legend about another Valentine who was rejected by his mistress. This Valentine was so distraught that he took a knife and cut out his own heart and shipped it (still beating!) to his lover as a token of his undying love.
Lots of questions here. How did he manage to cut out his heart, take a coach to the local UPS (or the equivalent of his day), stand in line for who knows how long, wait to have the heart (still beating!) boxed, gift wrapped, and addressed, and still have the strength to pull out his purse and pay for the shipping? And why did he think his girlfriend would prefer a bloody heart (still beating!) to flowers? If this is the kind of taste he had, she was probably right to dump him. And why would this kind of behavior catch on? How many men cut their own hearts out before someone invented the Valentine’s Day card instead?
But the big question is why did this guy become a Saint? He wasn’t a martyr. All he did was commit suicide. You don’t need Jesus for that. At least the other Valentines died because someone else hated what they loved, rather than kill themselves because of what they loved. If the latter had caught on Christianity would die out in a generation.
So, lots of problems with this holiday. But I am not ready to give up on it yet. I just want to get back to tradition.
Here are some suggestions. First, a great seasonal home business would be to make a plastic wind-up beating heart (like plastic chattering teeth) that people could send to their loved ones. Second, more religiously minded people might sell chocolate relics of the Valentines (bones, teeth, hair, still beating hearts) to be given as gifts for the holiday. Third, those with a more secular humanist bent could donate their heart to an organ bank in the name of their loved one. The recipient of the heart would be required to visit the designated loved one every Valentine’s Day. Nothing says “I love you” like a visit from the heart of a dead lover.
My own preference, however, is to spend the day thinking about for what and for whom I would die. I know most of us would be willing to die for our kids, but those of us who actually have children can probably remember moments when we wanted to kill them, so let’s not be too smug.
Anyway, Happy Valentines Day.
The only thing I know about Valentine’s Day is the 1929 Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre in Chicago when Al Capone’s Italians gunned down seven of Bugs Moran’s Irish. I always assumed this was contrary to the spirit of the day, but it turns out I was wrong. There are three saints called Valentine who vie for the honor of being THE Saint Valentine and all three of them were murdered: Valentine of Rome was martyred around 269 CE, Valentine of Terni was killed during the persecution of Christians in 197 CE, and a Valentine about whom nothing is known except that he was martyred in Africa. So blood and murder rather than candy and diamonds are the real traditions of the holiday.
How did we get from martyrs to lovesick chocoholics? I’m coming to that. But first I think it is important to note that the original love celebrated on Valentine’s Day was love of Christ. These three Valentines were killed because of their love of their Lord and their faith. Jews, Christians, and Muslims love their martyrs. There is something about dying for one’s religion that speaks powerfully of… what?
What idea would I be willing to die for? This is a very different question than its corollary, what idea would I be willing to kill for. I’d being willing to kill you for disagreeing with me about the merits of mint chocolate chip ice cream, the musical quality of the Beatles White Album, and even which Dr. Who is the real Dr. Who. But die? No thanks. I’d rather live to think another thought another day.
But it might be wise to have one day each year set aside to explore where love turns bloody. And this is where the romance comes in.
There is a legend about another Valentine who was rejected by his mistress. This Valentine was so distraught that he took a knife and cut out his own heart and shipped it (still beating!) to his lover as a token of his undying love.
Lots of questions here. How did he manage to cut out his heart, take a coach to the local UPS (or the equivalent of his day), stand in line for who knows how long, wait to have the heart (still beating!) boxed, gift wrapped, and addressed, and still have the strength to pull out his purse and pay for the shipping? And why did he think his girlfriend would prefer a bloody heart (still beating!) to flowers? If this is the kind of taste he had, she was probably right to dump him. And why would this kind of behavior catch on? How many men cut their own hearts out before someone invented the Valentine’s Day card instead?
But the big question is why did this guy become a Saint? He wasn’t a martyr. All he did was commit suicide. You don’t need Jesus for that. At least the other Valentines died because someone else hated what they loved, rather than kill themselves because of what they loved. If the latter had caught on Christianity would die out in a generation.
So, lots of problems with this holiday. But I am not ready to give up on it yet. I just want to get back to tradition.
Here are some suggestions. First, a great seasonal home business would be to make a plastic wind-up beating heart (like plastic chattering teeth) that people could send to their loved ones. Second, more religiously minded people might sell chocolate relics of the Valentines (bones, teeth, hair, still beating hearts) to be given as gifts for the holiday. Third, those with a more secular humanist bent could donate their heart to an organ bank in the name of their loved one. The recipient of the heart would be required to visit the designated loved one every Valentine’s Day. Nothing says “I love you” like a visit from the heart of a dead lover.
My own preference, however, is to spend the day thinking about for what and for whom I would die. I know most of us would be willing to die for our kids, but those of us who actually have children can probably remember moments when we wanted to kill them, so let’s not be too smug.
Anyway, Happy Valentines Day.
Sayings of the Juddah
I never pass on stuff like this, but I just got this from a Buddhist friend of mine and thought it was hilarious. So I am passing it on. Good Shabbos to all of you.
Sayings of the Jewish Buddhist
If there is no self, whose arthritis is this?
Be here now. Be someplace else later. Is that so complicated?
Drink tea and nourish life; with the first sip, joy; with the second sip, satisfaction; with the third sip, peace; with the fourth, a Danish.
Wherever you go, there you are. Your luggage is another story.
Accept misfortune as a blessing. Do not wish for perfect health, or a life without problems. What would you talk about?
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single Oy.
There is no escaping karma. In a previous life, you never called, you never wrote, you never visited. And whose fault was that?
Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.
The Tao does not speak. The Tao does not blame. The Tao does not take sides. The Tao has no expectations. The Tao demands nothing of others. The Tao is not Jewish.
Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Breathe out. Forget this and attaining Enlightenment will be the least of your problems.
Let your mind be as a floating cloud. Let your stillness be as a wooded glen. And sit up straight. You'll never meet the Buddha with such rounded shoulders.
Deep inside you are ten thousand flowers. Each flower blossoms ten thousand times. Each blossom has ten thousand petals. (You might want to see a specialist.)
The Torah says, Love your neighbor as yourself. The Buddha says, "There is no self." So, maybe we're off the hook.
Sayings of the Jewish Buddhist
If there is no self, whose arthritis is this?
Be here now. Be someplace else later. Is that so complicated?
Drink tea and nourish life; with the first sip, joy; with the second sip, satisfaction; with the third sip, peace; with the fourth, a Danish.
Wherever you go, there you are. Your luggage is another story.
Accept misfortune as a blessing. Do not wish for perfect health, or a life without problems. What would you talk about?
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single Oy.
There is no escaping karma. In a previous life, you never called, you never wrote, you never visited. And whose fault was that?
Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.
The Tao does not speak. The Tao does not blame. The Tao does not take sides. The Tao has no expectations. The Tao demands nothing of others. The Tao is not Jewish.
Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Breathe out. Forget this and attaining Enlightenment will be the least of your problems.
Let your mind be as a floating cloud. Let your stillness be as a wooded glen. And sit up straight. You'll never meet the Buddha with such rounded shoulders.
Deep inside you are ten thousand flowers. Each flower blossoms ten thousand times. Each blossom has ten thousand petals. (You might want to see a specialist.)
The Torah says, Love your neighbor as yourself. The Buddha says, "There is no self." So, maybe we're off the hook.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Religion and Truth
Rod Dreher, author of Crunchy Cons, wrote a very moving and, to me, troubling essay in today's USA TODAY. The basic idea is that too much truth when it comes to religion is a bad thing.
At issue is Rod’s journalistic examination of the sex abuse scandals that rocked the Catholic Church. It drove him out of Catholicism and into Eastern Orthodoxy. “After I left Rome,” Rod writes, “I made a deliberate decision not to investigate scandal in the Orthodox Church of American (OCA), my new communion.” To his credit Rod says the decision bothered him, but he needed a safe haven and would have one even at the cost of truth.
This is what I found so troubling. If the only way I can remain loyal to a community is by turning a blind eye to evil and falsehood, then I cannot help but question my need for that community.
I assume that power corrupts, and absolute religious power corrupts not only absolutely but existentially. So I steer clear of any religious institution that demands such power for itself. I want a religion that frees me from slavery not one that enslaves me. If the institution is corrupt it is also corrupting, so why would I want to belong to it? Why would I endanger my family by belonging to it?
Rod argues that while it might seem a good thing that the Catholic sex scandal was brought to light, “it’s not such a clear-cut issue.” He fears that by shining light on religion we lose the magic. Just so! Magic isn’t real. When a magician tries to con you into believing what he is doing isn’t simply entertainment but revelation demanding absolute loyalty, it is vital that light be shined on the scam.
But not all religions are like this. True, as Rod says, no institution is perfect nor should we expect it to be, but the more transparent an institution is the less damage it can do. And I am not limiting my concern to religious institutions as Rod does in his fine essay. I think all religious teachings can benefit from daylight: historical and scholarly exploration. If religion is sleight-of-hand and only viable in the half-light of half-truths then I want nothing to do with it.
Rod asks a very important question, “How much reality must we choose to ignore for the greater good of our own souls, and society?” My answer is simple: none. If my religion cannot stand up to reality, who needs it? If my faith doesn’t help me engage reality but rather demands that I ignore reality, who needs it? A religion that ignores reality is just escapist fantasy, no different than watching TV or reading a good novel. And, as many atheists will insist, that is what religion is. But I think there are exceptions.
While I do not believe it is possible to package the truth, I do believe it is possible to point us toward it. That is what religion should do, both theologically and institutionally. If a religion has to lie in order to survive, it is time for that religion to die.
At issue is Rod’s journalistic examination of the sex abuse scandals that rocked the Catholic Church. It drove him out of Catholicism and into Eastern Orthodoxy. “After I left Rome,” Rod writes, “I made a deliberate decision not to investigate scandal in the Orthodox Church of American (OCA), my new communion.” To his credit Rod says the decision bothered him, but he needed a safe haven and would have one even at the cost of truth.
This is what I found so troubling. If the only way I can remain loyal to a community is by turning a blind eye to evil and falsehood, then I cannot help but question my need for that community.
I assume that power corrupts, and absolute religious power corrupts not only absolutely but existentially. So I steer clear of any religious institution that demands such power for itself. I want a religion that frees me from slavery not one that enslaves me. If the institution is corrupt it is also corrupting, so why would I want to belong to it? Why would I endanger my family by belonging to it?
Rod argues that while it might seem a good thing that the Catholic sex scandal was brought to light, “it’s not such a clear-cut issue.” He fears that by shining light on religion we lose the magic. Just so! Magic isn’t real. When a magician tries to con you into believing what he is doing isn’t simply entertainment but revelation demanding absolute loyalty, it is vital that light be shined on the scam.
But not all religions are like this. True, as Rod says, no institution is perfect nor should we expect it to be, but the more transparent an institution is the less damage it can do. And I am not limiting my concern to religious institutions as Rod does in his fine essay. I think all religious teachings can benefit from daylight: historical and scholarly exploration. If religion is sleight-of-hand and only viable in the half-light of half-truths then I want nothing to do with it.
Rod asks a very important question, “How much reality must we choose to ignore for the greater good of our own souls, and society?” My answer is simple: none. If my religion cannot stand up to reality, who needs it? If my faith doesn’t help me engage reality but rather demands that I ignore reality, who needs it? A religion that ignores reality is just escapist fantasy, no different than watching TV or reading a good novel. And, as many atheists will insist, that is what religion is. But I think there are exceptions.
While I do not believe it is possible to package the truth, I do believe it is possible to point us toward it. That is what religion should do, both theologically and institutionally. If a religion has to lie in order to survive, it is time for that religion to die.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Resurrection Diet
I’m fat. I could be fatter, of course, but given my body mass index and all that, it is safe to say I’m fat. I’m not happy about this and I work hard between snacks to do something about it, but still…
I used to worry about being fat, but no longer. What changed my mind? New revelations about the coming resurrection.
Newsweek magazine reported on a movement among some Christian and Jewish scholars to get Americans to believe in the literal fact of a physical resurrection at the end of time. (My clocks are off, so I’m not exactly sure how much time is left before the end of time, but I assume there is still time for a quick run to pay homage to my earthly lords Burger King and his Dairy Queen before I meet the King of Kings).
What does all this have to do with being fat? Everything. According to religion scholar Paula Fredriksen, author of “Augustine and the Jews”, “Our bodies will be the very same as the ones we had in life, but buff and beautiful.”
Buff and beautiful! I have never been buff and beautiful, but if this is what God has in store for me, well Halleluyah!
Lest you think that resurrection isn’t part of the Jewish playbook, let me remind you that the Talmudic rabbis made resurrection one of their few faith requirements. They said that anyone who doesn’t believe in resurrection in the World to Come has no share in the World to Come (Sanhedrin 50a). True, this is not a very persuasive argument; after all if you don’t believe in the World to Come in the first place being threatened with not having a place in it isn’t very compelling. But it does show that they took the idea seriously.
And then there is Maimonides who made resurrection the thirteenth of his list of Thirteen Principles of Faith: "I believe with complete (perfect) faith, that there will be techiat hameitim - revival of the dead, whenever it will be God's, blessed be He, will (desire) to arise and do so. May (God's) Name be blessed, and may His remembrance arise, forever and ever." That last part just shows what a suck-up Maimonides was, but facts are facts and Jews are supposed to believe in bodily resurrection. And I for one am going for it.
Here’s my plan. Given the hard economic times more and more people are going to become poor. It is a fact that poor people eat more fast food than rich people. It is also a fact that fast food makes you fatter than slow food. So there will be more and more poor people who are getting fatter and fatter. I think I can capitalize on this.
I’m going to start selling a new program called the Resurrection Diet. There’s no calorie counting or exercise involved. It doesn’t matter how thin or fat you are in this life, after all this life is temporary. “Eternity in the buff bod you always wanted” is my slogan. All you have to do is get resurrected. And all you have to do to get resurrected is to believe in the resurrection.
The Resurrection Diet is simple: People will send me ten dollars American and I will send them a copy of Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles of Faith. You can eat what you want, lie around watching television, just swear allegiance to the Thirteen Principles. That will get you into the resurrection and the buff and beautiful bod that comes with it. It’s easier than The Secret!
But wait! That’s not all! Even if you don’t believe in the Thirteen Principles you still get resurrected. Yes you will spend eternity in your buff and beautiful body doing Bikram Yoga® in hell, but we will throw in Sham-Wow® towels to help keep the sweat out of your eyes so you can ogle all those other dead beauties.
But wait! There’s more! If you send me the money now, I will send you two copies of Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles. That’s two copies of the Thirteen Principles plus the Sham-Wow® towels all for ten dollars plus shipping and handling.
But wait! There’s even more. The first million callers may also receive my perhaps never to be published book, “Left Behind, Right Behind, Tight Behind: Having the Butt You Want in Heaven.”
Call now. Operators are standing by.
I used to worry about being fat, but no longer. What changed my mind? New revelations about the coming resurrection.
Newsweek magazine reported on a movement among some Christian and Jewish scholars to get Americans to believe in the literal fact of a physical resurrection at the end of time. (My clocks are off, so I’m not exactly sure how much time is left before the end of time, but I assume there is still time for a quick run to pay homage to my earthly lords Burger King and his Dairy Queen before I meet the King of Kings).
What does all this have to do with being fat? Everything. According to religion scholar Paula Fredriksen, author of “Augustine and the Jews”, “Our bodies will be the very same as the ones we had in life, but buff and beautiful.”
Buff and beautiful! I have never been buff and beautiful, but if this is what God has in store for me, well Halleluyah!
Lest you think that resurrection isn’t part of the Jewish playbook, let me remind you that the Talmudic rabbis made resurrection one of their few faith requirements. They said that anyone who doesn’t believe in resurrection in the World to Come has no share in the World to Come (Sanhedrin 50a). True, this is not a very persuasive argument; after all if you don’t believe in the World to Come in the first place being threatened with not having a place in it isn’t very compelling. But it does show that they took the idea seriously.
And then there is Maimonides who made resurrection the thirteenth of his list of Thirteen Principles of Faith: "I believe with complete (perfect) faith, that there will be techiat hameitim - revival of the dead, whenever it will be God's, blessed be He, will (desire) to arise and do so. May (God's) Name be blessed, and may His remembrance arise, forever and ever." That last part just shows what a suck-up Maimonides was, but facts are facts and Jews are supposed to believe in bodily resurrection. And I for one am going for it.
Here’s my plan. Given the hard economic times more and more people are going to become poor. It is a fact that poor people eat more fast food than rich people. It is also a fact that fast food makes you fatter than slow food. So there will be more and more poor people who are getting fatter and fatter. I think I can capitalize on this.
I’m going to start selling a new program called the Resurrection Diet. There’s no calorie counting or exercise involved. It doesn’t matter how thin or fat you are in this life, after all this life is temporary. “Eternity in the buff bod you always wanted” is my slogan. All you have to do is get resurrected. And all you have to do to get resurrected is to believe in the resurrection.
The Resurrection Diet is simple: People will send me ten dollars American and I will send them a copy of Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles of Faith. You can eat what you want, lie around watching television, just swear allegiance to the Thirteen Principles. That will get you into the resurrection and the buff and beautiful bod that comes with it. It’s easier than The Secret!
But wait! That’s not all! Even if you don’t believe in the Thirteen Principles you still get resurrected. Yes you will spend eternity in your buff and beautiful body doing Bikram Yoga® in hell, but we will throw in Sham-Wow® towels to help keep the sweat out of your eyes so you can ogle all those other dead beauties.
But wait! There’s more! If you send me the money now, I will send you two copies of Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles. That’s two copies of the Thirteen Principles plus the Sham-Wow® towels all for ten dollars plus shipping and handling.
But wait! There’s even more. The first million callers may also receive my perhaps never to be published book, “Left Behind, Right Behind, Tight Behind: Having the Butt You Want in Heaven.”
Call now. Operators are standing by.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Putting the Nut in Donut
Sometimes the left just goes too far. In this case its hatred of the unborn has sunk to new lows as that noted left-wing god-hating company Krispy Kreme uses its irresistible donuts to lure unsuspecting Americans into supporting abortion rights. Here’s the story:
Seeking to capitalize on the excitement surrounding Inauguration Day, Krispy Kreme announced that it was giving away a free donut on January 20th. While giving away anything for free is clearly anti-capitalist, this isn’t what was so offensive about the Krispy Kreme move. In advertising their free donut scheme the company said they were giving the donuts away as a way of “honoring Americans’ sense of pride and freedom of choice.”
Americans and “freedom of choice”? How dare they! Everyone knows that freedom of choice is code for abortion rights. Krispy Kreme was supporting the murder of the unborn. Or at least that is what the American Life League believes. Its president Judie Brown said, “Choice is synonymous with abortion access, and celebration of freedom of choice is a tacit endorsement of abortion rights.” Take that you donut sucking God haters!
Krispy Kreme was quick to deny any intent to link donuts with abortion, but the facts are the facts. First donuts are sort of shaped like diaphragms. Second… well, there is no second but the shape of a donut is bad enough. And when you realize that donuts have holes and crullers are shaped like uh, you know, the male member or p#n#s, it is clear that Krispy Kreme is pro-sex, anti-abstinence, as well as being pro-abortion.
So kudos to the American Life League! But why stop with creaming Krispy? I say let’s go after every organization that supports choice starting with the United States government. From this day forward I am urging all Americans who love zygotes to demand an end to beef labeled "USDA Choice". I am also demanding that Americans boycott the Choice Hotel chain, Healthy Choice food products, voucher systems promoting school choice, and Citizens for Healthy Options in Children’s Education (CHOICE) and their efforts to improve school lunches which, for all I know, probably includes substituting Krispy Kreme donuts for Sloppy Joes. And this is just for starters.
By November of 2012 I hope to see all references to choice removed from every book, dictionary, company, agency, and institution in these God fearing United States. There is only one way to end abortion and that is to make sure that no one is free to choose anything. I hope you agree.
[By the way, if you know anyone at Dunkin’ Donuts please see if you can get them to financially support me in this anti-Krispy Kreme effort. It will be good for their business.]
Seeking to capitalize on the excitement surrounding Inauguration Day, Krispy Kreme announced that it was giving away a free donut on January 20th. While giving away anything for free is clearly anti-capitalist, this isn’t what was so offensive about the Krispy Kreme move. In advertising their free donut scheme the company said they were giving the donuts away as a way of “honoring Americans’ sense of pride and freedom of choice.”
Americans and “freedom of choice”? How dare they! Everyone knows that freedom of choice is code for abortion rights. Krispy Kreme was supporting the murder of the unborn. Or at least that is what the American Life League believes. Its president Judie Brown said, “Choice is synonymous with abortion access, and celebration of freedom of choice is a tacit endorsement of abortion rights.” Take that you donut sucking God haters!
Krispy Kreme was quick to deny any intent to link donuts with abortion, but the facts are the facts. First donuts are sort of shaped like diaphragms. Second… well, there is no second but the shape of a donut is bad enough. And when you realize that donuts have holes and crullers are shaped like uh, you know, the male member or p#n#s, it is clear that Krispy Kreme is pro-sex, anti-abstinence, as well as being pro-abortion.
So kudos to the American Life League! But why stop with creaming Krispy? I say let’s go after every organization that supports choice starting with the United States government. From this day forward I am urging all Americans who love zygotes to demand an end to beef labeled "USDA Choice". I am also demanding that Americans boycott the Choice Hotel chain, Healthy Choice food products, voucher systems promoting school choice, and Citizens for Healthy Options in Children’s Education (CHOICE) and their efforts to improve school lunches which, for all I know, probably includes substituting Krispy Kreme donuts for Sloppy Joes. And this is just for starters.
By November of 2012 I hope to see all references to choice removed from every book, dictionary, company, agency, and institution in these God fearing United States. There is only one way to end abortion and that is to make sure that no one is free to choose anything. I hope you agree.
[By the way, if you know anyone at Dunkin’ Donuts please see if you can get them to financially support me in this anti-Krispy Kreme effort. It will be good for their business.]
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Gay Gene
Today I learned that Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, gave the invocation at the pre-inaugural “We are One” concert hosted by the Obama’s at the Lincoln Memorial. The fact that I didn’t know there was such a concert, and was not invited to attend the concert let alone offer a prayer at the concert probably doesn’t concern you. It should, but it probably doesn’t. The fact that Robinson’s prayer was cut from the broadcast of the concert does concern you. And it should.
With all the controversy surrounding the inaugural invocation given by Rev. Rick Warren, noted enemy of all things gay, one would think that Bishop Robinson would be big news. But it seems to have been, shall we say, kept in the closet. The HBO broadcast of the event chose not to include it (true), and Fox News refused to even mention it saying, “There is no such thing as a gay Gene” (not really true but you know it could be true if I hadn’t made it up).
This is troubling, but understandable. Rick Warren usually wears Hawaiian shirts and Obama’s grandmother lived in Hawaii, so featuring him makes sense. And Rev. Joseph Lowry, contrary to many who believe he was asked to pray because he was black, was invited because he could speak in rhyme (as opposed to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, also black, whose “God damn America” prayer is free verse). Obama prefers rhyme, that choice makes sense as well. But other than the fact that almost every gay person in America supported Obama with cash and votes, the President has no real ties to the gay community.
I get that our President (and every president) is a politician, so I understand why President Obama would want to snuggle up to the Evangelical Christian community who didn’t support him while taking the Gay community for granted. After all I watched every episode of West Wing. But, had he followed my advice, the President could have pleased both communities.
My suggestion to the Inaugural Planning Committee was to kill two birds with one stone and invite evangelical pastor Ted Haggard to speak. That way the President could kiss the butts of both pro-lifers and homosexuals at the same time. The fact that they once again failed to listen to me aside, Bishop Robinson’s prayer blew the other two out of the water.
Because most of us were prevented from seeing Bishop Robinson give his prayer, I am reprinting his text here. The prayer was taped by Sarah Pulliam, who is, ironically, a reporter for the notably not gay-friendly magazine Christianity Today. Here is Bishop Robinson’s prayer:
“O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will…
Bless us with tears — tears for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women in many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.
Bless this nation with anger — anger at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
Bless us with discomfort — at the easy, simplistic answers we've preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth, about ourselves and our world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.
Bless us with patience — and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be “fixed” anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.
Bless us with humility — open to understanding that our own needs as a nation must always be balanced with those of the world.
Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance - replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences.
And bless us with compassion and generosity - remembering that every religion's God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable.
And God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.
Give him wisdom beyond his years, inspire him with President Lincoln's reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy's ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King's dream of a nation for all people.
Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain.
Give him stirring words — we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.
Make him color-blind, reminding him of his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.
Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.
Give him strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters' childhoods.
And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we're asking far too much of this one. We implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand - that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace.
Amen.
Now that’s a prayer! It almost makes me want to become an Episcopalian. Or at least gay.
With all the controversy surrounding the inaugural invocation given by Rev. Rick Warren, noted enemy of all things gay, one would think that Bishop Robinson would be big news. But it seems to have been, shall we say, kept in the closet. The HBO broadcast of the event chose not to include it (true), and Fox News refused to even mention it saying, “There is no such thing as a gay Gene” (not really true but you know it could be true if I hadn’t made it up).
This is troubling, but understandable. Rick Warren usually wears Hawaiian shirts and Obama’s grandmother lived in Hawaii, so featuring him makes sense. And Rev. Joseph Lowry, contrary to many who believe he was asked to pray because he was black, was invited because he could speak in rhyme (as opposed to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, also black, whose “God damn America” prayer is free verse). Obama prefers rhyme, that choice makes sense as well. But other than the fact that almost every gay person in America supported Obama with cash and votes, the President has no real ties to the gay community.
I get that our President (and every president) is a politician, so I understand why President Obama would want to snuggle up to the Evangelical Christian community who didn’t support him while taking the Gay community for granted. After all I watched every episode of West Wing. But, had he followed my advice, the President could have pleased both communities.
My suggestion to the Inaugural Planning Committee was to kill two birds with one stone and invite evangelical pastor Ted Haggard to speak. That way the President could kiss the butts of both pro-lifers and homosexuals at the same time. The fact that they once again failed to listen to me aside, Bishop Robinson’s prayer blew the other two out of the water.
Because most of us were prevented from seeing Bishop Robinson give his prayer, I am reprinting his text here. The prayer was taped by Sarah Pulliam, who is, ironically, a reporter for the notably not gay-friendly magazine Christianity Today. Here is Bishop Robinson’s prayer:
“O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will…
Bless us with tears — tears for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women in many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.
Bless this nation with anger — anger at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
Bless us with discomfort — at the easy, simplistic answers we've preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth, about ourselves and our world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.
Bless us with patience — and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be “fixed” anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.
Bless us with humility — open to understanding that our own needs as a nation must always be balanced with those of the world.
Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance - replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences.
And bless us with compassion and generosity - remembering that every religion's God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable.
And God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.
Give him wisdom beyond his years, inspire him with President Lincoln's reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy's ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King's dream of a nation for all people.
Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain.
Give him stirring words — we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.
Make him color-blind, reminding him of his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.
Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.
Give him strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters' childhoods.
And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we're asking far too much of this one. We implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand - that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace.
Amen.
Now that’s a prayer! It almost makes me want to become an Episcopalian. Or at least gay.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Does the Pope Hate the Jews?
Is it me, or does Pope Benedict have it in for Jews? I’ll let you decide. Here are the facts as I choose to understand them:
1. When he was a kid the Pope belonged to Hitler Youth. According to my research he even won a merit badge for selling more yellow stars to Jews then any other Nazi kid. True he threatened to have them shot if they didn’t buy his stars, but, hey, the kid’s got moxie.
2. The Pope defends the sainthood of Pope Pius XII who Jews believe could have done more to stop the Nazi genocide against Jews. To his credit Pope Pius did consider withholding communion from Adolph Hitler until he found out Hitler was pro-life. He settled instead for writing his opposition to the mass murder of six million Jews in his diary which the Vatican refuses to release to the public—a girl deserves her privacy.
3. The Pope brought back the old Latin mass in which Catholics pray for the conversion of Jews. Jews by the way never pray for the conversion of Catholics. The last thing we need is more overweight men wearing satin beanies. I'm told by Vatican sources that in the underside of their skull caps is printed "Barry Horowitz' Bar Mitzvah."
4. The Pope has welcomed a noted Holocaust denier back into the fold of Catholic Bishops. This anti-Semitic Bishop, Richard Williamson, believes that the Nazis never ran gas chambers and at the most murdered 300,000 Jews and not the 6,000,000,000 as most nonNazi Catholics believe. Further he believes these Jews died in a bratwurst-eating contest held by Hitler in honor of the Jewish holy day of Purim. Gas killed them but it was internal and gastronomic, and not piped in to gas chambers. And, speaking of chambers, Bishop Williamson denial of same has nothing to do with the fact that he hates Jews (after all we killed his God, who wouldn’t hate us?), and everything to do with his being British.
When Brits speak of chambers they are referring to the chambers of Parliament. When he says the Nazis had no gas chambers he is referring to the fact that the Nazis did not have a British style of government where gaseous politicians fill chambers with idle yelling and odd gutter sounds.
As regards the Bishop’s insistence that the number of Jews murdered by the Nazis is 1/2000th of the number recognized by all scholars who are neither Nazis nor Iranians, the fact is Bishop Williamson suffers from a rare numerological disorder that causes him to see everything as 1/2000th the size of what it really is. This is something he was born with and he probably has no idea he suffers from this disorder.
A recent diagnostic test performed on the Bishop proves this. Vatican scientists had Bishop Williamson count 2000 wafers used in the Catholic Mass. He counted all two thousand but when asked how many there were he reported the total as just one. He counted them several times and each time insisted that there was only one wafer. You can actually check this out for yourself: There are 600,000 members of the Bishop Williamson’s Society of Saint Pius X (no relation to Malcolm). Write Bishop Williamson a letter, and ask him how many members he has, and he will insist it is 300. He can’t help himself; there is something wrong with his brain.
So, is Pope Benedict anti-Jew? No, I don’t think so. He is just pro-Catholic. Asking the Pope to care about Jews and the feelings of Jews and the future of anti-Semitism is like asking the CEO of Coke to care about the success of Pepsi. Its all about market share and competition. Of course people get hurt, but you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, and if by “few” you mean six million and if by “eggs” you mean Jews, well it’s still an omelet and that’s what matters.
1. When he was a kid the Pope belonged to Hitler Youth. According to my research he even won a merit badge for selling more yellow stars to Jews then any other Nazi kid. True he threatened to have them shot if they didn’t buy his stars, but, hey, the kid’s got moxie.
2. The Pope defends the sainthood of Pope Pius XII who Jews believe could have done more to stop the Nazi genocide against Jews. To his credit Pope Pius did consider withholding communion from Adolph Hitler until he found out Hitler was pro-life. He settled instead for writing his opposition to the mass murder of six million Jews in his diary which the Vatican refuses to release to the public—a girl deserves her privacy.
3. The Pope brought back the old Latin mass in which Catholics pray for the conversion of Jews. Jews by the way never pray for the conversion of Catholics. The last thing we need is more overweight men wearing satin beanies. I'm told by Vatican sources that in the underside of their skull caps is printed "Barry Horowitz' Bar Mitzvah."
4. The Pope has welcomed a noted Holocaust denier back into the fold of Catholic Bishops. This anti-Semitic Bishop, Richard Williamson, believes that the Nazis never ran gas chambers and at the most murdered 300,000 Jews and not the 6,000,000,000 as most nonNazi Catholics believe. Further he believes these Jews died in a bratwurst-eating contest held by Hitler in honor of the Jewish holy day of Purim. Gas killed them but it was internal and gastronomic, and not piped in to gas chambers. And, speaking of chambers, Bishop Williamson denial of same has nothing to do with the fact that he hates Jews (after all we killed his God, who wouldn’t hate us?), and everything to do with his being British.
When Brits speak of chambers they are referring to the chambers of Parliament. When he says the Nazis had no gas chambers he is referring to the fact that the Nazis did not have a British style of government where gaseous politicians fill chambers with idle yelling and odd gutter sounds.
As regards the Bishop’s insistence that the number of Jews murdered by the Nazis is 1/2000th of the number recognized by all scholars who are neither Nazis nor Iranians, the fact is Bishop Williamson suffers from a rare numerological disorder that causes him to see everything as 1/2000th the size of what it really is. This is something he was born with and he probably has no idea he suffers from this disorder.
A recent diagnostic test performed on the Bishop proves this. Vatican scientists had Bishop Williamson count 2000 wafers used in the Catholic Mass. He counted all two thousand but when asked how many there were he reported the total as just one. He counted them several times and each time insisted that there was only one wafer. You can actually check this out for yourself: There are 600,000 members of the Bishop Williamson’s Society of Saint Pius X (no relation to Malcolm). Write Bishop Williamson a letter, and ask him how many members he has, and he will insist it is 300. He can’t help himself; there is something wrong with his brain.
So, is Pope Benedict anti-Jew? No, I don’t think so. He is just pro-Catholic. Asking the Pope to care about Jews and the feelings of Jews and the future of anti-Semitism is like asking the CEO of Coke to care about the success of Pepsi. Its all about market share and competition. Of course people get hurt, but you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, and if by “few” you mean six million and if by “eggs” you mean Jews, well it’s still an omelet and that’s what matters.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Praise the Lord and Pass the Satire
I watched Barack Hussein Obama take the oath of office on a giant image projected on a wall. It was the third day of a weeklong interspiritual retreat sponsored by the Spiritual Paths Institute, and the room was filled with seekers from every major religious tradition.
We sat in silence as the camera managed to capture the full visage of the soon-to-be 44th President of the United States. He was tall, slender, draped in a wool coat reaching well below his knees. It was an awe-inspiring picture. Then from the back of the room in a voice so clear, shocked, and surprised as to call us out of our hushed reverie someone called out, “My God! He’s black!”
That someone of course was me. For some reason I cannot abide seriousness for long. It isn’t that I see everything as a joke, but that I see a joke in everything. For some reason I put my faith in humor rather than history. I am not an atheist, but I find religion more silly than serious: Praise the Lord, and pass the satire.
To the credit of our students and the Spiritual Paths faculty, the room erupted in laughter at my comment. I don’t think it broke the mood, and I’d like to think it allowed the mood to deepen. I wish I could say that is why I said what I did, but it wasn’t. I said what I said because I thought it was funny. When the words entered my mind I laughed inwardly and just had to know if it worked as well when spoken aloud. It did. I was lucky. This time.
Sometimes the jokes are just so esoteric that only God laughs. Sometimes they are so stupid that only I laugh. I always laugh; sometimes at the joke, sometimes at the fact that joke fell flat.
It was hard to laugh these last eight years. Sneer yes; scoff of course, and satire you betcha. But authentic laughter, laughter that comes from a place of trust and hope rather than fear and anger has been in short supply. Authentic laughter is liberating, it breaks up fear the way Liquid Plumber unclogs a drain. It is impossible to control a people who insist upon the freedom to laugh, which is why dictators and politically empowered clerics are quick to ban humor especially when aimed at themselves.
If it were up to me we would add a cabinet post to the government called The Secretary of Spiritual Health and Humor Services whose job would be to promote comedians, cartoonists, and clowns to continually skewer the sacred cows of piety and politics, and to see that the nation never forgets how to laugh itself free of the madness that passes for truth no matter who in the Oval Office.
We sat in silence as the camera managed to capture the full visage of the soon-to-be 44th President of the United States. He was tall, slender, draped in a wool coat reaching well below his knees. It was an awe-inspiring picture. Then from the back of the room in a voice so clear, shocked, and surprised as to call us out of our hushed reverie someone called out, “My God! He’s black!”
That someone of course was me. For some reason I cannot abide seriousness for long. It isn’t that I see everything as a joke, but that I see a joke in everything. For some reason I put my faith in humor rather than history. I am not an atheist, but I find religion more silly than serious: Praise the Lord, and pass the satire.
To the credit of our students and the Spiritual Paths faculty, the room erupted in laughter at my comment. I don’t think it broke the mood, and I’d like to think it allowed the mood to deepen. I wish I could say that is why I said what I did, but it wasn’t. I said what I said because I thought it was funny. When the words entered my mind I laughed inwardly and just had to know if it worked as well when spoken aloud. It did. I was lucky. This time.
Sometimes the jokes are just so esoteric that only God laughs. Sometimes they are so stupid that only I laugh. I always laugh; sometimes at the joke, sometimes at the fact that joke fell flat.
It was hard to laugh these last eight years. Sneer yes; scoff of course, and satire you betcha. But authentic laughter, laughter that comes from a place of trust and hope rather than fear and anger has been in short supply. Authentic laughter is liberating, it breaks up fear the way Liquid Plumber unclogs a drain. It is impossible to control a people who insist upon the freedom to laugh, which is why dictators and politically empowered clerics are quick to ban humor especially when aimed at themselves.
If it were up to me we would add a cabinet post to the government called The Secretary of Spiritual Health and Humor Services whose job would be to promote comedians, cartoonists, and clowns to continually skewer the sacred cows of piety and politics, and to see that the nation never forgets how to laugh itself free of the madness that passes for truth no matter who in the Oval Office.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Knocking on Heaven's Door
Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, says American Evangelical Christians are in the midst of a “theological crisis.” At best, the crisis represents a major failure in Evangelical education; at worst, Rev. Mohler said, it represents a “repudiation of the Gospel.”
Strong talk. So what is this monumental crisis that so threatens Christendom? It is the fact that 52% of American Christians believe that non-Christians can get into heaven when they die.
The numbers come from a Pew follow-up survey run to double check an earlier survey they ran a few months ago. Critics of the first survey said that the original finding that 70% of Americans believed people of different faiths could get into heaven argued that this couldn’t be true among Christians. The new survey proved them wrong.
74% of non-Hispanic Catholics believe Heaven is open to nonChristians, as do 70% of white mainline Protestants.
Still holding the line, or better barring the door, are African Americans and white evangelical Protestants. 60% of Black Christians believe that Heaven lacks an Affirmative Action program and promotes a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to people of faiths other than their own, and 66% of white evangelicals hold to the hope that Heaven is a restricted country club.
But that still leaves over a third of both groups who do have an open-door vision of Heaven, and that should be enough to worry any old school believer in Jesus as the only way to Heaven.
I sympathize with the old-schoolers. Letting nonbelievers into Heaven is like letting nonJews into the Chosen People’s Party. Well that isn’t going to happen. We didn’t put up with exile, expulsions, Inquisitions, pogroms, and genocide for nothing. We suffer because God loves us best! In fact that’s how we know He loves us best: He lets people beat the crap out of us! And if they don’t do it, then He does it Himself. What a God.
I’m not ready to accept this survey without asking a few questions first: Like where are all the Hispanics? Why survey only non-Hispanic Catholics and Protestants? Did they do this survey on Cinco de Mayo or something? And why are black people so eager to keep other people out of heaven? You’d think they’d feel awkward sitting in Heaven’s Diner under a sign that said No Jews or Hindus Allowed.
Anyway, I’m sorry more and more Christians are becoming more open-minded. If they start teaching that anyone who lives a righteous life has a place in Heaven there won’t be much to separate them from us Jews, and then they might put pressure on us to let them into our members only Chosen People’s club. It’s easy for Jews to discriminate against Christians when Christians discriminate against us, but if they change we might have to change as well, and then everyone will be Chosen and then there won’t be anything cool about it. When everyone can wear Dolce & Gabbana it just isn’t Dolce & Gabbana anymore.
So please, Christians, get some backbone and bar those pearly gates to the nonbeliever. And if Peter won’t keep the riffraff on the other side of the velvet rope maybe it’s time to promote Torquemada.
Strong talk. So what is this monumental crisis that so threatens Christendom? It is the fact that 52% of American Christians believe that non-Christians can get into heaven when they die.
The numbers come from a Pew follow-up survey run to double check an earlier survey they ran a few months ago. Critics of the first survey said that the original finding that 70% of Americans believed people of different faiths could get into heaven argued that this couldn’t be true among Christians. The new survey proved them wrong.
74% of non-Hispanic Catholics believe Heaven is open to nonChristians, as do 70% of white mainline Protestants.
Still holding the line, or better barring the door, are African Americans and white evangelical Protestants. 60% of Black Christians believe that Heaven lacks an Affirmative Action program and promotes a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to people of faiths other than their own, and 66% of white evangelicals hold to the hope that Heaven is a restricted country club.
But that still leaves over a third of both groups who do have an open-door vision of Heaven, and that should be enough to worry any old school believer in Jesus as the only way to Heaven.
I sympathize with the old-schoolers. Letting nonbelievers into Heaven is like letting nonJews into the Chosen People’s Party. Well that isn’t going to happen. We didn’t put up with exile, expulsions, Inquisitions, pogroms, and genocide for nothing. We suffer because God loves us best! In fact that’s how we know He loves us best: He lets people beat the crap out of us! And if they don’t do it, then He does it Himself. What a God.
I’m not ready to accept this survey without asking a few questions first: Like where are all the Hispanics? Why survey only non-Hispanic Catholics and Protestants? Did they do this survey on Cinco de Mayo or something? And why are black people so eager to keep other people out of heaven? You’d think they’d feel awkward sitting in Heaven’s Diner under a sign that said No Jews or Hindus Allowed.
Anyway, I’m sorry more and more Christians are becoming more open-minded. If they start teaching that anyone who lives a righteous life has a place in Heaven there won’t be much to separate them from us Jews, and then they might put pressure on us to let them into our members only Chosen People’s club. It’s easy for Jews to discriminate against Christians when Christians discriminate against us, but if they change we might have to change as well, and then everyone will be Chosen and then there won’t be anything cool about it. When everyone can wear Dolce & Gabbana it just isn’t Dolce & Gabbana anymore.
So please, Christians, get some backbone and bar those pearly gates to the nonbeliever. And if Peter won’t keep the riffraff on the other side of the velvet rope maybe it’s time to promote Torquemada.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Unfettered Hope
I pride myself in being rational. I pride myself in being realistic. And sometimes I hide from hope behind a veil of fearful sarcasm and jaded wisdom. But not today.
Today I watched President Obama take the oath of office. Today I watched a church filled with little black kids watch as two other little black kids prepare to move into the White House. Today I heard the call of my president to be what Americans are supposed to be: just, bold, compassionate, strong, and forever laboring in the fields of freedom. Today I cried as the oath was taken and again as Aretha sang, and again as the National Anthem was sung.
Today is not a day for fear or sarcasm. Today is a day for unfettered hope. God will bless America and all the world.
Today I watched President Obama take the oath of office. Today I watched a church filled with little black kids watch as two other little black kids prepare to move into the White House. Today I heard the call of my president to be what Americans are supposed to be: just, bold, compassionate, strong, and forever laboring in the fields of freedom. Today I cried as the oath was taken and again as Aretha sang, and again as the National Anthem was sung.
Today is not a day for fear or sarcasm. Today is a day for unfettered hope. God will bless America and all the world.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Giddy Over Gideon
This is the 110th anniversary of the Gideons, “an interdenominational association of Christian business and professional men who are members of Protestant/evangelical churches. Our members are dedicated to saving the lost through personal witnessing and the distribution of God's Word in more than 180 countries around the world.” These are the people who put Bibles in millions of hotel rooms around the world. I am a huge fan.
First I love the Bible, or at least those few lines that I consider compelling. Second, I can’t recount the number of times when I needed to look up a biblical passage during one of my weekend Bible seminars only to find I had forgotten to pack my own Bible. No worries, mate. Just open a drawer in a hotel room and voila! A Gideon Bible! True it is a Protestant Bible and therefore lacks some of the cooler books found only in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, but it is better than nothing.
The idea for donating Bibles to hotels came to John H. Nicholson and Samuel E. Hill (who, I think, was already famous for coining the phrase “What in Sam Hill is going on around here?”) in the last years of the 19th century. The two men met in the autumn of 1898 at the Central Hotel in Boscobel, Wisconsin where they were forced to share a room due to overcrowding. I have no idea why there was not enough room at the inn, but it could have been because the town was about to launch its two most success franchises: Bosco chocolate syrup and Boscobel Mexican restaurants. The latter eventually changed its name to Tacobel and its slogan from “North of the Border” to “South of the Border.”
Exactly how it happened I don’t know, but I suspect the two men sharing a hotel room feared what most men forced to share a hotel room with other men fear: uncontrollable homoerotic urges, and needed to find a Bible to save them from their fantasies. Not finding one and wishing to save other men who might someday find themselves in this situation, the two men decided that no hotel room should ever be without a Bible. I agree. I would just put a pack of condoms alongside the Holy Book as well. I’m pro-life.
In any case, they created the Gideon organization in 1899, and it wasn’t long before hotels around the world started stocking their rooms with Gideon Bibles. The rest, as they say, is pre-apocalyptic history. But the world has changed since 1899. Two men sharing a hotel room is no longer a frightening ordeal, and the Bible is no longer the only world scripture worthy of hotel rooms.
Two years ago I was hired by Scarritt-Bennett, a fabulous 130 bed Nashville retreat center, to write a world scripture with commentary that would be published in small quarterly pamphlets and placed in their rooms alongside the Bible. With the collapse of the economy, the project came to an end, but the need for a World Bible is more pressing then ever. What we need is an Ethical Scripture drawn from the World’s Religions, an anthology of 365 daily readings that could be produced cheaply and donated to hotels around the world. At first the Book would be written in English, but I envision translating the book into Gaelic as well. Unfortunately I can’t afford to hire myself for this project. If you know people who can, please put them in touch with me. If you don’t, start sending pairs of men to stay in hotel rooms together and see what comes up.
First I love the Bible, or at least those few lines that I consider compelling. Second, I can’t recount the number of times when I needed to look up a biblical passage during one of my weekend Bible seminars only to find I had forgotten to pack my own Bible. No worries, mate. Just open a drawer in a hotel room and voila! A Gideon Bible! True it is a Protestant Bible and therefore lacks some of the cooler books found only in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, but it is better than nothing.
The idea for donating Bibles to hotels came to John H. Nicholson and Samuel E. Hill (who, I think, was already famous for coining the phrase “What in Sam Hill is going on around here?”) in the last years of the 19th century. The two men met in the autumn of 1898 at the Central Hotel in Boscobel, Wisconsin where they were forced to share a room due to overcrowding. I have no idea why there was not enough room at the inn, but it could have been because the town was about to launch its two most success franchises: Bosco chocolate syrup and Boscobel Mexican restaurants. The latter eventually changed its name to Tacobel and its slogan from “North of the Border” to “South of the Border.”
Exactly how it happened I don’t know, but I suspect the two men sharing a hotel room feared what most men forced to share a hotel room with other men fear: uncontrollable homoerotic urges, and needed to find a Bible to save them from their fantasies. Not finding one and wishing to save other men who might someday find themselves in this situation, the two men decided that no hotel room should ever be without a Bible. I agree. I would just put a pack of condoms alongside the Holy Book as well. I’m pro-life.
In any case, they created the Gideon organization in 1899, and it wasn’t long before hotels around the world started stocking their rooms with Gideon Bibles. The rest, as they say, is pre-apocalyptic history. But the world has changed since 1899. Two men sharing a hotel room is no longer a frightening ordeal, and the Bible is no longer the only world scripture worthy of hotel rooms.
Two years ago I was hired by Scarritt-Bennett, a fabulous 130 bed Nashville retreat center, to write a world scripture with commentary that would be published in small quarterly pamphlets and placed in their rooms alongside the Bible. With the collapse of the economy, the project came to an end, but the need for a World Bible is more pressing then ever. What we need is an Ethical Scripture drawn from the World’s Religions, an anthology of 365 daily readings that could be produced cheaply and donated to hotels around the world. At first the Book would be written in English, but I envision translating the book into Gaelic as well. Unfortunately I can’t afford to hire myself for this project. If you know people who can, please put them in touch with me. If you don’t, start sending pairs of men to stay in hotel rooms together and see what comes up.
Monday, January 12, 2009
An Open Letter to My Muslim Neighbors
I had hoped to publish a version of this letter in our local newspaper, but that never happened. I tried contacting my local Islamic Center several times, but they have not returned either phone calls or emails. Still I would like someone to read this, so you are it.
An Open Letter to My Muslim Neighbors
My heart is broken over the tragedy of Gaza. With you I am sickened by the mounting death toll and the rising number of wounded. And as a Jew who loves Israel I am sourly troubled by the fate of both our peoples.
I have friends in Israel living under daily threat of Hamas bombings, and yet I do not pretend to know the fear and anger that may be tearing at your hearts as well. I have been to Israel many times, and I take great pride in her creativity and democracy. I have also visited Palestine and feel deep sorrow over the harsh conditions imposed by Israeli occupation. I love my people and celebrate her accomplishments, but that cannot blind me to the pain and suffering her policies cause.
There is anger, frustration, and hatred running so deep in the fabric of so many lives in the Middle East that it is easy to excuse one side and demonize the other. But to do so only perpetuates the madness into which so much of the Middle East is spiraling.
The horror of violence, the injustice of occupation, the wickedness of terror, and even the faintest promise of peace and reconciliation should motivate Jews and Muslims to reach out to one another, to come together to share our fears, our grief, our anger, and our hope, and to discover in this sharing a common humanity that can provide us with a foundation for cooperation.
As children of Abraham, Hagar, and Sarah Arabs and Jews are blood cousins, sharing a common call to justice. As Jews and Muslims we are spiritual cousins, sharing a common vision of Allah/Yah as The Merciful, and The Compassionate. Compassion is at the root of both our traditions because compassion is at the heart of God. Justice and compassion together are what Judaism and Islam are all about. It must be what we Jews and Muslims are about as well.
I am sending you this letter as a gesture of friendship. I extend open hands and not clenched fists. I ask that whatever insanity takes hold in the Middle East you and I maintain sanity; that whatever evil is perpetrated in the name of God you and I see such acts as blasphemy; that no matter what words are used to excuse injustice, violence, terror, and exploitation you and I will not be taken in by them and will continue to stand for justice; that no matter how hard hearts become, you and I will forever soften them with compassion.
The Prophet Moses (PBUH) taught, “Justice, justice you shall pursue” (Deuteronomy 16:20). Let us pursue it together.
An Open Letter to My Muslim Neighbors
My heart is broken over the tragedy of Gaza. With you I am sickened by the mounting death toll and the rising number of wounded. And as a Jew who loves Israel I am sourly troubled by the fate of both our peoples.
I have friends in Israel living under daily threat of Hamas bombings, and yet I do not pretend to know the fear and anger that may be tearing at your hearts as well. I have been to Israel many times, and I take great pride in her creativity and democracy. I have also visited Palestine and feel deep sorrow over the harsh conditions imposed by Israeli occupation. I love my people and celebrate her accomplishments, but that cannot blind me to the pain and suffering her policies cause.
There is anger, frustration, and hatred running so deep in the fabric of so many lives in the Middle East that it is easy to excuse one side and demonize the other. But to do so only perpetuates the madness into which so much of the Middle East is spiraling.
The horror of violence, the injustice of occupation, the wickedness of terror, and even the faintest promise of peace and reconciliation should motivate Jews and Muslims to reach out to one another, to come together to share our fears, our grief, our anger, and our hope, and to discover in this sharing a common humanity that can provide us with a foundation for cooperation.
As children of Abraham, Hagar, and Sarah Arabs and Jews are blood cousins, sharing a common call to justice. As Jews and Muslims we are spiritual cousins, sharing a common vision of Allah/Yah as The Merciful, and The Compassionate. Compassion is at the root of both our traditions because compassion is at the heart of God. Justice and compassion together are what Judaism and Islam are all about. It must be what we Jews and Muslims are about as well.
I am sending you this letter as a gesture of friendship. I extend open hands and not clenched fists. I ask that whatever insanity takes hold in the Middle East you and I maintain sanity; that whatever evil is perpetrated in the name of God you and I see such acts as blasphemy; that no matter what words are used to excuse injustice, violence, terror, and exploitation you and I will not be taken in by them and will continue to stand for justice; that no matter how hard hearts become, you and I will forever soften them with compassion.
The Prophet Moses (PBUH) taught, “Justice, justice you shall pursue” (Deuteronomy 16:20). Let us pursue it together.
Friday, January 09, 2009
So Help Me God
With all the challenges facing the nation as Barack Obama prepares to take the oath of office I almost forgot the most important one of all—the oath of office itself! On January 20th Mr. Obama will take the oath and conclude it with these fateful words: “So help me God,” and with that the democracy in these somewhat United States crumbles.
Or at least that seems to be the concern of one group of atheists that is trying to have the phrase banned from the proceedings.
It is thought that George Washington added these four words to the oath in a moment of impromptu piety. Contemporary scholars argue that there is no eyewitness account of Washington saying this, and that the earliest eyewitness account of any president using this phrase is from the New York Time’s report on the 1881 inauguration of Chester Arthur. My own research into the matter suggests that Washington actually concluded his remarks with “Allah be praised”, but I think I found that on Al Jazeera, so you might want to corroborate it.
Anyway, I am all for the separation of church and state, and if saying “So help me God” is a problem let’s strike it from the proceedings. Besides, given the evils we have perpetrated on ourselves and others over the past eight years, it may be a bit presumptuous to ask God to do anything until we have proven ourselves to be on a new track.
But removing “So help me God” from the oath may not be enough to save the nation. The religious are a creative sort, and can often find hidden meanings and messages in texts. Even without “So help me God” they may still find God in the oath. To be safe, I suggest we strike the letters G, O, and D from the oath altogether, and in that way preclude anyone from finding God in it. Let the oath be amended to read as follows:
I slemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the ffice f President f the United States an will, t the best f my ability, preserve, prtect, and efen the Cnstitutin f the United States s help me.
This makes me feel safer, but it still might not be enough. After all “God” is generic and believers have their own favorite Gods such as El, YHVH, ALLAH, KRISHNA, BRAHMA, VISHNU, SHIVA, and KALI to name a few of the major Gods. So to be perfectly safe we should eliminate these letters as well. I say let’s amend the oath to read:
w tt w ftf xct t ffc f Pt f t t tt w, t t t f t, p, ptct, f t Ctt f t t tt p
While this would be more difficult for Mr. Obama to pronounce, it would shorten the ceremony some and allow more time for partying. And who would object to that?
Or at least that seems to be the concern of one group of atheists that is trying to have the phrase banned from the proceedings.
It is thought that George Washington added these four words to the oath in a moment of impromptu piety. Contemporary scholars argue that there is no eyewitness account of Washington saying this, and that the earliest eyewitness account of any president using this phrase is from the New York Time’s report on the 1881 inauguration of Chester Arthur. My own research into the matter suggests that Washington actually concluded his remarks with “Allah be praised”, but I think I found that on Al Jazeera, so you might want to corroborate it.
Anyway, I am all for the separation of church and state, and if saying “So help me God” is a problem let’s strike it from the proceedings. Besides, given the evils we have perpetrated on ourselves and others over the past eight years, it may be a bit presumptuous to ask God to do anything until we have proven ourselves to be on a new track.
But removing “So help me God” from the oath may not be enough to save the nation. The religious are a creative sort, and can often find hidden meanings and messages in texts. Even without “So help me God” they may still find God in the oath. To be safe, I suggest we strike the letters G, O, and D from the oath altogether, and in that way preclude anyone from finding God in it. Let the oath be amended to read as follows:
I slemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the ffice f President f the United States an will, t the best f my ability, preserve, prtect, and efen the Cnstitutin f the United States s help me.
This makes me feel safer, but it still might not be enough. After all “God” is generic and believers have their own favorite Gods such as El, YHVH, ALLAH, KRISHNA, BRAHMA, VISHNU, SHIVA, and KALI to name a few of the major Gods. So to be perfectly safe we should eliminate these letters as well. I say let’s amend the oath to read:
w tt w ftf xct t ffc f Pt f t t tt w, t t t f t, p, ptct, f t Ctt f t t tt p
While this would be more difficult for Mr. Obama to pronounce, it would shorten the ceremony some and allow more time for partying. And who would object to that?
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Watch Out
If you are reading this—which of course you are because you are reading this—try not to look like you're reading it. Play it cool. Be nonchalant about it. Read on, but don’t let on that you’re reading on. Even if you are alone, be cool. You are never alone. And that is what I need to tell you.
God is watching. No, seriously. God is watching. He is watching you all the time, no matter what you’re doing. The Guy never blinks, and never looks away. Creepy isn’t it? But don’t let on. You might piss Him off.
You see He demands that you love Him and your neighbor, but He wants this love to be genuine. Don’t love Him because He tells you to love Him. That’s not real love, that’s just following orders. So you have to love Him, but you have to love Him freely. The fact that you can’t link “have to” with “freely” is the really hard part of this. And that is why He is watching you.
Two psychologists at the University of British Columbia have proven that people behave nicer when they are being watched. This is true even if the eyes watching them aren’t real. They tacked a poster of a person over a charity jar and found that people donated three times as much money when the poster was up than when it wasn’t. Which proves that unless someone is watching or at least we feel like someone is watching we would be a lot worse than we are. And we are pretty bad as it is.
Maybe this is why people hang posters of their gods in their homes, or put god dolls around their rooms. Maybe this is why religions teach that God is watching us all the time. Do they know that unless we feel watched we would behave like wild murderous beasts? Do they know that we would be less apt to donate money to religious causes and institutions if we didn’t believe God was watching? I think they do.
But here’s my problem: I know God is looking, but I don’t know which God is looking. I know I’ve got to behave and to love God, but I can’t tell which God to love and obey.
I’m afraid that if I think it’s YHVH and it turns out to Allah, I’m screwed. Or if I think it’s the Catholic Jesus and it turns out to be the Southern Baptist Jesus, I’m doomed. I’m hoping it is the elephant headed God Ganesha because he seems so much more pleasant than the others, but who knows? I keep a stuffed Babar by my bed just in case.
Even if I did know which God was God, and then loved God because God told me to, then my love wouldn’t really be love at all, and I would still be doomed.
That’s why I don’t want God to see you reading this. Pretend you don’t know that God is watching, and pretend that your love is spontaneous and genuine and not just a ploy to avoid burning in Hell for all eternity. Oh, and pray that God is really really stupid so He won’t catch on. Oh, and pray that He doesn’t really hear your prayers so He won’t know you’re praying that He is really really stupid. OK. You can stop reading this, and hopefully no one noticed you ever did.
God is watching. No, seriously. God is watching. He is watching you all the time, no matter what you’re doing. The Guy never blinks, and never looks away. Creepy isn’t it? But don’t let on. You might piss Him off.
You see He demands that you love Him and your neighbor, but He wants this love to be genuine. Don’t love Him because He tells you to love Him. That’s not real love, that’s just following orders. So you have to love Him, but you have to love Him freely. The fact that you can’t link “have to” with “freely” is the really hard part of this. And that is why He is watching you.
Two psychologists at the University of British Columbia have proven that people behave nicer when they are being watched. This is true even if the eyes watching them aren’t real. They tacked a poster of a person over a charity jar and found that people donated three times as much money when the poster was up than when it wasn’t. Which proves that unless someone is watching or at least we feel like someone is watching we would be a lot worse than we are. And we are pretty bad as it is.
Maybe this is why people hang posters of their gods in their homes, or put god dolls around their rooms. Maybe this is why religions teach that God is watching us all the time. Do they know that unless we feel watched we would behave like wild murderous beasts? Do they know that we would be less apt to donate money to religious causes and institutions if we didn’t believe God was watching? I think they do.
But here’s my problem: I know God is looking, but I don’t know which God is looking. I know I’ve got to behave and to love God, but I can’t tell which God to love and obey.
I’m afraid that if I think it’s YHVH and it turns out to Allah, I’m screwed. Or if I think it’s the Catholic Jesus and it turns out to be the Southern Baptist Jesus, I’m doomed. I’m hoping it is the elephant headed God Ganesha because he seems so much more pleasant than the others, but who knows? I keep a stuffed Babar by my bed just in case.
Even if I did know which God was God, and then loved God because God told me to, then my love wouldn’t really be love at all, and I would still be doomed.
That’s why I don’t want God to see you reading this. Pretend you don’t know that God is watching, and pretend that your love is spontaneous and genuine and not just a ploy to avoid burning in Hell for all eternity. Oh, and pray that God is really really stupid so He won’t catch on. Oh, and pray that He doesn’t really hear your prayers so He won’t know you’re praying that He is really really stupid. OK. You can stop reading this, and hopefully no one noticed you ever did.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Where Would Darwin Davven?
Where Would Darwin Daven? This is the headline of an essay by Joshua Avedon in the Jewish Forward newspaper. I found the title intriguing; unfortunately it had nothing to do with the essay.
Avedon’s essay focused on a revival of the 1970’s Chavurah (Fellowship) movement, the Jewish equivalent to the house church movement among Christians. The demographics of both Jewish and Christian groups are similar: 20 and 30 somethings who find institutionalized religion boring and irrelevant. Avedon speaks of formal synagogues as suffering from “the kind of complacency and inbreeding typical of geographically isolated species,” and likens them to the blue-footed booby, a species of bird found on the Galapagos Islands; hence the headline’s reference to Darwin. His concern is with the survivability of the modern synagogue, and the future of Judaism, but he never tells us where Darwin would daven.
Of course Darwin wouldn’t daven anywhere, since davvenen (prayer) is a Jewish form of worship and Darwin was a Christian. But let’s not be so narrow. The real question is: Where can a scientifically sophisticated thinking Jew go to experience a liturgy that does not insult her intelligence?
With the exception of Humanistic Judaism, the liturgies of all other Jewish movements are variations on or direct extensions of ancient and medieval Jewish texts written by men whose understanding of the universe probably lags behind that of a modern well-educated eight year old. And even Humanistic Judaism, both the established movement and its refreshing reinvention by Rabbi Robert Barr and Congregation Beth Adam in Cincinnati, OH (see www.ourjewishcommunity.org) focuses more on poetically couched psychological themes than hard science.
So where would Darwin daven? Probably nowhere. He, like me, would probably prefer a walk in the woods to responsive reading in an air-conditioned brick box. He, like me, would probably prefer the authentic sounds and sights of nature to secondhand references to them in books. He, like me, would probably prefer the mad ecstasy of nature to the orderly “joy” of choreographed religious services. He, like me, would probably prefer to sit under a tree by a babbling brook, and read short passages from Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman, or Dickenson than plod through blank verse composed by a committee.
I don’t believe synagogues are the soon to be extinct boobies of Jewish life. What would life be without boobies? But I doubt that either conventional synagogues or the new chavurot will attract the Darwins among the Jews.
While synagogues experiment with form,trying to be more hip and entertaining, I wish we would also experiment with philosophy. I wish we would invent new understandings of God, Torah, and Israel rather than merely repeat or tweak the old ones. Where are the Bubers, Rosenzweigs, Heschels, Fromms, and Frankls of the 21st century? Why is it that all the great Jews who understood Darwin and the challenge of Darwinism had and have nothing to do with formal Judaism? It says something sad about us that we do not speak to these Yidden (Jews). It says something sad about us that we do not offer them a place in which to reinvent Judaism in tune with what is true rather than merely traditional.
I don’t care where Darwin would daven, but I would love to find the shul (synagogue) where Einstein would.
Avedon’s essay focused on a revival of the 1970’s Chavurah (Fellowship) movement, the Jewish equivalent to the house church movement among Christians. The demographics of both Jewish and Christian groups are similar: 20 and 30 somethings who find institutionalized religion boring and irrelevant. Avedon speaks of formal synagogues as suffering from “the kind of complacency and inbreeding typical of geographically isolated species,” and likens them to the blue-footed booby, a species of bird found on the Galapagos Islands; hence the headline’s reference to Darwin. His concern is with the survivability of the modern synagogue, and the future of Judaism, but he never tells us where Darwin would daven.
Of course Darwin wouldn’t daven anywhere, since davvenen (prayer) is a Jewish form of worship and Darwin was a Christian. But let’s not be so narrow. The real question is: Where can a scientifically sophisticated thinking Jew go to experience a liturgy that does not insult her intelligence?
With the exception of Humanistic Judaism, the liturgies of all other Jewish movements are variations on or direct extensions of ancient and medieval Jewish texts written by men whose understanding of the universe probably lags behind that of a modern well-educated eight year old. And even Humanistic Judaism, both the established movement and its refreshing reinvention by Rabbi Robert Barr and Congregation Beth Adam in Cincinnati, OH (see www.ourjewishcommunity.org) focuses more on poetically couched psychological themes than hard science.
So where would Darwin daven? Probably nowhere. He, like me, would probably prefer a walk in the woods to responsive reading in an air-conditioned brick box. He, like me, would probably prefer the authentic sounds and sights of nature to secondhand references to them in books. He, like me, would probably prefer the mad ecstasy of nature to the orderly “joy” of choreographed religious services. He, like me, would probably prefer to sit under a tree by a babbling brook, and read short passages from Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman, or Dickenson than plod through blank verse composed by a committee.
I don’t believe synagogues are the soon to be extinct boobies of Jewish life. What would life be without boobies? But I doubt that either conventional synagogues or the new chavurot will attract the Darwins among the Jews.
While synagogues experiment with form,trying to be more hip and entertaining, I wish we would also experiment with philosophy. I wish we would invent new understandings of God, Torah, and Israel rather than merely repeat or tweak the old ones. Where are the Bubers, Rosenzweigs, Heschels, Fromms, and Frankls of the 21st century? Why is it that all the great Jews who understood Darwin and the challenge of Darwinism had and have nothing to do with formal Judaism? It says something sad about us that we do not speak to these Yidden (Jews). It says something sad about us that we do not offer them a place in which to reinvent Judaism in tune with what is true rather than merely traditional.
I don’t care where Darwin would daven, but I would love to find the shul (synagogue) where Einstein would.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Top Ten Religion Stories 2008
The Religion Newswriters Association has posted its top ten religion stories for 2008: 1) Jeremiah Wright; 2) Obama woos evangelical vote; 3) Sarah Palin’s nomination for VP; 4) Gay marriage; 5) Pope Benedict XVI visits US; 6) Episcopal Church’s unity threatened by ordination of gay clergy; 7) religiously motivated terrorism; 8) China’s crackdown on Tibet; 9) financial crisis hits religious nonprofits; 10) religiously motivated violence continues in Iraq.
The list is solid, but as with any top ten list there are those stories left off. Here is my list of top ten religion stories of 2008 in their original headline form:
1) Man eats image of Jesus in grilled cheese sandwich; claims he is Christ.
2) Man stopped from burning witch sues under First Amendment.
3) Man receives Talking Hat from angel; hat refuses to speak.
4) Man claims Noah’s Ark is held in Area 51.
5) Crippled man cured at Lourdes hit by car while jaywalking.
6) Man draws mustachios on Shroud of Turin.
7) Man returns from dead, says he’s grateful.
8) Man channels John Keynes; seeks employment as economic advisor.
9) Man condemned by clergy for teaching God has a sense of humor.
10) Man in all these stories turns out to be same man.
The list is solid, but as with any top ten list there are those stories left off. Here is my list of top ten religion stories of 2008 in their original headline form:
1) Man eats image of Jesus in grilled cheese sandwich; claims he is Christ.
2) Man stopped from burning witch sues under First Amendment.
3) Man receives Talking Hat from angel; hat refuses to speak.
4) Man claims Noah’s Ark is held in Area 51.
5) Crippled man cured at Lourdes hit by car while jaywalking.
6) Man draws mustachios on Shroud of Turin.
7) Man returns from dead, says he’s grateful.
8) Man channels John Keynes; seeks employment as economic advisor.
9) Man condemned by clergy for teaching God has a sense of humor.
10) Man in all these stories turns out to be same man.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
New Year, New Project
Dear Toto Readers,
I tend to use special days such as this to review where I have been and rethink where I wish to go. I then use the day after special days like this to ignore that rethinking and return to my highly prized habits of yesteryear. Not that change is impossible. Change is inevitable. Control is impossible, at least for me. So last night I made my New Year Resolutions and this morning I broke them, or at least all but one of them.
The one I have not as yet shattered is my commitment to trying new on-line networking projects. So I have opened a Linked-in account, and started a Twitter series of, dare I say it, daily tweets. I am too old for this.
I have no idea what these tools are supposed to do for me, or how I can use them to feed my messiah complex, but I am inviting you to link with me on Linked-In and follow me on Twitter. The second is the more interesting: At least once each day I send out short (140 characters or less) proverbs of my own making called "Jaded Wisdom". If you want to see just how brilliant and brief I can be, log onto www.twitter.com and sign up to get these faux pearls of genius.
In addition to my bald effort at self-promotion, I want to thank you all for reading and commenting on this blog. It is, as most blogs are, a labor of love and ego. Chances are I would write and publish it even if no one read it, but the fun of it is in knowing that you are reading it and hearing from those who choose to comment on it.
I hope 2009 is a constructive year for each of you.
Shalom,
Rami
I tend to use special days such as this to review where I have been and rethink where I wish to go. I then use the day after special days like this to ignore that rethinking and return to my highly prized habits of yesteryear. Not that change is impossible. Change is inevitable. Control is impossible, at least for me. So last night I made my New Year Resolutions and this morning I broke them, or at least all but one of them.
The one I have not as yet shattered is my commitment to trying new on-line networking projects. So I have opened a Linked-in account, and started a Twitter series of, dare I say it, daily tweets. I am too old for this.
I have no idea what these tools are supposed to do for me, or how I can use them to feed my messiah complex, but I am inviting you to link with me on Linked-In and follow me on Twitter. The second is the more interesting: At least once each day I send out short (140 characters or less) proverbs of my own making called "Jaded Wisdom". If you want to see just how brilliant and brief I can be, log onto www.twitter.com and sign up to get these faux pearls of genius.
In addition to my bald effort at self-promotion, I want to thank you all for reading and commenting on this blog. It is, as most blogs are, a labor of love and ego. Chances are I would write and publish it even if no one read it, but the fun of it is in knowing that you are reading it and hearing from those who choose to comment on it.
I hope 2009 is a constructive year for each of you.
Shalom,
Rami
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)